3 ms·

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 Te

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.
- User23 7y ago
  This is one of the benefits of an agrarian economy. For example in the rural South during the great depression, virtually everyone was dirt poor, but almost nobody went hungry. Of course that meant eating squirrel, crow, possum, and such, plus garden vegetables.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  In 1914 the U.K. had been the second richest economy in the world for over a hundred years. Nonetheless approaching a third of the male population eligible for conscription were in poor enough health that they were deemed unusable in war. The average American was a foot taller than the average Briton. The members of the House of Lords were noticeably taller than the members of the House of Commons, some of whom, presumably, had had long periods of poor nutrition in their lives. The norm was not perpetual famine but neither was the average peasant well fed except in transitory times of abundance. Normally the nobility and urban patriciate and cash rich populations like successful merchants would survive famines just fine though food would get more expensive. For the mass of the population lean years where the old, sick or young would die for lack of food would be every five years if they were lucky and about every thirty years a tenth to a third of the population would die in a famine. The unusual thing about the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s wasn’t that 1/4 of the population died; it was that that was the last time it happened. Famines were so unremarkable before the 1800s, even in Western Europe, that we often need to do archival detective work to figure out they happened. Do we see more people buried in paupers’ graves at this time? Do tree ring data suggest unusually harsh weather? Did grain prices rise? The literate classes weren’t indifferent to the suffering of those on the Malthusian margin of survival but large portions of the population dying of starvation every so often was normal.
Spooky23 7y ago
The Celts weren’t poor. They were living in one of the great fertile lands of the world.
- ujoh1 7y ago
  Hello See how you can start making steady daily extra living incomes on virta stock trading without you risking your money and your investment visit the website here http://www.virtatrade.com/index.php http://www.virtatrade.com/index.php for more details

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.
User23 7y ago
This is one of the benefits of an agrarian economy. For example in the rural South during the great depression, virtually everyone was dirt poor, but almost nobody went hungry. Of course that meant eating squirrel, crow, possum, and such, plus garden vegetables.
barry-cotter 7y ago
In 1914 the U.K. had been the second richest economy in the world for over a hundred years. Nonetheless approaching a third of the male population eligible for conscription were in poor enough health that they were deemed unusable in war. The average American was a foot taller than the average Briton. The members of the House of Lords were noticeably taller than the members of the House of Commons, some of whom, presumably, had had long periods of poor nutrition in their lives. The norm was not perpetual famine but neither was the average peasant well fed except in transitory times of abundance. Normally the nobility and urban patriciate and cash rich populations like successful merchants would survive famines just fine though food would get more expensive. For the mass of the population lean years where the old, sick or young would die for lack of food would be every five years if they were lucky and about every thirty years a tenth to a third of the population would die in a famine. The unusual thing about the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s wasn’t that 1/4 of the population died; it was that that was the last time it happened. Famines were so unremarkable before the 1800s, even in Western Europe, that we often need to do archival detective work to figure out they happened. Do we see more people buried in paupers’ graves at this time? Do tree ring data suggest unusually harsh weather? Did grain prices rise? The literate classes weren’t indifferent to the suffering of those on the Malthusian margin of survival but large portions of the population dying of starvation every so often was normal.

Spooky23 7y ago

The Celts weren’t poor. They were living in one of the great fertile lands of the world.

ujoh1 7y ago
Hello See how you can start making steady daily extra living incomes on virta stock trading without you risking your money and your investment visit the website here http://www.virtatrade.com/index.php http://www.virtatrade.com/index.php for more details