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.
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.
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.
What criminal court system?
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.
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.
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.
“Lou, here’s a disease with your name ALL over it!”
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.
If Silphium actually worked as birth control then that would be a good way to prevent/delay death during childbirth.
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.
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.
Yes, that’s quitedifferent from today.
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.
[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 Constantinople.
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 ):
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.
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.