The relevance of beer with regard to water conservation and safe consumption is _not_ because the alcohol sterilizes the fluid. It's because successfully brewed and unfiltered beer forms a relatively stable ecosystem of unproblematic yeasts and lactic acid bacteria which prevent other unsafe micro organisms to take over and multiply. The hop is actually contributing to chemical conservation, though.
Hops came into use relatively recently, I think? Not yet popular in Britain by the 1500s, anyway. Though used in Holland by that point, and possibly the predecessor (a mixture of herbs called gruit) was antibacterial anyway.
This isn't really a slam dunk debunking. I get that medieval people knew about good and bad water, and that they had other reasons to prefer small drinks. But it doesn't change the facts that:
- Medieval people DID drink constantly (mostly in the form of small drinks)
- SOME medieval didn't have access to consistently good water.
- Even good water supplies can be tainted
There are cases were it was noted that a disease would outbreak from the local water supply, but no one from the brewery next door would get sick. This was not lost on most people, so water was drunk but with some risks assumed.
And most notably, we still see this exact dichotomy today in the third world where dysentery and diarrea are still common causes of death. And people with the means or preference towards prepared drinks often fare better.
The myth often states that water was unsafe to drink, so they drank beer. Suggesting water was never drank. Showing that water was regularly consumed does debunk the myth even if the truth is perhaps in the middle.
Perhaps, but you often see the myth written as a quick sentence or two before some beer related article. Academics may not be writing that, but lazy writers will repeat it often.
Yeah, the article text seems to suggest that beer and wine are almost never drank in preference to water (though it never quite comes out and says that explicitly). But all the quotations put water, at best, as just a reasonable competitor, not a clear winner.
> I always thought it quite weird that somehow by virtue of being in beer, that the water somehow becomes sterilised.
The reason that water in beer is sterilised is that beer is brewed — i.e. boiled.
> If you've ever tried home brewing, you'll know that non-sterile conditions lead to foul rancid filth due to all the bacteria etc.
I believe that pre–germ-theory brewing practices tended to discourage unwanted microbial activity, in part through inoculation with large amounts of fresh barm. Did they put two and two together and connect those practices in the context of brewing to the broader context of water or food safety? Maybe.
> I'd find it odd if the people then knew to sterilise the water and equipment to make beer, but then not do the same to drink it.
Indeed, the article quotes Paulus: ‘But waters which contain impurities, have a fetid smell, or any bad quality, may be so improved by boiling as to be fit to be drunk.’
You don't really need sterile conditions, yeast just need a head start to outcompete other microbes. Then, as alcohol and CO₂ build up, the brew becomes bacteriostatic. Which is still different from being bactericidal.
The idea is by making it beer you keep safe water safe for longer. It doesn't sound particularly weird to me (I don't know if it was really a common practice in medieval Europe.)
Before hopping and such (didn't become widespread until the 1200-1400s) beer didn't really last that long. Without refrigeration, modern bottling and almost sterile conditions in modern factories beer will go bad very fast.
I always understood the myth as: "When you traveled somewhere and didn't know about the water-quality, you drank beer instead".
Not that beer is immune against making you ill, but chances are random beer in some random village is better than random water in some random village, since the village people would use the good water for the beer.
Was there ever a serious belief that nobody drank water? That seems a bit much.
I can think of a fiction book that rather heavily pushed the idea, but it seems like a few minutes of thought would show that there's no way to produce/transport/store enough beer-type liquid for people working on a farm.
Conversely, an aristocrat/noble who travelled to a different continent might conceivably attempt to only drink beers/etc.
The more common version of this, which I do remember hearing in history courses in college, was that people in the Middle Ages frequently mixed beer or wine with water. Whether that was done purely for taste, or in the belief that it would make potentially unsafe water safe, and what the details of making water safe to drink by mixing beer or wine with it actually are, I don't know. The author himself makes this point repeatedly, that water was frequently mixed with wine (at which point people are drinking watered wine).
It's like there are two parallel arguments:
"Medieval Europeans exclusively drank alcoholic beverages, because the water was so bad." And,
"We currently over-estimate the degree to which people in the Medieval-era consumed alcohol, and under-estimate the degree to which they drank pure water."
The author seems to conflate the two willy-nilly, claims the first to be widely held, and that he has disproved it (while, among others, citing Classical rather than Medieval sources).
also, recalling from memory, standedge argues that the early perspective on wine was that it was simply a higher order of beer. it makes sense because there earliest beers were not hopped and would probably profile similarly to wine.
however, grape cultivation was more difficult/technical than grain cultivation which elevated the class of wine. it was also prized for its relative stability when diluted, with some maintaining the same (or better) flavor profile when diluted 1:2 water:wine. it was a true show of wealth to serve wine that was less than 1:1. (a history of the world in 6 glasses)
i’ve tried this with a few wine varietals and i can see what he’s saying in some regard, but it definitely alters the profile in ways.
> ... when diluted 1:2 water:wine. it was a true show of wealth to serve wine that was less than 1:1.
Did you mean 2:1 water:wine? If you meant 1:2 water:wine, then 1:1 would be weaker and I'm not sure how that would show wealth more than stronger wine.
I always assumed that it was more a case of behavior selection:
Yes, people did drink water frequently, but those societies and groups that regularly consumed fermented drinks like wine or beer, had on average a lower chance of consuming polluted water.
As a result behavior that favored drinking slightly alcoholic drinks became more widespread by selection.
This doesn’t require that people actually knew their water sources were polluted.
I’ve become a lot more circumspect about pushing through Chesterton fences as I’ve gained more experience in life.
I used to believe that we could determine a basis for most decisions from first principles. However, that requires a level of complete a priori knowledge that’s simply unattainable except for extremely niche situations.
The article mentions streams as being a safe source of drinking water for rural communities — as most of the population were during the medieval period.
My mother from rural north-west Ireland drank water from a stream for the first 25 years of her life. There was no running water in her home-place until the late 70s (after she had moved out). Rain water was collected from the gutters in barrels for washing and other uses but water for drinking had to be carried by bucket from a stream 1km away across fields on the side of a hill that were muddy when it rained. I’m guessing drinking water from a stream would have been even more common in the preceding decades and centuries.
This seems like an example of black and white thinking. Did they never drink water? beer? wine? Of course not. A better question - under what circumstances did they prefer beer? wine? cider? water? And later on tea? coffee? Etc?
>> Why are people who have little or no firsthand knowledge of the Middle Ages absolutely convinced they know the facts on this issue?
I used to have these arguments with an older relative, some acute, some chronic, about a) whether the edible part of an urchin is eggs or genitals [1], b) whether urchins with little pebbles and bits of seaweed on them are males, ornamented thusly to attract females [2], c) whether cypress tree sex can be determined by how open wide are their branches [3], d) whether the ruins discovered by Heinrich Schleimann on the coast of Asia Minor are really the ruins of the mythical Troy [4], and, e) whether ascent blackout during free-diving is a thing or not [5].
I've given up. People know what they know, either because their mother told them so when they were young, or because everyone knows, or because they know better than you. If someone's made up their mind that they're right and you're wrong, then they're right, you're wrong and you can't change their mind.
_______________
[1] Genitals.
[2] No, sea urchins do not have eyes.
[3] No, cypress trees have both male and female parts.
Sometime you may find this person has stealthily changed his or her mind, and now always thought the other thing, and if you say they previously thought the opposite, you're wrong about that.
Beer and wine, watered down, are medieval forms of soft drinks. People simply got tired of just drinking boring water. On top of that, you got a little buzz or it made you feel good like a soft drink might
My favorite joke derived from this misconception is that the introduction of coffee and it displacing beer as a preferred drink caused the end of the Dark Ages.
I’ll die on this hill, just because I love it so much.
I always though it was after the middle ages that alcohol was consumed for safety reasons. I also remember hearing it wasn't really the general population, but sailors on ships because water on long voyages wouldn't stay fresh very long?
The relevance of beer with regard to water conservation and safe consumption is _not_ because the alcohol sterilizes the fluid. It's because successfully brewed and unfiltered beer forms a relatively stable ecosystem of unproblematic yeasts and lactic acid bacteria which prevent other unsafe micro organisms to take over and multiply. The hop is actually contributing to chemical conservation, though.
Also, beer production started with boiling the water. So in a sense you sterilize the water and the beer helped preserve it for storage.
Watering down wine was also common in the era though, and the mechanism there implies the alcohol and acidity of the wine acted as a minor sterilizer.
Hops came into use relatively recently, I think? Not yet popular in Britain by the 1500s, anyway. Though used in Holland by that point, and possibly the predecessor (a mixture of herbs called gruit) was antibacterial anyway.
This isn't really a slam dunk debunking. I get that medieval people knew about good and bad water, and that they had other reasons to prefer small drinks. But it doesn't change the facts that:
- Medieval people DID drink constantly (mostly in the form of small drinks)
- SOME medieval didn't have access to consistently good water.
- Even good water supplies can be tainted
There are cases were it was noted that a disease would outbreak from the local water supply, but no one from the brewery next door would get sick. This was not lost on most people, so water was drunk but with some risks assumed.
And most notably, we still see this exact dichotomy today in the third world where dysentery and diarrea are still common causes of death. And people with the means or preference towards prepared drinks often fare better.
The myth often states that water was unsafe to drink, so they drank beer. Suggesting water was never drank. Showing that water was regularly consumed does debunk the myth even if the truth is perhaps in the middle.
“It's unpleasantly like being drunk."
"What's so unpleasant about being drunk?"
"You ask a glass of water.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
> Suggesting water was never drank.
Sounds like a straw man, or at least a weak man [1], debunked, and then the debunking is falsely applied to the whole category.
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweap...
Perhaps, but you often see the myth written as a quick sentence or two before some beer related article. Academics may not be writing that, but lazy writers will repeat it often.
Also known as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Yeah, the article text seems to suggest that beer and wine are almost never drank in preference to water (though it never quite comes out and says that explicitly). But all the quotations put water, at best, as just a reasonable competitor, not a clear winner.
I always thought it quite weird that somehow by virtue of being in beer, that the water somehow becomes sterilised.
If you've ever tried home brewing, you'll know that non-sterile conditions lead to foul rancid filth due to all the bacteria etc.
I'd find it odd if the people then knew to sterlise the water and equipment to make beer, but then not do the same to drink it.
> I always thought it quite weird that somehow by virtue of being in beer, that the water somehow becomes sterilised.
The reason that water in beer is sterilised is that beer is brewed — i.e. boiled.
> If you've ever tried home brewing, you'll know that non-sterile conditions lead to foul rancid filth due to all the bacteria etc.
I believe that pre–germ-theory brewing practices tended to discourage unwanted microbial activity, in part through inoculation with large amounts of fresh barm. Did they put two and two together and connect those practices in the context of brewing to the broader context of water or food safety? Maybe.
> I'd find it odd if the people then knew to sterilise the water and equipment to make beer, but then not do the same to drink it.
Indeed, the article quotes Paulus: ‘But waters which contain impurities, have a fetid smell, or any bad quality, may be so improved by boiling as to be fit to be drunk.’
You don't really need sterile conditions, yeast just need a head start to outcompete other microbes. Then, as alcohol and CO₂ build up, the brew becomes bacteriostatic. Which is still different from being bactericidal.
The idea is by making it beer you keep safe water safe for longer. It doesn't sound particularly weird to me (I don't know if it was really a common practice in medieval Europe.)
Before hopping and such (didn't become widespread until the 1200-1400s) beer didn't really last that long. Without refrigeration, modern bottling and almost sterile conditions in modern factories beer will go bad very fast.
As someone who until recently had believed this myth and had never tried home brewing, the theory was that the alcohol kills the bacteria
I always understood the myth as: "When you traveled somewhere and didn't know about the water-quality, you drank beer instead".
Not that beer is immune against making you ill, but chances are random beer in some random village is better than random water in some random village, since the village people would use the good water for the beer.
I think it's a traveling tip like "always ask for halal option - they have better ingredients" or sth.
People know beer needs specific conditions or it doesn't sell. So they are careful about that.
If you ask for water you might get the water they use for cooking soup or cleaning the mugs and they might not boil it beforehand.
Was there ever a serious belief that nobody drank water? That seems a bit much.
I can think of a fiction book that rather heavily pushed the idea, but it seems like a few minutes of thought would show that there's no way to produce/transport/store enough beer-type liquid for people working on a farm.
Conversely, an aristocrat/noble who travelled to a different continent might conceivably attempt to only drink beers/etc.
The more common version of this, which I do remember hearing in history courses in college, was that people in the Middle Ages frequently mixed beer or wine with water. Whether that was done purely for taste, or in the belief that it would make potentially unsafe water safe, and what the details of making water safe to drink by mixing beer or wine with it actually are, I don't know. The author himself makes this point repeatedly, that water was frequently mixed with wine (at which point people are drinking watered wine).
It's like there are two parallel arguments:
"Medieval Europeans exclusively drank alcoholic beverages, because the water was so bad." And,
"We currently over-estimate the degree to which people in the Medieval-era consumed alcohol, and under-estimate the degree to which they drank pure water."
The author seems to conflate the two willy-nilly, claims the first to be widely held, and that he has disproved it (while, among others, citing Classical rather than Medieval sources).
Part of it I think was also that wine, but also likely beer was somewhat expensive. So adding water meant there was more liquid.
Mass production and transportation of everything at scales we have is very recent. So adding water to wine made it last longer.
also, recalling from memory, standedge argues that the early perspective on wine was that it was simply a higher order of beer. it makes sense because there earliest beers were not hopped and would probably profile similarly to wine.
however, grape cultivation was more difficult/technical than grain cultivation which elevated the class of wine. it was also prized for its relative stability when diluted, with some maintaining the same (or better) flavor profile when diluted 1:2 water:wine. it was a true show of wealth to serve wine that was less than 1:1. (a history of the world in 6 glasses)
i’ve tried this with a few wine varietals and i can see what he’s saying in some regard, but it definitely alters the profile in ways.
> ... when diluted 1:2 water:wine. it was a true show of wealth to serve wine that was less than 1:1.
Did you mean 2:1 water:wine? If you meant 1:2 water:wine, then 1:1 would be weaker and I'm not sure how that would show wealth more than stronger wine.
Interestingly enough this is my first time hearing about this whole drinking alcohol theory and its whimsical
I always assumed that it was more a case of behavior selection:
Yes, people did drink water frequently, but those societies and groups that regularly consumed fermented drinks like wine or beer, had on average a lower chance of consuming polluted water.
As a result behavior that favored drinking slightly alcoholic drinks became more widespread by selection.
This doesn’t require that people actually knew their water sources were polluted.
This is basically the argument for respecting and following traditions even if nobody can explain why they're done.
I’ve become a lot more circumspect about pushing through Chesterton fences as I’ve gained more experience in life.
I used to believe that we could determine a basis for most decisions from first principles. However, that requires a level of complete a priori knowledge that’s simply unattainable except for extremely niche situations.
The article mentions streams as being a safe source of drinking water for rural communities — as most of the population were during the medieval period.
My mother from rural north-west Ireland drank water from a stream for the first 25 years of her life. There was no running water in her home-place until the late 70s (after she had moved out). Rain water was collected from the gutters in barrels for washing and other uses but water for drinking had to be carried by bucket from a stream 1km away across fields on the side of a hill that were muddy when it rained. I’m guessing drinking water from a stream would have been even more common in the preceding decades and centuries.
This seems like an example of black and white thinking. Did they never drink water? beer? wine? Of course not. A better question - under what circumstances did they prefer beer? wine? cider? water? And later on tea? coffee? Etc?
>> Why are people who have little or no firsthand knowledge of the Middle Ages absolutely convinced they know the facts on this issue?
I used to have these arguments with an older relative, some acute, some chronic, about a) whether the edible part of an urchin is eggs or genitals [1], b) whether urchins with little pebbles and bits of seaweed on them are males, ornamented thusly to attract females [2], c) whether cypress tree sex can be determined by how open wide are their branches [3], d) whether the ruins discovered by Heinrich Schleimann on the coast of Asia Minor are really the ruins of the mythical Troy [4], and, e) whether ascent blackout during free-diving is a thing or not [5].
I've given up. People know what they know, either because their mother told them so when they were young, or because everyone knows, or because they know better than you. If someone's made up their mind that they're right and you're wrong, then they're right, you're wrong and you can't change their mind.
_______________
[1] Genitals.
[2] No, sea urchins do not have eyes.
[3] No, cypress trees have both male and female parts.
[4] Undetermined.
[5] It is.
Sometime you may find this person has stealthily changed his or her mind, and now always thought the other thing, and if you say they previously thought the opposite, you're wrong about that.
Something to ponder
Beer and wine, watered down, are medieval forms of soft drinks. People simply got tired of just drinking boring water. On top of that, you got a little buzz or it made you feel good like a soft drink might
My favorite joke derived from this misconception is that the introduction of coffee and it displacing beer as a preferred drink caused the end of the Dark Ages.
I’ll die on this hill, just because I love it so much.
I heard it was a bit more... pre-medieval. More like the cause of the agricultural revolution.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/guest-blog/a-sip-for...
I always though it was after the middle ages that alcohol was consumed for safety reasons. I also remember hearing it wasn't really the general population, but sailors on ships because water on long voyages wouldn't stay fresh very long?
[dead]