Diet and Nutrition in the Roman Republican Army

Chapter 5 Diet and Nutrition in the Roman Republican Army Jeremy Armstrong As Jonathan Roth noted at the start of his 1999 The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C.–A.D. 235), “The Romans were well aware of the importance of good diet in maintaining an effective fighting force.”1 This is arguably true of all successful armies, as the longstanding (and variously attributed) axiom, “an army marches on its stomach,” suggests.2 The diet and nutrition of soldiers are always important considerations when planning a military venture, and ensuring a good diet is often the first step in ensuring victory. Men who have been fed a good diet in childhood and adolescence are often taller and stronger, and a healthy and well-fed army is usually more effective than a weak and starving one. Indeed, as revealed by the case of the Salassi, a Gallic tribe who supposedly surrendered to the Roman general Vetus after he blocked their access to salt, the loss of even one element in a diet could lead – in relatively short order – to defeat (App. Ill. 17). The Romans always seem to have recognized the fundamental importance of nutrition in warfare, as their military diet seems to have remained remarkably stable across the vast expanse of the Republic. From the Archaic period through to the late Republic, the evidence suggests that Roman armies were generally well-fed on a consistent diet of grain, supplemented by pulses, lentils, meat, and wine. By the middle Republic, the importance of a good military diet was reconfirmed by the immense amount of time, energy, and resources the Romans devoted to supplying their army with this regular diet across the Mediterranean. Rome’s logistical system represented a vital aspect of the state’s relationship with warfare; a way for the Roman state to maximize the chances of military success through planning and investment. Stability and consistency does not mean, however, a total lack of development. Although our evidence suggests a remarkable consistency in the Roman military diet across the Republic, the dynamics which underpinned it seem to have changed significantly. Rome’s elaborate logistics system, which has been the subject of a number of recent studies, was very much a product of the middle/late Republic and Empire, as well as a particular relationship between 1 Roth (1999) 7. 2 See Viggiano and Brice, in this volume. © Jeremy Armstrong, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004687189_007 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Diet and Nutrition in the Roman Republican Army 127 warfare, society, and the state.3 In the early Republic, while military diet and nutrition were still clearly important, the Roman community’s relationship with them was rather different. This chapter will explore the nature and origins of Rome’s military diet, highlighting how the changing dynamics of supply and consumption during the Republic fundamentally altered its meaning. Eating has always represented a social activity for humans and so, quite apart from the simple practicalities of supply, the subtleties which surround food in the army can offer insight into principles of cohesion, power, community, and identity.4 1 Italian Agriculture and the Roman (Military) Diet Discussing the diet and nutrition of the Roman army during the Republic is complicated by a number of factors. First, the Roman Republic spanned almost 500 years of social, economic, agricultural, and political development, and witnessed Roman armies transform from small, local, and likely ad hoc raiding parties to immense, organized, tools of imperial domination. As Harriet Flower has argued, the changes visible within Roman society across the Republican period are so great that we should at least discuss it in terms of “Roman Republics,” if not a series of wholly distinct societies.5 Second, there are the problems with our evidence. The literary sources for the Republican period rarely discuss matters like diet and nutrition in the army in any detail, and all that do relate to the final centuries of the period and are typically anecdotal. Additionally, the archaeology, while often quite useful in unpacking the realities of day-to-day life, is limited by the relatively light “archaeological footprint” offered by the army during these centuries. While sites like Vindolanda and other Roman forts offer intriguing glimpses of the diet and nutrition of the Roman army in the Empire, we have very little which relates directly to the diet of the Roman army in the Republic. As a result, scholars are often left to extrapolate from wider dietary and nutritional trends in Roman society, which lack specificity and may or may not be appropriate in a military context. All of this being noted, however, some broad points can be established. For instance, it is highly likely that, for the bulk of the Republic, the diet of the Roman army closely resembled (and was derived from) the diet of Italy’s civilian populations – as indeed, given the seasonal nature of conflict and 3 See, most notably, Erdkamp (1998) and Roth (1999). 4 See, for instance, Manning (1994) and Dunbar (2017). 5 Flower (2009). 128 Armstrong semi-professional nature of Rome’s armed forces for most of the Republic, these populations were effectively one and the same.6 It is also likely, given both the traditionally elite character of warfare and the nature of the Roman economy, that this diet was always reasonably well-rounded and nutritious. Most areas of Italy, including around Rome, seem to have featured a relatively diverse economy from an early period. As Barker has demonstrated, there is evidence for the farming of cereals and legumes alongside pastoralism in Italy from the middle Neolithic era, and by the end of the period (c. 3000 BCE) the basics of the “traditional” Mediterranean agricultural system were likely in place.7 This included a combination of limited transhumance pastoralism and the cultivation of a range of crops, which may have used both terracing and forest management systems.8 Literary sources (esp. Pliny HN 18.62) suggest that the primary cereal grown in Archaic Rome was emmer, with the Romans only branching out into other grains during the course of their conquest of Italy.9 However, the archaeological evidence shows a much more diverse agricultural model in Rome from an early date, with at least five different types of cereal present in the city during the eighth to sixth century, including einkorn, spelt, free-threshing wheat (durum), and barley, in addition to the traditional emmer.10 Emmer, and presumably einkorn and spelt, as other hull-wheats, would likely have been eaten primarily as puls, or porridge – although this could be prepared a number of different ways and with various additives, including honey, eggs, and even meat.11 There is also a long tradition of roasting grain in Rome, and particularly spelt, with the practice associated with the ancient rites of the Vestal Virgins as part of the Fornicalia.12 In contrast to the processing of the various hullwheats, free-threshing wheat (typically durum), was usually baked into bread – traditionally using the residual heat of the hearth or a fire. In the same trenches and samples where the grains were found, there were also at least four types of legume – horse bean, peas, and two types of vetch (bitter and common) – as 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A comparable situation existed in Archaic and Classical Greece. See Echeverría’s chapter in this volume. Barker (1995) 98, (2004) 55–57; Goodchild (2013). All dates in this chapter are BCE unless otherwise indicated. Goodchild (2013) 203. Purcell (2003). Motta (2002). Banducci (2018) 120–37. Ov. Fast. 2.23–4. Indeed, most early ovens are associated with roasting of spelt, as bread was generally baked on the hearth (and often in communal ovens in Italy) – see Smith (2006) 358–59 for discussion. Diet and Nutrition in the Roman Republican Army 129 well as the remains of various fruits – grapes, olives, and figs.13 So, while it is likely that agricultural diversity grew over time, and indeed this is strongly supported by both the literature and archaeology, the Romans seem to have had a reasonably complex and multifaceted diet from the Archaic period onward.14 While emmer may have had strong traditional connotations, and indeed (along with spelt and einkorn) may have been particularly well suited to a military diet, as its hull would have helped preserve it on the march, food remains confirm that the Archaic Romans were not quite as simple and unsophisticated as their descendants suggested. Animals were obviously important to the Romans on a number of levels as well. Animal husbandry has a long history around the ancient Mediterranean and in Roman society animals provided meat and dairy products, as well as wool, leather, and other such materials, in addition to serving as draft animals and beasts of burden. Animals also represented wealth, and indeed famously at least one etymology for the Latin word for money, pecunia, derived from the Latin word for cow, pecus (Varr. LL. 95.5; Fest. s. v. peculatus). It was not merely cattle that interested the Romans though. Witcher has suggested that, just as there seemed to exist a “Mediterranean triad” for crops – cereals, olive trees, and grapevines – there existed a “Mediterranean triad” for animals as well – cattle, pigs, and sheep/goats.15 Indeed, with few exceptions, remains from these three types of animal make up the vast majority of animal bones found on sites in Italy from the Archaic period through to Late Antiquity.16 Obviously, the percentage of bones for each animal varies according to region, period, and site type. Pig bones are by far the most common, and MacKinnon’s analysis of over 100 sites from across Italy indicates that they make up over half of all mammalian bones discovered – although they are particularly common at urban sites and in the north and central regions.17 Out of these bones, almost all are from young animals, with only 1% reaching maximum breeding age.18 This makes sense, as pigs have no significant secondary products (wool, 13 14 15 16 17 18 Smith (2006) 358–59. See Purcell (2003) and Kilgrove and Tykot (2013) for discussion and evidence from the literature and archaeology, respectively. Witcher (2016) 462. Sheep and goats are often lumped together, given the difficulty in distinguishing between their remains. However, when they are distinguished, it should be noted that sheep typically outnumber goats roughly four to one. MacKinnon (2004). MacKinnon (2004) 139–62. Although it should be noted that this is not necessarily the case for earlier periods. See, for instance, Trentacoste (2016) for early Iron Age Etruria. MacKinnon (2004) 139–62. 130 Armstrong milk, vel sim) and so their value is only realized when they are killed.19 Thus, once they have reached full size, at roughly one to one-and-a-half years, they are often slaughtered. In contrast, cattle bones in Italy usually come from more mature animals (three years old or older) and feature a higher number of male to female animals. This suggests that, for most of the Republic, cattle were being raised primarily as draft animals, with providing meat and milk existing as secondary functions.20 Sheep and goats are generally present throughout the peninsula, although their functions may have varied across the regions. MacKinnon has noted that sheep bones from large urban sites tend to cluster in the 7–12 month bracket and then over 36–48 months, suggesting that – in these urban contexts at least – they were being raised primarily for meat (lamb and mutton, respectively).21 In more rural zones, it is possible that more sheep were raised for their wool, although direct evidence is lacking.22 The basics of the Italian agricultural system, and therefore the usual Italian (and Roman) diet – both military and civilian – were likely established and reasonably stable from the Archaic period onward. Based on a foundation of grain, supplemented with lentils and vegetables, as well as some meat, likely seasoned with salt, and consumed with wine, this core diet – while obviously expandable – was simple and suitable for a range of different contexts. It provided sustenance for Italy’s farmers, but could also be easily transported, prepared, and eaten in a military context. 2 Changes in Roman Agriculture While the core elements of the Italian food economy can be seen across the Roman period, there were obviously significant changes in the scale and methods of their exploitation over time in a Roman context. For instance, in the sixth century, Central Italy seems to have experienced a “mini-agricultural revolution.” Although the types of crops being cultivated remained reasonably stable, the methods of cultivation and production seem to have changed. During this period, there is increasing evidence for substantial rural structures 19 20 21 22 This is not to say that pigs have no other functions, however, for instance in the disposal of waste and production of manure. Witcher (2016) 463. Despite the lower percentage of cattle bones in the record, given their size, beef may have still represented the most common type of meat consumed. MacKinnon (2004) 104. See Witcher (2016) 462–65 for further discussion. The implied separation of urban and rural zones here simply relates to the find spots and specific activities associated with them, as it is likely that the populations and economies of these zones were intertwined. See Heitz (2022) and Cohen (2022) for discussion. Diet and Nutrition in the Roman Republican Army 131 and agricultural infrastructure (irrigation, animal pens, etc.) being constructed, hinting at increasing agricultural production and intensity – which coincided with the development of urban centers and monumental building seen across Central Italy.23 Additionally, we seem to have changes in the way crops were handled, with the initial processing of grain increasingly occurring outside of the city. Looking at samples taken from trenches on the Palatine, which cover the eighth to sixth centuries, in the eighth and seventh centuries, chaff made up over 60% of the recovered botanical materials, while grains made up 15–30%. However, in the sixth century, grains suddenly made up over 50% of the finds, while chaff was less than 40%.24 Comparable data is not available for animals, although, given the massive development visible in the urban landscape of Rome and other communities in the period, it is likely that a parallel development occurred as well. Thus, from the sixth century onward, Rome (along with Central Italy’s other urban centers), seems to have increasingly used a wider and more integrated agricultural system, which linked the growing urban centers with farms, and what might be termed “villas” (or perhaps “proto-villas”), in the rural hinterland. Although the regular references to famines in the early Republic hint that this system was not perfect and sometimes broke down, Rome’s continued growth suggests any setbacks were temporary.25 Moving down into the middle Republic, the growth of Roman power in Italy has always been associated with land and changes in agriculture. From the fourth to the first centuries, all the evidence suggests that farming increased across the board in Italy, with a rise in both larger farms, likely producing a surplus for sale (and indeed processing crops like olives and grapes on site into oil and wine), and smaller farms, which may have been more subsistence oriented. However, despite the emphasis in the literature on the growth and importance of large-scale operations – both the Catonian villa and the Gracchan latifundia – the archaeology suggests the vast majority of farms in Italy before the first century remained reasonably small throughout the period.26 Although slightly larger than their Archaic predecessors, most farms in the middle and late Republic seem to have balanced subsistence with, perhaps, the small-scale 23 24 25 26 Fulminante (2014); Terrenato (2001). This is most commonly associated with “La Grande Roma dei Tarquini,” the name and subject of a famous exhibition in Rome in 1990, which illustrated the grandeur of the city in the sixth century as revealed by archaeological excavations. More recent excavations have further emphasized this impression, and indeed the magnitude of the change from the preceding seventh century. See Hopkins (2016) for discussion. Motta (2002) 74. Garnsey (1989) 167–82. Terrenato (2012). 132 Armstrong production of surplus for sale or export.27 Likely representing single family operations (albeit supported by slaves), these “Hellenistic farmsteads” are evident in Italy by the third century, and seem to be indicative of a wider Mediterranean trend, with parallels around the western Mediterranean.28 Despite their relatively small size, from the fourth century onward there is evidence for increasing interconnectivity between the farms, some specialization, and a developing market economy – particularly in areas like the southeast of Italy.29 While these developments did allow the introduction of some new crops – most notably fruits and citrus – the impact would presumably have been small and often reserved for the extremely rich. How all of this was reflected in the diet and nutrition of Romans, and specifically Roman soldiers, is incredibly difficult to tell. Undoubtedly, across the centuries of the Roman Republic, and across the socio-economic range of Roman society, there was tremendous variation. However, there is the possibility of some stability within the military context – and indeed the evidence suggests this was the case. Going back to the Archaic period, given the elite nature of Archaic warfare, it is likely that the warriors who made up the “Roman army”30 in this period would have come from the highest socio-economic level of society and so generally can be assumed to have had access to the full range of foods available.31 However, given the developing nature of the Archaic economy and Roman agriculture, this diet was probably not particularly expansive in terms of its variety – although it would likely been more than sufficient in terms of meeting basic nutritional needs. Once one moves down to the middle and late Republic, although the variety of foods available to the upper levels of Roman society would have likely increased, the average diet of the men entering the legions may not have changed significantly. While one would expect that the officers in the army would have enjoyed the increased dietary diversity brought about by the emerging empire, the gradual expansion and “democratization” of the Roman army in the fourth and third centuries, which saw the regular lowering of the property requirement for military service, may have meant a certain amount of stability at the lower levels – with the wealth of 27 28 29 30 31 Carandini (1985). Terrenato (2001). Lentjes (2013) 101–30. It is entirely uncertain whether this term is appropriate in this period, given the questions which surround Roman identity in the Archaic period. See Armstrong (2016) for a detailed discussion. The elite nature of warfare in Archaic Italy is also supported by skeletal evidence, which seems to demonstrate that military equipment found in burials was not merely symbolic of status, but also symbolic of activity. See Sparacello et al. (2014). Diet and Nutrition in the Roman Republican Army 133 those filling the ranks declining in a rough inverse to the rising quality of diet enjoyed by Romans. As a result, although increasingly poorer Romans were filling the ranks as the Republic wore on, it is likely that population which supplied Rome’s soldiers consumed a roughly stable diet and had reasonable levels of nutrition.32 As Kron has noted, while most current models for ancient nutrition are based on economic models which assume “that Rome was a highly inegalitarian agrarian civilization, comparable to Western Europe under the ancien régime of the long eighteenth century, with at least 90% of the population (surely a vast exaggeration) rural peasants, often assumed to be living, as the landless labourers of England or Southern Italy did in the early 19th century, at a low subsistence level, with a scanty cereal diet,” this is unlikely to be correct.33 As Mayer and Kron have both argued, there is substantial evidence for something akin to a “Roman middle class,”34 at least by the middle Republic, which existed well above the subsistence level.35 As a result, while socio-economic status and political power may have been declining, one could still assume that Roman soldiers during the Republic entered service having been fed on, and having access to, a reasonably complex, multifaceted, and healthy diet.36 With an average height of between 164 and 169 cm,37 roughly the height of the average British male c. 1900,38 the young men entering the Roman ranks likely had a roughly similar level of nutrition to their early modern counterparts at the time of their enrolment. 3 Logistics in Early Roman Warfare Once men were part of the legions, however, their situation was obviously slightly different. Life on campaign was not the same as civilian life – whether their background was rural and agricultural or more urban and industrial, elite or “middle class.” Most notably, a soldier’s access to food was very different while 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 See Rosenstein (2005) for full discussion. Kron (2018). This “middle class” designation should only be understood in terms of nutritional and economic status in this context, and obviously not social or cultural. Mayer (2012); Kron (2018). Indeed, men seem to have had far fewer dietary restrictions than women in Roman Italy. See Prowse (2011) for discussion. Kron (2005) suggests a likely mean height for adult males in Roman Italy of 168.3 cm. Scheidel (2012a) argued for a slightly shorter 164 cm. Hatton and Bray (2010). 134 Armstrong on campaign. As Roman Republican armies were generally “field armies,” and not garrisoned forces, once mobilized, they were typically located away from urban areas or other natural centers of food. As a result, food was (and still is) a major concern for armies. The recommended number of calories needed per day for a Roman soldier was likely between 2,900 and 4,000.39 However, soldiers could, and probably regularly did, function on much less.40 But maintaining a certain level of health and nutrition amongst soldiers was obviously a high priority, as a decline in either would result in decreased effectiveness in relatively short order. After only four days of fasting, mental capabilities are diminished, and the body soon begins to break down muscle in order to feed itself.41 Thus logistics, as noted, was (and is) a vitally important consideration and facet of any army. In the Archaic period, however, Roman logistics seem to have been both reasonably simple and highly individualized. Although we can say little about warfare in the Archaic period for certain, the vast majority of the evidence suggests that it mainly involved small-scale raids for portable wealth.42 Indeed, many early “armies” could perhaps be better described as “warbands,” and although the connection between these armies/warbands and the emerging “state” is still hotly debated, it is clear that many aspects of warfare in this period were founded upon clan-based dynamics.43 The size of these armies/warbands is entirely uncertain. If the famous (and famously contentious) incident of the Fabii at the Cremera River (Livy 2.50; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 9.15–18) can at all be taken as indicative, a gentilicial force may have numbered a few hundred, although tradition surrounding the arrival of the Claudii c. 500 hints that the total could be a bit higher (roughly 5,000) when dependants and followers were included. Looking elsewhere in the record, traditionally Rome’s Archaic civic militia, associated with Rome’s mythical founder, Romulus, numbered 3,000 infantry and 300 cavalry,44 although, by 39 40 41 42 43 44 Erdkamp (1998, 29–30) suggests between 3,240 and 4,000 calories, based on the 1973 FAO/WHO report, Energy and Protein Requirements, although he notes that this report is often criticized for being high. Roth suggests a maximum of 3,600, based on the 1961 US Army Recommended Daily Allowance, although this may have dropped to c. 3,000 when extrapolating for an “average Roman soldier” (170 cm tall, medium build, weighing 66 kg) – see Roth (1999) 7–12. Rosenstein (2005, 67) suggested an average intake of between 2,990 and 3,530 based on the 1985 FAO/WHO/UNU report, Energy and Protein Requirements. People can obviously rely on their fat reserves if their caloric intake drops; a kilogram of fat contains roughly 1,600 calories, see Roth (1999) 8–9 for discussion. Cahill (1970) 668–75. See Armstrong (2016). Armstrong (2016). Livy 1.15; Plut. Rom. 13. Plutarch goes on to suggest that Romulus doubled the army size to 6,000 infantry and 600 cavalry with the inclusion of the Sabines: Plut. Rom. 23. Diet and Nutrition in the Roman Republican Army 135 the reign of Rome’s sixth rex (king), Servius Tullius, the sources suggest army size was variable (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.19). Although it is highly unlikely that the sources can be trusted at all for this sort of detail, one could plausibly speculate that the size of Rome’s Archaic warbands/armies ranged somewhere between a couple of hundred to a few thousand. The early Romans were probably never faced with feeding tens of thousands, or indeed venturing too far from home – with most recorded warfare taking place within a few days’ journey. In this Archaic context, it is likely that Roman soldiers brought much of their food with them – although (again) the nuances of this are uncertain. If fighting in family or clan-based groups was the norm, it is entirely possible that food could have been, at least partially, coordinated by the family – as all property seems to have been controlled by the paterfamilias, even in later periods. Rather than enrolling and fighting as individuals, it is likely that these armies/warbands were composed of small groups of family members and associated followers, presumably mobilized and organized along existing gentilicial and patron/client connections – although emerging civic identities may have also played a role. Indeed, given the elite nature of warfare and the likely presence of sodales or clientes, not to mention sons or servants, it is possible that “individual soldiers” did not really exist as such in this system. Whatever their relationship with their fellow soldiers, some significant logistical planning would have been required for even small endeavors, and length of campaigns would have been tightly confined by the ability to bring enough food. Scholars have suggested that, in order to get roughly 3,000 calories (the rough minimum needed to maintain healthy nutrition), a soldier would need 815 to 850 grams of grain per day.45 Thus, to have enough grain for just himself for a week, each soldier would need to bring almost six kilograms (13.2 lbs) of grain. If this was a hull-wheat like emmer, keeping the hull intact would have helped with preservation, but would have added yet more weight – and also complicated the preparation phase. Water (weighing roughly one kilogram per liter) was also a vital supply, not only for drinking, but also for mixing with the grain to produce either bread or puls.46 And add to these staples wine and other 45 46 Stolle (1914, 28) offered 815 grams, Erdkamp (1998, 29) suggested 830 grams, and Roth (1999, 43) 850 grams. Regular access to clean, potable water was a major consideration. Given its weight and the need for specialized containers, the easiest way of sourcing this was always to camp near natural sources – as suggested by Polybius (6.40) and Frontinus (Strat. 2.7.12). When campaigning in Italy, local knowledge of the terrain and Italy’s regular rivers and springs would have typically made this a viable option for the Roman army. Indeed, given its obvious importance, it is interesting that our sources mention water so rarely in this context, suggesting it was always something which was dealt with early. In more arid areas, however, or at sea, more advanced logistics would have been required. See Roth (1999) 35–40 for discussion. 136 Armstrong luxury items, and the logistical limits become clear. If soldiers were supplying, and carrying, the bulk of their supplies themselves, warfare would have been limited to short, local actions – often of a week or less. The parallels with the Greek world are both clear and illustrative here.47 As Hanson famously argued, the decisive pitched battle favored by the Greeks was likely connected to the status of Greek hoplites as soldier-farmers and the minimal support offered by the state for the venture.48 Indeed, as Schwartz has suggested, Greek hoplites probably left their homes or farms carrying their own provisions, headed off to fight a battle, and returned back home within a day or two.49 Although the idea of hoplites only fighting short, decisive battles in the summer is probably somewhat idealized, the basics of the system did seem to have some resonance even in the late fifth century – as Aristophanes describes soldiers taking their own food (including salt, onions, thyme, and meat) on campaign, in a small pack, even as late as the 420s (Ar. Ach. 545–56). Indeed, when the Spartans invaded Attica at the start of the Peloponnesian War, they stayed for only as long as their supplies (epitedeia) lasted (Thuc. 2.23). In the Greek world, and likely in the Roman, the general may have also occasionally furnished the soldiers with supplies – although the ability to do this would have obviously been limited to the general’s resources.50 And in a pre-monetized environment, where farming was still largely subsistence based, opportunities of this nature would have been limited. Given these limits on how many supplies could be carried with an army, it is often assumed that foraging played a major role in supporting the troops. However, while there are a number of famous examples of ancient armies seemingly “living off the land” – for instance Xenophon and the 10,000 or Hannibal in Italy – the time, thought, and resources which ancient armies typically devoted to logistics hints that this was not the preferred method of feeding an army. Indeed, scholars have increasingly demonstrated the significant limits of this practice.51 Despite its seemingly haphazard nature, foraging was usually a highly organized activity; and in its most effective instances it could be more accurately described as “requisitioning” (or indeed raiding),52 only to become a major benefit when armies began to practice year-round warfare.53 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 See also Echeverría’s chapter in this volume. Hanson (1989). Schwartz (2009) 201–25. On the early Greek situation, see Trundle (2020). See Erdkamp (1998) 122–40 for discussion. For instance, Livy (25.13) records that Hanno “ordered grain to be brought into camp from allied peoples all around, among whom it had been collected in the summer.” Roth (1999) 117. Diet and Nutrition in the Roman Republican Army 137 Although soldiers would have likely been opportunistic while on campaign – and in both the Greek and Roman world, metal spits were often carried to roast meat54 – regularly dispersing to forage or hunt, particularly in enemy territory, would have been a tactical and strategic risk. When Caesar foraged, it was often via the frumentatio, a maneuver which involved a large body of troops, in a concentrated area, working with the organized protection of cavalry and light infantry.55 But this required a large amount of food to be available in a concentrated area, and for much of the Republic warfare is typically thought to have occurred at a time – summer – when this was unlikely. Foraging and hunting could therefore be expected to bring limited benefit. The summer months were often favored for warfare because farms did not require much work – this was the period between planting and harvest. So, it is precisely the time when stores of grain would be at their lowest and the grain in the fields would also be inedible. While soldiers could certainly damage or destroy crops in the field at this time (usually called “ravaging”), they would not have been able to get much sustenance from them.56 This period is also before the start of the usual Italian hunting season, when the young offspring of the spring have yet to reach maturity. As a result, it would have been unwise for Archaic Roman armies to depend on the availability of supplies while on the move towards their objective. And while the situation would have gradually improved as Roman armies began to practice year-round warfare, being dependant on the enemy – or even a neutral local population – for food is a huge risk, as countless armies over the years have discovered. All this is not to say, however, that food was not acquired while on campaign. Much of early Roman warfare seems to have focused on raiding for livestock, which could obviously have been eaten if needed.57 Using the parallel of modern cattle and sheep rearing in Italy as a guide, summer would actually represent an ideal time to acquire these types of animals. They would likely be on the move, often shifting from their winter quarters, down in the coastal plains, up to summer grazing areas in the Apennines, leaving them somewhat exposed.58 However, as noted above, the primary purpose of cattle-raising did not seem to have been meat production. Rather, livestock were typically used as draft animals and as symbols of wealth and status. As a result, while some animals would presumably have been slaughtered – often as a sacrifice (and a 54 55 56 57 58 E.g., Plut. Cat. 4.3. See Erdkamp (1998) 32 for discussion. See Erdkamp (1998) 124 for discussion. For a discussion of this pattern in the Greek world, see Hanson (1983). Armstrong (2016) 98–102. Barker and Grant (1991). 138 Armstrong meal) – the majority would probably have been preserved alive, at least in the earlier periods.59 The same is likely true for sheep and goats. Pigs may have been more readily slaughtered and consumed by raiding armies, although the practicalities of this make it unlikely that it was a major part of the military diet. First, unlike cattle and sheep, pigs were not moved seasonally; second, the availability would presumably depend on complete victory; and third, pigs were not usually kept penned but allowed to forage, meaning they would still need to be rounded up.60 In the regal and early Republican periods then, the diet of Roman soldiers was likely dependant on what, and how much, the troops could individually bring with them on campaign. For the wealthiest individuals, who traveled with a large retinue, this diet may have closely resembled their diet at home – although presumably limited by the practicalities of preparing meals on the move. With a base of grain, likely consumed as puls, and supplemented by various additions, diet and nutrition were presumably reasonably high – although perhaps a bit boring. But given the elite nature of Archaic Roman warfare, it is unlikely that any soldiers would have been particularly poorly supplied, provided sufficient warning was given. More importantly though, diet and nutrition seem to have been highly individualized – or at least related to family status. Like early military equipment, food and drink (and presumably how they were consumed) while on campaign were likely expressions of status, position, and wealth. 4 Tributum and Stipendium The introduction of tributum and stipendium in Rome, traditionally c. 400, would have altered the situation immensely – both in the short and long term.61 Although superficially quite straightforward – tributum representing a tax on assidui to support the Roman military, and stipendium the resultant support offered by the state to soldiers – the nature of the early tributum and 59 60 61 Unsurprisingly, cattle bones often predominate at sanctuaries in Italy. See Lentjes (2013) 101–30 for evidence from southern Italy. In later periods, however, it is clear that, in at least some instances, cattle were brought on campaign to supply meat – and indeed the sound of cattle was often synonymous with an army on the march. See Erdkamp (1998) 32, for discussion. Kron (2008). The parallels with the increasingly state-based structures of the armies of the Classical Greek and Hellenistic world may be instructive. See chapters by Sears and García-Molina in this volume. Diet and Nutrition in the Roman Republican Army 139 stipendium has long been debated.62 Livy records that in 405, while the Romans were attacking either Tarracina or Anxur (and also maintaining the siege of Veii), it was suggested that Roman soldiers be paid a stipendium for the first time – via a tributum, which was levied on the population (Livy 4.36). Given that Rome remained unmonetized during this period, while it is possible that the tributum was paid in weighed bronze – and indeed this is what Livy seems to indicate – many scholars have suggested that at least some (if not most) of it was paid in kind (i.e. food and supplies). Thus, the early stipendium was likely synonymous with the frumentum, or grain ration, in this period. And indeed, even in later periods, the cost of the grain ration ( frumentum) was generally deducted from the stipendium.63 The logistical implications of the introduction of the stipendium/frumentum are obviously significant, and will be discussed elsewhere in this volume (see the chapters by Donahue and Devereux), but the implications for diet are also worth noting. Although it is uncertain how regularly the tributum was levied and the stipendium paid in this early period, even the possibility that supplies could be centrally organized and distributed represents a major shift which would have simplified and standardized the military diet for Rome. While previously soldiers would have likely had a roughly similar diet, there would presumably have been some variation based on taste, as well as the social and economic position of each soldier and his family. After the introduction of tributum and stipendium, however, the core diet of most Roman soldiers would have presumably come from the same central supply pool, which would have been based on a consistent set of products – most notably grain. Additionally, the ability to levy supplies from the civilian population and distribute them to the army removed the requirement for each soldier to organize and carry all of his own rations with him when he left his home. While Roman soldiers in the early fourth century likely did still bring some food with them, and obviously could have acquired some food while on campaign, they could depend on at least some support from the state – allowing them to stay in the field longer. Indeed, the tributum and stipendium were explicitly associated with the prolonged siege of Veii – clearly demonstrating the link in the Roman mind between these innovations and the need to continually support armies engaging in increasingly lengthy campaigns. The centralization of supply, via the tributum and stipendium, may have also had an impact on how food was prepared and consumed. Although we lack any direct evidence for the regal and early Republican periods, it is possible that 62 63 See Boren (1983) for a useful summary and more recently Tan (2017, 2020, 2023). See Rosenstein (2011) 141 for discussion. 140 Armstrong some of the practices associated with centralized supply in the middle and late Republic may have begun in this period. For instance, over time free-threshing wheat began to overtake hulled varieties as the main type of grain grown in Italy and evidently supplied to the army.64 Although easier to initially process, the grain was likely supplied to the soldiers unmilled, meaning it would need to be ground before it could be consumed.65 As Erdkamp has argued, it is highly unlikely that each individual soldier carried his own hand mill, meaning it is likely that soldiers may have banded together and prepared their meals in small groups – possibly precursors to the later contubernia.66 Alternatively, it is possible that these duties may have been performed by servants or slaves who accompanied the wealthier soldiers, although for those coming from the lower classes of Rome’s centuriate system, this may not have been an option. Either way, it is likely that both the preparation and consumption of food were (perhaps increasingly) social activities, and associated with the army instead of the individual or family, necessitated by the unprocessed nature of the supplies.67 Additionally, as Rome’s economy (and both the tributum and stipendium systems) developed, it is likely that the centralized nature of logistics and supply ultimately led to an increased use of money to purchase supplies locally as the army traveled. Although Rome did not mint coinage itself until c. 300, bronze in various forms (aes rude, aes signatum, and ultimately aes grave) was in circulation and often associated with military contexts. Indeed, Rome’s early minting activities in the late fourth and early third centuries are all closely associated with its military ventures – most notably the first significant issue of silver coinage, which coincided with the First Punic War.68 Thus, rather than being solely levied in food and supplies, by the mid to late fourth century at least, the tributum could be (and likely was) levied and transported in the more portable and durable forms of bronze and silver, and exchanged for supplies (esp. the frumentum) or distributed as stipendium in increasingly far away regions. 64 65 66 67 68 This is seen not only in the evidence for the agricultural economy of Italy – see Heinrich 2017 – but also in the regular references to “kneaded bread” in discussions of the diet of Roman soldiers by the early Empire, for instance Dio. Cass. 62.5. Although it is likely that this occurred from at least the middle Republic, if not earlier; the first solid evidence for the grain being ground on campaign is from Plutarch’s Antony (45.4). See Junkelmann (2006) for more on portable Roman mills. Erdkmap (1998) 35. Conterburnia were the smallest organizational units of the Roman army during the Empire, made up of eight men who shared a tent (also called a contubernium – Frontin. Str. 3.5.1; Tac. Ann. 1.17; 15.13, etc.). They were not a combat unit – see Lendon (2006). On this broad concept, see also Echeverría’s chapter in this volume. Burnett (1989); Armstrong and Termeer (2024). Diet and Nutrition in the Roman Republican Army 5 141 Warfare and Diet in the Middle Republic Entering the middle Republic, Rome’s military diet was likely increasingly dependent on purchasing local surpluses in the regions where the army operated.69 As part of an increasingly complex logistical system which maintained armies (and Roman power) across the ancient Mediterranean, food and drink were core aspects of Rome’s military system – and the basics which were put in place during this period remained the foundation for Rome’s logistical system well into the imperial period.70 Thankfully for ancient historians as well, this period also marks the advent of native historical writing in Rome and, when coupled with the accounts of interested foreigners (most notably Polybius), the level of clarity and reliability achievable is suddenly much greater. The increase in the amount and reliability of the evidence is fortunate, as Roman and Italian warfare seem to have experienced a massive shift during this period. A wide range of evidence, both literary and archaeological, has pointed towards a gradual “democratization” of warfare in Italy, beginning in the fourth century and gradually continuing throughout the rest of the Republican period.71 In Rome, this trend is arguably visible in the literature through the gradual opening up of military authority to plebeians, as well as through the sheer numbers of soldiers being recruited for conflicts and the gradual lowering of the property qualification required for service – ultimately reaching its nadir with Gaius Marius and the enrolling of the capite censi. This phenomenon was not strictly a Roman one, nor only visible in the literature. In the archaeological record, the late fourth century saw a homogenization of military equipment across the Italian peninsula, with a decline in elaborate helmets and the heavy bronze aspis, and rise in the use of simpler and cheaper cast helmets, wooden scuta, and javelins.72 It is therefore generally accepted that warfare was gradually moving from a small-scale, elite activity to a much larger, community activity which involved a far wider segment of the population. As a result, the initial level of nutrition for soldiers may have been slightly lower than their Archaic predecessors, but more importantly, they would have been unable to supply themselves during the lengthy, often 69 70 71 72 For parallels from the Greek world, see Sear’s chapter in this volume. This continuity is perhaps best seen in the title for Roth’s 1999 study, The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 BC–AD 235). Again, see also chapters by Donahue and Devereaux in this volume. Armstrong (2016) 233–89 for discussion. See Paddock (1993); Armstrong (2022). 142 Armstrong multi-year, campaigns across the Mediterranean in which Rome was engaged during the period.73 From the middle of the third century, the Roman state regularly supplied grain (the frumentum) to its soldiers as a vital aspect of keeping the army operational. Livy (23.21) records that in 216, the Roman state was unable to supply its troops with the usual grain and pay, and Polybius also discusses the grain ration for both Roman and allied troops (6.39). The amount given by Polybius for a Roman soldier, two-thirds of an Attic medimnus of wheat per month, would equal 32 choenikes – or roughly one choenix a day (four cotylae).74 This corresponds to the traditional daily ration for ancient soldiers on campaign going back to Herodotus (7.18). As Erdkamp has noted, given that a soldier’s metal drinking cup supposedly measured two cotylae, soldiers could easily measure out their daily grain ration with two cupfuls.75 As noted above, scholars have offered various specific weights for this ration, ranging from 815 to 850 grams, which should correspond to roughly 3,000 calories.76 Thus, by this period, the vast majority of a soldier’s daily caloric intake was being met by the grain ration alone. The sources also hint that meat was a regular supplement, including both fresh beef and salted pork, although it was likely never a staple.77 By the second century, it also seems that sour wine or vinegar (acetum, or the Greek oxos) was regularly supplied to soldiers (Livy 37.27–28), which was diluted with water and drunk as posca,78 as was vintage wine (oinos) on occasion (App. Hisp. 9.54). How food and drink were distributed is uncertain, although it is likely that it was prepared and consumed communally – given the practicalities of milling (and possibly baking) grain, as well as the wider social 73 74 75 76 77 78 See Rosenstein (2005) for detailed discussion of the socio-economic status of Rome’s mid-Republican recruits. As Roth has argued (1999, 17–19), it is likely Polybius was converting from Roman measurements, where one Attic choenix (c. 1.1 liters) equaled almost exactly two Roman sextarii (1.08 liters in total), meaning a Roman infantryman would have received 64 Roman sextarii of grain a month, equivalent to 34.5 liters or c. 9 US gallons. The measurements are based on Foxhall and Forbes (1982). Erdkamp (1998) 28. Stolle (1914, 28) offered 815 grams, Erdkamp (1998, 29) suggested 830 grams, and Roth (1999, 43) 850 grams. See most recently O’Connor (2013) who argues in favor of 687 grams, though this has not been widely accepted. Erdkamp (1998) 32. This bitter or sharp drink (the name perhaps derived from the Greek epoxos – Junkelmann (1997, 176) was often associated with the lower classes (see Plaut. Mil. Glor. 3.2.837; Plaut. Trunc. 2.7.610) and seems to have had a long connection with Roman soldiers – even likely featuring in the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus (Matthew 27:48; Mark 15:36; John 19:29). Diet and Nutrition in the Roman Republican Army 143 norms around eating and drinking.79 This communal aspect may have been reinforced by the equality of diet which seems to have existed, at least amongst soldiers of particular types. Although simple, the Roman military diet was a common and shared experience which, if not noble, was quite traditional.80 6 The Late Republic Moving into the late Republic, state supply became increasingly important – and increasingly well-documented. With the declining level of wealth required for service, and indeed the (at least temporary) removal of the property qualification altogether by Gaius Marius, the ability of soldiers to supply themselves would have been increasingly limited (or “problematic”?).81 Soldiers were at least capable of entering the legions with virtually nothing, and so depended on the army to supply not only their equipment, but also their sustenance. Additionally, given the multi-year nature of many campaigns and the location of many armies away from markets or urban zones, even wealthier soldiers may have often been wholly dependent on the state and its generals to supply their nutritional needs.82 As a result, by the late Republic the basic rations of Roman soldiers included a wide range of items, which were supplied by an incredibly complex logistical network. Plutarch’s Life of Crassus records that soldiers’ rations before the battle of Carrhae included not only the usual grain ration but also lentils and salts as well, which were traditionally signs of mourning and so an ill omen. Given the obviously symbolic meaning associated with these additions, the specific details might be (quite rightly) viewed with some skepticism – although salt, at least, is attested elsewhere and would have represented a practical staple.83 And indeed, by the early Empire, our sources clearly thought that rations supplied to Roman soldiers were reasonably diverse.84 Cassius Dio (62.5) suggests Roman soldiers “require[d] kneaded bread and wine and oil,” while Appian (Hisp. 9.54) claimed that living without 79 80 81 82 83 84 See Grimm (2007) for discussion. One might expect the diet of ancient warriors to have noble connotations, although Plautus’ use of the term pultiphagi or pultiphagonides “porridge-eating” (Plaut. Mostell. 3.2; Poen. prol. 54) hints there were negative associations as well. The noble aspect of eating was more popular in the Greek tradition, at least in the epic literature. See Murray’s chapter in this volume. See Gauthier (2016, 2020) for discussion. Cassius Dio (50.11) suggested that the senators and knights accompanying Octavian at Actium had to supply their own rations, but this was seen as exceptional. Roth (1999) 40–41. Roth (1999) 25–44. 144 Armstrong wine, salt, and oil (in addition to wheat, barley, and game) would be detrimental to the army. Fresh meat was sometimes supplied as well, although the sources are mixed on its benefits – and it is uncertain if it should ever be considered a staple.85 Roth has suggested though that, by the end of the Republic and start of the Empire, there were three main elements to the military diet, in addition to the grain ration ( frumentum): laridum (salted pork), caesus (cheese), and posca (sour wine).86 Comparing the late Republican military diet to the evidence from the Archaic period, we can actually see a remarkable level of continuity – with a foundation of grain, supplemented by protein (lentils and/or meat), and likely posca. As the army was in the field for longer and longer, this diet was supplemented and diversified (most notably with more vegetables – albeit often protein-rich ones like beans or pulses), but the core was reasonably stable.87 7 The Dynamics of Diet The diet and nutrition of Roman soldiers throughout the Republic seems to have been remarkably consistent, despite the massive changes in other areas of society over this long span of time. The majority of the soldiers’ calories likely came from grain in all periods (initially eaten as puls, and in later periods baked as bread), supplemented by protein-rich foods like meat and lentils, seasoned with salt and olive oil, and all washed down with posca. As long as campaigns were reasonably short, this diet would have been more than enough to sustain the men – although their nutrition may have suffered slightly as the length of service gradually increased. Indeed, as Boon argued, while fine for short, seasonal campaigns, the simple diet of the Roman Republican soldier would have ultimately resulted in some serious vitamin deficiencies if consumed over a long period88 – something which Roman garrisons in the imperial period may have consciously attempted to address.89 But given the reasonably regular turnover of soldiers in the army throughout most of the Republic, the impact 85 86 87 88 89 Erdkamp (1998) 31. Roth (1999) 26. Roth (1999, 26) suggests that this military diet remained reasonably stable throughout, and indeed after the Roman period. Boon (1983). Looking at populations in highland Ecuador, for instance, which subsist on a tuber and grain-based diet, studies have shown deficiencies in iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin A, vitamin B12, and riboflavin – see Berti et al. (2004). Whittaker (2004) 88–114. Diet and Nutrition in the Roman Republican Army 145 of this could be have been moderated for most of that period.90 As a result, the most significant changes were therefore how this diet was organized and acquired, and what it meant. Traditionally, in the regal and early Republican periods, Rome’s military diet was likely derived from the usual diet of the Roman/Central Italian elite. Organized personally, or on a family level, the food of Rome’s Archaic soldiers, along with their ability to transport and prepare it, was entirely dependent on their personal wealth and resources, and limited by their ability to transport it on campaign. While it is entirely possible that some generals or war leaders would have supplemented this diet through either their personal supplies, or more likely the allocation of spoils (often animals) for food/sacrifice, the basics of the diet were likely down to the individual. With the introduction of the tributum and stipendium c. 400, however, this began to change. Coinciding with a gradual expansion of Roman warfare, an increasingly centralized logistics system slowly altered the dynamic which underpinned Rome’s military diet. Although it is likely that many soldiers in the early and middle Republic still supplemented their rations with items brought from home or purchased/acquired on campaign, the core of their diet (and the bulk of their calories) was increasingly supplied by the state. As the property requirements for military service gradually decreased over the course of the Republic, and the length of time on campaign went up, the importance of this relationship increased. This likely had several repercussions. First, as suggested above, the advent of this relationship not only coincided with the expansion of Roman warfare, it likely allowed it. It is not a coincidence that the introduction of the tributum and stipendium was associated with the supposed ten-year siege of Veii in the late fifth and early fourth centuries. Moving the supply of food from the individual soldier and his family to the state meant that supplies could be gathered in much greater quantities and could be regularly acquired and distributed over a much longer period of time without needing to recall the soldiers, and that the general in charge of the army was also able to gauge and predict more accurately the level of nutrition of his troops. The beginnings of locally produced coinage in Rome c. 300 would have increased this further, giving the Roman state and Roman generals a standardized, easily collected and transported, as well as exchangeable form of currency, which could be used to move wealth to, and purchase supplies 90 From the Second Punic War on, Rome increasingly featured large armies, fighting foreign campaigns for years at a time, which would have limited the regular turnover. It is beginning in this period that these nutritional issues may have begun to arise, gradually increasing over time with the increasing length of service. 146 Armstrong in, other regions – thus allowing the peaceful acquisition of supplies while on campaign. As a result, the centralization of supply allowed the Roman army to fight ever longer campaigns, further and further from Rome. Second, the tributum/stipendium system likely created a much stronger link between soldiers and the state – as soldiers were increasingly dependent on the state for food while on campaign, and the state was also actively investing in the soldiers while on campaign. This increased connection between the community and warfare is visible almost immediately after the introduction of tributum and stipendium, most notably in the approach to spoils.91 In addition to marking the first point where the community seems to have directly funded warfare through the tributum, the capture of Veii represents one of the first times where the community seems to benefit directly as well, as our sources record that the wider population of Rome accompanied the army in its sacking of the city.92 Although this evidence may be apocryphal, the coincidence is interesting. Indeed, from the late fifth century onward, Rome becomes increasingly interested in land, instead of simply portable wealth, as a spoil of war. Although this land was sometimes distributed as viritane distributions to soldiers/colonists, it was also increasingly set aside for the use of the wider citizen body as ager publicus – with the community, therefore, directly benefitting from successful warfare.93 Third, the stipendium and frumentum may have worked to create a much greater sense of cohesion and unity amongst the soldiers themselves. As noted previously, with the grain of the frumentum being supplied unmilled, there is evidence from later periods (for instance a millstone from Saalburg with the inscription con(tubernium) Brittonis) that this final processing was done communally by the eight-man conturbernium unit.94 As a result, not only was each individual soldier dependant on the state for the raw ration, he was dependent on the group to make it edible. Further, there is evidence for a wide range of communal activities associated with food in the army, as the soldiers would have ground their grain (Herodian 4.7.5) and baked it into bread in a campfire or hearth (with examples from Masada and elsewhere), which would have also been communal. There is no reason to assume this was not the case in the Republic. Indeed, when discussing meat, Plutarch (Mor. 201C) suggests that this was generally cooked and consumed communally in the Republic. Although the officers obviously ate different fare, the “soldierly and plain” 91 92 93 94 See Armstrong (2023) for discussion. Crooks (2019). Roselaar (2010) 18–85. Gentry (1976) 20. Diet and Nutrition in the Roman Republican Army 147 food consumed equally by the rank-and-file troops (App. Pun. 17.116) likely created a sense of equality amongst the various units – and between the Romans and auxiliaries. 8 Conclusions The Roman military diet can provide fascinating insight into the inner workings of the Roman military system in the Republic and how food can be both remarkably consistent, and indicative of immense change. Within the Roman army, the core of the military diet seems to have been roughly the same for several hundred years. It was likely simple in the earlier periods because of the nascent nature of Roman agriculture, as well as the short length of campaigns and the individualized and personal nature of supply and logistics. In later periods, the simplicity was likely a product of standardization, the increasingly lower-class status of the soldiers – and also the force of tradition. However, the end result was presumably a relatively standard diet and level of nutrition across the period. And yet, despite the consistency and stability, this diet likely represented something very different to soldiers in each period. In the Archaic period, food would have been highly individual, a personal investment in the military endeavor, the result, and symbol, of a soldier’s individual position and wealth. In later periods, however, the same food became a symbol of both the relationship between the soldier and the state, and between the soldiers (both citizen and auxiliary) themselves. Although the officers may have had a different diet, setting them apart as a different class and group, the shared diet of the soldiers – provided centrally and prepared communally – would have worked to help create the sense of military community which we see by the late Republic.95 Works Cited Agarwal, S.C., and Glencross, B.A. (eds) (2011) Social Bioarchaeology. London. Armstrong, J. (2016) War and Society in Early Rome: From Warlords to Generals. Cambridge. Armstrong, J. (2022) “Hephaestus’ Workshop: Craftspeople, Elites, and Bronze Armour in Ancient Italy,” in Armstrong and Cohen (2022) 53–81. Armstrong, J. (2023) “Spoils in Early Rome: From the Regal Period to c. 390 BCE,” in Helm and Roselaar (2023) 75–100. 95 Cagniart (2007) and de Blois (2007). 148 Armstrong Armstrong, J., and Trundle, M. (eds) (2019) Brill’s Companion to Ancient Sieges. Leiden. Armstrong, J., and Fronda, M. (eds) (2020) Romans at War: Soldiers, Citizens, and Society in the Roman Republic. London. Armstrong, J., and Cohen, S. (eds) (2022) Production, Trade, and Connectivity in PreRoman Italy. London. Armstrong, J., Pomeroy, A., and Rosenbloom, D. (eds) (2024) Money, Warfare and Power in the Ancient World: Studies in Honour of Matthew Freeman Trundle. London. Armstrong, J., and Termeer, M. (2024) “The Military History of Early Roman Coinage,” in Armstrong, Pomeroy, and Rosenbloom (2024) 197–218. Banducci, L. (2018) “Tastes of Roman Italy: Early Roman Expansion and Taste Articulation,” in Rudolph (2018) 120–37. Barker, G. (ed) (1995) A Mediterranean Valley: Landscape Archaeology and Annales. History in the Biferno Valley. Leicester. Barker, G. (2004) “Agriculture, Pastoralism, and Mediterranean Landscapes in Prehistory,” in Blake and Knapp (2004) 46–76. Barker, G., and Grant, A. (1991) “Ancient and Modern Pastoralism in Central Italy: An Interdisciplinary Study in the Cicolano Mountains.” PBSR 59: 15–88. Beck, H., Duplá, A., Jehne, M., and Pina Polo, F. (eds) (2011) Consuls and Res Publica: Holding High Office in the Roman Republic. Cambridge. Becker, J., and Terrenato, N. (eds) (2012) Roman Republican Villas. Architecture, Context, and Ideology. Ann Arbor, MI. Bernard, S., Mignone, L., and Peralta, D. (eds) (2023) Making the Middle Republic New Approaches to Rome and Italy, c. 400–200 BCE. Cambridge. Berti, P.R., Krasevec, J., and Cole, D. (2004) Diet Inadequacies and Neurobehavioral Impairment in Rural Highland Ecuadoreans. Ottawa. Blake, E., and Knapp, A.B. (eds) (2004) The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory. Oxford. Blois, L. de (2007) “Army and General in the Late Roman Republic,” in Erdkamp (2007) 164–80. Boon, G. (1983) “Potters, Occultists, and Eye-Troubles.” Britannia 14: 1–12. Boren, H. (1983) “Studies Relating to the Stipendium Militum.” Historia 32: 427–60. Burnett, A. (1989) “The Beginnings of Roman Coinage.” AIIN 33: 33–64. Cagniart, P. (2007) “The Late Republican Army (146–30 BC),” in Erdkamp (2007) 80–95. Cahill G.F. (1970) “Starvation in Man.” New England Journal of Medicine 282 (12): 668–75. Carandini, A. (ed) (1985) Settefinestre: una villa schiavistica nell’Etruria romana. Modena. Cohen, S. (2022) “Mechanisms of Community Formation in Pre-Roman Italy: A Latticework of Connectivity and Interaction,” in Armstrong and Cohen (2022) 226–43. Cooley, A. (ed) (2016) A Companion to Roman Italy. London. Crooks, J. (2019) “Voluntarii at the Gates: Irregular Recruitment and the Siege of Veii,” in Armstrong and Trundle (2019) 217–40. Diet and Nutrition in the Roman Republican Army 149 Dunbar, R. (2017) “Breaking Bread: The Functions of Social Eating.” Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology 3: 198–211. Erdkamp, P. (1998) Hunger and the Sword: Warfare and Food Supply in Roman Republican Wars (264–30 BC). Amsterdam. Erdkamp, P. (ed) (2007) A Companion to the Roman Army. London. Flower, H. (2009) Roman Republics. Princeton. Foxhall, L., and Forbes, H. (1982) “Sitrometreia: The Role of Grain as a Staple Food in Classical Antiquity.” Chiron 12: 41–89. Fulminante, F. (2014) The Urbanisation of Rome and Latium Vetus: From the Bronze Age to the Archaic Era. Cambridge. Garnsey, P. (1989) Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis. Cambridge. Gauthier, F. (2016) “The Changing Composition of the Roman Army in the Late Republic and the So-Called Marian-Reforms.” AHB 30: 103–20. Gauthier, F. (2020) “The Transformation of the Roman Army in the Last Decades of the Republic: A longue durée Reappraisal,” in Armstrong and Fronda (2020) 283–96. Gentry, A. (1976) Roman Military Stone-Built Granaries in Britain. Oxford. Goodchild, H. (2013) “Agriculture and the Environment of Republican Italy,” in Rose (2013) 198–213. Grimm, V. (2007) “On Food and the Body,” in Potter (2007) 354–68. Haas, T., and Tol, G. (eds) (2017) The Economic Integration of Roman Italy: Rural Communities in a Globalising World. Leiden. Hanson, V.D. (1983) Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece. Berkeley. Hanson, V.D. (1989) The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece. Berkeley. Hatton, T.J., and Bray, B.E. (2010) “Long Run Trends in the Heights of European Men, 19th–20th Centuries.” Economics & Human Biology 8: 405–13. Heinrich, F. (2017) “Modelling Crop Selection in Roman Italy: The Economics of Agricultural Decision Making in a Globalizing Economy,” in Haas and Tol (2017) 141–69. Heitz, C. (2022) “A Mobile Model of Cultural Transfer in Pre-Roman Southern Italy,” in Armstrong and Cohen (2022) 204–25. Helm, M., and Roselaar, S. (eds) (2023) Spoils in the Roman Republic: Boon and Bane. Berlin. Hopkins, J. (2016) The Genesis of Roman Architecture. New Haven, CT. Junkelmann, M. (1997) Panis Militaris: die Ernährung des romischen Soldaten oder der Grundstoff der Macht. Mainz. Junkelmann, M. (2006) Panis Militaris, Die Ernährung des römischen Soldaten oder der Grundstoff der Macht, Kulturgeschichter der antiken welt. Mainz. Killgrove, K., and Tykot, R. (2013) “Food for Rome: A Stable Isotope Investigation of Diet in the Imperial Period (1st–3rd Centuries AD).” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32.1: 28–38. 150 Armstrong Kron, G. (2005) “Anthropometry, Physical Anthropology, and the Reconstruction of Ancient Health, Nutrition, and Living Standards.” Historia 54: 68–83. Kron, G. (2008) “Animal Husbandry, Hunting, Fishing and Pisciculture,” in Oleson (2008) 176–222. Kron, G. (2018) “Comparative Perspectives on Nutrition and Social Inequality in the Roman World,” in HDNRW 259–72. Lendon, J.E. (2006) “Contubernalis, Commanipularis, and Commilito in Roman Soldiers’ Epigraphy: Drawing the Distinction.” ZPE 157: 270–76. Lentjes, D. (2013) “Planting the Seeds of Change: A Bioarchaeological Approach to Developments in Landscape and Land Use in First millennium BC Southeast Italy,” PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Manning, F. (1994) Military Psychiatry: Preparing in Peace for War. Washington, D.C. MacKinnon, M. (2004) Animal Production and Consumption in Roman Italy: Integrating the Zooarchaeological and Ancient Textual Evidence. JRA Supplementary Series. Portsmouth, RI. Mayer, E. (2012) The Ancient Middle Classes: Urban Life and Aesthetics in the Roman Empire 100 BCE–250 CE. Cambridge, MA. Motta, L. (2002) “Planting the Seed of Rome.” Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11: 71–78. O’Connor, S. (2013) “The Daily Grain Consumption of Classical Greek Sailors and Soldiers.” Chiron 43: 327–56. Oleson, J. (ed) (2008) The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World. New York. Paddock, J. (1993) “The Bronze Italian Helmet: The Development of the Cassis from the Last Quarter of the Sixth Century B.C. to the Third Quarter of the First Century A.D.,” PhD Dissertation, University College London. Potter, D. (ed) (2007) A Companion to the Roman Empire. London. Prowse, T.L. (2011) “Diet and Dental Health through the Life Course in Roman Italy,” in Agarwal and Glencross (2011) 410–37. DOI: 10.1002/9781444390537.ch15. Purcell, N. (2003) “The Way We Used to Eat: Diet, Community, and History at Rome.” AJP 124: 329–58. Rose, J. (ed) (2013) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Roman Republic. London. Roselaar, S. (2010) Public Land in the Roman Republic: A Social and Economic History of Ager Publicus in Italy, 396–89 BC. Oxford. Rosenstein, N. (2005) Rome at War: Farms, Families, and Death in the Middle Republic. Chapel Hill, NC. Rosenstein, N. (2011) “War, Wealth and Consuls,” in Beck et al. (2005) 133–58. Roth, J. (1999) The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 BC–AD 235). Leiden. Rudolph, K. (ed) (2018) Taste and the Ancient Senses. London. Scheidel, W. (2012a) “Physical Well-Being,” in Scheidel (2012b) 321–33. Diet and Nutrition in the Roman Republican Army 151 Scheidel, W. (ed) (2012b) The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy. Cambridge. Schwartz, A. (2009) Reinstating the Hoplite: Arms, Armour and Phalanx Fighting in Archaic and Classical Greece. Stuttgart. Smith, C. (2006) The Roman Clan: The Gens from Ancient Ideology to Modern Anthropology. Cambridge. Sparacello, V., d’Ercole, V., and Coppa, A. (2014) “A Bioarchaeological Approach to the Reconstruction of Changes in Military Organization among Iron Age Samnites (Vestini) from Abruzzo, Central Italy.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 156: 305–16. Stolle, F. (1914) Römische Legionar und sein Gepäck (Mulus Marianus). Strasburg. Tan, J. (2017) Power and Public Finance at Rome, 264–49 BCE. Oxford. Tan, J. (2020) ‘The dilectus-tributum system and the settlement of fourth century Italy,’ in Armstrong and Fronda (2020) 52–75. Tan, J. (2023) “The Long Shadow of Tributum in the Long Fourth Century,” in Bernard, Mignone, and Peralta (2023) 38–63. Terrenato, N. (2001) “The Auditorium Site in Rome and the Origins of the Villa.” JRA 14: 5–32. Terrenato, N. (2012) “The Enigma of ‘Catonian’ Villas: The De agri cultura in the Context of Second-Century BC Italian Architecture,” in Becker and Terrenato (2012) 69–93. Trentacoste, A. (2016) “Etruscan Appetites and Demographic Demands: Late Iron Age Livestock Husbandry in Northern Italy.” European Journal of Archaeology 19: 279–315. Trundle, M. (2020) “Wealth and the Logistics of Greek Warfare,” in NAGRW 17–27. Witcher, R.E. (2016) “Agricultural Production in Roman Italy,” in Cooley (2016) 459–82. Whittaker, C. (2004) Rome and its Frontiers: The Dynamics of Empire. London.