Rome is overrated (except in military)

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,636
Las Vegas, NV USA
Who is overrating Rome? Some history writers maybe. For any writer that praises Rome, you can find one that praises China, the Indus Valley/India, Egypt, Sumer, Greece, Persia, etc. Personally I like the Queen of Sheba's gig (Axum). Since the Queen of Sheba is a legend her exact kingdom is unknown, but for me it's Axum. Definitly in that general area anyway.
 
Last edited:

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,331
No, no, no, just no.
Seems clearly enough that the senate is a rubber stamp stamping on the princeps' desires.
No, but they did become a tad servile and contempt for the Senate of the Augustan period appears in the sources. After all, if all you do is obey someone else, then you are in the Roman mindset a slave (Cassius Dio uses that point quite often). It's hard to imagine the most wealthy and influential men in Rome agreeing to virtual slavery. In fact, Augustus found it necessary to forbid the Senate from exercising its full powers for seven years because they were unable at that point to hold elections without resorting to violence. If those elections had no value, no power to wield, and therefore no status, why the stabbings in the first place? Augustus didn't always have it easy either. Suetonius records that he left the Senate more than once having been shouted down for refusal to allow them decisions.

Once we move toward Tiberius we see a Senate used as a government while the Caesar lived in semi-retirement in Capri for something like two-thirds of his reign, though he was conned into allowing Aelius Sejanus to run Rome in his absence whilst that individual had an agenda of his own.

In any case, the Senate was empowered to make its own decrees during the reign of Augustus. It could be argued that Augustus allowed this to prevent being seen as an absolute ruler - even Julius Caesar, as absolute as he was by virtue of permanent dictatorship, had politely consulted the Senate on ordinary business. This is however touches on something important. The Senate were induced to cooperation for enlightened sel interest.

He seduced the army with bonuses, and his cheap food policy was successful bait for civilians. Indeed, he attracted everybody's goodwill by the enjoyable gift of peace. Then he gradually pushed ahead and absorbed the functions of the senate, the officials, and even the law. Opposition did not exist. War or judicial murder had disposed of the men of spirit. Upper class survivors found that slavish obedience was the way to succeed, both politically and financially. They had profited from the revolution, and so now they liked the security of the existing arrangements better than the dangerous uncertainties of the old regime.
Annals (Tacitus)

In other words, licking Augustus' backside was a career investment. The point here is that rubber stamping was not the point, rather that you were seen to be obedient to his suggestion. A rubber stamping collective was not the case until the Dominate. Clearly the Senate obliged a great many Caesars over the two or three centuries prior to this - there were some they chose not to.

However, rather than seeing Augustus purely as the sole power in Rome, it must be understood that the mechanisms for government and social control had not gone away.


We have observed the importance of patronage in Roman society. With the Principate was created one supreme patron in the person of the Emperor. Of course, he was by no means the only patron: Patronage still pervaded Roman society to every sphere and at every level. But no patron could match the Emperor.
The Legacy of the Republic (David C Braund) - from The Roman World (Ed. John Wacher)

We have 0 evidence of ever an emperor denied his power, and if you can't reject someone, then you don't have power over them.
Didius Julianus. Loathed for his accession by purchase and backed by the errant Praetorian Guard who had murdered his senate-chosen predecessor, the Senate simply sat back and did nothing to help him. Didius, aware that Severus was marching on Rome with an army behind him, went to the Senate to ask for military assistance or support for a power sharing agreement. All he got was a visit from an officer charged by the Senate to finish him off.

Nero - The Senate declared him an Enemy of the State. Whatever one might claim about the timing of that decree, the fact is they had officially deposed him.

Claudius - After the murder of Caligula, magistrates and the urban cohorts had seized power. The Praetorians insisted that Claudius be installed as Caesar but please note that initially this was refused.

I will add more sources later on.
You are more than welcome to do so. However, bear in mind that one can find statements that both support and deny your point.



It may seem suprising that in spite of their vigilant Republicanism many members of the Italian governing class were satisfied by what seems to us a fiction. Yet the Romans, although their intense anxiety to preserve everything good in the past made them instinctively averse to open changes, had a fairly impressive record for modifying their institutions when this was necessary.
The World Of Rome (Michael Grant)
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
1,143
Scotland
No, but they did become a tad servile and contempt for the Senate of the Augustan period appears in the sources. After all, if all you do is obey someone else, then you are in the Roman mindset a slave (Cassius Dio uses that point quite often). It's hard to imagine the most wealthy and influential men in Rome agreeing to virtual slavery. In fact, Augustus found it necessary to forbid the Senate from exercising its full powers for seven years because they were unable at that point to hold elections without resorting to violence. If those elections had no value, no power to wield, and therefore no status, why the stabbings in the first place? Augustus didn't always have it easy either. Suetonius records that he left the Senate more than once having been shouted down for refusal to allow them decisions.

Once we move toward Tiberius we see a Senate used as a government while the Caesar lived in semi-retirement in Capri for something like two-thirds of his reign, though he was conned into allowing Aelius Sejanus to run Rome in his absence whilst that individual had an agenda of his own.

In any case, the Senate was empowered to make its own decrees during the reign of Augustus. It could be argued that Augustus allowed this to prevent being seen as an absolute ruler - even Julius Caesar, as absolute as he was by virtue of permanent dictatorship, had politely consulted the Senate on ordinary business. This is however touches on something important. The Senate were induced to cooperation for enlightened sel interest.

He seduced the army with bonuses, and his cheap food policy was successful bait for civilians. Indeed, he attracted everybody's goodwill by the enjoyable gift of peace. Then he gradually pushed ahead and absorbed the functions of the senate, the officials, and even the law. Opposition did not exist. War or judicial murder had disposed of the men of spirit. Upper class survivors found that slavish obedience was the way to succeed, both politically and financially. They had profited from the revolution, and so now they liked the security of the existing arrangements better than the dangerous uncertainties of the old regime.
Annals (Tacitus)

In other words, licking Augustus' backside was a career investment. The point here is that rubber stamping was not the point, rather that you were seen to be obedient to his suggestion. A rubber stamping collective was not the case until the Dominate. Clearly the Senate obliged a great many Caesars over the two or three centuries prior to this - there were some they chose not to.

However, rather than seeing Augustus purely as the sole power in Rome, it must be understood that the mechanisms for government and social control had not gone away.


We have observed the importance of patronage in Roman society. With the Principate was created one supreme patron in the person of the Emperor. Of course, he was by no means the only patron: Patronage still pervaded Roman society to every sphere and at every level. But no patron could match the Emperor.
The Legacy of the Republic (David C Braund) - from The Roman World (Ed. John Wacher)


Didius Julianus. Loathed for his accession by purchase and backed by the errant Praetorian Guard who had murdered his senate-chosen predecessor, the Senate simply sat back and did nothing to help him. Didius, aware that Severus was marching on Rome with an army behind him, went to the Senate to ask for military assistance or support for a power sharing agreement. All he got was a visit from an officer charged by the Senate to finish him off.

Nero - The Senate declared him an Enemy of the State. Whatever one might claim about the timing of that decree, the fact is they had officially deposed him.

Claudius - After the murder of Caligula, magistrates and the urban cohorts had seized power. The Praetorians insisted that Claudius be installed as Caesar but please note that initially this was refused.


You are more than welcome to do so. However, bear in mind that one can find statements that both support and deny your point.



It may seem suprising that in spite of their vigilant Republicanism many members of the Italian governing class were satisfied by what seems to us a fiction. Yet the Romans, although their intense anxiety to preserve everything good in the past made them instinctively averse to open changes, had a fairly impressive record for modifying their institutions when this was necessary.
The World Of Rome (Michael Grant)


Nice post!
I'm not sure that either the fall of Nero nor Didius are textbook examples of senatorial power, perhaps falling under the heading of 'exceptions that prove the rule' but as May Beard points out in SPQR, most senatorials made a good lifelong career by 'toeing the party line'. The alternative, as hardcore dissenters like Thrasea Paetus and his family and ilk discovered, was eradication.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
I very much question the notion that Islamic medicine was not more advanced than Galen; the Muslims produced far too many notable scholars in these fields; and I think a case could even be made that Byzantine medicine (maybe not public health per se; but at least medical theory) was in advance of the pagan Romans.

I think we should start with surgery (Albucasis vs.....who's a notable pagan Roman surgeon??)

Or we can try Opthamology or anatomy (can you name a single Roman anatomyst or opthamologist, especially one of non-Greek extraction?)


Let in be noted in passing that Galen was of Greek (not latin) extraction.

Indeed, Islamic math and science were generally in advance of the Romans (can you name a single notable Roman Trigonometer?)
How about Roman (not Greek), Indologists or Egyptologists?

With a few exceptions (Columella, Varro, Vitruvius, and/or Galen and Vegetius, and a few others) Roman math and science was marginal compared to that of the Islamicate, and it is far easier to name 20 notable Muslim scientists, mathemeticians, and polymaths, than it is to name 20 Roman ones (for example one could name some roman astronomers, but they would not have been as fundamental to the evolution of astronomy, as Greek or Indo-Arabic astronomy, or even Persian or Andalusian astronomy.) .
That Islamic anatomist were more well known is not proof they were more advanced. With regard to Muslim medicine:

Did it identify human circulation, and the function of the heart, arteries, veins, and lungs ala Harvey? No.

Did they perform systematic studies of human anatomy on human bodies - no.

How was the germ theory of the Muslim more advanced? Specifically, how were the Muslims more advanced medically, name the specifics.

What surgery did the Muslims perform that wasn't being performed by the Romans? Cataracts surgey? No, the Romans did that and had special tools for it. Caesarian section ? - No. Then name the surgeries the Muslims were performing that wasn't being performed by Romans.

Galen worked for Roman emperor, and the Greeks were an integral part of the Roman empire - it was called the Greco_ Roman civilization for a reason. Many of the later Roman emperors were not Roman by birth, but they were still "Roman".


It is true, the Muslims were advanced mathematically, but as I pointed out much of their math was borrowed from India, and the Muslims built upon the earlier Greco-Roman works, just as the Europeans built upon and far surpassed the earlier Greco-Roman and Muslim work. "Arabic" numerals were not invented by Arabs or Muslims, but ultimately came from India , for example.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2013
731
Texas
Islamicate surgery

That Islamic anatomist were more well known is not proof they were more advanced. With regard to Muslim medicine:

Did it identify human circulation, and the function of the heart, arteries, veins, and lungs ala Harvey? No.
Al-Nafis analyzed pulminary circulation. Although Al-Nafis influence on western influence medicine is unclear; his influence is by no means untenable (at least that's the impression once can get upon reading Joseph Needham's "Science in Traditional China". Now how would that reach all the way to England before Italy or Iberia? Because, of course, it didn't; Harvey was simply not the first scholar (European or otherwise) to analyze pulminary circulation.



You have not named a single Roman anatamist or surgeon; quite a dodge even by the standards of an un-referenced point.


Did they perform systematic studies of human anatomy on human bodies - no.
I don't see the relevance; though of course scholars such as Ibn Tufail could argue support for anaylsis. Are you suggesting that they didn't know what an autopsy was, as the Romans did, despite having gotten their some of their medicine from Greco-Roman medicine?



How was the germ theory of the Muslim more advanced? Specifically, how were the Muslims more advanced medically, name the specifics.

What surgery did the Muslims perform that wasn't being performed by the Romans? Cataracts surgey? No, the Romans did that and had special tools for it. Caesarian section ? - No. Then name the surgeries the Muslims were performing that wasn't being performed by Romans.]
It was the Muslims, not the Romans, who first identified the scabies mite. Romans did not have germ theory; and the concept was not fundamental to western medicine until the 19th century.

I don't know what the Romans had (I doubt they referenced as many surgical tools).

Did the Romans use catgut for internal stitching? foreceps in childbirth?


The first notable surgeons in the west were French (see Guy de Chauliac; and they didn't work with Galen's precedents (they basically worked off of Islamicate precedents; and/or Byzantine surgeon Paul of Aegena; not Galen).






It is true, the Muslims were advanced mathematically, but as I pointed out much of their math was borrowed from India, and the Muslims built upon the earlier Greco-Roman works, just as the Europeans built upon and far surpassed the earlier Greco-Roman and Muslim work. "Arabic" numerals were not invented by Arabs or Muslims, but ultimately came from India , for example.
Regardless; we don't have much in the way of notable Roman mathematicians, where as we have more notable Islamicate mathemeticians or polymaths who had mathematics under their belt (such as Al-Biruni or Omar Khayyam) , and even discoveries attributable to them (such as Marwazi's discovery of tangents and cotangents.)

Lacking sine, cones, cosines (not to mention concept of zero), the Romans were considerably outclassed when it came to mathematics by the Muslims, either in terms of theoretical advancement or notable scholars therein.

Whereas we have only one notable (pagan/latin/Italian) Roman scholar in the field of engineering and architecture, we have multiple Islamicate ones (like Akbar the Greak, Ottoman scholars, polymaths and architects such as Mimar Sinan)
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
Al-Nafis analyzed pulminary circulation. Although Al-Nafis influence on western influence medicine is unclear; his influence is by no means untenable (at least that's the impression once can get upon reading Joseph Needham's "Science in Traditional China". Now how would that reach all the way to England before Italy or Iberia? Because, of course, it didn't; Harvey was simply not the first scholar (European or otherwise) to analyze pulminary circulation. 
"Analyzed/pulminary circulation" is a vague term. Al-Nafis did not come up with the modern theory of circulation, of blood going out through the aorta through the veins and return via the veins to the heart, and heart acting as a pump. It is dishonest imply Al-Nafis did. The Muslim knowledge was not fundamentally more advance.



You have not named a single Roman anatamist or surgeon; quite a dodge even by the standards of an un-referenced point. 
Yes I did. Galen worked for a Roman emperor and and lived in Rome. Even if he was Greek by birth, he can still be considered Roman, as part of the Greco-Roman civilization. Many Roman emperors were not born in Rome, or even of Italian extraction, yet they were most definitely Roman. Keep in mind, everyone in the Roman empire eventually became Roman.

You have not identified surgies performed by Muslims not performed by Roman physcians. You are rhe one not dodging things, I specifically state that not knowing the name Roman physcians is proof of nothing.




I don't see the relevance; though of course scholars such as Ibn Tufail could argue support for anaylsis. Are you suggesting that they didn't know what an autopsy was, as the Romans did, despite having gotten their some of their medicine from Greco-Roman medicine?
The understanding of modern human anatomy requires the systematic dissection of human boides, which the Muslims did not do, to systematic see how the human muscles and organs were put together. Drawings by Da Vinci and others demonstrate this knowledge that Muslims lacked. Galen was forced to base some of his observations on animals, since ancient and Muslim customs did not allow human dissection of corpses. Muslims understood that some of Galen observations were wrong, but they could not make any improvement to a major degree because they did not engage in the systematic and wide spread dissection of human corpses that you found in Christian Europe starting with the Renaissance.



It was the Muslims, not the Romans, who first identified the scabies mite. Romans did not have germ theory; and the concept was not fundamental to western medicine until the 19th century. 
Big deal. Identifying scabies mites is not coming up wirh germ theory, and reallym doesn rank as a fundamental advance. The issue is whether the Muslims were more advanced than the Roman, not when the germ theory was developed. So stop trying to side track the issue.

The Romans boiled their medical instruments before use, and applied acetum to wounds, which would sterilize them. Did the Muslims boil their instruments, and what did they apply to wounds to sterlize them.


I don't know what the Romans had (I doubt they referenced as many surgical tools).

Did the Romans use catgut for internal stitching? foreceps in childbirth? 
If you don't know the answers, you have zero right to assert that Muslim medicine was more advanced, since you are too ignorant of Roman medicine to make the claim.

Yes, the Romans used catgut for stitching, and they had foreceps. We know what Roman medical instruments were like, since we found a large number of them at Pompeii. Go look up the instruments found at Pompeii, and provide an actual medieval Muslim instrument not found among the Roman omes, and provide an actual medieval Muslim example for every Roman instrument found. If you can't, then that shows Muslim medicine was inferior.


The first notable surgeons in the west were French (see Guy de Chauliac; and they didn't work with Galen's precedents (they basically worked off of Islamicate precedents; and/or Byzantine surgeon Paul of Aegena; not Galen).
The European surgeons eventually advanced far beyond the Muslim ones. The works of Muslims and the Byzantine Paul of Aegena were centuries more recent than Galen, and while fundamentally, there were no major advances, there were some advances. I didn't say there were no advances at all, just that there were no major advances - that fundamentally, Muslim medicine was not more advance, although there were some advances.



Regardless; we don't have much in the way of notable Roman mathematicians, where as we have more notable Islamicate mathemeticians or polymaths who had mathematics under their belt (such as Al-Biruni or Omar Khayyam) , and even discoveries attributable to them (such as Marwazi's discovery of tangents and cotangents.) 

Lacking sine, cones, cosines (not to mention concept of zero), the Romans were considerably outclassed when it came to mathematics by the Muslims, either in terms of theoretical advancement or notable scholars therein. 

Sure, using knowledge they obtained from India, Muslim math was more advanced, But the Muslim's did not create the concept of zero. The Muslims were also centuries after the Romans, and our own mathematics is far more advanced than the Muslims, the Muslim mathematicians were far outclassed by modern ones.

,

Whereas we have only one notable (pagan/latin/Italian) Roman scholar in the field of engineering and architecture, we have multiple Islamicate ones (like Akbar the Greak, Ottoman scholars, polymaths and architects such as Mimar Sinan)
Again, the Muslim engineers were centuries more recent than the Roman omes, so less likely to be forgotten. As I said, the fact we know the names of more Muslim ones does not prove anything major.

The Muslim engineers never matched the Coliseum, or any of the Roman amphitheaters, and the Muslim engineers never matched the Pantheon, nor did the Muslim engineers master concrete. Muslim roads were inferior, and the Muslims never built an artifical harbor as the Romans did at Caesaria in Palestine. While the Romans were capable of building brick buildings, and fine mosaics of tile, and fine pieces of glass, the Muslim were incapable building a single building out of concrete.

Muslims did not master the creation of waterpowered sawmills to cut wood and stone. While in the many centuries that separated Muslim times from Roman times, the technology of the Muslims was built upon that of the Romans. Yes, the Muslims made some advances over the Roman, it would be surprising if they didn't. What is amazing is the technologies that the Muslims still lagged the Romans despite the advantage of several centuries.
 

johnincornwall

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,872
Cornwall
Scabies mite? LOL

I think Mr Piccolo comes on here every now and again as a WUM, then disappears again for a while having wound everybody up with doses of utter nonsense about muslims.
 
Nov 2013
731
Texas
Muslim scholars

Thank you for addressing my post correcting errors within. One thing I like about your posts is rhetorical crap like this; even though you should know enough about Andalusian scholars, to contribute to the discussion.

Obviously, an exhaustive cross comparison detail of Muslim scholarship with Roman scholarship is going to be difficult (especially as what consitituted Roman was not necessarily an ethnicity, and could overlap with Greek scholarship in that regard) That would require an entire research paper. ; but Al-Nafis analysis of pulminary circulation is medicine that is in effectively in advance of Roman medical theory (regardless of whether or not he brought such theory up to the levels of William Harvey). Al-Nafis had a more advanced concept of circulation than Galen did:

"Blood from the right chamber of the heart must arrive at the left chamber, but there is no direct pathway between them. The thick septum of the heart is not perforated and does not have visible pores as some people thought or invisible pores as Galen thought. The blood from the right chamber must flow through the vena arteriosa (pulmonary artery) to the lungs, spread through its substances, be mingled there with air, pass through the arteria venosa (pulmonary vein) to reach the left chamber of the heart, and there form the vital spirit..." [9][10]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




BOth you and Bart Dale shifted goalposts (the goalpost is not necessarily advances, but whether Muslim medical scholarship was effectively in advnace of what the Romans had, and whether or not they produced more notable scholars, regardless of precedent, and sure as heck regardless of whether or not it was brought up to 19th century levels.) Even you should recognize that Muslim medical scholars were not simply apostles of Roman (or even Greco-Roman) ones.

Now tell me, oh glorious John in Cornwall, do you have anything productive to say about Andalusian scholars like say Al-Baitar? Or you are going to post something rhetorical and empty and un-informative (like your last post) and then whine about people not studying your posts?

Bart has a not attributed a single discovery to Galen; whereas pointing out Muslim scholars (Rhazes) were perhaps the first to distinguish between measles and smallpox, is noteworthy, and evidence that their scholarship was in advance of Galen's. Indeed this would be true categorically of their scholarship.I don't think the Romans (in contrast to Abulcasis) described what an abdominal pregnancy was.

I typed catgut for INTERNAL STITCHING, and foreceps FOR CHILDBIRTH, not as to whether or not these tools were known to Galen.

Furthermore, the discussion was not just about surgery; Bart did not name a single Roman anatamist (instead pretending Galen was an anatomist per se) and named no Optahmalogists either, (Muhammed ibn Aslam Al-Ghafiqi being a noted Andalusian opthamologist. )

Galen was never authoritative per se in western medicine (since the late middle ages I mean), even Bart somewhat conceded that they worked of Islamicate and Byzantine precedent. Ibn Sina, Paul of Aegina, and Andalusian scholars was what they were working from. The purpose here is discussion, not just research papers.


It's a shame for all your hispanophilia, you have nothing to offer WRT to analysis of Andalusian scholarship. That's a bit like a Japanophile not knowing anything about the Samurai. I guess I'll have to go check out George Sarton; because I know if I ask you for some good books to research on the history of Islamicate scholarship, I'll get rhetorical answers like "Oh, I don't need to tell you!!!"1111.


When it comes to surgery, let us compare the Al-Tasrif to whatever the most authoritative work Galen did on surgery (which was probably none; but feel free to put one forth.) Then we may cross-compare which was the more advanced scholarship WRT to surgery. So for our first analysis, we shall do a cross comparison between Galen and Albucasis, and see which is the more "advanced".

In fact, I doubt Galen even wrote a comprehensive book on surgery (but if he did, put it forth that we may cross-compare).

Now as for references (this may take a while), there are google books on Albucasis:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=albucasis

Now, as we don't have a work on surgery (per se) of Galen's to work with (more what is said about him), can we establish if, like Albucasis, he knew of the ligating of severed arteries?


REFERENCES: See science and religion in Mameluk Egypt for more on Al-Nafis analysis of circulation


https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15858785-science-and-religion-in-mamluk-egypt

I'll try to get some George Sarton in here (and his noted work
An Introduction to the
History of Science
and as to what he had to say about the Al-Tasrif:
--------------------------------


Scabies mite? LOL

I think Mr Piccolo comes on here every now and again as a WUM, then disappears again for a while having wound everybody up with doses of utter nonsense about muslims.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2017
2,996
Connecticut
Generally think this exception to many people eliminates the main premise. I think most would agree Rome is "overrated, except for military" but military is such a huge part of how empires are rated, the question I'm going to ask is so what? Sure they paled in the shadows of the Greeks(whose religion they copied) in terms of cultural and intellectual achievements but the Romans built a Republic that endured for several centuries(people who celebrate Athenian Democracy as this groundbreaking success on the other hand seem to forget it lasted a nice 100 years, at least the era that most people refer to when they mean Athenian Democracy). In terms of architecture while the Romans pale in comparison to the Greeks and Egyptians, they still had really impressive architecture especially under Hadrian. You had religion go through an interesting phase as well during the Roman period, they didn't just copy Greek religion and give birth to Christianity but you had the Mithra thing and you had isis emerge as the largest god. In terms of science Ptolemy was from the Roman period. Rome's biggest success was by far the military and it's other achievements pale but again, all these classical civilizations that were more impressive got conquered by the Romans. Also while Greece and Egypt are clearly superior by non military metrics, what about Carthage, what about Parthia, Persia etc? Rome also IME doesn't get mentioned as much as the Greeks and Egyptians, don't get me wrong it gets talked about a great deal but the city states of Athens and Sparta probably have close to as much attention. Also this is my opinion for right NOW, in the past I strongly believe Rome was overrated(most times a European ruler had anything resembling Roman success they started using Roman titles and often dressed up in Roman garb for their coronation's, I mean Julius Caesar's last name became a substitute for King, imagine if people in the second millenium AD in the Middle East and Africa started crowning themselves Pharaoh? ).
 
Last edited:
Nov 2013
731
Texas
History of Science

When it comes to surgery, let us compare the Al-Tasrif to whatever the most authoritative work Galen did on surgery (which was probably none; but feel free to put one forth.) Then we may cross-compare which was the more advanced scholarship WRT to surgery. So for our first analysis, we shall do a cross comparison between Galen and Albucasis, and see which is the more "advanced".

In fact, I doubt Galen even wrote a comprehensive book on surgery (but if he did, put it forth that we may cross-compare).
What I generalized about Al-Nafis was barely even controversial, was forgivably well referenced (3 references actually; just less than impeccable ones...) yet dismissed (because John in Cornwall does not know what the flying **** he is talking about WRT to the history of science, even though as a hispanophile he should know a thing or 2 about Andalusian science, and contributed that positively to the discussion. ) and is more easily researched by anyone who wishes to follow up.

An analysis of the history of science is not going to be addressed in a single plattitude or post. The most flawed assertions of mine were in surgery (but not general medical science, as I rightfully pointed out that the Islamicate put forth more notable opthamoglists than the Romans did, especially excluding those of Greek extraction. Indeed, the Arab ophthalmologist ʿAlī ibn ʿĪsā al-Kahhal is (according to Wikipedia) seems to be the first to describe or discover VKH syndrome.(3))


Relying too much on improperly scrutinized websites was a source of error; as was oversimplifying their assertions.(thus, this website is a less than impeccable reference; but seems to be fairly well sourced as far as a website on the history of surgery goes. (1).

Another source of flawed assertions WRT to surgery is that the Andalusian surgeon Albucasis is actually not the best cross comparison to Galen.
Galen, as a general physician would be more analagous to the Persian scholar Ibn Sina; so a cross comparsion bears there as well.
For a website which has some relevance to Ibn Sina having some knowledge of surgery and diagnostics, see 2.

For a general (if perhaps dated) history of science, check out the noted scientist George Sarton.



THE IOS MINARET [AN ONLINE ISLAMIC MAGAZINE]

(2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3860635/


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_ibn_Isa_al-Kahhal
 
Last edited: