Are you saying I've never experienced a cloyingly sweet beer that didn't use specialty grains? And, again, I said "I'd imagine most of them were terrible"...and I'll stand by that.
To the best of my knowledge, you've never intentionally brewed medieval ale using an authentic set of recipes and techniques. This makes an different product than forgetting to put hops in.
Dismissing the entire genre because of what you
imagine to be the case is akin to dismissing, say, IPA because you once had a bad bottle of Hop Devil.
Terrible = not having the knowledge and sanitary practices that we have in these days, batch to batch variation, not to mention a flat, warm beer...yes I think "different than I'm used to" would be a fair comparison to terrible in this regard.
I regret to inform you these assumptions are in large part erroneous. Please permit me to clarify.
First, 'warm'. Cellar temperature is cool, not warm.
Second, 'flat'. There is no evidence ale was flat. Perhaps not carbonated to the 2-4 volumes to which we're used, perhaps even slightly less than the 1.8 or so volumes found in traditional British Real Ale, but hardly
flat. Pressure-capable vessels existed from Roman times.
Third, 'batch to batch variation'. If that's a criteria of 'terrible', virtually every damn homebrewer I know thus brews terrible beer, because they seldom brew the same thing twice - and when they do, it tastes different than the previous batch!
Modernly, even successful professional brewers experience batch-to-batch variation and blend. In the medieval period, it's likely that consistency wasn't even important; it's a historiographical mistake to apply our modern mores to historical people.
Fourth, 'knowledge and practice'. I infer from the way you worded that statement that you consider historical brewers to have had little knowledge and less skill. Nothing could be further from the truth. Brewing was a protected skill set, by guild in the secular world and by seclusion in the cloistered, carefully passed down from master to student. Skill was not the issue - let me give you an example.
Have you ever tried to brew without instruments? Do you know what mash liquor looks like when it's just hot enough to mash with? Do you know how to get a good crush out of something
not a modern roller mill? Do you know how to gauge conversion and/or wort density without instruments?
These people didn't have instruments. They had their senses. They had to train their senses in order to make these judgements. And it's pretty damned difficult, I assure you - because I've done it. It's hard,
really hard, to get any kind of consistency. (That's why instruments like the thermometer and sacchyrometer, when they came available in the late 18th century, became so widely popular: they enhanced consistency. It's important to note the instruments didn't suddenly
enforce consistency where none existed! They simply made the brewer's job
easier.) I had the fortunate circumstance of being able to confirm information with an instrument and cross-reference sensory notes; they had a seven-year apprenticeship where they learned by watching.
To dismiss their work as substandard is hubris, sir. Hubris borne of lack of understanding, certainly, but hubris nonetheless.
Technically it isn't "beer" without hops, anyway.
Lord knows
that's true!
I think you just wanted to promote your medieval ale and offer your advice in regards to a non-hopped ale, of which you have noteable experience. This is great, but we're all here to give advice, not "abhor generalizations".
Really, it's not any of those things. I want information and advice given to be
correct. There are areas in which 'correct' is a matter of opinion, and there I will gladly give way and simply keep my yap closed. This is not one of those areas.
Obviously, I should be entirely specific and give every little detail when discussing things in the beginners forum, or someone might actually take what I say as an absolute and turn a simple question into an argument. I guess my generalizations don't belong in the beginners forum.
I'm sorry if I came across like that. I didn't intend it. I'm not trying to make anyone devolve into absolutes when a generalization is perfectly useful. I
am trying to prevent you from passing on a generalization that is simply untrue. I'm trying to educate.
SO...malted wheat and rye often have more diastatic power than barley. I've never used malted oats before, have you made an oat beer? That could be interesting.
I have. In fact, oat-malt beers - like
100% oat malt - were being sold commercially in UK until the mid-20th century. Next up in my historical experiments is a recipe from the late 13th century where fully 80% of the grist is oat malt. This will be the third time I've brewed this. The other iterations were parti-gyle with the gyles kept separate (each was pretty tasty); this time I'm combining the gyles into one (what we modern brewers call "batch sparging"
).
Oat Malt is really quite simple to use. It's a smaller-diameter malt than barley/wheat, so it takes mill adjustment to get a good crush. It also has a higher percentage of husk matter. Usually the diastatic power is equal to or slightly less than 2-row barley malt. I prefer it to flaked oats and usually sub it 1:1. Not only do I get many of the same benefits - lots of proteins! - I also get husk matter for lautering and conversion power for high-adjunct beers like Wit.
Respectfully,
Bob
