• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Roman medicine was the same as Greek medicine; do you agree?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

´╗┐Sofia Chand Miss Smith and Miss Wheeler, History (RM31) Roman medicine was the same as Greek medicine; do you agree? Journeying from the Greek period of medicine to that of the Romans, how much changed and what stayed the same regarding medical practises, anatomical knowledge and accuracy of theories and ideas? Furthermore, which outweighs the other? Firstly, continuity between the two empires was that they both believed in the theory of the four humours. Originally, the Greeks established the theory, however, the Romans helped to develop this theory into something much more useful. Galen is the scientist who is most well-known at the time for working at the theory of the four humours. Like Hippocrates, he believed in the four humours but Galen thought that there was a more rational solution to balancing the humours. For instance, if the symptom was too much phlegm then the patient?s problem was caused by a cold and should therefore need to take something hot, such as pepper. Hippocrates laid the foundations for which the Romans then progressed, even though some of their theories were not entirely correct. ...read more.

Middle

Another key idea that both, Romans and Greeks, believed strongly in, was that gods and goddesses could cure and cause illnesses. This shows that religion played a really big part in their lives and outlines the theme of superstition in both empires. The Greeks had built Ascelepions as refuge to the sick; it was a peaceful temple where the ill could go in order to get cured. The Ascelepions were devoted to the Greek god Asclepius, the god of healing, and they firmly believed that at night, their god and his daughters would visit them and leave them cured. The Romans however appealed to their chiefly goddess of health, Salus. Gods were part of their everyday life and were expected to be powerful. When medical treatment was expensive, risky and painful, there was good reason to use every means available to help prevent illness. Asking for the help of gods would often be a first option instead of a last resort. A huge difference between Greek and Roman medicine was public health which means what the government or whoever was in power at that time did in order to prevent or cure epidemics. ...read more.

Conclusion

Overall, I would disagree that Greek and Roman medicine were the same and instead I would argue that in fact, they are very different. Greek medicine was very much based on loose theories and ideas as they did not have a plentiful amount of evidence to back them up, as well as this, the Greeks did not dissect or perform surgical operations that allowed them to explore the human body or animals that we?re similar too. This suggests that they weren?t as familiar with anatomy and disease like the Romans were. The Romans made sure they were educated in the human body and made some important links from dissecting animals that then formed stronger ideas that were quite credible in that day and age. The Romans were much more practical people and they also showed they had more ability than the Greeks. They were able to supply their empire with an extensive public health system that was very helpful and did actually prevent epidemics and look after their people well. Greek medicine was very different to Roman medicine. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE History Projects section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE History Projects essays

  1. Why was the Roman Army so Successful? Rome was one ...

    So the army was organised. The army was huge, with almost 150,000 men during peace and double during war. Each soldier was put into a group of 8-10 men, called a contubernium. These men, trained together, stayed with each other, became almost like brothers, and shared one tent and donkey.

  2. How important was chariot racing for the Romans?

    lived to the age of 42 which is very good going seeing as many racers would have died in their teens. But the amount of money does have some indication of how important the races were. But wealth wasn't the only good thing about the racing; good racers would be like our celebrities, many women would have desired the racers.

  1. What is the Evidence for the Roman Occupation of the Antonine Wall?

    Frere explains that to crush a significant rebellion by the Brigantes, troops would have to be withdrawn from the Antonine Wall because there were no other troops or strategic reserves that could have been called upon. In addition it would explain the destruction of the Antonine Wall and most of

  2. The Roman army

    They therefore did not encounter such problems as the British did at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. The selection of recruits made sure that the army recruited only the best men: "Only men who stand 6 feet or at least 5 feet 10 inches are accepted for service in the cavalry or in the first cohorts of the legions."

  1. Organization, Training and Discipline: How Did these Factors Contribute to the Success of the ...

    and had a basic understanding of what to do and how to use their weapons.

  2. Improvements in Public Health

    The 1875 Public Health Act required the clearance off slums, the installation of sewers, clean water supplies and better environment to live in. This was very successful as public health improved and local councils competed to be the best public health provider.

  1. 4 Humours

    Recording findings wasn't new. The Egyptians had done this, the Greeks refined and developed the process of noting treatments, reactions and symptoms. Hippocratic medicine rejected the use of supernatural cures, the use of charms or of magic. This was new as previously civilisations had always used remedies in conjunction with supernatural ideas.

  2. History of Medicine Revision Notes.

    into the cup if you had too much blood in spring 1. Clinical Observation[g]: Doctors had to follow FOUR STEPS when examining the patient: 1. Diagnosis: studying the patients symptoms 2. Prognosis: Predicting what course the illness will take 3.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work