# Roman Empire Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 30, 2011, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165 "2011-09-30T15:31:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/21 "2011-09-30T19:34:05Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > The complete disregard for democracy by the politicans. Despite Rome being an ideal of republic for its time, it was still mob rule. There was sense of justice as in finding out the truth, but rather, whoever got the loudest applause won the trial or debate, and there was nothing wrong with hiring people to shout for you. Overthrowing the leaders was not a problem itself, it was only a problem if you wanted to be leader yourself. The dominant political gang in Rome in the period in which Rome was set was the “optimates”, the self-proclaimed best men who had spent the last hundred or more years pillaging the public purse, appropriating public land and murdering anyone who stood in their way, like Cataline or the Grachae, and the reforms of Sulla had been explicitly aimed at reducing the democratic influence in favour of the power of the rich. Nonetheless there was still some democracy, which was the way Caesar originally gained some power, by a relatively brave stand against the Sullan regime, publicly associating himself with Marius and so on. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/22 "2011-09-30T19:36:18Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > But… how would they prove it at trial? Was the criminal court system so corrupt that they would just assume that it “must have been stolen” or would someone “conveniently” come up and perjure themselves and say the stuff was theirs? Um, a person dressed like a common man can not reasonably possess valuable stuff. It must have been stolen. Imagine a person in t-shirt and jeans, without a car, being picked up by a sheriff in an US town today, who speaks the language with a strange accent, and has a bunch of diamonds worth over a million dollars in his pocket. Would the sheriff assume “He’s just a weird rich person who owns the diamonds legitimately” or would they assume “He must be a thief” and dump him into prison first? And there was no habeas corpus principle in law at that time, you could spend some weeks in prison before trial. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/23 "2011-09-30T19:42:34Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > They didn’t have a presumption of innocence, or a jury, and they did have a bit of torture. There’s a scene in The Golden Ass where Apuleius is dragged before a court in the Greek part of the empire and terrorised just for the amusement of the locals. Um, not quite. The “In dubio pro reo” principle was one of the great advancements of Roman law (which sadly got broken quickly once Rome fell). And officially, the common people were the ultimate law, so if during the public court trial, the public was in your favour, you would go free. (That’s in one ep. of Rome, when Pullo is sentenced to death in the Arena - the Circus Maximus is not yet built, so it’s just a small local one - and Vorenus jumps in to help him defend the honor of the 13th, the public shouts for them and therefore, Pullo is pardoned. That it is completly unlikely that a person with self-restraint and common sense like Vorenus would throw away his own life and that of his family by helping Pullo is waived for dramatic purposes…) Also, a jury in itself is not necessary to have a good justice system. Many western countries don’t have one and still manage to speak justice quite well. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/24 "2011-09-30T19:48:04Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > But… how would they prove it at trial? Was the criminal court system so corrupt that they would just assume that it “must have been stolen” or would someone “conveniently” come up and perjure themselves and say the stuff was theirs? What criminal court system? ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/25 "2011-09-30T19:49:21Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > Connected to both of these, the family was your only source of protection. If a time traveller of today showed up in Ancient Rome alone, he would be dead within hours by robbers, because he had neither a family that would revenge him, nor a group of bodyguards to show he’s important and rich. You can’t even step into a time machine with pepper or something else that’s worth a lot, because before you can sell it, you will be robbed. Or arrested as thief yourself. Ah, not exactly. Rome could be a tough town, but people weren’t casually murdered simply because they didn’t have a nearby family protection. Travellers and traders constantly came to Rome, for obvious reasons. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/26 "2011-09-30T19:59:43Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Ah, not exactly. Rome could be a tough town, but people weren’t casually murdered simply because they didn’t have a nearby family protection. Travellers and traders constantly came to Rome, for obvious reasons. Travellers and traders had backup by travelling in groups, and by having guards. A lone person was unthinkable in old societys and could not survive; you needed a group that protected you because the state couldn’t and didn’t want to. And travellers were hospites of families and got protection through that. I don’t want to give the impression that murderous thugs were around every corner; Rome was much safer than towns during warfare. But individuals had no chance. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/27 "2011-09-30T20:01:52Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > What criminal court system? Now, be fair. They did have courts, even different levels. You didn’t get lynched by a mob like in the Wild West. But the better orator won the case, not the innocent person. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_s\_Son](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19adc/32.png) [@Jim\_s\_Son](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_s_Son)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/28 "2011-09-30T22:17:03Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > Compared to other societies at the same time or medieval times later, probably yes. Compared to our times, probably not. And circumstances matter a lot - a poor person today, or in the 19th century USA, or in Rome, would face different problems. How much importance you put on each problem is an individual decision. > > Simple living for the poor, who made up the bulk of the army. Compared to modern lifestyle in western societies, just eating non-processed food and getting enough exercise is very healthy. Romans also knew about the importance of clean water (Aquaeducts and sewers!) which eliminated a lot of sources for infection that were present not only in later medieval towns, but also for example in 19th century US towns. > > Hospitals until recently were run by religious groups, because you can’t make money with them (unless you cater only to the rich). You usually would call a doctor, which had for their time good medical knowledge. Again, better than medieval times and not much worse than a lot of the superstitious nonsense still around in early 19th century America. > > The problem with all surgeries until recently was lack of anesthetic, which often caused people to die from shock - but in Rome you had a good chance probably of getting opium in some variant, because the Egyptian and Greek doctors used that already. > The second problem was infection, and the chances in Rome were not worse in that regard than in the US until the end of the 19th century when Germ theory became known. > > The women who died in childbirth had the highest rate in the hospitals in Vienna in mid-19th century where doctors worked, compared both to the hospitals run by midwives and to house births. It took Semmelweiss (the “saviour of mothers”, as he became known) some time to figure out that germs from autopsies performed by the doctors were transferred to the women and made them die from “childbed fever”. > In Roman times, the germ theory was obviously not yet known, but there were also no doctors around to make things worse, either. It depended on the skill of the midwife and that there were no complications. > > Most women in the past generally died in childbirth because they didn’t go to war like the men; because they had a lot of children, raising the risk of complications; and because childbirth was the major opportunity to become infected compared to normal life. > > Even with modern medicine, death and disease is rampant. The US has the highest rates of child death among first world countries, and the poor people today in the US don’t have it any better regarding disease than ancient Romans. > There are still epidemics, and pandemics could wipe out many more people in a world of instantaneous travel all over. > > Rome had a lot of good points compared to its contemporaries or the small broken-up remnants that were left. A big empire that is stable is always better for the small ordinary people than a chaotic anarchy that follows its breakup. That doesn’t mean that a modern democracy isn’t much preferable to the empire. > > When I recently watched the series “Rome”, while they took some liberties with the actual history to make the two ordinary guys Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo involved in the events all the time and for dramatic reasons, the feeling of what life was like in Ancient Rome was very vividly evoked. (In the Cafe Society thread, somebody quoted the producers that they were going not for historical accuracy but for authenticity, and that they seem to have done well). > > What struck me most was: > > the lack of law enforcement. No police, little military (for fear of uprisings), so it was gangs that ruled the different hills. In one ep., a big grain shipment was due to come in, and the gang that “owned” the harbour would get a cut of the price for guarding and transporting it. In other words, the Mafia had access over the most vital resource of the empire (today, it would be oil). > > the absolute power the [Pater](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias)had as head of family. No moving out because you’re 18 or 21 and adult - everybody was property of the Pater familias. Even when the grown children were married, they still belonged to him. They could be disowned at the drop of a hat, or sold into slavery, or even killed. It was not common and would be frowned upon as bad manners, but it was legal. > > Connected to both of these, the family was your only source of protection. If a time traveller of today showed up in Ancient Rome alone, he would be dead within hours by robbers, because he had neither a family that would revenge him, nor a group of bodyguards to show he’s important and rich. You can’t even step into a time machine with pepper or something else that’s worth a lot, because before you can sell it, you will be robbed. Or arrested as thief yourself. > > The lack of love. Marriages were strictly for alliances and status. Marriages could be divorced by the parents and arranged again if a better opportunity came up. > > The complete disregard for democracy by the politicans. Despite Rome being an ideal of republic for its time, it was still mob rule. There was sense of justice as in finding out the truth, but rather, whoever got the loudest applause won the trial or debate, and there was nothing wrong with hiring people to shout for you. Overthrowing the leaders was not a problem itself, it was only a problem if you wanted to be leader yourself. Your statement about the US having the highest child mortality rates is misleading because the standards for counting a premature baby death are different. The US has the best rates of curing diseases which is a far better statistic. ---
**Author:** ![RearEchelon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b4bc9f/32.png) [@RearEchelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RearEchelon)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/29 "2011-09-30T22:25:19Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Even weirder, check out what Lou Gehrig died from. “Lou, here’s a disease with your name ALL over it!” ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/30 "2011-09-30T22:26:26Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > We were taught in school that at the height of the Roman Empire your average Roman, let’s say someone who actually lived in Rome, had a fairly decent life. > > Assuming you weren’t poor, or a member of the slave class, there was abundant food and fresh water, good sanitation systems, as well as public places for bathing, however this was before the discovery of germ theory. Large Roman armies were formed that marched from one end of Europe to the other. They would need a lot of healthy men to do that successfully. > > So how did the Romans remain healthy and free of disease, and what happened when they got sick? Were there hospitals where the sick would go to be cured? Could simple surgeries, like an appendectomy, be performed successfully? Obviously Cesarean birth existed at that time, but why didn’t these women all die of mass infections? > > Does the idyllic picture painted on life in Rome during this period somehow mask the death and disease that must have been rampant without the aid of modern medicine? Part of this was covered in the latest \*Exploring History \*magazine from National Geographic. If you are talking about the army - well, they did practice proper sanitation techniques and there was a stress on cleanliness. They had surgeons and doctors on the field as well and performed early (and somewhat rough) ‘cosmetic’ surgery for injuries. It’s my guess that the aim to prevent infection and disease (boiling instruments, sanitary concerns, clean water, etc) would’ve reduced mortality rates for surgeries. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/31 "2011-09-30T22:44:56Z")
If [Silphium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silphium) actually worked as birth control then that would be a good way to prevent/delay death during childbirth. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2011, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/32 "2011-09-30T23:38:43Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > what happened when they got sick? This little fact is the main reason I would trade places with ANYONE living before the invention of antibiotics, antiseptics, or anesthetics. Basically the best you could hope for when you got an infection before the invention of antibiotics, whether you were the emperor or a poor peasant, was to be kept warm and fed and hope you got better. In fact (in all but a few cases) the treatment on offer was just as likely to kill you as cure you. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/33 "2011-10-01T00:07:14Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > This little fact is the main reason I would trade places with ANYONE living before the invention of antibiotics, antiseptics, or anesthetics. For the benefit of any wizards reading this with magic time teleporting powers I would like to point out that this should have read: "This little fact is the main reason I would **NEVER** trade places with ANYONE living before the invention of antibiotics, antiseptics, or anesthetics. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/34 "2011-10-01T00:22:09Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > …But the better orator won the case, not the innocent person. Yes, that’s quitedifferent from today. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/35 "2011-10-01T07:27:04Z")
Up until the late 19th century, most cities were death traps compared to the country side. The cities would disappear if the population wasn’t replenished from the country side. In most ways, Rome of the 2nd century AD was superior to any city built in the world until the late 19th century in terms of public health and order. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/36 "2011-10-01T10:15:38Z")
[QUOTE=JoelUpchurch;14312404 In most ways, Rome of the 2nd century AD was superior to any city built in the world until the late 19th century in terms of public health and order.[/QUOTE] Qualify that with any city built in the world that **was not east of Constantinopl** e. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/37 "2011-10-01T12:15:08Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > This little fact is the main reason I would trade places with ANYONE living before the invention of antibiotics, antiseptics, or anesthetics. > > Basically the best you could hope for when you got an infection before the invention of antibiotics, whether you were the emperor or a poor peasant, was to be kept warm and fed and hope you got better. **In fact (in all but a few cases) the treatment on offer was just as likely to kill you as cure you.** [emphasis added] As noted here and in some earlier posts, medical treatment could be a disaster rather than helping, even unto relatively modern times. Consider the death of President William Henry Harrison, after just 30 days in office, as described in Wikipedia ( [William Henry Harrison - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Harrison#Death) ): > [@](#): > > On March 26, Harrison became ill with a cold. According to the prevailing medical misconception of that time, it was believed that his illness was directly caused by the bad weather at his inauguration; . . . > > The cold worsened, rapidly turning to pneumonia and pleurisy. . . . > > Harrison’s doctors tried cures, applying opium, castor oil, leeches, and Virginia snakeweed. But the treatments only made Harrison worse, and he became delirious. He died nine days after becoming ill,[69] at 12:30 am on April 4, 1841, of right lower lobe pneumonia, jaundice, and overwhelming septicemia. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2011, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/38 "2011-10-04T00:53:28Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > I find it astonishingly coincidental that Julius Caesar happened to be born by Caesarian section. I mean, what are the odds? Is there any way to quite describe the type of humor Monseur Rabelais displays? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2011, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/39 "2011-10-04T00:59:23Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Is there any way to quite describe the type of humor Monseur Rabelais displays? I would concur, but regarding such nouns and their eponyms, I have resolved to pay the same tribute as the Irish tenants did their rents to their landlord Captain Boycott. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2011, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165/40 "2011-10-04T05:22:26Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Qualify that with any city built in the world that **was not east of Constantinopl** e. Name a specific city that you have in mind. I know some cities in the east that had some specific merits, but I think Rome in general was superior. Claiming that there was a city on the continent of Asia that was superior during a period of 1700 years is unverifiable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-empire-question/598165.md?page=3)