If romans were so much more hygienic and had better medicine than "barbarians"...

If romans were so much more hygienic and had better medicine than "barbarians", then how come they had the same mortality, diseases and life expectancy as other peoples during antiquity?

Lead
Also, what the fuck do you expect of them? It's not like their Immune Systems were supposed to be stronger, they just didn't smell like shit all the time

Epidemics hit urban centers harder.

>had the same mortality, diseases and life expectancy as other peoples during antiquity?

Sauce?

>Using public shit covered sponges
>Washing themselves with urine
>using animal shit for medicine and cosmetics

Were romans real life poopoo peepee pepes?

Because they were living in extremely dense urban populations which the "barbarians" couldn't ever even come close to approaching before disease would wipe them out.

Don't forget
>using crushed up seashells/decaying fishparts for purple dye

Because they practiced sodomy and got all the wonderful diseases that accompany it.

>Because they practiced sodomy and got all the wonderful diseases that accompany it.
Like what?

Because life expectancy is an average that is skewed by high infant mortality rates that would remain a fact of life until more sophisticated pre and postnatal care that would come much later in history

HIV syphilis gonorrhoea hepatitis etc

Those are transmitted by vaginal sex too. Hell, even oral sex.

8/8 b8 m8

Not even close to the rate of transmission in gay sex.

The point being? Gay partnerships in Rome wasn't incredibly common, it was a bit of a rarity. Certainty not enough to make a large difference for the population. That besides, I'm sure the barbarians had some gay bumming as well.

HIV and syphilis didn´t even existed back then. You are either retarded or merely pretending to be, either way you should stop posting and look down on floor in shame.

>Gay partnerships in Rome wasn't incredibly common, it was a bit of a rarity
Kill yourself immediately you dumbass, it was ingrained into society.

>Homosexuality in ancient Rome often differs markedly from the contemporary West. Latin lacks words that would precisely translate "homosexual" and "heterosexual".[1] The primary dichotomy of ancient Roman sexuality was active/dominant/masculine and passive/submissive/"feminised". Roman society was patriarchal, and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty (libertas) and the right to rule both himself and his household (familia). "Virtue" (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded a citizen even if they were technically free. Although Roman men in general seem to have preferred youths between the ages of 12 and 20 as sexual partners, freeborn male minors were strictly off limits, and professional prostitutes and entertainers might be considerably older.[2]

>References to sex between women are infrequent in the Roman literature of the Republic and early Principate. Ovid finds it "a desire known to no one, freakish, novel ... among all animals no female is seized by desire for female."[158] During the Roman Imperial era, sources for same-sex relations among women are more abundant, in the form of love spells, medical writing, texts on astrology and the interpretation of dreams, and other sources.[159] A graffito from Pompeii expresses the desire of one woman for another:

I wish I could hold to my neck and embrace the little arms, and bear kisses on the tender lips. Go on, doll, and trust your joys to the winds; believe me, light is the nature of men.[160]

>mortality, diseases and life expectancy
Because bathing and freshwater systems cannot stifle a bacterial infection. Until the advent of antibiotics and vaccinations,everyone could have died from seemingly minor infections or injuries. Its important to note that whenever an Emperor came down with a fever, it was always listed of importance in the history of their actions (Augustus, Caligula, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius etc.), since many of them either died quickly because of it or had weakened constitutions.

it always makes me giggle to think of how the roman aristocracy probably reeked of dead fish

>that guy dipping his fried chicken in the stream of shit

roman education everyone

You realize the lead pipes didn't effect them adversely as they were caked with a coating, right?