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

To what extent did medicine and public health change between the Roman withdrawal from Britain and 1350?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

´╗┐To what extent did medicine and public health change between the Roman withdrawal from Britain and 1350? The Romans occupied Britain in AD43, and brought with them good systems of public health and logical solutions to medicine and treatment given to them by Hippocrates in around 300AD. This was then enhanced by Galen a little after the occupation, and this left Britain well managed in terms of public health and medicine. I believe that the high standard of public health severely deteriorated and the standard of medicine stagnated or possible got a little worse. Primarily, the public health system became undeniably worse. The water supply from aqueducts was almost completely cut off without the workforce of slaves and the skilled engineers. ...read more.

Middle

Some attempts were even made by the government to improve cleanliness, but the Anglo-Saxon wars were rampant at this time meaning kings were preoccupied, and unable to make any country wide decisions since the government was never unitary. Also, the latent laissez-faire attitude at the time prevented the government caring too much. With regards to public health, there was very little continuity between the Roman withdrawal and 1350 because everything was left in near anarchy so few changes could be made. However, I would argue that medicine only really stagnated. Because Galen backed the Roman Catholic Church in his theories when he said that the body showed intelligent design, any dissent from the techniques resulted in either being ignored or actively stopped. ...read more.

Conclusion

Of course, the Christian Church now played a stronger role and had displaced belief in Salus and Asclepius meaning people instead prayed to God and the Saints such as to St Blaise for a sore throat. But, many of the books written by Galen and Hippocrates were burned in the anarchy caused by the withdrawal so some knowledge was lost, causing a possible slight decline in medical knowledge. Between the Roman withdrawal and 1350, medicine only changed a little and got slightly worse. To conclude, public health got a lot worse when the Romans withdrew taking with them a unitary government, a strong workforce of slaves and the army. However, while medicine did get a little worse with the loss of books it mostly remained the same with similar beliefs about cause and treatment of disease. (23 minutes) ...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. What Impact did the fall of The Roman Empire Have On Medicine And Public ...

    The contained over 70,000 different items of medical writings. In 500AD the Roman Empire gets defeated by the Goths from Germany. The Goths couldn't read or write in the language the Romans used, so the Vikings and Saxons took over.

  2. To what extent wasBritain Romanised

    Nevertheless, it is certainly true that the urbanised population grew during the Roman occupation, so the claim by Tacitus that the Celts were attracted to the town is probably valid. Below: A typical forum in a Roman town, with public buildings, shops and places of worship surrounding a central space.

  1. Who was the real Custer, and to what extent was he to blame for ...

    Most Indians who told of the battle said they never saw Custer and did not know who killed him- " we did not know until the fight was over that he was the white chief." Stated by Low dog. The source is contradictory because earlier we saw the source that

  2. How Were The Roman Army Superior In Weaponry, Armour And Tactics To The Celts?

    was successful to the extent that they were equal to the Roman tactics that had been developed through extensive training. While the Romans knew a lot of formations and had a lot of experience with these formations the 'barbarian' Celts fought like 'Dogs and Wolves (speech by Boudica)'

  1. Public health in Britain during the hundred years from 1850 to 1950

    However, Edwin's recommendations posed a problem for the government. The government knew that if they tried to force the local councils to follow the recommendations, it would be unacceptable. However, in 1848, faced by the second epidemic of cholera, Parliament reluctantly approved the public health act of 1848.

  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. What Do Roman Authors Tell Us About The Celts? To What Extent Are Their ...

    time, it was common belief that the ends of the Earth were flat, and that Britain was at the end of the Earth (as the Romans had not reached beyond Britain and assumed that no land lay to the north of it).

  2. History of Medicine Revision Notes.

    a healthy body? ? it would satisfy the people People had good engineering and building skills (I.e. building 14 aqueducts) They wanted to make a statement about the power and size of Rome They knew about a link between dirt and disease Claudius Galen:[m] 1.

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