Timeline for Is Game of Thrones realistic: food supplies during extended winters in medieval England
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 19, 2016 at 20:04 | history | edited | Fayth85 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added clarification
|
| Jul 19, 2016 at 14:45 | comment | added | Fayth85 | @Megha - Exactly. | |
| Jul 19, 2016 at 13:16 | comment | added | Megha | @Fayth85 - I see that point... and actually I think much the same way. Survivable is not the same thing as honorable, and possible is not the same thing as desirable. I think the society as a whole can survive (that is, exist and perpetuate), but I wouldn't want to live there. | |
| Jul 19, 2016 at 13:02 | comment | added | Fayth85 | @Megha Sorry, perhaps I should be clearer about my point of view. I'm a die-hard socialist. So if anyone dies due to preventable causes (i.e. freezing to death, lack of nutrition, etc) it's a loss for all. As such, salts, cheeses, and all the other well thought out answers are not an answer to me, because those things would not be available to the masses, and as such too many will die for this to be considered a 'good solution'. I'm not saying the rich won't make it, I'm saying I don't care if they make it while letting others die. | |
| Jul 19, 2016 at 2:34 | comment | added | Megha | @Fayth85 - blink. The two years viability (worst case with no other food and no other preservation) is still two years of full nutrition and flavor. Those who can afford it will suffer neither malnutrition nor starvation. There will be a sliding scale of those who can afford less of the fresher foods, and use more of increasingly stale or low quality foodstuffs, until there are those you mention and those that die... but a society can survive with a high replacement rate. And, like I said, that's without salting, smoking, pickling, or drying to extend the shelf life of other foods. | |
| Jul 18, 2016 at 22:30 | comment | added | Fayth85 | @Megha I didn't miss that, I'm just looking at more than what is shown. As you said, they can survive with malnutrition longer than starvation. However, at what cost? Yes, the people/livestock will be alive, but prolonged malnutrition leads to (at best) weakened immune systems (not a good thing mid winter). And that's being nice about it. So let's say you survive the one winter? But due to prolonged malnutrition, you and your people have no hopes of planting anything (assuming the seeds survived and are hardy enough to plant), can you honestly say you survived? | |
| Jul 18, 2016 at 21:33 | comment | added | Megha | @Fayth85 - I think you may have missed these sources are talking about best-by dates, after which the food will be less flavorful and nutritious, but still edible and still survivable. The first link admits frozen food can be safely eaten nearly indefinitely. And, even if the food is stale and tasteless, it would still be valuable if it had any nutrients, or any calories at all, since people can live with malnutrition longer than starvation. (also, your first link has up to a year for frozen steaks/roasts - one year for grains and a second for livestock is two years viability at worst) | |
| Jul 17, 2016 at 20:18 | comment | added | Fayth85 | Now, if you were to feed livestock for up to a year on the grains that can be kept good that long? Maybe. But that would perhaps extend survivability for another 9 months (if the two sources I cited are to be believed). That's a year and nine months, if you freeze the grain immediately after harvesting, which isn't likely to happen. As such, I argue that it isn't viable for the 2 years or longer, as is proposed. Am I wrong? | |
| Jul 17, 2016 at 20:16 | comment | added | Fayth85 | Trade was taken off the table in the original question, as far as I understand it. It's literally said that there isn't enough trade to sustain the people. Migration obviously isn't happening either. Hunting and livestock, yes, I've considered that. But wild game would need food to survive, and that just isn't happening in this scenario (edible plant life doesn't survive that well, and herbivores would need some kind of flora to be readily available). For a real world example, look at the extreme north. You only get pines and evergreens. | |
| Jul 17, 2016 at 20:14 | comment | added | user171 | @Fayth85 trade? migration to warmer areas? hunting? killing livestock? This answer really isn't sufficient. While you probably are correct in that it isn't really possible to survive two year winters, this answer needs to use a lot more evidence to prove that. | |
| Jul 17, 2016 at 19:45 | comment | added | Fayth85 | Perhaps. But if modern technology cannot allow for food to be stored properly for those longer periods, then I see no reason to research the plausibility with medieval options. Meaning, there is no way to ensure that food can be properly frozen (controlled/snap freezing, let alone avoiding freezer burn). As such, no, I see no realistic way for the hypothesis to be proven true. | |
| Jul 17, 2016 at 19:38 | comment | added | user171 | This answer doesn't really meet the requirements to be an answer to a hard-science question. | |
| Jul 17, 2016 at 19:09 | comment | added | Fayth85 | Just for clarification. 'frozen wrong', meaning the temperature drops slowly. The crystals I mentioned form naturally around what... -2 degrees Centigrade? That's why you need to 'snap freeze' foods if you want to keep it 'fresh', to avoid the crystals forming. | |
| Jul 17, 2016 at 19:06 | comment | added | Fayth85 | Lasting and being usable after thawing are not the same. If food is frozen wrong, crystals can form and damage the cells causing the cytoplasm to leak out. Yes, the food will still 'last', but if you try to thaw it and cook/eat it, it will not have the nutrients you need to survive. | |
| Jul 17, 2016 at 18:41 | comment | added | Ginasius | Food lasts for years if it's cold enough. And winter is coming. | |
| Jul 17, 2016 at 17:57 | history | answered | Fayth85 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |