Talk:Ancient Roman cuisine

message: I thought strawberries came from the New World and that they were not cultivated until the 1700s. How did the ancient Romans eat them? That seems made up. Source?
:It can possibly be Fragaria vesca that was consumed by Romans, though I have no ref for this. But this plant was present in Europe before 1700s, so it's possible. Artem.G (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Strawberries

message: :"for example, there were recipes for making white wine out of red and vice versa"
If memory serves this is from Apicius (repeated by the well known Harold McGee), but I thought this was more of a chemistry experiment than something you would actually drink after "transforming" it.  --Chinasaur 06:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wine

message: List of missing translations in the article:
*Blutwurst: blood sausage? 
*Meerbarbe: a kind of fish.
* 
Cat 19:45, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  See FANNIA here: Sumptuary_law 201.27.11.202 03:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translations

message: Any objections to moving this and the other articles from :Category:Ancient Roman food and drink to :Category:Roman cuisine?
Peter Isotalo 12:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main category 

message: The article says "Traditionally in the morning a breakfast was served, the ientaculum or iantaculum, at noon a small lunch..." Then it mentions that the vesperna disappeared. Is this right? According to this, it says there was a breakfast, a cena, and then a vesperna later in the evening, not a lunch. That jibes with what it says later, that a prandium showed up around noon afterwards, when the cena changed. Clarityfiend 06:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vesperna

message: How could squash have been typical of Roman cuisine if squashes are a New World crop, and thus would not have been available in Rome in the classical era? What source does this information come from, and what term is "squash" being used to translate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.102.47 (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It mentions zucchini precisely to say that it was a new world crop and therefore was not available to the ancient Romans. As for yellow squash, I'm not going to take any action without sources being provided one way or the other. MPS1992 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squash 

message: If you are going to dispute the information on the article, first discuss it here and please provide facts to back up your statement instead of posting a disputed sign on the article.  If you disagree with anything in an article, then it is your responsibility to back up your statements, not someone else's.  Brothejr (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: I remember reading somewhere that the Romans used to prepare a dish involving woodlice, but can't find any information online - does anyone know about this? Drutt (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Woodlice

message: The article says that fish were rarely eaten and expensive, but I had always heard that in the ancient Mediterranean meat was expensive and fish was the food of the common people.  Maybe in the city of Rome itself fish was expensive, because I don't imagine the Tiber ever had many fish, and the distance was more of an issue back then, but I would think that in Pompeii and the other port cities, fish was cheap and commonly available.  I don't have a source to back this up, so I can't be sure, but either way, the claim should cite a source, which it doesn't.  Wldcat (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fish 

message: This article contains the following quote: kale was cooked in saltpetre. Does anyone know anything more about this? Why saltpetere? When one follows the saltpetre link, both potassium and sodium nitrate are referenced. I would assume (from the link) that the Romans were using potassium nitrate. Was saltpetre being used as a flavoring, a Coloring agent, or a preservative? Somehow, from the syntax, I picture this dish being served warm/fresh, meaning that it was not being uses as a preservative, as in Salami. Does anyone know how extensive the Roman saltpetre production was, or what method was used?
..On another note, cooked woodlice - this excites my culinary curiosity. Now I want to go turn over rocks in the back yard.. Recipé?
..And somehow, I would think that salted or smoked fish would have been widely available, given that:
*The City of Rome was dependent on imported food
*Rome was the centre of an enormous marine economy
*Salted fish is listed as the main ingredient in Garum, which is described as a staple in the lower class diet. Garum production was banned in the city of Rome (Well, who would want to live next to vats of rotting fish anyway?!), meaning that it had to be imported. Why would preserved fish sauce alone be imported? The preserved fish ought to have been cheaper to purchace, particularly the small, easily netted types of fish commonly found along the Mediterranean coast, like Anchovies and Sardines, which are still widely fished off the Dalmatian coast. In closing, I would assume that the article must mean and ought be amended to read "fresh fish as the main course of a meal was served only in later periods, and it remained more expensive than simpler meat types".
However, I know nothing about the veracity of my assumptions, and I could be entirely wrong.
𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 talk 17:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Woodlice probably taste like these guys. I think the Japanese eat them. Danceswithzerglings (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Saltpetre, Kale and errata'' 

message: Hallo,
I think that this article should be moved to Ancient Roman Cuisine or Classical Roman Cuisine. The problem is that the cuisine of the City of Rome extends far behind the classical age. The name Roman Cuisine should be used for the modern Roman cooking, as it is the case in the italian literature. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Name 

message: I have an issue with this statement:
"public bakeries were established in Rome from 270 AD".
There certainly was a bakery in Pompeii, destroyed by the Vesuvius eruption in 79 CE. It is not that far from Rome, about 200 km; I find it quite strange that there would be a public bakery in Pompeii and not in Rome... 
If nobody has supporting evidence, I suggest to delete the sentence, or edit it somehow.
173.206.231.2 (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you have to be right about this. I don't know when public bakeries are first attested, but this date can't be right; perhaps the source was misunderstood, and the date refers to the earliest surviving archaeological evidence. I think Ovid mentions bakeries in the Fasti.  Grain supply to the city of Rome should dovetail with this better; without the bakeries, there's a gap in the consumer chain between the supplying of grain and the consuming of it. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, duh, in trying to be generous I've said a stupid thing: 270 can't be "the earliest surviving archaeological evidence," because of the evidence from Pompeii. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This has actually turned out to be more elusive of verification than I'd have thought. What's needed is a straightforward modern historian who can give us a sentence on two on the history of bakeries in Rome. So far, nothing's popped out at me. It seems from some sources that the grain dole was actually bread, which makes sense since most Romans lived in the insulae, small cramped apartments without proper kitchens. Grain would've required grinding, so at the least the dole might've been ground into flour first, or to a consistency that could be used for a polenta-like dish (which is recorded). But even if you get your dole as flour, there are obstacles to using it. Baking bread requires an oven; even if a Dutch oven or griddle is used, fuel is a problem for apartment dwellers. I suspect that public bakeries start to become important in the mid-1st century BC, in connection with issues pertaining to the grain supply as evidenced in the careers of Clodius Pulcher and Pompey. So a very interesting question, and I'll enjoy looking for more info. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

text: The date seems dubious to me as well, but I am reluctant to think that someone simply pulled the date 270 AD out of the air (or somewhere else). Therefore, I wonder if the confusion here is over different interpretations of the word "public". That is, does "public bakery" mean a bakery owned by the state for benefit of providing bread to poorer citizens or does it mean a privately owned commercial bakery that sells bread to those sections of the population that can't make bread of their own?--172.190.48.60 (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question. At some point, it might've seemed more efficient for the state to transport grain in bulk directly to certain millers and bakers who contracted to supply the dole, but 270 still seems a little late to be addressing the problem. I haven't happened upon a source, and haven't had a chance to focus on the question for its own sake.  Cynwolfe (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a good source in preview online, but it seems to be missing precisely the page that looks as if it might answer this question. Public bakeries (as distinguished from commercial) do seem emphasized in sources as a feature of the later Empire, but Trajan (reigned 98–117) founded a collegium pistorum, "bakers' guild," which suggests at least some state regulation of bakeries. The 3rd century date also seems to be connected to the use of state-owned water mills that were powered from aqueducts. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The expression "bread and circuses" suggests the existence of bakeries - otherwise the expression would have been "bags of wheat and circuses". So how old is "bread and circusses" - the article isn't very clear? Roger (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase is from Juvenal, who died early in the 2nd century. That's a great point of reference to introduce, and yet without other evidence, it wouldn't necessarily mean that the people got their bread directly and already made; could just mean more generally they owed their daily bread to the state. There were four steps: getting the grain, milling it into flour, making dough, and baking. What I've looked at so far suggests that there was a gradual expansion of what the state centrally provided. In the earliest period of the dole, people seem to have gotten the grain, and then had to take it to get it milled, etc. In trying to look this up, I found that in the Middle Ages, people might prepare their dough at home, but take it to a communal oven for baking, since maintaining fuel and temperature for a bread oven for daily baking is pretty much a full-time job. So that's one conjecture for Rome as well. Only a domus with the space and staff for it could've maintained a home bread oven. There are also several religious practices and beliefs associated with bread and bread-making, extending back to the Republic, such as the Fornacalia, which recognize that making bread for apartment dwellers in an urban environment is an interdependent effort. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public bakeries 

message: Some of the information currently on the page is incorrect or misleading, as unsourced content on the ancient world often is. To choose an example, the page says ridiculous things "Pulses such as fava beans ... were only appreciated by peasants, smiths, legionaries and gladiators," which is flat wrong: "That wealthy Romans ate fava beans is ... strongly suggested" by recipes attributed to Apicius; "even in the most extravagant of cookbooks, beans had their place." The page states that "Fish was served only in earlier periods," which is ludicrous. I have taken the unsourced passages out. The burden of evidence always lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Neutralitytalk 23:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced content 

message: "Conditum" is described as "a mixture of wine, hod matured." I assume this is a typo, but I have no idea what "hod matured" is supposed to be. Sadiemonster (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hod matured?" 

message: An editor has repeatedly contributed material, in the lead section (!), about relative levels of nutrition in the Roman empire. This seems not to be the right article for such matters ("Food and dining in the Roman Empire" would likely be more appropriate), and certainly not the right part of the article.
: 1. It is not appropriate (ever) to introduce new ideas, claims, and materials into the lead section of an article. The lead's job is to summarize the body (main text) of an article, not to start off on its own tack.
: 2. It is very rarely appropriate to cite materials in a lead section, and if it is needed when something is controversial, the place for the citation is in the article's body (as per #1 above), with the ref repeated in the lead to eliminate doubt. That is not the issue here.
: 3. The material introduced concerns food supplies in Roman times, NOT "cuisine". Cuisine articles are about the recipes and dishes served, not about whether segments of the population are starving. I have suggested a better target for that kind of material, and hope it will not be necessary to have a protracted discussion here about its inappropriateness in this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is about cuisine, not food shortages

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Food and dining in the Roman Empire which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 08:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress