Literary Authors 
 	The principal objective of this section is to review the references made to either the veterinarii and mulomedicii and their role in the welfare of all equids, but primarily the horse, rather than the medicine and medical practices. Also, whether it is possible to define whether the authors were themselves practitioners or knowledgeable laymen and to whom the treatises were intended with regard to readership. For although the horse was easy to manage, according to Pliny the Elder,  they were bred to work hard until their old age in various roles and so required a high degree of welfare.  
 	The earliest reference to a horse-doctor, in Latin literature, can be found in the agricultural treatise of Varro’s, De Re Rustica.  Marcus Terentius Varro was born in 116 B.C. in the Sabine territory, north east of Rome, and was educated in both Rome and Athens by the Latin scholar Aelius and the academic philosopher Antiochus of Ascalon respectively. He reached the level of Praetor in his public career and wrote several works of which two have survived, De Lingua Latina and De Re Rustica.  He was clearly a high ranking, educated man and not a practitioner of veterinary medicine. Yet it is in his agricultural treatise that a reference to the requirement of medical treatment for horses can be found. Varro wrote a detailed account as to determining the age, conformation, breeding, and weening of horses. 
He also pointed out that different types of horses are best suited for different types of work. He concluded that with regard to the horse there are a great number of symptoms and treatments which the head-groom should have written down; but in Greece it is the hippiatroi or horse-doctor that would carry out this work.36 There is no indication what treatment was to be carried out by the head-groom. Also it appears that the hippiatroi may have practised only in Greece rather than throughout the empire at this time and possibly the reason it was a Greek term with no Latin interpretation. So, it was the farm workers or slaves that carried out any treatment which meant they must have had a good level of literacy and were encouraged to read the early ‘veterinary’ work by Mago of Carthage which had been translated into Latin.  
 	Similar to Varro, Columella also wrote an agricultural treatise but with some significant differences. Lucius Iunius Moderatus Columella was born in Spain in the early part of the first century A.D. and wrote an extensive manual on Roman agriculture for rich landowners.38 Columella’s first part on horses follows a similar pattern to that of Varro with the noticeable difference being in the medicine and treatment. A number of ailments are addressed such as coughs, scabies, flies, and headaches.  Yet there is no mention of who should administer the treatment and so may be accepted that it would have been the headgroom or farm hands. However, Columella does use the term veterinarius twice when writing about the treatment of other animals. Firstly, when naming a swelling on the tongues of oxen that was known as ‘frogs’ by the veterinarius and secondly on the use of a plant for the treatment of sheep that was called lungwort also by the veterinarius.40 Again, as with horses, it is only the treatment that is described and not who should implement it. The mention of the veterinarius is only to establish what an ailment or plant was called and not that they were responsible for the treatment. Perhaps, it could then be interpreted that the veterinarius was used in consultation and it was the farms hands or slaves that carried out their instructions in this early stage of Roman veterinary medicine. 
 	After Columella it is not until Late Antiquity that there appears to be a flourishing of veterinary treatise, albeit equine focused, thus emphasising the importance of the horse in the Roman Empire during this time period.  Between A.D. 330 and 450 there were the treatises of Pelagonius, Chiron, or the Mulomedicina Chironis as it is more often referred to, and Vegetius.  Later, on which the date is often contested to the fifth or sixth century, there was Palladius who wrote both an agriculture and veterinary treatise, albeit originally one piece of work that later became separated and recognised as two.  Lastly, there was the Hippiatrica which was a document written in Greek focusing on the care of horses, compiled in the fifth or sixth century and was the collection of works attributed to seven 
Late Antiquity veterinary authors, one of which was Pelagonius.  
 	The layout of Pelagonius’ veterinary treatise in Artis Veterinariae takes the form of letters between himself and his patrons or friends.  The main focus of Pelagonius was not on the iumentum, or the horse used in the mundane everyday work life, but in the well bred horses of the elite and racehorses. There is no advice on either breeding or for the horse injured that served in the cavalry, although his advice and remedies given in his letters would also have been appropriate for them.  Pelagonius does not use the term veterinarius but instead mulomedicus which may now be the more commonly used term.  What is difficult to ascertain is whether Pelagonius was a practitioner or merely a knowledgeable layman who advised the elite. It would appear that Pelagonius borrowed heavily from the work of a Greek veterinarian Apsyrtus and may well have also translated the work of Eumelus.  This would indicate that although he may not have been a ‘hands-on’ practitioner he was educated and intelligent enough to understand and help those who sought his advice. 
 	In direct contrast the Mulomedicina Chironis dealt with all equids involved in all areas of Roman life. It is not clear who Chiron was and it has been suggested that the name may have been a pseudonym for Hierocles, though no evidence is offered to support this.  The readership for his work is not exclusively defined and so may have been available to both the layman and the veterinarius regardless of their social class. The work uses the term veterinarius but does not address them directly but may be supposed that the detail of the remedies was for their use especially with regard to the detail around operations.  
 	Vegetius, who was unhappy with the standard and quality of work by Pelagonius and the ‘vulgar’ Latin of the Mulomedicina Chironis chose to compile his own veterinary treatise.  Vegetius was not a practitioner of veterinary medicine but a rich land and horse owner who was concerned for the welfare of horses and the lack of veterinarii due to the role’s low social status. As a consequence, the readership of his work was most likely to have been those of his own social standing in order that they were capable of overseeing the treatment of their stock by their slaves.  His objective was not to write new remedies and cures for the horse but to collect and compile all the Latin literature on the subject into one veterinary treatise, whilst also consulting with veterinarii and medicii. However, a possible fault with his work is that whilst refining the Latin of earlier work he may have misunderstood the intricacies of the medical treatment.  As this is a compilation of work from different timespans both the terms veterinarii and mulomedicii are used throughout the treatise.  
 	The Hippiatrica is a body of work written in Greek focusing on the overall care and treatment of the horse compiled in the fifth or sixth century comprising of the work of seven authors from Late Antiquity.  As a result, the text as a whole covered treatments from disease, illness, and injuries, to that of breeding and overall stable-management.  The seven authors of the Hippiatrica were as follows, Anatolius, about whom very little was known but may have been the jurist Anatolius of Berytus and a holder of various high offices.  Someone of such a high standing was then unlikely to have been a practitioner. Secondly, Eumelus who was referred to by Apsyrtus as being the “greatest horse-doctor” and so in all likelihood was a practitioner of veterinary medicine.   He is then followed by Apsyrtus from the fourth century who may well have served as a soldier in the legions on the Danube where it is thought he learnt his skills through observation before putting them into practice.59 The next author was Pelagonius who has already been discussed above. Theomnestus was a horseman and owner who again wrote extensively on all aspects of horse welfare and drew parallels with other agricultural and veterinary authors. However, what was unique with this writer was that he provided separate case studies with regard to different ailments.  Hierocles offered nothing new in his works and borrowed extensively from Apsyrtus.  Hippocrates, not to be confused with his more famous namesake, wrote extensively in the first person which has been taken to indicate that he was himself a practitioner, as well as an author, but not in which area or context he practised.   
 	Although not an extensive list of authors it is clear that there were a number of highly educated and articulate writers of veterinary medicine in Late Antiquity. It is not always clear whether they were practitioners or wealthy laymen writing on behalf of or to their contemporaries. These writers on closer inspection were certainly of a higher social status than the everyday practitioners, discussed in the following section, found within inscriptions. 
5. Inscriptions 
 	The number of inscriptions for the variations of veterinarius and mulomedicus on funerary stelae and elsewhere appear to have increased from the eight identified by Walker as being of any significance to at least fifteen on the Epigraphik-Databank Clauss – Slaby.  However, as Walker stated in his original examination, that although these are still only a limited amount of funerary inscriptions they are noteworthy for their variety. Where he was perhaps incorrect was when attempting to attach social class and function to specific roles; in that the veterinarii were of private or military practice, and the mulomedicii were hereditary slaves working within the public domain.  Although class is identified such as servus or libertus it does not always follow that they would be identified as a mulomedicus rather than a veterinarius as will be evidenced below. Walker may have a valid point in advising caution when reading the job titles of the deceased as there may be some embellishment in order to give them a more exalted position.  However, when considering the low status associated with the role the need for caution may not always be necessary. 
 	There are two inscriptions that immediately put the association of class into question when attributing one job title to social status. Firstly, on a stela from Rome, Narcisso was a veterinary slave to Numisa, servo veterinario.  The second is from Carthage where Secundus was the veterinary slave of Marcus, servus veterinarius.  From these two stelae it is known who the deceased were, the name of the Dominus, that they were both veterinarii, and they were both slaves. So if the job title was to match the social status then it may be expected that Narcisso and Secundus should have been mulomedicii rather than veterinarii. Although some may follow this formula it is not necessary always the case and so all the information is required before assigning class to a job title. Perhaps as these two were slaves to a rich individual rather than in public service that the term veterinarius was deemed more appropriate. 
 	The next three inscriptions show that the veterinarius was attached to either the military or Circus. Lucius, who may well have also been a freedman was described as the veterinarius legionis.  In another, where there are only the remnants of a name, the veterinarian belonged to the first Pretorian Cohort, medico cohortis I praetoriae veterinario.  Thirdly, there is an individual who worked for the blue faction at the Circus and so a private rather than a public practitioner, medici primi factionis venetae veterinarii.  These last three examples with the use of veterinarius do fit with the association of military and private practice, but as previously mentioned it is more likely that the term is more attributed to the treatment of horses rather than the social class of the practitioner. There are also tendencies to combine the terms veterinarius and medicus perhaps to distinguish a particular medical area or simply to use the term veterinario with no ties to a specific function or group.   
 	There are five inscriptions that use the term mulomedicus in its relevant grammatical case. Three of them are fairly straightforward and either give no or some indication of who they may or may not have worked for.  Although, one mulomedicus appears to have worked or been associated with a high ranking individual who was possibly a Senator.  There are two inscriptions that include the term iumentarius alongside that of medicus. The use of iumentarius may imply that these individuals were responsible for the welfare and treatment of all equids and not just the horse.  However, these inscriptions are part of a list of other tradesmen, especially the one from Ulubrae where they were also all freedmen.75 This list of men could, if it were possible to date, also be associated with the laws in the Theodosian Code and Justinian Digest and so exempt from public duties and to concentrate on improving their skills which will be discussed in more detail below. There also appears to be a husband and wife team who may have both been mulomedicii (figs. 10 & 11). This stela appears to be celebrating the ailments and cures that were within their skill-set.  Lastly there is a rather unusual stela in that it is difficult to explain as the individual was a medicus equarius et venator. This is a complete change of title, although it is clear that he is a horsedoctor, what was the significance of including that he was also a hunter?77 Unless, that is, he specialised in horses that were used for hunting. 
 	The inscriptions held in the Epigraphik-Databank, whether they are funerary stelae or lists of tradesmen, were mainly found across Italy with exceptions being found in Macedonia and Carthage. However, there is evidence that a partial inscription on a pottery sherd was found in the Thames River in the late nineteenth century (figs. 12 & 13). The inscription is in Greek and the sherd formed the lower part of the wall of a black urn which was of coarse Romano-British ware. After examination it is believed that part of the Greek text is a Greek-Latin compound of mulus and physicus thus giving the term mulomedicus. Considering the location of the find in the River Thames there may well have been a cursus publicus in operation in nearby Londinium that would have required the services of a mulomedicus.   
 	Unless stated within the inscription it is not always possible to ascertain the social status of an individual. However, in many cases it is indicated that an individual may well be a servus or libertus and it is this inclusion that determines the class rather than the specific job title of either veterinarius or mulomedicus. Although the location of the inscriptions can give an indication where the horse-doctor may have practiced, the following section is further evidence that veterinarii can be found throughout the Roman Empire. 
6. Vindolanda Tablets and Florida Ostraka. 
 	The additional evidence that veterinarii were working in England was provided after the discovery of two diptychs from the fort at Vindolanda. The fort was established on the northern frontier border of Roman-Britain decades before the building of Hadrian’s wall and went through five phases of building and re-building.  It is in two of these periods that two diptychs, now more commonly referred to as the Vindolanda tablets as an overall collection, were recovered with references to two different veterinarii. 
 	The first tablet to be discussed (fig. 14) was found in the context of period three and so has an approximate date between A.D. 97 – 105. It was a letter from Chrauttius, based in Vindolanda to a recipient named Veldeius who was at that time based in London and was the equisioni co(n)s(ularis). The line that is of particular interest is, 
“[…]et Virilem veterinarium rogabis illum ut forficem quam mihi promissit pretio mittas per aliquem de nostris.” 
“[…]and ask Virilis the veterinary doctor. Ask him whether you may send through one of our friends the pair of shears which he promised me for money.”  
This is of particular interest as, unlike the veterinarii mentioned in the section above, Virilis is very much alive and working. He quite clearly has close connections with the fort at Vindolanda and possibly the veterinarian for the Roman army, yet at the time of the letter being written he appears to be based in London. Does this then mean that the army veterinarius moved between major towns and barracks as and when required? Is this the reason for the request within the letter due to Virilis having paid a visit to Vindolanda and had now returned to London for the foreseeable future? Unfortunately, it is not possible to answer with any confidence yet, there would seem to be a certain amount of flexibility and movement within this role. 
 	The second diptych (fig. 15) from Vindolanda discovered in the context of period four and so dates to around A.D. 104 – 120. The difference with this tablet to the one above is that it is a list detailing monies paid and monies owed, although for what is unknown. At line eight it states, ab Alione veterinario (denarios) X, from Alio the veterinary doctor, denarii 10. So it would appear that the veterinarian Alio had made a payment but unfortunately no detail is given as to what is may have been for.  However, it would seem that Alio was based at the fort at Vindolanda. It has been suggested that his cognomen is either from Italy or Spain. There is also a similarity in name with one of the inscriptions mentioned above of an [A]llio who was a veterinarius for the first Pretorian Cohort, not the same person but an interesting comparison in a namesake.  What is apparent is that there were practicing veterinarii and mulomedicii in the North and South of England. 
 	There were also horse-doctors working in the far south of the Roman Empire in Upper Egypt. In 1973 the Florida State University purchased 32 ostraka and 25 pieces of papyrus. The ostraka were mostly written in Greek and have a possible providence of Edfu. The majority appear to concern military matters and were written as private letters rather than formal documents. Based on the style of handwriting they have been dated to the mid second century A.D.   
 	The first of these is a letter from Herenius but very little is legible after the salutation. However, on line four there is a mention of a doctor which bears a resemblance to hippiatroi, or at least the ending.  Due to the lack of surviving text it is not possible to know what this letter was about. On the second ostraka the letter is complete and was from Publius to his son who was serving in the Roman cavalry. The son appears to be at a remote military outpost in Upper Egypt and so his father had sent him some meat via Quintus the veterinarian.85 No other information about Quintus is given but it appears that he may have either been appointed or returning to this particular outpost. Or perhaps, it may be the case that the veterinarius travelled between outposts as and when required or on a simple rotation plan for set periods of time. 
 	What is evident, that based on the inscriptions, tablets, and ostraka the veterinarii and mulomedicii were in operation throughout the Empire. Yet, did they have a free rein to do as they pleased or were there laws to keep them operating within certain parameters? The next section will review the edicts and codes that were directed toward the veterinarii and mulomedicii. 
7. Edicts and Codes 
 	As has been shown within the inscriptions and correspondence the terms veterinarius, mulomedicus, and hippiatroi are all used dependant on whether writing in Latin or Greek. Even the use of veterinarius and mulomedicus becomes harder to define when attempting to attach class and areas of work for the individual when it is not stated. So it is that both the Latin terms are used within the Edicts and Codes and in a context that can often raise more questions than it answers. 
 	In 301 A.D. to combat high inflation and extortionate prices Diocletian brought in a 
Price Edict that would fix maximum wages and prices.  Both Adams and Walker quote Vegetius from his prologue in Book One that the mulomedicii lacked dignitas and distinction; whilst being driven by greed of excessive pricing that outweighed the cost of the animal.  Although an element of this may be true, at times it would appear that too much emphasis is placed on the opinion of one rich horse owner such as Vegetius. The cost of keeping a number of horses would have been high and so it can be of no real surprise that Vegetius would not have always been happy with his vet bill, thus not always making him the most reliable of sources. Due to the lack of sources voicing their opinion on the veterinarius it is not possible to fully understand whether they did indeed lack in dignitas based on one man’s written work.   
The Diocletian Edict issued two maximum prices for the services of a mulomedicus. For clipping and trimming hooves it was six denarii per animal and for the bleeding and cleaning of the head it was twenty denarii per animal. . Vegetius wrote more than one chapter in Book One with regard to bloodletting, from the skill required of the practitioner to the number of ailments that warranted such a course of action.  With regard to the hoof it can grow an average of ?” a month, sometimes up to ?”, dependant on genetics, diet, exercise, and environment; growth decreases in the winter and increases in the summer. As such trimming of the hooves would be required every three to six weeks.   This would indicate that these were two regularly practiced procedures and as such required the prices to be included and regulated within the Edict rather than point toward the avarice and integrity of the mulomedicus. 
The Codex Theodosianus was a collection of imperial laws from 313 A.D. that were collected and published between A.D. 429 and 438.  There are two laws within the collection that apply to the mulomedicus. One of these dates to August A.D. 370 and stated that the mulomedicus at the cursus publicus should be given no extra allowance as the subsistence allowance and clothing they already received should be more than enough.  Walker assumes that the mulomedicii were still hereditary slaves working at the cursus publicus and as such may have been paid illegally and thus not entitled to be paid any more than the allowance entitled to a slave. If the cost of using the cursus publicus was shouldered by the imperial exchequer, then those using it would not expect to pay out for the services of a mulomedicus.93 However, the cursus publicus from the time of Augustus may well have been quite different by Late Antiquity. As such when the Edict of Diocletian is issued with regard to prices concerning the mulomedicus was there now an expectation that this applied to all wherever they worked? Or is it a sign that the mulomedicus knew their worth and so expected more, even if they were a slave? It would appear that some sort of lost or unrecorded incident clearly took place in order that there was a need for this law to be issued. 
 	The law issued in 337 A.D. by the Emperor Constantine may also have had some impact on the way the mulomedicus behaved. This law stated that all skilled artisans on an attached list should be excluded from all compulsory public services in order to practise their own skills and pass them on to their children so that all generations are proficient in the line of work they do; on this list the mulomedicus was included.  This law is a recognition on the importance of the role of the mulomedicus in Late Antiquity and may also explain the flourishing of veterinary treatise, as discussed above, that had begun and would continue. 
 	This law will be seen again in the Justinian Digest albeit in a slightly different context. The Digest was compiled from 572 A.D. under the orders of Justinian, from the existing codices and new laws, by a commission of ten men who had the power to edit and delete texts as they saw appropriate.  It would appear the law from the Theodosian Code discussed above had been edited into the Digest to explain further what it meant to be immunes and excluded from public duty in order to focus on improving their skills. However, the term used this time was veterinarius.  Walker suggests that the names of professions were written down at random and warns that it would be dangerous to draw any conclusions from this list and law.97 However, Walker appears not to have read the earlier Code of Theodosius and so missed that perhaps the Digest law was an edited version of a previous one. For after the compilation of the Hippiatrica no further veterinary treatise appears to be been written or published;  perhaps this edited law was a step to encourage further development of veterinary medicine.  
 	What is important was that the role of the mulomedicus and veterinarius was recognised and needed to be regulated and protected. Laws were passed to help maintain the prices as well as allow the practitioner to practice and develop their skills; for these laws were in place at a time when the veterinary treatises were being written and published. 
8. Representations and References to Medical Instruments 
 	Evidence regarding the medical instruments used by the veterinarius and mulomedicus is sparse. The most common representations or explanations tend to be either the variations of the hipposandal, soleae ferreae, or instruments regarding castration.  Although some further research has been carried out it is still an area lacking in serious detail and analysis through the paucity of finds. 
 	The mostly frequently discussed object is the use of the hipposandal, or to use its more technically correct name the soleae ferreae, (figs. 14 and 15); a tombstone from Roman Gaul (fig. 14) has a carved relief of a civilian mulomedicus holding one. The soleae ferreae was designed to hold any medical treatments, such as poultices, in place and to protect the foot from any further injury (fig. 15), and generally the horse would have remained stabled.  It was not designed for the use of travelling over long distances and although the horse was able to walk around whilst the hipposandal was in place their pace would have been slow and thus impractical for working.  Judging by the way the hipposandal is tied to the foot any excessive movement may well have caused the strapping to rub and cause further injury around the pastern, 
 	Another carved relief, this time on an alter from Aix-en-Provence, again depicts civilian mulomedicii at work with two horses (fig. 16). Although it should be noted that there is nothing specific on this or the previous relief that would definitely identify them as mulomedicii just because they are working with horses. Varro himself stated, as mentioned above, that the head-grooms were capable of carrying out minor treatments. As a result, caution should be taken, rather than an assumption made, of who is depicted within the relief. With that being noted, on the left hand side it would appear that the man is holding a pair of shears in one hand and about to trim the horse’s mane.  From the Vindolanda tablet, as discussed above, a pair of shears (fig. 17) could be obtained and bought through a veterinarius and so not necessarily a function they would carry out but one for the groom. The man standing on the right of the relief holding up the horse’s leg is said to be in the process of bleeding the horse.  Based on this procedure being described by Vegetius the action depicted is highly unlikely to be bleeding, for the amount of blood that was let would leave the horse in a weakened state and so holding up one leg could prove to be quite dangerous in inflicting further injury.  In all probability the lifting of the leg may therefore imply the trimming of the horse’s hoof which was a role for the mulomedicus or veterinarius. 
 	The instrument shown in the middle of the relief has caused much debate and discussed at length by Heeren as to whether it is a pair of pincers or emasculators for castration or more simply a twitch.  Unfortunately it is not possible to go into the detail of the argument here. However, the most plausible explanation for this image is that it represents a twitch which was used to placate a horse whilst any treatment was being carried out and bears a more than similar resemblance to the ones used today (fig. 18). As for it being used for the castration of a horse the surgical procedure is discussed at length in the Mulomedicina Chironis.  It is even described as a procedure requiring a blade in Lucius Apuleius’ The Golden Ass;  as such the image cannot be that of an emasculator. 
 	  A number of surgical instruments were found within the grave goods of a doctor or surgeon at a funerary site in Stanway, Colchester that date back to the Late Iron Age and early Roman period.  Amongst the instruments were two large copper alloy rods (fig. 19) as well as four smaller ones, two iron and the other two of copper alloy. It has been suggested that the copper alloy rods may have been used for pin-firing the tendons of horses.  A similar procedure is described by Vegetius in the use of pin-firing and cauterizing and that the instruments used were copper alloy and iron rods.  Pin-firing was a procedure designed to draw blood to damaged tissues, especially for bowed or ruptured tendons and was still an active practice up until the 1960’s.  
 	The last instrument to be discussed was among the finds discovered at the ‘House of the Surgeon’ in Pompeii and so date to A.D. 79 or earlier (fig. 20).  It is believed to be an instrument used for the bleeding of animals and consists of a copper alloy handle and a steel/iron blade.  It bears a good resemblance to the same instruments used in the nineteenth century and on display at the Science Museum in London, which include line drawings of how they were used (fig. 21). What is interesting about the instruments in the ‘House of the Surgeon’ is that the rest of the instruments were for the use of human medicine as were the other instruments that formed part of the grave goods which contained the copper alloy rods. So, do these finds suggest that there were practitioners who were involved in both human and veterinary medicine? Although it is not possible to answer that question here it is not unreasonable to suggest that there may have been individuals that practiced in both areas of medicine. 
9. Conclusion 
  	The objective of this paper was to discuss who the horse-doctors of the Roman Empire were and how they were responsible for the health and welfare of the horse in all aspects of its work. It has been shown that there is a limited but wide range of evidence with regard to the horse-doctor in Roman society. There was often a gulf in social class between those that wrote about veterinary medicine, remedies, and ailments to those that practiced it. The main bulk of the literary evidence comes from authors of Late Antiquity who tended to be rich but knowledgeable layman, with the rare exceptions who may also have practised veterinary medicine. 
 	Inscriptions are also key in providing additional background information to the social class and areas in which the horse-doctor worked. However, what does need to be noted is that it is unwise to associate the veterinarius and mulomedicus to a specific social class or area of work unless it is stated. These inscriptions alongside the personal correspondence of the Vindolanda tablets, the Florida Ostraka, and relief carvings on tombstones or altars demonstrate the mobility of the veterinarius or mulomedicus throughout the Roman Empire. The maximum Price Edict was in place to ensure the integrity of all, with the additional laws to ensure that the veterinarius and mulomedicus were able to practice, enhance, and pass down their knowledge and skills to the next generation. There may also be evidence amongst the medical instruments to suggest that there were practitioners who practiced both human and veterinary medicine. 
 	I believe that this paper is only the beginning in giving an insight into the history and the world of the Roman veterinarius and more research is required to fully understand their medicine and practices. It should not be done as a comparison to today’s medicine and practices but through the eyes of the Roman practitioner to understand and appreciate their thought process and reasoning. Only then it will be possible to build an accurate history and understanding of the horse-doctor in the Roman Empire.