Roman Army Under Fed?

[Arvioustus]

Even the ancient Egyptian army was better fed, soldiers receiving 4000 calorie a day diet,lots of meat and fortified beer was the norm. How could the Roman army be so effective on their diet unless as I suspect Roman historians just fabricate. Obviously the Roman soldier had to be an amazing physical specimen as some genetists say, their bone density was one of heavy muscle and heavy use.They had to be in the top of their form, combining quickness with strength.(only way a gladius could be used effectively- you need a man who is agile and quick) A poor diet would not facilitate this. Historians probably exagerate their diet to make the Roman soldiers seem 'Spartan like' . Also, the historians exagerated the fierceness of their adversary for the same reasons. Just does not make sense: their diet, their fierceness against amazing odds, covering so much territory on foot: something does not add up. Also being outnumbered in hand to hand warfare is much more severe than modern, where technology overcomes this. You only have two hands. the numbers the Romans were outnumbered against just do not make practical sense regardless of their fierceness and training. Why would a smart general like Caesar confront the Gauls and Germanic 10 or 20 to one? The historians had to be exagerating at every level. The Roman army proabbly engorged themselves with all kinds of meats and foods.

[Neos Dionysos]

Even the ancient Egyptian army was better fed, soldiers receiving 4000 calorie a day diet,lots of meat and fortified beer was the norm. How could the Roman army be so effective on their diet unless as I suspect Roman historians just fabricate. Obviously the Roman soldier had to be an amazing physical specimen as some genetists say, their bone density was one of heavy muscle and heavy use.They had to be in the top of their form, combining quickness with strength.(only way a gladius could be used effectively- you need a man who is agile and quick) A poor diet would not facilitate this. Historians probably exagerate their diet to make the Roman soldiers seem 'Spartan like' . Also, the historians exagerated the fierceness of their adversary for the same reasons. Just does not make sense: their diet, their fierceness against amazing odds, covering so much territory on foot: something does not add up. Also being outnumbered in hand to hand warfare is much more severe than modern, where technology overcomes this. You only have two hands. the numbers the Romans were outnumbered against just do not make practical sense regardless of their fierceness and training. Why would a smart general like Caesar confront the Gauls and Germanic 10 or 20 to one? The historians had to be exagerating at every level. The Roman army proabbly engorged themselves with all kinds of meats and foods.

 

Just what are you basing this on?

 

While there is cases of overexaggeration in numbers of enemy, predominantly what is sourced is around the correct number. Why is it hard for you to believe that superior tatics, training and leadership cannot overcome simple superiority in numbers? Having a larger army does NOT mean you win. Alexander the Great used an army that was never more than 47,000 men in total to conqeor most of the known world. And there are MANY sources that cite this, both logisitcally and through textual data and archeogoical. If Rome did not field an army that was well fed, it could not train, nor do the exploits it acheived. And, if according to you they could not and they were lying, then how do explain Rome's dominance of Europe, Africa and part of Asia for hundreds of years?

Edited January 21, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Arvioustus]

Even the ancient Egyptian army was better fed, soldiers receiving 4000 calorie a day diet,lots of meat and fortified beer was the norm. How could the Roman army be so effective on their diet unless as I suspect Roman historians just fabricate. Obviously the Roman soldier had to be an amazing physical specimen as some genetists say, their bone density was one of heavy muscle and heavy use.They had to be in the top of their form, combining quickness with strength.(only way a gladius could be used effectively- you need a man who is agile and quick) A poor diet would not facilitate this. Historians probably exagerate their diet to make the Roman soldiers seem 'Spartan like' . Also, the historians exagerated the fierceness of their adversary for the same reasons. Just does not make sense: their diet, their fierceness against amazing odds, covering so much territory on foot: something does not add up. Also being outnumbered in hand to hand warfare is much more severe than modern, where technology overcomes this. You only have two hands. the numbers the Romans were outnumbered against just do not make practical sense regardless of their fierceness and training. Why would a smart general like Caesar confront the Gauls and Germanic 10 or 20 to one? The historians had to be exagerating at every level. The Roman army proabbly engorged themselves with all kinds of meats and foods.

 

Just what are you basing this on?

 

While there is cases of overexaggeration in numbers of enemy, predominantly what is sourced is around the correct number. Why is it hard for you to believe that superior tatics, training and leadership cannot overcome simple superiority in numbers? Having a larger army does NOT mean you win. Alexander the Great used an army that was never more than 47,000 men in total to conqeor most of the known world. And there are MANY sources that cite this, both logisitcally and through textual data and archeogoical. If Rome did not field an army that was well fed, it could not train, nor do the exploits it acheived. And, if according to you they could not and they were lying, then how do explain Rome's dominance of Europe, Africa and part of Asia for hundreds of years?

What i am saying is the historians just fabricated, of course they were well fed. Histirians cite a diet that was insufficient and gruel based alone.

[Neos Dionysos]

What i am saying is the historians just fabricated, of course they were well fed. Histirians cite a diet that was insufficient and gruel based alone.

 

Which ones? I am curious... because those I have thus far run across they attribute a decent diet to the army, usually grain and a type of hardtack, supplemented on occasion with salted meat.

[phil25]

There's a lot of very generalised threads being made here.

 

What period are we talking about, exactly?

 

Marius' army was likely to be a different case to Caesar's in Gaul, the auxiliaries on the Wall, or the army of the later empire.

 

I think the question also needs to address the ancient diet as a whole.

 

Gladiators, for instance, were fed beans because that was said to give a "fatty" coating that was useful for the work they did. I doubt we would draw the same conclusions - but it appears to be a "fact".

 

I have always assumed that Roman soldiers achieved what they did through training and discipline and a scientific approach to the military arts - this is what did for the "barbarians" such as Gauls and Germans. Caesdar moved fast, unexpectedly, understood tactics and strategy, had foresight and judgement, rather than a blind courage (though he had plenty of courage) and verve.

 

In the field I am sure that Roman armies foraged and lived off local produce - the wheat, barley etc was staple supply to ensure bread and beer.

 

as for "gruel" or porridge - even in medieval times people (including the rich) often ate dishes that were based on gruel or porridge, sweet or savoury and including meat. Cooking methods were less efficient than today and food went off because it could not be frozen. So different approaches were made to disguise the taste of meat that was "off".

 

I'd appreciate clarification of your argument or point though, to respond fully.

 

Phil

[Sextus Roscius]

Army field rations in modern day aren't alot, trust me, I tried living off them for a week, not very good either, but they are specialy made to keep you fit and running. I think the romans did this as well. Roman Army rations were not made to be tasty or to be served in huge quanities, just to keep soldiers running in tip-top condition.

[Tobias]

As well, the Roman armies as they moved would be supplied by pulses of whatever crops were available i.e. chickpea, corn etc. and, as was said above, provided solid staple rations that were enough to provide solid energy and health. The Roman Armies weren't underfed if it could be helped at all; and when it should happen that they weren't fed as well i.e. when under siege or with stretched or cut supply lines, it would usually not last very long.

The Legions were the basis of Rome's greatness; one cannot simply say that historians exaggerate what the Roman soldiers ate, because the soldiers were generally fed well and what is the point? To make them seem more heroic or stoic? Well that could be a point, but that sort of propaganda is not really going to impress anyone.

It is common sense that the Romans would have looked after their armies well; and this is proven by many historians by their equipment, superior training and yes, solid food rations.

Edited January 22, 2006 by Tobias

[Germanicus]

What i am saying is the historians just fabricated, of course they were well fed. Histirians cite a diet that was insufficient and gruel based alone.

 

I must say, I too am gagging to check out these sources Ariovistus - please post them.

[P.Clodius]

I spent a significant amount of time in the military. The romans generally spent a significantly more amount of time in the military than I did. One thing that pisses a soldier off more than anything is hunger. I SERIOUSLY doubt the roman army was as illfed as you imply. Would any of the late republic generals have accomplished what they did if the soldiery wasn't behind them? Remember, at this period the army was heavily politicized and would certainly not follow a moron that made them go hungry and at the sametime expect rewards at the end of the campaign. I too wish to see these "sources" you refer to!

Edited January 23, 2006 by P.Clodius

[M. Porcius Cato]

Isn't this an easily-refuted notion? Look at the fortifications outside Hadrian's Wall--the sites are nearly covered with the post holes of the granaries. If these things were nearly empty, why did they build so many? And if the Romans were so ill-fed, why were the teeth of legionaries nearly ground to a stub? You don't see that in hunger victims, do you?

[P.Clodius]

I have a feeling this individual is refering to Dyrracium and the instance of the caesarian troops cooking "roots" and throwing them to the pompeians.

[Favonius Cornelius]

What i am saying is the historians just fabricated, of course they were well fed. Histirians cite a diet that was insufficient and gruel based alone.

 

I must say, I too am gagging to check out these sources Ariovistus - please post them.

 

 

Deductive reasoning Germanicus! With a side of bias.

[eggers]

Well the main food the romans had was bread they made and baked themselves. This is because grain lasts and is still good to eat (as bread obivously) for years in a granary, so long as you don't get it wet. But this is not there only food. They still foraged if they were doing a siege etc, and if at a barracks, were feed from local farms with local foods (veg, meat, fish etc). Celtic beer was a favourite for the legions stationed in Britinnia. They weren't exactly underfed, the roman army (for most of earlier and middle eras anyway, not sure about late empire) was an expensive force to run. The legionaries had to be tough, fit and ready to go when orders arrived. The Romans went to extreme lengths compared to many foreign armies during, and a while after, to keep the armies effective. The a single solider was not just cannon fodder, he was an expensive, trained killing machine. To train a solider cost alot of money, and they were not about to let them just die off before the soldiers 're-paid' the debt by doing service. Remember the romans built military hospitals to try and heal injuried soldiers and get them back into service quickly etc. The military was a huge investment, so what makes you think that the romans would train soldiers hard at huge expense, heal them when they got injuried, give them citizenship (if they didn't have it and survived long enough to retire) just to let them starve to death?

[Guest punic_escape]

Even the ancient Egyptian army was better fed, soldiers receiving 4000 calorie a day diet,lots of meat and fortified beer was the norm. How could the Roman army be so effective on their diet unless as I suspect Roman historians just fabricate. Obviously the Roman soldier had to be an amazing physical specimen as some genetists say, their bone density was one of heavy muscle and heavy use.They had to be in the top of their form, combining quickness with strength.(only way a gladius could be used effectively- you need a man who is agile and quick) A poor diet would not facilitate this. Historians probably exagerate their diet to make the Roman soldiers seem 'Spartan like' . Also, the historians exagerated the fierceness of their adversary for the same reasons. Just does not make sense: their diet, their fierceness against amazing odds, covering so much territory on foot: something does not add up. Also being outnumbered in hand to hand warfare is much more severe than modern, where technology overcomes this. You only have two hands. the numbers the Romans were outnumbered against just do not make practical sense regardless of their fierceness and training. Why would a smart general like Caesar confront the Gauls and Germanic 10 or 20 to one? The historians had to be exagerating at every level. The Roman army proabbly engorged themselves with all kinds of meats and foods.

well, i guess it deepends on the conditions the army found itself in. if they were marching after an army on a campain, then they would usually eat twice a day. in the morning and evening, when camp was set up. their rations would deepend on the crops available but they would get sufficiant nutrients. usually a type of bread and sour wine.

if they were stationed in a big fort and were due to stay for a while, then of course they would be better fed and more looked after.

the power of the roman army BC was down to the fact that they were volunteering to fight for their home and their enemies were usually forced (carthage) or lacked disipline (gaullic, celtic...)

the romans lost their fair share of battles (punic wars) due to individual mistakes from over eager generals, or ambushes ect... but the usually choose their battles when success would be high.

since a legion in battle would be three lines deep, if the front line or two were getting tired or wavering then the reserve would simply come in and take their place. if this didnt cause the enemy to rout then cavalry could be tacticaly deployed to attack from the rear.

the infantry were not super human, but conditioned for war. they simply never gave up and always looked foward to beating their opponants.

by the time caeser went against the gauls, the roman army was a proffessional one. legions often spent a decade together shaping into a formidable force. the tribes of gaul on the other hand were just tribes! their loyalties could be bought and they relied on mass numbers over efficiency

Edited March 8, 2006 by punic_escape

[Pantagathus]

well, i guess it deepends on the conditions the army found itself in. if they were marching after an army on a campain, then they would usually eat twice a day.

 

To bring up something Pertinax pointed out to me, while on the march, the legions were given rations of pollen cakes. VERY high energy food... Kinda like the ancient version of a 'Powerbar'