Were legionaries vegetarians?

[WotWotius]

Is this a popular belief/misconception? Discuss.

[Primus Pilus]

Is this a popular belief/misconception? Discuss.

 

They ate whatever was available... though grains likely to be more widely so, especially while on campaign in particular seasons or climates. However, there is considerable archaeological evidence to support the consumption of meat by legionaries, especially where there were permanent garrisons and nearby farms.

 

R.W. Davies article in JSTOR: The Roman Military Diet may be slightly behind more current archaeology (published in 1971) but the premise is quite valid.

[Fulvia]

The Latin word I've noticed that is often used is "frumentum" and my understanding (at least in my own Latin class) is that this word is most easily translated as "grain". Is this a literal understanding as we would use grain ie. wheat, barley, corn etc. or would food stuffs in general be a better rendition? The army did live off a very high carbohydrate diet did they not?

[Lost_Warrior]

I have read (but I don't give much credit to this) that legionaries were at one time made to eat meat and barley (barbarian food!) as a form of punishment. They were normally given rations of Fernum.

 

However I think it's quite likely that they ate what they could find, buy, barter, or pillage.

[Northern Neil]

I have read (but I don't give much credit to this) that legionaries were at one time made to eat meat and barley (barbarian food!) as a form of punishment. They were normally given rations of Fernum.

However I think it's quite likely that they ate what they could find, buy, barter, or pillage.

Apart from pigs, most animals are worth more alive than dead - sheep for wool, chickens for eggs, cows for milk etc. We live in a society in which many people expect meat everyday - in the ancient world I believe meat may have been a luxury rather than a staple. It is highly likely that Roman legionaries were treated to meat only on the death of a pack animal or horse.

[Maty]

I seem to remember something in an archaeological journal a while back that said hedgehog bones were found in legionary camp debris, which suggests that a legionary on the march was pretty much an omnivore. Note also that 'frumentum' could also be used as a a synonym for 'rations' rather than a particular kind of grub.

 

Co-incidentally I was reading an article last week [The Capture of Animals by the Roman Military Christopher Epplett Greece & Rome, Second Series, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Oct., 2001), pp. 210-222] in which the writer takes legionaries hunting for animals for food as a given, though he adds 'recent research suggests that boar and bear (!) featured less in their diet than supposed.'

 

Incidentally someone called Erdkamp wrote a book called 'Hunger and the sword' in 1998 which deals with the logistics of food in the Roman army. He emphasizes domestic animals as a food supply. Remember that corn has to be carried, whilst goats and cattle are self propelled. As someone once remarked to me whilst we were discussing military supplies 'Any soldier knows the purpose of life. It's to keep meat fresh.'

 

[edit - to add last para]

Edited May 29, 2008 by Maty

[caldrail]

The staple diet of legionaries waswhatever they could make from their rations of wheat, so that would be bread, pasta, or porridge. (The early romans were derided as porridge eaters). However, I seriously do not believe they were veggies as such. Barley for instance was considered an animal food, given to legionaries as food for punishment. Meat was eaten as and when. After all, if a roman legion is on campaign and supplies are short, you take what you can find. You forage, you requisition livestock from civilians. No soldier goes hungry when civilians have food of any sort. Also, if you have the same diet day after day after day, wouldn't you welcome something different?

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Is this a popular belief/misconception? Discuss.

Isaac Asimov is one of the earliest modern writers to mention this in his "Book of Facts" but Adrian Goldsworthy strenuously derided this as a myth arising from a misunderstanding of an early Latin source (I forget which one).

[WotWotius]

Is this a popular belief/misconception? Discuss.

Isaac Asimov is one of the earliest modern writers to mention this in his "Book of Facts" but Adrian Goldsworthy strenuously derided this as a myth arising from a misunderstanding of an early Latin source (I forget which one).

 

Yes, this misconception arises from gross misinterpretation of the below literary sources:

 

'Their soldiers were sick from want of sleep, and because of the unaccustomed food which the country afforded. They had no wine, no salt, no vinegar, no oil, but lived on wheat and barley, and the flesh of deer and rabbits boiled without salt, which caused dysentery, from which many died.' - Appian, 6.54

 

'Both Corbulo and his army, though suffering no losses in battle, were becoming exhausted by short supplies and hardships, compelled as they were to stave off hunger solely by the flesh of cattle. Added to this was scarcity of water, a burning summer and long marches, all of which were alleviated only by the general's patient endurance. He bore indeed the same or even more burdens than the common soldier. Subsequently, they reached lands under cultivation, and reaped the crops...' - Tacitus, Annals, 14.24

 

Although these sources do suggest a certain aversion to meat, it is only an aversion during situations when the meat was off. Further, both Appian and Tacitus only give reference to the diets of legionaries during the campaign season - a time when soldiers, while often well supplied, still had to forage.

 

There are also some discrepancies in the archaeological evidence. Analysis of the organic matter found at the auxiliary latrines at Bearsden do suggest that the peacetime diet of the average milites mainly consisted of wheat and vegetables - a theory complemented by the lack of archaeozoological evidence. This is, however, slightly offset by the back that the soil at Beaersden is rather acidic and thus probably destroyed any animal remains. This is most probably an example of absence of evidence as oppose to evidence of absence.

 

The belief that legionaries were vegetarian is, by nos means, complimented by the act that inscriptions relating to the Roman army sometimes give reference to soldiers' prowess as hunters - an inscription found at Durham, for instance, mentions a prefect of a unit of Ala who had bagged himself many a wild boar; a tombstone found at Xanten on the Rhine commemorates an Ursarius, or bear catcher.

 

One other point that needs to be considered in the fact that there was not set diet for the legionaries: diet was very much dictated by the locality of produce. Therefore, a soldier's diet in a one area may have had less meat in it than a soldier in another. One thing that remains to be certain is that soldiers were by no mean vegetarian.

Edited May 31, 2008 by WotWotius