Oh now, “blood sausage” (in Britain called ‘black pudding’) just **sounds **more posh if you call it boudin noir or Blutwurst or morcilla or anything that sounds just that little bit “foreign and exotic”. I think, though might be wrong, that it is very very low in carbohydrates, therefore a bit healthy. Anyway, all traditional foods no matter where, tend to be poor peasant foods and might consist of things we moderns think somehow indelicate.
Boiled Bread - I have **never **heard of this, but it must somehow make more sense than it sounds. Mustn’t it? Why boil bread?
Oh sorry: we’re a bit behind the times here and we thought fellatio was another new trendy way to do pasta. (Or, like the father in “The Wasp Factory”, a character from “Hamlet”.
Oh wait, why am I discussing this with a carnivorousplant? Oh noes, a triffid! Don’t you murder me. :eek:
Anyway, at least we didn’t invent McDonald’s.
Also, perhaps you cannot have black pudding unless you are a true Grand Master of Ecky Thump.
Apart from ‘boiled bread’, whatever that might mean (seriously, what is that? Never heard of it) I’d say your examples support Lust4Life’s point, rather than your refutation. Those are old dishes, either traditional or post war foods. Do you seriously think that’s all we eat here? We’ve moved on. Which was kind of his point.
Sorry for continuing the hijack, but this tired old stereotype irritates me as much as the whole teeth thing.
Yeah, but in milk. And that’s an ‘oh crap, it’s rationing and we don’t have any food to use as dessert’ thing too as far as I know. Bagels are the only bread I know that is boiled, you’re right.
No, not a stretch, because the English had just as many nasty diseases as the Spanish to spread to the New World. As it happened, the English seamen stuck to what they were good at, Privateering/freebooting, from the other Europeans who were filling their boots (and boats). Easy work!
Remember also that the glorious English navy didn’t defeat the Spanish Armada, it was in large part down to glorious English luck - or rather, the shitty weather, scuppering well-made plans for a nice trip out to the English countryside. Hmmm, that wouldn’t happen nowadays, would it?
Judging british food on things like this would be like judging American food on peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. It’s not the kind of thing you’d be served in a restaurant, and no-one would hold it up as the culinary best of the nation.
Nonetheless the things you’ve listed here are actually quite nice and you would have to be fairly ignorant to see them as examples of disgusting food. For example “toad in the hole” is sausages in a savory pancake. It’s not a million miles away from, say, a corn dog.
This is very interesting. I am convinced that Basque fisherman were taking cod off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland by the 1450’s-there may even been contact with the Norse colonists in Greenland. The reason for the secrecy about this is simple-the Basque monopoly of the cod trade was very valuable-the cod fishery was worth more than all the gold that the Spaniards took from the new world.
The crown never saw a percentage in shipping colonists overseas only to starve, get sick or be slaughtered by savages. The land was worthless, only whatever could be taken and sent home was relevant. Sir Walter Raleigh didn’t get a pat on the head when Roanoke went tits up. It wasn’t until after the Seven Years War when England controlled the seas did they see their ‘investment’ pay off, and then only as farmers they could subject to a trade monopoly.
If religious persecution was all that a colonial empire needed, Spain was light years ahead in that department. Religious persecution was a short term solution to a European problem not a long term strategy for global conquest. That England’s colonists were more common and more successful is really an indication of the lack of central authority in London, not a plan. Spain was wealthy and that wealth didn’t come from tax payers so they saw reason to appease or support them (see also: any dictatorship with oil resources)
I beg to differ, not in your conclusion but at least in the argument that you made to reach your conclusion. I do not question at all your statement that Britain’s navigation and sailing technology, as well as its naval power, was just a step behind that of Spain for much of the 16th century. However, I disagree somewhat that navigation and sailing capacity, or even naval power, was decisive in the Spanish conquest of the New World empires. It certainly was a necessary step in Spain managing to sail across the Atlantic Ocean and reach the Americas, but discovery doesn’t necessarily lead to conquest; in other words, the ability to send ships across to America was a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the conquest of the Aztec and Inca. For instance, Cortes actually burned his ships and went deep into Mexican territory, which nullified any advantage that the Spanish had on sea. Likewise, Pizarro in his conquest of the Inca Empire used ships to land in Peru, but the rest of the conquest took place on land, and involved armies and land-based forces, however small.
The English at this time could certainly have landed on the shores of Mexico or Peru just as the Spanish did. But if the English army then, and even the British army until much later, was not as large of a force as many of the continental European nations, whereas Spain’s army and land forces were acknowledged by other nations and proved themselves in numerous battles throughout the 16th and early 17th centuries to be the most powerful, it is less credible of a statement that England’s land forces were close to those of Spain during the time of the conquistadors, and even later on in the 16th century.
For example, Britain’s massive invasion of the Spanish Main at the Battle of Las Cartagenes de Indias during the War of Jenkins’ year in the mid 18th century was almost a complete defeat, but was expected to be a victory by the British government, which made victory medals. And even in the Seven Years’ War, in which Britain defeated the Franco-Spanish alliance, Spain’s military position resulted in a net gain, having exchanged lost Florida (which it reconquered in the ensuing American Revolutionary War) for the Louisiana Territory, whereas France lost all of its possessions in the North American mainland. I think in terms of the strength of its army, Britain equaled Spain for the first time, although by 1710 in the War of Spanish Succession, the First Duke of Marlborough’s generalship was superior to any Spanish counterpart in my opinion.
In my opinion, if England had transported the Spanish army (the Conquistadores) to the New World on its ships during their campaigns to conquer the Aztec and Inca, the Spanish could have still succeeded. If Spain had transported the English army to the New World on its ships and then stayed out of the fight entirely, the English probably wouldn’t be able to do what the Spanish did because of its significantly less powerful land forces (at that time), unless they did so with a strategy that involved naval power that was not the one pursued by the Spanish. In my opinion, the English would be the conquered, and they would suffer a grisly fate at the hands of the cruel Aztec and Inca victors.
The most violent parts of the Conquista were mostly over by the time the 17th century rolled around and it seems a bit incongruous to cite future successes to explain past ones; in Spain what gets a lot of credit for the American successes of the 16th is having run out of “Moors” to fight, after 8 centuries of almost-continuous war. The Americas were a sexier and easier target than Northern Africa, the Ottoman Empire or Northern Europe… not that those didn’t see their share of Spanish ships and Tercios. For many small-nobility second-sons from the areas where property went whole to the firstborn (and we had a lot of those), the Tercios and the New World were the best bet to “raise in the world”.
Why boil bread?
