I do not try it crushed, but I do try "modern" farro (due to classic seeds selection I can't really say how similar to ancient one it is) and it's not much similar to corn, grains are bigger, absorb more water, have a bit more taste. They are still not beans but definitively more tasty even if chewy.
However we also should consider that ancient eating habits were FAR different than actual ones, so was life. It's very hard to compare "prices" in completely different societies... In some part of our history there were a big abundance of certain products, in some other a big deficiency, in the '700 in western European countries most people eat FAR more than now to a point we can't probably sustain the rhythm today, in the '300 there was a very deep crisis and most people have nearly nothing to eat etc. Prices can't be a unique measure like today.
Just imaging a society where most families do have a bit of farm animals, for them does it matter their "price"? They raise chickens at home, so they have eggs and meat, what sense does the price of these "products" makes to them? They might just trade them to the few who travel at an accordingly high price, but local "poor" do have them in their own backyard for "free". Similarly if most people outside cities (so most people numerically in general) grow wheat in their own backyard how much it matter it's price? They trade it for wealthy people living in cities or as taxes, to create strategic stocks handled by their governments to cope with regular crisis, that's form the price, not what people have to pay really for it.
Poor people in Rome were just a little fraction of poor. At that time Rome itself was what we call a small city today, vast majority of people living outside and poor people inside are mostly slaves of the rich inside, no "ordinary free Citizens". Beside that "apartments" never exists in Rome, there were various size of Domus (houses) with "apartments" for servant, surveillance etc but they were nothing like what we call apartments these days. The most similar thing conceptually can probably be named "colonial homes".
Yes, and Insula are for their servant, small commerce etc, but they are not like today's apartments, they just might look like. Upstairs people live, downstairs people commerce, produce bread, creates leather shoes, vases, ... with animals in internal courts since source food from outside is not that automatic and quick etc.
Years ago I see a reconstruction from a famous historian (Alessandro Barbero) about ordinary Roman's life, unfortunately I can't find it now...
No, insulae were where everyone except the wealthy lived in urban environments including the upper middle classes. And what you're describing is what my city calls "mixed use" and is a corner stone of how apartments work in a lot of modern cities. Small apartments packed in tight above commerical spaces, with the commercial spaces disconnected economically from those living there except from sharing a landlord. The largest difference to today being that the moderately wealthy (ie. upper middle class that still lived in insulae) preferred the lower residential floors, which is a trend that continued until the advent of elevators.
> Just imaging a society where most families do have a bit of farm animals, for them does it matter their "price"?
These prices would in practice largely have applied to Rome the city (and other cities of the empire), where no-one had farm animals. Outside cities there would indeed have been more barter (though the Roman Empire was more 'globalised' than you'd think; Italy was heavily dependent on food imports from Egypt and elsewhere for most of the span of the empire), but no-one was producing food in Rome itself.
Even in cities they have had animals, mostly poultry, some horses, some sheeps etc cities of the past have not much in common with modern cities. Transports in the past were far different than today and while long range commerce were the norm they where very different than today.
Cities in the past were just polluted agglomerates of people living nearby for defense, services, communications, ancient Rome can be seen in modern terms like a set of colonial houses with some "central" buildings for social life, nothing like a modern city.
Also at that time earth was far more fertile than now, at least we can deduct that from the common and ease of hunting: they do not have any "long range" weapons and still they hunt much just around, enough to even nourish a moving army, food in the past was not that abundant of course but enormously more abundant than now.
Getting the horses and sheep up the stairs would perhaps be challenging.
> they do not have any "long range" weapons and still they hunt much just around, enough to even nourish a moving army
Wait, are you suggesting that Roman armies fed themselves by _hunting_? Where are you getting that from? A big part of the reason that Roman armies were so effective in general was their (for the time) excellent supply logistics.
Also, yes. Roman armies were more builders, farmers, hunters than soldiers in the classical sense: they made roads, they move goods, and they hunt while slowly moving around the earth, mostly by feet, war at that time were not modern wars, borders at that time were not borders like today. Many think that the gladio was not only a short sword but a multi-usage tool for various purpose just as an examples.
Insula's in Rome were just houses for the people serving the wealthy, for commerce etc again they were not apartments, they might appear that to us, but they were just places where people rest upstairs and work downstairs, animals were common in internal courts.
And that's was just a very small fraction of the population, most do not live in cities at that time. A classic sign of how they live is considered the fact that even poor houses around the territory do have roofs with shingles while after the Empire most poor roofs is believed they were straw and similar materials. People often forget that Rome is damn ancient not "just a bit more than the '700 or '600". Society have changed much since then.
Eh? Practically everyone in Rome (the city) lived in insulae. Essentially the upper middle class on down. And the empire was pretty urbanised, particularly in Italy; out of about 14 million people in Italy in Diocletian’s time about a million lives in Rome. There were other large cities, too, with insulae; indeed contemporary commentary sometimes notes that the insulae in other cities were larger than in Rome (presumably because the height limits that were imposed for safety reasons usually only applied to Rome itself).
Honestly I'm from Italy, living in France and I do see many Roman's ruin, that do not correspond with such description at all, so the history I know does not state that, I do not really know where it came from...
European "modern-city like" development arrive far after the Romans...
I think you're being affected by survivorship bias here. As the insulae clustered in urban environments, they were much more likely to be replaced than rural buildings since the value of the land they're on is so much higher.
And depending on what you mean, "modern-city like" development is a concept that re-arrived in the early renaissance having disappeared after the fall of Rome. Rome itself had a population of over a million during the heydays of the empire, and some interpretations of that number have it as a million citizens, as the empire didn't really care to keep track of non-citizens except in the vaguest of terms.
For modern-city like I intend the renaissance movement where new town born en-masse and poor's flee the poor countryside to the rich city. At Roman time city was not really rich: they host some rich but most of it's population was poor, only commerce give a bit of wealth in cities.
Roman's was more traders and peasants with everything gravitating around the army than "citizens". Probably a modern-city comparison can be for the USA the "west" vs the "est", where in the west surely there was cities, witch in reality are "villages" for our modern lingo and people live more on trade and peasant's activities than else while the "east" was already a urban-centric civilization. I hope that's clarify a bit my view.
About urban replacement: honestly in the past "replacement" was far different than today, they build piled rock buildings, replacement happen after a war or in case of big incomes using the same rock and adding some. That does not really change the cities, that change was more addictive and slow rebuilding...
Turning into starchy paste with uncrushed nodules interspersed is, like, what usually happens when you take starchy plant bits and crush and boil them.
