|
Might be that they're too uncommonly slaughtered(owing to milk, manure and labor value for the farmer), so it was never available enough to get really popular.
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
Keep in mind it took a long time to breed the livestock we have today! The cattle you see around the world are the result of thousands of additional years of breeding. Just like a lot of the horses the Romans had weren't quite strong enough to handle constantly carrying armored men on horseback yet (that's the reason chariots were a thing after all!) the Roman cattle would probably have been a bit undersuited to large scale beef production especially in proportion to their usefulness in other ways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Cavalry was already a thing before Roman times. They just liked chariot races.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Cavalry was already a thing before Roman times. They just liked chariot races. The very early part of Roman history overlapped with when chariots were still necessary for battle due to what was by then a mere scarcity of robust enough horses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Is this a case of the upper classes not eating beef, and thus we don't hear about eating beef because it's something that only poor rural farmers would eat? It seems incredibly unlikely that the meat wouldn't be eaten, unless it was being prepared for export. Actually yeah this seems more likely. My sources were primarily the upper classes. I guess the Roman upper crust didn't know how to cook a good steak.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Actually yeah this seems more likely. My sources were primarily the upper classes. The rare/medium/well-done debate got so bloody that steak was entirely abandoned for generations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Actually yeah this seems more likely. My sources were primarily the upper classes. If it's not endangered fowl flown in from Syria and god knows where as well or from your personal outlandishly impractical (worth the GDP of some small tribes) fish farm in the middle of your second villa, it's not really worth eating you know?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Fun fact: a fish native to the Tiber was considered a delicacy such that it was subject to luxury taxes on occasion. It's diet consisted primarily of the outflow from the cloaca maxima.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Fun fact: a fish native to the Tiber was considered a delicacy such that it was subject to luxury taxes on occasion. It's diet consisted primarily of the outflow from the cloaca maxima. There was a thing in Rome called the Giant rear end in a top hat? The Emperor 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:There was a thing in Rome called the Giant rear end in a top hat? Well, it's the rear end in a top hat of the city.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
 large intestine ≠ anus (ring)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Sorry, my Latin isn't the best.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Fun fact: a fish native to the Tiber was considered a delicacy such that it was subject to luxury taxes on occasion. It's diet consisted primarily of the outflow from the cloaca maxima. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3128
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
I don't think there's any reason to believe the Romans didn't eat cows; they ate sacrificed animals (at, for example, a suovetaurilia). I think it was just rare, because cattle were so useful for other things, especially before the advent of the shoulder harness. Their draft animals were oxen and mules, not horses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
I'm guessing it's less that cows weren't eaten so much as they had so much more pig, fowl and fish. Cows take so long to grow to maturity in contrast that slaughtering them for the express purpose of consumption would be pretty wasteful unless it appealed to their sense of taste. Speaking of taste. What did they prefer, food wise? Sweet stuff, savory stuff, etc. Probably not as sweet as modern foods, given our easy access to sugar, but what did their food preferences lean to, especially those wealthy enough to choose? Any records of how taste preferences evolved as the empire expanded and incorporated new people and cuisine, or was it more pressing their preferences onto their new members as they assimilated?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
veekie posted:I'm guessing it's less that cows weren't eaten so much as they had so much more pig, fowl and fish. Cows take so long to grow to maturity in contrast that slaughtering them for the express purpose of consumption would be pretty wasteful unless it appealed to their sense of taste. The best (but not only) answer to "what did the Romans eat" (or at least rich Romans) is Apicius, who was writing ~late 4th century. It's a lot of recipes to look at (and that site is horrible) but it gives you a good idea of the flavors. There are "modern" versions of a lot of Apicius (with modern measurements and substitutions where needed) but they don't cover all the recipes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
homullus posted:The best (but not only) answer to "what did the Romans eat" (or at least rich Romans) is Apicius, who was writing ~late 4th century. It's a lot of recipes to look at (and that site is horrible) but it gives you a good idea of the flavors. There are "modern" versions of a lot of Apicius (with modern measurements and substitutions where needed) but they don't cover all the recipes. Ooo, thanks for the link. Those recipes sound delicious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Never ever try Garum. It's rancid fish paste (spoiler'd because it's gross) and was also considered a delicacy. I wonder if simply anything with a strong, palatable flavor was considered a delicacy? Spices were and are some of the most commonly traded goods in the world for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Never ever try Garum. It's rancid fish paste (spoiler'd because it's gross) and was also considered a delicacy. I wonder if simply anything with a strong, palatable flavor was considered a delicacy? Spices were and are some of the most commonly traded goods in the world for a reason. Have you had fish sauce in pho? It's freaking delicious! It's fermented fish. A quick check on wikipedia claims garum was high in saltiness and umani (aka MSG). I'm pretty sure these flavors sell 'Chinese' food across America today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
Brain Candy posted:Have you had fish sauce in pho? It's freaking delicious! It's fermented fish. A quick check on wikipedia claims garum was high in saltiness and umani (aka MSG). I'm pretty sure these flavors sell 'Chinese' food across America today. Fish sauce in pho just means that the pho is ruined.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
I always assumed that garum tasted something like Worcestershire sauce, since they're both made from fermented fish (although Worcestershire uses anchovies and garum apparently used bogues).
Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Oct 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
Garum/Worcestershire/fish sauce are all roughly the same thing. From the Roman cooking I've done I'd say the most loved flavor was salt, because gently caress that stuff is salty. People were definitely eating cows. Rome was wealthy by ancient standards but it was still not that much above subsistence, they were not in any position to just decide "gently caress cows" and not eat the meat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
I imagine rich folk didn't eat beef because beef as we know it today is "animals bred specifically for tasty tasty meat that are slaughtered whilst still young and supple", whilst the beef that the romans would have had was probably "draught animal that was worked to death for over 10+ years" because of their other uses, making it stringy, tough and gristly. I imagine no one would eat it if they could afford another type of meat (ie pork, lamb, venison?). Although on the other hand, Roman upper class also ate swan and peacock etc, which are supposedly almost as bad. That might be a prestige thing. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
Don't knock fermented fish sauce until you try it, just like fermented grapes, fermented milk, fermented cabbage, fermented beans, etcetera. I've had people turn down oyster sauce of all things because they have a ridiculous generalized fear of seafood.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
If a theoretical chinese dynasty collapsed, and there arose a collection of feuding chinese kingdoms plus a remnant of the old dynasty holding a fraction of the territory, we would all agree that they were all chinese states and inheritors of that legacy, right? So isn't it equally accurate to say that, while yes, Byzantium was most certainly roman, the various successor states in the west were also roman? My perception is that our Rome fetish has gotten so ingrained in culture that we basically subscribe to a "One True Rome" sort of thing, where really roman civilization, much like chinese or persian, is a continuous entity that didn't just die with any one state, and that the only difference is that no one entity managed to reunify the "roman" sphere. Is there something I'm missing or is this a fairly accurate assessment?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
There's a difference in self-identification. The east was the only place where people still considered themselves Romans. The rulers of the western successor states took Roman titles and such to try to legitimize themselves, but the Roman culture died after a while. Also, the east is a continuous single Roman government, which doesn't exist anywhere else. In China you're also dealing with a succession of various different states that are all part of a Chinese cultural sphere, which share some basic governmental characteristics but can be quite different from one another. With Rome, it's just one state. You never really have like a different Roman cultural state arise claiming to be Rome. Roman culture slowly breaks apart and turns into other things in the successors, and while you'll have people down to the 1800s claiming Roman titles, you wouldn't find a peasant in France in 1000 AD claiming to be Roman anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Never ever try Garum. It's rancid fish paste (spoiler'd because it's gross) and was also considered a delicacy. I wonder if simply anything with a strong, palatable flavor was considered a delicacy? Spices were and are some of the most commonly traded goods in the world for a reason. Yeah, I've heard of garum. All I knew about Roman food before today was that they salted everything heavily, but those recipes show a lot of spices being used.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
The Irish of antiquity were a cow culture, from what I remember, but I don't really remember hearing them eating a ton of beef either. In a pre-ubiquitous horse society cows are more useful as beasts of burden than for eating. Also, you need a ridiculous amount of land to have cattle be a part of your diet. Were "ranchers" ever really a thing before europeans settled into the Americas?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
thecolorpurple posted:If a theoretical chinese dynasty collapsed, and there arose a collection of feuding chinese kingdoms plus a remnant of the old dynasty holding a fraction of the territory, we would all agree that they were all chinese states and inheritors of that legacy, right? The Chinese states fought a lot of who were the inheritors of that legacy. Rome and Roman are different, just like China and Chinese are different. Except in modern Chinese they're not, which is infuriating for a native speaker of an inflected language.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
This question is kind of alt-history, but how different would things be if the Arab Conquests never happened? Would the Roman Empire been better poised to, if not take back, at least bring into the fold the West, or was the whole thing on the brink of falling apart anyways if it wasn't one thing it would have been the others. The biggest difference it seems to me is that the shared Romance/Greek language would have persisted so the Mediterranean would feel a bit less bifurcated along North/South lines I guess?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
It is too alt history to really know. I think at the least there's a very good chance that North Africa and the Middle East west of the Zagros Mountains and north of the Arabian Desert would've remained part of the European cultural sphere, which would be quite a change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Fish sauce in pho just means that the pho is ruined. Most pho recipes call for fish sauce in the broth, I believe. Most major Southeast Asia dishes have fish sauce (or if you're doing Thai curries, shrimp paste). I think SEA is one of the few areas of the world that has a fish sauce tradition similar to the Romans. I mean, who doesn't love fermented seafood pastes? That one's spicy, though. Did Romans like spice? I don't imagine peppercorns could have made it to anyone but the elites.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It is too alt history to really know. I think at the least there's a very good chance that North Africa and the Middle East west of the Zagros Mountains and north of the Arabian Desert would've remained part of the European cultural sphere, which would be quite a change. I guess I meant to say in the short term, less than 50-100 years. Like if the conquests hadn't happened would the Romans had been able to roll in westward and hold onto everything? It always seemed to me that was the eventual plan until whoops, half the empire was lost overnight (again). Or was the West so different by that point that any sort of Roman action wouldn't have worked out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:The Irish of antiquity were a cow culture, from what I remember, but I don't really remember hearing them eating a ton of beef either. In a pre-ubiquitous horse society cows are more useful as beasts of burden than for eating. A good comparison is modern African cattle pastoralists, who may keep hundreds of cattle per person but only slaughter them on rare occasions. The primary food provided by cows is milk, sometimes supplemented with blood in a few cultures. I assume bulls are killed at fairly young age, although I'm not sure. I read about a strange case in which modern developmental economists attempting to integrate pastoralists into a market economy were frustrated by a reluctance to sell or slaughter cattle, a reluctance due in part to an affection developed from hand raising, sometimes even breast feeding calves, and beginning to treat the animals as a commodity was a huge cultural leap. Although this makes me wonder about another question, are there any theories for why the cultures of northeast Europe raised cattle as the primary livestock, and the southern Europeans preferred sheep and goats? Without looking at evidence I might guess goats do better in drier environments, but I can't explain India then. Is it arbitrary preference? Or is there some environmental mechanism? I guess sheep were stil probably important in ancient Ireland, a place I've always thought of as focused on cattle, but they may just not get mentioned as often.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
Wales has historically been sheep country, hasn't it? Regarding beasts of burden, is the American bison difficult to domesticate or something? I always thought it strange they weren't used as beasts of burden in North America. Same for moose and elk I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Wales has historically been sheep country, hasn't it? I think the problem with large animals is simply their size. Raising cattle takes a lot of land, and slaughtering one produces a lot of meat in one spot that has to be processed quickly before it spoils. To do it regularly requires near-industrial levels of operation to process, preserve, and transport on a regular basis. Sheep, goats, and pigs, on the other hand, are much smaller and easier to deal with on an individual basis. A family could herd these animals, and kill them as needed for their own food without undue hassle or waste. This same family might have a cow for the milk and dairy products, but not the beef except rarely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Wales has historically been sheep country, hasn't it? The bison is a really good question. Cervids are not domesticable though, so that's your answer for moose and elk. From what I remember about deer their fight-or-flight instinct is just too strong for them to live permanently with humans. They either attack, run away, or get so stressed out they die young.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
Sheep and goats do well in drier, mountainous areas, which describes much of the Mediterranean well. To do any real cattle farming you need big grass plains, and the biggest plain in Europe is, surprise, in the northeast. Pigs you can raise just about anywhere, in small spaces, and feed anything (or just let them roam in the forest) so they're common in most cultures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Wales has historically been sheep country, hasn't it? Big plains, and an almost unheard amount of horses compared to previously. Plus by the times Americans are really settling out that way technology is starting to change so a lot of previous issues aren't a thing anymore. Being a rancher in the latter 19th century is a lot different than having cattle in Middle Ages Europe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:There's a difference in self-identification. The east was the only place where people still considered themselves Romans. The rulers of the western successor states took Roman titles and such to try to legitimize themselves, but the Roman culture died after a while. Also, the east is a continuous single Roman government, which doesn't exist anywhere else. Berke Negri posted:This question is kind of alt-history, but how different would things be if the Arab Conquests never happened? Would the Roman Empire been better poised to, if not take back, at least bring into the fold the West, or was the whole thing on the brink of falling apart anyways if it wasn't one thing it would have been the others. The biggest difference it seems to me is that the shared Romance/Greek language would have persisted so the Mediterranean would feel a bit less bifurcated along North/South lines I guess? You should look up "Agent of Byzantium".
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 07:15
|
|
