[wredcoll]

Was there ever a serious belief that nobody drank water? That seems a bit much.

I can think of a fiction book that rather heavily pushed the idea, but it seems like a few minutes of thought would show that there's no way to produce/transport/store enough beer-type liquid for people working on a farm.

Conversely, an aristocrat/noble who travelled to a different continent might conceivably attempt to only drink beers/etc.

[GolfPopper]

The more common version of this, which I do remember hearing in history courses in college, was that people in the Middle Ages frequently mixed beer or wine with water. Whether that was done purely for taste, or in the belief that it would make potentially unsafe water safe, and what the details of making water safe to drink by mixing beer or wine with it actually are, I don't know. The author himself makes this point repeatedly, that water was frequently mixed with wine (at which point people are drinking watered wine).

It's like there are two parallel arguments:

"Medieval Europeans exclusively drank alcoholic beverages, because the water was so bad." And,

"We currently over-estimate the degree to which people in the Medieval-era consumed alcohol, and under-estimate the degree to which they drank pure water."

The author seems to conflate the two willy-nilly, claims the first to be widely held, and that he has disproved it (while, among others, citing Classical rather than Medieval sources).

[Ekaros]

Part of it I think was also that wine, but also likely beer was somewhat expensive. So adding water meant there was more liquid.

Mass production and transportation of everything at scales we have is very recent. So adding water to wine made it last longer.

[swasheck]

also, recalling from memory, standedge argues that the early perspective on wine was that it was simply a higher order of beer. it makes sense because there earliest beers were not hopped and would probably profile similarly to wine.

however, grape cultivation was more difficult/technical than grain cultivation which elevated the class of wine. it was also prized for its relative stability when diluted, with some maintaining the same (or better) flavor profile when diluted 1:2 water:wine. it was a true show of wealth to serve wine that was less than 1:1. (a history of the world in 6 glasses)

i’ve tried this with a few wine varietals and i can see what he’s saying in some regard, but it definitely alters the profile in ways.

[ralferoo]

> ... when diluted 1:2 water:wine. it was a true show of wealth to serve wine that was less than 1:1.

Did you mean 2:1 water:wine? If you meant 1:2 water:wine, then 1:1 would be weaker and I'm not sure how that would show wealth more than stronger wine.

[swasheck]

i definitely phrased it awkwardly (and incorrectly, upon the 3rd read) and, upon re-reading it, it is confusing to me as well

i was trying to say that i read that it was a show of wealth to serve wine that was less than 50% diluted, but that the norm was to serve 1 part wine to 2 parts water. thank you for the clarification.

[IAmBroom]

No, the ancients tended to be very exact with their beer/wine distinctions. There's separate English words for beer, wine, mead, herbed beer, herbed mead, fruited mead, cider, fruited cider, and so one.

[swasheck]

that's really good information. do you have sources on that? i was just citing the one i'd read but i'm happy to learn more - i'm fascinated by these sorts of things.

[sentinelsignal]

Interestingly enough this is my first time hearing about this whole drinking alcohol theory and its whimsical