• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

My Pictures

Go to CruxDreams.com
AnimaSinistra said:
I'm handicapped myself. Thank you for posting these pictures. A friend of mine once said that if somebody talked with me for five minutes my handicap was no more noticed. Those words healed me since then.
Click to expand...
No problem in depicting handicapped people , but extremely difficult to crucify . asymetry of limbs would throw unbearable forces on the body core.
 
edmund1 said:
No problem in depicting handicapped people , but extremely difficult to crucify . asymetry of limbs would throw unbearable forces on the body core.
Click to expand...

Many people in Roman times, especially in the slave class, may have been handicapped. If you have ever traveled to a "less-developed" country, you will see quite a few people with withered arms or legs and so on. So the Romans must have often had to nail up unfortunates who were not nice and symmetric with four strong limbs. But no artist has explored this yet...
 
Hangnail said:
Many people in Roman times, especially in the slave class, may have been handicapped. If you have ever traveled to a "less-developed" country, you will see quite a few people with withered arms or legs and so on. So the Romans must have often had to nail up unfortunates who were not nice and symmetric with four strong limbs. But no artist has explored this yet...
Click to expand...
Many former soldiers would have been missing an arm, hand, foot or leg. Not only would they have lost limbs to enemy swords, but amputation would have been the best - often the only - way to treat any wound that had turned gangrenous in order to save the victim's life. This would also be the case with those injured in accidents. In fact, this was true until the invention of modern antibiodics.
How would you crucify a man or woman with only one arm or one leg? It might be worth exploring.
 
Naraku said:
In fact, this was true until the invention of modern antibiodics.
Click to expand...
...until the discovery of antiseptic procedures in surgery. Starting with Joseph Lister. This happened in the mid of the 19th century. Antibiotics occured much later, while and after WW2.
 
N8Dreams said:
...until the discovery of antiseptic procedures in surgery. Starting with Joseph Lister. This happened in the mid of the 19th century. Antibiotics occured much later, while and after WW2.
Click to expand...
Antiseptics did reduce the risk of infection & made surgery a more survivable experience. During the US Civil War, more soldiers died of disease than in battle & many died for hospital infections. Although Lister's work was known in the 1860s, not all American doctors accepted or were even aware of it & even those who were, usually had such no options on the battlefield. But, a clean operating room isn't enough, especially when people are living in conditions that would be considered 3rd World today. The wealthy in Rome may have been fairly clean, but the average person through out the Empire was probably just as filthy as the average European of the Middle Ages. Under these circumstances, any deep cut or penitrating wound could become dangerously septic very quickly.
However, most amputations probably would not have been done to stop infections. Infected wounds would have lead to blood born infection that would have affected the whole body long before gangrene set in. It would have been more likely in cases where bones had been shattered or crushed. In the Civil War, improved munitions meant that a bullet to the arm or leg was likely to splinter the bones. Lacking the ability to rebuild them, surgeons had no other option than to amputate. Of course, the lack of antiseptics meant that many would die from infections, if the survived having an arm or leg sawed off without anesthesia or blood transfusions.
Bottom lins - thank the gods for modern medicine. It may cost an arm & leg, but at least not literally.:cool:
But, I was wrong about one thing: antibiotics are not much use against gangrene. The best treatment is debridement, the removal of dead tissue. Beginning in the XI Century, maggots started being used since they only eat dead tissue. In recent years, this method has regain some favor, especially in chronis cases.
 
N8Dreams said:
Haha, you wanna tease me?
Click to expand...
If you don't explore this topic, who will?!
However, your crux scenes and victims are very clean. I am thinking of something more messy and realistic, where imperfect bodies go with roughly-built crosses, and general dirt and disorder.
But I'm not asking you to deviate from your natural artistic vision: if you take the first step, with beautifully smooth imperfect bodies, that will be interesting in its own way.
 
Naraku said:
Antiseptics did reduce the risk of infection & made surgery a more survivable experience. During the US Civil War, more soldiers died of disease than in battle & many died for hospital infections. Although Lister's work was known in the 1860s, not all American doctors accepted or were even aware of it & even those who were, usually had such no options on the battlefield. But, a clean operating room isn't enough, especially when people are living in conditions that would be considered 3rd World today. The wealthy in Rome may have been fairly clean, but the average person through out the Empire was probably just as filthy as the average European of the Middle Ages. Under these circumstances, any deep cut or penitrating wound could become dangerously septic very quickly.
However, most amputations probably would not have been done to stop infections. Infected wounds would have lead to blood born infection that would have affected the whole body long before gangrene set in. It would have been more likely in cases where bones had been shattered or crushed. In the Civil War, improved munitions meant that a bullet to the arm or leg was likely to splinter the bones. Lacking the ability to rebuild them, surgeons had no other option than to amputate. Of course, the lack of antiseptics meant that many would die from infections, if the survived having an arm or leg sawed off without anesthesia or blood transfusions.
Bottom lins - thank the gods for modern medicine. It may cost an arm & leg, but at least not literally.:cool:
But, I was wrong about one thing: antibiotics are not much use against gangrene. The best treatment is debridement, the removal of dead tissue. Beginning in the XI Century, maggots started being used since they only eat dead tissue. In recent years, this method has regain some favor, especially in chronis cases.
Click to expand...
Absolutely fascinating! The things we can learn on Crux Forums,its a very erudite core of people at heart with hot fantasies! Interesting about the use of maggots coming back,there is interest too in the use of silver,Colloidal Silver being used in Alternative Medicine.
But back to the Romans.Professor Mary Beard's exploits on a bicycle in Rome and Pompeii was very informative! While some wealthy lived in untold luxury (to those at the bottom of the pile!),the majority lived in cramped high-rise living conditions in filthy conditions.Don't ask about the lavs!
She was also interesting,for us,on the conditions of being a slave,female or male.They had no power over their bodies and could be used sexually at will!
There is a luxurious Roman villa intact at Pompei with its own bath house,with mosaics of a nude swimming black African slave with an engorged erection,there t9o please his mistress at her will,or for that matter his master as homosexuality was much more an accepted thing in ancient Greece and Rome than it is in our day!
 
As long as we're talking about icky medical comebacks, leeches are now being used in hospitals. They're not being used to "balance the humors" as in the old days. Instead, they are used to prevent clotting in some types of reconstructive surgery that could otherwise result in insufficeint blood flow to the healing area. The leech saliva has an anticoagulant that prevents clodding.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom