The Disabled In Rome

[Honorius]

I was jsut wondering guys, how where the "disabled" treated in the roman empire, and people born with deformities or with downs syndrome how were they treated?... where they just killed as babies or what?

[Lost_Warrior]

Some WERE in fact killed as babies...though others I think went on to live pretty full lives...

[Emperor Goblinus]

With Rome's emphasis on manly power and strength, I think that the disabled may have had some barriers put in front of them by society. But, there were always exceptions. Look at Claudius.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I suppose they were just pitied and left alone because of their pathetic nature. Pretty sad, I would also assume that they were outcasts, many were smart to isolate themselves from society. Life would just go on by normally and the crippled would try to get by it too by any means. For example, in one of Jesus' healing story, lepers would come out at night to the baths (near some Roman institution) and there Jesus healed them because in Jesus' time, it was best for lepers to isolate themselves from the common people during the day. I'd also assume that situation would be the same in Rome.

[WotWotius]

The Romans were firm believers in the saying 'mens sana in corpore sano' (healthy body, healthy mind). This outlook was probably influenced by the teaching of the Greeks.

 

In other words the Romans believed that phyically fit people were also mentally fit and that phyically disabled people must metally disabled as well. This belief was very apparent in the life of Emperor Claudius.

 

Before his accession as emperor, Claudius, though incredibly intelligent (writing vast amounts of history and was also a speaker the of the Eutruscan lanuage) was though to be a fool just because of his disablities. Suetonius tells us that the emperor Augustus did not allow him to watch games in the Circus because his 'foolishness' would embarrass the imperial family; the emperor Caligula often kept him around to so he could be at the butt of practical jokes, treating almost like a court jester. The only reason he became emperor was because the Pratorian guard made him.

[Primus Pilus]

The only reason he became emperor was because the Pratorian guard made him.

 

So the aristocracy would wish posterity to believe. The actions of Claudius post accession indicate that Caligula's successor was far more cunning and politically astute than the senate would have preferred. The 'drooling idiot' certainly could not have survived simply because he was the favored target of every joke. He miraculously survived Augustus/Livia, Tiberius/Sejanus and Caligula. Somewhere within there must have been some redeeming qualities or wouldn't chances be good that Claudius would be purged to save family embarrassment?

 

Perhaps not, but it seems that the appearance of Claudius cowering behind a curtain to be suspect and clearly stated (whether it is true or not) to assassinate his character. The senate had grand wishes of a restoration of a Republican system, but Claudius protection within the Praetorian camp prevented any Senatorial maneuvering. It just seems too ridiculous that Claudius was 'found behind the curtains' rather than having been whisked off as a logical alternative and perhaps previously determined piece of the puzzle. Even if Claudius had absolutely no part in the assassination of his nephew, I have always had a notion that the praetorians always had him in mind for bigger things.

 

My basis for this... complete conjecture and personal opinion based primarily on Claudius ability to survive and effectiveness as the princeps.

[Sextus Roscius]

The Romans most likely had the greek idea of healthy body, healthy mind and so there was naturaly some distaste towards the disabled. But as mentioned by WotWotius there is a perfect example in the great Emperor Cluadius who was crippled but a man of great intelect. It is clear becuase he became Emperor that in Rome, even if one had a physical disadvantage, could go very far.

 

I think mainly the Romans viewed them with suspicion but accepted that they weren't complete idiots. It might depend on how one was disabled too....

[Ursus]

I was jsut wondering guys, how where the "disabled" treated in the roman empire, and people born with deformities or with downs syndrome how were they treated?... where they just killed as babies or what?

 

 

Infanticide was pretty common. For the elites, a disabled child would not be able to carry on the family name and family fortune. For the peasants, a disabled child would not be able to pull its own weight, something critical to consider in a time when starvation was common.

 

 

As far as those who were disabled as a result of military service, you'll have to ask the military buffs. I believe though they may have been discharged and given some sort of pension, but I'm not entirely sure.

 

 

I do know that Roman pagans had terribly different views on suicide than the Christian West does. If someone became a burden to their family - for instance, by reaching a certain infirmity in age - suicide was considered an honorable thing. Perhaps even a necessary thing if someone was becoming an embarrassment to the family honor and fortunes.

[Honorius]

Thanks for the replies guys,

 

Do you think that "homes" where set up for the disabled/deformed? like those leper ones John Tzimices made near Constantinople?. Or would the Church have taken them in?

[Sextus Roscius]

Thanks for the replies guys,

 

Do you think that "homes" where set up for the disabled/deformed? like those leper ones John Tzimices made near Constantinople?. Or would the Church have taken them in?

 

Interesting question, and I'm sorry to say that I don't have a exact answer, just assumtions and guesses at the moment, but I will look into it more percisely.

 

Well, as for my assumtions and guesses, I assume that the Church wouldn't have taken them in and that few "homes" if any were created for the disabled. The church I beleive at that period of time would've been more suspicious than just about anyone else about the disabled becuase of the view that God created Earth and meant humans to be a certain way, it would only make logical sense to them that those who were disabled were hellspawns of some sort becuase they were not as the Lord had meant humans to be.

 

Though this is just what I think. If anyone can correct me or reassure me I'd be pleased.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Sorry Sextus, but that was just wrong. There was a good reason by Constantine approved and always supported funds for the Church in Rome and elsewhere. He found good use in the Church in caring and providing for those poor and unfortunate. I don't know where you got that view from, because I doubt eugenics was even thought about. The disabled were just pitied, but not looked upon as hellspawns. One would actually have to commit or show signs of being possessed or an agent of Lucifer before being persecuted by the Church. The time which you talk about is important too. Your view might be possible in Medieval times, but during the Roman Empire, Christianity was solely about spiritual matters and cura personalis, since the Pope wasn't heavily involved in political disputes except those concerning things such as Arianism and opposion or rifts in the unity of the Church or its views.

Edited December 23, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Sextus Roscius]

Sorry Sextus, but that was just wrong. There was a good reason by Constantine approved and always supported funds for the Church in Rome and elsewhere. He found good use in the Church in caring and providing for those poor and unfortunate. I don't know where you got that view from, because I doubt eugenics was even thought about. The disabled were just pitied, but not looked upon as hellspawns. One would actually have to commit or show signs of being possessed or an agent of Lucifer before being persecuted by the Church. The time which you talk about is important too. Your view might be possible in Medieval times, but during the Roman Empire, Christianity was solely about spiritual matters and cura personalis, since the Pope wasn't heavily involved in political disputes except those concerning things such as Arianism and opposion or rifts in the unity of the Church or its views.

 

Thank you for correcting me Flavius, I was clearly in the wrong mind set when I wrote. Looking back I see I'm refering more to midieval periods rather than the Roman Empire. This is probley becuase I was just reading about the Inquisitions and other things, so I apologize for my large incorrectness.