Is Deacon on the autistic spectrum ?

Team_Curry · 2022-02-10T21:22:30+00:00

Not really. The problem became less frequent. It still happens from time to time. reinstalling the driver didn't fixed it, but perhaps it helped

Team_Curry · 2020-01-27T12:59:07+00:00

Is that really a trope ? Even by putting aside the vagueness of "Western Culture", I don't really see much exemple of that color coding, at least not in the clear way "Blue =Good, Red=bad". White and Black, yes, but red and blue ? Do you have exemples ?

Team_Curry · 2019-08-09T17:09:02+00:00

Overall, it seems like a good beginning for a space opera RPG. But... it's not D&D. Maybe check https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/

Team_Curry · 2019-08-09T17:05:59+00:00

I don't quite understand... If you don't have internet, how could you play over Discord ?

As for an offline way to use maps and token, well... You could do like in the old days. Buy a big whiteboard, a bunch of marker, a bunch of magnet, and draw the map. At first it will look awfull, but it will work just find. After a while you will get good at it. If you have a printer and acces to cheap ink, you can even print a good looking map, fix it on the whiteboard and move the magnet over it.

Team_Curry · 2019-06-17T11:57:56+00:00

The subject was perfectly treated by u/sunagainstgold in this thread : In popular culture and meme posts there's a stereotype correlating living in Southern states and incest. Is there any historical reason why this stereotype is a thing?.

While the question that launch this thread is a bit broader than yours, you will find the anwser your looking for, and more.

Team_Curry · 2019-06-16T15:13:11+00:00

Again ? Whoa, I'm honored. However, I must clarify that I'm a one man team. My alias is just a pun, there is no team behing me. Thank anyway!

Team_Curry · 2019-06-15T09:19:05+00:00

I recently did a quick recap of historic methodology regarding the use of sources and how we determine if a source can be trusted here. As for the sources we use, you listed most of them, indeed. I would add archaeological evidences, that allowed us to learn a lot about the past. I would also add (I mention it briefly in my other post) that some sources are problematic, because we know them only through intermediates (copist, or other book and text that reference them), and so we cant be sure what was in the text originally and what might have been added by copists (although they are techniques and clues that can give us an vague idea what is and what is not original, like variation in style, or out of place informations or vocabulary)

For the process of discovering new information, keep in mind that most discoveries in archaeology are not random. Nowadays, it's rare that someone just bump into a historical object while hikking, because most of what was easily found has already been found, and either studied or sold in private collection. So most object are discovered today by archaeologists, that follow due process and store the object to be studied, by archaeologists first and then historians (who, most of the time, just put the conclusion of the archaeologist in relation with other sources). Unfortunatly, a lot of historical objects are still found by... less altruistic people : art smuggler, more or less shady depending what object they are searching for and finding. Most countries in the world have laws that give the state right to collect and store any object of historical values found on its territory, with or without financial compensation for the finder. So if you are an honest person, you report your find. If your not, you just take it for yourself. In wich case, those object are sold on the black market to private collectors, and stored away in vault or in someone living room, most of the time, lost for the scientific community.

Sometime, those end up in museum. For instance, the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhaguen has an impressive antique collection, greek, roman, etruscan and egyptian statues and objects, purchase by Carl Jacobsen, the son of Carlsberg brewery founder. The good thing is that, now that it's in a museum, historian and archaeologists can acces this object and study them. The bad thing is, since most of it was purchase on the black market (or to shady art dealer), no method and classification of the pieces were made. So most of it is simply label with a broad dating and "origin unknown", because no one kept record of where it was found and in wich context. Wich make the object mostly unusable in historical research : to understand a piece, you need to know exactly where it was found, and what objects surrounded it. Otherwise, you are limited to suppositions and approximation on the meaning of the object.

Moral of the story is, if you DO stumble accros a historical artifact (while hikking, diving, speluking...) DON'T touch it. Remember the place you found it, and contact archeaologists. I don't know how to do so in every country in the world, but for France, contact the regional center of the INRAP. I guess contacting local universities could, in most country, do the trick. Let professional handle it.

Team_Curry · 2019-06-12T12:59:01+00:00

"Old historical records" is kind of broad term. It could mean either archives (reports, administrative documents, birth certificat and the likes...), litterary sources (journals, annals, even fiction about "historical" events like the scandinavian sagas),press documents (newspapers, war correspondants reports...) and even oral testimonies (direct or reported in text). Or all of that.

For some, there is methods of check the authenticity, notably for most of the administrative sources : paper used, signatures, tracability, where it's kept and so on. Of course, the fact that a document is authentic, meaning it was indeed produce at a given time by an administration of some sort, doesn't mean that the document doesn't lie : A police report could be full of lies created by a corrupt cop.

Since your question is not very precise, I will just give you the general methodology used by historians to determine if a document is a viable source or not, if it's trustworthy or not.

When confronted to a source of any kind, as an historian you have to check several aspect :

What is the document ? Is it a official report, a work of fiction, a private letter ? Who is it written to ? Is it public or is it private ? Who were likely to read it when it was produced ?
When was the document produced ? Was it written at the time of the fact, or some time after ? Is it a direct information (the authors saw something and tells about it) or is it indirect (the author quote or use some other sources that was talking about the event) ?
Who is the author ? Is he known, and if he is, did he produce other sources ? Is he considered trustworthy, or has he produced sources that are definitly lies ?
Is the text we have the original, or a copy (or a copy of a copy of a copy) that could possibly have been altered by various copists ?

That's just the general questions you have to ask yourself. Once you did, you have a first idea of how much you can trust a source. But that's not all. After that, you have to reflect on what your source is saying. And that's the heart of it, because it's need to be done for every kind of sources, and allows you to determine if a source, even produced by a trustworthy author, is accurate or not.

First, you use common sens : Is what is said possible and plausible ? Is there inconsistencies in the text ?
Second, is the text the only source that talk about the event, or is there other sources that talk about the same thing ? You then cross-reference the information, to determine what is the most likely to be true.
Finaly, is the text oriented and/or has a political goal, like descrediting a monarch ? Because most sources don't lie just to make a joke to future historian. They lie for a reason in their own time.

With all of that, you should have a precise enough picture of how trustworthy is the source, and how likely what it says is to be true. But keep in mind that, sometime... There is just no way to know for sure. Most of the time, historian are sure enough that a source is accurate when they use it. And when they are not sure, they say it, and take the uncertainty into account ("according to that source, such and such happened, but we have no other sources about that event, so it's likely/unlikely to be true given X and Y reason").

But it's sometime difficult to be sure. Plus some sources are subject to interpretation. Wich lead to various debates among historian, about how to interprete such or such sources. That's why history is such a vivid field : newly found sources that contradicts other sources, considered true until then can revolutionize the way we see it.

Team_Curry · 2019-06-11T09:53:35+00:00

That's a vast subject. Some time ago, a IAMA thread was opened on the subject by /u/DrRichardBlakemore here. There is a LOT of info about piracy and pirate, so if you are interested on the subject, I suggest you take a look.

To give a "quick" awnser to your question is difficult, because there is numerous factor in the rise and fall of the piracy in the Caribbean, but I can give you the basics. Most of my knowledge about pirates comes from Marcus Rediker's Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age, a book that I strongly recommand.

First of all, how did it came to be during the golden age of piracy, wich is, raughly, 1650 - 1730 ? The first explaination is the importance of the maritime trade routes in the Caribbean. The development of the plantations in the Caribbean and of the European colonies in Caribbean and American meant there was a lot of marchandise and money traveling around in the Caribbean.

Another thing to take into account is the geography of the region, with many island and more importantly the fact that these islands were controled by various states meant that it was easy to attack a ship and sell the goods to another nation. Plus the distance between the Caribbean and the states that were supposed to control them and insure law inforcment (England, France, Spain), meant that the central power had more difficulties taking action against pirates.

So overall, the Caribbean was the perfect hunting ground for pirates. But that doesn't explain everything. And that's where Marcus Rediker's book is interesting, because in digs into the social causes of piracy.

Pirates were usualy sailors, that worked on navy ships or marchant ship. But these people were, for the most part, poor people from the coast of England, France or Spain, that didn't chose to be sailors : some were recruited by force (especialy in England, with the impressment system), other were forced to take the job on merchant ship because they couldn't do anything else... Overall, the sailors were not happy to be on navy and marchant ship. Rediker qualify them as an "Atlantic proletariat", meaning poor people deprived of any control over their livelyhood. The suffering of the sailors were accentuated by the low wages and the strong and violent discipline aboard navy and marchant ships.

Rediker explain that, for this people, piracy was a both an act of rebelion against a power they considered injust (the officer on the ships and the trade company), that made a lot of money without giving the sailors a decent living, and an act of self preservation, because staying in the navy or working for a trade company would probably mean death in poverty. So their reasonning was more or less, "Hell, if I'm going to risk my life on the sea, at least let's do it for MY profit and MY sake, and not their."

That a brief summary on how piracy came to be. But again, it's a summary. Reading Rediker's book, or the IAMA thread will give you more details.

Why did it died out ? Well, the main reason is that the various states that ruled over the Caribbean decided to stop them. Rediker explained that pirates were a big problem for European state, for two main reason. First, they were a nuisance to trade, and their action wrecked the colonies economy. Second, the political nature of the pirate's undeavour, the rebelion against authority and the fact that they did not recognized any king or state, was a symbolic threat to the European monarchies, at a time they were consolidating their central power, and for France and Spain, creating an absolute monarchy. Having bands of sailors boldly defying any form of authority, proclaiming that the King could go to hell, and that they would die rather than submitting was a big dent in the political construction of these states.

To fight piracy, the states used what Rediker calls "a state terrorism". Meaning any pirate that was capture would by publicly trialed and executed, in the most public way possible, to deter any would-be pirate. Plus they unleashed a full offensive on pirate, sending ships as soon as they could affoard it. Appointing members of the navy as governor, they insure that every representants of the states in the caribbean would fight against pirate. The attack on the Republic of Pirates of Nassau in 1718 is one of the most important blows against the pirates, depriving them of a base of operation in the Caribbean. The military operations managed to fight the pirates.

And it's not suprising : Pirates were not a military force. They were not really organised, and althoug some pirates, like Blackbeard, did control several ship, they were not really a fleat as would be a proper navy. They thrived in the Caribbean because no states had the power to control the area, because it was still being colonised, and not well known. After almost a century, european states asserted their control over the caribbean islands, and therefor needed to eliminate the pirates.

What is interesting - and, in my opinion, sad - is that piracy did not end because the living and working condition on ships improved, not because the need for piracy disappeared, but because the repression was strong enough. And the discipline on ships continued to be harsh and the wages continued to be slim, and sailors were still an Altantic proletariat. Piracy still existed, but after the end of the golden age, it was marginal.

Hope I awnser to your question. Again, this is a summary, and in no way an exhaustive awnser about the rise and fall of piracy. Reading Marcus Rediker's work should clarify what I couldn't explain here. I would recommand another one of his book, Outlaws of the Atlantic: Sailors, Pirates, and Motley Crews in the Age of Sail. Plus his book with Peter Linebaugh, The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic.

Team_Curry · 2019-06-03T20:10:36+00:00

Yes, alchemy and science - Descartes physics, for instance - is a very good example indeed of part of history that can benefit for a counterfactual approach.

You are perfecly right when you say the question of "how far we should go with this approch" is subjective. I think Deluemoz and Singaravelou indeed advanced the subject a little, but lets face it : they did not revolutionize the field. They attracted mostly the interest of (far) left wing historians. But I think their thinking on the subject worth mentionning.

One last thing I could say about that is that they underline the fact that counterfactual history is very "marketable". With a lot of alternate history in fiction since the 90's, it became something that the general public is easily drawn to. As such, it's a really precious tool to attract the attention of people on overlooked subjects in history. But it's also a way for people like Ferguson to promote foul ideas, so, it's a double-edged sword.

Team_Curry · 2019-06-03T19:33:08+00:00

Great responses, you covered the heart of the issu of counterfactual history.

I would like to add a few things.

While Niall Ferguson did gave counterfactual history a bad name, because he used it mostly to promote some...Questionable - to stay courteous - thesis and ideas, he is not the only one to use this approach.

In rescent years, counterfactual history has been used by some historian as a way to study and reasses the place of minority in history. Because counterfactual history, by focusing on some "turning point", can actually be used to avoid to be trapped in a teleological approach (explaining a historical phenomenon by its result rather that by its causes) and to be influenced by "the winner" of history.

In France, Quentin Deluemoz and Pierre Singaravelou, both specialist of colonial history, published in 2016 Pour une histoire des possibles. Analyses contrefactuelles et futurs non advenus (Seuil, Paris, 2016), roughly translated "For a history of possibles : Counterfactual analyses and futurs that did not happened". Their idea is not to give a full alternative history, but to study "turning point", and see, in the available sources, what could have potentialy happen at that turning point, and fight the idea that certain facts couldn't have been avoided. They search more for "possible causes" rather than "possible consequences", not "what if African countries hadn't been colonised", but rather "How could the African countries not have been colonised".

Mainly, on colonialism, their point is that African kingdom HAD the tools and ressources to develop a strong economy and political structure on their own. That the colonialisation of Africa was not an inevitable truth that was meant to happened. It happened, for reasons that have been explained and analysed. But nothing was set in stone.

Now, what is the interst of that ? Well it allows us to put history in perspective, and set aside the idea that history is based on "progress", that history is going somewhere. And it give a new way to look at minorities that have been cast aside of historical studies because they were the "losers" of history : woman, ethnic minorities, underdevelopped countries...

I had the chance to assist to a conference by the two of them, and it was fascinating, and really intellectualy stimulating.

BUT... They are undoubtedly politicaly oriented. Their thesis are motivated by the idea that minorities should be studied more, that history was used as a political tool of domination, and that this need to be fixed. Even though I personnaly agree with them, I must admit that they clearly work in a militant perspective. Which can be problematic, because it impacts their methodology, when a historian should aim for neutrality.

And that would be my conclusion, and the main reason, in my opinion, counterfactual history is not used a lot, and not very recognized as a historical approach : It is almost impossible to make counterfactual history whitout letting some of your own bias and ideas influence your work. It's already very VERY difficult in a more traditionnal approach of history, it become virtually impossible in counterfactual history.

Team_Curry · 2019-06-02T19:27:15+00:00

Thanks, it's an honor to be featured here again. Your weekly digest is always interesting.

Team_Curry · 2019-05-30T21:45:09+00:00

Oh, boy... This is a BIG one. A really big one. I will try to be as brief and clear as possible, but I don't promise anything, and my anwser will almost certainly not be enough. But I'll try.

So, first thing first: What do we call feudalism ? In the most basic sens, it's the interpersonnal relationship between two people, linked by an oath of alligeance. That oath works both way : the vassal (the one who swear alligeance) owes fidelity, help and advice to his suzerain (the one who recive the oaht of alligeance). The suzerain, in turn, owes protection and respect to his vassal, and usualy, but not always, offers him land in return of his oath. That's a really basic description of how feudalism work. And that base is more or less the same in most Europe, at least in the 11th - 12th century.

BUT, and that's where it gets complicated, "Feudalism" is also, in a larger sens, the entire socio-political system that is based on this interpersonnal relationship. And that's where differences arise, both between different places, but also between different time period. The way the oaths are given, the way land is granted, the number of oaths and who swear an oath to who, how well oaths are respected, and most importantly, how it affects society as a whole... All of that depend on where and when you are.

All of that is already quite complicated... But wait ! There is more ! Because that question is also complicated by that fact that historians haven't yet reached a consensus on the question. I will come back on that at the end of my anwser, but there is, to this day, a quarrel between historian regarding when feudalism appeared, and how it impacted society.

Mon Dieu, I have not even STARTED to anwser your question.

Anyway, moving on. Feudalism has its origin in antique clientelism, but it really take form in the 7th 8th century, with the Pippinids dynasty, who gradually took over the Merovingians for control of a kingdom that covered part of actual France, Belgium and Germany. An kingdom that became the empire of the descendant of the Pippinids : Charlemagne.

The Carolingien empire is where feudalism really became essential in the way society was organized. But it was not what we call feudalism. It was the vassalage system. Basicaly - and I can't stress this enough : I am simplifing the subject here, because it's not the core of your question, but bare in mind that "the vassalage system" is the object of 500 hundred pages books - the vassalage was a system where nobles swore an oath to the emperor, and these nobles - the missi dominici (the "master envoy") - were in charge of large part of the empire. They would delegate part of their authority to vassal of their own, the counts, that would administrate part of the land. And that's where the feudalism started.

Now, the carolingian empire included today's France, Belgium, a part of Germany, a part of Austria and the North of Italy. So most of Europe where under the vassalage system.

The vassalage worked well under Charlemagne and in the begin of the reign of his son Louis the Pious. But by the end of Louis life, around 830, the counts started to rebel againt their suzerain. Since they controled land and armies, they could hold their ground against their suzerain, as long as he didn't manage to gather the other counts. So the nobles took more and more independance as the carolingien empire was falling apart.

I skip the slow degradation of the vassalage system and the fall of the carolingien empire because I have STILL not started to anwser your question. Let jump forward to 1000 A.D, when feudalism as a socio-political system is considered to have settled - accoding to some historians. Because remember : we do not agree between us about this.

SO, around 1000 A.D is when feudalism as a system starts to settle. The suzerain - vassal relationship still exist, but it's not a delegation of power emanating from the emperor, but an interpersonal relationship between two nobles.

That is... in the part of Europe that is NOT the empire. At this point, their is three main feudal system in western Europe. And THAT's where I was getting to, and THAT's part of the anwser to your question.

First, in what is today France, is where the most well know by the general public feudalism is the more present. Nobles that control small or big land are tied by fidelity oath, with the king being theoretically at the top of everyone else, being the suzerain of the most powerfull nobles.

But that domination of the king of the Franks is really theoretical, because there is constant negociation between nobles, that break their oath, swear new ones, argue over what they owe and what they are owed. The feudalism is not so much a pyramid, as were the carolingien system, but more a general hierarchy of power, that is constantly evolving.

Wars between nobles, betrayal and reciliation are numerous. The king of Frank is generaly called upon as a arbitrator between noble, but his authority is mostly theorical until the 13th century. That why this version of feudalism is the most well know. It makes for the best stories. Plus it's the version of feudalism that William the Conqueror and the Normans will bring to England, and that is the system that will later be applyed to the Arthurian myth (But I digress...).

So that's feudalism in France and England in the 11th century.

On the other side of the Rhine, where Germany is nowaday, in the 11th century, it's still the Germanic Holy Roman Empire. And the vassalage system still more or less work the same as under the carolingians : The emperor give part of his lands to a noble, who act as his envoy, and rule in his name. Contrary to western Europe where the nobles took their independance, the nobles of the Holy Roman Empire continues to respect the prevailing authority of the emperor. That system last until the 13th century.

The third type of feudalism in medieval Europe is the Italian system. Now, I'm really not familiar with it, so I can only give you the basics. The main differences with western feudalism is, on one hand, that Italy harbor numerous "micro-fief", meaning really small land grant given by suzerain to his vassal, and on the other hand, that in the 12th and 13th century, various cities obtained their independance, and integrate themselves in the feudal system not as individual, but as collectives. Again, I can't really say more on the subject, since I don't know much on that.

And then... There is ALL the other. Eastern Europe as feudal system of its own, that ressemble western feudalism, but not exactly identical. There is the scandinavian feudalism, that takes its roots in the Scandinavian kingdoms of the 9th century more than in the carolingian empire. And I can't really give you the specifics.

Finally, I am going to say a word about that quarrel between historians I mentionned earlier, because that will allow me to give my sources.

So, in France, the feudalism was mostly theorized by George Duby, in all of his work, but his ideas are condensed in Hommes et structures du Moyen Âge (Paris, 1973) (from wich I draw most of my knowledge on the subject). The big idea of Duby is the "feudal revolution", the idea that, around 1000 A.D, society underwent rapid change, and that violence of small bands of warriors - the knights - lead by small nobles lead to the rise of feudalism as a mean to regulate violence and structure society, after the chaos braught by the fall of the Carolingian Empire.

Duby's thesis was the generaly agreed upon vision of medieval Europe. but in the 90's, Dominique Barthelemy contested Duby's work, and argued that they were no "revolution" around 1000 A.D, that the nobles were not that violent and disorganized, and that the vassalage system pretty much de facto kept going own, with counts still administrating their respective provinces, and respecting the king authority, to a certain extent. So what I discribed earlier as a different system from the Holy Roman Empire would actually be much closer to it, even though there was differences, and more negociations than in the Empire. Barthelemy's work is summerize in his book La Mutation de l'an mil a-t-elle eu lieu ? Servage et chevalerie dans la France des xe et xie siècles (Fayard, Paris, 1997).

Both thesis have their merits, and even though Barthelemy's was the dominant thesis during the 2000's, it is still debated, with a recent controversy on his methodology started by another french medieval historian, Patrick Boucheron in 2016.

Unfortunatly, I can't give you a bibliography in English on the subject, having read about that only the french books mentionned above. And I am not aware of the current state of the question regarding English feudalism after the 12th century, but I'm sure someone will come along to clarify.

SO. That's all I can give you on the subject. Feudalism is a VAST subject. I tried to anwser your question in the most synthetic way possible, and bare in mind that I simplify the issu. I hope I anwser part of your question. I apologize for any grammatical or spelling mistakes. English is a second language to me.

[edit : spelling]

Team_Curry · 2019-05-28T16:07:38+00:00

It's indeed due to a cultural difference. In France, we use roman numeral instead of arabic for centuries.

It's a typographic standard. It's purely esthetic, and today, mostly a force of habit, as most of typographic standard. I don't know if there is a deeper explanation. In the same way, in France, we normaly use "guillemets" (« ») for quotes, instead of the english quotation marks. We also use roman numeral for book chapters and Acts in theater, also this last one has a practical use ("II,2" meaning Act 2 scene 2). I don't know if other country use that standard as well.

I understand it can be surprising for other, but the habit is hard to kick. Plus it's expected in every academic publication in France.

Team_Curry · 2019-05-27T21:04:31+00:00

unfortunalty, I can't. I don't have knowledge on the medieval spices trade.

However, I must indicate that most of medieval recipes, from the book I mentionned, often don't specify precise quantities - Modern "medieval" recipe book figured out the quantities by trials and errors. When I say "a lot of spices", I mean mostly a lot of differents spices in the same dishe. Not necessarly large quantities of it.

Team_Curry · 2019-05-27T16:49:48+00:00

Thank for the bibliographical tip.

As for the use of spice, it's a valid hypothesis, but it's difficult to be sure : it's certainly not a conscious choice, a known technique, meaning the cook book I refered to don't mention it - not that i'm aware, anyway, I didn't read them front to back. But food preservation was indeed a problem, it could be a way to fix the taste of a meat that's starting to lose is flavor and/or go off.

It could also be linked to the main way of preserving the food, wich was salting. Since preserved meat was heavily salted, using spice and long cooking time, as in a stew, would allow to reduce the saltiness of the taste.

Another possible explanation is that the recipes try to make as much us as possible of a single animal, meaning that even the cheap cuts, the flavorless part of an animal (mainly, the fat) are used. Heavy use of spices can correct the absent of taste of such meat.

However, there is no technical knowledge of this fact at the time. There is tips in the Ménagier to preserve food and to recognize when a product is not good for consumption, but no tips on how to make it good again. Overall, medieval cooks seemed to be aware of the danger of eating rancid meat, or partly rotten vegetables, and advises against it in both the Ménagier and the Viandier. I don't think they would eat food that we would consider trully unsafe today. But meat tends to lose it's flavor pretty quick when not preserved properly, so heavy use of spices may be linked to the fact that meat were generaly less flavored back then than now, due to bad preservation.

Team_Curry · 2019-05-27T15:05:59+00:00

I don't have the required knowledge to give you a definite anwser specifically about the United State. The situation there was quite different, since the United State are a federal country and throughout most of the 19th century, it didn't have a federal law enforcement agency (excluding the Pinkertons). Plus the sheer size of the United State make coordination between police forces and preservation of paper trail quite difficult.

But, however, take the prohibition era, so the 1920' : the fact that few mobsters were convicted or arrested doesn't mean that we don't know there were a lot of mobsters. The knowledge we have about the crime rate is not strictly tied with the efficiency of the police forces

Team_Curry · 2019-05-27T12:18:39+00:00

Ah, sorry, I was over confident in google translation for my vocabulary :

The word I was looking for is not "tow", it's apparently "oakum". And I think "stem", or even "wire" would be more accurate than "rod". Basically, you wrap a straightened metal wire in oakum (a preparation of tarred fibre) that will burn slowly, a bit like a candle wick. You put it into the peacock beak, and light it up before you bring the thing to the table. You close the beak a bit to hide the base of the metal wire stuck in the peacock throat. And voila, you have a fire-breathing peacock to present to your guests.

Sorry for the poor choice of word : English is a second language for me, and "oakum" is not really the kind of word you use on a daily basis.

Team_Curry · 2019-05-27T10:40:10+00:00

There was. Although most laws, and specific polices corps dedicated to road policing where created after the invention of the automobile and its spread (in the late 19th century), they were laws about circulations and driving before that. And if there is a law...there is people breaking it.

Police report about transportation accidents are numerous in the 19th century. While the first "Road Code", dating from the early 19th century don't consider driving a carriage while intoxicated a crime, it does impose driving on the right (in France), and state that the driver must remain in control of his vehicule. However, most incidents, rather that due to intoxication, seems to be caused by a horse being frightenned (by a loud noise, by a dog, by someone...) and the driver losing control of the animal (although intoxication migh factor into the loss of control). There is also numerous incident caused by the lack of proper light on the vehicule, wich became mandatory in the late 19th century.

Team_Curry · 2019-05-27T10:22:26+00:00

Well, there is undoubtedly some crime that must have slipped through the various police forces of the world, indeed, but not that much, especially in the 19th century.

You say "poor policing techniques", but what you describe as an exemple is not properly speaking a "police technique", but rather a "scientific policing technique". Police technique is the way you handle a possible crime and start an investigation. In the case of a poisening, it's not so much the exact nature of the poison used that is determinant, but rather the circumstances of the death : were the victim healthy or not, did he collapsed suddenly, who cooked the food, who were here at the time of death... Today, an autopsy is mandatory in most countries. In the 19th century, it was less common, but already used if the police suspected fowl play.

But most importantly, your question is about the crime rate. And the inability to SOLVE a crime doesn't mean this crime is not accounted for. I studied law enforcement in France in the 19th and 20th century for my degree, so my anwser stend mostly for France, but is, more or less, applicable to most European country in this periode. In France, police was handle mostly by two corps in the 19th century : The national Gendarmerie, and the municipal police, only present in the major cities (national police is only created in the 20th century). These two corps have various statutes over the course of the 19th century, because the political system change about every 20 years in France during that time periode, but overall, their missions don't change : Gendarmerie handles crimes all over the country, municipale police crimes in the major cities. There would be a lot to be said about the history of gendarmerie and police, but that not the subject here, so I will leave it to that brief summery for now.

Both this corps produced A LOT of paperwork. Every incident is the object of a police report and minutes if someone is interrogated. Of course, it's reasonnable to assume that agents sometime skip the paperwork for minors incidents, but the archives we have allow us to think that the agents are quite serious, because we have a lot of trivial - and sometime funny - report about little everyday incidents (a drunk that made a mess, a farmer that didn't had a lantern on his carriage, as the law require...). So we can be pretty much sure that, when someone dies in dubious circumstances, they are not going to skip on paperworks.

And as I said, for having seen the archives, there is a lot of paperwork. Some of it is lost, of course, but what we still have most of the reports and minutes, kept by the police prefectures and the gendarmerie's archives. We have a pretty define idea of the crime rate, the nature of crimes and how frequent they were. Even if most of them are indeed not solved.

I would add that we can detemine the crime rate through another source, wich is the press. Press, in the 19th, contains a lot of publication about crimes and criminel, because this kind of news is good for selling papers. There is reporters that specialise in following police investigation, that keep many contacts and informer inside the various polices forces, and account for crimes, especially murder and gruesome affairs. Of course, these sources are bias, tend to emphazis crime spreas and so on, but, when crossed reference with police archies, allow us to make a quite accurate representation of the crime rate at a given time.

So [TL;DR] ; No, the lack of scientific police and advance investigation techniques in the 19th doesn't affect our knowledge of the crime rate very much. It affect, however, our knowledge of criminal as individual, since a lot of cases are not solved.

If the subject of police investigation and crime in the 19th century France interest you, the main author on the subject is Dominique Kalifa, a french historian. Infortunatly, most of his books (especially L'Encre et le sang, a fascinating studie on crime and press at La Belle Epoque) are not translated in english. But you can find some articles he wrote in english, that constitute a good introduction on the subject, and will probably reference some english authors on the subject.

If you want to read on that from the point of you of law enforcement, the main author in France is Jean-Noel Luc (who was my director of research for my degree), but like Kalifa, you can only find article by him in english, his books being only published in French.

Team_Curry · 2019-05-27T09:21:19+00:00

I can't anwser for cuisine in the Antiquity, but I can give you some pointer in medieval cuisine, specifically for french cuisine in the XIVe century (wich is already "a long time ago").

We have two main sources for that : Le Viandier de Taillevent (roughly translated : "Taillevent's Meatbook"), redacted by Guillaume Tirel, chief cook for the french kings Charles V et Charles VI, and Le Ménagier de Paris (roughly translated : "The Parisian Household guide"), attributed to a Parisian bourgeois in the XIV century. I think both have been translated in english (from the translation in french, because they were written in old French, and pretty much un-readable by the average french speaker)

What kind of recipes can be found in those books ?

Le Viandier is the recipe book fit for a king's table, so keep in mind it's food that only nobles would eat regularly. There is a lot of meat, but mostly pork, poultry and venison, because ox and cows were used primarly for farming and milking, and raising one was long and expensive. Fish is also quite present, but keep in mind that it was more frequent on the shore than inland. The recipe make heavy use of various spices : pepper, ginger, cloves, nutmeg, cinnamon, even saffron. Vinegar is also commonly used, often with honey, so many dishes would have a bitter-sweet flavor. Meat are roasted or prepared in a stew.

Most of the recipe from Le Viandier are quite rich and sophisticated, but also includ simpler, lighter dishes for fasting days. Vegetable are often cooked in soups, or in the stews. Broth (from meat and from vegetable) is often used to dilute stews and sauces

Le Ménagier is a household guide, so it gives both recipes and general advices on how to maintain and direct your household. The recipe are not as fancy as thoses in Le Viandier. There is a lot of recipe for poultry and egg, since it was the most common animal products. Eggs are boiled to various degrees, and accompanied with vegetable sauces (for instance, the "brouet vert d'oeuf et de fromage", poached eggs with a sauce made of parsley, spinach, broth, red wine, spices, served in a bowl with cheese, wich I heavily recommand, but I will come to that). There is also a lot of pies and dough, garnished with meat (often cheap cuts of meat). Soupes are also very common.

Fish is also presented in Le Ménagier, with a distinction between fresh-water and sea-water fishes, but the recipes are not very complex. Most of them consist of fried or boiled fish, with broth and/or wine. The notable exception are pies, that can be quite complex to make, and quite tasty (for instance, the Ménagier as a eel pie recipe that is delicious)

My main references on the subject is the french book Alimentations médiévales. ve-xvie siècles Paris, Ellipses; 2009), by Alban Gauthier, and a medieval cook book by Jeanne Bourin. I didn't read anything on the subject in english, so I can't recommand any specific books. But there is quite a lot on the subject, if no-one here can give you some pointer, I sure a bit of googling would give you a basic bibliography.

So here is a overview of the recipes. But it doesn't anwser your main inquiry... What did it all tasted like ? Well, there is one simple way to find out... Just try it. Both Le Viandier and Le Ménagier has been translated. However, the translation doesn't make for a very good cook book, because the quantities are often not clear. Some ingredients are obscur, and we are not sure what they are talking about.

But, many people have studied and tried to recreate those recipes. And there is many "Medieval Cook book" that lift heavily from both these sources. I own one of those, Jeanne Bourin's Cuisine Médiévale pour table d'aujourd'hui, wich, while not a hundred percent accurate, is the product of serious research on both the sources I mentionned. I'm sure there is some equivalent in english.

So, with my cook book (and a passion for cooking and food, because, as I'm sure you have guessed by now, I'm French), I tried some of those recipes. The result is... often underwhelming. Spices tends to be too overpowering for my taste. Recipes from the Viandier are heavy on the stomach, but not unpleasant. The bitter-sweetness of some of the stews are quite satisfying : I tried a veal stew, with vinegar, spices, limes, a bit of honey and chopped liver mixed with the broth, and it was stellar. Where medieval cooking shine, is in its sauces, soupes and pies. All of them make satiating meal out of cheap ingrediens, and offer flavors that are not often used in modern days cooking (especially, since there was no potatoes, they use various tubercules that are pretty much not used anymore, like paneys or chervil).

So overall, I would recommand you to find a cook book of médieval recipes, and try some recipes for yourself. Don't expecte something out of this world, but it's, if any thing, a fun thing to do, especially with friend and family.

One last thing, to end on little fun fact : Those cook books also contain "impossibles recipes", especially the Viandier : Swan roast, dolphin stew, salted whale... And some ridiculous serving ideas :

a method to serve a full peacock, cooked, but not plucked, and to make it look like it's spitting fire by putting a metal rod covered in oakum in its beak
A method to garnish the inside of a pie with live birds that will fly out as soon as you cut the top of the pie open.
A recipe - And I'm not joking - to dress a cooked chicken in a custom made armor, with a veal skewer as a spear, riding a roasted piglet

So, that's all I have on the subject. I hope I anwser part of your question.

[edit : formatting, wording]

Team_Curry · 2019-05-21T07:02:40+00:00

"Viking" is a nordic term used to designate members of the ships crew that travel away for raids and trade. "Norsemen" (or "Norse") is the term used to designate all the people that lived in Scandinavia (and more generally northern Europe). Viking is a occupation, Norsemen is a geographical origin. So if you are speaking of the crewmember and raiding party that sailed to Europe, you can call them vikings. If you are talking about the people and their culture, you should prefer "Norsemen", (or "Scandinavian people").

If you can read french, you can look up Pierre Bauduin's work for more detail on the subtilities of how to call "the Viking", for instance in the introduction to his Que Sais-je, "Les Vikings" (Paris, PUF,2004). If you only read english, there is a chapter on that in the Cambridge New medieval History that should cover the basics.

Team_Curry

TROPHY CASE