I think it’s important to point out that almost everyone drank beer and it wasn’t because the water was bad. It was because they liked drinking beer.
Our modern culture doesn’t like the idea of people drinking beer all day so there has to be
some scientific justification to make it acceptable to modern sensibilities.
The percentage of alcohol required to preserve beer for long periods is too high for sailors to be drinking a gallon of it per day.
> The percentage of alcohol required to preserve beer for long periods is too high for sailors to be drinking a gallon of it per day.
Reading this thread I think the best thing would be if people were forbidden from comment on the history of beer in online forums. Nobody knows anything, yet everyone is shouting their misunderstandings from the rooftops.
The Danish fleet, to take just one example, was completely dependent on a supply of "skibsøl", to the extent that the king started his own brewery to ensure his fleet had a supply. Later kings started a stupid brewing monopoly system in Copenhagen to ensure no breweries went bankrupt, again with the same aim. "Skibsøl" was a big thing in Norway and Sweden, too. The Royal Navy used to serve it, too, before switching to grog.
Yes, weak beer will turn sour, but it takes a lot to make it harmful.
> Yes, weak beer will turn sour, but it takes a lot to make it harmful.
While I agree in general with what you've said, this line is wrong. Strong beer will turn sour too. Acetobacter is good up to 10-15%, it's how we get malt vinegar and wine vinegar. All it needs is ethanol, oxygen, and time.
Ever gotten a bad case of gastroenteritis from a restaurant that made you swear never to go back and even turned you off an entire style of cuisine for, at least, a little while?
A few brushes with bad water might have given folk a strong preference for beer, just to be on the safe side, even if most water was safe.
No, it wouldn't. It's very difficult to produce beer where harmful organisms can multiply. Post-fermentation it's an extremely difficult environment for most organisms.
Yes, it can. But infections by harmful organisms is very difficult to achieve. The common spoilage organisms in beer are all harmless to humans. Here's a good overview http://mmbr.asm.org/content/77/2/157.long
Just the hops alone stop pretty much all gram-positive bacteria except Lactobacillus and a few other harmless ones.
Exactly. To my understanding any amount of alcohol is unhealthy, but societies have had festivals or other rituals since the beginning, and substances _like_ alcohol play an important role in those.
Water on ships wasn't that clean to begin with. And things were made worse by people maybe not observing good hygiene. Think sharing cups, dipping those in the water, not washing their hands, etc. Imagine that, stored in a poorly sealed barrel on a ship with rats and other pests. Water was pretty bad on ships. People would get sick and weak on longer journeys (malnutrition, contaminated water, rotting food, etc.). A lot of their diseases would spread via water.
Beer had a head start on water because part of the process of making it involves boiling the water and the alcohol slows the growth of most of the pathogens. And it has some nutritional value.
The alcohol wasnt what made beer safe. Beer was safer than water because to make bear one must use sterile water. So beer at least started out sterile/boiled before it went into the barrel.
This is complete and utter nonsense. The water used in beer often had bacteria (and other stuff) but to brew beer you must mash, at 65C for an hour or more, which pasteurizes the beer. Hops protect the beer against bacteria, and the yeast also makes it hard for other organisms to multiply in the fermented beer. Alcohol is one of those ways, but only one.
That is modern beer, the stuff made by people who know about bacteria. Prior to modern knowledge, beer recipies were based on trial and error. Boiling the water first avoided many spoilation problems that, today, we know how to prevent through other means.
Again this is stuff you're just inventing because you don't know better.
> Boiling the water first avoided many spoilation problems that, today, we know how to prevent through other means.
You have this backwards. Boiling or near-boiling the water is what's nearly universal now. It was much less common in the past.
> Prior to modern knowledge, beer recipies were based on trial and error.
Correct. However, all beer is mashed. You don't get beer without it. That's a one-hour 65C pasteurization at the very least. As far as we know, all European beer from the stone age until now was made this way. So you can take this part as ordained by the gods of chemistry. So no matter what you do about the water initially, the whole thing will be pasteurized afterwards.
There are still people today brewing traditional beer from recipes based on trial and error, with zero input from modern science. Some of them start with a mix of cold water and malts that they then heat in the kettle. Here's an example of me visiting and brewing with a guy who does exactly that https://www.garshol.priv.no/blog/409.html
If you want I can make you a map of where in Scandinavia and the Baltics people used this method the last 100-200 years. Before that people often didn't have kettles, and so (as far as we know) the water was not heated before brewing (long story exactly why we think so).
I think you misread the comment you're replying to.
> The alcohol wasnt what made beer safe. Beer was safer than water because to make bear one must use sterile water. So beer at least started out sterile/boiled before it went into the barrel.
AFAICS you're agreeing with this, so "complete and utter nonsense" seems a bit harsh
While yeast will consume most of the nutrients, there's still residual sugar in beer. Hops will inhibit microbial and bacterial growth, but they will not stop it completely.
Yes, there is residual sugar, but it's complex sugars that not even yeast that specializes in fermenting sugar can consume. Plus there is alpha acids from hops, as you point out, there is alcohol, pH is low, oxygen is gone, there's a CO2 blanket, etc. So it's a very, very difficult environment for microorganisms. Pretty close to none that cause disease can grow in this environment.
Is it more than 99.99999999999999% safe? No. Is it vastly safer that water? Yes.
A caveat being and mentioned in the article, that sailors didn't have access to the safe water of lakes and streams, thus beer. And as someone mentions below, it's safer to drink low alcohol beer than months old (untreated) water. I can see why people jump to the conclusion that beer was safer than water...and it makes for good cocktail hour small talk.
> sailors didn't have access to the safe water of lakes and streams
As if the water of lakes and streams was necessarily safe. Imagine drinking Thames water in the era before proper sewers. In 1858 (the Great Stink) the Thames stank so badly from feces that parts of Parliament became unusable.
Point of order, beer was stored in a higher alcohol percentage (which is where we get IPAs from) which does extend its shelf life significantly. The gallon was heavily watered down to serve.
Which is basically identical to lite beer we drink today. Hopefully with more flavor, but I don't actually know.
The article makes the clear claim that while there was beer on board there was no Scurvy.
Is the article wrong? Does beer have vitamin C? Does beer have something else that also cures Scurvy? Does beer running out also coincide with someone else running out that cures scurvy? Does beer running out also coincide with the body's natural ability to coast on no vitamin C? Is there something else in play that I can't think of?
I'm not qualified to answer that. I do know enough history to believe that the article was written be an expert in the age of sail and so I am inclined to believe claims that I didn't already know are facts.
You comment reads like someone took the simplified 4th grade history and repeating a fact out of context - and so I'm inclined to believe you are wrong in some way, but that is only my guess. If you (or someone else) can cite better evidence I will change my mind, for now I'm sticking with my comment as correct.
Yes. Or more to the point, it is uncritically repeating the medical theories of its eighteenth-century sources, which were wrong. See also [0], [1]. People had a really hard time figuring out how to stop scurvy, and the use of citrus as a remedy was not generally accepted until well into the nineteenth century.
> Does beer have vitamin C?
No.
> Does beer have something else that also cures Scurvy
Thanks for real links. I fall back to what I finished with: when someone shows me real science I will change my mind. Leaving the original comment for context only.
Beer staying fresh seems like a proxy for voyage duration. Longer trips means more likely to have run out of beer/vitamin C sources. No beer probably means no dock where sailors could have consumed anything other than highly preserved food.
Anyone downvoting this comment is not understanding how common this myth is, or not bothering to google to verify their own understanding. It's by far the most asked-about myth on /r/askhistorians. Someone asked this under 24 hours ago: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1k5ji8i/how_...
But it comes up a good 2-5x a month. I really want to know where this understanding came from.
The thing is that water was not really safe to drink, no matter what these people may tell you. There's a reason there are huge aid campaigns all over the Third World to ensure people have access to safe water. Some water is relatively safe to drink, but even in the wild you can get giardasis and other problems from drinking it. The more human beings are nearby, the more of an issue it becomes.
In the time before cars transporting water was not easy, so people usually had to get water from the nearest source. Wells were not necessarily safe, especially because both humans and animals tended to shit pretty much everywhere. Even today well water is not necessarily safe.
But did people know that drinking water was unsafe? Evidence on that is contradictory. They were certainly aware that some kinds of water was safer than others.
And was this why people drank beer instead? Not clear at all. It's completely possible they did it simply because they wanted to, although it was seen as healthy. That was because of the calories, though.
In many places they did not drink beer, however. Scotland and Norway drank blaand (a whey drink), and Eastern Europe drank a lot of kvass. Fermented birch sap and a drink from juniper berries were common, too. Not to mention a weird drink known as rostdrikke/taar/etc depending on language (takes too long to explain).
What I find interesting about this is that nobody seems to care to really dive into the details and describe the situation as it actually was. I realize it's a lot of work, but still.
I don't really get your point. Water isn't necessarily safe now, either. Just like now, you boil water if you are aware of risk. Just like now, people communicated about when to boil, where to gather water, skinning people alive for messing with the water (well that has perhaps improved a little bit), militaries would regularly poison water sources. And of course, you can find people today who willingly take dumb risks for no explicable reason. All of your uncertainty applies just as much to today as it did in the past.
Water has always been, is, and will be uncertain. But there's so much evidence of awareness of this that speculating people didn't drink water is absurd. Not to mention keeping water sources clean gets much harder with high populations we see today—we have roughly the same amount of water that we did before
Btw, you casually ACCEPTED that people drank beer instead of water when we know this is false. Even on ships (as you would know if you clicked through the askhistorians link under the top of the thread) ships did carry (a lot of!) water—it just wasn't listed as rationed unless supplies ran low. This was both drunk directly and added to the beer to produce the gallon allocated.
Ie you might follow the same rhetorical technique to say "why do you beat your wife? Well, the evidence is uncertain.", even if we have clear evidence you don't beat your wife.
You'd really have to find evidence that people explicitly avoided water to make such a claim. In all situations I can think of there was either certainty it was not potable (ie seawater, poisoned well, flooding, etc) and being unable to boil it.
> Just like now, you boil water if you are aware of risk.
People didn't do that, though. As far as I can tell, water-drinking was not particularly common. People went to surprising lengths to produce other forms of drinks, all of them fermented in some way.
> All of your uncertainty applies just as much to today as it did in the past.
What on earth do you mean by that? Today you have clean water from taps all over your house. In the old days, clean water was rare, and you had to carry it home. If you were lucky you could use a wagon, but it was still hard work.
I mean, yes, of course there was risk then and risk now, but the risk was orders of magnitude higher in the past.
> Btw, you casually ACCEPTED that people drank beer instead of water when we know this is false.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I've worked on this for a decade, collecting archive accounts from around Europe. I can quote you pages and pages and pages and pages of people writing about how they used to drink beer against thirst every day. Read [my book](https://www.brewerspublications.com/products/historical-brew...) for more.
> Even on ships (as you would know if you clicked through the askhistorians link under the top of the thread) ships did carry (a lot of!) water
Buy a subscription to Craft Beer & Brewing and read my article on [skibsøl](https://beerandbrewing.com/skibsol-smoky-ale-of-the-seas/) the Danish style of beer created expressly for the purpose of being drunk by sailors. It starts with the story of the gov't commission created to investigate improving the sailors' beer after the Battle of Køge Bay.
> You'd really have to find evidence that people explicitly avoided water to make such a claim.
I don't claim that people explicitly avoided water, because the evidence is thin and ambiguous. (Seriously, read the comment you replied to!) What I do claim is that people did drink lots of beer for thirst in various contexts (listing exactly which would make this too long). Exactly why they did is not clear, but we do know people thought beer was healthy. Probably they thought it was healthy because it has lots of calories. (This was a time when getting enough to eat was a challenge for large parts of the population.)
> As far as I can tell, water-drinking was not particularly common
Based on what? You certainly haven't given any indication of having read what historians have to say.
Granted, that subreddit could be a cabal of people colluding to make us think humans didn't go through a phase of drinking beer rather than water. It seems easier to believe you're trying to justify your own talking out of your ass if you can't respond to specific claims.
> In the old days, clean water was rare
What does this mean? Clean water was arguably much more common than it is today because of industrial contamination.
> What I do claim is that people did drink lots of beer for thirst in various contexts (listing exactly which would make this too long).
Nobody contests this. What is contested is fear of drinking water.
> I've worked on this for a decade, collecting archive accounts from around Europe. I can quote you pages and pages and pages and pages of people writing about how they used to drink beer against thirst every day.
Great! Pay up! I ain't reading your book.
Btw, you don't need metal to boil water. And beer is healthy if you're faced with a calorie deficit; it's loaded with nutrients. Perhaps you should use this as an argument for why people drank beer (allegedly and confusingly instead of water)
> I don't claim that people explicitly avoided water
Yes you did:
> And was this why people drank beer instead?
If you did not mean to imply that beer drinking came at the deficit of water drinking, you should consider rephrasing.
> What I do claim is that people did drink lots of beer for thirst in various contexts (listing exactly which would make this too long).
I have no doubt that someone in history said this, just as they did now; what I find hard to believe is that this was in any way normal or typical. One citation might be more meaningful than this entire thread. If you can provide a source, please do so.
Hell, I drink beer for thirst myself; against all rational judgement. This doesn't imply my tap water is unclean.
> Based on what? You certainly haven't given any indication of having read what historians have to say.
I am a historian. This is based on 10 years of reading ethnographic archive documentation of what people used to drink on farms, plus of course wide reading of ethnographic and historical literature on this.
> Clean water was arguably much more common than it is today because of industrial contamination.
Now imagine the effect on your well, which usually would be downhill from the houses.
> Nobody contests this. What is contested is fear of drinking water.
Actually, lots of people contest that people used to drink beer, but that's fine. Let's move on.
I agree fear of drinking water is tricky. Evidence on this one way or another is hazy and ambiguous, but it seems to be more a preference for beer. What motivated the preference is again tricky to pin down.
It's easy to come up with quotes showing aversion to water. Just look at the first page of Linné's "A Description of Beer" (actual title in Swedish) from 1749. It says straight out that many kinds of water are harmful and therefore people prefer beer. But it doesn't mean this was a general belief, and there's plenty of evidence the other way.
> Btw, you don't need metal to boil water.
I already linked to a paper on how to boil water without. But it does mean that it was difficult. And people didn't know they needed to. So they didn't.
>> I don't claim that people explicitly avoided water
>Yes you did:
Quote is missing or garbled somehow.
> > What I do claim is that people did drink lots of beer for thirst in various contexts (listing exactly which would make this too long).
> I have no doubt that someone in history said this, just as they did now; what I find hard to believe is that this was in any way normal or typical.
I think at this point the best thing I can do is point you to this, which is a relatively superficial summary of the evidence as I know it: https://www.garshol.priv.no/blog/433.html
Note the map with coloured dots. Every single one of those dots is a primary source where someone describes their own home parish.
The subject deserves a proper paper, but it's going to take a while before I have time to put one together.
Again, the claim is not against people drinking beer or water, it is against doing so out of some general fear of drinking water.
Perhaps I was too strident in my criticism of your substantial comments; I apologize.
However, I am still unconvinced that people in the past viewed beer as a replacement for potable water rather than a food-like complement to it. If water was generally regarded as less safe than beer, why were so many people brutally executed for messing with it? Why do we have so many sources noting with far more sensitivity than most have today to where you can find and drink water without boiling? Surely it is not a coincidence that springs whose water you didn't need to boil later grew towns and cities? Why do we have so much evidence of what amounts to seasonal boil advisories? Why was disease so strongly associated with the presence of armies if people weren't consuming the water that forms the natural vector for transmission?
I have no doubt the confidence to which we can say water was safe could be exaggerate in order to dispel the myth that people didn't generally drink water at all, but even today people drink from water sources that would make you or I sick without becoming ill themselves. Perhaps there is room for degree of safety that might explain how water can both be safe and unsafe.
My concern is not with doubt in the consumption of beer (or wine, or later liquor) but with the widespread impression that people in the past simply didn't drink water. Such a poor understanding of what you clearly understand is a complicated topic harms our ability to empathize with our ancestors.
> the claim is not against people drinking beer or water, it is against doing so out of some general fear of drinking water.
Okay, if that's the claim I would say the state of research at the moment is not 100% clear. It's quite possible that it's not why people did it.
> Perhaps I was too strident in my criticism of your substantial comments; I apologize.
Accepted!
> If water was generally regarded as less safe than beer, why were so many people brutally executed for messing with it?
Good question. One answer might be: because some people were forced to drink it even though it was unsafe, so making it even more unsafe was considered criminal. It's worth looking into, though.
> Surely it is not a coincidence that springs whose water you didn't need to boil later grew towns and cities?
I wonder how that worked out -- once there's a town around it the spring must become less safe. Do you have references on this? Doesn't need to be scholarly, just something specific.
> Why was disease so strongly associated with the presence of armies if people weren't consuming the water that forms the natural vector for transmission?
You can get diseases from food that's not properly washed, from your hands, etc. Many diseases also are transmitted via lice etc.
My claim is not that people never drank water. We know they did. But we also know they tried to stick to better things when they could. An army on the march is a classic case of people who would have a hard time consistently getting alcoholic drink because of poor logistics. So you'd expect at least parts of the army to be forced to drinking substandard stuff quite often.
> Perhaps there is room for degree of safety that might explain how water can both be safe and unsafe.
Oh, there absolutely is. What's more, people knew there were differing degrees of safety. Linné says exactly that in his 1749 pamphlet on beer (quoted in my blog post). Max Nelson also has a paper discussing how people made these distinctions in antiquity.
> My concern is [...] with the widespread impression that people in the past simply didn't drink water.
We're in agreement on that. They did drink water. They also very clearly preferred not to, but were often forced to. Why did they prefer not to? Not clear. Was the water unsafe? Yes. At least quite a lot of it. Did they know that? To some extent they clearly did. In summary form, that's basically as far as I've gotten.
Getting these people drinking water is hard, maybe even harder than brewing beer. Is there any campaigns to get africans to drink a gallon of beer a day?
> "Beer" had like 1% of alcohol content. Just enough to keep it without bacteria.
You need closer to 40% alcohol.
> Nobody cared what they liked.
Not in the British Navy. Food was very important to morale and they got a lot of it with the best quality they could manage. Meat every day was luxury few people could afford.
Mutiny was a very real risk. That's why warships carried so many marines. Good food goes a long way to preventing this.
First of all, many types of beer were historically not boiled. Quite a few still aren't. The mash, however, pasteurizes the beer.
That, however, doesn't last forever. In the conditions of the 18th century or whatever, microorganisms will get into the beer after mashing/boiling, so the heat treatment only helps for a while. The fermentation really does protect the beer afterwards, but it's a combination of low pH, alcohol, low oxygen, little nutrients, CO2, etc. Hops also help against gram-positive bacteria.
You're broadly right, but they were popular for most of the period we're discussing.
In continental Europe they were popular from roughly ~1000 onwards (see Behre 1999), in England from roughly 1500 onwards. In African and South American farmhouse brewing they're still not used. So it's a pretty complicated picture.
As the comment made clear, hops are only one component of what makes beer safe, though. Storable, safe beer for travel is documented already in Ancient Egypt.
The boil does kill the bacteria, but it's not preserved after the boil. At best it's as sterile as water; at worse it spoils faster due to the abundance of nutrients.
That's why it's kept sealed, under pressure. I wouldn't fill a water bottle and let it sit for many months before drinking it ever today. A beer bottle with CO2 atmosphere can sit for a long time.
There may be other reasons to prefer beer where the alcohol is relevant of course, just not for freshness. And freshness could absolutely have been relevant in the choice of drinks to load, together with low cost and acceptance in general.
Would technology that allows sealing of beer not apply even better to relatively nutrition-less water? Especially boiled water. Anything that can feed off of pottery + water or metal + water or glass + water is gonna take a lot longer to grow than basically any kind of familiar bacteria feeding off beer + any of the above.
> There may be other reasons to prefer beer where the alcohol is relevant of course
I imagine these are largely the same reasons people drink beer today. Spoiler: it generally ain't hydration or avoidance of disease.
Absolutely, I just suspect that wasn't a realistic option at the time. It is obvious a keg of beer has not gone flat but it's probably not as obvious when buying a keg of boiled water (if that even was a thing back then).
Ships carried literal tons of fresh water. I'm not sure the details of treatment or how it was provisioned—provisioning beer was such a massive logistical task we have mountains of records, but we have a paucity of corresponding records for water—but we have sufficient records of what happens when that fresh water disappears or becomes tainted to know it was of paramount importance.
Keeping water fresh is not quite as difficult as you might think. For one thing, wood has naturally antibacterial properties; it can be trivially sealed with pitch and tar (which also has antibacterial properties), and it just takes one quartermaster to babysit it.
If anything, beer is a way of preserving calories and boosting morale. The fact that drinking a gallon of it translates roughly to drinking 97% of a gallon of water and does end up being quite hydrating just doesn't imply that people didn't also drink water sans beer.
Wooden barrels were sealed and could handle high pressure. The trouble is that (long story) it was very difficult to get a precise amount of pressure, so people generally didn't even try. There are videos online of cases where people have failed and end up battling a beer barrel spraying beer like a firehose.
How is that enough? A highly nutritious liquid made from grain is a quite perfect environment for all kind of bacteria and other stuff to grow and spread. Relatively clean water? Not so much.
Right.. yet most beer in the middle ages was not hopped. In some areas like Britain it was virtually unknown and throughout most of Europe it didn’t become popular until the 1500s or so.
Sure, IPA can last for a very long time (that was kind of the point) most people didn’t drink that type of beer on a daily basis.
Some sailors were basically slaves, but like most slaves, they required a minimum to prevent revolt, especially at sea where they vastly outnumbered commanding officers and there was no reinforcement.
Beer has had a huge range of alcohol strengths, from Mesopotamia until today, so that statement is nonsensical.
> Just enough to keep it without bacteria.
1% is not enough to keep bacteria from growing in a beer. In general, more alcohol means it will keep longer, but to be truly safe you need to go quite high. This is a pretty complex issue, though.
As a general statement about Europe or the UK that's completely impossible. There wasn't enough cider for it to be more common than beer. We also know beer was the most common (then later grog, at least for the navy).
This might be true for some specific region or subset of ships, though.
I think it’s important to point out that almost everyone drank beer and it wasn’t because the water was bad. It was because they liked drinking beer.
Our modern culture doesn’t like the idea of people drinking beer all day so there has to be some scientific justification to make it acceptable to modern sensibilities.
The percentage of alcohol required to preserve beer for long periods is too high for sailors to be drinking a gallon of it per day.
> The percentage of alcohol required to preserve beer for long periods is too high for sailors to be drinking a gallon of it per day.
Reading this thread I think the best thing would be if people were forbidden from comment on the history of beer in online forums. Nobody knows anything, yet everyone is shouting their misunderstandings from the rooftops.
The Danish fleet, to take just one example, was completely dependent on a supply of "skibsøl", to the extent that the king started his own brewery to ensure his fleet had a supply. Later kings started a stupid brewing monopoly system in Copenhagen to ensure no breweries went bankrupt, again with the same aim. "Skibsøl" was a big thing in Norway and Sweden, too. The Royal Navy used to serve it, too, before switching to grog.
Yes, weak beer will turn sour, but it takes a lot to make it harmful.
> Yes, weak beer will turn sour, but it takes a lot to make it harmful.
While I agree in general with what you've said, this line is wrong. Strong beer will turn sour too. Acetobacter is good up to 10-15%, it's how we get malt vinegar and wine vinegar. All it needs is ethanol, oxygen, and time.
Sure. Hard to get all the details into a comment that's already too long.
In general, however, strong beer keeps much longer than weak beer. However, even if it does sour, that doesn't mean it's harmful to drink.
Ever gotten a bad case of gastroenteritis from a restaurant that made you swear never to go back and even turned you off an entire style of cuisine for, at least, a little while?
A few brushes with bad water might have given folk a strong preference for beer, just to be on the safe side, even if most water was safe.
Yet same wouldn’t apply to stale beer that went bad after a few days or weeks?
No, it wouldn't. It's very difficult to produce beer where harmful organisms can multiply. Post-fermentation it's an extremely difficult environment for most organisms.
Brewed beer can get yeast or bacterial infections, especially if you cannot refrigerate it and don't have the means to sanitize recipients.
Yes, it can. But infections by harmful organisms is very difficult to achieve. The common spoilage organisms in beer are all harmless to humans. Here's a good overview http://mmbr.asm.org/content/77/2/157.long
Just the hops alone stop pretty much all gram-positive bacteria except Lactobacillus and a few other harmless ones.
Often things that a lot of people do repeatedly for "pure enjoyment" actually has some hidden benefit.
Like for instance, drinking in general. People do it because it's fun, but it can play an important social bonding role.
Exactly. To my understanding any amount of alcohol is unhealthy, but societies have had festivals or other rituals since the beginning, and substances _like_ alcohol play an important role in those.
Water on ships wasn't that clean to begin with. And things were made worse by people maybe not observing good hygiene. Think sharing cups, dipping those in the water, not washing their hands, etc. Imagine that, stored in a poorly sealed barrel on a ship with rats and other pests. Water was pretty bad on ships. People would get sick and weak on longer journeys (malnutrition, contaminated water, rotting food, etc.). A lot of their diseases would spread via water.
Beer had a head start on water because part of the process of making it involves boiling the water and the alcohol slows the growth of most of the pathogens. And it has some nutritional value.
The alcohol wasnt what made beer safe. Beer was safer than water because to make bear one must use sterile water. So beer at least started out sterile/boiled before it went into the barrel.
This is complete and utter nonsense. The water used in beer often had bacteria (and other stuff) but to brew beer you must mash, at 65C for an hour or more, which pasteurizes the beer. Hops protect the beer against bacteria, and the yeast also makes it hard for other organisms to multiply in the fermented beer. Alcohol is one of those ways, but only one.
That is modern beer, the stuff made by people who know about bacteria. Prior to modern knowledge, beer recipies were based on trial and error. Boiling the water first avoided many spoilation problems that, today, we know how to prevent through other means.
Again this is stuff you're just inventing because you don't know better.
> Boiling the water first avoided many spoilation problems that, today, we know how to prevent through other means.
You have this backwards. Boiling or near-boiling the water is what's nearly universal now. It was much less common in the past.
> Prior to modern knowledge, beer recipies were based on trial and error.
Correct. However, all beer is mashed. You don't get beer without it. That's a one-hour 65C pasteurization at the very least. As far as we know, all European beer from the stone age until now was made this way. So you can take this part as ordained by the gods of chemistry. So no matter what you do about the water initially, the whole thing will be pasteurized afterwards.
There are still people today brewing traditional beer from recipes based on trial and error, with zero input from modern science. Some of them start with a mix of cold water and malts that they then heat in the kettle. Here's an example of me visiting and brewing with a guy who does exactly that https://www.garshol.priv.no/blog/409.html
If you want I can make you a map of where in Scandinavia and the Baltics people used this method the last 100-200 years. Before that people often didn't have kettles, and so (as far as we know) the water was not heated before brewing (long story exactly why we think so).
I think you misread the comment you're replying to.
> The alcohol wasnt what made beer safe. Beer was safer than water because to make bear one must use sterile water. So beer at least started out sterile/boiled before it went into the barrel.
AFAICS you're agreeing with this, so "complete and utter nonsense" seems a bit harsh
This was the part I was referring to: "Beer was safer than water because to make bear one must use sterile water."
I agree I should have quoted that to be clearer.
It is my understanding that the yeast in the beer will consume everything it can and that is what keeps the beer preserved, or safe to drink.
While yeast will consume most of the nutrients, there's still residual sugar in beer. Hops will inhibit microbial and bacterial growth, but they will not stop it completely.
Yes, there is residual sugar, but it's complex sugars that not even yeast that specializes in fermenting sugar can consume. Plus there is alpha acids from hops, as you point out, there is alcohol, pH is low, oxygen is gone, there's a CO2 blanket, etc. So it's a very, very difficult environment for microorganisms. Pretty close to none that cause disease can grow in this environment.
Is it more than 99.99999999999999% safe? No. Is it vastly safer that water? Yes.
A caveat being and mentioned in the article, that sailors didn't have access to the safe water of lakes and streams, thus beer. And as someone mentions below, it's safer to drink low alcohol beer than months old (untreated) water. I can see why people jump to the conclusion that beer was safer than water...and it makes for good cocktail hour small talk.
> sailors didn't have access to the safe water of lakes and streams
As if the water of lakes and streams was necessarily safe. Imagine drinking Thames water in the era before proper sewers. In 1858 (the Great Stink) the Thames stank so badly from feces that parts of Parliament became unusable.
You’d have to go quite far upriver to avoid drinking seawater (since Thames is tidal) even before all the pollution.
Point of order, beer was stored in a higher alcohol percentage (which is where we get IPAs from) which does extend its shelf life significantly. The gallon was heavily watered down to serve.
Which is basically identical to lite beer we drink today. Hopefully with more flavor, but I don't actually know.
Beer was known to go bad on long voyages. So long as the beer held out though there was no scurvy.
Beer does not cure scurvy. Scurvy is caused by a lack of vitamin C, which is not in beer.
The article makes the clear claim that while there was beer on board there was no Scurvy.
Is the article wrong? Does beer have vitamin C? Does beer have something else that also cures Scurvy? Does beer running out also coincide with someone else running out that cures scurvy? Does beer running out also coincide with the body's natural ability to coast on no vitamin C? Is there something else in play that I can't think of?
I'm not qualified to answer that. I do know enough history to believe that the article was written be an expert in the age of sail and so I am inclined to believe claims that I didn't already know are facts.
You comment reads like someone took the simplified 4th grade history and repeating a fact out of context - and so I'm inclined to believe you are wrong in some way, but that is only my guess. If you (or someone else) can cite better evidence I will change my mind, for now I'm sticking with my comment as correct.
> Is the article wrong?
Yes. Or more to the point, it is uncritically repeating the medical theories of its eighteenth-century sources, which were wrong. See also [0], [1]. People had a really hard time figuring out how to stop scurvy, and the use of citrus as a remedy was not generally accepted until well into the nineteenth century.
> Does beer have vitamin C?
No.
> Does beer have something else that also cures Scurvy
No. Scurvy is vitamin-C deficiency.
[0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12810402/
[1]: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/04/the-budweiser-di...
Thanks for real links. I fall back to what I finished with: when someone shows me real science I will change my mind. Leaving the original comment for context only.
Beer staying fresh seems like a proxy for voyage duration. Longer trips means more likely to have run out of beer/vitamin C sources. No beer probably means no dock where sailors could have consumed anything other than highly preserved food.
Anyone downvoting this comment is not understanding how common this myth is, or not bothering to google to verify their own understanding. It's by far the most asked-about myth on /r/askhistorians. Someone asked this under 24 hours ago: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1k5ji8i/how_...
But it comes up a good 2-5x a month. I really want to know where this understanding came from.
The thing is that water was not really safe to drink, no matter what these people may tell you. There's a reason there are huge aid campaigns all over the Third World to ensure people have access to safe water. Some water is relatively safe to drink, but even in the wild you can get giardasis and other problems from drinking it. The more human beings are nearby, the more of an issue it becomes.
In the time before cars transporting water was not easy, so people usually had to get water from the nearest source. Wells were not necessarily safe, especially because both humans and animals tended to shit pretty much everywhere. Even today well water is not necessarily safe.
But did people know that drinking water was unsafe? Evidence on that is contradictory. They were certainly aware that some kinds of water was safer than others.
And was this why people drank beer instead? Not clear at all. It's completely possible they did it simply because they wanted to, although it was seen as healthy. That was because of the calories, though.
In many places they did not drink beer, however. Scotland and Norway drank blaand (a whey drink), and Eastern Europe drank a lot of kvass. Fermented birch sap and a drink from juniper berries were common, too. Not to mention a weird drink known as rostdrikke/taar/etc depending on language (takes too long to explain).
What I find interesting about this is that nobody seems to care to really dive into the details and describe the situation as it actually was. I realize it's a lot of work, but still.
I don't really get your point. Water isn't necessarily safe now, either. Just like now, you boil water if you are aware of risk. Just like now, people communicated about when to boil, where to gather water, skinning people alive for messing with the water (well that has perhaps improved a little bit), militaries would regularly poison water sources. And of course, you can find people today who willingly take dumb risks for no explicable reason. All of your uncertainty applies just as much to today as it did in the past.
Water has always been, is, and will be uncertain. But there's so much evidence of awareness of this that speculating people didn't drink water is absurd. Not to mention keeping water sources clean gets much harder with high populations we see today—we have roughly the same amount of water that we did before
Btw, you casually ACCEPTED that people drank beer instead of water when we know this is false. Even on ships (as you would know if you clicked through the askhistorians link under the top of the thread) ships did carry (a lot of!) water—it just wasn't listed as rationed unless supplies ran low. This was both drunk directly and added to the beer to produce the gallon allocated.
Ie you might follow the same rhetorical technique to say "why do you beat your wife? Well, the evidence is uncertain.", even if we have clear evidence you don't beat your wife.
You'd really have to find evidence that people explicitly avoided water to make such a claim. In all situations I can think of there was either certainty it was not potable (ie seawater, poisoned well, flooding, etc) and being unable to boil it.
> Just like now, you boil water if you are aware of risk.
People didn't do that, though. As far as I can tell, water-drinking was not particularly common. People went to surprising lengths to produce other forms of drinks, all of them fermented in some way.
> All of your uncertainty applies just as much to today as it did in the past.
What on earth do you mean by that? Today you have clean water from taps all over your house. In the old days, clean water was rare, and you had to carry it home. If you were lucky you could use a wagon, but it was still hard work.
I mean, yes, of course there was risk then and risk now, but the risk was orders of magnitude higher in the past.
> Btw, you casually ACCEPTED that people drank beer instead of water when we know this is false.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I've worked on this for a decade, collecting archive accounts from around Europe. I can quote you pages and pages and pages and pages of people writing about how they used to drink beer against thirst every day. Read [my book](https://www.brewerspublications.com/products/historical-brew...) for more.
> Even on ships (as you would know if you clicked through the askhistorians link under the top of the thread) ships did carry (a lot of!) water
Buy a subscription to Craft Beer & Brewing and read my article on [skibsøl](https://beerandbrewing.com/skibsol-smoky-ale-of-the-seas/) the Danish style of beer created expressly for the purpose of being drunk by sailors. It starts with the story of the gov't commission created to investigate improving the sailors' beer after the Battle of Køge Bay.
> You'd really have to find evidence that people explicitly avoided water to make such a claim.
I don't claim that people explicitly avoided water, because the evidence is thin and ambiguous. (Seriously, read the comment you replied to!) What I do claim is that people did drink lots of beer for thirst in various contexts (listing exactly which would make this too long). Exactly why they did is not clear, but we do know people thought beer was healthy. Probably they thought it was healthy because it has lots of calories. (This was a time when getting enough to eat was a challenge for large parts of the population.)
> being unable to boil it.
Again, people didn't do that. You don't need to go back very far in time before people didn't have easy access to metal containers to boil in. Long story, [this chapter explains](https://press.nordicopenaccess.no/cdf/catalog/view/238/1292/...).
> As far as I can tell, water-drinking was not particularly common
Based on what? You certainly haven't given any indication of having read what historians have to say.
Granted, that subreddit could be a cabal of people colluding to make us think humans didn't go through a phase of drinking beer rather than water. It seems easier to believe you're trying to justify your own talking out of your ass if you can't respond to specific claims.
> In the old days, clean water was rare
What does this mean? Clean water was arguably much more common than it is today because of industrial contamination.
> What I do claim is that people did drink lots of beer for thirst in various contexts (listing exactly which would make this too long).
Nobody contests this. What is contested is fear of drinking water.
> I've worked on this for a decade, collecting archive accounts from around Europe. I can quote you pages and pages and pages and pages of people writing about how they used to drink beer against thirst every day.
Great! Pay up! I ain't reading your book.
Btw, you don't need metal to boil water. And beer is healthy if you're faced with a calorie deficit; it's loaded with nutrients. Perhaps you should use this as an argument for why people drank beer (allegedly and confusingly instead of water)
> I don't claim that people explicitly avoided water
Yes you did:
> And was this why people drank beer instead?
If you did not mean to imply that beer drinking came at the deficit of water drinking, you should consider rephrasing.
> What I do claim is that people did drink lots of beer for thirst in various contexts (listing exactly which would make this too long).
I have no doubt that someone in history said this, just as they did now; what I find hard to believe is that this was in any way normal or typical. One citation might be more meaningful than this entire thread. If you can provide a source, please do so.
Hell, I drink beer for thirst myself; against all rational judgement. This doesn't imply my tap water is unclean.
> Based on what? You certainly haven't given any indication of having read what historians have to say.
I am a historian. This is based on 10 years of reading ethnographic archive documentation of what people used to drink on farms, plus of course wide reading of ethnographic and historical literature on this.
> Clean water was arguably much more common than it is today because of industrial contamination.
Industrial contamination is not the issue. The issue is bacteria and other micro-organisms. This page is very good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterborne_disease
This is what toilets used to look like, from a museum in Gotland, Sweden. https://img.garshol.priv.no/photoserv.py?t378684
Now imagine the effect on your well, which usually would be downhill from the houses.
> Nobody contests this. What is contested is fear of drinking water.
Actually, lots of people contest that people used to drink beer, but that's fine. Let's move on.
I agree fear of drinking water is tricky. Evidence on this one way or another is hazy and ambiguous, but it seems to be more a preference for beer. What motivated the preference is again tricky to pin down.
It's easy to come up with quotes showing aversion to water. Just look at the first page of Linné's "A Description of Beer" (actual title in Swedish) from 1749. It says straight out that many kinds of water are harmful and therefore people prefer beer. But it doesn't mean this was a general belief, and there's plenty of evidence the other way.
> Btw, you don't need metal to boil water.
I already linked to a paper on how to boil water without. But it does mean that it was difficult. And people didn't know they needed to. So they didn't.
>> I don't claim that people explicitly avoided water
>Yes you did:
Quote is missing or garbled somehow.
> > What I do claim is that people did drink lots of beer for thirst in various contexts (listing exactly which would make this too long).
> I have no doubt that someone in history said this, just as they did now; what I find hard to believe is that this was in any way normal or typical.
I think at this point the best thing I can do is point you to this, which is a relatively superficial summary of the evidence as I know it: https://www.garshol.priv.no/blog/433.html
Note the map with coloured dots. Every single one of those dots is a primary source where someone describes their own home parish.
The subject deserves a proper paper, but it's going to take a while before I have time to put one together.
That blog post is from 2022. Here's the state of that map today: https://imgur.com/a/K8YmqV7
Note that it was not just common to drink beer every day. French schools served wine with lunch until 1981. https://www.vice.com/fr/article/quand-les-enfants-buvaient-d...
Again, the claim is not against people drinking beer or water, it is against doing so out of some general fear of drinking water.
Perhaps I was too strident in my criticism of your substantial comments; I apologize.
However, I am still unconvinced that people in the past viewed beer as a replacement for potable water rather than a food-like complement to it. If water was generally regarded as less safe than beer, why were so many people brutally executed for messing with it? Why do we have so many sources noting with far more sensitivity than most have today to where you can find and drink water without boiling? Surely it is not a coincidence that springs whose water you didn't need to boil later grew towns and cities? Why do we have so much evidence of what amounts to seasonal boil advisories? Why was disease so strongly associated with the presence of armies if people weren't consuming the water that forms the natural vector for transmission?
I have no doubt the confidence to which we can say water was safe could be exaggerate in order to dispel the myth that people didn't generally drink water at all, but even today people drink from water sources that would make you or I sick without becoming ill themselves. Perhaps there is room for degree of safety that might explain how water can both be safe and unsafe.
My concern is not with doubt in the consumption of beer (or wine, or later liquor) but with the widespread impression that people in the past simply didn't drink water. Such a poor understanding of what you clearly understand is a complicated topic harms our ability to empathize with our ancestors.
> the claim is not against people drinking beer or water, it is against doing so out of some general fear of drinking water.
Okay, if that's the claim I would say the state of research at the moment is not 100% clear. It's quite possible that it's not why people did it.
> Perhaps I was too strident in my criticism of your substantial comments; I apologize.
Accepted!
> If water was generally regarded as less safe than beer, why were so many people brutally executed for messing with it?
Good question. One answer might be: because some people were forced to drink it even though it was unsafe, so making it even more unsafe was considered criminal. It's worth looking into, though.
> Surely it is not a coincidence that springs whose water you didn't need to boil later grew towns and cities?
I wonder how that worked out -- once there's a town around it the spring must become less safe. Do you have references on this? Doesn't need to be scholarly, just something specific.
> Why was disease so strongly associated with the presence of armies if people weren't consuming the water that forms the natural vector for transmission?
You can get diseases from food that's not properly washed, from your hands, etc. Many diseases also are transmitted via lice etc.
My claim is not that people never drank water. We know they did. But we also know they tried to stick to better things when they could. An army on the march is a classic case of people who would have a hard time consistently getting alcoholic drink because of poor logistics. So you'd expect at least parts of the army to be forced to drinking substandard stuff quite often.
> Perhaps there is room for degree of safety that might explain how water can both be safe and unsafe.
Oh, there absolutely is. What's more, people knew there were differing degrees of safety. Linné says exactly that in his 1749 pamphlet on beer (quoted in my blog post). Max Nelson also has a paper discussing how people made these distinctions in antiquity.
> My concern is [...] with the widespread impression that people in the past simply didn't drink water.
We're in agreement on that. They did drink water. They also very clearly preferred not to, but were often forced to. Why did they prefer not to? Not clear. Was the water unsafe? Yes. At least quite a lot of it. Did they know that? To some extent they clearly did. In summary form, that's basically as far as I've gotten.
Getting these people drinking water is hard, maybe even harder than brewing beer. Is there any campaigns to get africans to drink a gallon of beer a day?
Lots of Africans already do drink a gallon of beer a day. Farmhouse brewing is very widespread in Africa.
Bit of both, but good grog keeps people happy.
"Beer" had like 1% of alcohol content. Just enough to keep it without bacteria.
Drinking 2 month old stale untreated water... good luck with that.
> they liked drinking beer
Sailors were basically slaves. Nobody cared what they liked. But if crew dies from diarrhia, that is a big problem!
> "Beer" had like 1% of alcohol content. Just enough to keep it without bacteria.
You need closer to 40% alcohol.
> Nobody cared what they liked.
Not in the British Navy. Food was very important to morale and they got a lot of it with the best quality they could manage. Meat every day was luxury few people could afford.
Mutiny was a very real risk. That's why warships carried so many marines. Good food goes a long way to preventing this.
> Just enough to keep it without bacteria.
Bacteria (and certainly viruses) can survive 80 proof liquor. 1% alcohol is going to have very little sterilization effect.
It's not the alcohol that's supposed to kill bacteria, it's the long boil.
First of all, many types of beer were historically not boiled. Quite a few still aren't. The mash, however, pasteurizes the beer.
That, however, doesn't last forever. In the conditions of the 18th century or whatever, microorganisms will get into the beer after mashing/boiling, so the heat treatment only helps for a while. The fermentation really does protect the beer afterwards, but it's a combination of low pH, alcohol, low oxygen, little nutrients, CO2, etc. Hops also help against gram-positive bacteria.
Hops weren’t that popular until the 1400-1500s (or not used at all in some places like England) though
You're broadly right, but they were popular for most of the period we're discussing.
In continental Europe they were popular from roughly ~1000 onwards (see Behre 1999), in England from roughly 1500 onwards. In African and South American farmhouse brewing they're still not used. So it's a pretty complicated picture.
As the comment made clear, hops are only one component of what makes beer safe, though. Storable, safe beer for travel is documented already in Ancient Egypt.
The boil does kill the bacteria, but it's not preserved after the boil. At best it's as sterile as water; at worse it spoils faster due to the abundance of nutrients.
That's why it's kept sealed, under pressure. I wouldn't fill a water bottle and let it sit for many months before drinking it ever today. A beer bottle with CO2 atmosphere can sit for a long time.
There may be other reasons to prefer beer where the alcohol is relevant of course, just not for freshness. And freshness could absolutely have been relevant in the choice of drinks to load, together with low cost and acceptance in general.
Would technology that allows sealing of beer not apply even better to relatively nutrition-less water? Especially boiled water. Anything that can feed off of pottery + water or metal + water or glass + water is gonna take a lot longer to grow than basically any kind of familiar bacteria feeding off beer + any of the above.
> There may be other reasons to prefer beer where the alcohol is relevant of course
I imagine these are largely the same reasons people drink beer today. Spoiler: it generally ain't hydration or avoidance of disease.
> relatively nutrition-less water
That's what I was thinking. Why would boiled water kept hermetically sealed in a glass bottle for a year go bad ?
Absolutely, I just suspect that wasn't a realistic option at the time. It is obvious a keg of beer has not gone flat but it's probably not as obvious when buying a keg of boiled water (if that even was a thing back then).
Ships carried literal tons of fresh water. I'm not sure the details of treatment or how it was provisioned—provisioning beer was such a massive logistical task we have mountains of records, but we have a paucity of corresponding records for water—but we have sufficient records of what happens when that fresh water disappears or becomes tainted to know it was of paramount importance.
Keeping water fresh is not quite as difficult as you might think. For one thing, wood has naturally antibacterial properties; it can be trivially sealed with pitch and tar (which also has antibacterial properties), and it just takes one quartermaster to babysit it.
If anything, beer is a way of preserving calories and boosting morale. The fact that drinking a gallon of it translates roughly to drinking 97% of a gallon of water and does end up being quite hydrating just doesn't imply that people didn't also drink water sans beer.
Sealing liquids user pressure on a large scale wasn’t really feasible back in those days though. They were just generally kept in wooden barrels.
Wooden barrels were sealed and could handle high pressure. The trouble is that (long story) it was very difficult to get a precise amount of pressure, so people generally didn't even try. There are videos online of cases where people have failed and end up battling a beer barrel spraying beer like a firehose.
What exactly would happen if I kept water in a sealed glass bottle and drank it after a year ?
Yes and ancient Greeks and Romans already knew that boiling water somehow makes it safer to drink.
Yet people continued wasting resources on time on making beer and similar drinks due to whatever reasons..
> Beer" had like 1% of alcohol content.
How is that enough? A highly nutritious liquid made from grain is a quite perfect environment for all kind of bacteria and other stuff to grow and spread. Relatively clean water? Not so much.
start with pasturization, then add hops. Beer will go bad but not fast-
Right.. yet most beer in the middle ages was not hopped. In some areas like Britain it was virtually unknown and throughout most of Europe it didn’t become popular until the 1500s or so.
Sure, IPA can last for a very long time (that was kind of the point) most people didn’t drink that type of beer on a daily basis.
The age of sail didn't start until after 1500
Some sailors were basically slaves, but like most slaves, they required a minimum to prevent revolt, especially at sea where they vastly outnumbered commanding officers and there was no reinforcement.
> "Beer" had like 1% of alcohol content.
Beer has had a huge range of alcohol strengths, from Mesopotamia until today, so that statement is nonsensical.
> Just enough to keep it without bacteria.
1% is not enough to keep bacteria from growing in a beer. In general, more alcohol means it will keep longer, but to be truly safe you need to go quite high. This is a pretty complex issue, though.
In the 17th and 18th centuries cider was far more prevalent on board - and massive amounts of it to boot.
Source: Cider Country (James Crowden)
As a general statement about Europe or the UK that's completely impossible. There wasn't enough cider for it to be more common than beer. We also know beer was the most common (then later grog, at least for the navy).
This might be true for some specific region or subset of ships, though.
No mention of sauerkraut ?