Misconceptions about your homeland?(Spam on subject)

[Malta Soron]

The key is "Northwestern Europe." This is a reflection upon an area with a notably high level of protein intake at a time when they enjoyed a largely non-feudal structure, unlike most of the rest of Europe. I see them as an exception, not the norm, and significantly, Steckel does not mention the feudal and largely agrarian, grain-oriented cultures of what were then the nations occuplying France, Italy, etc.

I don't quite see how the political structure would influence the level of protein intake. AFAIK until the emergence of capitalism in agrarian communities (the Agrarian Revolution, which didn't happen until the 16th century, and then only in very advanced countries like England and the Netherlands) it was usual for farmers to grow just enough to feed themselves and pay the taxes. The only influence of the political system would be the highth of taxes, but if taxes were higher, farmers just grew more (within limits, of course, but those weren't reached until absolutism).
Btw, I'm no expert on the history of Scandinavia, but I find it peculiar that Scandinavia wouldn't have developed a feudal* system. Its society isn't less war-orientated, with a warrior upperclass and a peasant underclass (how Marxist ), than those in e.g. Middle and Western Europe (Francia).

*My professor would probably get mad like hell at me for using that word; it should be something like "feodo-vassallitic" (feodo-vazallitisch in Dutch). True feudalism (in which a vassal automatically was rewarded with land) didn't develop until very late; in the early Middle Ages the reward for vassalage could take a lot of forms. See also Wikipedia on this. (The article about feudalism is a mess, but this one is better.)

[Maharlika]

@Malta: Fable can correct me if my assumption is wrong, what I see here is that the "high-protein intake" (eating largely food from the sea) influenced the political structure of the said area. The feudal system was built on the concept that he who owns more land, gets more power. Since agriculture or land-based economies are not the major industries nor sources of livelihood of the Northern Europeans, power goes to those who lord over the seas or through trade. Therefore I would assume that politics in Northern Europe is largely controlled and influenced by Sea lords, traders, or raiders during those times. *shrugs*

[fable]

I don't quite see how the political structure would influence the level of protein intake.

It's synergistic, and works both ways, in many cultures. In pre-Christian Ireland, for instance, cattle raids were a common occurrence, and even ended up being a major element of bardic cycles. These herds were not merely protein sources, but also a potent symbol of great wealth in a barter economy. Stealing another tribe's cattle therefore gave you more political clout, just as Mah says, but also had the effect of letting your own people eat better in a culture where beef and grain were primary foods. Eating better and farming more led to larger tribes, who in turn warred on smaller tribes for their wealth.

Fernand Braudel also makes an excellent case in his Civilization and Capitalism for desirable resources as the reason for most European wars during the Renaissance and Industrial periods, detailing with numerous examples the behind-the-scenes manuevering that occurred to secure access to these resources before national leaders launched their often spurious, patriotic motives to the public at large. As a side effect, you might start a war against a neighbor for access to a sea, or the ocean, or rights over fisheries, but you also got a source of rich protein for your people, as a result, something that the Danes and Swedes who fought against the Hansa and its mercenaries were well aware of.

An intelligent monarch always was aware of the need for consensus behind his or her viewpoint, and as you know, the old belief that peasants were simply ignored when they weren't beaten is nonsense. As a collective entity, medieval and Renaissance national leaders promised many things through their rhetoric to their different followers. The aristocracy got power and glory; the Church (at least in wars against unbelievers, or against the wrong kinds of believers, as was often the case) got heathens to convert and tithe. Commoners, who were a much broader and more diverse group than was believed until the Annales school started analyzing hard data, had fresh land to farm (always useful in expanding families) and areas for trade. (Usually at reduced tax rates, to reward commercial incentive.) Farmland could be and was confiscated from the losers by victors who fought in the wars, and even when it wasn't, herds were "liberated" or "paid for" in notes that were never honored. The protein went to the victors.

[Dottie]

I don't quite see how the political structure would influence the level of protein intake.

I don't know much about the rest of norther Europe, and someone might be able to correct me on this but I believe one reason political structure would heavily influence protein intake is through hunting rights. The standard in most feudal systems is that the nobles have the hunting rights and everyone else don't. This was not the case in Sweden at the time.

[fable]

Oddly enough, I was just putting away a lot of books today, preparing for the Great Move, when I came upon an essay by L Sprague de Camp on his one-time collaborator, writer and historian, Fletcher Pratt. This is what de Camp notes, at one point:

"Pratt learned Danish among other languages, spoke French with a terrible accent, and became friends with the curator of arms and armor at the Louvre, who once let him try on the armor of King Francois I. In his day, the king had been deemed a large, stout man. The flyweight Prattfound all the armor too small except the shoulder pieces; Francoix had tremendous shoulders from working out with sword and battle-ax in the tilt yard."

Not that I've ever tried on any armor, but this mirrors my experience. I used to be something of an arms and armor hound, when I was writing for a popular online text-based MMORPG. I never observed any genuine armor suit of the early or late Renaissance in Europe that was over 5 feet in height, but the exhibits never had any Scandanavian armor, either. And the Hungarian armor we saw at a major ethnological museum in Budapest last year matched this observation, as well. I'm inclined to suspect the early Magyars may have been taller because they were a nomadic tribe of herders, but after they settled down, gave up pillaging their neighbors and took up agriculture, their height seems to have been (if the armor is any judge) under 5 feet for warriors.

[Malta Soron]

@Malta: Fable can correct me if my assumption is wrong, what I see here is that the "high-protein intake" (eating largely food from the sea) influenced the political structure of the said area. The feudal system was built on the concept that he who owns more land, gets more power. Since agriculture or land-based economies are not the major industries nor sources of livelihood of the Northern Europeans, power goes to those who lord over the seas or through trade. Therefore I would assume that politics in Northern Europe is largely controlled and influenced by Sea lords, traders, or raiders during those times. *shrugs*

So there still are nobles controlling the main economic sources, but they are not bound to a king by vassalage. Makes little difference.

It's synergistic, and works both ways, in many cultures. In pre-Christian Ireland, for instance, cattle raids were a common occurrence, and even ended up being a major element of bardic cycles. These herds were not merely protein sources, but also a potent symbol of great wealth in a barter economy. Stealing another tribe's cattle therefore gave you more political clout, just as Mah says, but also had the effect of letting your own people eat better in a culture where beef and grain were primary foods. Eating better and farming more led to larger tribes, who in turn warred on smaller tribes for their wealth.

Fernand Braudel also makes an excellent case in his Civilization and Capitalism for desirable resources as the reason for most European wars during the Renaissance and Industrial periods, detailing with numerous examples the behind-the-scenes manuevering that occurred to secure access to these resources before national leaders launched their often spurious, patriotic motives to the public at large. As a side effect, you might start a war against a neighbor for access to a sea, or the ocean, or rights over fisheries, but you also got a source of rich protein for your people, as a result, something that the Danes and Swedes who fought against the Hansa and its mercenaries were well aware of.

An intelligent monarch always was aware of the need for consensus behind his or her viewpoint, and as you know, the old belief that peasants were simply ignored when they weren't beaten is nonsense. As a collective entity, medieval and Renaissance national leaders promised many things through their rhetoric to their different followers. The aristocracy got power and glory; the Church (at least in wars against unbelievers, or against the wrong kinds of believers, as was often the case) got heathens to convert and tithe. Commoners, who were a much broader and more diverse group than was believed until the Annales school started analyzing hard data, had fresh land to farm (always useful in expanding families) and areas for trade. (Usually at reduced tax rates, to reward commercial incentive.) Farmland could be and was confiscated from the losers by victors who fought in the wars, and even when it wasn't, herds were "liberated" or "paid for" in notes that were never honored. The protein went to the victors.

Hmm... So the actions of the government (in particular war) can positively influence the protein intake of their subjects? Sounds obvious to me. However, this doesn't show how one type of government would be better at this than another. Even more, you examples contain numerous types of governments (tribes, medieval monarchs, city states, absolutist rulers, etc.) who all do the same thing.

I don't know much about the rest of norther Europe, and someone might be able to correct me on this but I believe one reason political structure would heavily influence protein intake is through hunting rights. The standard in most feudal systems is that the nobles have the hunting rights and everyone else don't. This was not the case in Sweden at the time.

I don't think hunting could be a steady source of food to even early medieval sedentary societies. The reason people started growing crop centuries earlier was that they couldn't support the demographic growth by hunting.


Btw, I'm already loosing the central point of this discussion, so to clarify: this is the quote that started it:

The key is "Northwestern Europe." This is a reflection upon an area with a notably high level of protein intake at a time when they enjoyed a largely non-feudal structure, unlike most of the rest of Europe. I see them as an exception, not the norm, and significantly, Steckel does not mention the feudal and largely agrarian, grain-oriented cultures of what were then the nations occuplying France, Italy, etc.

And my question is: how does the absence of a feudal government structure increase the level of protein intake?

[Dottie]

I don't think hunting could be a steady source of food to even early medieval sedentary societies. The reason people started growing crop centuries earlier was that they couldn't support the demographic growth by hunting.

The society here did not rely solely on hunting, naturally. Regarding protein intake there is a large difference between no hunting and some hunting thought. The difference would be even larger in Sweden, where climate was not very suitable for farming, but where there was plenty of forests and game at the time.

Again, I don't speak for all of norther Europe, but that the political system can influence protein intake is quite clear.

[galraen]

@ Fable

I have come across on suit of armour from the late Renaissance period that was bigger than those you've seen. The suit of armour made for Henry VIII in the Tower of London. When I visited the tower I was about 15, and was struck by the fact that his was the only suit I could have worn, all the others being far too small, whereas his seemed tailor measured for me. In fact I was the same height as Henry, but he was considered a 'giant of a man'.

I'm not in possession of any data to contradict the assertion that people had been much taller in earlier periods, but I've never seen anything elsewhere to support this assertion. One thing I am aware of, is that due to what happened during Napoleon's period in France, the average height of Frenchman lagged well below the average height in the rest of Europe, right up until the 20th century. Calling up class after class, for year after year and getting them killed, and especially when preference for guys that were tall for the 'Elite' regiments certainly had a causal effect on succeeding generations. It's not just a matter of protein, genetics lays its part as well.

[Vicsun]

OK, somewhat more seriously, I was trying to think of stereotypes of my immediate area, namely Vancouver on the West Coast of Canada.
The problem is that every stereotype I thought of actually has a large grain of truth to it....

Hah, I feel the same way about Denmark.

Yes, girls here are on average hotter than in, say, our less fortunate island-inhabiting neighbor to the west.

Yes, Danes love their social welfare state. Yes, we do live in a functional pseudo-communist state.

Yes, the consumption of cannabis per capita is relatively high (pun not intended).

[galraen]

Yes, girls here are on average hotter than in, say, our less fortunate island-inhabiting neighbor to the west

Hey, that's fighting talk :laugh: , nothing wrong with our lasses!

[fable]

Hmm... So the actions of the government (in particular war) can positively influence the protein intake of their subjects? Sounds obvious to me.

Yet you earlier wrote:

I don't quite see how the political structure would influence the level of protein intake.

...and that's what I was addressing. It also contradicts what you just wrote. For the sake of discussion, which of these two answers of yours best describes your current point of view?

However, this doesn't show how one type of government would be better at this than another. Even more, you examples contain numerous types of governments (tribes, medieval monarchs, city states, absolutist rulers, etc.) who all do the same thing.

I can see where you might have thought from my comments above that I was using a strict feudal/non-feudal dichotomy:

The key is "Northwestern Europe." This is a reflection upon an area with a notably high level of protein intake at a time when they enjoyed a largely non-feudal structure, unlike most of the rest of Europe. I see them as an exception, not the norm, and significantly, Steckel does not mention the feudal and largely agrarian, grain-oriented cultures of what were then the nations occuplying France, Italy, etc.

...but note, I only mentioned feudalism as one element, and continued with grain-oriented (agrarian) cultures as a second element. I would go further since the question has been narrowed, and suggest that a host of factors interacting with one another affect the amount of protein intake in the cultural diet. Temperature, rainfall, soil quality, government structure, international trade, infrastructure, national stability, rule of law--these can all have a number of interesting, localized effects.

Let's go back to feudalism. Herds were wealth, and in many smaller monarchies (read, large tribes) the king/tribal chieftain had ownership of it all, or imposed a tax depending on the size of the herd. As the king was also the center of law, these taxes could become onerous at times, and there was in any case no recourse from it. This also applies to land. The king took possession of all "unowned" land, which included nearly all forested land not owned by nobles, and refused hunting permission to all but his friends. This was often vigorously enforced. Individual herds were deemphasized by farmers, and poaching, while possible, became very dangerous. Farmers in much of feudal Europe emphasized grain.

In non-feudal Scandanavian monarchies, ownership of the herd remained with the herdsman. A king could still impose taxes, but if they became burdensome, there was recourse through the legal entity of the Thing to appeal. There are many records in which Things gave judgments against either the monarch or his representatives. So the desire of the wealthier, more powerful classes to gain still more wealth was guarded against by a notion of the bonders, the freemen class, as the repositories of collective national will. One good source for this is Fletcher Pratt's The Third King, mainly a study of the period of Valdemar IV, but there are others, as well.

This example should not be taken to mean I intend it as a universal solution. There were many different situations all over Europe, but this is one that was repeatedly encountered in European feudal societies of the period.

[Chanak]

Hey, that's fighting talk :laugh: , nothing wrong with our lasses!

Indeed. Right-o and all that. Nothing wrong with 'em at all.

That's about as silly a misconception as any I have heard. I've lived here and there, and note that "attractive" people can be found everywhere.

[BlueSky]

Moonbiter/Fable
Are we talking about the HBO series Rome..../
IMO they too have taken quite a few liberties...but I guess they have at least tried to be a bit more accurate than other films and movies.

[fable]

Moonbiter/Fable
Are we talking about the HBO series Rome..../
IMO they too have taken quite a few liberties...but I guess they have at least tried to be a bit more accurate than other films and movies.

I can't be, because I haven't watched television in roughly 16 years. From what I've read on the Web, however, in the case of HBO's Rome, I've missed nothing important. I'll take my version of the place from the likes of Livy, Juvenal, Suetonius, etc.

[BlueSky]

I quite agree, hopes were up before I saw the series, what with all the hype...another attempt to lure people into watching with violence and sex.

[Moonbiter]

Moonbiter/Fable
Are we talking about the HBO series Rome..../
IMO they too have taken quite a few liberties...but I guess they have at least tried to be a bit more accurate than other films and movies.

Yes, we are talking about "The HBO series Rome," which is by far the most relevant and concrete description of the Roman civilization ever put on screen. Hence, it has become a goldmine for internet curmudgeons and nitpickers of every kind. If someone wears their toga-clasp three inches too low, it's a disaster.

[BlueSky]

Yes, we are talking about "The HBO series Rome," which is by far the most relevant and concrete description of the Roman civilization ever put on screen. Hence, it has become a goldmine for internet curmudgeons and nitpickers of every kind. If someone wears their toga-clasp three inches too low, it's a disaster.

LOL...guess I'll wear mine like in the movie,"Animal House" then...:laugh:

edit; oops just a little spam here.

[Moonbiter]

HEY! This thread has evolved from a simple question to a discussion about nutrition in the Middle Ages. Spam away!!!! :laugh:

[Chanak]

Hmmm. I realized that I spent my posting in here talking about the region the thread creator hails from (and giving Galraen a thumbs-up concerning those pretty lasses from the UK ), while never mentioning any misconceptions concerning the place I live in. This one is made relevant by at least one other thread on the board:

1. All (or most) Americans own guns.

Of course not. I don't, and no one else in my family except for my father does, either (he owns a .22 caliber "varmint" rifle). That's 1 out of 6 right there. None of my friends in the state of Texas (I lived there in the recent past) owned a gun, even though you might find that difficult to believe. I know of some current and former law enforcement officers who never owned a gun themselves - their police-issue firearm is and was the only one in their possession. One is a Georgia State Trooper (state police force), another is a former FBI agent, and still another was a city cop for a small town here in Florida until the paperwork involved in his daily job drove him nuts.

A footnote: after he left the police force, he returned to his original trade: Plumbing. So, in his own words, he went from being driven nuts by volumes of police paperwork and red-tape to being driven nuts by people's clogged commodes. Hmmm. I suggested he try turkey farming, but he wasn't amused.

[Malta Soron]

Hmm... So the actions of the government (in particular war) can positively influence the protein intake of their subjects? Sounds obvious to me.

Yet you earlier wrote:

I don't quite see how the political structure would influence the level of protein intake.

...and that's what I was addressing. It also contradicts what you just wrote. For the sake of discussion, which of these two answers of yours best describes your current point of view?

The second quote was formulated poorly. Sorry My point of view is that I can see that the government can influence the level of proteine intake of their subjects, but I'm not yet entirely convinced that feudalism necessarily causes a lower proteine intake (which I think is a very interesting thesis, btw).

However, this doesn't show how one type of government would be better at this than another. Even more, you examples contain numerous types of governments (tribes, medieval monarchs, city states, absolutist rulers, etc.) who all do the same thing.

I can see where you might have thought from my comments above that I was using a strict feudal/non-feudal dichotomy:

The key is "Northwestern Europe." This is a reflection upon an area with a notably high level of protein intake at a time when they enjoyed a largely non-feudal structure, unlike most of the rest of Europe. I see them as an exception, not the norm, and significantly, Steckel does not mention the feudal and largely agrarian, grain-oriented cultures of what were then the nations occuplying France, Italy, etc.

...but note, I only mentioned feudalism as one element, and continued with grain-oriented (agrarian) cultures as a second element. I would go further since the question has been narrowed, and suggest that a host of factors interacting with one another affect the amount of protein intake in the cultural diet. Temperature, rainfall, soil quality, government structure, international trade, infrastructure, national stability, rule of law--these can all have a number of interesting, localized effects.

As is true, of course.

Let's go back to feudalism. Herds were wealth, and in many smaller monarchies (read, large tribes) the king/tribal chieftain had ownership of it all, or imposed a tax depending on the size of the herd. As the king was also the center of law, these taxes could become onerous at times, and there was in any case no recourse from it. This also applies to land.

I think you're exaggerating the power of the lords. Usually they were checked by common law and the possibility of peasant uprisings.

The king took possession of all "unowned" land, which included nearly all forested land not owned by nobles, and refused hunting permission to all but his friends. This was often vigorously enforced. Individual herds were deemphasized by farmers, and poaching, while possible, became very dangerous. Farmers in much of feudal Europe emphasized grain.

There were heavy taxes on grain too. And in the open field system, which was the dominant agrarian system in pre-modern Europe, land owned/rented by villages usually included common lands where villages could graze their cattle. So I think that peasants in the feudal system did have herds and that the low amount of cattle wasn't caused by heavy taxes (alone).
Not all land is available or suitable (like forests and mountainous areas, which I think Scandinavia is especially well-endowed with ) for farming, so the maximum grain production was limited. Usually most land was used for growing crops, so livestock had to eat grain as (supplementary) feeding. I can imagine that if (because of heavy taxes, drought, war, etc.) you can hardly grow enough grain to feed yourself, you won't be herding cattle. This would mean that feudalism can only indirectly influence the level of proteine intake.

Btw, I want to recall a statement I made earlier, that pre-modern peasants were wont to grow/herd just enough food to keep themselves alive (including trade). So if taxes rose, production rose, and vice versa. What do you think?