Timeline for Was there a time when it was easier for slaves than citizens to access state-sponsored medical facilities in Ancient Rome?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2019 at 15:51 | comment | added | TheHonRose | @LangLangC - not all free Roman citizens were rich - hence "bread and circuses" - and, politically, it would have made more sense to provide medical care for poor men with a vote, than slaves with none, and who might be seen as their master's responsibility, just as his cow or mule was. | |
| Jun 13, 2019 at 13:30 | comment | added | MCW♦ | State sponsored services are common for the underclass; bread and circuses. In a status based society accepting charity undermines your gravitas and dignitas. Not sure why this is any more surprising than "water is wet". | |
| Jun 13, 2019 at 13:27 | history | edited | LаngLаngС | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
gbooks link, tag
|
| Feb 14, 2018 at 9:23 | vote | accept | Lars Bosteen | ||
| Feb 14, 2018 at 9:22 | vote | accept | Lars Bosteen | ||
| Feb 14, 2018 at 9:23 | |||||
| Dec 9, 2017 at 14:28 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackHistory/status/939501977414848513 | ||
| Dec 9, 2017 at 11:56 | comment | added | Lars Bosteen | My point is: if the Wiki pages are to be believed, the state was providing something for slaves and soldiers but nothing for citizens (at least, until later). I'm not saying or even implying that citizens, rich or poor, would go to the same 'hospitals' as slaves, just that no state support seems to have been made available for citizens until sometime after it was made available to slaves and soldiers. Seems like it should be the other way round... | |
| Dec 9, 2017 at 11:54 | answer | added | James Cook | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 9, 2017 at 11:53 | answer | added | LаngLаngС | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 9, 2017 at 10:57 | comment | added | LаngLаngС | The "others did not" part makes this difficult. Why should a rich man go to the poor's hospital? If he would have desired so it was unlikely to be forbidden for him? (Legally, socially it would be disaster) | |
| Dec 9, 2017 at 9:43 | history | asked | Lars Bosteen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |