Comments by "Be Kind To Birds" (@BeKindToBirds) on "Drachinifel" channel.

  1. 65
  2. 63
  3. 27
  4.  @floydvaughn836  Not really actually. Not only because of different local food sources and national interests but also different colonial food sources, preservation methods, and voyage lengths. Salt meat and hard tack is a bit of the common denominator, true. But when you are a swedish or russian sailor you have cold to preserve things yeah? And then there are different methods of getting the nutrition themselves. Russian sailors working in california were said to eat mainly beef tallow for example. Something that the american and british sailors seemed to think was pure lunacy. Scandinavian sailors had more fish, sailors of south america had a lot more fruit and a lot less beef as well. It's actually something that is a bit difficult to research in English but you can find some information in other languages. Irish sailors adopted use of the potato long before the english thought it worthy of a ships company, wine was a staple on french ships and extremely unlikely on a British ship. Rice was an absolute luxury reserved for captains in american sailing ships but it was the common food in chinese ships. And many nations didn't have nearly the need for long voyage as england did and so their rations didn't need to be preserved the same way. Or they did, like the french, but used different methods. The french used vinegar and boiling to keep water but the british didn't seem to adopt this as regularly. Ships beer was a better option for british sailors but for the french it would be wine. For English sailors fresh beef was a luxury but for american sailors in california it was so common it was nearly all they ate for months at a time, the flour for ships bread being the extreme luxury at times. So there is actually a very great deal of variety and difference in diet among the different nations and their ships throughout history as well as variety based on where the ship was going and for how long.
    14
  5. 10
  6. 9
  7. 9
  8. 8
  9. 7
  10. 6
  11. 6
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. Why exactly isn't the Gloire the first ironclad? This seems like the British stretch again.... Like that documentary about the warrior where an interview subject goes on and on about how the warrior was the first ironclad even though it was quickly made obsolete... While ignoring completely that it was the Gloire first clad in iron. Not that it's the first time you've been puffing up the royal navy and smudging over other nations naval accomplishments tbh mate but it's just silly when it's so obvious as to completely omit the actual ship that changed things because of an arbitrary attribute you have arbitrarily decided disqualifies the previous. Or is this really about iron-frames and not iron cladding lol. I mean really you should be back in korean turtle ship if this is about historical accuracy and not just the same as many other historians through history: summerizing well documented facts about their own nation, adding only the nationalist slant of diminishing foreign accomplishments. Makes you popular at the time mate but eventually history judges the non-impartial. First "true" what a crock. How about first ever not first true smh... This is worse than when you had to talk about the american frigates! It's almost as bad as the bloody wikipedia article talking about "the french invented it, narrowly pre-empting the british" Bloody narrowly pre-empting? Why is it that when I start working on something only after someone else has finished do I get called second but british say "narrowly pre-empted" I guess the british ethnocentric mindset to history that set our understanding back about the ancient world centuries didn't die easily whatsoever. I suppose it is entirely based on how you are educated. Patriotically I assume. Because Americans aren't taught about our age of sail, clippers and windjammers, and schooners, and super frigates and all of it. But we are taught equally patriotically to our cousins across the pond about ww2 and just look what such patriotic education has done for the understanding of ww2. Anyway there's my rant. Shouldn't be looking gift horses in the mouth and all but mate your british bias is even worse than usual when it comes to specific blind spots.
    1