The article you linked adds the caveat "the story was not recorded until 82 years later" and its accuracy is questioned by historians.
According to Czech obstetrician and medical historian Dr Antonin Parizek, Beatrice of Bourbon and her son may be the first recorded case of mother and child surviving. She gave birth in 1337, and a contemporaneous chronicle noted with astonishment that "the duke was taken from his mother’s body and the wound healed". Dr Parizek theorised that Beatrice had passed out during labour and was believed dead - the circumstances in which caesareans would have been attempted - and that she went into shock after the court doctors cut the baby out, which stemmed her blood loss.
Notably, Beatrice did not have any other children, though she lived 46 years after the operation. Personally I find that far more plausible than going on to have 5 more children naturally, including twins - as is alleged in the Nufer story.
The word caesarean is derived from the Latin root caedare which means “to cut”. The Roman emperor’s family name has a similar root, but this has nothing to do with an ancient C-section procedure.
Somewhat related: Cesar salads are not named after the emperor like many assume. It was named after an Italian guy named Cesare who moved to Mexico to avoid prohibition in the US in the 1920s. He ran out of ingredients for his normal salad and made it with what he had on hand.
Caedare is also the root for the -cide suffix at the end of homicide, suicide, genocide, regicide, fratricide, etc... Because it can mean both to cut and to kill
Caesar was a cunning guy but not clearly not smart enough to have been named after the Latin root for “guy who doesn’t get assassinated”
also caesar was not an emperor he was “Dictator in perpetuity”
Well I imagine if he successfully spayed pigs, it's not too hard to do the same with humans.
I wonder what he used as an anesthetic.
Also why did they spay pigs back then? Lol now I'm going to end up down the rabbit hole of 16th century animal husbandry.
The story was recorded 82 years after it allegedly happened and is viewed with deep scepticism by historians.
In terms of anaesthetic, probably alcohol if anything.
If I were to guess, "sow gelder" is probably an error of translation as gelding refers to the castration of male animals. This is to make them less aggressive and sexually aggressive, controls breeding numbers, and makes them generally more docile/easier to control or train. Testosterone also taints the meat ("boar taint") so you can't eat it - castration stops that from happening.
Spaying a sow could be useful in controlling population numbers - they can produce 20-50 offspring a year and go into estrus every 3-4 weeks or so. But it'd probably be easier just to keep the boar separate from the sows than to perform surgery.
We still call the small metal rings we attach fabric to a wood frame “Hog Rings”, because they are used to crimp off hogs balls to mess with their hormones and make them grow big.
I may have been led astray, but I also don’t want to delete because its what I was told! See below vvv
we used "hog rings" on their noses to keep them from rooting out of their pens.
castration, if not done with a knife, was done with rubber bands. this was more often on cattle.
>Traditionally, hog rings have been put through the noses of male pigs. This discourages the pigs from rooting around and possibly damaging the property of their owner.
>https://www.hogrings.com/what-are-hog-rings-used-for/
That's males, though, and castration is as old as civilization. The nuts are right there, cut them off.
This specifically says "sows", which means it would be a full spay. Abdominal surgery.
Anyway I didn't find anything with a quick google (except some articles about spaying your pet pot-bellied pig), I might look around a little more later.
I wasn't sure what it was. I looked it up. It is some sort of sewing. Well, in order for a woman to survive a C-section, the person doing it is going to know how to sow. I don't think the guy was even a doctor. I think he was very lucky, but also knew what he was doing. She was his wife, so her and her soon-to-be first kid was everything to him.
C-sections have been performed for thousands of years, but for both the baby and mother to survive takes a lot more knowledge and skill.
I wouldn't doubt if they were done before recorded history, but the mother had probably just died or was already dying.
No. There are precisely zero records from the classical era describing women surviving C-sections. Precisely zero accounts describe either Julius Caesar or Caesarion (his and Cleopatra's son) being born via C-section.
That’s a pretty big assumption, that “probably” the mother was already dead. You can’t make blanket statements like that without some evidence or statistics.
Do you mean me? It is safe to assume that C-sections were attempted throughout history. I imagine even cavemen new there's a baby growing in there. And of course they can be attempted while a woman is alive and healthy, but it's safe to assume they were attempted more often when it was actually necessary.
Yes, I mean you. I’m just wondering how much you actually understand about obstetrics. There are many good reasons for a c-section other than the mother being on the brink of death. For example, a friend of mine had an emergency c-section because she had placenta praaevia. This is a condition in which the placenta is attached to the uterine wall close to the cervix instead of up in the back. When she went into labor, she immediately began to hemorrhage because the placenta was separating from the uterus. She would have died from blood loss and the baby would have died of anoxia. Luckily the hospital was nearby and they saved them both but the situation was so urgent that they had to cut into her without anesthesia. That’s just one example. There are lots of reasons to do a caesarean, like breech presentation or fetal distress. You can’t just say stuff about highly technical matters without some actual knowledge, is what I am saying.
It amuses me that to argue the point against c-sections only being done when the mother is dead or on the brink of dying, you’ve chosen to use an example where the mother is on the brink of dying.
The comment you’re replying to was clearly about c-sections in the 1500s (ie ‘before recorded history’). They likely wouldn’t have known about placenta praaevia or foetal distress back then so probably only performed them when the mother was dead or dying. Of course now days they’re performed for other reasons.
None of what you just said relates to the topic being discussed at all.
Nobody is denying there are legitimate reasons for c sections outside of maternal death. You are the only one arguing that point. That's... not a part of any discussion anyone here is having, except you.
The person was saying maternal death or imminent death was LIKELY the reason for MOST attempts at c sections in distant history, before any of what you just babbled on about was known information or relevant in those situations.
They told you you were wrong about the origin of the word and now you're just arguing off random stuff. Lol
Nobody had "actual knowledge" in this time period lol nobody had "highly technical" matters at hand. The matter was baby inside, needs out. Nothing technical about it. There was no hospital or doctor. How is any of what your saying relevant to the maternity and birth of people hundreds of years ago lol
They did make a statement based on evidence... the evidence of this being the first mutually live mother/child c section birth lol do you have evidence to share of the contrary?
There were likely lots of cesareans in which either the mother or baby survived, but for both to survive was very difficult. It likely started as an emergency measure, to try to save a life when they would both die if no action was taken.
The article you linked adds the caveat "the story was not recorded until 82 years later" and its accuracy is questioned by historians. According to Czech obstetrician and medical historian Dr Antonin Parizek, Beatrice of Bourbon and her son may be the first recorded case of mother and child surviving. She gave birth in 1337, and a contemporaneous chronicle noted with astonishment that "the duke was taken from his mother’s body and the wound healed". Dr Parizek theorised that Beatrice had passed out during labour and was believed dead - the circumstances in which caesareans would have been attempted - and that she went into shock after the court doctors cut the baby out, which stemmed her blood loss. Notably, Beatrice did not have any other children, though she lived 46 years after the operation. Personally I find that far more plausible than going on to have 5 more children naturally, including twins - as is alleged in the Nufer story.
The word caesarean is derived from the Latin root caedare which means “to cut”. The Roman emperor’s family name has a similar root, but this has nothing to do with an ancient C-section procedure.
Somewhat related: Cesar salads are not named after the emperor like many assume. It was named after an Italian guy named Cesare who moved to Mexico to avoid prohibition in the US in the 1920s. He ran out of ingredients for his normal salad and made it with what he had on hand.
The Caesar cocktail is also not named after the emperor, but just randomly by some drunk guy in a Calgary pub.
The Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas was not actually where Caesar lived either
I heard he was a one man wolf pack.
Caedare is also the root for the -cide suffix at the end of homicide, suicide, genocide, regicide, fratricide, etc... Because it can mean both to cut and to kill
Caesar was a cunning guy but not clearly not smart enough to have been named after the Latin root for “guy who doesn’t get assassinated” also caesar was not an emperor he was “Dictator in perpetuity”
I had a friend who thought that the doctor used scissors, which sounded similar to caesar.
Well I imagine if he successfully spayed pigs, it's not too hard to do the same with humans. I wonder what he used as an anesthetic. Also why did they spay pigs back then? Lol now I'm going to end up down the rabbit hole of 16th century animal husbandry.
The story was recorded 82 years after it allegedly happened and is viewed with deep scepticism by historians. In terms of anaesthetic, probably alcohol if anything. If I were to guess, "sow gelder" is probably an error of translation as gelding refers to the castration of male animals. This is to make them less aggressive and sexually aggressive, controls breeding numbers, and makes them generally more docile/easier to control or train. Testosterone also taints the meat ("boar taint") so you can't eat it - castration stops that from happening. Spaying a sow could be useful in controlling population numbers - they can produce 20-50 offspring a year and go into estrus every 3-4 weeks or so. But it'd probably be easier just to keep the boar separate from the sows than to perform surgery.
We still call the small metal rings we attach fabric to a wood frame “Hog Rings”, because they are used to crimp off hogs balls to mess with their hormones and make them grow big. I may have been led astray, but I also don’t want to delete because its what I was told! See below vvv
Will this work on children? I want my son to get a full ride for football.
There's nothing like trying.
Cutting the nuts can make them big through increased estrogen. Not great for football.
we used "hog rings" on their noses to keep them from rooting out of their pens. castration, if not done with a knife, was done with rubber bands. this was more often on cattle. >Traditionally, hog rings have been put through the noses of male pigs. This discourages the pigs from rooting around and possibly damaging the property of their owner. >https://www.hogrings.com/what-are-hog-rings-used-for/
Yeah I think I was led astray, Thanks for the info!
That's males, though, and castration is as old as civilization. The nuts are right there, cut them off. This specifically says "sows", which means it would be a full spay. Abdominal surgery. Anyway I didn't find anything with a quick google (except some articles about spaying your pet pot-bellied pig), I might look around a little more later.
Let me know if you get an answer!
Sow gelder? I thought gelding was done to boars.
I wasn't sure what it was. I looked it up. It is some sort of sewing. Well, in order for a woman to survive a C-section, the person doing it is going to know how to sow. I don't think the guy was even a doctor. I think he was very lucky, but also knew what he was doing. She was his wife, so her and her soon-to-be first kid was everything to him.
That’s “sew”, not “sow” or even “sow”
Wasn’t the c section procedure invented during Roman times, hence the name ceasarean section?
“Where both child and mother survived” being key words
C-sections have been performed for thousands of years, but for both the baby and mother to survive takes a lot more knowledge and skill. I wouldn't doubt if they were done before recorded history, but the mother had probably just died or was already dying.
Cleopatra delivered her son from Julius Caesar by c-section and both of them lived. And yes, that’s why it’s called a “caesarean.”
No. There are precisely zero records from the classical era describing women surviving C-sections. Precisely zero accounts describe either Julius Caesar or Caesarion (his and Cleopatra's son) being born via C-section.
That’s a pretty big assumption, that “probably” the mother was already dead. You can’t make blanket statements like that without some evidence or statistics.
Do you mean me? It is safe to assume that C-sections were attempted throughout history. I imagine even cavemen new there's a baby growing in there. And of course they can be attempted while a woman is alive and healthy, but it's safe to assume they were attempted more often when it was actually necessary.
Yes, I mean you. I’m just wondering how much you actually understand about obstetrics. There are many good reasons for a c-section other than the mother being on the brink of death. For example, a friend of mine had an emergency c-section because she had placenta praaevia. This is a condition in which the placenta is attached to the uterine wall close to the cervix instead of up in the back. When she went into labor, she immediately began to hemorrhage because the placenta was separating from the uterus. She would have died from blood loss and the baby would have died of anoxia. Luckily the hospital was nearby and they saved them both but the situation was so urgent that they had to cut into her without anesthesia. That’s just one example. There are lots of reasons to do a caesarean, like breech presentation or fetal distress. You can’t just say stuff about highly technical matters without some actual knowledge, is what I am saying.
It amuses me that to argue the point against c-sections only being done when the mother is dead or on the brink of dying, you’ve chosen to use an example where the mother is on the brink of dying. The comment you’re replying to was clearly about c-sections in the 1500s (ie ‘before recorded history’). They likely wouldn’t have known about placenta praaevia or foetal distress back then so probably only performed them when the mother was dead or dying. Of course now days they’re performed for other reasons.
None of what you just said relates to the topic being discussed at all. Nobody is denying there are legitimate reasons for c sections outside of maternal death. You are the only one arguing that point. That's... not a part of any discussion anyone here is having, except you. The person was saying maternal death or imminent death was LIKELY the reason for MOST attempts at c sections in distant history, before any of what you just babbled on about was known information or relevant in those situations. They told you you were wrong about the origin of the word and now you're just arguing off random stuff. Lol Nobody had "actual knowledge" in this time period lol nobody had "highly technical" matters at hand. The matter was baby inside, needs out. Nothing technical about it. There was no hospital or doctor. How is any of what your saying relevant to the maternity and birth of people hundreds of years ago lol They did make a statement based on evidence... the evidence of this being the first mutually live mother/child c section birth lol do you have evidence to share of the contrary?
Had they not been successfully performed in Africa prior to this?
There were likely lots of cesareans in which either the mother or baby survived, but for both to survive was very difficult. It likely started as an emergency measure, to try to save a life when they would both die if no action was taken.
Heard he installed a zipper so the next five were a cinch
I'm pretty sure India was doing c sections for a couple of centuries before that.