Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Did Roman Soldiers Eat Meat?

  1. #1
    Veteran Member The Lawspeaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    -
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Western European Aprician Refugee
    Ethnicity
    Gone
    Ancestry
    Indigenous Aprician
    Country
    European Union
    Y-DNA
    Y? Because f*** you that's why.
    Politics
    -
    Religion
    -
    Age
    -
    Gender
    Posts
    34,870
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Did Roman Soldiers Eat Meat?

    Did Roman Soldiers Eat Meat?




    Marble 1st century A.D. Roman Naval Soldier


    We've been led to think that ancient Romans were mainly vegetarian and that when the legions came into contact with the European barbarians they had trouble stomaching the meat-rich food.

    "The tradition about the legions being near vegetarian in camp is very believable for the early Republican era. Scurvy references are reliable, I believe. By the latter half of the 2nd century B.C., the whole Roman world had opened up and almost all aspects of Roman life, including diet, had changed from the 'old days.' My only real point is that Josephus and Tacitus could not accurately chronicle the early or middle Republican diet. Cato is the only source that comes close, and he is at the very end of the era (and a cabbage freak to boot)."
    [2910.168]REYNOLDSDC

    Maybe this is too simplistic. Perhaps the Roman soldiers weren't opposed to a daily meat-centered meal. R.W. Davies in "The Roman Military Diet," published in "Britannia," in 1971, says on the basis of his reading of history, epigraphy, and archaeological finds that Roman soldiers throughout the Republic and Empire ate meat.

    Excavated Bones Reveal Diet Details
    Much of Davies' work in "The Roman Military Diet" is interpretation, but some of it is scientific analysis of bones excavated from Roman British and German military sites dating from Augustus to the third century. From the analysis, we know the Romans ate ox, sheep, goat, pig, deer, bore, and hare, in most places and in some areas, elk, wolf, fox, badger, beaver, bear, vole, ibex, and otter. Broken beef bones suggest the extraction of marrow for soup. Alongside the animal bones, archaeologists found equipment for roasting and boiling the meat as well as for making cheese from the milk of domesticated animals. Fish and poultry were also popular, the latter especially for the sick.



    Roman Soldiers Ate (and Perhaps Drank) Mostly Grain
    R.W. Davies is not saying the Roman soldiers were primarily meat eaters. Their diet was mostly grain: wheat, barley, and oats, mainly, and also spelt and rye. But just as Roman solders were supposed to dislike meat, so too they were supposed to detest beer -- considering it far inferior to their native Roman wine. Davies brings this assumption into question when he says a discharged Germanic soldier set himself up to supply the Roman military with beer near the end of the first century.



    Republican and Imperial Soldiers Were Probably Not That Different
    It might be argued that the information about Roman soldiers of the Imperial period is irrelevant for the earlier Republican period. But even here R.W. Davies argues that there is evidence from the Republican period of Roman history for meat consumption by soldiers: "When Scipio reintroduced military discipline to the army at Numania in 134 B.C., he ordered that the only way the troops could eat their meat was by roasting or boiling it." Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus made a similar rule in 109 B.C.



    Lack of Refrigeration Meant Summer Meat Would Have Spoiled
    Davies lists one passage that has been used to defend the idea of a vegetarian military during the Republican period: "'Corbulo and his army, although they had suffered no losses in battle, were worn out by shortages and exertion and were driven to ward off hunger by eating the flesh of animals. Moreover, water was short, the summer was long....'" Davies explains that in the heat of the summer and without salt to preserve the meat, soldiers were reluctant to eat it for fear of getting sick from spoiled meat. Davies mentions a passage from Suetonius' biography of Julius Caesar in which Caesar made a generous donation to the people of Rome of meat.



    Soldiers Could Carry More Protein Power in Meat Than Grain
    Davies is not saying the Romans were primarily meat eaters even in the Imperial period, but he is saying that there is reason to question the assumption that Roman soldiers, with their need for high quality protein and to limit the amount of food they had to carry, avoided meat. The literary passages are ambiguous, but clearly the Roman soldier of at least the Imperial period did eat meat and probably with regularity. That the later Roman soldier may have been more likely to be from Gaul or Germania may not be sufficient explanation for the Imperial soldier's diet. This seems to be one more case where there is reason at least to question the conventional (here, meat-shunning) wisdom.
    Quel autre pays ou l’on puisse jouir d’une liberté si entière’
    (In welk ander land kan men genieten van een zo totale vrijheid)
    ------------------------------------------------------

    René Descartes over de Nederlandse Republiek.



  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Italic
    Ethnicity
    Siciliano-American
    Ancestry
    Sicily, the largest Island in the Mediterranean Sea.
    Country
    United States
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Of course they ate meat. Read their cook books. Eggs wouldve been pretty standard.


    Romans went to war on diet of pizza, dig shows



    Published Date: 26 August 2002

    By John Innes
    ROMAN soldiers went to war on egg and pizza according to archaeological analysis of Roman army toilets in Scotland.
    Scientists also have discovered that the soldiers also appear to have gone to the lavatory in pairs.

    Further analysis of the 2,000-year old remains of the legionnaires’ breakfasts may produce more clues to the diet and eating habits of the troops led by Gnaeus Agricola. They forced their way to the north of Scotland and victory over Caledonian tribesmen at the battle of Mons Graupius in 84 AD.

    But archaeologists still puzzle over why the 15 latrines unearthed in a dig at Kintore, Aberdeenshire - 15 miles from the site of the battle - were dug in pairs. Theories range from a Roman liking for military symmetry to the suggestion that they simply enjoyed a good conversation.

    Apart from the latrines, which revealed traces of defecated egg, the dig has revealed 120 individual bread ovens, the largest number ever found on one site in Britain.

    The keyhole-shaped ovens lined with stone at one end are early versions of a pizza oven. Stone-lined pits were heated up, the ash raked out and a raw dough, probably mixed with any available vegetable, baked.

    http://news.scotsman.com/weirdoddand...-on.2355807.jp

    Apaisi unni chi vai, comu vidi fari fai.---Buon Appetito


  3. #3
    Senior Member Bard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Northeast Italy
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Romance
    Ethnicity
    Italian
    Country
    Italy
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    609

    Default

    It was probably quite different from today's pizza
    By the way I've read in a book that romans disliked beer and they thought it looked like piss (which is quite true, but beer is good!).

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Meta-Ethnicity
    .
    Ethnicity
    .
    Gender
    Posts
    488

    Talking This is Sol damn you!

    [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwFNiMFlyO0[/YOUTUBE]

  5. #5
    Comitate The Black Prince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Ingaevonic
    Gender
    Posts
    656

    Default

    During the Imperial period I can assure that Roman soldiers did not prefer grain above meat. Roman forts (castella and castra) when excavated, and the soil is off the right kind to preserve bones, often huge amounts of bones from cows and pigs are found. That those cows and most likely also the pigs were for consumption is proven by the high percentage of oxen- and calf bones among them.
    These percentages are quite different from those of peasant villages where oxen and calf bones are less common and they are almost absent in the villages surrounding Roman forts.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Italic
    Ethnicity
    Siciliano-American
    Ancestry
    Sicily, the largest Island in the Mediterranean Sea.
    Country
    United States
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Well they didnt have tomato sauce back then, that came from the Americas, lol.

    Battlefield conditions and attrition considerations aside. Their diets largely consisted of fish, pork/bacon, eggs, breads, cheese, nuts, oats, cereals and the like. The soldiers drank some sour wine(almost a vinegar called acetum and Posca) instead of water(which couldve contained diseases from the local water supplies, ex. dysentery). Also it depends on what you mean by meat, as fish and pork often dont fall into what they mean by meat--which is beef. Beef eating really wasn't ever that widespread in the Mediterranean. Milk drinking for adults was not very common either, although the children drank it.


    http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/r...RomanMeals.htm

  7. #7
    Individualist Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Svipdag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    central Connecticut
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian & Yankee
    Ancestry
    Maternal: Norway Paternal: Massachusetts
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Connecticut
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    agnostic
    Age
    82
    Gender
    Posts
    1,484

    Default Acetum

    Doubtless, this is why the Roman soldiers gave Yeshua "vinegar" to drink during his crucifixion. It was the same thing which they drank. It was safer than the local water. It's bad enough to be nailed to a cross without having dysentery also.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Italic
    Ethnicity
    Siciliano-American
    Ancestry
    Sicily, the largest Island in the Mediterranean Sea.
    Country
    United States
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Gender
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Svipdag View Post
    Doubtless, this is why the Roman soldiers gave Yeshua "vinegar" to drink during his crucifixion. It was the same thing which they drank. It was safer than the local water. It's bad enough to be nailed to a cross without having dysentery also.
    Yeah, was probably bad enough with all the bird droppings from the buzzards hovering around the crucified.

    Jesus was destined to die and walk the earth again, which was why the Roman custom to hasten the death of the crucified by breaking their legs wasn't done to Jesus. If you read all the gospel accounts we read of the surprise by the Romans that Jesus died so quickly on the cross(Jesus Christ died within 6 hours or so, which was uncanny). As normal average death probably would've taken around two days through exposure, asphyxiation, or dehydration. The breaking of the victim’s legs which initiated death by asphyxiation, since the victim wouldn’t be able to use his legs to push himself up to get a breath of air(which was the science behind the tormenting execution), was actually a mercy kill.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Bard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Northeast Italy
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Romance
    Ethnicity
    Italian
    Country
    Italy
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crimson Guard View Post
    Yeah, was probably bad enough with all the bird droppings from the buzzards hovering around the crucified.

    Jesus was destined to die and walk the earth again, which was why the Roman custom to hasten the death of the crucified by breaking their legs wasn't done to Jesus. If you read all the gospel accounts we read of the surprise by the Romans that Jesus died so quickly on the cross(Jesus Christ died within 6 hours or so, which was uncanny). As normal average death probably would've taken around two days through exposure, asphyxiation, or dehydration. The breaking of the victim’s legs which initiated death by asphyxiation, since the victim wouldn’t be able to use his legs to push himself up to get a breath of air(which was the science behind the tormenting execution), was actually a mercy kill.
    Yes, it was an horrible and painful death.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •