Three things should be said about Medival alcohol consumption: 1) their alcohol was nothing like modern alcohol, 2) alcohol was never a replacement for all water, but was a replacement for bad water (such as would be more common in urban areas where the water would be obviously bad through discoloration, smell, and other physical indications), and 3) medieval alcohol was almost always cut with water to make the water taste better, prevent drunkenness (but, of course, not the slight “buzz” that alcohol will produce), and make the alcohol last longer.

Also, in areas where grapes grew easier wine usually was preferred as a better beverage than beer. Outside those areas, beer was preferred because it lasted longer before it went bad (yes, the sugars in beer and wine rot). Many people felt that there were health benefits in certain kinds of alcoholic drinks, but very few Medieval sources state that alcoholic drinks were preferable to water. Hidelgard von Bingen says that beer is preferable to water pulled from wintery ground. Very few sources (out of the many, many sources that talk about beer and wine) discuss the benefits of wine or beer over that of clean water.

1. This may be American (and Travis isn’t saying it is), but who cares? It’s not a stretch to place its source in period. (He also caught that I used the Wikipedia article as the base for my summary [I couldn't find my notes!])

2. The acronym could come from the 17th century [I still stand by my statements that the word is of Germanic origin, although it may have arrived in Britain via the Dutch around the 16th-17th Century, but I have reservations on this idea].

3. The reasons people bathed for didn’t include sanitation reasons, generally the difficulty in obtaining water precluded such activities, and we have precious little documentation on the average person’s view on bathing. Chances are they bathed less than I would indicate in my post.

4. As did some club members at a recent meeting, Travis pointed out that coin belts are derived from wearing one’s dowry [which I still distrust, and am waiting on my own personal research]. Also, he indicated (as I should have) that period pants very similar to poofy pants exist: Northern Viking pants and Dutch slops, for example.

5. Travis kindly provided a picture of 15th-Century plaids. Also, he rightly points out that Scotland’s economy was a strong economy, including wool from the many sheep; having enough fabric for a Great Kilt would not have been difficult (but, I would still add, it would have been expensive!).

7. Travis knows more about Medieval Spain (and Spain in general) than almost anyone I know (except for, perhaps, Melissa Anderson, but she’s been gone from BYU for years). So, if he has anything to say about Spain, I tend to listen (I still try to double-check, of course). Travis responded, “The Inquisition began post-Reconquista [after the Moors had been finally pushed beyond Gibraltar] and was primarily to weed out heretics. It rarely persecuted Jews or Moors–save if they had converted and were reneging on their new faith. In many ways the Inquisition was a hope to stop the spread of Protestants.”

8. Okay, I admit it — I REALLY should have put more work into how I worded this one. I probably should have limited it to discussing “prima nocturne”, but I guess I went too far. It is true that there were some Kings who were at the level of an absolute monarch, like Charlemagne and a few others. In that respect, this one kinda falls apart. I should have said, “generally” (which is a great hedge word, by the way) a monarch didn’t rule with absolute power. Were there leaders who ruled absolutely? Of course. Were there weak and vacillating rulers? Yes. But the “average” monarch (if there can actually be such a thing) probably shouldn’t be thought of as a monarch with absolute power to do whatever they wished (such as “prima nocturne”). I just think it’s in error to approach a king you don’t know much about and assume that he is an all-powerful monarch; I argue that they would generally be in a position dependent upon other politicians below and above them.

9. “Tom, the alcohol they drank in the time period was watered down for the very reason of sanitation. No, they did not drink it straight but, as you read in several works, they served wine with water and and watered it down so as not to get drunk at the feast. If they didn’t want to get drunk what did they want to get? This is where we get the title of the Small Beer which is a watered down brew. Yes, alcohol leads to dehydration that doesn’t mean that people don’t still drink it. Soda, milk, juice, and other modern liquids all lead to dehydration. In fact, most humans live in an incredibly dehydrated state. Yes, people drank water, even from nature, but not in the cities which had very little access to clean water. It was easier many times just to water the wine bother to improve the taste of the water and to tone down the wine.”

So there you have it. I still have reservations about some of the responses, but that just means I need to research more.

I also hope that people learn more than just the difference between an armchair historian and a real historian. This is one of the best ways to learn things–by debate and discussion. History is still alive as it gets constantly reshaped by those doing the researching.