what sort of food did he and his soldiers eat on the campaign?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Alexander the Great Q&A Forum : One Thread

what sort of food did he and his soldiers eat on the campaign, and did they cannabalise?

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2004

Answers

probrably just simple foods like bread, cheese, onions etc a basic greek diet with some occasional meat for a treat. They would mostly have drank diluted wine (water on it's own was often not safe to drink) It is said that the Macedonians (unlike southern Greeks) drank there wine un-diluted and often got drunk (especially Alexander)

-- Anonymous, September 22, 2004

Alexander's army ate whatever they could lay hands on, which meant they generally ate whatever the locals ate in the place where they were making war. Soldiers, however, are a somewhat conservative bunch, and sometimes they'd refuse to eat local victuals that were too outlandish for their tastes.

The army did travel with provisions, because a large army was too big to feed solely on whatever the soldiers could buy or steal. The food that was carried along with the army was pretty basic - mostly grain (wheat or barley) that could be ground into flour for making bread, salt, olive oil, and a few other things that kept well, like dried dates. Some animals would be kept for slaughter, such as oxen or goats, but not enough to feed an army - just enough to put some meat in the officer's mess.

Cannibalism?? I am not aware of any ancient source that says Alexander's army were cannibals.

But since you mention it, the first thing you need to understand about history is that propaganda has a much older tradition than does the writing of history. Accusing your enemy of atrocities is just about the oldest trick in the propaganda book. It is as old as claiming that your side had to go to war against the enemy to defend itself and all that is noble, good and true in the universe against those well-known forces of evil, darkness and corruption - your neighbors

The next thing you need to realize is that war always produces atrocities, so it is always difficult to sort out the genuine atrocities from the imaginary ones.

A good rule of thumb is that atrocities involving torture, killing and rapine by troops against civilians are part of the usual, ordinary and accustomed evils of war. Without evidence, such an accusation should be considered as believable, but unproved.

On the other hand, atrocities that are more far-fetched, such as cannibalism by troops whose culture doesn't normally indulge in it, are not believable without proof - although they aren't impossible, either.

-- Anonymous, September 17, 2004


What gave you the idea that they were cannibals? CRAZY!

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2004

Moderation questions? read the FAQ