How much meat was in a Legionary\'s diet?

[Magnus]

Just curious, simply because I think we modern folk since around the 1950's (at least in N. America) have developed an over-use of meat, to the point of it being eaten with every meal. Data is showing that the amount of red meat a modern person should injest should equate to about 0.5 lb per week, and humans are eating about 10x that much.

Without getting into a food debate too much, I can't see meat being a huge part of their diet...any evidence that may hint to it?

[ANTONIVS MAGNVS]

I think it would depend on where the legion was located but most meat would be fish or small game. I don't think there is any reference for a marching army out in the field having live animals for food. Salted or dried meat would be different but I remember reading somewhere that bread and legumes was preferred by the soldiers. I'll try to dig it up in one of my books. Of course once legions were stationed in fixed camps that would change and meat would be more readily available.

[ANTONIVS MAGNVS]

What I was thinking about was Caesar's army in Gaul. It's claimed they were upset at being feed meat when the wheat dwindled.

This is a nice little article on the diet of Roman soldiers:

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/roman...erDiet.htm

[Magnus]

That is kind of what I am looking for....I'm curious to see what their view of meat was and how often they really ate it.

[agrimensor]

just read about that for the tents( per legion) only 60000 goatskins were used I don't think they discarted the meat. so what about al the goats cows and other animals which skin was used ???

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

The army could just buy the hides I guess, without having the rest of the animal, such as the meat. Hides (so that means leather) was part of a tribute paid by subjected people sometimes (the Batavians also, if I recall correctly).

[Epictetus]

I would imagine that it differed with the location, but this example is interesting:

A small room in a wooden building in the castellum of Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands, was suspected to have been a centurion's latrine. Pollen and seed analyses of ground samples, taken from in and around this room, showed the presence of many edible plants, mainly wheat, but also several fruits, spices, oil seeds, nuts, etc., mixed with weeds growing in cultivated fields. The grain was infested with a grain weevil. Besides plant products, oysters, mussels and some freshwater fish were found.

Here is the full article: Diet of a Roman centurion at Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands, in the first century AD.

Then there is this oft-cited example:

So the army suffered from the utmost difficulty in its corn-supply, because of the indigence of the Boii, the apathy of the Aedui, and the burning of the homesteads – so much so that for several days the troops were without corn, and staved off the extremity of famine by driving in cattle from the more distant hamlets. Yet never a word was heard from their lips unworthy of the dignity of Rome and of their previous victories.

Caesar, Gallic War, 7.17

I have often seen this given as an example of the soldiers not wanting to eat meat, but unless the Latin can be read differently, I don’t get that impression. Caesar mentions capturing cattle many times throughout the book – probably more than a dozen, based upon a quick word search – and there are no hints of dissatisfaction from the soldiers.

I would guess they ate what was readily available, and what was most often available was grain.

[magister clarissimus]

meat has it advantages for an army on the march: it walks with you. and as long as it lives it feeds itself along the road and it is fresh and does not get spoiled. I have no roman sources for this, but it is known that in the time of the discoveries ships carried living animals as a source of fresh food.

[M. Demetrius]

Meat has its advantages, and in OUR way of thinking is a more concentrated food source. The Roman soldiers evidently lived primarily from grain, though. I don't doubt at all that they'd have a bowl of mutton stew from time to time, or some freshly caught fish, or as stated below, whatever was around. I'm sure the foraging parties came back with various herbs, roots, or whatever the farms and fields yielded.

The problem of what to eat is simpler for fifty men than for fifty thousand. Imagine it this way: to feed fifty men a portion of beef, say 100 grams (1/4 lb, more or less) requires 5 kg (approx 10 lb) of meat--to feed 50000 men the same amount takes a large herd of cattle: 5000 kg (10,000 lbs). That's a lot of cows.

We do know they must have eaten a considerable number of animals, though, look at all the leather used for tents and seige works. That leather had to come from somewhere.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

At the moment I am working on my Ba Thesis on the Roman military food supply. When it is finished and graded I will probably post it here. There will be information on the meat consumption at least along the Dutch Limes.

You could also read the books:

Stallibrass, Sue Feeding the Roman army

Erdkamp, Paul The Roman army and the economy

Kissel, Theodor K. Untersuchungen zur Logistik des römischen Heeres in den Provinzen des griechischen Ostens

Cool, H.E.M. Eating and drinking in Roman Britain


Hope that helps

M.VIB.M.

[Draconis]

meat is good but bread is filling. That 1/4 pound of beef might be tasty, but if thats all you get it won't stick to you like a big piece of bread, most likely seriously solid and not like the airy white bread of today. Some legumes and wine to dip it in, maybe a fish or two amd you have a substantial meal. Meat is good but not by itself if you're really hungry. Remember bread is low GI and stays with you longer.

[magister clarissimus]

Imagine it this way: to feed fifty men a portion of beef, say 100 grams (1/4 lb, more or less) requires 5 kg (approx 10 lb) of meat--to feed 50000 men the same amount takes a large herd of cattle: 5000 kg (10,000 lbs). That's a lot of cows.

it requires not necessarily so many cows. modern Europeans and Americans tend to eat only relatively small parts of an animal and spoil much of it. my (Asian) wife eats almost everything that is in a fish, chicken or pig and spoiles near to nothing, not even the bones. I would not be surprised if it were the same for the Romans. but I agree that for having a good filling for the stomach you really need some bread.

[Kai]

According to papyri evidence, in the 6th cent. the meat ration for a soldier was 0.45 kg per day. That is a lot of meat!

http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/POxy/
Nr. 2046 e.g.

Jones quotes more papyri in his Later Roman Empire on that...

[Epictetus]

Wow. That is a lot of meat.

This is interesting, too: Do word searches for things like "meat" in the Vindolanda tablets. Pork seems to be mentioned a number of times.

http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/tablets/search.shtml

[john m roberts]

Romans ate the meat of sacrificial animals (the gods got the blood, bones and fat). When the troops got hungry, the gods probably got a lot of sacrifices.