Native American populations were on-average bigger and stronger than the European colonizers because European's subsistence farming failed to provide them adequate nutrients.

>>18267620
yes, this is in essence correct, but the craftier wives would enhance this by foraged ingredients, or by rats caught in traps etc. you'd eat this daily only if you got a lazy stupid wife

>>18267644
>Honey, your rat soup is ready!

>>18267646
Burp! <3

File: Screenshot_2026-01-01-13-(...).jpg (109 KB, 1220x314)

109 KB JPG

kwab

>>18267664
It’s insane how tall europeans have gotten since the war

>>18267620
>hunt animal
>cut animal open
>start fire
>hold meat over fire
>eat
literally the existence of homo sapiens & pre-sapiens from ~6.000.000 years to ~12.000 years ago
pre-industrial is nowhere near enough, we need to go back further, pre agriculture

>>18267704
>implying your fat ass can chase down a deer

>>18267664
This is a retarded lie. A noble would have ate meat with every meal unless they were making a deliberate choice not to

>>18267714
>implying you can get fat on carnivore
>implying you can't trap, track, hunt in groups, slash & burn, induce stampede over cliff, etc. etc.
holy shit how retarded can you be…?

>>18267721
I can't hunt in groups, I always get the urge to kill the retard stepping on every dry branch in his path

>>18267721
>implying you wouldn't be the laughingstock while Chad takes credit for all the kills

>>18267620
I better let in brown hordes of rapists or face the horror of eating oatmeal.

>>18267814
>the plague and recurring famines were better than immigrant workers and gay marriage

>>18267822
Unironically yes, you wouldn't get it, since you are brown

>>18267832
Why did white people end 'trad' societies if they were so good?

>>18267716
No they wouldn't, they were catholic and would've eaten fish half the year.
So he's technically correct

>>18267896
We didn't.
It was the Jews, who played Whites against each other.
You don't understand because you need a brain to understand history.

>>18267956
A medieval baron could buy 65 chickens with a days income whereas an average american could only buy 23 chickens with a days income, you're retarded if you think an average american has "better access to meat" than a medieval baron. I doubt most nobles cared about catholic dietary restrictions also when you look at how debauched or outright satanic their behavior often was

>>18267962
So the Jews outsmarted everyone?

>workhouse
>pre industrial

lmao

>>18267644
Men placed in workhouses on charges of being paupers were separated from their wives and children to prevent them from breeding.

>>18268261
Gruel is medieval.

>>18268263
Gruel is literally just grains in water. It's been around since we’ve been eating grains.

>>18268269
Yes but it was particularly commonplace in medieval times among the poor.

>>18268237
Yes.
If you consider shooting someone in the head a chess move and that makes you the best chess player, then yes.
They 'outsmarted' everyone.
(takes lots of smarts to murder, blackmail, get them hooked on drugs, engage in unethical business practices to outcompete everyone, spying etc etc)
Dumb goyim have these strange beliefs of honor, integrity, charity, etc.
Btw if you massacre them for the worst offences you are dishonorable.
If they massacre you:
>lol you so dumb, I so smart

>>18267620
>he thinks that recipes had such specific details of measurements
Old recipes used to be more like an ingredient list, order to put them together, and a few directions. They were for people who had already been taught how to cook, by someone who knew how to cook.
You'd never get something like 16oz in those recipes. That's a very recent way for recipe presentation. Each recipe is written with exact amounts, and details descriptions of how to cook them. They're all written with the assumption that you've never made food before.

For your gruel recipe, it would have been more like
>add oats and water with a pinch of salt
>boil until thick
But they wouldn't have even wrote that much down, as you'd be expected to just know how to make something like oatmeal.

>>18268021
who the fuck eats 65 chickens a day
better yet, who the fuck would sell 65 chickens a day in the middle ages?

>>18268021
It should've been clear that was a shitpost, but this is such a retarded post that I'm going to reply properly
Firstly these numbers are absurd, barons didn't have a fixed salary, nor did the price of chicken remain consistent throughout all of Europe for all time. Trying to get an exact number of chickens a baron could buy each day is impossible.
Secondly, very few nobles were barons. For example there was only about 100-200 barons in the whole of England at one time. Most nobles were of a lower rank, though it varied throughout Europe as to who actually was considered a noble. France for example was quite loose, even random tavern owners could be considered noble. Other countries were more restrictive. Getting an exact income is, again, impossible.
Thirdly, these people were largely landowners who lived outside of cities and away from markers (there were exceptions of course, the Italian nobility for instance). They typically wouldn't have brought themselves chicken, they'd have their own and they would've slaughtered one. This is I suspect the crux behind the claim, there were no factory farms or supermarkets, an American can go to a supermarket 24/7 and buy a chicken, wherever they are. Medieval nobles would not have as easy access if they were traveling. Nor might it be economical for them to slaughter 65 chickens on the one manor they live on
Fourthly, if we are talking about barons, they would basically never eat alone. These people had large retinues of people they needed to manage their estates. Their income would go into feeding and paying them. They might get 65 chicken, but it'd be for 20 people. A modern family's income is entirely their own
Fifthly, maybe actually read about it rather than relying on your own intuition. Yeah they cared about the fish rule. People in the middle ages could be strange about faith, they could slaughter peasants and rape their wives on a campaign, but also constantly attend and donate to the church

>>18267620
>serve tepid
this is gratuitous cruelty

>>18268356
Not him but I can tell from the tone of your voice that you watch BLACKED.

File: ab67616d00001e02f22971c92(...).jpg (16 KB, 300x300)

16 KB JPG

>>18267620
Delicious. Please, may I have some more?

>>18267620
>salt
Look at this fuckin' richfag

>>18268356
The "purchasing power" is based on average income (mostly from rents) vs average price of chicken, prices were consistent throughout the medieval era because fiat money hadn't been invented yet. A knight had a purchasing power that was more equal to a modern person's, they could buy a roughly equivalent amount of chickens compared to a modern person and knights are the lowest kind of "nobility". It doesn't matter that there were only 100-200 barons either because the point of the post that I'm arguing against is that modern people have better access to meat than the richest 0.1-1% of medieval society and it just isn't true. Medieval nobles had an equivalent access to meat at worst compared to modern people.

The minimum medieval "knight's fee" (land required to sustain a knight and his family) was 1000 acres. 1 acre can support 50 chickens and a chicken gets slaughtered for meat after 6-9 weeks, do the math on how many chickens that is if you're unsatisfied with how many chickens they could buy on the market with their rent income. You would need 1.26 acres per chicken per day that you wanted to eat, with 1000 acres of land they could eat 793 chickens per day (the more land they devoted to chicken farming the less rent they could collect presumably)

>>18267620
That's an industrial dinner. The reason it sucked was that it wasn't a community feeding itself, it was a boss spending as little as possible to keep workers from dying fast.

Pre-industrial would include struggle food at some times of the year, and then relative abundance and variety at other times of the year, but it would be mostly determined by local conditions. If there was a drought they'd have less, if they had a bumper crop they'd have more.

>>18267704
>hunt animal
>whoops, animal belongs to the king or local landlord
>your hand is hacked off with a rusty axe and nailed up in the village square as a warning to everyone else
>if you try it again, you get hanged

>>18267646
felipe minha sogra fez aqui também sopa de rato uma delícia...

File: Screenshot_2026-01-01-22-(...).jpg (166 KB, 1220x435)

166 KB JPG

>>18268617

>>18268627
>he doesn't hunt at night

>>18267814
>>18267832
Obsessed

>>18268497
>prices were consistent
No they werent, you're only thinking of inflation and completely ignoring demand, which fluctuated between periods of food shortages and abundance
>knights are the lowest kind of "nobility"
No, it varied by country as I pointed out
>It doesn't matter that there were only 100-200 barons
This is moving the goal posts since the post in question mentions nobles, not specifically barons. This is like substituting milliionare with billionaire
But regardless, I think your arguement doesn't hold up for barons either, since without refrigeration they wouldn't have been able to bring in fresh food from afar and would have had to rely on the local area
>minimum medieval "knight's fee"
What now? An acre is a set area of land (though the exact area it and it's equivalents covered could vary in some places back then), 1000 acres of swampland is worth much less than 1000 acres of prestine farmland, this sort of minimum would have led many knights into impoverishment. They considered value as much as area, but there was no consistent minimum fee throughout europe, or even within countries. In some cases Knights didn't even get any land (some classes of knight in Germany for instance)
>do the math
I won't dispute your numbers because I don't need to (though I assume they come from a modern farm which would be more efficient than anything medieval. But I dunno, maybe I'm wrong and you've found medieval figures). Obviously this is a thought exercise and you acknowledge the absurdity of such a manor exisiting, but even downsizing to get a lord his 65 daily chickens, assuming his tennets (at a guess about 80) sevants and retainers aren't allowed any, you'd require close to 10% of the manor devoted to this which is still very stupid. These people would've had to rely on the manor for producing everything they needed, and spending 10% (even 5%) of the land on chickens seems wasteful, that grain could feed many more human mouths than the chickens would