Punic Wars and Porridge (Part 5 of 6)

Although reduced to rations of grain, Rome was on the rise once again.  New armies quickly replaced those lost at the battles of Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae, and were used to see to any Italians who did decide to join the Carthaginians.  To feed his army, Hannibal, cut off from supplies, had to start raiding the farms of the very same people he hoped would join his fight against Rome.  Things were not looking good for the Carthaginian general.

Now able to keep Hannibal in check in Italy, the Romans could commit more resources to their armies in Spain.  These armies had been neglected whilst things were looking bleak in Italy, but now they were ready for action.  Led by Scipio Africanus, the Roman forces quickly captured the centres of Carthaginian power in Spain.  By 206 B.C. Carthage had been pushed out of Spain and back to Africa.  Scipio followed, and in 203 B.C., after 15 years of fighting in Italy, Hannibal was recalled to defend his homeland.

The decisive Battle of Zama in 202 B.C. saw Carthage defeated.  Italy, Spain, and North Africa - all were now Roman.  Besides losing all its territory, Carthage was once more forced to pay several hundred tonnes of silver to Rome.  Carthage's navy, once its pride and joy, was reduced to a mere ten ships - enough to fight off pirates, but no more.  As for Hannibal, his best days were behind him.  In 183/182 B.C., after two decades of leading armies for foreign kings, he took his own life.

Carthago delenda est

A weakened Carthage was not enough - at least not for Cato the Elder. "Carthage must be destroyed" was Cato's call. (1)  No matter how weak they were, Carthage had the potential to rise again, and the potential to threaten Rome once more.  It is said that to illustrate this point, Cato, whilst addressing the senate, shook some fresh figs from the folds of his toga.  These figs were plump and fresh, and could be found just three days sail from Rome.  These were Carthaginian figs, and if they could reach Rome in three days, then why not an army?

The pretext for war came when Carthage raised an army to fend off attacks from its Numidian neighbours.  Rome, not wanting to be seen as the aggressor, made a series of demands so outlandish that Carthage had no choice but to refuse; they went so far as to demand that the Carthaginians demolish their city and rebuild it elsewhere.  With their refusal, Rome's armies arrived in Africa and laid siege to the city.  So wholesale was the destruction of Carthage in 146 B.C. that it is said that Scipio Aemilianus, the Roman commander, "looked upon the city... in the last throes of its complete destruction... and wept for his enemies." (2)  Rome did not bury the city in salt, as we are so often told; what they did do was sell its population into slavery, and burn it to the ground.  Although he did not live to see it happen, Cato got his wish - Carthage was destroyed.

Aftermath

Before the Punic Wars Rome's reach had not extended much beyond mainland Italy, but after, Rome emerged as the dominant power in the Mediterranean, with overseas territories in Greece, Spain, and North Africa.  What is the significance of all this for Pass the Garum?  Well, this expansion brought Rome into contact with new luxuries which undoubtedly shaped the course of Roman wining and dining.

I started this series with a porridge recipe reflecting the wealth of Carthage, master of trade in the Mediterranean.  The second recipe is a taste the hardships experienced during the Second Punic War, as both sides struggled to find the food they needed to go on; it was a simple recipe, symbolising hard times.  My final recipe reflects Roman victory, and the changes that brought with it.

Footnotes

1) Plutarch, Life of Cato the Elder, 27
2) Polybius, 38.22

Part 6 of 6 →

Punic Wars and Porridge (Part 3 of 6)

Last week we left Hannibal looking up at the Alps, preparing to cross into Italy and crush the Romans.  Unfortunately for him, the crossing was not a smooth one.  Perhaps because he didn't give them any Punic Porridge (or rather because he turned up on their lands with thousands of soldiers), some of the Gallic tribes to the north of the Alps decided to raise arms against the Carthaginian general.  These tribes were soon subdued, and Hannibal started off into the mountains.  By the time he arrived on the other side, however, the cold and the snow had claimed almost all of his elephants and roughly half of his men. (1)

Not one to let the problem of half an army get in the way of his conquests, Hannibal set off into Italy. In the Battle of the Trebia, the outnumbered Carthaginians convinced the Romans to seek battle before they'd even had their breakfast.  The Carthaginian forces were well-rested and well-fed, unlike the Romans, who proved little match.  Eager to get revenge, Gaius Flaminius marched north with another army.  What followed was arguably one of the greatest ambushes in military history - the Battle of Lake Trasimene.  Hannibal lured the Romans onto a road, with forested hills to their left and Lake Trasimene to their right.  Hidden in these hills, masked by fog, were the Carthaginian soldiers, who quickly descended on Flaminius' legions, forcing them into the lake.  The destruction of this second army led the Romans to adopt a policy of attrition, avoiding pitched battles and hoping to wear the enemy down through other means.  This left Hannibal free to walk his way around Italy, sowing discord and discontent.  Hannibal soon tired of this, and was desperate to face Rome in the field once again.  To make this happen, he captured the Roman supply depot at Cannae.  The ensuing Battle of Cannae resulted in one of the largest losses of life of any battle in the ancient world.  According to Livy:

There was no longer any Roman camp, any general, any single soldier in existence. - Livy 22.54

This was not entirely true, but to the Romans it must surely have felt that way.  How then did the Romans claw their way back from the apparent jaws of defeat, push Hannibal back to Africa, and give him a right walloping? Rather conveniently for the purposes of this blog, I think that the answer lies in food.

Food vs Force

In 209 B.C. Rome fought hard to capture the city of New Carthage in Spain, but "amidst such an enormous supply of military and naval stores, the actual city itself was regarded as the least important capture of all." (2)  This quote is great because it shows that Carthage had wealth enough to fund, feed, and support countless armies.  The problem was that this wealth was in Spain, and not in Italy with Hannibal.  Furthermore, to make good time when crossing the Alps, Hannibal had his soldiers leave whatever food, weapons, and wives they did not need behind in France. (3)  The several tribes of angry Gauls he fought and left behind before made sure that these supplies could not reach Italy.  So, here we have Hannibal stuck in Italy, separated from the very supplies he needs to wage war - what gives?

Hannibal left his brother Hasdrubal and his general Hanno the ships and soldiers necessary to control the Mediterranean coastline, meaning that he could be resupplied by sea. (4)  This was only part of the plan however.  Hannibal's overarching strategy was not to crush Rome militarily (which he did with great gusto), but to convince the rest of Italy to turn against their Roman overlords.  The Roman world was not, at this stage, as unified as you might expect, and it was only recently that vast swathes of Italy had come under Roman control.  Hannibal hoped to undermine this control by showing the Italians that the Romans could be defeated.  He hoped that the Italians would join the cause and rush to his side, bringing with them the soldiers and sandwiches (Note:  This is ENTIRELY anachronistic, but it illustrates a point) needed to subdue the enemy.  This didn't happen.

As much as the Italians disliked Rome, at least the Romans shared the same gods, customs, and sense of dress as them.  The Carthaginians on the other hand had strange gods and liked to sacrifice children (or so says late Roman propaganda, so take this with a pinch of salt/ dash of garum). (5)  Hannibal's anticipated support never fully materialised, and his hopes of resupply from Spain by sea were dashed when Rome destroyed the Carthaginian navy.  Stranded in Italy with thousands of soldiers to feed and pay,  Hannibal had to start stealing food from the very same Italians he hoped would join his cause.  Things did not look good for Mr. Hannibal Barca.

Things didn't look particularly good for the Romans either.  Italy's farmers "had been carried off by the war, there was hardly any slave labour, the cattle had been driven off as plunder, and the farms and houses had been either stripped or burnt." (6)  Luckily, thanks to the First Punic War, Rome had found a friend in Hiero of Syracuse, who saw to it that Rome had the grain supplies necessary to get them through the war. (7)  Whilst it wasn't particularly tasty or exciting, Rome had food, and Carthage didn't - they could simply sit back and wait for Hannibal's army to starve.

Part 4 of 6 →

Footnotes

1) Livy, 21.38
2) Livy, 26.47
3) Livy, 21.60
4) Polybius, 3.95 and Livy, 21.23
5) Plutarch, On Superstition, 13
6) Livy, 28.11
7) Livy, 23.21

Punic Wars and Porridge (Part 1 of 6)

As much as I love a good bowl of porridge in the morning, even I must admit that it's boring.  In terms of boring, it's up there with cauliflower, plain pasta, and white sauce.  How, then, am I supposed to write about two porridge recipes, without sending you all off to sleep?  The answer is to combine these two porridge recipes (and an exciting-but-top-secret-third recipe) with the story of Rome's conquest of Carthage - the Punic Wars.  This is my absolute favourite part of history, and it is one in which I think food plays quite a major role.  But, before we get into all that, just who were the Carthaginians?

Carthage?

The map above shows the extent of both Carthaginian and Roman territory in 218 B.C. - just prior to the 2nd Punic War.  In the Red Corner we have Rome, occupying much - but not all - of modern day Italy.  In the Purple Corner we have Carthage, occupying just about everywhere else.

Carthage started life as a Phoenician colony, but it very soon came into its own.  Its people were a mercantile people, creating and controlling the trade networks of the western Mediterranean. (1)  Their influence stretched along the coast of north Africa and into Spain, Sardinia, and Sicily.  If you needed carpets, rugs, dyes, jewellery, pottery, lamps, tapestry, timber, hides, food, or wine, chances are that there was a Carthaginian merchant who could get them for you.  This trade was protected by Carthaginian control of the sea - they had a formidable navy - and it was this control which brought Carthage into conflict with others. (2)


Carthage and Conflict

First Punic War

It was Carthage's interest in Sicily which worried people most.  When Rome was still young, Sicily and southern Italy were colonised by the Greeks, and for centuries the Greeks and Carthaginians fought on and off for control of the island.  Initially, Rome stayed out of it, even going so far as to sign two treaties with the Carthaginians saying as much.  When southern Italy became Roman, however, they realised that Carthage was a little too close for comfort.  Under the pretence of helping their 'friends' in Sicily, Rome declared war on Carthage - thus began the First Punic War.­­ (3)

When you think of the Roman military you think of armour clad soldiers with sword and spear and shield - a Roman navy doesn't really spring to mind.  In 264 B.C. this vision is especially true, as the Romans had very few ships indeed.  Needless to say, when their handful of ships came up against the Carthaginian fleet, they were destroyed.  However, if nothing else, the Romans were quick to adapt; realising that their strength lay in their infantry, they engineered and equipped their boats with a corvus.  The corvus, meaning 'crow', was a platform which would swing down and pierce the enemy's deck (like a crow's beak, hence the name); this let the Romans turn naval combat, with which they struggled, into infantry combat, at which they excelled.  By 241 B.C. Carthage was defeated, and sent packing back to Africa.  Forced to give up valuable territories to Rome, and made to pay 96 tonnes of silver to Rome,  Carthage was humiliated.

Second Punic War

With a fortune to pay and none of Sicily's resources to pay it with, Carthage turned its eyes towards Spain, a country rich in silver and gold.  Spain allowed the Carthaginians to reclaim some of its lost pride, but many still had nothing but contempt for the Romans.  According to Livy, one such person was Hannibal Barca; as a child, "(Hannibal swore), with his hand laid on the (sacrificial) victim that as soon as he possibly could he would show himself the enemy of Rome". (4) This account is doubtless made up, but it illustrates very nicely the point that with Carthage on the rise once more, another clash with the Romans was almost inevitable.

In 218 B.C., with Carthage once again getting too close to Roman interests, Rome declared war.  By this stage, however, Hannibal was already approaching the Alps with some tens of thousands of soldiers (and 37 war elephants), ready to descend on Italy.  Rome was in trouble.

Part 2 of 6 →

Footnotes

1) Polybius, 6.56.1
2) Polybius, 6.52.1
3) Polybius, 1.10.1
4) Livy, 21.1

Give us this day our daily grain

The people who once gave out military commands, made magistrates, and summoned legions - the people who did everything - now content themselves and wait anxiously for two things - bread and circuses.

Juvenal, Satire, 10.77-81

The Roman satirist Juvenal observed that the people, who once held some serious political clout, gave up whatever influence they had in return for 'bread and circuses', or more generally 'food and entertainment'.  Essentially, as long as they had food in their mouths and a gladiatorial game or two to keep them amused, the Roman people didn't care about who ruled them or how.  Whilst this is perhaps a bit of an oversimplification,  it highlights just how important 'bread' was to the Romans, something which I think warrants further investigation.

When Juvenal writes about bread he is essentially writing about 'grain'.  Grain was the mainstay of the ancient Mediterranean; potatoes and maize were still entertaining the Incas in South America, and rice, whilst not unknown, was limited in its usage.  It was grain which was the staple of the Roman diet, and it was from this grain that you get the breads and porridges with which most people would start and finish their days. With so many depending on it, millions of acres stretching from Italy to Egypt were devoted to the cultivation of wheat.  This was not wheat as we know it, but rather hardier varieties known as spelt and emmer.  As hardy as it might be, however, the Romans still left nothing to chance.

Grain and the Gods

Ceres, Goddess of Agriculture

Given their dependency on grain, it is not surprising that the Romans looked to the gods for support.  They had seemingly limitless agricultural deities, with the goddess Ceres (from where we get our word cereal) leading a team including, but not limited to Convector (the grain carrier), Conditor (the one who stores the grain), Promitor (the grain distributor), Hostilina (the goddess of even grain growth), Patelana (goddess of opening up the grain), and Tutelina (the goddess who watches over stored grain).  The very concept of the Roman grain supply was itself personified as the goddess Annona.  Lots of gods and goddesses meant lots of festivals, with the grain related festivals alone including the Cerealia (a festival for the growth of cereals), Opiconsiva (for the organising of cereal reserves), and the Consualia (for the opening of the grain chambers).  Rome needed its grain, and there was no way that any part of the process was going to be left to chance.  It is particularly telling than Ceres was predominantly worshipped in the Aventine, the part of Rome most often associated with the poor.  If it was the gods who oversaw the production of the grain, it was the politicians who did all the dirty work.

Politics

In the modern western world we are detached from the production and supply of food - it's taken for granted that you can go to a supermarket and get the ingredients you need.  In fact, we are now so detached that we don't even have to buy the ingredients to make the dinner, you can buy an entire meal just in need of a few minutes in the microwave.  In ancient Rome, however, the production and supply of food was of great concern.

Roman society was an agricultural society, with cities supplied by food from the neighbouring fields.  As the cities grew, these fields struggled to provide enough for everybody to eat.  The city of Rome, which grew from 250,000 to 1,000,000 inhabitants in the space of just over a century, felt these pressures more than most, and the people quickly turned to the politicians to provide a solution.

A baker selling his wares, or a politician currying favour?

People needed grain, and politicians needed votes, so throughout Roman history many aspiring consuls took to distributing free food to garner support.  In the 120s BCE however, one politician named Gaius Gracchus proposed a controversial law, the lex frumentaria, which meant that the state started providing a subsidised grain ration to the poor.  P. Clodius Pulcher took things a step further in 58 BCE and made this ration free.  This was controversial because it undermined the ability of the elite to increase their popularity through displays of charity.  By the time of the Empire (Rome was first a Kingdom, then a Republic, then an Empire), the number receiving this corn dole was set at around 200,000.

Grain, then, was not just on the minds of the poor, but also on the minds of the very people running the city of Rome.  As long as the people were fed, there would be order.

Bibliography

'Food Supply', in Hornblower, S., and Spawforth, A., (eds.), Oxford Classical Dictionary 3rd Edition, (Oxford, 2003)

Grainger, S., Cooking Apicius, (Totnes, 2006)

Scheid, J., An Introduction to Roman Religion, (Paris, 1998)

Ungern-Sternberg, J.V., 'The Crisis of the Republic', in Flower, H.I. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic, (Cambridge, 2004), pp.89-112

Ancient Sources

Cato, On Agriculture

Pliny, Natural History

Rome Sweet Rome

At its height the Roman empire stretched from Britain to Babylon, encompassing countless peoples, customs and cultures.  All manner of luxury goods flowed back to the city from the empire's furthest reaches.  At the beginning, however, Rome was a simple city-state full of farmers and their families.  When we talk about Roman food then, do we talk about the bread and salt of the poor, or the extravagance and opulence of imperial banquets?  Well, in this case we're going to talk about it all.  If we stick to the common folk's food then Pass the Garum will soon become Fifty Shades of Bread, and if we stick to over-the-top banquets then I will most likely run out of money.  We'll strike a balance.  First thing is first - we need to know a little bit about the Romans' dining habits, so here's a handy introduction.

When did they eat?

Breakfast, or ientaculum, was a simple affair consisting of a bit of bread and cheese or leftovers from the day before.  It was a quick meal giving you just enough energy to get out the door and get on with the day's business.The main Roman meal was known as cena (nothing to do with the WWE superstar).  For most people this was eaten at around midday, with a light supper (vesperna) in the evening to keep tummy rumbles at bay.  This would give people the energy needed to complete their day's work  The rich, who might be finished their business quite early in comparison, moved their cena to the late afternoon, and instead ate a small lunch, or prandium at around midday.

Where did they eat?

The elite ate in their triclinia, dining rooms with a central table surrounded by couches for reclining. These rooms were lavishly decorated, and in Pompeii at least, many looked out over the house's garden.  Slaves would bring course after course as the host attempted to impress his guests.  I say 'his' because originally it was only men who were allowed to dine and recline in this fashion, although women were eventually permitted to join in.  For the common-folk there were all manner of eating establishments along the streets; in some housing blocks such as at Ostia, the entire ground floor was a tavern, a place where the common folk could mingle, eat, and drink.  Obviously, eating out all the time was impossible, so people tended to have access to portable braziers to cook their porridges and bread in whatever space was available to them.

What did they eat?

The Roman diet, from the earliest days of the kingdom to the last days of the empire, was cereal based - they loved their porridges and bread.  For those who could afford them, vegetables (onion, garlic, cabbage), legumes (chick-peas, lentils, beans), and maybe even fruit (grapes, figs, apples) made a nice addition.  Olive oil played a prominent role, and was the main source of fat in the diet, with cheese added when available.

You might have noticed the distinct lack of meat in this diet - meat was a luxury unavailable to most.  For those who could afford it, the favourite meat by far was pork, with poultry and game also featuring heavily.  People made the most of their meat, with kidney, liver, tongue, and brain all being used.  Fish was eaten, but because it was expensive it was eaten only rarely.  Garum, or fish sauce on the other hand...

It is said that "the Romans disliked the natural tastes of most cooked foods" and loved to over-season their meals with spices and sauces.¹  Whether this reputation is deserved, we shall find out.

And drink?

Beer was for barbarians - in Rome, wine was what mattered.  Everybody drank wine, albeit of varying quality - slaves, soldiers, and senators alike.  The wine of the slaves and soldiers was more like vinegar than wine, but this was not a massive problem since the Romans tended to drink their wine diluted.  Drinking undiluted wine was, like beer drinking, a sign of the barbarian.

How did they eat?

Roman food was all a bit fingers and toes, with feet and hands being washed before the meal.  Spoons were used for some foods, but typically it was just a case of grabbing it with your fingers and shovelling it into your mouth.  Flat breads, not unlike naan bread, were also used to pick up bits and pieces.  The slaves would take care of the mess.

Who made it all?

Unlike in Greek society where cooks had some renown, in Rome they were "nameless and without reputation".²  The Romans had this idea of what a respectable man may and may not do, and whilst writing treatises on agriculture and cooking was acceptable, actually getting involved in it was not.  The Roman orator Cicero says:

"Those trades which are the servants of physical pleasure are to be thought least proper - the fishmongers, butchers and cooks."³

So, in elite households at least, cooking was done by the slaves.  The everyday man, however, having no such luxury, just had to get stuck in and do it himself.

Footnotes

1. 'Food and Drink', in Hornblower, S., and Spawforth, A., (eds.), Oxford Classical Dictionary 3rd Edition, (Oxford, 2003)

2. Grainger, S., ‘The Myth of Apicius’, Gastronomica (2007), p.72

3. Cicero, de officiis, 1.150

Bibliography

Carcopino, J., Daily Life in Ancient Rome, (London, 1941)

Grainger, S., Cooking Apicius, (Totnes, 2006)

Grainger, S., ‘The Myth of Apicius’, Gastronomica (2007), pp.71-77

'Food and Drink', in Hornblower, S., and Spawforth, A., (eds.), Oxford Classical Dictionary 3rd Edition, (Oxford, 2003)

'Meals', in Hornblower, S., and Spawforth, A., (eds.), Oxford Classical Dictionary 3rd Edition, (Oxford, 2003)