Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI

[Max_Killjoy]

As far as beer and wine vs water goes. As I understand it there is little to know evidence that people in the past drank only beer or other beverages to keep from getting sick while there is quite a lot of evidence that people drank water and that towns and cities put a lot of effort into securing fresh water sources.

Would have to go back and check posts, but I don't think anyone claimed that people drank only beer, etc.

[Carl]

To be 100% fair to the F-35 it started life as a specification broadly similar tot eh F-16/F-18 but with a remit to take advantage of new tech since then to build in better electronics, stealth, and supercruise features. None of thats really an issue to achieve, the resulting plane isn't going to be as cheap or capable at any single role as a dedicated aircraft, but it's good enough and cheap enough that it is an acceptable plane for what it's designed for. But then the whole STOL/VTOL and that allways requires compromises. It's basically the F-111 problem all over again, trying to build a plane thats all things to all people is a compromise too far.

[Mike_G]

To be 100% fair to the F-35 it started life as a specification broadly similar tot eh F-16/F-18 but with a remit to take advantage of new tech since then to build in better electronics, stealth, and supercruise features. None of thats really an issue to achieve, the resulting plane isn't going to be as cheap or capable at any single role as a dedicated aircraft, but it's good enough and cheap enough that it is an acceptable plane for what it's designed for. But then the whole STOL/VTOL and that allways requires compromises. It's basically the F-111 problem all over again, trying to build a plane thats all things to all people is a compromise too far.

So build an improved F-18, and improved A-10 and an improved Harrier, rather than a huge, expensive boondogle that won't do any of those jobs as well.

We don't have a Navy of one model of all purpose carrier/cruiser/destroyers. We don't have an infantry company where every man has a rifle, LMG, ATGM, mortar and sniper rifle. Why the hell do we think we can make one fighter that can do everything?

[Vinyadan]

So build an improved F-18, and improved A-10 and an improved Harrier, rather than a huge, expensive boondogle that won't do any of those jobs as well.

We don't have a Navy of one model of all purpose carrier/cruiser/destroyers. We don't have an infantry company where every man has a rifle, LMG, ATGM, mortar and sniper rifle. Why the hell do we think we can make one fighter that can do everything?

They like gish classes :P Just be happy they didn't throw a B-52 and a tanker seaplane into the mix, too. Maybe with oil rig capabilities included, just in case they run out of fuel.

[Carl]

So build an improved F-18, and improved A-10 and an improved Harrier, rather than a huge, expensive boondogle that won't do any of those jobs as well.

Well thats more or less how it started out, but then they started stacking stuff. The real issue, (as i understand it), is that what started as a US air force/navy joint project to provide a stealthed, high tech avionics, supercruise replacement for the F-16/F-18 in the dual role ground attack/air superiority category, (i.e. a direct replacement for an existing plane), morphed over time as other service branches and american allies threw in requirements and they tried to make a "NATO" jet rather than a US Air Force/Navy Jet. The European powers mostly operate carriers without catapults and the marines want a direct replacement for the harrier and they decided to try and do a one plane covers all job and it's just bogged the whole thing down in compromises. AFAIK the F-16/F-18 are considered very good multi-role aircraft and the original plan would likely have produced a good plane, but adding that much, well i'm reminded about the story of the bradley's development...

Too many cooks spoiling the broth and all that.

They like gish classes :P Just be happy they didn't throw a B-52 and a tanker seaplane into the mix, too. Maybe with oil rig capabilities included, just in case they run out of fuel.

Nobody wants heavy bombers anymore. Personally i think thats kinda silly given how weapons tech has turned out, but thats a whole other discussion.

[Gnoman]

The F-35 had so many things going against it that it is practically a miracle that what's been produced is as good as it is. Quite apart from the inherent flaws in the "One aircraft for every purpose" boondoggle that has a very obvious origin (the F-18 has already replaced all other Navy aircraft in carrier service, vastly increasing flexibility (although this was possible because the entire mission of the F-14 was axed and the A6 was an overall obsolete design), the F-16 is a global workhorse for land-based services, the planes aren't that different overall (the F-18 is a development of the YF-17 that competed against the F-16 in the Light Fighter Program) so it should be reasonable to build one plane that can duplicate both), there's also the requirement to work with as many defense contractors as possible (in order to make sure those companies stay in business so that the country retains a diverse military R&D/Manufacturing base against future need), and the fact that the plane was accepted into service well before the design was finished.


As for the A-10, the detractors want it gone because it is a single-mission aircraft (much out of style nowadays), it lacks precision bombing capability (which is a capacity that is very much in style even though it is useless in the CAS role), and the Air Force has always hated the Close Air Support mission anyway.

[BayardSPSR]

On F-35: the international participants in the program are a large part of it. If you axe the F-35, you axe the only stealth fighter that any US ally is going to have access to for the next several decades. Keep the F-35, and you get a whole bunch of allies with them too.

[Mike_G]

As for the A-10, the detractors want it gone because it is a single-mission aircraft (much out of style nowadays), it lacks precision bombing capability (which is a capacity that is very much in style even though it is useless in the CAS role), and the Air Force has always hated the Close Air Support mission anyway.

The Chair Force worried they may have to actually see the enemy?

[PersonMan]

Question: In a modern-day type of conflict, what sort of situation could lead to a sort of "miracle victory", where an inferior (in numbers, possibly also equipment, etc.) force is able to stave off attacks and potentially even counterattack against a superior one?

How much does air superiority / supremacy make it more difficult - would it simply be a "bigger miracle" if the enemy has planes in the area as well, or would something like this more or less require the superior side to not have much air power present?

I'm looking to arrange a "two-week miracle" during the conquest of a smaller country by its much larger neighbors, a time during which the smaller country is able to defend and even push back the attackers before it collapses.

[Max_Killjoy]

Question: In a modern-day type of conflict, what sort of situation could lead to a sort of "miracle victory", where an inferior (in numbers, possibly also equipment, etc.) force is able to stave off attacks and potentially even counterattack against a superior one?

How much does air superiority / supremacy make it more difficult - would it simply be a "bigger miracle" if the enemy has planes in the area as well, or would something like this more or less require the superior side to not have much air power present?

I'm looking to arrange a "two-week miracle" during the conquest of a smaller country by its much larger neighbors, a time during which the smaller country is able to defend and even push back the attackers before it collapses.

If the larger countries have air dominance (the small nation's aircraft can't fly without being shot down, and their air defenses are fully suppressed), then the only thing they (the smaller country) can do to hold out like that is for their entire military to "go guerilla".

[Knaight]

If you look at the 6 days war, that was won largely by a surprise attack on planes sitting in an airfield believed to be out of range of the Israeli planes. This sort of thing - where a strategic target is highly vulnerable, but thought safe and left minimally defended - could happen in any number of different scenarios, and could easily at least buy time.

[Vinyadan]

Question: In a modern-day type of conflict, what sort of situation could lead to a sort of "miracle victory", where an inferior (in numbers, possibly also equipment, etc.) force is able to stave off attacks and potentially even counterattack against a superior one?

How much does air superiority / supremacy make it more difficult - would it simply be a "bigger miracle" if the enemy has planes in the area as well, or would something like this more or less require the superior side to not have much air power present?

I'm looking to arrange a "two-week miracle" during the conquest of a smaller country by its much larger neighbors, a time during which the smaller country is able to defend and even push back the attackers before it collapses.

There are all the wars the Soviets lost in its early years (e.g. against Poland, but also other, less absurd cases, like in the Baltic countries, Finland, Armenia). There is the first Chechen war. There is the Vietnam War, although that wasn't an American invasion. There are all the Afghan wars, where successful invasions aren't evidently enough to control the territory of a country which is actually a big box full of warring tribes.

Anyway, pretty much anything is possible. One option is for the stronger country to suddenly collapse and dissolve in different countries; a part of German-speaking historiography explains this way how Austria was defeated by Italy in WWI - that they weren't defeated by Italy, and that the country collapsed on its own in different nations.

Another option is a massive morale collapse, to the point that order is impossible to keep and the army pretty much disappears. This is what happened in Iraq during the first battles against ISIS.

Another option are fatal mistakes, or extreme exploitation of weak points. When India defeated Pakistan in 1971, one of the reasons was that Pakistan was already at war in East Pakistan. India blockaded the Bay of Bengal, so that Pakistani soldiers couldn't be rescued or pulled out. Some say this was also due to the wrong mentality, with the romantic idea that a single Pakistani soldier was worth eight Indians still running in the background.

In general, overextension, lack of money, lack of combustibles and lack of materiel can end a war, although I can't think of an example right now where the army didn't start a war with incomplete preparations.

Air force gives a clear reaching advantage, but the problem is what you are going to do with that advantage, if you can't bring the ground forces over there. Just think of the damage inflicted by bombing during WWII, it did hit cities, industries and rail roads, but it wasn't enough to win on its own, not without extreme blows like atomic warfare. Again, you can think about Vietnam, or Chechnya.

The larger problem I see is that of money. Either the larger country plunges into an economic crisis with no way out, or they will come back in a few years and conquer you (see: Poland, Baltic States, Chechnya), unless you create a situation in which war simply isn't an interesting proposal any more. The only example I can think of is the EC, and it only was created because of American efforts in preparation for another war.

OK, I had not noticed that you want the little country to actually lose. A two week miracle could work if an unexpected situation presents itself: a weapon capable of taking out soldiers inside vehicles deemed safe, for example, would make advancing much more difficult, and evaluation mistakes in the position of enemy forces can cause a counter-offensive to function. It all depends on the terrain. Or maybe the equipment is the wrong one: let's say that you were expecting to fight on the mountains, but your advance is stalled somehow before you get there. Your men have mountain equipment, but you actually are in the boggy terrain where water flows from the mountains. The enemy attacks you with the right equipment and tactics for the terrain and you have to pull out.

[PersonMan]

OK, I had not noticed that you want the little country to actually lose. A two week miracle could work if an unexpected situation presents itself: a weapon capable of taking out soldiers inside vehicles deemed safe, for example, would make advancing much more difficult, and evaluation mistakes in the position of enemy forces can cause a counter-offensive to function. It all depends on the terrain. Or maybe the equipment is the wrong one: let's say that you were expecting to fight on the mountains, but your advance is stalled somehow before you get there. Your men have mountain equipment, but you actually are in the boggy terrain where water flows from the mountains. The enemy attacks you with the right equipment and tactics for the terrain and you have to pull out.

Yeah, I think I didn't explain it well enough in my first post. I'm mostly thinking of individual battles, or a series of battles, rather than a massive strategic thing.

Thanks for the info, though!

[Hoosigander]

Question: In a modern-day type of conflict, what sort of situation could lead to a sort of "miracle victory", where an inferior (in numbers, possibly also equipment, etc.) force is able to stave off attacks and potentially even counterattack against a superior one?

The phrase "miracle victory" brings to mind the so-called "Miracle on the Vistula," which Vinyadin was alluding to in the mention of the various wars the early Soviet Union fought against neighboring states. The Battle of Warsaw was a decisive counterattack that defeated the Red Army as it approached the Polish capital itself. The key to the Polish victory was the weak southern flank of the Soviet advance. The Soviets had a northwestern front (advancing on Warsaw) and a southwestern front, (advancing on Lwów) the Mazyr Group which linked those two forces consisted of a single infantry division of 8,000 men.

However, the first Polish attack came in the North, when the 5th Army commanded by Władysław Sikorski crossed the Wkra. The 5th Army had been given almost all the meager armor the Poles possessed and they made rapid progress as the Soviet units were exhausted. Two days later a specially formed 20,00 man strong Assault Group under the personal command of Piłsudski attacked the single division linking the two Soviet fronts, advancing deep into the enemy rear, cutting off communications and splitting the Soviet forces. The result was a rout of the entire northwestern front. It's worth noting that the areas of Poland where most of the fighting took place are essentially one huge plain so both the Soviet advance and the Polish counter attack gained ground very quickly once the enemy was outflanked.

Besides the strategic failure, rivalries and disagreements between Soviet commanders also contributed to the deafeat. Semyon Budyonny, commander of the 1st Cavalry Army, took his army to support the advance on Lwów as opposed to Warsaw as ordered. The Poles also obviously benefited from from reduced supply lines and better logistics as the war approached Warsaw.

There are a few caveats to using the Polish-Soviet War as a model for a David V. Goliath victory. The first is that, by the summer of 1920, both armies had rough numerical parity with the other, both in terms of total forces and those involved in the Battle of Warsaw itself. The second is that, neither the Soviet nor the Polish armies were particularly well equipped. Thirdly, although the Russian Civil War was largely over the Soviets still had to commit forces elsewhere, including White resistance in the Crimea. So, the Red Army of 1920 was very far from the juggernaut of 20 years later.

To get the two-week miracle that you want for story purposes I think it could go something like this. Country A attacks country B and is able to rapidly advance almost to the gates of the capital itself. In the rapidity of its advance (and maybe it has a second front drifting the other direction to capture an important industrial city) it allows one of its flanks to become open and B's Army launches a counterattack into that gap. Perhaps the counterattack progresses more slowly that the Polish one due to more variegated terrain. After two weeks of the successful counterattack A's general is able to do what Mikhail Tukhachevsky could not and reorganize his army into a coherent front, perhaps along a river. From there country A can plot a more measured offensive or simply bleed B with attrition.

[fusilier]

Question: In a modern-day type of conflict, what sort of situation could lead to a sort of "miracle victory", where an inferior (in numbers, possibly also equipment, etc.) force is able to stave off attacks and potentially even counterattack against a superior one?

How much does air superiority / supremacy make it more difficult - would it simply be a "bigger miracle" if the enemy has planes in the area as well, or would something like this more or less require the superior side to not have much air power present?

I'm looking to arrange a "two-week miracle" during the conquest of a smaller country by its much larger neighbors, a time during which the smaller country is able to defend and even push back the attackers before it collapses.

One simple solution is for the attackers to badly underestimate the forces needed for a rapid victory, and the defender being well prepared. Examples include: Austria-Hungary attacking Serbia in WW1, Italy attacking Greece in WW2. Forces have to be mobilized and concentrated for an assault -- if there aren't enough of them present when the assault begins, and the attacker didn't anticipate this eventuality, it may take a longer amount of time before the reserves can be called up. The defender would need to be well prepared for the assault, which may mean they had forewarning of some sort.

Attacking ground targets from the air requires good intelligence on the location of key points (airfields, supply concentration points, etc.) -- the defender can defeat this, at least temporarily, by repositioning those resources, and hoping that the attacker's intelligence is out of date when they launch the offensive. (I think Poland managed to do this to a certain extent with their air force in 1939, by moving a lot of their aircraft to temporary bases, although it didn't help them too much).

[Vinyadan]

One simple solution is for the attackers to badly underestimate the forces needed for a rapid victory, and the defender being well prepared. Examples include: Austria-Hungary attacking Serbia in WW1, Italy attacking Greece in WW2. Forces have to be mobilized and concentrated for an assault -- if there aren't enough of them present when the assault begins, and the attacker didn't anticipate this eventuality, it may take a longer amount of time before the reserves can be called up. The defender would need to be well prepared for the assault, which may mean they had forewarning of some sort.

Darius attacking Athens deserves a honourable mention, even though he lacked an air force. :P

Semyon Budyonny

One of the best literary books written in the Soviet Union before WWII is Red Cavalry, by Isaak Babel, who reports some of his experiences in the Cavalry under Budyonny during the war. When he read it after the war, Budyonny asked for his execution. A terrific book, Stalin later censored it and purged Babel.

[Hoosigander]

One of the best literary books written in the Soviet Union before WWII is Red Cavalry, by Isaak Babel, who reports some of his experiences in the Cavalry under Budyonny during the war. When he read it after the war, Budyonny asked for his execution. A terrific book, Stalin later censored it and purged Babel.

Thanks for the recommendation, I've checked and found my local library has a copy so I'll get it soon.

[snowblizz]

Thanks for the recommendation, I've checked and found my local library has a copy so I'll get it soon.

*Pffft* They don't purge the way they used to I'll say that.

[BayardSPSR]

Question: In a modern-day type of conflict, what sort of situation could lead to a sort of "miracle victory", where an inferior (in numbers, possibly also equipment, etc.) force is able to stave off attacks and potentially even counterattack against a superior one?

...

I'm looking to arrange a "two-week miracle" during the conquest of a smaller country by its much larger neighbors, a time during which the smaller country is able to defend and even push back the attackers before it collapses.

Try looking at the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, and some of the offensives launched by Ukrainian forces in the fighting there, the vertical ambush at Karbala, and maybe even the Tet Offensive (tactical defeat, but strategic victory). Setbacks are always possible, though the longer the war and the more important the strategic objective of the larger side, the more likely they are to be temporary.

A "two-week miracle" is likely to involve extreme intelligence failures on the part of the dominant side. Possibly also logistical failures. Maybe the dominant side assesses that a large enemy unit has been destroyed by airstrikes which in reality struck decoys, and the surviving force achieves a local breakthrough that happens to seize or destroy the invader's fuel dumps, temporarily halting the invasion and scattering large numbers of hastily-mobilized reservists in the process?

If the invasion isn't being conducted by land, there's always the "lucky submarine sinks/cripples carrier" option.

If the larger countries have air dominance (the small nation's aircraft can't fly without being shot down, and their air defenses are fully suppressed), then the only thing they (the smaller country) can do to hold out like that is for their entire military to "go guerilla".

Complete air supremacy can be really hard to get and keep, though: it hasn't happened in most interstate wars, especially those without the US involved in them. Planes can't be airborne and ready to strike 24/7, and some kinds of target are extremely difficult to locate and engage, even with precision munitions, especially when air defenses can't be totally suppressed.

Weather could also be an issue.

[Martin Greywolf]

Concerning the topic of what people were drinking in olden days.

First thing you must accept is that there are no hard answers - literally no one bothered to write this sort of thing down. The most we have are bills from large celebrations, like royal weddings, or just religious celebrations in cities. These are, as you can imagine, not exactly representative of day to day life. Another source would be expenses for a militaryt campaign, but logistics were handled in large part by requisitioning the supplies nearby, so the information there is also incomplete.

1) Water

We know for a fact that a clean source of water was a big deal. Apart from laws and regulations concerning wells, the fact that many villages sprung up around sources of water (sometimes rivers and streams, sometimes springs) is very telling. People were likely reasonably aware of the fact that the larger the water source is, the less clean it will be - a river downstream is a bad idea for drinking water, mountain stream is a lot safer (marmot piss aside). At times, you were forced to use that for drinking, but those were desperation measures.

One thing that is often forgotten is that medieval or not, people knew to boil water to make it safe. Where you run into problems is knowing when to use it - since theory of disease spreading wasn't up to snuff, boiling, filtering and, later, distilling were only used to make a water that looked unclean safer. If they knew that water will give you runs by the means of trial and error, then they might boil it even if it looks clean, but they'd be more likely to find another source if possible.

Lastly, rain water can be gathered rather easily, and it was definitely used for drinking, as we know from many castles having huge cisterns to store it. Aside from cities and castles, it probably wouldn't be all that popular, since villages tended to have wells or streams nearby, but it could be used occassionally.

2) Non-alcoholic drinks

Making hooch isn't the only way to get safe drinks. Some drinks, like coffee or tea are made safer just because they have to be boiled, and these were, in a way, known in the medieval times too. You obviously had little tea preior to colonial empires, but oral tradition does come to the rescue. Local herbs were used not only as remedies, but sometimes to just have a good tasting drink that will warm you up. What was used depended on what was available, but most common variant were strawberry leaves, whether fresh or dried.

Let's also not forget what we would call juice, made of either fruit or vegetables. Apple ciders were especially popular, and apples were often stored over the winter (you can do so without drying them, if you know how), so they were available all year round.

Last but not least, we have milk, and that was a huge, huge source of drinks. Almost every single family had at least a cow or two, not counting sheep, goats and so on. There were recipes to prepare milk in all the ways imaginable, from sweetening it with honey (it's delicious, by the by) up to and including making into hooch.

3) Alcohol

This is the one people talk most about - ABV content was rarely over 30% during the middle ages, though. You need to distill stuff to make drink that strong, and that process wasn't invented quite yet, or at least not widely known. You can get strong concentrations of alcohol, around the 30% mark, byy freezing the drink and taking out the ice, but stuff like this was expensive.

Making the drink less potent by adding water was also popular, as was sneakily putting in water to rake in profits, as we know from many, many laws that detailed penalties to innkeepers who did it.

4) What DID they drink, then?

Well, this depends on the person in question. It's quite likely that a rich dude rarely drank pure water, having alcohol, honeyed milk or some other thing nearby. Traveling people usually used what was nearby, and usually tried to avoid local water, it seems - inns had tidy profits from selling alcohol to them.

People who couldn't afford to stay at an inn, well, that's something we know pretty much nothing about. If they had a cow with them, milk seems like a ready made source of fluids, otherwise, wells and springs would be preferred, and in a pinch, a stream will do. Using local herbs to make "tea" is also possible, especially is they weren't in a hurry.

Locals would drink water in reasonable quantities, if only because they were well aware which source is clean and which isn't.

Soldiers, well, all of the above, it really depends on what situation they're in. Sometimes, situation was desperate enough to just straight up start drinking from whatever was available, and as you can imagine, that rarely ended well - dysentery is what you get if you're lucky.

[Storm Bringer]

Question: In a modern-day type of conflict, what sort of situation could lead to a sort of "miracle victory", where an inferior (in numbers, possibly also equipment, etc.) force is able to stave off attacks and potentially even counterattack against a superior one?

How much does air superiority / supremacy make it more difficult - would it simply be a "bigger miracle" if the enemy has planes in the area as well, or would something like this more or less require the superior side to not have much air power present?

I'm looking to arrange a "two-week miracle" during the conquest of a smaller country by its much larger neighbors, a time during which the smaller country is able to defend and even push back the attackers before it collapses.

I note the use of the plural "neighbours" rather than the singular "neighbour". in collation warfare, their is room for major errors between partners based on simple misunderstandings to example, Country A might be responsible for everywhere east of City X, and Country B might be hold the line west of the city, but neither country actually attempts to take the city, and the defenders sally out unopposed and destroy a major supply dump that brings everything to a halt for weeks until more supplies can be brought up.

another option is the international partner for the small nation. Maybe a major power was funnelling in ammo and so on (much like the US supplies Israel), but was forced to widthdraw support in the face of international pressure. without the support and supplies, the invaded nation crumbles.


third road is the late joiner. the smaller invaded country is doing ok, but has had to throw everything and the kitchen sink into stopping the invasion. Country C, which has a border to the invaded country, decides that it either wants some of the spoils, or that it doesn't want the invading country defeated, so joins in the war and invades the small country, sealing its fate.

that said, the easiest way to have a "two week miracle" would be a systemic and wide spread underestimation of the smaller country, and a subsequent failure to assign enough forces to the initial attack. For example, the attackers commit second rate troops to the attack, thinking they will be more than good enough to steamroll the puny forces of the small nation. Or maybe they decide that this would be the perfect chance to test their new doctrine, fresh from eager mind of a general staff eager to justify their salaries. or maybe the political leaderships slaps restricting rules of engagement on them, to minimise damage to the prize and make occupation easier.

when they get their backsides kicked, the gloves come off. the elite troops get sent in, using tried and tested tactics and permissive ROE, and sort out the mess.

[BayardSPSR]

On the topic of "two-week miracles," take a look at Operation Badr, the Egyptian offensive at the start of the Yom Kippur War, thinking about it in the context of the on-again-off-again conflict between Egypt and Israel. Careful Egyptian planning + Israeli intelligence failures + sudden escalation = dramatic, but not decisive, victory. Even an outnumbered force could pull off something similar if they were able to gain a local superiority in numbers.

[fusilier]

Soldiers, well, all of the above, it really depends on what situation they're in. Sometimes, situation was desperate enough to just straight up start drinking from whatever was available, and as you can imagine, that rarely ended well - dysentery is what you get if you're lucky.

There's a journal of an officer of a company of volunteer infantry that travelled down the Santa Fe trail during the Mexican American War with General Kearny. At one point they were told that good water was only a few miles down the trail. After marching a few miles with no sign of water, they were again told that good water was just a few miles away. This went on all day, and when they finally reached the water it was brackish with green scum floating in it. The mounted troops had arrived before them, and none of them were drinking it. None of their horses or mules were drinking the water either. The infantry drank the water! They were all sick the next day.

Last but not least, we have milk, and that was a huge, huge source of drinks. Almost every single family had at least a cow or two, not counting sheep, goats and so on. There were recipes to prepare milk in all the ways imaginable, from sweetening it with honey (it's delicious, by the by) up to and including making into hooch.

I saw another article somewhat recently that pointed out that adults also consumed human milk, and that certain recipes even called for it.

[Martin Greywolf]

I saw another article somewhat recently that pointed out that adults also consumed human milk, and that certain recipes even called for it.

I'm massively skeptical of this, this sounds exactly like one of the things someone would write in a chronicle or travel journal to wow the people reading it (a.k.a. dog people syndrome), or as a bit of propaganda against people they didn't like. There was nos shortage of either, and I find that easier to believe that the logistical hassle of actually pulling this off.

Alternatively, it could be something that a nobleman with weird tastes (heh heh, tastes) did and got away with because, well, nobility. Also, no shortage of that either, just look at Elizabeth Bathory.

That said, if you have a source, I'd like to see it, maybe it was actually a thing...

[fusilier]

I'm massively skeptical of this, this sounds exactly like one of the things someone would write in a chronicle or travel journal to wow the people reading it (a.k.a. dog people syndrome), or as a bit of propaganda against people they didn't like. There was nos shortage of either, and I find that easier to believe that the logistical hassle of actually pulling this off.

Alternatively, it could be something that a nobleman with weird tastes (heh heh, tastes) did and got away with because, well, nobility. Also, no shortage of that either, just look at Elizabeth Bathory.

That said, if you have a source, I'd like to see it, maybe it was actually a thing...

May have been more of a remedy, but, like you said earlier, a lot has to be inferred --

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36072989

[cucchulainnn]

On the drinking thing. Lets not forget that there is more then one way to clean water. I read in several places that Romans issued vinegar to legions to use as a water purification system. A few table spoon fulls adds enough acid to kill most dangerous stuff. Add a little honey and it actually tastes pretty good. I know I've tried it. A wine skin of vinegar which can clean multiple gallons of water is a lot easier to carry then the water it self. The same basic recipe has been used ever since most recently called switchel, substituting molasses for the honey. The other benefit for a worker's or soldier's drink is it is high in the nutrients that we sweat out. You know electrolytes like what is in Brawndo.

I drive trucks with out AC and have been drinking switchel instead of gatoraid and like it much better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posca

[Hoosigander]

On the subject of Switchel, a clip from my favorite cooking show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8sPaesPOiU

[cucchulainnn]

On the subject of Switchel, a clip from my favorite cooking show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8sPaesPOiU

That is where I first heard about it. I was very hesitant to drink it. Lets be realistic, what is basically vinegar in water sounds gross. But it really is tasty. At the end of the day when I get home after sitting in what is box on top of a several hundred degree oven. I've sweat so much I look as though someone hosed me off. The switchel really does help. Although I stopped adding ginger. It was to much.

[BayardSPSR]

On the subject of Switchel, a clip from my favorite cooking show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8sPaesPOiU

This seems like something I must try; thank you both for bringing it up.

[Martin Greywolf]

May have been more of a remedy, but, like you said earlier, a lot has to be inferred --

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36072989

Ah, yes, that would make more sense, weird stuff as a remedy was pretty common, including possible human sacrifice in Hungary of 16th century. From reading the article, I'm pretty sure that's what it was and some incautious editing or rampant extrapolation led to them claiming that people drank it regularly. One other thing we should note is that the article's main academical person, Dr Joan Fitzpatrick, is a lecturer of English, not a historian per se.