Melvadius

OK, try this bruiser:

Now here I disagree. <SNIP> It would be my contention that the 'standard' of health care varied enormously. I think if you only consider 'standard' as the 'usual situation' then I would agree with Cladrail here. However if you consider 'standards' in it's alternative interpretation of the 'ideal situation' or as the basic texts used in medicine then on the basis that medical texts from the Romano-Greek period were used in'foundation of 'good' practice I would instead tend to agree with Guy's statement. Across the Islamic and then medieval world Romano-Greek texts DID form the basis of 'best' medical practices and therefore eventually the basis for later developents leading to the vast leaps in care and treatent from the 18th and 19th centuries onward. So far as the Islamic world is convcerned health care was arguably better in some periods and places and medical texts from there did filter the wider world taking the best elements of Romano-Greek and Islamic into a wider audience. The fact that not everyone used 'best' practice does not negate the fact that it DID exist and was referred to even if only in limited general use and later superceded.

I respectfully disagree. This thread has forced me to reassess and offer support to the concept that the medical knowledge and innovations of the Ancient Roman world were not surpassed until after the American Civil War (1861-65), more than 1500 years later. guy also known as gaius Fair enough - I hadn't realised you were originally intending to develop this thread in the way it did and as you have just proved reassessment can happen at any time.

Curly hair, suspicion of a beard below the 'ere' could it be Hadrian?

Part of and No.

Neither but you are getting a lot closer.

While potentially interesting this is drifting a fairly long way so can we all return to the original Roman theme please.

Possibly but right now I'm going to check out how my home made cider is coming on

Not quite at all, modern French would be lucky to have 0.10% of Gaullish blood in them.Calling them the early French is akin to calling the Normans French(who were in fact an off-shoot of Vikings). Two completely different cultures and civilizations. ParatrooperLirelou, I think you may have missed the point of Ursus comment that those who occupied the area now comprising 'modern' France in ancient times had 'Celtic' (which includes Gaullish) bloodlines therefore in common with other 'Celtic' peoples a fondness for beer is only to be expected. 'Early' and 'modern' French are not synonymous nor was it implied in the original response.

This viewpoint implies that the majority of the Roman Empires population were attempting to 'become Greek' or at least pretending that they were Greek for purposes of cheap resale. Even if some aspects of Greek (as well as numerous other cultures) were integrated into the Roman model patently this was not done it as a 'rip-off' so to me is basically a non-argument.

Actually it doesn't; if you consider the fact that lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera tigris) can interbreed as can some of the variosu species/ subspecies of horses and donkeys all it actually means is that the individuals concerned are to some extent or otherwise interfertile even if such offspring may themselves usually be sterile.

you are wrong - some of us do care. Even if we are not necessarily in a position to send you presents you do have our best wishes, or at least commiserations, on passing the big 50. Have a great day off

Nothing like going from one extreme to another and if you can see boats in the image your eyesights a lot better than mine but no there aren't any and you can rule out Egypt.

Interesting idea but still too far into the northern Empire

Although a 'young' university it looks like you have some interesting modules to choose from on your course and obviously an interesting environment on your doorstep for practical study. enjoy

Likewise welcome Reuda and if you don't mind where are you currently studying?

Having once done an essay on the wider aspects of Roman military familia (families as well as slaves) I would second Klingan on the extreme difficulty you may find in obtaining enough relevant material to build up a decent Masters thesis. From memory there are a few reference books around where you may find some relevant information including: Campbell B. (1978) The Marriage of Soldiers under the Empire, JRS Vol 68 Campbell B (1996) The Roman Army 31BC - AD337 A Sourcebook, London Routledge Evans J.K. (1991) War, Women and Children in Ancient Rome, London Routledge Goldsworthy A. and Haynes I. eds. (1999) The Roman Army as a Community, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series Number 34, Portsmouth, Rhode Island Saller R.P. and Shaw B (1984) Tombstones and Roman Family Relations in the Principate: Civilians, Soldiers & Slaves, JRS, Vol. 74 NB I would not recommend Frier B.W. & McGinn T A J A Casebook on Roman Family Law since there is no real index and only a few apparent mentions of slave women without any obvious link to the army. There are also a small number of laws such as those listed in the 'Digest' (part of Corpus Juris Civilis) which relate to soldiers and slaves particularly regarding inheritance and soldiers wills.

You could look for somewhere to the south of Dover

Any chance it is the series of books entitled An economic survey of ancient Rome which I understand were actually written between 1933 and 1940.

It is also there I just did a search for 'vindolanda Inv. No.93.1350' and found this link to the VT02 site where it seems to be listed under tablet 591. There is a lot of discussion at the link which you may find interesting but the translation of tablet 591 is as follows:

In the words of the old joke about the person who was 'other religion' of choice' accepting being given the 'last rites' if everything else has been tried 'Now is not the time to start making enemies!'

The most controversial element of that opening reference so far as I can see is suggesting that 'many' auxilliary forts contained such buildings. So far as legionary fortresses are concerned then these buildings do continue to be identified for the various reasons mentioned, including the legionary camp of the legio I Italica in Novae/Bulgaria mentioned in the previous thread on this topic with its temple and associated altars to the same range of dieties. As the index does not list 'herbs' as a topic if you say which tablets 'Cruse' refers to from Volume III, I can provide further details of what the original translators 'Bowman and Thomas' have said about them here. [Edit -Alternatively if you Mozilla Firefow you may be able to search for the relevant tablets yourself at this site which is Vindolanda Tablets Online II (VTO2), a sister website to Vindolanda Tablets Online (VTO) that also apparently contains a searchable version of Volume III.]

Actually there is ample evidence that regular trading voyages from Egypt to India were happening long before this: Robera Tomber (2008) Indo-Roman Trade: From Pots to Pepper provides some useful analysis regarding the literary and archaeological evidence for the maritime trade between the Empire and India as well as other ports which could have been visited.. Page 157 et seq are particulalrly relevant as Tomber cites evidence of the diversity of amphora finds as indicating regualr trade between Egypt and particulalrly Southern India while Indian residents and large finds of Indian pottery on the Egyptian Red Sea but not fiurther into the Empire support direct trade routes existing. Pliny

The Guardian is carryiong thisreport on recently announced results of research by the Italy's National Institute of Optics which calls into question the common perception that most of the walls in Pompeii were originally painted red.

Britannia - no