About History: Othismos and the ancient Greek phalanx

By the 7th-century BC the Greek city-states had adopted the phalanx (pl. phalanxes) as their fighting formation. Armoured hoplites (Greek: ὁπλῖται, hoplitai; sing. ὁπλίτης hoplitēs) formed up in close-order, shoulder-to-shoulder, their shields locked together. The first few ranks of men would project their spears beyond the first rank of shields. The phalanxes advanced towards each other usually at walking pace to maintain cohesion. If the formation was lost, the phalanx would be weakened or rendered useless. It is possible, however, that the hoplites picked up the pace, perhaps breaking into a run during the last few metres. The additional speed needed to be sufficient to gain momentum against the enemy in the initial collision. The famous charge of Athenian hoplites at the Battle of Marathon (490 BC), however, was probably precipitated by a desire to minimize their losses to Persian archery.

Orthodoxy  According to the orthodox view of othismos (“pushing”), the opposing phalanxes would collide, possibly breaking many of the front rank’s spears while attempting to maim or kill the opposing front rank. If one side did not collapse because of this clash, then the men in the succeeding ranks pressed their large round shields (Greek: ἀσπίς, aspis; pl. ἀσπίδες, aspides) against the backs of the men in front and pushed them forward. The combined physical onslaught of one densely packed mass of men was opposed by the counterthrust of the enemy phalanx, shield against shield. Eventually, one side was forced back and its formation disrupted, the hoplites perhaps being literally knocked over and trampled. There was little or no actual fighting after the initial, very brief clash of spears and the struggle essentially became a decisive pushing match (Hanson, 1989, 169). Indeed, Thucydides described hoplite warfare as othismos aspidon or “the push of shields”. As a rule, with few recorded exceptions, the deeper phalanx would almost always win. The orthodox model of collision and push (othimos) has been likened to a scrum in rugby or the scrimmage in American football. This is the view championed by V.D. Hanson in his detailed examination of hoplite warfare.

Evidence?  Yet, no ancient Greek historian explicitly tells us that othismos involved all ranks packing together in a united push to drive their enemy physically backward. Despite this omission, we know hoplite phalanxes were deployed with a series of ranks behind the first. It seems very rare for a phalanx to be less than eight ranks deep from the available evidence, and much deeper formations were not uncommon. Most hoplites in the phalanx, therefore, were unable to reach the enemy with their spears (Greek: δόρυ, dory or doru). They might have been able to finish off fallen enemies with their spear’s butt spike (Greek: σαυρωτήρ, sarouter) and certainly gave moral support to the front rank men doing the actual fighting, but they cannot have inflicted any significant damage upon the enemy. If the othismos was a massed shove, then it would seem to explain the presence of these, otherwise largely superfluous, men on the battlefield. This is the basic tenet of the traditional view of “massed shoving” to explain the role of the rear ranks of a phalanx. Yet if this was the only purpose of successive ranks, then the larger phalanx would always win.

The literary evidence supporting the collision and pushing match is far from extensive, however. Tyrtaeus’ poetry contains a description of two opposing sides clashing “shield against round shield” as does Aristophanes’ comedic play “Peace”. Neither author names a specific battle but the use of the concept in poetry and theatre suggests audiences were familiar with battles fought this way. Beyond the arts, historical accounts of hoplite engagements refer to a press of shields. At the Battle of Delium in 424 BC, Thucydides describes how the two sides collided at the run and fought with a “pushing of shields”. Likewise, during the Battle of Mantinea (418 BC) he also described how the Spartans “advanced” and “pressed” the opposing Argive and Arcadian hoplites routing them, yet it is unclear whether this was shield-to-shield (Thucydides, “History of the Peloponnesian War”, 5.73). In his account Hellenica, Xenophon states that during the later stages of the Battle of Coronea in 394 BC, the Theban and Spartan phalanxes collided head-on at the run and were similarly pressed “shield against shield” (Matthews, 2009, 397). Yet Xenophon and others also use a variation of the term “shield pressed against shield” to describe a close-order shield wall. In these instances, it is clear the phalanxes were not engaged with an enemy, merely waiting to receive an attack. 

Tyrtaeus’ suggestion that hoplites “reach forth and strike the foe” evokes the idea that hoplite combat being conducted at spear’s length from the enemy. Descriptions of battles, for example those of Plataea (479 BC), Sphacteria (425 BC) and Piraeus (404 BC), all record one side being “pushed” or “pressed back” but in a figurative sense. Xenophon employs this sense in his work Hellenica where he describes how the Thebans “pressed” the Spartans at the Battle of Leuctra fought on July 6th, 371 BC (Xenophon, Hellenica, 6.4.14). In these instances, the phalanxes need not have been shield-to-shield, rather the overwhelmed side may simply have been forced backward at the spearpoints of their opponents. Alternatively, as on the island of Sphacteria, when the Athenians engaged the Spartans at range with skirmishers and peltasts [1], the heavily armoured Spartans were pinned in place and could not close to hand-to-hand fighting (Matthews, 2009, 399). The earlier Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC) had ended in a similar manner for the 300 Spartan, 700 Thespian and 400 Theban hoplites defending the famous pass. On the third day, as the Persian Immortals approached, the Greeks withdrew and took a stand on a hill behind the Phocian wall that defended the narrowest part of the pass. Herodotus says:

“In that place they defended themselves with swords, if they still had them, and with hands and teeth. The barbarians buried them with missiles, some attacking from the front and throwing down the defensive wall, others surrounding them on all sides.” (Herodotus, Histories, 7.225.3)

Tearing down part of the wall, Xerxes ordered the hill surrounded before the Persians rained down arrows until every hoplite was dead.

As an aside, the orthodox view that phalanx warfare centred on othismos seems very akin to the “push of pike” that used to accompany re-enactments of English Civil War battles some years ago (pictured right). At that time two opposing blocks of pikemen would advance on each other with pikes levelled to threaten the “enemy”. A few metres before contact the pikes would be angled upward, and the two blocks would then crash to together in a pushing contest [2]. While this sounds very much like the description of othismos, the tactic was not historically accurate but based on health and safety concerns to limit injury to individual re-enactors while still creating a spectacle for audiences. Historically such pike blocks would have advanced to contact whereupon the leading ranks would fence with their pikes to spear their opponents - the equivalent of ancient Greek doratismos (see below).

What to do with the spear?  The hoplite phalanx dominated warfare among the Greek City States from the 7th- into the 4th-century BC. If we have interpreted phalanx warfare correctly, and it is far from clear that we have, then othismos being a shield against shield pushing match seems only half the story. The hoplite panoply, specifically the degree of protection it provides, is far better suited to fighting with spears. During this period the men equipped themselves with a large round shield (aspis) and a 2.1 m to 2.7 m (7–9 ft) long spear (doru or dory) with a sharpened iron blade (aichme) and bronze butt-spike (sauroter). Practical experimentation based on contemporary representations has determined the most likely manner in which hoplites fought. Within the phalanx each man stood at an angle, their left shoulder braced into the dished bowl of their shield while refusing the other shoulder to protect the vulnerable right side of the body while maintaining the ability to deliver spear thrusts (van Wees, 2000, 128-30). This fighting stance positions the feet and legs in a strong attacking platform but also means the hoplite is braced in defence to resist a clash of shields. The latter fits well with the orthodox view of othismos which sees successive hoplites pushing their shields against the right shoulder or back of the man in front. Yet, with his opponent’s shield pressed against his own, the hoplite would be pinned between his comrades and his enemies, vulnerable and unable to strike with his spear. This lack of manoeuvrability among those in close contact is rather neatly captured in the attempt by modern re-enactors to perform othismos pictured below. The image also shows how the cohesiveness of both front ranks might quickly dissolve and how striking with a spear becomes almost hopeless.

So, if the tactic was for two opposing phalanxes to crash into each other and simply push shield-to-shield, then why carry a long spear? In such close-order fighting, the dory effectively becomes an incumbrance. Far better would be to ditch the spear in favour of a shorter weapon such as the sword (xiphos or kopis) by which the hoplite could strike at his opponent from behind his protective shield. This was clearly the favoured tactic of later Roman armies where it certainly proved decisive against the Macedonian phalanx at the Battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 BC.

The Roman model also raises questions about the density of phalanx formations if hoplites were to use their weapons effectively. Thucydides’ description of the Battle of Mantinea reveals that “fear makes each man do his best to shelter his unarmed side with the shield of the man next to him on the right, thinking that the closer the shields are locked together the better he will be protected” (Thucydides, 5.71). This has been the foundation of nearly all recreations of phalanx warfare but rather unfortunately it ignores the maxim that no plan survives contact with the enemy. It can be shown throughout ancient Greek history, including Homeric period warfare, that each battlefield situation dictated the density of a formation. So, while hoplites might have sought protection from their neighbour, they would still need space both to fight and defend themselves.

Peter Krentz argues that a lack of armour for the sarissae wielding “phalangites” [3] meant that Phillip II of Macedon’s phalanxes adopted much tighter formations for added morale and physical protection. The Macedonian king also devised the hedge of sarissae that later so frightened his enemies and, under the right conditions, prevented them from penetrating close enough to do damage with their shorter spears and swords. By contrast, the classical hoplite’s head-to-foot armour instilled confidence in their protection allowing their formations to open the spacing to three feet between men (Krentz, 1985, 52). Both Krentz and van Wees argue that each hoplite thus occupied a six foot space within which they could wield their weapons effectively while limiting an opponent’s opportunities to attack his vulnerable unshielded right side. Any man attempting such an attack would have to be mindful that they were within spear thrusting range from a neighbouring opposing hoplite (van Wees, 2004, 185-186; Krentz, 1985, 51-53).

On SoA Forums, Society member Patrick Waterson described five stages characterising a hoplite battle:

1.  Ephodos (the “charge”) as previously mentioned in Thucydides’ description of the Battle of Delium, Xenonphon’s account of the Battle of Coronea, and the famous charge of the Athenians at the Battle of Marathon.

2.  Doratismos (the “spearing”) evoked by Tyrtaeus’ portrayal of hoplites “reach[ing] forth and [striking] the foe”. Once the phalanxes have closed on one another, then the first contact involved spear fighting rather than a pushing match.

3.  En chersi (the “hand-to-hand”) as evidenced by Herodotus’ account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. The hoplites defending the Pass fought with spears, until every spear was shattered, and then switched to xiphē (short swords).

4.  Othismos (the “pushing”) only appears after all other avenues aimed at defeating or overwhelming the enemy had been exhausted. It is notable that the close-order mêlée (en chersi) precedes the shield-to-shield pushing contest (othismos) suggesting that the latter was a means by which men in the rearward files lent their weight to an otherwise static melee once the front-rank men were exhausted and no longer capable of giving their best.

5.  Trope (the “collapse”) could occur very rapidly, even at or before first contact, as indicated by the accounts of battles such as First Mantinea (418 BC).

It would be a mistake to assume all hoplite battles rigidly adhered to these five stages. Circumstance may necessitate a stage being quickly concluded, or long and drawn out, or omitted all together. As Waterson says: “two fairly evenly balanced sides may well find themselves going through all the stages until during othismos it becomes a case of ‘One more push, men, and they will break!’” Regardless, a general pattern emerges whereupon the opposing phalanxes close with each other, perhaps at the run, followed by a mêlée at spearpoint or hand-to-hand with swords. Only when those men in the leading ranks are tired or wounded and unable to effectively continue the hand-to-hand fight might any form of “pushing” contest occur. At this point fatigue might dictate that the first phalanx to yield ground would be unlikely to recover. If, as the orthodox view implies, othismos occurred much earlier when both phalanxes were fresh and invigorated, then a pushing contest might not necessarily produce one side’s collapse.

Undoubtedly this form of combat would have been both physically and mentally exhausting, so it is highly likely that natural pauses would have occurred during a prolonged battle. Such pauses would usefully allow both sides to catch their collective breath, redress their lines, recover the wounded and replace them with men drawn from the succeeding ranks. If the latter is correct, does this interpretation explain the depth of the phalanx? Rather than simply adding their weight to a pushing contest, the additional ranks might be viewed as tactical replacements.

A conclusion?  If doratismos and en chersi are correct, then having the space to wield their weapons means the pushing contest with opposing hoplites shield-to-shield, and pressed forward by their fellows in succeeding ranks, seems impractical. For othismos to occur necessitates the phalanx to transition into close-order which, for ordinary hoplites not particularly well drilled in such manoeuvres, might not be so easy to achieve especially in the press of battle. Is it, therefore, more reasonable to conclude that ancient historians used the term othismos in a more figurative sense. Indeed, Homer uses the word “othismos” in the Iliad even though most historians generally agree that Homeric warfare was fought in very loose formations (Homer, Illiad, 569, 655). Compare that style of fighting to the close-quarter, hand-to-hand mêlée of the 4th- and 5th-centuries and it strongly suggests othismos was a reference to the gradual gaining of ground by forcing - “pushing” - the enemy rearward. This may well have involved pressing forward shield-to-shield, but the primary sources never allude to one mass shove. Rather most describe how armies surged forward, step by measured step, to gain ground from an opposing force.

The evidence we have implies hoplite battles were determined by individual, hand-to-hand combats between hoplites armed with spears and subsequently swords. Once enough hoplites on one side had successfully resolved these individual contests, then they were able to coalesce and advance to “break the enemy’s ranks” before “pushing” them back until the enemy was overwhelmed and routed. Bon appétit!

References:

Hanson, V.D., (1989), “The Western Way of War”, University of California Press.

Godley, A.D. (ed.), “Herodotus: The Histories”, Perseus Digital Library, available online (accessed 9 January 2026).

Krentz, P., (1985), “The Nature of Hoplite Battle”, Classical Antiquity, Vol. 4, No. 1, University of California Press, pp. 50-61.

Matthew, C.A., (2009), “When Push Comes to Shove: What Was the ‘Othismos’ of Hoplite Combat?”, Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 395–415. available online (accessed 25 June 2025).

van Wees, H., (2000), “Greek warfare : myths and realities”, London: Duckworth.

Waterson, P., (2013), “Othismos - When Push Comes to Shove”, SoA Forums, available online (accessed 11 September 2025).

Endnotes:

1. A peltast (Ancient Greek: πελταστής, peltastēs) was a type of light infantry originating in Thrace and Paeonia and named after the crescent-shaped wicker shield they carried called a “pelte” (Ancient Greek πέλτη, peltē; Latin: pelta). Peltasts often served as skirmishers in Hellenistic armies.

2. This was the author’s first experience of a battle re-enactment where the pike blocks engaged in rugby-like scrummaging. In more recent times, regiments in the English Civil War Society (ECWS) now portray pikemen fencing with their pikes in more historically accurate manner.

3. Philip II of Macedon, equipped his Macedonian “phalangites” with a long spear or pike (Koine Greek: σάρισσα sarissa, pl. sarissae) about 5 m to 7 m (16 to 23 ft) in length. These longer spears improved the strength of the phalanx by extending the rows of overlapping weapons projecting towards the enemy which, in turn, kept the latter at a greater distance. After the conquests of Alexander the Great, sarissae became the mainstay during the Hellenistic era (4th– to 1st-centuries BC) by the armies of the successor states of Alexander's empire, as well as some of their rivals.

Kitchenalia: “Roman portable grills”

In “Kitchenalia” we introduce objects from different historical periods, discover a bit about their history and find out how each was made. We look at how, through Tastes Of History's practical experiments, we have learnt to best use them.

A while ago the author thought they heard someone, possibly in a documentary or something similar, state that ancient Roman spectators at sporting venues, such as the chariot races in the Circus Maximus, used portable grills to cook or heat snacks. The problem now, of course, is that the precise source of this claim cannot be recalled thus raising doubt, in our minds at least, that it was ever made. Regardless, Tastes Of History has several versions of portable cookers and grills from different historical periods such as the Roman craticula or testum, utensils we have previously covered and which one can discover more about by following the links. For the present purpose, however, the focus of this article is on internet search results for Roman portable grills that keep returning the example shown below.

This particular reproduction is sold by Armory Replicas in the USA, although other online vendors are available. The description accompanying the Armory Replicas product reads as follows:

“This ingenious portable grill is a replica of the type of gridiron grate popular among Roman soldiers and during the later Middle Ages. Much more efficient than digging in-ground fire pits, this type of portable grill made it easier to set up and break camp, a testament to the ingenuity that allowed the Romans to rule much of their known world. 100% hand riveted and crafted from high quality metal, the grill is contained within what appears to be a simple metal box; slotted cutouts and a removable interior tray combine to form a bottom platform to hold hot embers and small flames, this serves to essentially create a small, contained campfire. Inset approximately half an inch below the top of the box, the grilling platform is hinged to allow for easy access to the fire below while four raised corner flaps combine to create a secondary cooking platform approximately 1 inch above the top of the box. Sturdy legs at each corner serve to raise the box approximately 3 inches off the ground which helps to prevent scorching the ground while the hinged handle facilitates easy carriage of the surprisingly light (just 11 lbs) unit, making it extremely portable and a perfect camping tool.”

Looking at the product, and based on our experience, there is no doubt that this would make an ideal camping cooker, but so far Tastes Of History’s research can find no verifiable evidence that this portable grill ever existed in antiquity. To complicate matters, neither Armory Replicas nor any other vendor of this item provides a source for their “Roman cooking stove”. We are, therefore, left with a series of questions:

• What is it a reproduction of precisely? Moreover, is it a “fire pit”, a “grill” or a “stove”?

• Where is the original object from which this product is copied? Does it form part of a museum collection and if so, which museum?

• Did the makers have access to the original to create an accurate and faithful reproduction?

• If an example survives, from what historical context was it recovered? The “Roman” period and the “later Middle Ages” are significantly different times being separated by nearly a thousand years.

While iterating that this would make a fantastic camping cooker, without better evidence one can only conclude this is a modern product being marketed as a historical object for a re-enactment and living history audience. So, with little hope of answering the above questions, what evidence from the archaeological record do we have for portable cookers?

Within museum collections can be found numerous examples of surviving braziers, pot boilers or cookers. Nearly all are ceramic chimneys of differing heights as represented by the five examples pictured right. Note that each has a rectangular opening within which a fire can be lit. The smoke will vent upward through the chimney while the fire’s heat will warm any cookpot or vessel perched on top (as shown).

A very similar barrel-shaped version was discovered during excavations in Pompeii (left). Given the town was buried by volcanic pumice and the pyroclastic flow from the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79, then this terracotta stove probably also dates to 1st-century AD. It is currently housed in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale’s collection in Naples, Italy. The barrel body is supported on three terracotta legs presumably to raise the firebox, indicated by the square opening, to prevent the ground or a floor being scorched. The body is pierced either to improve airflow to draw heat upward or to vent smoke. The three horizontal impressed bands may be purely decorative, but they might act to strengthen the body. Two semi-circular lugs are visible on the rim, but presumably a third one is or was present but out of sight in the photograph. It is possibly that these lugs were to support a cooking vessel (cf. the shaped rim on the second from the left of the five stoves pictured above).

An earlier form of ancient Greek terracotta portable cooker or oven is pictured left. Recovered from the prehistoric city of Akrotiri on the island of Thera (modern Santorini), it is dated to the Late Cycladic period (ca. 1600 – 1100 BC). The tripod legs may have allowed this object to be set above a fire such that the rectilinear opening could be where bread was baked. If this is correct, then it is tempting to hypothesize that the two pierced lugs may have been to facilitate sealing the aperture to retain the heat during baking. Alternatively, the opening might have been the firebox itself with cooking or heating occurring on the flat top surface.

The ceramic tray pictured right is somewhat different to the object already mentioned. That shown is a replica of a form of cookware found at excavation sites from the Mycenaean period (1700 to 1050 BC) so it is roughly contemporary with the Akrotiri example above. For a long time, however. archaeologists could not figure out how ancient Greeks used these trays. Were they meant to be placed over a fire to catch drippings, or were they more like a portable barbeque pits to hold coals. The debate was resolved about a decade ago when Julie Hruby, an assistant professor of classics at Dartmouth College, decided to investigate by attempting to cook Mycenaean style. Hruby, along with ceramicist Connie Podleski, re-created a tray and experimented. With it placed on top of hot coals, the skewered meat (Greek souvlaki) did not get hot enough. By putting the coals directly in the pan, however, the meat cooked perfectly.

One of the examples showcased might have been the portable grills alluded to above upon which Roman spectators cooked or heated food while watching chariot racing. We cannot say “yes” with any certainty, however, but the Roman were masters of copying Greek ideas. So, could the “souvlaki tray” or something similar have been an option. It remains possible although there are further questions on whether there would have been space available inside a circus or amphitheatre for people to cook. Likewise, in a packed venue, just how practical would cooking be? Smoke obscuring other people’s view of the games would probably not have been welcomed, and how might these enterprising cooks safely dispose of the hot coals? Although Tastes Of History is not aware of any specific ordinance mentioning it, the fire risk to these public venues would probably have seen such practices forbidden. Moreover, it seems fair to think that food vendors at public spectacles would have been unhappy with the competition. They might even have pressed local magistrates to have a ban imposed. Just a thought. Bon appétit!

A Brief History of Food: Faking it

Today “mock meat” is widely accepted and eaten as a healthier alternative to animal meat. Such substitutes use innovative formulations of plant-derived ingredients to mimic the taste, texture, and appearance of meat. While the resulting recipes may vary considerably, the core ingredients typically include protein sources like soy, peas, or mushrooms, alongside binders, fats, flavourings, and colourings, to produce sustainable alternatives to traditional meat products. Likewise, many people use alternatives when allergic to common, mainstream foods such as dairy products or nuts to name but two. Many products made out of soy, almond or coconut substitute for milk. Vegans also substitute foods, such as vegan bacon or vegan cheese, which are made from ingredients that simulate but do not contain meat or dairy products.

Clearly the science and technology to create mock meat is relatively new phenomenon but imitating foods is not without historical precedence. Both Roman and Mediæval chefs saw great skill in presenting diners with what looked like one thing but was in fact something completely different. Disguising a dish’s true nature or creating fantastical beasts was both a way of entertaining guests at a feast and also a display of the host’s wealth and prestige. One Roman example is included in volume two of Petronius Arbiter’s Satyricon which focuses on a dinner at the estate of Trimalchio, a freedman of enormous wealth who entertains his guests with ostentatious and grotesque extravagance. A succession of courses are presented, some of them disguised as other kinds of food or arranged to resemble certain zodiac signs. One notable instance involves a pig that Trimalchio pretends to berate his cook for not gutting it before roasting:

“[Trimalchio] said, “Since your memory's so short, you can gut him right here before our eyes!” The cook put on his tunic, snatched up a carving knife, with a trembling hand, and slashed the hog’s belly in several places. Sausages and meat puddings, widening the apertures, by their own weight, immediately tumbled out.” (Petronius Arbiter, Satyricon, XLIX)

Several years ago Tastes Of History recreated Trimalchio’s hog roast. To the surprise of the diners, and their subsequent delight, when the hog was cut open, sausages mimicking its intestines tumbled out. Even two thousand years later such culinary tricks still capture the imagination. Some fakery, however, is by necessity. Food shortages, wartime rationing or even straightforward poverty can lead cooks to be evermore inventive to feed a family.

Mediæval Mockery

Despite their much-loved status, hedgehogs have been eaten in Britain for centuries. Evidence from a Neolithic context in Wales has revealed hedgehogs were wrapped in grass or leaves and roasted. The ancient Egyptians ate hedgehog as well covering the body in clay and baking it in a fire. Once cooked, breaking off the clay usefully removed the spines. By the Mediæval period, hedgehogs were still being eaten in Europe. In one 14th-century recipe the animal was gutted, trussed and dried with a towel before being roasted. It was served with a sweet cameline sauce made from wine, vinegar and spices, and thickened with bread. Alternatively, hedgehogs might be baked in pastry and served with a sauce that usually accompanied wild duck.

Mock Hedgehog Pudding is made from “marchpane”, an early form of marzipan. Mediæval chefs would create these fake hedgehogs to entertain guests at feasts. The body was fashioned from either from almond paste or by filling an animal stomach with meat and spices (think haggis). The pudding was adorned with almond flakes to mimic the hedgehog’s spines. The following recipe is taken from an 18th-century cookbook:

The Golden Age

From the end of the 15th-century English sailors started on a series of daring and dangerous expeditions. There are several reasons why these Tudor adventurers decided to explore the world, but the most obvious was to become rich by finding new places to trade and to bring back expensive goods like spices, silk and precious metals. Exploring the oceans led to better ship building, better navigation, more accurate maps, and a better knowledge of the world. New words were introduced to English from faraway lands and English as a language was exported to the new world when the Tudors began to colonise other countries. By the 18th-century Britain had become a major trading nation setting in motion the eventual establishment of an Empire covering a quarter of the world. New discoveries were made and traded. Tobacco, for example, potatoes and maize were all brought back from the Americas to Britain making rich men of those involved in the trade. On a darker note, the colonies in America soon needed a much larger workforce to supply the demand for, say, tobacco. The result was the African-American slave trade.

When sailors finally encountered Green Sea Turtles they saw an opportunity to catch them and keep them alive on board ship as a source of delicious, fresh meat. Initially, few turtles survived the sea voyage to England. Eventually, circa 1728, “sea-tortoise” became popular in England as:

“Its Flesh is between that of Veal, and that of a Lobster, and is extremely pleasant...They are frequently brought to England in Tubs of Sea Water, and will keep alive a long time.”

The earliest English recipes are for roast or boiled turtle, only later would they be used in a soup. After sailors arriving from the West Indies landed a couple of turtles on British soil, the demand for them between 1740 and 1750 was a catalyst for increased importation from Ascension Island or the West Indies. Samuel Birch is credited with being the first to serve turtle soup in London, spicing it with lemons and cayenne pepper. In the 1750s turtle soup became immensely popular and without it no dinner party was thought complete. Indeed, from 1761 to 1825, it was never absent from the London Lord Mayor's Day Banquet. At its peak the trade in live turtles saw 15,000 being shipped from the West Indies per year. They were expensive to transport, however, and because such numbers were being caught, the trade was not sustainable. Green turtles were almost hunted to extinction, which simply drove prices up even further. By about 1800, a good dinner portion was reputedly 2.5 kg (6 lb) of turtle (live weight) while, in August 1808, 1,100 kg (2,500 lb) of turtle was needed to make the dinner soup consumed by 400 diners in one London Tavern. Isabella Beeton noted in 1861 turtle soup was “…the most expensive soup brought to the table”.

“Take your tortoises and cut off their heads and feet and boyl them in fair water, and when they are almost boyl'd, put to them some white wine, some sweet herbs, and a piece of bacon, and give them a brown in the frying pan with good butter, then lay upon your bread a-steeping in good strong broth, and well-seasoned; garnish the dish with green sparrow-grass [asparagus] and lemon over it.”

Giles Rose, 1682 [1]

Mock Turtle Soup  By the late 19th-century, overhunting had caused the green turtle population to plummet to near extinction levels. Consequently, the price of the soup rose dramatically driving the creation of a more economical substitute. Mock turtle soup became popular in its own right such that the two dishes were sometimes served at the same banquet.

Mock versions often use brains and offal to duplicate the texture and flavour of the original turtle meat. Indeed, a calf's head soup, which had been known in England before the importation of turtles began, was widely adopted as another economical and popular substitute (Ching, 2016, 79-89). In the United States, mock turtle soup eventually became more popular than the original dish and remains so in Cincinnati. The soup is also a traditional dish in the Lower Saxony areas of Germany where it is considered a specialty of “English cuisine”. By the late 19th-century commercial brands of canned mock turtle soup were available and advertising, ironically, warned consumers to "Beware of Imitations" (Ching, 2016, 79-89).

Tastes Of History’s version was adapted for history events themed around the Golden Age of Piracy:

Out of Necessity

Between the First and Second World Wars many households were struck by The Great Depression, a severe worldwide economic downturn that began in 1929 and lasted until about 1939. Triggered by a combination of interrelated economic factors, the period was marked by significant declines in output, severe unemployment, and profound changes in economic policy.

The most significant event that marked the beginning of the Great Depression was the stock market crash on 24th October 1929, known as Black Thursday. This crash led to a loss of confidence in the economy and a sharp decline in consumer spending. As the economy slowed, consumer demand fell, leading to decreased production and rising unemployment. Many businesses were forced to close or reduce their workforce. A series of bank failures in the early 1930s further exacerbated the economic crisis, as people lost their savings and credit became scarce. Globally, the gold standard linked many countries’ economies, transmitting the American downturn to other nations, thus leading to a worldwide economic crisis.

Mock Apple Pie is one of the most famous examples of Depression-era ingenuity when Americans turned to creative solutions to stretch their food supplies. While versions of this dish existed before the 1930s, it became more widely known after 1934 the year Ritz Crackers were introduced in the United States by Nabisco, an American manufacturer of cookies and snacks. Instead of apples, Mock Apple Pie relies on crushed Ritz Crackers which, when soaked in a syrup made from sugar, water, lemon juice, and spices, take on a texture resembling cooked apples. The illusion is further enhanced by the addition of cinnamon whose flavour tricks the taste buds into thinking apples are present. When baked in a traditional double-crust pastry, further reinforcing its resemblance to classic apple pie, the filling softens, thickens, and binds together just like real fruit. The result looks, smells, and tastes like a traditional apple pie albeit without a single apple present. Rather helpfully Nabisco printed the recipe on the back of its Ritz boxes thereby ensuring Mock Apple Pie gained national recognition. During tough economic times of The Depression, the recipe allowed families to enjoy a familiar taste without incurring the cost of fresh apples. It soon became a staple in any resourceful household forced to rely on affordable, shelf-stable ingredients.

Cooking on Wartime Rations

Before the outbreak of World War Two Britain imported 70% of the food needed to feed the nation equating to around 20 million tons per year. When hostilities commenced attacks on merchant shipping by the Nazi’s surface fleet, U-Boats and its air force saw imports reduced to about 1/3rd leaving many foods impossible to obtain. In 1940 the Minister for Food banned the importation of bananas, popular with many Britons, because they were transported in refrigerated ships needed for other wartime purposes. Ever resourceful British cooks thus devised recipes for “mock bananas” made from parsnips flavoured with sugar and banana essence as substitutes for the fruit. Other fake dishes soon followed.

To counteract the reduction of meat and other rationed goods such as milk, eggs, sugar, cheese, the British government sought to provide families with alternative food options and “mock” ingredients and recipes were created to fill the void. These “mock foods” were intended to simulate a dish or an ingredient where the latter was difficult or impossible to purchase in shops because of the rationing system. Mock recipes existed for foods such as mayonnaise, marzipan, cream, sausage, and duck. Many mock recipes were written in wartime by Britain’s Ministry of Food to promote the use of substitutes in place of the actual foods. Yet simply naming a recipe “mock duck” was not a guarantee it looked or tasted like the real thing. Indeed, often the recipes had no resemblance, and often little similarity in taste to the actual food or dish that it sought to imitate. But it was wartime, so “Keep Calm and Carry On”.

Mock Duck

This recipe for Mock Duck was discovered on The 1940’s Experiment website, but it can also be found on page 74 of “We’ll Eat Again”, a collection of period recipes selected by cookery writer and wartime broadcaster Marguerite Patton in association with The Imperial War Museum. Aside from shaping the mixture to look somewhat like a duck, this is a relatively simple dish but one that would be enhanced with addition of perhaps new potatoes and seasonal vegetables.

A vegetarian alternative replaces the sausage meat with red lentils:

Yet another version, Mock Goose, may be found on page 75 of “We’ll Eat Again”. This recipe is also suitable for vegetarians as potatoes are the main ingredient. The Ministry of Food promoted the humble potato as a valuable yet cheap source of energy, and one that would protect the nation from ill-health. The use of potatoes was championed in soups, salads, savoury supper dishes, potato pastry (the recipe for which may be found here), and even in biscuits. Indeed, the “Dig for Victory” campaign during World War II that encouraged Britons to grow their own food and make the most of rationed ingredients also introduced them to Potato Pete. He became well-known through the “Potato Pete Recipe Book”, published by the Ministry of Food, that included various recipes and advice on using potatoes effectively during rationing. This popular character helped promote the importance of potatoes as a staple food during the war, contributing to the national effort to combat food shortages.

Despite Britain being at war, desserts, puddings and cakes remained an important staple in everyday life. The rationing of key ingredients such as fats and sugar did not stop resourceful cooks from producing treats for the family. One such wartime dessert recipe for Mock Suet Pudding with either jam or syrup may be found in the Ministry of Food leaflet “Making the Most of the Fat Ration” (O’Mara, 2007, 150). A second version from the same leaflet omits the jam or syrup but adds 50 g (2 oz) each of sugar and dried fruits with the flour. Of note, both of these recipes made use of dried egg powder available on rations books. The powder was pure egg with all the moisture removed. This allowed one tin of egg powder to substitute for a dozen fresh eggs. Some recipes used the powder dry from the tin, but to reconstitute dried egg one had to blend a level tablespoon of powder with two tablespoons of water. This produced the equivalent of one fresh egg. Unfortunately, if people were too generous with the amount of egg powder, then the result was prone to a rather unpleasant taste giving dried egg powder its enduring, unfortunate reputation.

And finally  Even when the actual ingredients have changed there is a certain level of comfort and continuity to be derived from retaining the names of popular dishes, albeit with the term “mock” added. It is similar to modern-day practices of creating vegan bacon, which is supposed to simulate the look and taste of real bacon although one might argue it rarely does. That said, as plant-based “mock meat” recipes have evolved, many newer products now have the look, and in most cases, a similar taste to the meat they replace. People consume these fake foods for myriad reasons, including health or for vegan/vegetarian lifestyle choices. Yet, this means a vegan or vegetarian “sausage” is a misnomer and dishonest. A sausage by its very definition is an “article of food consisting of chopped or minced meat, seasoned and stuffed into the cleaned gut of an ox, sheep, or pig, and tied at regular intervals” (Etymonline, sausage). Sausages, therefore, are very definitively not for vegans or vegetarians. But people desire familiarity, so consuming foods with the same name, albeit with different ingredients and different tastes, allows us to not alter our eating habits and to continue enjoying the things we have always eaten. Bon appétit!

References:

Barnett, E. (2024), “Hedgehog Pudding”, BBC History Magazine November 2024, p.86.

British Food History (2016), “Mock Turtle Soup”, available online (accessed 13th July 2023).

Ching, M. (2016), “The Flow of Turtle Soup from the Caribbean via Europe to Canton, and Its Modern American Fate”, Gastronomica 16 (1), pp. 79–89.

Eberhardt, D. (2025), “1930’s Mock Apple Pie: A No-Apple Recipe That Tastes Real”, Nature of Home, available online (accessed 28th November 2025).

Michael O’Mara Books, (2007), “Eating for Victory: healthy home front cooking on war rations”, London: Michael O’Mara Books Ltd.

Rennison, N. (2023), “Q&A: Fake fruit”, BBC History Magazine February 2023, p.43.

Widger, D. (ed), (2004), “The Satyricon, Vol. 2 (The Dinner of Trimalchio)” by Petronius Arbiter, Project Gutenberg, available online (accessed 1st December 2025).

Endnotes:

1. An elusive character in history, Giles Rose is thought to have been one of the master cooks to King Charles II. In 1682 he published a translation from French of a work written some twenty years earlier examining the roles of the senior staff responsible for feeding a large household.

A Brief History of Food: Inside the Roman Kitchen

Food and cooking

There is a universality to food, its preparation and cooking that unites us all. The same basic utensils found in modern kitchens were known to the Babylonians. Colanders, strainers, saucepans and skillets are among the many artefacts recovered from excavations in the Roman city of Pompeii. While in Britain, the archaeological record reveals the daily business of preparing and serving food was, and remains, one of the main social activities for these islands’ inhabitants.

A typical domestic kitchen would look very similar to the one pictured. Arrangements would have been made to supply water for cooking and cleaning, and stone or wooden tables for food preparation. The Romans typically cooked on a raised flat, stone topped hearth, a masonry construction about table height, upon which one or more charcoal or wood fires were lit. Many examples of these “cookers” can be seen in the archaeological sites of Ostia, Pompeii and Herculaneum in Italy. From practical experience, cooking pots can be heated next to the hot fire, placed in or be surrounded by its embers or coals, or set above the fire on iron trivets. By adjusting the vessel’s height above the fire or the pot’s proximity to the heat source, the cooking temperature can be easily regulated to boil, simmer or simply warm foods. Cooking vessels, whether ceramic or metal, were supported on grid-irons known in Latin as craticulae (sing. craticula) or suspended on chains from iron tripods.

Ovens

Ovens used for baking were generally beehive-shaped, constructed from a wicker frame encased in layers of clay which is initially sun-dried before being fire-hardened. The example shown right is from Augusta Raurica, a Roman archaeological site and open-air museum in Switzerland located on the south bank of the river Rhein about 20 km east of Basel near the villages of Augst and Kaiseraugst. It is the site of the oldest known Roman colony on the Rhein, Colonia Augusta Rauracorum. As with pizza ovens today, wood was burnt until sufficient heat had been generated whereupon the ashes were raked out and bread, meats or pastries placed inside. The aperture at the front was sealed to retain the heat during cooking.

As an aside, the modern practice of “roasting” meat in an oven is somewhat of a misnomer although it does fit with the definition of cooking by dry heat. Historically roasting meant using an open flame to surround the food (meat, fish, etc.) with hot air so it cooked evenly on all sides. While roasting on a spit undoubtedly served Roman soldiers well on campaign, the evidence for spit-roasts or rotisseries in domestic Roman kitchens is sadly lacking.

Alongside the more substantial ovens, there were also different types of ancient baking covers sometimes referred to as “portable ovens”. They are generally called either clibanus or testum, with both terms mentioned so frequently in Roman literary sources that there can be little doubt they were a fundamental element of the Roman kitchen at many levels of society. The former term, clibanus, is the more fashionable Latinised Greek word, while testum represents the Italian tradition for these ovens. From practical experiments undertaken with replicas, the testum is cleverly designed to apply heat above and around the food being cooked. Indeed, written clues for this technique are hinted at in the surviving collection of Roman recipes known as Apicius. In one recipe the fire’s embers are described as being “…above and below [the dish].” While the description does not explicitly explain how this may happen, one can imagine the dish must have been lidded for the fire to be on top of the food.

Utensils

Just as today, a variety of kitchen utensils are known from the archaeological record and therefore were available to the Roman cook. Frying pans (Latin: pl. fretālia; sing. fretāle) made of iron or bronze are well attested. Oval or round in shape, some examples feature an integrated pouring lip as shown below left. This reconstruction also has a folding handle that is locked in place by a collar that clamps the handle to an extension of the pan. Hinged forward as shown makes the fretāle compact for carrying or storage. Pictured below right is a reconstruction of an unusual pan with a long handle rivetted to a square pan with four domed recesses. The replica is based on examples found in Pompeii and a version housed in the British Museum. The latter, bequeathed to the Museum’s collection by Sir William Temple in 1856, has six circular depressions and is 431.80 mm (17 in) long. Dated to the 1st-century AD, it was found in Torre Annunziata, Campania, Italy and is described as a bronze baking pan for cakes and bread rolls.

Various forms of shallow pan made of bronze or brass were commonly used for cooking. In the Roman army they are synonymous with soldiers’ mess tin. Along with various earthenware dishes, these pans could also be used to serve food from cooker to table. Apicius refers to them as patellae or patinae (sing. patella or patina) - a replica pan is shown far right. The design is very similar to a ceremonial libation bowls, known as a patera, that frequently feature on Roman dedicatory altars. Not all of these libation bowls, however, have handles, but they often have a bulbous indentation (omphalos, “belly button”) in the centre underside. Next to the patina, and below three examples of colanders or sieves, is a wooden-framed grater. The brass sheet has been punch pierced to leave one side with raised metal burrs ideal for grating.

As pictured right, knives of all shapes and sizes were used. Typically made with iron blades, they were fitted with wood, bone or bronze handles. Hefty cleavers would be useful for jointing large pieces of meat, while more delicate work required the smaller cook’s knives shown in the centre of the image.

Within the group of objects are two spoons. Made of bronze, brass, wood or horn, along with ladles and dippers, spoons are essential in any kitchen. The uppermost recreates a common example from the Roman period. A modern replica, pictured below left, that features in the British Museum collection was inspired by a spoon found in Aquae Sulis (Bath). It is made of silver with pear-shaped offset bowl and twisted handle. Of note is the curved hook where the handle joins the bowl. It is not immediately obvious what function this performed. Possibly decorative, it can however be used to hook the spoon onto the rim of a pan when cooking which makes locating the spoon that much easier in a busy kitchen.

The other spoon-like replica copies an artefact housed in the collection of The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Nicknamed the “Roman Swiss Army Knife”, this folding eating gadget, pictured above right, has a three-pronged fork, a spoon, a spatula, a pick, a spike, and an iron knife although the latter is badly eroded. Each element is hinged to fold out when needed, or fold away for ease of carriage. The pick or spike might have helped extract snails from their shells or, in the case of the spike, prising open oysters. The spatula is remarkably like those often found as part of hygiene sets where they are typically described for removing earwax. Given this multi-purpose knife’s potential use as an eating utensil, this seems unlikely in this instance but cannot be ruled out. Many less elaborate bronze folding knives have been discovered from antiquity, but this one's complex design and it being made from silver suggests it was possibly a luxury item. With silver being a relatively soft and pliable metal, it may not have been intended for regular use but rather something a wealthy traveller or soldier might show off.

One ubiquitous utensil common in Roman kitchens were mortaria (sing. mortarium) used for grinding, pounding, mixing or blending ingredients. Roman tastes in food favoured the use of sauces, relishes and subtly blended herbs and spices. With stone or wooden pestles, such ingredients often needed to be ground or puréed, and a strong mixing-bowl with a grit-roughened interior was, therefore, essential. Those shown below are replicas of mortaria copying the form and function of a plethora of examples recovered from across the Roman world.

Mortaria could be used to make cheese. Milk could be left in the bowl to curdle; the whey then being poured off through the spout on the rim. The grit on the inner surface would retain curd-forming bacteria from one cheese-making day to the next obviating the need to use rennet or old whey to set the milk working.

It is likely that no kitchen functioned without amphorae (sing. amphora), the two-handled ceramic jars used in enormous quantities across the Roman world to transport and store such things as wine, olive oil and fish sauce. The remains of many hundreds have been found in Britain. There are many styles known from the archaeological record but in general, tall amphorae contain wine or fish sauce, while globular ones were for olive oil. Amphorae often have tituli picti (painted inscriptions) or are stamped with a marker’s mark, what they contain, and import marks. As pictured right, the amphorae in the crates are for wine, while those in front, from left to right, are two for wine, one for fish sauce, one for olive oil, and one for preserved fruits respectively. The shapes are quite distinct which means one does not necessarily need to be literate to know the content of different amphorae.

The drawing (below left), from the Archaeology Data Service, is a summary table produced by Heinrich Dressel in the late 19th-century. It shows a group of amphorae recovered from the Castro Pretorio in Rome (Dressel, 1899). The main purpose of the table was to illustrate the vessels upon which stamps and tituli picti from the site were found. Dressel’s work represented in outline form some forty-five individual shapes which has gone on to provide a framework for much further study of amphorae [1].

Many of these vessels have a tapered design with a similarly tapered foot. As most observers point out, the design seems flawed as individual amphora cannot stand unsupported without toppling over. Yet, the design was immensely successful over several centuries. For transportation around and across the Mediterranean Sea, as evidenced from several ancient shipwrecks, rows of amphorae were stacked against ships’ hulls as shown in the reconstruction above right. Inserting the foot between four other amphorae permits additional rows to be safely and securely stacked on top. Plying a rope through the handles adds security to the cargo. When loading or unloading in port, the foot, particularly the ones on the larger amphorae, enable easier carriage on and off a transport ship, to marketplace and onward to a shop, eating or drinking establishment, or to a residence. The body of the amphora can be carried on the shoulder supported by an enveloping arm and a hand gripping the foot. Usefully, any sediment in the content is able to settle in a hollow foot, and the foot also acts to keep the body raised above any damp surface thus preventing moisture permeating through the porous clay. And finally, to empty larger amphorae becomes much easier if the foot is used to lift and help pour out the content.

Ingredients

When the province of Britannia was integrated into the Roman Empire the inhabitants of these isles were given access to a new world of ingredients, flavours and tastes. Some of the imported additions to British diets included dates, almonds, olives and olive oil, pine kernels (pine nuts), and the fermented fish sauce commonly used in ancient Mediterranean cooking. Evidence for these introductions comes from the physical remains of, for example, bones and seeds excavated on Roman or Romano-British sites. Adding to our knowledge is also evidence from two literary forms. Firstly, there are the letters preserved at Vindolanda written by the soldiers serving along Hadrian’s Wall to their families. Some record foods available such as one example that lists “spice, goats’ milk, salt, young pig, ham, corn, venison and flour”. Another letter mentions both ordinary and vintage wines, the local beer, the ubiquitous fish sauce [garum or liquamen], and pork fat. The other form of literary evidence survives in the “recipe book” of Apicius [2], the agricultural treatises of Marcus Porcius Cato (De agri cultura “On Farming” or “On Agriculture”), Marcus Terentius Varro (De re rustica “On Agriculture”), Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella (De re rustica) and the 4th-century writer Rutilius Taurus Aemilianus Palladius (Opus Agriculturae). Similarly, further testimony is provided by Gaius Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Elder) who wrote the encyclopaedic Naturalis Historia (“Natural History”), a comprehensive 37-volume work covering a vast array of topics on human knowledge and the natural world. Information on food and dining can also be gleaned from non-fiction works such as Gaius Petronius Arbiter’s Satyricon within which the feast of Trimalchio is notable. Finally, surviving mosaics and frescoes depict hunting scenes, flora and fauna, dining and foodstuffs.

The daily diet varied considerably between rich and poor. For the wealthy, there were few restrictions. Country villa owners in Roman Britain might enjoy freshly made bread perhaps using home-ground flour, home-grown fruits and vegetables, meat from pigs, sheep and oxen, and an abundance of fish and wild game. Pork was valued by Roman soldiers, with lard forming part of their daily ration. Auxiliaries manning Hadrian’s Wall also consumed large quantities of mutton given the number of sheep bones found at Corbridge, a Roman frontier town that supplied the Wall’s garrison. The poor, however, would have relied on a rather unvaried diet of coarse bread, cereal-based porridge or gruel, pulses, legumes and other vegetables, with meat only an occasional addition. That said, many new vegetables were introduced to British kitchens during the Roman period. These included some very familiar produce such as asparagus, cabbage, celery, cucumber, cultivated garlic supplementing the indigenous wild version, lettuce, leek, marrow, onion, parsnip, radish, shallots, and turnip.

Snails were a delicacy and were fed on milk, wine must and spelt wheat to enhance both their size and flavour. Initially kept on parcels of land surrounded by water to prevent their escape, their final fattening involved the snails being kept in jars with air holes. When they had become so fat they could not get back into their shells, they were fried in oil and served with wine. Snail shells have been found on many Romano-British villa sites suggesting snails were a popular food source. 

Honey was the main form of sweetening. It also served as a preservative for meat and fruit and was a common ingredient in many recipes and sauces. The Apician recipe Porcellum assum Tractomelinum (lit. “Suckling pig treated with honey”) differs very little from that found in cookery books today. Beekeeping (“apiculture”) was therefore an important industry with most farms retaining the service of an apiarius (“beekeeper”) to care for the hives.

Apicius also gives us a recipe for honey and cottage cheese (mel et caseum). As today, cheeses were many and varied and were widely enjoyed. Fresh curd cheese or caseum is attested in antiquity. However, having observed that soft cheeses tended to spoil rather quickly, the Romans introduced rennet, or coagulum as they called it, into their cheese making process. So, both soft and hard cheeses were known. To the eternal chagrin of modern Italians, Pliny the Elder wrote very enthusiastically about a cheese from Nemausus (Nîmes) in France as being the most popular in Rome. Around AD 40, he also describes a recipe clearly resembling a blue cheese like Roquefort. Moreover, the French Cantal and English Cheddar [3] are clearly the descendants of Roman cheese making practices.

Seafood

Shellfish were highly prized as food in Roman Britain. Oysters were especially important with those from the coast near Colchester, Essex and Richborough, Kent being particularly famous and even valued in Rome. Live oysters may well have been transported inland in tanks judging by the quantity of oyster shells frequently encountered in the archaeological record at inland Roman sites. The consumption of oysters was so great that more than a million shells were recovered in a single deposit in Silchester Roman town near Reading, Berkshire. Other shellfish valued as food included periwinkles, mussels, whelks, cockles and scallops. Like oysters, crabs and lobsters were also taken inland. Sea fish were also popular with cod, grey mullet, haddock, herring, ling and sea bream all being line caught as evidenced by barbed bronze fishing hooks recovered in Roman contexts.

Fish Sauce

The most characteristic ingredient in Roman cooking was the fermented fish sauce known either as liquamen or more popularly garum, although the two products are not synonymous. In truth liquamen is the standard term for fish sauce used in Roman texts, such as “Apicius”. The Romans, and the Greeks before them, used it to enhance dishes with an umami flavour [4]. While Garum appears to be the Roman transliteration from the Greek garos or garon, in Latin liquamen means “to be liquid; to liquefy” (Grocock and Grainger, 2006, Appendix 4). Both terms refer to fish and salt but the difference, according to Sally Grainger (Grainger, 2021), appears to be whether the mixture contained only blood and viscera (garum) or if it also contained whole small fish (liquamen). The former (garum) was used as a condiment at the table, while liquamen was used more widely as an ingredient in recipes. Usefully, Book XX of Geoponica, a 10th-century AD collection of agricultural lore, gives us the main recipe for liquamen: “fish blood and entrails as well as small fish such as sprat, smelt, mullet were all salted and shaken and fermented in the sun” (Grocock and Grainger, 2006, Appendix 4, 375). The liquid drawn from the fermenting process is comparable with today’s Thai nam pla or Vietnamese nuc nam fish sauces. In fact, the process of fermenting fish to make liquamen is akin to the processes of fermenting all kinds of other foods such as beer, sour dough, sauerkraut or kimchi.

Two other fish products often mentioned with garum are muria and allec. Muria is Latin for brine rather than a sauce and refers to the liquid drawn off fish packed in salt. The resulting muria salsamenti (“brine of salted fish”) was “quite pale in colour and also very clear and free flowing” (Grocock and Grainger, 2006, Appendix 4, 374). It was the inexpensive version of fish sauce widely available to poorer households. Allec, meanwhile, was what remained after all the liquids had been drawn off the fermented mass. This paste, which would contain anything the enzymes did not break down, was also used as a table condiment of varying quality (Pliny, Naturalis Historia, 31.44).

Spices

Any mention of spices being used to disguise the taste of foods that had become rancid through over-storage is a very outdated notion. Until more recent times and their widespread availability, spices were expensive luxuries unaffordable to the masses. This was particularly true during the Mediæval period where the use of spices ensured guests were aware of the expense the host had incurred in providing their meal. In other words, spices were a demonstrator of power and wealth. In 80 BC, however, when Ptolemy XI bequeathed Alexandria to the Romans, the revenues from taxes levied on the spice trade between Egypt and India in this major Mediterranean port were enormous. Under Roman rule Alexandria became the greatest commercial centre of the world. It was the leading emporium for the aromatic spices of India, all of which found their way to the markets of Greece and the Roman Empire. The trade with India was extensive for more than three hundred years. It allowed exotic spices, for example black pepper, to be far more commonplace than in later centuries. Other popular spices frequenting Roman recipes include cardamon, cinnamon, cumin, ginger, and saffron.

Herbs

A very common alternative to exotic spices were the various herbs that could be grown either commercially or by households in what we might recognise as “cottage gardens”. Herbs mentioned in Roman recipes, especially in sauces, include alexanders (“wild celery”), aniseed, bay-leaf, borage, chervil, coriander, dill, fennel, hyssop, lovage, mint, parsley, pennyroyal, rosemary, rue, sage, savoury, sweet marjoram and thyme to name but a few. To this list could be added silphium, a highly prized aromatic herb. Tapped from the root of this fennel-like plant and dried, in Roman haute cuisine silphium resin was used as a seasoning, as a condiment, or grated liberally over dishes. The stem was also considered a delicacy for those who could get it where the crunchy stalks were roasted, sautéed or boiled and eaten as a vegetable. Even its roots were eaten fresh, dipped in vinegar.

The wonder plant was an excellent preservative for lentils and when fed to sheep, it was said their flesh became delectably tender. Even in medicine, silphium was a veritable panacea. It could treat coughs, sore throats, fever, indigestion, aches and pains, warts, and all kinds of maladies. It was also thought to be both an aphrodisiac and, rather conveniently, a contraceptive. All of this from a weed that grew wild in a region of North Africa known as Cyrenaica.

Mismanagement and over-tapping led to silphium’s catastrophic decline in the 1st-century BC. Eventually the plant became extinct in the 1st-century AD. Indeed, in the 70s AD, Pliny (the Elder) writes that while silphium was “worth its weight in silver”, but that “for many years now it had not been seen in the region...The single stem found within living memory was sent to the Emperor Nero”. Although we cannot be entirely certain, presumably the bon viveur Nero consumed the last silphium, and that was that. The Romans were, however, familiar with an alternative aromatic resin from central Asia known as asafoetida. It had been brought to Mediterranean Europe from Iran by an expedition of Alexander the Great. Returning from a trip to north-eastern ancient Persia he thought that he had found a plant almost identical, albeit less tasty, to the famed silphium of Cyrenaica.

Asafoetida is a dried latex (gum oleoresin) obtained from the rhizome or tap root of several species of the Ferula plant, which belongs to the carrot family. It is primarily produced in regions like Iran, Afghanistan, and India. In its raw form the spice is known for its strong, pungent odour that some might find off-putting. When used as a condiment in cooking, and in pickling, it imparts a flavour reminiscent of leek or garlic. Today asafoetida plays a critical flavouring role in Indian cuisine by acting as a savoury flavour enhancer.

Wine

Probably the most important fruit introduced to Britannia was the grape. Britain lies at the northernmost limit for ripening grapes in Europe, so their cultivation was restricted to the southern half of England. Grape pips along with grape skins found in Gloucester are highly suggestive of winemaking in the area. It seems the Romans established vineyards as far north as Lincolnshire, capitalising on Britain’s milder climate during this period. Historical evidence suggests the wine produced was of varying quality, but its presence marked an early chapter in British winemaking.

Before the Roman occupation tribal chieftains, keen on luxury goods, imported wine from the continent. Post-invasion, wine was initially imported from Gaul (modern-day France) and the Mediterranean. Excavations from various sites in, for example, London, Bath, and Colchester reveal countless shards of amphorae filled with robust reds and fragrant whites from Spain and south-west France. Later the Romans systematically introduced organised winemaking, or “viticulture,” as well as popularising wine-drinking. Wine merchants’ shops have been identified in the Roman towns of Verulamium (St Albans), Eboracum (York) and Lindum (Lincoln) through the presence of large numbers of broken wine amphorae.

Wine intended for use in cooking was reduced by boiling before use to concentrate its sugars and help preserve it while in storage. Similarly, defrutum is a sweet, syrupy reduction of grape juice commonly used as a sweetener in ancient Roman cuisine. It adds a rich, fruity flavour to both sweet and savoury dishes.

Vinegar was another very important by-product of winemaking. Historically it was produced from wine that had gone sour or had been attacked by acetic acid-producing bacteria during fermentation with yeast, salt and honey. Vinegar sharpened sauces and dressings and was used in the preservation of fruits, vegetables and fish. Raw oysters were said to keep well if washed in vinegar. By adding a little vinegar to water the Romans created Posca, an everyday drink popular in the army and also amongst the urban poor. It has a refreshingly sour taste, but one that would have also disguised the smell and taste of stale water. The Roman’s development of posca was also convenient economically since the faulty storage of wine tends to result in vinegar.

Trade links to the continent meant grapes in the form of raisins, sultanas and currants, sun-dried in the Mediterranean sun, could be imported. Dates found in Colchester and olives recovered in London also must have been traded into Roman Britain. Besides grapes, other fruits were introduced by the Romans including the orchard crops of medlars, mulberry, damsons, plums and cultivated cherries. Native crab apples were joined by larger, sweeter cultivars grown in orchards alongside newly introduced pears. Various nut-bearing trees were brought from Europe including walnut and almond but not sweet chestnut. The latter is native to southern Europe, western Asia and North Africa but the story of how sweet chestnut trees came to be in Britain is unclear. It has long been thought of as a Roman introduction, but science does not definitively back this up. It may be that sweet chestnut trees are a far more recent introduction.

The colour-coded table below hopefully helps to visualise which foods were available or known to the Romans or not:

The foods highlighted in RED were not known to the Romans as most were native to either North or South America. So, for the Romans there were:

• No cocoa beans and therefore no chocolate!

• No potatoes, so no crisps or chips!

• No tomatoes which meant the modern pizza with its tomato sauce did not exist.

The foods highlighted in ORANGE were native to Asia:

• Bananas in SE Asia (Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.) and Papua New Guinea.

• Oranges in southern China, north-eastern India, and perhaps south-eastern Asia. They were first cultivated in China around 2,500 BC, with sweet oranges not arriving in Europe until the late 15th- or early 16th-century courtesy of Italian and Portuguese merchants.

• Rice, noodles and pasta from China. Rice was introduced to Europe through western Asia, and much later to the Americas through European colonisation. As for pasta, that quintessential Italian food, in the 1st-century BC the Roman poet Horace wrote of fried sheets of dough called lagana. Unfortunately, the method of cooking these sheets does not match the current definition of either a fresh or dry pasta product. Perhaps lagana only had similar basic ingredients and perhaps the shape. In the 2nd-century AD, the Greek physician Galen mentioned itrion, referring to all homogenous mixtures from flour and water. The Latinised itrium was used as a reference to a kind of boiled dough.

The food highlighted in GREEN, namely ice cream, has an unusual history. Ancient civilisations had used ice to chill foods for thousands of years. So, a kind of ice-cream was supposedly “invented” in China about 200 BC when a milk and rice mixture became frozen after it had been packed in snow to keep it chilled. Much later the Roman Emperor Nero (AD 37-68) is supposed to have sent slaves to nearby mountain tops to bring back fresh snow that was then flavoured with fruit toppings and served as an early form of “slushy”. The truth of either tale is uncertain at best, but it is not beyond possibility that our ancestors discovered “ice cream” or “invented” the slushy by accident. 

In Summary

The cooking methods, utensils and gadgets used in Roman kitchens 2,000 years ago ought to be familiar to us today. Technological innovation may have enabled us to harness gas, electricity and microwaves but fundamentally we still boil, bake, roast and fry. Even the many foods we eat today in Britain, and perhaps are guilty of taking for granted, were introduced from much further afield during the Roman period. Some ingredients the Romans would never have known but the recipes that do survive remain a source of delicious meals. Bon appétit!

References:

Grainger, S., (2021), “The Story of Garum: Fermented fish sauce and salted fish in the ancient world”, London: Routledge.

Grocock, C. & Grainger, S., (2006), “Apicius: A critical edition with an introduction and English translation”, Totnes: Prospect Books.

Endnotes:

1. University of Southampton (2014) Roman Amphorae: a digital resource [data-set]. York: Archaeology Data Service [distributor] https://doi.org/10.5284/1028192.

2. The work conventionally known by the name “Apicius” is officially titled De re coquinaria (“The Art of Cooking”). Likely not compiled until the 4th-century, the book comprises more than 400 recipes collected and collated into its final form. It not thought that “Apicius” was the name of a single author, but rather serves as a convenient name by which we can refer to this surviving collection of practical Roman-era recipes. Follow the link for more on “Who is Apicius?”

3. The semi-hard Cantal cheese originates from the Cantal region in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes area of France. It is alleged, but without any corroborating evidence, that Cantal has its origins in Gaul and thus contemporary with the Romans. By contrast Cheddar cheese was first attested in the early 12th-century, likely being created in the village of Cheddar in Somerset, England. In 1107, King Henry II reputedly bought some 10,000 pounds of cheddar.

4. Umami is recognized as the fifth basic taste, alongside salty, sweet, bitter, and sour. It is often described as a pleasant, savoury taste that is associated with the presence of amino acids like L-glutamate and nucleotides such as guanosine monophosphate (GMP) and inosine monophosphate (IMP). Foods rich in umami include cheese, cooked meats, mushrooms, soy sauce, and ripe tomatoes. The term “umami” translates from Japanese to mean “pleasant savoury taste”, and it enhances the overall flavour profile of dishes.