Was Public Health Better in the Roman Era or the Middle Ages?

In my opinion, the romishs had superior normal health, as they had more fracture sanitization and plumbing systems, which were in the put Ages lendable solely in monasteries, rather than total t features. This was due to the fact that the Romans infrastructure and methods of interference were more developed than mediaeval ones, as well as the fact that the Roman goernment were furthermost more k nonted in the health of their citizens than later rulers, who assemble war and developing trade far more important, and viewed civilians health as their own responsibility.The Roman towns were alike a great deal better planned and built than those in the core Ages, which often placed wells and sources of insobriety and bathing wet in crocked proximity to cesspits and sewers, which led to infected water and cholera and typhoid outbreaks. Furthermore, some(prenominal) gallant streets were filled with filth, much(prenominal) as zoology carcasses, human and animal excrement, waste from butchers and tanners, and many more sources of disease, as bacteria could enhance freely and infect concourse very easily.As well as this, there were also very poor food standards, and it was not unusual for dishonest meat grappleers to sell low-quality meat which could have caused disease, although a legality was instated, decreeing that distributors of bad meat would be locked in the pillory. The Romans also had better waste garbage disposal and water transportation systems, which allowed people to get under ones skin clean drinking water, although there may still have been a find of illness, as most pipes were made of lead, which is toxic.Their medical exam skills were also slightly better than those of chivalric doctors, as most Roman doctors were much better trained and taught about inherent causes of disease, which gave them a considerable advantage over the mostly Church-educated doctors of the Middle Ages, who believed more extensively in supernatural ideas and religion-based methods of foreseeion and sermon of disease.An example of this is the Black Death, which killed 50 000 people in Europe, and was spread very apace due to poor sanitation, ineffective cures, which would in many cases have made the affected role worse, such as ingesting bile or faeces, or relying solely on prayers or religious ideas, rather than actively desire a reliable cure, which was impossible without a knowledge of the true cause of diseases, although they did strive to limit its spread by lockup up houses which were infected with the disease. However, the Roman imperium was also poorly quipped to deal with plagues, such as the one which occurred in AD 80, and claimed hundreds of lives. However, public health in the Middle Ages did have some benefits the towns often busy people such as tam-tam farmers and muck rakers to survey and clean the streets to prevent disease, and remove sewage, although it was not possible to mesh enough to maintain th e cleanliness. The Romans had a analogous system which worked to much greater advantage. gallant towns also developed regulations and fines for littering and dirtying the streets, although these could not be easily enforced.As well as this, the rich were happy to pay the fines and hold open to deposit refuse in the streets. Moreover, uprise the end of the Dark Ages, butchers were banned from workings in the inner city, which prevented pollution and support in keeping the streets clean. In conclusion, I believe that public health was much better under Roman rule, although the Medieval government did endeavour to improve the moorage (albeit without much success. ) This is further evidenced by the average life expectancy in each era it fell from 42 in the Roman era to 35, proving that standards had dropped dramatically since the Roman period.