Valetudinarium

[GhostOfClayton]

I

[caldrail]

I am with Northern Neil on this one that Caldrail may may be flagging issues which were neither stated nor intended in the original posting although they may be valid points for wider discussion regarding military medical procedures.

I considered it necessary, because inevitably when features of a site are described in modern terms, there's an immediate reaction in readers that goes beyond that point. I'm not disputing these features exist - I'm pointing out that it's unwise to draw conclusions from them without corrobrative evidence.

[Melvadius]

Answering a couple of previous points:

 

Checking one of the Medical terminology websites apparently 'hygiene' comes from "the name of Hygeia, the daughter of Asklepios, the Greek god of medicine (whose staff with entwined snake is the symbol of medicine). Asklepios (known to the Romans as Aesculapius) had a number of children including not only Hygeia but also Panaceia, the patroness of clinical medicine. Hygeia also followed her father into medicine. As the patroness of health, Hygeia was charged with providing a healthy environment to prevent illness. In Greek, "hygieia" means health.]"

 

What I'm not sure of is how long Hygeia has been the "patroness of health" IF this association dates from the Greek rather than more modern periods (as Panaceia's linkage to 'clinical medicen' possibly suggests) then it could be an arguement for at least basic cleanliness being a facet of Greek (and therefore Roman military practice) influenced medicine.

[Maty]

 

Do I dare hope that it was from Hyginus Gromaticus (Pseudo-Hyginus was an unknown writer basing work on that by Hyginus Gromaticus) that we get the word 'Hygiene'?

 

Let us sadistically crush that hope. Hygieia has been around since the time of Hesiod and so predates Hyginus by some time. She is the daughter of Asclepius and the goddess of (preventive) health while daddy concentrates on cures.

 

There's also Salus, the Roman counterpart, but not quite the same thing.

[GhostOfClayton]

[Let us sadistically crush that hope.

 

Another dream shattered.

[guy]

 

It must also be realised that medics in the legion were invariably greeks (I don't know of any exceptions) and this would have been the skill that gave them immunes status. That does not guarantee that the greek legionary actually knew anything. As long as he could convince his seniors of his knowledge then he got off manual labour, and given the hospital was normally fairly empty anyway whilst good health was the norm in peacetime, it was an easy assignment. Educated medics like Galen were an exception, and although his knowledge was well ahead of his time, it served the medic no good at all to teach those skills to all and sundry. The Romans earned a living from expertise after all. Only in certain cases where the common good was emphasised - such as combat skills - was there establisjed means of teaching skills to others freely.

 

Respectfully, I disagree with what you wrote on many levels. 

 

The following thread might answer one of your points:

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/11738-vindolanda-tablets-glimpse-of-legionary-health/

 

 

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited January 23, 2017 by guy

[caldrail]

Yeah - I knew someone would. Try this for size...

 

However, in considering medicine in Roman Britain it is crucial not to become blinkered by a modern perspective: health and health care must always be seen in context...

 

...By adopting a twenty first century view it is also all too easy to dismiss or denigrate some aspects of ancient medicine and yet to overplay others significantly. How can we be confident that a bronze instrument was actually a surgical tool? Do acqueducts, drains, and health houses really reflect a concern for public health? Should we so easily dismiss dream therapy and other apparently bizarre treatments as being ineffective in the context of Roman Britain?

Introduction - Medicine and Health Care In Roman Britain (Nicholas Summerton)

[Melvadius]

I think that there is some danger here of putting words into each others comments which may not have existed in the initial postings and creating your own arguments so keep things calm folks.

 

The key point is actually in the opening section of the above quotation so helpfully post by Caldrail.

 

...it is also all too easy to dismiss or denigrate some aspects of ancient medicine and yet to overplay others significantly...

 

Guy has led off on the fact that the Roman military were aware of the need to have medical aid available to their men to the extent that major bases had what is usually termed 'hosptials' Although this does not mean that necessarily they were constantly full as Caldrail contends against BUT neither does it mean that their normal status was 'empty'.

 

The other thing it does not really indicate is how extensive or otherwise the treatment was - the fact that the Vindolanda tablets and other sources indicate specific health problems were a problem the military had to consider especially when something like 10% of the men actually at Vindolanda had some form of illness or injury in the report quoted.

 

The truth will have lain somewhere between both extreme's BUT it is worth reiterating that the military felt the need for these specialist buildings and men with some form of medial training which do not appear to have existed or at least not in a recognizably similar format within the civilian community where 'medical' assistance was something you had to pay for yourself or else it was unavailable.

[caldrail]

Since when were my views extreme? All I've ever suggested is that the Romans did not invent the twenty first century. Whatever the Romans did for us was thrown in the bin within a century of their military withdrawal. And as for medical assistane, it would be as well to realise there was no formal training for medics whatsoever. Any idiot could call himself a physician in ancient times and set up shop. I suspect a great many did, some of them operating at a low level quack healer rather than the skilled surgeon people want to believe in.

 

Of course the legions felt a need to keep their men fit and healthy. Viralty was admired in Roman culture to begin with, along with martial virtue. The last thing they wanted was six thousand malingerering poofters sitting in beds with the sniffles at public expense. That they made some official attempt to provide healthcare is noteworthy but as I've already pointed out, describing the Roman world in our terms does lend itself to accurate reporting, nor does it encourage the issue of context, and basically you end up describing the world you know rather than the one you want to discover.

[guy]

There is no archaeological or other literary evidence of civilian hospitals till late antiquity with the advent of those pesky Christians other than below:

 

There is this curious quote from Celsus (25 BCE - AD 50) from On Medicine Prooemium 66:

 

Again, those who take charge of large hospitals, because they cannot pay full attention to individuals, resort to these common characteristics.

 

et qui ampla valetudinaria nutriunt, quia singulis summa cura consulere non sustinent, ad communia ista confugiunt.

 

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Celsus/Prooemium*.html

 

Here is an early hint of the later public charity hospitals from the somewhat bigoted Christian Justin Martyr (AD 150-155) First Apology 67:

 

And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited September 23, 2011 by guy

[Tribunicus Potestus]

Interesting how he "knew" about those microbes about 2000 years before scientists such as Leewenhoek, Koch, and Pasteur described them in detail.

Indeed, it was an hypothesis which was found to be valid 1900 years later. In much the same way as Leucippus and Democritus' hypotheses regarding atoms were subsequently found to be valid.

 

Historically speaking, nothing is actually 'modern' prior to the year 1500. But I think it is fair to say that, as with so many other aspects of human development, the area of medicine in Roman times was quite advanced, and following the fall of classical culture and the moribund centuries of the early mediaeval age, it took a few hundred years before such advances were at a comparable level.

 

Quite right. The 'modern' atomic theory postulated the existence of atoms long before any good imaging was available. Black holes have never been seen yet were expected and have been detected although they can never be seen. The romans knew the size and shape of the earth without have circumnavigated it. That the earth circled the sun without space travel. Is it so hard believe that they suspected invisibly small things of causing infection? I was surprised to read that here but find it quite acceptable. It is tragic that so much of classical knowledge was lost but it is exciting to see what was not.

[guy]

In many ways, Roman medical theories were unrivaled or not improved until the late 1800s.

 

Here's an account of President Garfield's medical care in July, 1881 after the eventually fatal assassination attempt by a deranged Guiteau:

 

At the core of "Destiny of the Republic" is a tale of horrifying medical piracy. Bliss, a prominent Washington doctor who had attended Lincoln on his deathbed, commandeered Garfield's wounded body and rejected all advice that contradicted his incompetent diagnoses. Like most American doctors of the time, Bliss scorned the newfangled theories of antisepsis promoted by Dr. Joseph Lister in Britain. When Bliss and his assistants probed the president's wounds with unsterilized instruments or their own unclean fingers, they turned a serious injury into a fatal one. Garfield's body, which had survived the trauma of the shooting was now, Ms. Millard writes, "so riddled with infection that he was literally rotting to death." (Source: A review entitled "Medical Malpractice" by FERGUS M. BORDEWICH in the WSJ online.)

 

 

I can't imagine Ancient Roman medical care being any worse.

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited September 27, 2011 by guy

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

In many ways, Roman medical theories were unrivaled or not improved until the late 1800s.

 

Here's an account of President Garfield's medical care in July, 1881 after the eventually fatal assassination attempt by a deranged Guiteau:

 

At the core of "Destiny of the Republic" is a tale of horrifying medical piracy. Bliss, a prominent Washington doctor who had attended Lincoln on his deathbed, commandeered Garfield's wounded body and rejected all advice that contradicted his incompetent diagnoses. Like most American doctors of the time, Bliss scorned the newfangled theories of antisepsis promoted by Dr. Joseph Lister in Britain. When Bliss and his assistants probed the president's wounds with unsterilized instruments or their own unclean fingers, they turned a serious injury into a fatal one. Garfield's body, which had survived the trauma of the shooting was now, Ms. Millard writes, "so riddled with infection that he was literally rotting to death." (Source: A review entitled "Medical Malpractice" by FERGUS M. BORDEWICH in the WSJ online.)

 

 

I can't imagine Ancient Roman medical care being any worse.

 

 

guy also known as gaius

 

 

I'd be careful about comparing eras for it leads to distortions when one spots that another era shows more similarities to another.In fact making direct comparisons is a futile exercise.

 

Also might you want to keep in mind that the wounds caused by a sword or arrow had a different effect froma wound caused by a gun?For example, Civil War era rifles shot were known to explode small shreds upon entering flesh that pierced throughout the body(hence why Civil War casualties were so high).Different weapons cause different types of damage.No way a Roman doctor gonna even have 25% the chance that a Civil War era Doctor would have of healing gunshot wounds.If anything,its safe to assume that a Roman doctor would be 100% unable to heal any gun wound(unless they went to the future,learned medical scienc enad came back in a time machine ). The types of wounds(and infections that come) from being stabbed or hacked by a sword or being pierced by an arrow is extremely different from a Gunshot wound.

 

Please also bear in mind the the Medical system of later periods including the 1700s were already way more advanced than Roman could ever hope to be. I mean do you seriously think the Romans could have discovered the concept of Vaccination for Smallpox(discovered in 1700s).

 

Again please avoid coming to conclusions such as "Roman Medical system being no worse than that of 19th Century" as once you start getting into details you'll realize that such statements are flawed and flatout wrong.One just has to see how advanced European Weaponry and Warfare got(in every way) by the 12th Century.You'll just be making the same mistake as assuming the Roman Legions were the closest thing to a Modern Army.

Edited September 29, 2011 by ParatrooperLirelou

[guy]

If anything,its safe to assume that a Roman doctor would be 100% unable to heal any gun wound(unless they went to the future,learned medical scienc enad came back in a time machine ). The types of wounds(and infections that come) from being stabbed or hacked by a sword or being pierced by an arrow is extremely different from a Gunshot wound.

 

Please also bear in mind the the Medical system of later periods including the 1700s were already way more advanced than Roman could ever hope to be. I mean do you seriously think the Romans could have discovered the concept of Vaccination for Smallpox(discovered in 1700s).

 

Again please avoid coming to conclusions such as "Roman Medical system being no worse than that of 19th Century" as once you start getting into details you'll realize that such statements are flawed and flatout wrong.One just has to see how advanced European Weaponry and Warfare got(in every way) by the 12th Century.You'll just be making the same mistake as assuming the Roman Legions were the closest thing to a Modern Army

 

I agree that smallpox vaccination was very important. (In Britain 1750, smallpox was the cause of 16% of all deaths; by 1850 it was only 1%.)

 

I disagree with your other statements strongly, however:

 

Most people would disagree with you assessment of battle wounds. for example:

 

The majority of wounded that made it to the larger field hospitals suffered from wounds to the extremities. Those who suffered from wounds to the head, chest, and abdomen occasionally survived, but usually not because of any surgical intervention.

 

http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Medicine_in_Virginia_During_the_Civil_War

 

It is also important to remember that more people died of disease in the Civil War than by combat deaths.

 

Union deaths: 110,000 killed or died of wounds; 224,000 by disease

Confederate deaths: 94,000 killed or died of wounds; 164,000 by disease

 

There were a whole host of Civil War diseases. The worst out of the bunch was by far Dysentery. This one disease accounted for around 45,000 deaths in the Union army and around 50,000 deaths in the Confederate army.

What was the reason for this huge death rate? The answer is painfully simple.

Contaminated water. Hygiene was not a big issue when it came to health care in those days. During a Civil War surgery cleanliness was a mere afterthought.

Unfortunately for people back then they didn

Edited September 29, 2011 by guy

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

 

 

 

If anything,its safe to assume that a Roman doctor would be 100% unable to heal any gun wound(unless they went to the future,learned medical scienc enad came back in a time machine ). The types of wounds(and infections that come) from being stabbed or hacked by a sword or being pierced by an arrow is extremely different from a Gunshot wound.

 

Please also bear in mind the the Medical system of later periods including the 1700s were already way more advanced than Roman could ever hope to be. I mean do you seriously think the Romans could have discovered the concept of Vaccination for Smallpox(discovered in 1700s).

 

I agree that smallpox vaccination was very important. (In Britain 1750, smallpox was the cause of 16% of all deaths; by 1850 it was only 1%.)

 

I disagree with your other statements strongly, however:

 

Most people would disagree with you assessment of battle wounds. for example:

 

The majority of wounded that made it to the larger field hospitals suffered from wounds to the extremities. Those who suffered from wounds to the head, chest, and abdomen occasionally survived, but usually not because of any surgical intervention.

 

http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Medicine_in_Virginia_During_the_Civil_War

 

It is also important to remember that more people died of disease in the Civil War than by combat deaths.

 

Union deaths: 110,000 killed or died of wounds; 224,000 by disease

Confederate deaths: 94,000 killed or died of wounds; 164,000 by disease

 

There were a whole host of Civil War diseases. The worst out of the bunch was by far Dysentery. This one disease accounted for around 45,000 deaths in the Union army and around 50,000 deaths in the Confederate army.

What was the reason for this huge death rate? The answer is painfully simple.

Contaminated water. Hygiene was not a big issue when it came to health care in those days. During a Civil War surgery cleanliness was a mere afterthought.

Unfortunately for people back then they didn