Cambridge University study finds Anglo-Saxon kings were mostly vegetarian

[Imperial Dave]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-61178452

well really....

[Anton]

Quite a sweep of bones they examined there. I'd have gone for a tighter focus myself.

Mind you I didn't know we had Ine's dinner menu.  So that made it worthwhile for me. I must look it up.

I had a look at the dietary provisions in the Irish Law on Fostering, better grub for the young nobles is outlined in detail.  Everyone got porridge for breakfast but the young noble got porridge made with cream and maybe honey.  I'd eat that myself.

[Imperial Dave]

me too

[Jim Webster]

I confess the 'mostly vegetarian' rather stumped me.

To quote "We should imagine a wide range of people livening up bread with small quantities of meat and cheese, or eating pottages of leeks and whole grains with a little meat thrown in."

Sounds a bit like meat, bread and a couple of veg rather than meat, potatoes and a couple of veg to be honest.

[Erpingham]

Good point Jim.  Sounds rather more flexitarian than vegetarian.  The real point is that the idea that the richer classes commonly ate nothing but meat and bread seems to be erroneous and the general diet was more balanced or bulked out with vegetables, with meat-heavy meals more of a special occassion.  When put like that it doesn't sound so radical.  Interesting though.  I was reminded of the tensions between descriptions of Roman banquetting recipes and more day-to-day fare that you pick up from mentions in literary sources.

[Imperial Dave]

the origin of stew and dumplings.....

[Jim Webster]

Good point Jim.  Sounds rather more flexitarian than vegetarian.  The real point is that the idea that the richer classes commonly ate nothing but meat and bread seems to be erroneous and the general diet was more balanced or bulked out with vegetables, with meat-heavy meals more of a special occassion.  When put like that it doesn't sound so radical.  Interesting though.  I was reminded of the tensions between descriptions of Roman banqueting recipes and more day-to-day fare that you pick up from mentions in literary sources.

To be honest it reads more like trying to foist modern dietary fashions on our ancestors
There's one figure that I remember seeing, "Although 20% of the world's population is vegetarian, nearly 1.5 billion people are involuntary vegetarians simply because they cannot afford meat."

I suspect nobles feeding their tenants with meat would be a sign of conspicuous consumption, but also something similar to giving silver arm rings to warriors. It was giving them something they could rarely afford.
As for nobles in 'normal' times, I suspect they and everybody else were 'flexitarian' because killing an animal is a big capital spend, especially when the animal was often a food producer (milk) or fabric producer (wool) and cashing in the capital meant that there was no crop.
Also in a world with only salt as a preservative, when you kill an animal, you want to eat in all in a couple of days, so that predisposes to feasting

I suspect that small game and fish would also play a part, because you could pad out a family's diet for a couple of days with one of them

[DBS]

Also worth considering William Kapelle's theory about the patterns of early Norman knightly settlement after 1066 - that they stuck to areas where wheat could be grown, since they were fussy about the quality of their bread, and that it was only impoverished vulgar types, like the Bruces, who were eventually persuaded to take on fiefs in oat-growing areas of northern England and lowland Scotland because they came from the poorer areas of western Normandy.  My point being that even a king will not turn his nose up at oat porridge (providing he has some honey, etc, to liven it up) for breakfast, but he will not be so impressed with bread that is not best quality wheat.

As well as Jim's point about overlaying modern dietary obsessions, there is also the point that, in the pre social media age, people would not obsessively record for posterity every single meal they ate.  They would record the big slap-up feasts, precisely because they were the exception.  A monk is not going to illuminate a manuscript that says: porridge, porridge, porridge, bread, porridge, turnip, oooh, a hare...

For example, I am roasting a leg of lamb this afternoon (delayed family Easter dinner due to covid).  That will be the standout meal for the week.  I cannot even remember what I had on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday.  Yes, the king on his royal progress would demand meat renders, and he and his court would enjoy a big feast.  But presumably the key point was not just that the king and his mates got a big roast dinner, but that the local taxpayers also did - royalty may demand a render, but it does not all just vanish into the Treasury, but rather some at least gets consumed on the spot with the locals to show that the king connects with them; he is their lord and understands a reciprocal relationship.

And if you do have an ox to eat, turnips or whatever are for once not going to feature heavily, unlike the rest of the year.

[Mark G]

Interesting thought.

But would the area's growing wheat already be doing so when the Norman's arrived ?
And wouldn't that already have meant they were given to the superior lords pre Norman, and the new lords just took from the old lords according to prior status?

Does his theory cover pasture lands too?  Or good hunting grounds?

I just wonder wether it's starting from a position that pre Norman everyone was a peasant subsistence farmer waiting for a Norman to show them what they had been missing.

[DBS]

No, his theory is more that a lot of William's knights come from central and eastern Normandy, and already have good lands there - they are a little spoilt and have high expectations.  Furthermore, they have just conquered a large, rich country.  Therefore, when estates are being doled out, they are happy to accept fiefs in East Anglia, the Home Counties, etc.  Those who want a combination of continual punch ups and reasonable land will take offers in the Welsh Marches.  Even after the harrying of the north, some will take fiefs in east Yorkshire, but are less inclined to go up into the Pennines, let alone into Cumbria.  Why would they, when there is plenty of better land to be handed out after 1066?  That is why Rufus and Henry I have to work really hard to find individuals over the next three decades who will take on the more marginal areas, especially in the north west.

Pasture and hunting are not irrelevant, but of secondary importance after arable land, since it is the latter that provides the cereals which are your staple.  Also, the king is liable to nick the best hunting grounds for himself, hence all the tensions over forestry laws and chopping bits off anyone fancying a bit of illicit venison.  Pasture of course becomes much more important later when sheep (wool) becomes highly profitable, but at this stage probably less so.

[Nick Harbud]

An unsurprising piece from Cambridge academics. 

Still, it could provide an explanation for the ease with which the Normans ousted Anglo-Saxon nobility as the ruling class.  I mean, your average Norman knight goes into battle on a high-octane diet of meat and best quality bread, whereas all the average Anglo-Saxon thegn gets is a bowl of medieval meusli.

[Erpingham]

I mean, your average Norman knight goes into battle on a high-octane diet of meat and best quality bread, whereas all the average Anglo-Saxon thegn gets is a bowl of medieval meusli.

We await the comparable bone studies on the remains of Norman knights to test the theory.  Publish before anyone can contradict you

[DBS]

Just don't dig up any knights from western Normandy! 

[Mark G]

It's one of the clear proofs that wargaming is not a form of militarism. 

Dietary comparison clearly shows that well fed soldiers perform best, especially with a higher meat diet than vegetarians.

Whilst even a cursory glance at a budget hotel breakfast bar during a wargaming weekend shows that a diet high in meat and other calorific foods does not translate into soldierly material when applied to war gamers.

[Nick Harbud]

...and I have to yet to come across a believable explanation for the empirical observation that numbers rolled on wargaming dice are directly related to the quality of one's hangover on the second morning of the competition.