So, if you're even tangentially interested in blogs or people who spend a lot of time

[conuly]

correcting things people think they know about history, you'll soon learn that a perennial topic is "Yes, people drank water in Medieval Europe", followed closely by "They took baths too!" And yeah, they drank a lot of ale and wine... but people today drink a lot of alcohol too, and for much the same reason - we like it! Or if we don't like alcohol we like soda, or coffee, or tea.

People in the middle ages did understand that some water was safe to drink and some wasn't, and they went through considerable lengths to bring clean, potable water to their towns. Not that most of them lived in towns, but in this case, living further from town is a bonus. Less people = less poop.

(Also, while there are other waterborne illnesses, cholera in particular didn't leave India until the 1800s, well into the modern period. I'm not sure it even existed prior to 1817. Please stop telling me earnestly about Snow and cholera in London. Totally different time period, totally different situation, totally irrelevant.)

Anyway, this just popped up on my feed yet again today, and it suddenly sparked a question in my head:

If people supposedly didn't drink water because they didn't want to get sick, what did their animals drink? Surely nobody thinks that medieval peasants were giving their cows and pigs ale? Or do they think that non-human animals are so hardy that they aren't at risk of waterborne illness? Or maybe that people just didn't care if their animals died, like every sheep isn't wealth, or at least a source of food and wool?

(I'm willing to bet that nobody has an answer to this question, but that if I ever ask them, should it come up in the wild, they'll be annoyed at me!)

Comments

[silveradept]

I would guess small beer, if someone were so insistent that nobody, not even the animals, would drink unclean water, since the fermentation and brewing processes are supposed to make an inhospitable environment for pathogens. (Assuming I remember that rightly about brewing and such.)

(The actual answer, that both of us know, involves finding better sources of water or using purification methods (for SCIENCE!))

[conuly]

Assuming I remember that rightly about brewing and such.

Assuming they remember rightly, which honestly, I wouldn't bet on.

[silveradept]

That does not seem very likely, no, if they're coming at this with the idea that nobody drank water.

[conuly]

And a quick check of google suggests that no, if you don't have a still, your ale is not going to have a high enough alcohol content to prevent bacterial growth or mold. The boiling process itself will kill whatever is already in the water, but that doesn't mean more stuff won't end up there.