Food History: What did ancient Egyptians eat?

The longevity of ancient Egyptian society, some 3,500 years, was largely because they had the good fortune to live in a sunny land, well-watered by the river Nile, which was just right for growing a wide variety of vegetables and cereal crops. Throughout human history, however, your wealth dictated the access to and variety of foods available. Poor Egyptians relied on a diet of bread, beans, onions and green vegetables to stave off hunger.

Where do we get our evidence?

Food features prominently in Egyptian wall paintings and reliefs of all periods. Old Kingdom (2613 to 2181 BC) tomb owners are shown overseeing the work of their servants preparing and delivering all manner of foodstuffs. Many tomb paintings showing the production and preparation of food were intended to ensure a plentiful supply for the deceased in the afterlife. Middle Kingdom (2040 to 1782 BC) tomb models reproduce the activities of the bakery, brewery and butcher’s yard. New Kingdom (1570 to 1070 BC) monarchs are portrayed offering to the gods plates of bread, meat and vegetables. Indeed, the simplest offerings on many funeral stelae were bread and beer, the staples of the Egyptian diet whatever a person’s status. But other commodities can also be identified such as meat, fowl, fruit, vegetables, oils and unguents. Food remains from tombs are of great interest, many specimens having survived in a recognisable form. Beer and wine stored in semi-porous jars evaporate quickly and their residues are not easily analysed. Fats, oils and dairy products degenerate to an unappetising collection of basic organic chemicals, but where their residues have soaked into porous storage jars then these can be analysed and identified.

Evidence from non-funerary contexts as to the methods of preparing and cooking food is sparse. There are few settlement sites available for archaeological investigation since most major sites are still occupied, especially in the Nile Delta, which was the agricultural heartland of ancient Egypt. Moreover, those domestic sites that have been investigated are atypical being the villages of the pyramid builders, at Kahun for example, or the royal tomb builders at Deir el-Medina. Such locations were separate from other settlements and had a different social structure.

Changes in climate and ecology within the last 4,000 years must be considered. Plants that once grew wild in Egypt are no longer found there. Likewise, animals and birds which thrived in the Nile Valley have not done so for centuries. Whereas crops now associated with Egypt, such as cotton, sugar cane and potatoes, are modern introductions.

Bread

When the grain harvest was abundant, government officials ensured wheat and barley was stored  in granaries that belonged to the pharaoh. Such measures ensured grain could be shared out to everybody in years when the crop was poor. Grain was a staple food and so important in the diet that it constituted a major item in the food rations paid as wages to royal workmen.

Small loaves of barley bread were included in the funerary banquet found in the Second Dynasty tomb 3477 at Saqqara. The gourmet meal, known as the ‘Saqqara Banquet’ (pictured below), was prepared for a noblewomen and had been set out beside the burial pit within her mastaba, a mud-brick tomb.

Ancient Egyptian bread-making was a simple affair that began with crushing grain to flour between a hand stone that was pushed and pulled across a saddle quern. This style of grinding had its roots in the Neolithic period and continued in use through the Bronze Age until the more efficient rotary quern appeared. The latter was probably invented somewhere in the western Mediterranean during the 5th century BC from where it proliferated widely thanks largely to ancient Greek and Roman armies and merchants.

The flour was mixed with water and a little salt to form a dough that was then shaped into loaves. The basic flat loaf resembled pitta bread. Unleavened dough could be shaped by hand and cooked directly on a flat stone placed over a fire, on the baking floor inside a clay oven - think pizza oven - or even by being slapped on to the pottery wall of the oven itself. Some loaves were simply cooked in the ashes of the fire or in ceramic pots stacked over a fire (cf. the Roman testum). Leavening was most probably effected by washing the mixing bowl with water to remove the dough sticking to it from the previous batch. More flour is added and mixed to a paste which is left overnight to sour. The sour dough starter then forms the basis of the next day’s bread mix. Bread, or ta, has been leavened in this way in Egypt for thousands of years.

Loaves were shaped in ovals, triangles and indented squares, all of which appear among offerings. Some are shown with slashes across the crust enabling the bread to rise. Some loaves were modelled in the form of animals, human figures or fancy shapes popular for special occasions such as religious festivals (cf. Horus’ victory over Seth). Honey might be added to the mixture to make a sweeter tasting bread, and some flavoured with nuts and spices. A fruit loaf in the Cairo Agricultural Museum was made by layering mashed dates between two discs of dough.

Beer

Another staple of ancient Egyptian diets was beer, which was produced and consumed in large volumes. The discovery of beer was a by-product of the Agricultural Revolution [1] (c. 10,000 BC) when humans began to gather and domesticate wild grains. Ancient Egyptian beer was treated as a type of food being consumed daily, and in great quantities at religious festivals and celebrations. The calories provided by beer were essential for labourers, especially the pyramid builders, who were provided with a daily ration of 1⅓ gallons (over 10 pints).

Wooden models excavated from tombs provide clues as to how ancient Egyptians strained their brewing mash through a cloth into ceramic vessels. In brewing, a mash is the combination of grain and water that is heated to convert the starches in the grain into sugars that can be fermented by yeast to produce beer. It is thought ancient Egyptian brewers used a two-stage mash. A cold mash was made using water at the ambient temperature mixed with a malted, ground grain or crumbled leavened loaves, which were partly baked so as not to destroy the enzymes that promoted fermentation. Either way the mash would have contained all the active enzymes needed to convert starch to sugar. The second mash, which was probably processed at the same time, mixed unmalted, ground grain with hot water and would be further heated. There is evidence of heat exposure on ceramic brewing vessels found in Egypt but while heating the mash allows the starches present to unravel, it has the unintended consequence of killing the enzymes. By preparing the hot and cold mashes separately and then combining them means the accessible starches and the enzymes required to convert them are both present.

Once mixed, the mash was left to cool, at which point the enzymes start to convert the starches in the grains to fermentable sugars. When cool, the mash would need to be sieved of any residual grain directly into a ceramic fermenting vessel. This ceramic vessel is key to the ancient Egyptian fermenting process as its porous interior provided the ideal surface for a wild yeast culture to grow. With the vessel covered, the mix was left to ferment.

The resulting beer would have been drunk while still actively fermenting from the ceramic vessel itself. It was unlikely that the beer was decanted from these large vessels, but we know drinking straws were used. The straws were probably to prevent sediment being consumed by the drinker and a matter of hygiene since many people would have drunk from the same vessel. Egyptian straws would have been made from clay, with holes or a filter at the end to sieve out some of the sediment.

The ancient Egyptian beer brewing method is far simpler than modern methods, but Egyptian beer ferments faster and is materially more efficient. They worked without thermometers and starch tests, without the microbiology of yeast and enzyme conversion, yet created refreshing beer that could have been made continuously in huge volumes.

Wine

Though beer was by far the most popular drink wine was made too. Vineyards have been identified in the Nile Delta area and grape vines were grown on trellises in domestic gardens. After harvesting ‘treaders’, supporting their weight by hanging onto ropes specifically for that purpose, used their bare feet to crush the grapes in a large trough. The grape juice. or ‘must’, was collected and poured into ceramic jars to begin the first fermentation. The must may have been left to ferment anywhere from a few days to a few weeks. At the end of the fermentation process, the jars were sealed and the wine left to mature. There is some evidence that amphorae were coated inside with a resinous compound to prevent the wine being lost through porous pottery.

• The unique flavour of Retsina, a resinated Greek white (or rosé) wine, is said to have originated from the practice of sealing wine vessels, particularly amphorae, with Aleppo pine resin in ancient times. One wonders whether Ancient Egyptian wine may have had a similar flavour.

Many finds of grapes or sun-dried raisins, often indistinguishable, have been made in tombs of all ages, and bunches of blue-black grapes and baskets of similar coloured fruit are common in offering scenes. Dessert grapes were included c. 1325 BC in an attractive bottle-shaped basket in Tutankhamun’s tomb.

Cereals, fruit ‘n’ veg

The major part of Egypt’s arable land was given over to cereals and flax, and these are the crops usually featured in agricultural scenes. As today, small plots of domestic crops would have been cultivated between larger fields. Irrigation systems gave the land a chequerboard appearance, each ‘field’ divided into squares by low ridges of earth enabling small areas to be watered individually. The water was lifted from irrigation ditches by hand or by a shaduf, a counterweight beam with a bucket which is still used today.

The river we know as the Nile was called ‘Ar’ by the ancient Egyptians. It means ‘Black River’ because fertile silt carried by the water was deposited on the land when the river flooded each year. Nile comes from the ancient Greek word Neilos, the god of the river. Most Egyptians, therefore, lived along the banks of the Nile next to the fertile farmland created by this rich, silty mud where they could grow lots of food crops. The ancient Egyptians called their land ‘Khemet’, which means ‘Black Land’.

The Egyptian workman’s packed lunch consisted of bread, beer and onions. The Greek historian, Herodotus, tells us that quantities of onions and radishes were given as wages to the builders of Pharoah Khufu’s pyramid. Bunches of onions with green stems and round white bulbs are shown draped over offering tables. The small ancient onions were probably sweeter and less eye-watering than their modern equivalent. Garlic was grown from the earliest times. Once again the ancient kind were smaller than the modern cultivated species and were probably milder in flavour.

Lettuces, although included among food offerings, are not immediately recognisable. The shape is elongated like a Cos lettuce. In medical papyri, lettuce is recommended as a cure for impotence and is traditionally held to have aphrodisiac properties.

Cucumbers were small, blunt-ended with fewer seeds than the European variety. Cucumbers with curled over stalks often fill the gaps between other food offerings. Small cucumbers would have been pickled to provide a year-round supply of vegetables.

Despite Herodotus’ claim that the Egyptians hated beans, from very ancient times beans (e.g. black-eyed and yellow), peas and lentils were included in tombs. The latter were being cultivated before 3150 BC. The most easily recognised is the chickpea which could be served as a vegetable or ground into flour used to enrich bread dough. The most popular modern chickpea recipe is hummus, made simply with mashed chickpeas and sesame oil. It is not inconceivable that a form of hummus was part of the Egyptian diet. As for beans, a pale variety of the common broad bean (Vicia faba) has been identified. Pharaonic cooks almost certainly invented ta’amia or felafel, fried rissoles made from mashed beans, onion, garlic and spices.

Besides vegetables grown in garden and field plots, plants were harvested from the wild. The multi-purpose papyrus plant (Cyperus papyrus) is mentioned by Herodotus as being pulled up, the stalks cut in two and the lower half eaten after being baked in a closed pan. The young shoots of papyrus could also have been eaten like bamboo shoots.

The most popular of ancient Egyptian flowers, the lotus, was a source of food. There are two sorts of lotus or waterlily mentioned by Herodotus:

• The white lotus (Nymphaea lotus; seshen in Egyptian) known from the Old Kingdom and used for festival garlands, bouquets and offerings. The black-skinned lily root, ‘the size of an apple’ according to Herodotus, was peeled and the inner white part eaten either raw, baked or boiled.

• The pink lotus (Nelumbium speciosum) produces a seed head containing up to 36 seeds each the size of an olive stone.

The dish of stewed fruit in the Second Dynasty Saqqara Banquet described as ‘possibly figs’ is most likely to be the Wild or Sycamore Fig (Ficus sycomorus). The fruit are smaller, yellower and have more astringent taste than ordinary figs but were a very popular dessert fruit from very early times. The True Fig (Ficus carica) seems to have been introduced into Egypt before the Old Kingdom, i.e. before 2613 BC. The trees were smaller and more bush-like than sycamore figs and probably confined to the gardens of the wealthy. The fig harvest was considered important enough to be portrayed in tombs, where gardeners are shown competing for the fruit with monkeys. Besides being grown for eating, figs were used to make a wine and a liqueur said to have a fiery aftertaste.

A tree of equal importance with the fig was the date palm. Coloured representations of palms laden with fruit show that the predominate species in ancient times bore yellow or brown dates. Finds of date stones have been made at numerous sites from the Predynastic era onwards. Apart from being eaten fresh or dried, dates were made into purée or jam to accompany festival bread and are thought to have been used to enrich and flavour beer.

Other significant fruits include:

• The pomegranate, probably introduced via Palestine during the 2nd Intermediate Period (c. 1782-1570 BC).

• The oval yellow berry of the Persea tree (Mimusops laurifolia).

• The Mandrake fruit are often shown on trays of offerings. The slightly poisonous flesh of the mandrake fruit has a sickly, insipid taste and the stone has high concentrations of toxins with narcotic effects. It is often shown being held to the noses of diners and, as its hallucinatory properties were recognised and it was thought to be an aphrodisiac, the sniffing of the fruit may be the ancient Egyptian equivalent of smoking ‘pot’.

In summary, vegetables of all sorts formed a large and important part of the Egyptian diet and, together with bread, formed the basis of most meals. It is likely that most Egyptian peasants existed on a purely vegetarian diet, only dreaming of meat and relishing the occasional luxury of fish or wildfowl.

Meat, fish and fowl

Beef was the preferred meat for ancient Egyptians but only if they could afford it - throughout most of human history, meat remained the preserve of wealthier people. Beef was expensive because cattle needed fields of grass to eat and that took precious land away from crop production. Most scenes of butchery deal with the preparation of cattle carcases, always oxen. Nothing would have been wasted; the animal’s blood would have been saved to make a blood sausage (black pudding). The carcass was jointed with haunches, racks of ribs, steaks and ox heads all depicted in scenes. Pieces of meat are shown hung up on lines or racks. Some may have been allowed to air cure in the sun to create a sort of biltong.

Other meat sources such as goat and mutton were considered not quite so good, while pork was said by some ancient commentators (Herodotus and Galen) to be unclean and forbidden to Egyptians. Herodotus details the festivities held in memory of Horus’ victory over Seth, to whom the pig was sacred. It was, he said, the only time of the year when people ate pork and those families who could not afford a pig would eat loaves made in the shape of the animal. However, at the Middle Kingdom town of Kahun and the 18th Dynasty workmen’s village at Amarna, large quantities of pig bones have been found indicating that pork played a significant role in the diet of the working-class Egyptian. Fish were also said to be taboo, but this was most likely only applicable to the priesthood.

Egyptians ate a lot of fish, conveniently sourced from the Nile, although oddly the profession of fisherman was apparently despised by all classes even when the fish themselves were considered a lucky charm. Catches were cleaned, gutted and slabbed, that is split open down the backbone and flattened, either on the fishing boat or shortly after being landed on the riverbank. The prepared fish were allowed to hang in the sun from wooden frames or the boat’s rigging to dry. Fish were also salted or pickled in oil to preserve them.

Poultry or wild birds were widely eaten because they were the cheapest meats to buy. A multitude of bird species inhabited the reedbeds along the Nile. Birds such as pigeons, storks, crane, egrets, teal, geese and ducks were all eaten. Such commodities could be bought at market or hunted. Depictions of Egyptians hunting wildfowl (predominantly ducks and geese) in the papyrus reed beds lining the Nile clearly show them using throwing sticks. Ducks and geese were kept in poultry pens and yards where they were fed on grain. The Egyptians had to rely on these birds for eggs as domestic fowl had yet to be introduced in any numbers until Roman times.

Dairy

Most villagers would have had access to a supply of goat’s or sheep’s milk. Fresh milk would not keep for long in Egypt’s heat so milk may have been cultured into a product like yoghurt. As with most areas, a simple cheese called labna is made in modern Egypt by straining salted yoghurt to a creamy consistency. A firmer cheese, gebna, is made from pressed, salted curds and may be kept for two or three days to dry and harden. Both labna and gebna could have been produced by the ancient Egyptians. Two jars from the First Dynasty tomb of Hor-aha yielded fatty residues which have been identified as the remains of cheese.

Condiments

The most basic of diets may be enlivened and varied by the careful use of condiments. Certain of these, such as salt, oil and vinegar, are also essential to some common methods of food preservation.

• It is not known for certain whether the Egyptians used vinegar as its remains would be indistinguishable from the residues of beer and wine. However, given the prevalence of beer and wines and their tendency to go sour in hot climates, it seems inconceivable that the Egyptians did not discover the use of vinegar in flavouring and preserving food.

• Salt was probably the oldest and most useful condiment available to all classes, but the methods by which the Egyptians extracted a pure form for the table are unknown. It is assumed that sources included naturally occurring salt deposits, particularly from the Western Desert and the oases, or from salt pans on the Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts. Salt was used for curing and preserving fish and meat.

• The oldest royal food list, from the Sixth Dynasty pyramid of Unas, includes five kinds of oil. Oil was an important food item as shown by its inclusion in the daily rations issued to royal servants like the King’s Messenger and Standard Bearer from the reign of Seti I. He received, as his wages: ‘…good bread, ox flesh, wine, sweet oil, olive oil (possibly), fat, honey, figs, fish and vegetables every day.’

• The sweet product valued above all others was honey. The bee was the symbol of Lower Egypt where the extensive pasturelands and beds of flowering reeds provided an ideal environment for apiculture. Honey was stored in different shaped jars, possible an indication of the quality, and the lids sealed with wax. Whole honeycombs are sometimes shown among food offerings. Poorer Egyptians used fruit, particularly figs and dates, as sweeteners. Sauces could be sweetened with fruit purée or a concentrated fruit juice like pomegranate syrup which is still widely used in Middle Eastern cookery.

• Herbs grown in garden plots or gathered from the wild include flat-leaf parsley and coriander both of which were used to flavour meat. Rosemary grows naturally in Egypt and is assumed to have been available in ancient times. Leaves of mint and sage have been found from later periods but other herbs, like dill, chervil and fennel, may be represented among the list of unattributed plant names. Cumin seeds were included in the burial of the architect Kha. Whole seeds were sprinkled on bread dough before baking and the ground spice was probably used to flavour meat. Fenugreek, with its distinctive curry smell, has been found South of Cairo and dated to 3,000 BC. Black seed mustard has been recovered from New Kingdom tombs and as poppies were cultivated for their flowers and for medicinal uses, they would have been available to cooks.

Cooking

No Egyptian culinary recipe books are known, although papyri listing medicinal concoctions suggest ways in which foodstuffs could have been prepared. Cooking was often done outdoors as there was not much chance of rain but could also be performed in a kitchen area, often at the back of the house, beneath a lightweight thatch of reeds and sticks that allowed smoke and smells to escape. Within this space would be a mudbrick or clay oven and a mortar set into the floor for pounding or grinding grain. Poorer Egyptians whose home comprised a single room cooked over a fire set in a hole in the floor. Not only would wealthier people have servants to cook for them but said servants might also use charcoal braziers to spit roast and grill meat, or to braise lesser cuts of meat or stew the same in pots.

To light a fire, the hand drill was the most widespread tool. It uses a thin, straightened wooden shaft or reed that is spun by the hands in a notch cut into the softer wood of a ‘hearth-board’ (or hearth). The repeated spinning and downward pressure heats the wood fibres causing black dust to form in the notch of the hearthboard which, in turn, eventually produces a hot, glowing coal. By carefully placing the coal amongst dense, fine tinder and blowing directly onto it will cause the tinder to smoulder and eventually flame. The ancient Egyptians also used the bow drill, which uses the same principle as the hand drill, i.e. generating frictional heat by the rotation of wood on wood. It typically consists of a bearing block or handhold, a drill or spindle, a hearth-board, and a simple bow. The drill or spindle, which is about the diameter of an adult finger, is carved to reduce friction at one end and maximize it at the other. One end is located in a hole in the bottom of the bearing block or handhold, while the other is set in a carved notch the hearth-board. The string of the bow is wrapped once around the drill just tight enough that it does not slip during operation. The drill is driven by a bow, which allows longer, easier strokes and protects the palms. Additional downward pressure is generated by the handhold to increase friction.

The preparation of meat for the table and the cooking techniques employed were much the same for whatever animal, sheep, pig or ox, was to be eaten. There is no evidence for elaborate sauces or of plated meals consisting of meat and two vegetables. Meats were served with various types of bread, which would have been true for the fish and fowl eaten by the peasant or the good roast beef on the nobleman’s table.

Dining

At large meals the hosts and important guests who were sat on low chairs. Children and others used cushions or mats. Servants brought in the courses one by one placing them on small tables beside the diners. Dishes might include roast meat perhaps seasoned with garlic, salads, cucumber, lots of bread and sticky cakes, and plates of melon and figs. People ate with their fingers, which were rinsed in water between courses.

And finally…

This piece was inspired by a presentation we gave to a local branch of the Women’s Institute. In researching the topic we learnt a great deal about the ancient Egyptian diet: the importance of bread and beer, the variety of foodstuffs that were cultivated, farming and animal husbandry, and so on. Hopefully it has been of some interest. Until next time, bon appétit!

Reference:

Marks, T., (2018), ‘A sip of history: ancient Egyptian beer’, The British Museum, available online (accessed July 10th, 2023).

Endnotes:

1. The Agricultural Revolution was the wide-scale transition of many human cultures during the Neolithic period from a lifestyle of hunting and gathering to one of agriculture and settlement, making an increasingly large population possible. These settled communities permitted humans to observe and experiment with plants, learning how they grew and developed. This new knowledge led to the domestication of plants into crops.

Dispelling Some Myths: Romans, Railways and NASA rockets

Yet another urban myth re-appeared on social media the other day, one which regularly does the rounds and has done so for many years since about 1937. In essence a series of connections are made to establish that the huge solid rocket boosters used by NASA had to be transported by rail whose rails were set a certain distance apart, a standard width first determined by the ancient Romans. The historical connections espoused are tenuous at best and do not really stand up to critical thinking. So, having been challenged to provide the real reason we set out to unpack the story and dispel its myths.

If you have not come across this improbable story, it reads like this:

‘The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8½ inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Well, because that's the way they built them in England, and English engineers designed the first US railroads. Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the wagon tramways, and that's the gauge they used. So, why did 'they' use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they had used for building wagons, which used that same wheel spacing. Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break more often on some of the old, long-distance roads in England. You see, that's the spacing of the wheel ruts. So who built those old rutted roads? Imperial Rome built the first long-distance roads in Europe (including England) for their legions. Those roads have been used ever since. And what about the ruts in the roads? Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match or run the risk of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. Therefore, the United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8½ inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Bureaucracies live forever. So the next time you are handed a specification, procedure or process and wonder 'What horse as come up with this?', you may be exactly right. Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses. Now, the twist to the story. When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses’ behinds.’

The sentences highlighted above in bold are specifically intended to draw attention to the somewhat flawed history that perpetuates this myth. So, with that in mind, let us start with the first premise leading to the amazing conclusion about NASA:

‘…the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the wagon tramways, and that's the gauge they used.’ 

Inconveniently, according to Bertram Baxter a standard gauge for horse railways never existed (Baxter, 1966). In the north of England, for example, none of the horse-drawn tramways had a gauge of less than 4 ft (1.219 m) but most varied in width. Baxter cites that both John Blenkinsop's Middleton Railway and the Wylam colliery's system, the latter being built before 1763, had a gauge of 5 ft (1.524 m), while the old 4 ft (1.219 m) wide plateway was re-laid to 5 ft (1.524 m) so that Blenkinsop's engine could be used (Baxter, 1966). A wagonway in Beamish had a gauge of 4 ft 4 in (1.321 m) or 4 ft 7½ in (1.410 m) while that of the Bigges Main Wagonway in Wallsend was 5 ft 7½ in (1.7145 m), the same as the nearby newly laid Kenton and Coxlodge wagonway to which it connected (Baxter, 1966; Tyne and Wear HER(1128)). So, the wagonway builders did not fix on a standard gauge. Instead, the online ‘Britannica’ entry states George Stephenson, English engineer and principal inventor of the railroad locomotive, was responsible for introducing the first standard:

 ‘About three-fifths of the rail trackage in the world is the so-called standard gauge of 4 feet 8½ inches (1.435 metres), which originated with George Stephenson’s pioneer Liverpool & Manchester line in 1829 [1]. It was exported from Britain to Europe and the United States with the export of British locomotives built to it.’

Among the notable deviations to this standard was the broad-gauge railway introduced in 1833 by Isambard Kingdom Brunel when he was appointed chief engineer to the Great Western Railway. Brunel solution was to set the rails 7 ft ¼ in (2,140 mm) apart, hence ‘broad gauge’. This innovation made higher speeds possible which in turn stimulated railway progress but also provoked the famous ‘Battle of the Gauges’. Ultimately the standard gauge won out.

Other notable deviations are Russia’s 5 ft (1.5 m) gauge, Spain’s 5 ft 6 in (1.7 m) gauge, and Japan’s 3 ft 6 in (1.1 m) gauge. Several countries operate railroads on two different gauges; Pakistan operates on three while Australia and India use four.

It is worth noting that if the standard gauge ‘originated with George Stephenson’, then this seemingly negates any ancient Roman involvement. Moreover, note that when Spain built their first railways, they adopted a gauge nearly one foot wider than the supposed Roman ‘standard’ wheel gauge. Given that Spain had a much longer history as part of the Roman Empire than Britain, why would the Spanish have deviated from the much-vaunted standard?

Returning to the story, the next argument is that cartwrights building the wagons had to use a gauge of 4 ft 8½ in (1.435 m) because:

‘…if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break more often on some of the old, long-distance roads in England.’

Why would the ‘wagon wheels break more often’? Presumably cartwrights and wheelwrights were skilled professionals. It seems highly unlikely that they could not build robust wagons with strong wheels that could cope with different spacing. Moreover, the argument does not allow for an ancient army’s chariots or carts moving cross-country over rough terrain where no road or track existed. But let us consider the rutted roads for a moment. The story assumes that the Roman’s standard gauge, which we have seen is a fallacy, led to roads with wheel ruts set a specific distance apart [2]. On the face of it this is indeed plausible, but surely the degree to which a road becomes rutted is linked to the volume of traffic using it. Even as late as the first quarter of the 20th century, roads were not subject to the amount of traffic witnessed today. Thus, wear and tear on the metalled surface was probably less pronounced than one might expect. Were wheel-ruts in 18th century British roads therefore such a problem? Moreover, it seems odd to assume that roads were not repaired, even resurfaced. If roads were allowed to become ever more deeply rutted, one can envision the absurd consequence that eventually wagon axles would foul on the raised centre section between the ruts. This would hardly be conducive to travel, and road users would probably demand improvements - who would pay for them is another matter.

Interestingly, in many period dramas the example image shown right is intended to portray an ancient trackway or an old road. Inconveniently, however, the visible wheel ruts and, most significantly, the central grassy ridge result from the track’s use by modern wheeled vehicles. The bare earth is not the problem since this is what one might expect were the track to be repetitively used by, for example, pedestrians or animals - the surface would be worn away somewhat uniformly. The problem is the grassy ridge. This can only be formed by something with a wheelbase that wears away the surface either side but leaves the centre line untouched. Were a wagon drawn by a single horse, or a pair of horses as stated in the story, to regularly use this track, then even the grassy area would be worn away by the action of the horse’s hooves. So, while these country trails look old, they are in fact a product of modern vehicles.

To rebuke the next fallacy we can combine the following three highlighted sentences and deal with them collectively:

‘Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts…Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing….derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot.’

The nonsense states that the Romans had ‘war chariots’ and it was the wheel gauge of these that set the standard across the Empire. Unfortunately for this deceptive tale, by the time the Romans had expanded their Empire across much of Europe, the near East and North Africa, chariot warfare was very much a thing of the past. It is true that chariots were initially used in ancient warfare during the Bronze and Iron Ages, but after its military capabilities had been superseded by light and heavy cavalry, chariots were relegated to being a mode of transport or used in triumphal processions, and for racing. That said, Britain may have been an exception providing Caesar’s Commentaries are an accurate reflection of what he observed during his first foray across the Channel in 55 BC. If we take Caesar at face value, then the Britons may well have kept using chariots long after most other armies had dispensed with them in favour of cavalry horses. But equally, Caesar’s writing is highly political and intended for a home audience and, like many other Roman authors, Caesar may well have drawn attention to the Britons’ chariot use to highlight their barbarity and backwardness to his readers.

The subsequent two sentences imply that the Roman army had, firstly, conceived a design ‘specification’ for a weapon they did not use and that, secondly, had they built war chariots then they would all be alike. This is a wonderful example of attributing the idea of a modern design bureau and manufacturing practices to an ancient civilisation, however. Yet it is true that by the late 4th century AD, the production of arms, armour, and military equipment was centralised into state-owned factories/armouries known as fabricae. Although the origin of the system and its administration is unclear, it was likely codified during the reigns of either Diocletian (AD 284 to AD 305) or Constantine (AD 306 to AD 337). Note, however, that this system was operating in the late Roman period centuries after war chariots had disappeared from the battlefield.

The fabricae were dispersed throughout the Empire’s provinces and were responsible for producing the vast array of the army’s equipment. Some fabricae specialised in the production of certain types of equipment such as artillery, cataphract armour [2], bows, and swords. Inconveniently for the anecdote, war chariot production is not mentioned. Yet even with state-run factories, Roman soldiers certainly would not have presented a uniform appearance since the goal of the fabricae was not to ensure blanket uniformity, but rather to centralise the production of military equipment under Imperial control, and to ensure quality of production. While certain basic equipment, like javelins and arrows, were likely produced by unit armourers, worn-out clothing and footwear would have been replaced by local produced items, so it is highly likely that Roman soldiers would have had a local flair and appearance. Importantly, as most objects were predominantly handmade, the quality of materials used, specific dimensions, the fit and finish can all show variation between manufacturers. Even if the Roman army operated state-owned factories or employed official contractors, it is evident from the differences that, once again, there was no standard design as we might understand it today.

The next statement is an adaptation of the bureaucratic standardisation argument:

‘Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses.’

We have already debunked the notion that the Roman army used ‘war chariots’, but it is fair to say that they did employ wagons to transport heavier or bulkier equipment, for example siege engines, catapults and stone-throwers. Nonetheless, these wagons were more likely drawn by teams of oxen rather than horses as the latter would be far more useful as cavalry mounts. That said, chariots were still used in the Roman era albeit for racing, especially in circuses, or for triumphal processions. A chariot pulled by four horses abreast was called a Quadriga, from the Latin quadriugi (‘of a team of four’). Sometimes the term simply referred to the four horses without the chariot, or just the chariot. A three-horse chariot, or the three-horse team pulling it, was a triga, from triugi (‘of a team of three’), and a two-horse chariot, or the two-horse team pulling it, was a biga, from biugi. Of note, the chariots portrayed in the epic film ‘Ben Hur’ (1959), pictured below (top left), and the reconstructions favoured by some of those who recreate chariot racing for modern audiences are far too heavy and bulky. These versions would be far more at home in a triumphal procession through Rome than in the circus.

Based on images such as the mosaic shown above (top right), a Roman racing chariot was reconstructed in 2005 as part of a Time Team special on the rediscovery of ‘Britain’s Lost Roman Circus’ in Colchester, Essex (above: bottom left and right). Such chariots were fast, light, open, two-wheeled carriages typically drawn by two or more horses hitched side-by-side to a yoke itself attached to a single, central draught pole. As shown the charioteer stands unsupported in this case on a lattice of rawhide leather straps bound tightly to the chariot’s wooden frame. The frame itself extends upward to form a waist-high guard at the front and somewhat to the sides which is also of stretched rawhide. As one of the ‘Roman’ supporting artists for the filming, the author has handled this reconstruction and can attest that it is incredibly lightweight and can be lifted and manoeuvred with one hand.

Significantly, the evidence from contemporary frescoes and mosaics, and from the chariot that once belonged to pharaoh Tutankhamun discovered in his tomb (shown right), confirm that ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman and even British chariots were very obviously all designed with a central draught pole to which two or more horses were attached via a yoke and harness. So once again the notion that ‘Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses’ is clearly not true. One need only compare the width of the four horses with the reconstructed racing chariot pictured above to appreciate the fallacy. Indeed, if the two outermost horses are removed and the chariot becomes a biga, then the chariot axle is still wider than the width of the remaining two horses. Being generous for a moment, the wording suggests that whoever concocted the story may well have confused chariots with carts that use a pair of shafts, one along each side of a single draught animal (typically an equid such as a horse, mule or donkey). If so, then this might explain why it is claimed (albeit erroneously) the wheelbase had a standard width the equivalent of two horses.

And finally…

And finally, we arrive at the conclusion regarding NASA solid rocket boosters, or SRBs, whose dimensions were dictated by the US railroad’s track gauge, a descendent of Roman chariot design. In answer to an online question about ‘How fair is the claim that Shuttle boosters diameter was dictated by the railroad gauge?’, Michael Borgwardt’s reply of March 22nd, 2014 is reproduced and deserves reading:

‘The claim may be based on a misunderstanding. The solid rocket boosters were made in Utah and transported to the launch site in 4 segments by rail, which did limit their size. But it was not the track gauge that influenced this limit, but the loading gauge [4], which is only very indirectly related to the track gauge.

However, the diameter of the shuttle boosters (12 feet) exceeds the width of all loading gauge standards in the USA (which differ mostly in height, the width is generally 10 feet 8 inches). Shipments that exceed the standard loading gauge in width are not all that uncommon, more mundane industrial parts often exceed them, but it requires careful planning and is very expensive as it often involves temporarily dismantling blocking structures, and of course at some point (such as with a tunnel) you run into hard limits.

So, it doesn't look like transport by railroad dictated the booster designs, but it probably influenced them. I'm pretty sure that if making them wider would have yielded some large advantage and been otherwise feasible, then a solution to the transportation problem would have been found.’

It is difficult to argue with Mr Borgwardt’s logic. So, what can we conclude? This popular myth has been around since at least 1937. It alleges that the origin of the 4 ft 81⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard railway gauge can trace its origins seamlessly to Roman Empire pointing to the evidence of rutted roads that are claimed to have been made by chariot wheels. Supporters of the idea are encouraged by the fact that the otherwise peculiar distance is almost exactly 5 Roman feet. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to span the millennium and a half between the departure of the Romans from Britain and the adoption of the gauge on the Stockton and Darlington Railway in 1825. Moreover, as Michael Borgwardt argues the design dimensions of NASA’s SRBs were dictated by the US loading gauge and not the width of nation’s railroad tracks.

For an alternative take on this subject, then David Mikkelson’s article published on April 16th, 2001 on Snopes.com is certainly worth a read (Mikkelson, 2001). Bon appétit!

References:

Baxter, B. (1966), ‘Stone Blocks and Iron Rails (Tramroads)’, Industrial Archaeology of the British Isles, Newton Abbot: David & Charles.

Mikkelson, D., (2001), ‘Are U.S. Railroad Gauges Based on Roman Chariots?’, Snopes.com, Available online (accessed October 12th, 2023).

Tyne and Wear HER(1128): Bigges Main Wagonway - Details, TWsitelines.info, Available online: accessed September 26th, 2023.

Endnotes:

1. Following the success of the Stockton & Darlington Railway in 1825, the cities of Liverpool and Manchester decided to build a 40-mile (64-km) steam-operated line connecting them. George and Robert Stephenson were entrusted with constructing the line, but a competition was held to choose a locomotive. The Stephensons’ pioneering railway locomotive ‘Rocket’ won against three rivals, including an entry by John Ericsson, who later designed an armoured vessel called the Monitor for the federal forces during the American Civil War. For a short stretch the Rocket achieved a speed of 36 miles (58 km) per hour.

2.  The gaps in the pedestrian crossings in Pompeii could give credence or otherwise to this statement, but no relevant studies appear to have been made.

3. Equites cataphractarii, or simply cataphractarii, were the most heavily armoured type of Roman cavalry in the Imperial Roman army and Late Roman army. The term derives from a Greek word, κατάφρακτος kataphraktos, meaning ‘covered over’ or ‘completely covered’.

4. A loading gauge is a diagram or physical structure that defines the maximum height and width dimensions in railway vehicles and their loads.

Dispelling Some Myths: Robin Hood

The legend

Robin Hood is a legendary heroic outlaw [1] originally depicted in English folklore and subsequently featuring in popular culture, literature and film. According to legend, customarily set in England during the reign of King Richard I ‘the Lionheart’, Hood was a highly skilled archer and swordsman. In some versions of the story, he is depicted as being of noble birth, and in modern retellings he is sometimes depicted as having fought in the Crusades before returning to England to find his lands seized by the local Sheriff. In the oldest known versions, he is instead a member of the yeoman class, that is not a peasant, but not a noble either. Traditionally depicted dressed in Lincoln green [2], Hood and his Merry Men are said to have robbed from the rich and given to the poor.

When the story is traced back to its 14th century beginnings, it becomes clear that the figure of Robin Hood changed over time. The earliest versions would be almost unrecognizable when compared to the green-clad, bow-wielding Robin Hood of today. This really should not come as a surprise after all as the centuries passed, the tale of Robin Hood evolved as England itself did so. With each new iteration, the narrative would absorb new characters, settings, and traits until finally becoming the familiar legend of today.

Through retellings, additions, and variations, a body of familiar characters associated with Robin Hood has been fashioned. These include his lover, Maid Marian, his band of outlaws, the Merry Men [3], and his chief opponent, the Sheriff of Nottingham. The latter is often depicted assisting Prince John in usurping the crown from the rightful, but absent, King Richard to whom Robin Hood remains loyal. His partisanship of the common people and his hostility to the Sheriff of Nottingham are early recorded features of the legend, but his interest in the rightfulness of the king is not, and neither is his setting in the reign of Richard I. He became a popular folk figure in the Late Middle Ages, and the earliest known ballads featuring him are from the 15th century (1400’s). Since then, there have been numerous adaptations and reworkings of the story over the ensuing years, perhaps even more so with revivals in popular literature, film, and television.

What’s in a name

Robin Hood is considered one of the best-known tales of English folklore. Consequently, his name can be found dotted across the map of England, from the Midlands northward: Robin Hood’s Cave and Robin Hood’s Stoop in Derbyshire; Robin Hood’s Well in Barnsdale Forest, Yorkshire; and Robin Hood’s Bay, also in Yorkshire. But just because his name has been ascribed to a place does not necessarily prove the historicity of the man himself. Whether someone named ‘Robin Hood’ ever existed to become the basis for the tales has been debated for centuries. One significant difficulty with any historical research is that Robert was a very common name in Mediæval England, and ‘Robin’ (or ‘Robyn’) was its very common variation in the 13th century. Likewise, the surname ‘Hood’ (or ‘Hude’, ‘Hode’, etc.) was also fairly common since it could simply refer to either a person who made hoods (a ‘hooder’) or, alternatively, to somebody who wore a hood as a head-covering. It is therefore unsurprising that Mediæval records mention several people called ‘Robert Hood’ or ‘Robin Hood’, some of whom are known to have fallen foul of the law.

There are several documented references to historical figures with similar names who have been proposed as possible evidence of his existence, some dating back to the late 13th century. At least eight plausible origins to the story have been mooted by historians and folklorists, including suggestions that ‘Robin Hood’ was a stock alias used by or in reference to bandits [4]. What follows, therefore, introduces the top candidates vying for recognition as the real ‘Robin Hood’.

Robert Hod of York

The earliest known legal records mentioning a person called Robin Hood (Robert Hod) are from 1226, found in the York Assizes [5], when that person's goods, worth 32 shillings and 6 pence, were confiscated and he became an outlaw. Robert Hod owed the money to St Peter's in York. The following year he was named ‘Hobbehod’, but also came to be known as ‘Robert Hood’.

Robert Hod of York is the only early Robin Hood known to have been an outlaw. In 1936 L.V.D. Owen floated the idea that Robin Hood might be identified with an outlawed Robert Hood, or Hod, or Hobbehod, all apparently the same man, referred to in nine successive Yorkshire Pipe Rolls between 1226 and 1234. There is no evidence however that this Robert Hood, although legally an outlaw, was also a bandit. It is important to note that, in Mediæval law, just because someone was proclaimed an outlaw did not necessarily mean they became a bandit, brigand or robber. Of course, being deprived of the law’s benefits and protections most likely led many outlaws to pursue a criminal life merely to survive.

Robert and John Deyville

Historian Oscar de Ville suggests that the career of John Deyville and his brother Robert, along with their kinsmen Jocelin and Adam, during the Second Barons' War (1264–1267) [6] were the inspiration for ‘Robin Hood’. In the years leading up to civil war in England, King Henry III’s autocratic rule, displays of favouritism and his refusal to negotiate had angered his barons. During the Oxford Parliament of 1258, the ‘Provisions of Oxford’ were constitutional reforms intended to resolve the dispute between the king and his barons. The reforms were designed to ensure the king adhered to the rule of law and governed according to the advice of his barons rather than through his favourites. A council of fifteen barons was chosen to advise and control the king and supervise his ministers. Parliament, led by the French-born Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester, was to meet three times a year to discuss matters of government. Henry sought to escape the restrictions of the provisions and applied to Louis IX of France to arbitrate in the dispute. Louis agreed with Henry and annulled the provisions. Montfort was angered by this and rebelled against the King along with other barons in the Second Barons' War. After the baronial victory at the Battle of Lewes in 1264, de Montfort took control of the government and rewarded his supporters. John Deyville was duly granted authority over York Castle and the Northern Forests.

A year later, on August 4th, 1265, de Montfort was killed at the Battle of Evesham and King Henry III was restored to power. Deyville and his relatives sought refuge after the battle in the aforementioned Northern Forests. At the same time, a group of rebels held out in the stronghold of Kenilworth Castle, successfully resisting a siege by the King’s forces until a papal intervention convinced Henry to adopt a more conciliatory path. A commission was appointed to draw up an arrangement that would be acceptable to both sides. The resulting Dictum of Kenilworth, issued on October 31st, 1266, offered the rebels the right to buy back forfeited estates, at prices depending on their level of involvement in the rebellion. After initial resistance, the terms were eventually accepted. The Deyville’s however led the remaining rebel faction on the Isle of Ely in Cambridgeshire where their presence has been linked to Scottish historian Walter Bower’s mention of ‘Robert Hood’ in the aftermath of the Battle of Evesham in his annotations to the Scotichronicon [7]. 

While John was eventually pardoned and continued his career until 1290, his kinsmen are no longer mentioned in the historical records after the events surrounding their resistance at Ely. Oscar de Ville therefore speculates that Robert remained an outlaw. Perhaps not coincidentally, a ‘Robertus Hod’ is mentioned in records among the holdouts at Ely. De Ville also points to other connections supporting John Deyville and his brother Robert's exploits forming the inspiration for Robin Hood. These include:

• The brothers’ properties in Barnsdale (where Robin is seemingly based).

• The brothers’ relationship with Sir Richard Foliot, a possible inspiration for the knightly figure Sir Richard at the Lee who appears in ‘A Lyttell Geste of Robyn Hode’. John Deyville's settlement of Foliot’s mortgage worth £400 parallels Robin Hood's charity of identical value to Sir Richard as recounted in the Geste.

• The ownership of a fortified home at Hood Hill near Kilburn, North Yorkshire.

The last of these is suggested to be the inspiration for Robin Hood's second name as opposed to the more common theory of a head covering. Although de Ville does not explicitly connect John and Robert Deyville to Robin Hood, he does discuss these similarities in some detail and suggests that they formed prototypes for the ideal of heroic outlawry during the tumultuous reign of Henry III's grandson and Edward I's son, Edward II of England.

Robert de Kyme

Another possible candidate for the real Robin Hood is Robert de Kyme. Of Saxon birth, he was outlawed in 1226 for robbing the King and disturbing the peace. De Kyme is said to have held lands that had been taken by the Earl of Huntington and retreated to the forest to plot his revenge. He was outlawed again in 1265, after the aforementioned battle of Evesham.

Roger Godberd

Roger Godberd was a Mediæval outlaw whose life it has been suggested is another possible historical basis for the legend of Robin Hood. Roger’s criminal history may be compared to Robin Hood’s, although only small details align with the famous story. Godberd lived in the Leicestershire area in the 13th century, but he also travelled throughout England as an outlaw committing crimes with a group of bandits. Roger lived during the reigns of King Henry III and his son, Edward I. The former's rule has been associated with stories of outlawry and consequently the most plausible time for the setting of the Robin Hood ballads. As already mentioned, Henry’s repressive reign led to the seizure of power by Simon de Montfort who, interestingly, Roger Godberd served until de Montfort was killed in the Battle of Evesham in 1265. In the aftermath of that battle, Godberd was outlawed for fighting against Henry. Nearly two centuries later, in about 1446, Scottish historian Walter Bower claimed that Robin Hood also became an outlaw following the battle. This has led some to reason that Roger Godberd and Robin Hood must be one and the same as both participated in the Battle of Evesham. Essentially, however, there is no solid proof to support such a connection and it is more likely that, once again, Godberd’s life merely inspired elements of the Robin Hood tale.

Robin Hood of Wakefield

The antiquarian, historian and archivist Joseph Hunter (1783–1861) recognised that several different ‘Robin Hoods’, often with variant spellings, peppered the history of Mediæval England. One of the oldest references he found is in a Yorkshire court register, dated to 1226, that cites the expropriation of the property of one Robin Hood, described as a fugitive. Hunter also noted a 1261 reference to ‘William, son of Robert le Fevere member of a band of outlaws’ whom Hunter believed to be the same person. Years later, in 1354, Hunter names a ‘Robin Hood’ being recorded as imprisoned awaiting trial in Northamptonshire. With so many different candidates it seems Hunter eventually determined that Robin Hood had inhabited the forests of Yorkshire during the early decades of the 14th century. He identified two men whom, believing them to be the same person, he equated with the legendary outlaw. One is a ‘Robert Hood’ documented living in the city of Wakefield at the start of the 14th century. The other is one ‘Robyn Hode’ who is recorded as being employed by Edward II of England in 1323. 

Hunter developed a reasonably detailed theory implying that Robert (‘Robyn’) Hood had been an follower of Thomas, Earl of Lancaster who had rebelled against Edward II but who was defeated by King at the Battle of Boroughbridge in 1322. According to this theory, Robert (‘Robyn’) Hood was thereafter pardoned and employed as a bodyguard by King Edward, and thus he appears in the 1323 court roll under the name of ‘Robyn Hode’. There is one big problem, however, as it can be shown that Joseph Hunter's Robyn Hode had been employed by the king before he appeared in the 1323 court roll. This alone is enough to cast serious doubt on this candidate’s supposed earlier career as outlaw and rebel.

Robin Hood as an alias

It has long been suggested that ‘Robin Hood’ was simply a stock alias used by thieves. What appears to be the first known example of ‘Robin Hood’ as a pseudonym is dated to 1262 where a Berkshire man called William was given the surname ‘Robehod’ apparently because he had been outlawed. This suggests two possibilities: either that an early form of the Robin Hood legend was already well established in the mid-13th century; or alternatively that the name ‘Robin Hood’ preceded the outlaw hero that we know. So, it certainly seems plausible that the legendary figure of ‘Robin Hood’ was so named because it was deemed an appropriate name for any outlaw.

Folk hero

In the absence of a definitive historical figure, then the search for Robin Hood relies on English Mediæval popular culture, specifically folklore, ballads and poetry. Shortly before Geoffrey Chaucer wrote ‘The Canterbury Tales’, one William Langland penned ‘The Vision of Piers Plowman’ in the second half of the 14th century. Within this Middle English verse is the first reference to ‘Robin Hood’ when a poorly educated parson confesses his ignorance of Latin saying:

‘I kan noght parfitly my Paternoster as the preest it syngeth, But Ikan rymes of Robyn Hood...’

A rough translation might be: ‘I cannot recite the Lord’s Prayer as the priest say it, but I know the rhymes of Robin Hood.’ As Professor of English Studies at the University of Oviedo, J. Rubén Valdés-Miyares, argues: ‘Putting Robin Hood’s name in an uneducated character’s mouth demonstrates that the legend would have been well known to most commoners, regardless of whether they could read or write’ (Valdés-Miyares, 2019).

By the 15th century the legend has developed into the more familiar rebellion against the Plantagenet ruling class. One of the oldest known written ballads, ‘Robin Hood and the Monk’ dates to around this time. It is the only early ballad to be set in Sherwood Forest and features one of the best-known members of the Merry Men, Little John. Yet, in this version the villain of the piece is not the Sheriff of Nottingham or ‘bad’ King John but the monk of the title, a corrupt figure who violates the sanctity of the church by betraying Robin to the sheriff. The monk’s subsequent murder by Little John and Much, another of the Merry Men, was justified because of the monk’s corruption and the death seemingly accepted by a Mediæval audience familiar with the brutal and violent punishments meted out to criminals and rebels [9] (Valdés-Miyares, 2019). Interestingly, these early Robin Hood ballads begin to show a turning of the tables in which the lower classes are able to punish the upper classes through trickery and violence.

It was also in the 15th century that one of the longest ballads, the aforementioned ‘A Lyttell Geste of Robyn Hode’, appears and spreads across England. This poem provides the first iteration of the notion of ‘stealing from the rich to give to the poor’ when Robin says: ‘If he be a pore man, Of my good he shall have some.’ It is in the Geste that Robin Hood is attributed the status of a Yeoman of the King. The term ‘yeoman’ is used in Mediæval literature to describe someone whose social standing was higher than a peasant but lower than a knight or man-at-arms [10]. Despite his privileged position, Robin misses the forest and chooses to abandon the Royal court. The Geste has him become an administrator of justice and has him establish a code of conduct to protect commoners oppressed by a feudal regime while allowing the Merry Men to ‘beat and bind’ bishops, archbishops, and, above all, the loathed Sheriff of Nottingham. In the Geste the type of villains has clearly widened to include more figures at odds with the lower classes. As the legend developed it reflects the upsets to the social order that beset England from the 12th century civil war known as ‘The Anarchy’ through to the Black Death and Hundred Years’ War with France in the 14th century. The burden on the lower classes eventually led to the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381.

By the 16th century Robin Hood was becoming a fashionable rogue for even royalty and nobility to celebrate. A story from 1510 claims that Henry VIII of England, then barely 18, dressed up like Robin Hood and burst into the bedchamber of his new wife, Catherine of Aragon (Valdés-Miyares, 2019). It is also during this period that new characters appear in the story, most famously Friar Tuck and Robin’s love interest, Maid Marion. It is thanks to Elizabethan playwright, Anthony Munday, that the outlaw is reinvented as a nobleman, namely Robert, Earl of Huntingdon who, having been disinherited by his uncle, flees to the forest to become ‘Robin Hood’. Munday was responsible for setting the tale in the reign of Richard I, the Lionheart. This not only pitted our hero against the king’s younger brother, John, but setting has become the popular basis for later retellings by subsequent authors. As Professor Valdés-Miyares puts it: ‘No longer was Robin Hood a yeoman; he had been gentrified for new audiences’ (Valdés-Miyares, 2019).

And finally…

There is no clear historical evidence for a real-life Robin Hood, and no one individual can be clearly identified as the inspiration for the character who has been so popular in English culture from the 14th century onward. Drawing on its Mediæval foundations, the tale of Robin Hood has been repeatedly reinvented for each new audience. The story has transitioned from the earliest ballads and poems to stage plays and ultimately to television and cinema. Each rendition mixes the various familiar elements in new ways often to reflect the prevailing mores of each age. Each retelling adds a little more to the legend as Robin Hood emerges from or returns to the shadows of Sherwood Forest.

Reference:

Valdés-Miyares, J.R., (2019), 'Who was the real Robin Hood?', National Geographic, Available online (accessed October 3rd, 2023).Endnotes:

Endnotes:

1. Probably derived from Old Norse, the Old English word utlaga meant ‘one put outside the law’. The term is a compound of ut ‘out’ and lagu, the plural of lag ‘law’, hence an ‘outlaw’ was a person deprived of the law’s benefits and protections. By the late 14th century, outlawry was the ‘action of putting a person outside the protection of the law by legal means.’ Formerly it was lawful for anyone to kill such a person.

2. According to ‘A Lytell Geste of Robyn Hode’, written ca. 1510, the green dyed cloth made in the English city of Lincoln was more pleasing than undyed shepherd's grey cloth: ‘When they were clothed in Lyncolne grene they kest [cast] away their grey’.

3. From the late 14th century onward, the term ‘Merry Man’ (n.) meant a ‘companion in arms, follower of a knight, outlaw, etc.’

4. Bandit: ‘a lawless robber, brigand’ (especially as part of an organized band). The term appears in English in the 1590s being derived from Italian ‘bandito’ (pl: ‘banditi’) meaning an ‘outlaw’. ‘Bandito’ is the past participle of bandire meaning ‘to proscribe, banish’, which came from Vulgar Latin *bannire ‘to proclaim, proscribe’.

5. Assizes: ‘a court which formerly sat at intervals in each county of England and Wales to administer the civil and criminal law. In 1972 the civil jurisdiction of assizes was transferred to the High Court, and the criminal jurisdiction to the Crown Court.’

6. The Second Barons' War (1264–1267) was a civil war in England between the forces of a number of barons led by Simon de Montfort against the royalist forces of King Henry III, led initially by the king himself and later by his son, the future King Edward I. The barons sought to force the king to rule with a council of barons, rather than through his favourites.

7. The Scotichronicon is a 15th century chronicle complied by Walter Bower. It is a continuation of historian-priest John of Fordun's earlier work Chronica Gentis Scotorum beginning with the founding of Ireland and subsequently Scotland. Bower began the work in 1440 finishing it seven years later. In its original form, the completed work consists of 16 books, of which the first five and a portion of the sixth (to 1163) are Fordun's, or mainly his as Bower added to them at places.

8. The Third Crusade (1189–1192), also known as the Kings' Crusade, was an attempt led by Philip II of France, Richard I of England and Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor to reconquer the Holy Land after the capture of Jerusalem by the Ayyubid sultan Saladin in 1187.

9. Medieval punishment was deliberately brutal to deter criminality. Likewise, Kings and the nobility, and their representatives, often used violence to punish rebellious peasants. Bodies hanging from the gallows or displayed as a warning at crossroads were familiar sights during this time.

10. In the High Medieval to Renaissance periods a man-at-arms was typically well-versed in the use of contemporary weapons and often served as a fully armoured heavy cavalryman. A man-at-arms could be a knight, or other nobleman, a member of a knight's or nobleman's retinue, or a mercenary in a company serving under a captain. Such men could serve for pay or through a feudal obligation. The terms ‘knight’ and ‘man-at-arms’ are often used interchangeably, but while all knights equipped for war were men-at-arms, not all men-at-arms were knights.