4 ms·

The Celtic feasts that the Roman banquets displaced were just the same as what's described in the title: A Calculated Display Of Debauchery And Power. Putting o

The Celtic feasts that the Roman banquets displaced were just the same as what's described in the title: A Calculated Display Of Debauchery And Power. Putting on feasts have always been a way for the wealthy to display their wealth and power, to curry favor with their underlings and to give others the opportunity to do so with them. They are also a way for a community to bond together over food, whether hierarchical or communal. Even industry and consulting groups in the 21st century use the same nonverbal and architectural language to express the same things in the same ways as was done in ancient times.

jchanimal 7y ago
The potlatch was so powerful in the Pacific Northwest that it was banned by the Canadian government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch_ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch_ban
sandworm101 7y ago
We forget the practicality of eating. A feast was the one time most people would ever feel full. For the romans, those in the city of Rome, it may have been display. For many of the celts a feast was precious calories. By feeding, the lord may well have been keeping his people alive. For soneone sick and under-fed (everyone) a single big meal ever month or two would be the difference life or death. They saw attendence at a feast as both honor and survival. That is a forgotten dynamic.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  For the Romans, those in the city of Rome, it may have been display. For many of the Celts a feast was precious calories. Going by the information in one of Terry Gilliam's documentaries on the ancient world, for many of the Romans, it was somewhat the same as for many of the Celts. Many city dwelling roman citizens didn't have extravagant diets, and might well have been satisfied in macro-nutrients, but lacking in others. By feeding, the lord may well have been keeping his people alive. They saw attendance at a feast as both honor and survival. By not feeding, the Celtic noble may well have been punishing those she or he disliked. I think social hierarchies still find such physical means of manifestation in 2019.
  - sandworm101 7y ago
    Lords fed everyone, at least all the peasants. They would have issues with various other lords/people within their social circle, but the peasants were a resource not to be squandered. No peasants, no farming, no money. A lord who could afford a proper feast would not have enough regard for individual farmers to decide who should starve. Manpower was the only real source of wealth.
    - stcredzero 7y ago
      A lord who could afford a proper feast would not have enough regard for individual farmers to decide who should starve. I suspect that some nobles had someone of a lower status they actively disliked. The strategy of most persons of lower status would be to not be noticed. It follows that there would be some people who would be noticed, and that sometimes, it would be in a bad way. Even in societies where the lords were obliged to feed everyone, I doubt this would prevent them from conferring favors by degree. I recall one Roman description of a Gallic feast where it's suggested that boasting and fighting between guests would occasionally occur, and that this was regarded as one form of entertainment. (The propaganda purpose behind this, being to portray the Gauls as barbarians who would benefit from being civilized by the Romans.) As a modern person, I have a hard time understanding how, occasionally at least, this wouldn't get someone dis-invited.
  - Amezarak 7y ago
    This is a preposterous claim. Neither Roman nor Celtic peasantry existed in a state of perpetual famine. There was certainly the occasional period of inflation and/or famine, but the norm was absolutely for pretty much everybody to be well-fed. They were certainly not malnourished, either. Yes, they had simple diets, but not bad ones.
    - stcredzero 7y ago
      This is a preposterous claim. Neither Roman nor Celtic peasantry existed in a state of perpetual famine...the norm was absolutely for pretty much everybody to be well-fed. Yes, you're making a good point. Traditional societies that have lasted many generations are usually pretty good to excellent at knowing how to provide enough good food and clean water for themselves. That said, there are many people still alive who got enough food and grew up healthy, but recall always wanting to eat more as they grew up. People who are in this state are particularly affected by rewards of food. Also, I'm not sure if Celtic societies had peasants organized like those of medieval Europe. Celtic people lived in both dispersed rural environments and in cities. There was considerable trade. The common view is that people just tended to live in the community they grew up, but that people were free otherwise. Social stratification is said to have increased over time, and perhaps things would have ended up in the same place anyhow, without the Romans. The Celts also practiced slavery, like the Romans. Yes, they had simple diets, but not bad ones. This can vary quite a bit in times of migration and transition.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  The Celts and Germans ate much better than the average Roman. The Germans during Arminius’ period were up to a foot taller than the Romans. Some of that is genetic but most of it was better diet. The average Italian was a peasant who ate grain, grain and more grain, like most peasants. The Germans (and Celts) were at least as much pastoralists as agriculturalists and they are much more dairy and meat. The only groups of people that often see stunting in growth are farmers at the Malthusian margin. Hunter gatherers and pastoralists either starve or kill each other quickly enough that you don’t see the kind of years long periods of insufficient calories that don’t actually kill you that are common in peasant societies. Pastoralists always and everywhere raid, skirmish and steal each other’s livestock. They’re preadapted to warfare because of mobility and once they get horses basically all adult men are cavalry, in cases like the Huns, Mongols and Scythians. Even people without too many horses but who live and die by cattle are far more mobile than grain farmers.
- vondur 7y ago
  I don’t think this was the case for Rome. The republic and the empire had officials whose job was to make sure that Rome had enough food. Also by this time, the Public grain dole was important and would later expand to include meat and wine.

jchanimal 7y ago

The potlatch was so powerful in the Pacific Northwest that it was banned by the Canadian government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch_ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch_ban

sandworm101 7y ago

We forget the practicality of eating. A feast was the one time most people would ever feel full. For the romans, those in the city of Rome, it may have been display. For many of the celts a feast was precious calories. By feeding, the lord may well have been keeping his people alive. For soneone sick and under-fed (everyone) a single big meal ever month or two would be the difference life or death. They saw attendence at a feast as both honor and survival. That is a forgotten dynamic.

stcredzero 7y ago
For the Romans, those in the city of Rome, it may have been display. For many of the Celts a feast was precious calories. Going by the information in one of Terry Gilliam's documentaries on the ancient world, for many of the Romans, it was somewhat the same as for many of the Celts. Many city dwelling roman citizens didn't have extravagant diets, and might well have been satisfied in macro-nutrients, but lacking in others. By feeding, the lord may well have been keeping his people alive. They saw attendance at a feast as both honor and survival. By not feeding, the Celtic noble may well have been punishing those she or he disliked. I think social hierarchies still find such physical means of manifestation in 2019.
- sandworm101 7y ago
  Lords fed everyone, at least all the peasants. They would have issues with various other lords/people within their social circle, but the peasants were a resource not to be squandered. No peasants, no farming, no money. A lord who could afford a proper feast would not have enough regard for individual farmers to decide who should starve. Manpower was the only real source of wealth.
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    A lord who could afford a proper feast would not have enough regard for individual farmers to decide who should starve. I suspect that some nobles had someone of a lower status they actively disliked. The strategy of most persons of lower status would be to not be noticed. It follows that there would be some people who would be noticed, and that sometimes, it would be in a bad way. Even in societies where the lords were obliged to feed everyone, I doubt this would prevent them from conferring favors by degree. I recall one Roman description of a Gallic feast where it's suggested that boasting and fighting between guests would occasionally occur, and that this was regarded as one form of entertainment. (The propaganda purpose behind this, being to portray the Gauls as barbarians who would benefit from being civilized by the Romans.) As a modern person, I have a hard time understanding how, occasionally at least, this wouldn't get someone dis-invited.
- Amezarak 7y ago
  This is a preposterous claim. Neither Roman nor Celtic peasantry existed in a state of perpetual famine. There was certainly the occasional period of inflation and/or famine, but the norm was absolutely for pretty much everybody to be well-fed. They were certainly not malnourished, either. Yes, they had simple diets, but not bad ones.
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    This is a preposterous claim. Neither Roman nor Celtic peasantry existed in a state of perpetual famine...the norm was absolutely for pretty much everybody to be well-fed. Yes, you're making a good point. Traditional societies that have lasted many generations are usually pretty good to excellent at knowing how to provide enough good food and clean water for themselves. That said, there are many people still alive who got enough food and grew up healthy, but recall always wanting to eat more as they grew up. People who are in this state are particularly affected by rewards of food. Also, I'm not sure if Celtic societies had peasants organized like those of medieval Europe. Celtic people lived in both dispersed rural environments and in cities. There was considerable trade. The common view is that people just tended to live in the community they grew up, but that people were free otherwise. Social stratification is said to have increased over time, and perhaps things would have ended up in the same place anyhow, without the Romans. The Celts also practiced slavery, like the Romans. Yes, they had simple diets, but not bad ones. This can vary quite a bit in times of migration and transition.
barry-cotter 7y ago
The Celts and Germans ate much better than the average Roman. The Germans during Arminius’ period were up to a foot taller than the Romans. Some of that is genetic but most of it was better diet. The average Italian was a peasant who ate grain, grain and more grain, like most peasants. The Germans (and Celts) were at least as much pastoralists as agriculturalists and they are much more dairy and meat. The only groups of people that often see stunting in growth are farmers at the Malthusian margin. Hunter gatherers and pastoralists either starve or kill each other quickly enough that you don’t see the kind of years long periods of insufficient calories that don’t actually kill you that are common in peasant societies. Pastoralists always and everywhere raid, skirmish and steal each other’s livestock. They’re preadapted to warfare because of mobility and once they get horses basically all adult men are cavalry, in cases like the Huns, Mongols and Scythians. Even people without too many horses but who live and die by cattle are far more mobile than grain farmers.
vondur 7y ago
I don’t think this was the case for Rome. The republic and the empire had officials whose job was to make sure that Rome had enough food. Also by this time, the Public grain dole was important and would later expand to include meat and wine.