Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Scandinavia has some of the cleanest sources of water in the world. So I imagine there would not have been a reason to use ale as a substitute for water. But some historical texts do mention that their men drank more alcohol than water as part of their culture. Of course, I do imagine they had a drinking feast after winning a war against the Scots or Franks, but a drinking feast after victory was commonplace in the medieval world.
Scandinavia has some of the cleanest sources of water in the world. So I imagine there would not have been a reason to use ale as a substitute for water. But some historical texts do mention that their men drank more alcohol than water as part of their culture. Of course, I do imagine they had a drinking feast after winning a war against the Scots or Franks, but a drinking feast after victory was commonplace in the medieval world.
The key word there is has - present tense. Modern sanitation is a wonderful thing, as is the widespread ability to easily move water long distances at volume, thereby not having to rely upon the local and inevitably fouled stream.
It is true that the notion that no one drank water is an exaggeration. Water was consumed. But beer/ale/mead was also consumed, and in prodigious amounts. However, it should be noted that much of this was small beer, which was normally under 1% ABV. At that alcohol level, it was cheap and could be safely consumed by children, and even working men could quench their thirst - actual thirst, not desire for alcohol - without impairment.
It depends on what part of Scandinavia, too. Norway seemingly has water cascading down from the mountains everywhere, from mountain glaciers or springs. Parts of Norway, though, and much of Sweden are flat. I'm not sure what the water sources in those areas are, but as someone else pointed out, getting the water from the source to settlements, unless wells were an option, would involve plumbing. It would be possible to do, if the water source were nearby (I've seen it done with open wood "plumbing"), but wouldn't be practical over long distances.
American colonists also drank beer as the routine and safest drink — for breakfast, and for children as well.
Even the "cleanest" brightest bluest most picturesque babbling Swedish brook can have fecal, tubercular or other contamination.
At the risk of thread drift, one of the first things the colonists made when they arrived at Jamestown was a brewery. "Small beer" was usually made of molasses and most families made their own. Hops were introduced in 1621; a French vintner, also Virginia's first Jewish person, arrived on the Abigail in 1621. (Note: wikipedia is wrong...the Abigail was not an HMS.)
Added to water, small beer it was drunk all day long including as noted above, the kids. It was considered healthier and nutritious.
Scandinavia has some of the cleanest sources of water in the world. So I imagine there would not have been a reason to use ale as a substitute for water. But some historical texts do mention that their men drank more alcohol than water as part of their culture. Of course, I do imagine they had a drinking feast after winning a war against the Scots or Franks, but a drinking feast after victory was commonplace in the medieval world.
Scandinavia has some of the cleanest sources of water in the world. So I imagine there would not have been a reason to use ale as a substitute for water. But some historical texts do mention that their men drank more alcohol than water as part of their culture. Of course, I do imagine they had a drinking feast after winning a war against the Scots or Franks, but a drinking feast after victory was commonplace in the medieval world.
Even hardy Scandinavian souls lived in urban area with many humans and livestock relieving themselves or depositing the contents of chamber pots in nearby water sources, so no water was absolutely not clean. It also tasted terrible.
Beer offered a source of clean water as well as nutrition (as beer is mostly water), and was better tasting than the local water. They dehydration effect of alcohol was somewhat limited because the beer could be very weak or mixed as a "grog" with other liquids.
No, because it would kill them. Water is essential to living. Alcohol dehydrates.
IF you drink ale, it just means you have to drink more water in the long run.
While it is true that alcohol is a diuretic, beer is mostly water. Studies [see below] have demonstrated no diuretic effect for beverages of less than 2% ABV, and they suggest that the threshold is even higher.
People need to understand that there was a difference between table beer (small beer), which was consumed as part of a person's dietary needs, and recreational ales and meads and ciders and wines and liquors. Table beer would have had an ABV below 3%, sometimes below 1%.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
