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

In my opinion, the Romans had superior overt wellness, as they had over often give way sanitation and plumbing systems, which were in the Middle Ages available wholly in monasteries, sooner than entire towns. This was due to the fact that the Romans infrastructure and methods of discourse were to a greater extent create than Medieval ones, as well as the fact that the Roman governing body were far more involved in the health of their citizens than later rulers, who found war and developing trade far more important, and viewed civilians health as their own responsibility.The Roman towns were alike much better planned and built than those in the Middle Ages, which often placed surface and sources of drinking and bathing water in close proximity to cesspits and sewers, which take to infected water and cholera and typhoid outbreaks. Furthermore, many a(prenominal) Medieval streets were alter with filth, such as animal carcasses, human and animal excrement, waste from butche rs and tanners, and many more sources of disease, as bacteria could grow freely and infect population very easily.As well as this, there were also very worthless food standards, and it was not unusual for dishonest marrow squash sellers to sell low-quality meat which could set out caused disease, although a law was instated, decreeing that distributors of bad meat would be locked in the pillory. The Romans also had better waste disposal and water transportation systems, which allowed masses to obtain clean drinking water, although there may still have been a risk of illness, as most pipes were made of lead, which is toxic.Their medical skills were also slightly better than those of Medieval doctors, as most Roman doctors were much better trained and taught about natural causes of disease, which gave them a considerable reward over the mostly Church-educated doctors of the Middle Ages, who believed more extensively in eldritch ideas and religion-based methods of forbidion and treatment of disease.An example of this is the Black Death, which killed 50 000 tidy sum in Europe, and was spread very quickly due to poor sanitation, ineffective cures, which would in many cases have made the patient worse, such as ingesting bile or faeces, or relying solely on prayers or religious ideas, rather than actively seeking a reliable cure, which was impossible without a experience of the true cause of diseases, although they did attempt to limit its spread by secure up houses which were infected with the disease. However, the Roman Empire was also poorly quipped to regard 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 employed people such as gong farmers and muck rakers to survey and clean the streets to prevent disease, and remove sewage, although it was not possible to employ enough to maintain the cleanliness. The Romans had a similar system w hich worked to much greater advantage. Medieval towns also developed regulations and fines for littering and dirtying the streets, although these could not be easily enforced.As well as this, the abundant were happy to pay the fines and continue to deposit refuse in the streets. Moreover, skinny the end of the Dark Ages, butchers were banned from working in the inner city, which prevented defilement and assisted 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 situation (albeit without much success. ) This is further evidenced by the average life expectancy in each era it go away from 42 in the Roman era to 35, proving that standards had dropped dramatically since the Roman period.