> while servants stream in bearing platters heaped with heavily sauced and delicately spiced foods from all over the world
One of my favorite "audiobooks" (in quotes because it's actually a lecture series) is Food: A cultural culinary history [0]. From what I recall, there was nothing delicate about the spicing of food. The amount of spice that you could put on something signaled your wealth (spices are expensive), so heaping spices on was the thing to do at these banquets. The idea of "delicately spiced" foods came much later from French cuisine.
For anyone interested, may I recommend the History or Rome podcast. At over 150 episodes, each running roughly 25 minutes, the listener is taken from the city's founding by Romulus to the end of the empire at the hands of the Germans.
As a listener to this podcast, I have to say that your characterization of end of the empire "at the hands of the Germans" is a just bit of an oversimplification.
Yeah, THoR really drives home the point that 'Rome' was many things at many times. The thesis one can take away from Rome is that there never was any thesis, Rome was just really insanely lucky.
Here's a quote about Mark Antony from "Caesar, Life of a Colossus" by Adrian Goldsworthy. Good book.
"Antony returned to Italy after Pharsalus and was effectively the supreme authority there from January 47 BC until Caesar's return in the autumn. He was a gifted subordinate, but his behaviour became less and less restrained during these months when he was largely left to his own devices. He feasted often, both lavishly and very publicly. His drinking was on a staggering scale — later in life he wrote a book on the subject, which seems to have contained many boasts about his prowess — and he is supposed to have conducted much public business while only partly sober or at the very least suffering from a hangover. On at least one occasion he had to interrupt a meeting in the Forum in order to vomit in sight of all. At times he processed around the country in a great caravan, riding himself in a Gallic — presumably British — chariot, followed by carriages containing a famous actress who was currently his mistress, while another carried his mother. The whole column was incongruously preceded by his lictors. Apart from dressing up as Hercules, some sources even claim that he experimented with a chariot pulled by a team of lions. Apart from this mistress, he had a number of scandalously public affairs with senators' wives. Mark Antony revelled in power, and his conduct was scarcely likely to convince moderate opinion that Caesar's victory would bring anything other than tyranny in the long run."
The Celtic feasts that the Roman banquets displaced were just the same as what's described in the title: A Calculated Display Of Debauchery And Power. Putting on feasts have always been a way for the wealthy to display their wealth and power, to curry favor with their underlings and to give others the opportunity to do so with them. They are also a way for a community to bond together over food, whether hierarchical or communal.
Even industry and consulting groups in the 21st century use the same nonverbal and architectural language to express the same things in the same ways as was done in ancient times.
We forget the practicality of eating. A feast was the one time most people would ever feel full. For the romans, those in the city of Rome, it may have been display. For many of the celts a feast was precious calories. By feeding, the lord may well have been keeping his people alive. For soneone sick and under-fed (everyone) a single big meal ever month or two would be the difference life or death. They saw attendence at a feast as both honor and survival. That is a forgotten dynamic.
For the Romans, those in the city of Rome, it may have been display. For many of the Celts a feast was precious calories.
Going by the information in one of Terry Gilliam's documentaries on the ancient world, for many of the Romans, it was somewhat the same as for many of the Celts. Many city dwelling roman citizens didn't have extravagant diets, and might well have been satisfied in macro-nutrients, but lacking in others.
By feeding, the lord may well have been keeping his people alive. They saw attendance at a feast as both honor and survival.
By not feeding, the Celtic noble may well have been punishing those she or he disliked. I think social hierarchies still find such physical means of manifestation in 2019.
This is a preposterous claim. Neither Roman nor Celtic peasantry existed in a state of perpetual famine. There was certainly the occasional period of inflation and/or famine, but the norm was absolutely for pretty much everybody to be well-fed. They were certainly not malnourished, either. Yes, they had simple diets, but not bad ones.
In 1914 the U.K. had been the second richest economy in the world for over a hundred years. Nonetheless approaching a third of the male population eligible for conscription were in poor enough health that they were deemed unusable in war. The average American was a foot taller than the average Briton. The members of the House of Lords were noticeably taller than the members of the House of Commons, some of whom, presumably, had had long periods of poor nutrition in their lives.
The norm was not perpetual famine but neither was the average peasant well fed except in transitory times of abundance. Normally the nobility and urban patriciate and cash rich populations like successful merchants would survive famines just fine though food would get more expensive. For the mass of the population lean years where the old, sick or young would die for lack of food would be every five years if they were lucky and about every thirty years a tenth to a third of the population would die in a famine.
The unusual thing about the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s wasn’t that 1/4 of the population died; it was that that was the last time it happened. Famines were so unremarkable before the 1800s, even in Western Europe, that we often need to do archival detective work to figure out they happened. Do we see more people buried in paupers’ graves at this time? Do tree ring data suggest unusually harsh weather? Did grain prices rise? The literate classes weren’t indifferent to the suffering of those on the Malthusian margin of survival but large portions of the population dying of starvation every so often was normal.
The late 1800s and early 1900s were notoriously terrible in UK and the literal shrinking and weakening of the population due to their diet is documented over time - and it was actually due to increasing trade, industrialization, and globalization. Beforehand things were much better. The expansion of available foods made things much worse.
> The fall in nutritional standards between 1880 and 1900 was so marked that the generations were visibly and progressively shrinking. In 1883 the infantry were forced to lower the minimum height for recruits from 5ft 6 inches to 5ft 3 inches. This was because most new recruits were now coming from an urban background instead of the traditional rural background (the 1881 census showed that over three-quarters of the population now lived in towns and cities). Factors such as a lack of sunlight in urban slums (which led to rickets due to Vitamin D deficiency) had already reduced the height of young male volunteers. Lack of sunlight, however, could not have been the sole critical factor in the next height reduction, a mere 18 years later. By this time, clean air legislation had markedly improved urban sunlight levels; but unfortunately, the supposed ‘improvements’ in dietary intake resulting from imported foods had had time to take effect on the 16–18 year old cohort. It might be expected that the infantry would be able to raise the minimum height requirement back to 5ft. 6 inches. Instead, they were forced to reduce it still further, to a mere 5ft. British officers, who were from the middle and upper classes and not yet exposed to more than the occasional treats of canned produce, were far better fed in terms of their intake of fresh foods and were now on average a full head taller than their malnourished and sickly men.
Times of famine were not extraordinarily rare. But I'd be very skeptical of the numbers you're providing. Famines where a lot of people start dying become revolutions and migrations. The Irish Potato Famine was a very exceptional famine in terms of numbers - but it wasn't that 25% of the population died, it's that 25% of the population died or left - there were about even numbers for both. The situation was also greatly worsened by the political situation, which did have major consequent political effects. Large famines are easier to track because of this.
I'm extremely skeptical of your numbers in general. Certainly people always starved: urbanites and social outcasts were at higher risk. What marginal increase are you declaring a famine? Even the 'severe' famine periodicity you mention seems very hard to support among any population groups and historical periods I know about. It's probably true in periods of extreme upset, but not in normal times, and in most stable societies food surpluses were stockpiled and preserved to hedge against such things.
This is a preposterous claim. Neither Roman nor Celtic peasantry existed in a state of perpetual famine...the norm was absolutely for pretty much everybody to be well-fed.
Yes, you're making a good point. Traditional societies that have lasted many generations are usually pretty good to excellent at knowing how to provide enough good food and clean water for themselves. That said, there are many people still alive who got enough food and grew up healthy, but recall always wanting to eat more as they grew up. People who are in this state are particularly affected by rewards of food.
Also, I'm not sure if Celtic societies had peasants organized like those of medieval Europe. Celtic people lived in both dispersed rural environments and in cities. There was considerable trade. The common view is that people just tended to live in the community they grew up, but that people were free otherwise. Social stratification is said to have increased over time, and perhaps things would have ended up in the same place anyhow, without the Romans. The Celts also practiced slavery, like the Romans.
Yes, they had simple diets, but not bad ones.
This can vary quite a bit in times of migration and transition.
This is one of the benefits of an agrarian economy. For example in the rural South during the great depression, virtually everyone was dirt poor, but almost nobody went hungry. Of course that meant eating squirrel, crow, possum, and such, plus garden vegetables.
Lords fed everyone, at least all the peasants. They would have issues with various other lords/people within their social circle, but the peasants were a resource not to be squandered. No peasants, no farming, no money. A lord who could afford a proper feast would not have enough regard for individual farmers to decide who should starve. Manpower was the only real source of wealth.
A lord who could afford a proper feast would not have enough regard for individual farmers to decide who should starve.
I suspect that some nobles had someone of a lower status they actively disliked. The strategy of most persons of lower status would be to not be noticed. It follows that there would be some people who would be noticed, and that sometimes, it would be in a bad way. Even in societies where the lords were obliged to feed everyone, I doubt this would prevent them from conferring favors by degree.
I recall one Roman description of a Gallic feast where it's suggested that boasting and fighting between guests would occasionally occur, and that this was regarded as one form of entertainment. (The propaganda purpose behind this, being to portray the Gauls as barbarians who would benefit from being civilized by the Romans.) As a modern person, I have a hard time understanding how, occasionally at least, this wouldn't get someone dis-invited.
Hello
See how you can start making steady daily extra living incomes on virta stock trading without you risking your money and your investment visit the website here http://www.virtatrade.com/index.php for more details
The Celts and Germans ate much better than the average Roman. The Germans during Arminius’ period were up to a foot taller than the Romans. Some of that is genetic but most of it was better diet. The average Italian was a peasant who ate grain, grain and more grain, like most peasants. The Germans (and Celts) were at least as much pastoralists as agriculturalists and they are much more dairy and meat.
The only groups of people that often see stunting in growth are farmers at the Malthusian margin. Hunter gatherers and pastoralists either starve or kill each other quickly enough that you don’t see the kind of years long periods of insufficient calories that don’t actually kill you that are common in peasant societies. Pastoralists always and everywhere raid, skirmish and steal each other’s livestock. They’re preadapted to warfare because of mobility and once they get horses basically all adult men are cavalry, in cases like the Huns, Mongols and Scythians. Even people without too many horses but who live and die by cattle are far more mobile than grain farmers.
I don’t think this was the case for Rome. The republic and the empire had officials whose job was to make sure that Rome had enough food. Also by this time, the Public grain dole was important and would later expand to include meat and wine.
When rich people invite beyonce to perform at their daughters bat mitzvah, or wedding, or fly everyone to dubai and give them a rose-coloured diamond, is this really any different?
I mean (I guess) is there any substantive difference between conspicuous consumption like this, and what the 0.01% do nowadays?
The vomiting was largely the result of folk etymology of the word vomitorium. It had nothing to do with any particular religion, Christian or otherwise.
Interestingly, this misconception is perpetuated in Hunger Games, in volume 2 Katniss and Peeta attend a party, clearly modeled after the lavish roman banquets mentioned here, at the Presidential Palace in the decadent Capital, which includes a drink to induce vomiting so people can enjoy more food (https://thehungergames.fandom.com/wiki/Food_and_Drink#cite_r...).
> while servants stream in bearing platters heaped with heavily sauced and delicately spiced foods from all over the world
One of my favorite "audiobooks" (in quotes because it's actually a lecture series) is Food: A cultural culinary history [0]. From what I recall, there was nothing delicate about the spicing of food. The amount of spice that you could put on something signaled your wealth (spices are expensive), so heaping spices on was the thing to do at these banquets. The idea of "delicately spiced" foods came much later from French cuisine.
[0] https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/food-a-cultural-culi...
For anyone interested, may I recommend the History or Rome podcast. At over 150 episodes, each running roughly 25 minutes, the listener is taken from the city's founding by Romulus to the end of the empire at the hands of the Germans.
https://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com
As a listener to this podcast, I have to say that your characterization of end of the empire "at the hands of the Germans" is a just bit of an oversimplification.
Yeah, THoR really drives home the point that 'Rome' was many things at many times. The thesis one can take away from Rome is that there never was any thesis, Rome was just really insanely lucky.
I'm sure. I'm not even half way through. I was just trying to come up with a single sentence that would coax some people into subscribing.
That link doesn't appear to link to the history of rome podcast anymore. I think this is the current link:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-history-of-rome/id...
Here's a quote about Mark Antony from "Caesar, Life of a Colossus" by Adrian Goldsworthy. Good book.
"Antony returned to Italy after Pharsalus and was effectively the supreme authority there from January 47 BC until Caesar's return in the autumn. He was a gifted subordinate, but his behaviour became less and less restrained during these months when he was largely left to his own devices. He feasted often, both lavishly and very publicly. His drinking was on a staggering scale — later in life he wrote a book on the subject, which seems to have contained many boasts about his prowess — and he is supposed to have conducted much public business while only partly sober or at the very least suffering from a hangover. On at least one occasion he had to interrupt a meeting in the Forum in order to vomit in sight of all. At times he processed around the country in a great caravan, riding himself in a Gallic — presumably British — chariot, followed by carriages containing a famous actress who was currently his mistress, while another carried his mother. The whole column was incongruously preceded by his lictors. Apart from dressing up as Hercules, some sources even claim that he experimented with a chariot pulled by a team of lions. Apart from this mistress, he had a number of scandalously public affairs with senators' wives. Mark Antony revelled in power, and his conduct was scarcely likely to convince moderate opinion that Caesar's victory would bring anything other than tyranny in the long run."
I've seen only clips but HBOs Rome series had an actor who played Mark Anthony (James Purefoy)...kinda like that.
The Celtic feasts that the Roman banquets displaced were just the same as what's described in the title: A Calculated Display Of Debauchery And Power. Putting on feasts have always been a way for the wealthy to display their wealth and power, to curry favor with their underlings and to give others the opportunity to do so with them. They are also a way for a community to bond together over food, whether hierarchical or communal.
Even industry and consulting groups in the 21st century use the same nonverbal and architectural language to express the same things in the same ways as was done in ancient times.
The potlatch was so powerful in the Pacific Northwest that it was banned by the Canadian government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch_ban
We forget the practicality of eating. A feast was the one time most people would ever feel full. For the romans, those in the city of Rome, it may have been display. For many of the celts a feast was precious calories. By feeding, the lord may well have been keeping his people alive. For soneone sick and under-fed (everyone) a single big meal ever month or two would be the difference life or death. They saw attendence at a feast as both honor and survival. That is a forgotten dynamic.
For the Romans, those in the city of Rome, it may have been display. For many of the Celts a feast was precious calories.
Going by the information in one of Terry Gilliam's documentaries on the ancient world, for many of the Romans, it was somewhat the same as for many of the Celts. Many city dwelling roman citizens didn't have extravagant diets, and might well have been satisfied in macro-nutrients, but lacking in others.
By feeding, the lord may well have been keeping his people alive. They saw attendance at a feast as both honor and survival.
By not feeding, the Celtic noble may well have been punishing those she or he disliked. I think social hierarchies still find such physical means of manifestation in 2019.
This is a preposterous claim. Neither Roman nor Celtic peasantry existed in a state of perpetual famine. There was certainly the occasional period of inflation and/or famine, but the norm was absolutely for pretty much everybody to be well-fed. They were certainly not malnourished, either. Yes, they had simple diets, but not bad ones.
In 1914 the U.K. had been the second richest economy in the world for over a hundred years. Nonetheless approaching a third of the male population eligible for conscription were in poor enough health that they were deemed unusable in war. The average American was a foot taller than the average Briton. The members of the House of Lords were noticeably taller than the members of the House of Commons, some of whom, presumably, had had long periods of poor nutrition in their lives.
The norm was not perpetual famine but neither was the average peasant well fed except in transitory times of abundance. Normally the nobility and urban patriciate and cash rich populations like successful merchants would survive famines just fine though food would get more expensive. For the mass of the population lean years where the old, sick or young would die for lack of food would be every five years if they were lucky and about every thirty years a tenth to a third of the population would die in a famine.
The unusual thing about the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s wasn’t that 1/4 of the population died; it was that that was the last time it happened. Famines were so unremarkable before the 1800s, even in Western Europe, that we often need to do archival detective work to figure out they happened. Do we see more people buried in paupers’ graves at this time? Do tree ring data suggest unusually harsh weather? Did grain prices rise? The literate classes weren’t indifferent to the suffering of those on the Malthusian margin of survival but large portions of the population dying of starvation every so often was normal.
The late 1800s and early 1900s were notoriously terrible in UK and the literal shrinking and weakening of the population due to their diet is documented over time - and it was actually due to increasing trade, industrialization, and globalization. Beforehand things were much better. The expansion of available foods made things much worse.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/
> The fall in nutritional standards between 1880 and 1900 was so marked that the generations were visibly and progressively shrinking. In 1883 the infantry were forced to lower the minimum height for recruits from 5ft 6 inches to 5ft 3 inches. This was because most new recruits were now coming from an urban background instead of the traditional rural background (the 1881 census showed that over three-quarters of the population now lived in towns and cities). Factors such as a lack of sunlight in urban slums (which led to rickets due to Vitamin D deficiency) had already reduced the height of young male volunteers. Lack of sunlight, however, could not have been the sole critical factor in the next height reduction, a mere 18 years later. By this time, clean air legislation had markedly improved urban sunlight levels; but unfortunately, the supposed ‘improvements’ in dietary intake resulting from imported foods had had time to take effect on the 16–18 year old cohort. It might be expected that the infantry would be able to raise the minimum height requirement back to 5ft. 6 inches. Instead, they were forced to reduce it still further, to a mere 5ft. British officers, who were from the middle and upper classes and not yet exposed to more than the occasional treats of canned produce, were far better fed in terms of their intake of fresh foods and were now on average a full head taller than their malnourished and sickly men.
Times of famine were not extraordinarily rare. But I'd be very skeptical of the numbers you're providing. Famines where a lot of people start dying become revolutions and migrations. The Irish Potato Famine was a very exceptional famine in terms of numbers - but it wasn't that 25% of the population died, it's that 25% of the population died or left - there were about even numbers for both. The situation was also greatly worsened by the political situation, which did have major consequent political effects. Large famines are easier to track because of this.
I'm extremely skeptical of your numbers in general. Certainly people always starved: urbanites and social outcasts were at higher risk. What marginal increase are you declaring a famine? Even the 'severe' famine periodicity you mention seems very hard to support among any population groups and historical periods I know about. It's probably true in periods of extreme upset, but not in normal times, and in most stable societies food surpluses were stockpiled and preserved to hedge against such things.
This is a preposterous claim. Neither Roman nor Celtic peasantry existed in a state of perpetual famine...the norm was absolutely for pretty much everybody to be well-fed.
Yes, you're making a good point. Traditional societies that have lasted many generations are usually pretty good to excellent at knowing how to provide enough good food and clean water for themselves. That said, there are many people still alive who got enough food and grew up healthy, but recall always wanting to eat more as they grew up. People who are in this state are particularly affected by rewards of food.
Also, I'm not sure if Celtic societies had peasants organized like those of medieval Europe. Celtic people lived in both dispersed rural environments and in cities. There was considerable trade. The common view is that people just tended to live in the community they grew up, but that people were free otherwise. Social stratification is said to have increased over time, and perhaps things would have ended up in the same place anyhow, without the Romans. The Celts also practiced slavery, like the Romans.
Yes, they had simple diets, but not bad ones.
This can vary quite a bit in times of migration and transition.
This is one of the benefits of an agrarian economy. For example in the rural South during the great depression, virtually everyone was dirt poor, but almost nobody went hungry. Of course that meant eating squirrel, crow, possum, and such, plus garden vegetables.
Lords fed everyone, at least all the peasants. They would have issues with various other lords/people within their social circle, but the peasants were a resource not to be squandered. No peasants, no farming, no money. A lord who could afford a proper feast would not have enough regard for individual farmers to decide who should starve. Manpower was the only real source of wealth.
A lord who could afford a proper feast would not have enough regard for individual farmers to decide who should starve.
I suspect that some nobles had someone of a lower status they actively disliked. The strategy of most persons of lower status would be to not be noticed. It follows that there would be some people who would be noticed, and that sometimes, it would be in a bad way. Even in societies where the lords were obliged to feed everyone, I doubt this would prevent them from conferring favors by degree.
I recall one Roman description of a Gallic feast where it's suggested that boasting and fighting between guests would occasionally occur, and that this was regarded as one form of entertainment. (The propaganda purpose behind this, being to portray the Gauls as barbarians who would benefit from being civilized by the Romans.) As a modern person, I have a hard time understanding how, occasionally at least, this wouldn't get someone dis-invited.
The Celts weren’t poor. They were living in one of the great fertile lands of the world.
Hello See how you can start making steady daily extra living incomes on virta stock trading without you risking your money and your investment visit the website here http://www.virtatrade.com/index.php for more details
The Celts and Germans ate much better than the average Roman. The Germans during Arminius’ period were up to a foot taller than the Romans. Some of that is genetic but most of it was better diet. The average Italian was a peasant who ate grain, grain and more grain, like most peasants. The Germans (and Celts) were at least as much pastoralists as agriculturalists and they are much more dairy and meat.
The only groups of people that often see stunting in growth are farmers at the Malthusian margin. Hunter gatherers and pastoralists either starve or kill each other quickly enough that you don’t see the kind of years long periods of insufficient calories that don’t actually kill you that are common in peasant societies. Pastoralists always and everywhere raid, skirmish and steal each other’s livestock. They’re preadapted to warfare because of mobility and once they get horses basically all adult men are cavalry, in cases like the Huns, Mongols and Scythians. Even people without too many horses but who live and die by cattle are far more mobile than grain farmers.
I don’t think this was the case for Rome. The republic and the empire had officials whose job was to make sure that Rome had enough food. Also by this time, the Public grain dole was important and would later expand to include meat and wine.
When rich people invite beyonce to perform at their daughters bat mitzvah, or wedding, or fly everyone to dubai and give them a rose-coloured diamond, is this really any different?
I mean (I guess) is there any substantive difference between conspicuous consumption like this, and what the 0.01% do nowadays?
The Secret History by Donna Tartt is an amazing novel about a group of classics students who try to reproduce such a banquet with interesting results.
Ancient Greek surely? with added xanax.
i thought the vomiting was myth? mostly spread by Christianity
The vomiting was largely the result of folk etymology of the word vomitorium. It had nothing to do with any particular religion, Christian or otherwise.
Here's the wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomitorium), vomitorium meant exit in amphitheaters.
Interestingly, this misconception is perpetuated in Hunger Games, in volume 2 Katniss and Peeta attend a party, clearly modeled after the lavish roman banquets mentioned here, at the Presidential Palace in the decadent Capital, which includes a drink to induce vomiting so people can enjoy more food (https://thehungergames.fandom.com/wiki/Food_and_Drink#cite_r...).
The vomiting was real. The idea that there was a dedicated room for it called the vomitorium is the myth.