Were Gladiators Vegetarians?

[JGolomb]

It would seem so based on some not-so-new research. Good summary of details around gladiator diet and training:

Were Gladiators Vegetarians?

 

I believe it was already common knowledge that the primary element to the gladiatorial diet was barley-based gruel, but a lot of what's summarized in this story makes good common sense, too.

 

Here's a quote from the Archaeology Magazine story that's not in the link above. I think this is the equivalent of Rocky downing his raw egg and fruit smoothie during training:

To keep their bones strong, historical accounts say, they downed vile brews of charred wood or bone ash, both of which are rich in calcium. Whatever the exact formula, the stuff worked. Grossschmidt says that the calcium levels in the gladiator bones were "exorbitant" compared to the general population. "Many athletes today have to take calcium supplements," he says. "They knew that then, too."

[sylla]

It would seem so based on some not-so-new research. Good summary of details around gladiator diet and training:

Were Gladiators Vegetarians?

 

I believe it was already common knowledge that the primary element to the gladiatorial diet was barley-based gruel, but a lot of what's summarized in this story makes good common sense, too.

 

Here's a quote from the Archaeology Magazine story that's not in the link above. I think this is the equivalent of Rocky downing his raw egg and fruit smoothie during training:

To keep their bones strong, historical accounts say, they downed vile brews of charred wood or bone ash, both of which are rich in calcium. Whatever the exact formula, the stuff worked. Grossschmidt says that the calcium levels in the gladiator bones were "exorbitant" compared to the general population. "Many athletes today have to take calcium supplements," he says. "They knew that then, too."

An always interesting issue; however, it's still not clear for me:

- From where did Mr. Curry get his gold standard on the average Ephesian diet (to compare it with the Gladiators' nutrition);

- Which may his physical evidence on the purported gladiatorial obesity have been.

 

In any case, the physiological basis of this article seems questionable at best, if not plainly absurd.

 

It seems unlikely that obesity might have granted any significant protection from cut wounds or shielded blood vessels, then or now; in fact, as any plastic surgeon knows, human fat tissue is highly vascularized (ie, more blood vessels); adipose tissue bleeds at least as much, or even more, than any other human tissue.

 

I'm not sure if wounded fat tissue may have looked indeed great for the average Roman spectator; but it undoubtedly hurts like hell, then and now; Mr. Curry is clearly not talking from personal experience, as he could have easily tried (even the leanest people have some adipose tissue).

 

Additionally, the relationship between obesity and economic status is not so linear and clear-cut as this article seemingly suggests.

Edited September 8, 2009 by sylla

[Medusa]

Gladiators where nicknamed in Ancient Rome as "barley eaters" and I guess it had a reason why they were called so. They ate a lot of barley and most probably other pulses. This the Austrian scholars found out from the bones excavated at the Gladiator cemetary in Ephesos. Most probably every now and then they of course had meat or maybe even fish whatever was available. Pulses are easier to prepare in masses and also cheaper. I have to dig out the exact information though being there in the following article most probably as I haven't read it yet:

 

Kanz, F. and Grossschmidt, K. "Dying in the Arena: The Osseus Evidence from Ephesian Gladiators" in Roman Amphitheatres and Spectacula: a 21st Century Perspective, BAR International Series 1946, 2009

[JGolomb]

It would seem so based on some not-so-new research. Good summary of details around gladiator diet and training:

Were Gladiators Vegetarians?

 

I believe it was already common knowledge that the primary element to the gladiatorial diet was barley-based gruel, but a lot of what's summarized in this story makes good common sense, too.

 

Here's a quote from the Archaeology Magazine story that's not in the link above. I think this is the equivalent of Rocky downing his raw egg and fruit smoothie during training:

To keep their bones strong, historical accounts say, they downed vile brews of charred wood or bone ash, both of which are rich in calcium. Whatever the exact formula, the stuff worked. Grossschmidt says that the calcium levels in the gladiator bones were "exorbitant" compared to the general population. "Many athletes today have to take calcium supplements," he says. "They knew that then, too."

An always interesting issue; however, it's still not clear for me:

- From where did Mr. Curry get his gold standard on the average Ephesian diet (to compare it with the Gladiators' nutrition);

- Which may his physical evidence on the purported gladiatorial obesity have been.

 

In any case, the physiological basis of this article seems questionable at best, if not plainly absurd.

 

It seems unlikely that obesity might have granted any significant protection from cut wounds or shielded blood vessels, then or now; in fact, as any plastic surgeon knows, human fat tissue is highly vascularized (ie, more blood vessels); adipose tissue bleeds at least as much, or even more, than any other human tissue.

 

I'm not sure if wounded fat tissue may have looked indeed great for the average Roman spectator; but it undoubtedly hurts like hell, then and now; Mr. Curry is clearly not talking from personal experience, as he could have easily tried (even the leanest people have some adipose tissue).

 

Additionally, the relationship between obesity and economic status is not so linear and clear-cut as this article seemingly suggests.

 

Sylla,

 

I think there's logic in some of the conclusions around why a chubbier gladiator would've made for a better show.

 

- From the Curry story: "A fat cushion protects you from cut wounds and shields nerves and blood vessels in a fight." Not only would a lean gladiator have been dead meat, he would have made for a bad show. Surface wounds "look more spectacular," says Grossschmidt. "If I get wounded but just in the fatty layer, I can fight on," he adds."

 

He writes about blood vessels, and you're right, you're going to bleed no matter how big you are. I read his point as logical, however. A strong slice to the ribs of a skinny dude is a lot more damaging than if you've got an inch or two of fat protecting your bones...or veins...or vital organs. And short of a shot right to a kill zone, a big guy can take more slicing than a skinny one. But Curry qualifies his statement by referencing "surface wounds", as opposed to something a little more severe.

 

- "It doesn't hurt much, and it looks great for the spectators."

 

Um, I'm with you here. It's going to hurt like a sonofagun either way.

 

But these professionals had hundreds of years of experience to learn from and the Lanistae were pros. Their entire existence relied on the ability to provide entertainment to the Editors and people. Not just fodder to be beaten easily and quickly (although there was plenty of that too). The Lanistae needed to provide lasting excitement and entertainment. They had, one may presume, empirical evidence to show that the Big Guys were a stronger show than the Little Guys.

 

That being said, Curry certainly didn't cover all that in his article, however it's a logical conclusion.

[sylla]

Sylla,

 

I think there's logic in some of the conclusions around why a chubbier gladiator would've made for a better show.

 

- From the Curry story: "A fat cushion protects you from cut wounds and shields nerves and blood vessels in a fight." Not only would a lean gladiator have been dead meat, he would have made for a bad show. Surface wounds "look more spectacular," says Grossschmidt. "If I get wounded but just in the fatty layer, I can fight on," he adds."

 

He writes about blood vessels, and you're right, you're going to bleed no matter how big you are. I read his point as logical, however. A strong slice to the ribs of a skinny dude is a lot more damaging than if you've got an inch or two of fat protecting your bones...or veins...or vital organs. And short of a shot right to a kill zone, a big guy can take more slicing than a skinny one. But Curry qualifies his statement by referencing "surface wounds", as opposed to something a little more severe.

 

- "It doesn't hurt much, and it looks great for the spectators."

 

Um, I'm with you here. It's going to hurt like a sonofagun either way.

 

But these professionals had hundreds of years of experience to learn from and the Lanistae were pros. Their entire existence relied on the ability to provide entertainment to the Editors and people. Not just fodder to be beaten easily and quickly (although there was plenty of that too). The Lanistae needed to provide lasting excitement and entertainment. They had, one may presume, empirical evidence to show that the Big Guys were a stronger show than the Little Guys.

 

That being said, Curry certainly didn't cover all that in his article, however it's a logical conclusion.

Fat is no armor in any way; it bleeds and it hurts. You can test it yourself.

Four extra inches of adipose tissue would hardly give any significant protection for your internal organs against blades; in fact, they would make you far more vulnerable, for the obvious and unavoidable loss of agility and fitness.

Obesity is actually a huge disadvantage for fencing and any other modern equivalent to gladiatorial games.

And of course, if obesity was the desired standard for the circus' fans, why are virtually all surviving pictorial representations athletic or at least lean? (Including those from Curry's own article)

[Kosmo]

He maybe tested in the same way the bones of some Ephesus "civilians" for comparison. And maybe the bones told him that the gladiators were fat.

Fat bleeds but not as much as a vein and an injury to it is less dangerous then a wound to an internal organ. It also serves as an energy reserve and adds weight. Weight it's an obvious advantage in some situations but also reduces mobility and speed.

"They had, one may presume, empirical evidence to show that the Big Guys were a stronger show than the Little Guys." A fight between well trained modern fencers lasts several seconds. I am sure the crowd would have hated that.

 

"Three of the Ephesus skulls had been punctured by tridents, weapons used only by gladiators. Ten had been bashed in with blunt objects, perhaps mercy blows with a hammer. Other injuries illustrate the gladiator's ideal death, finally accepting the coup de gr

[sylla]

Just ask a surgeon (any surgeon); the Fat Armor Theory is simply nonsense; not to talk again about agility and fitness, obvious requirements for gladiatorial combats.

[JGolomb]

Just ask a surgeon (any surgeon); the Fat Armor Theory is simply nonsense; not to talk again about agility and fitness, obvious requirements for gladiatorial combats.

Surely there must be a surgeon on UNRV...?

[Rompe]

There is a documentary called "Gladiator Graveyard"

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...82079598488912#

 

Aside from being a good documentary, around the 35. Minute mark, they talk briefly about the Gladiators diet through bone tests that they did. They talked about how the Gladiators diet was mainly vegetarian. From the way that they made it sound in this documentary, it seems like most of it was a veggie diet, but they still had some type of meat involved. It is not directly stated, but it is the way that they make it seem.

 

I also found this link which describes more about a Gladiators diet as well

 

http://www.romegiftshop.com/gladiatorsdiet.html