Does Saxon food matter?

[learnandsay]

When I can I take my daughter to historical re-enactments. We haven't been to many yet and those that we have been to she hasn't liked much, except parts of Norwich castle.) The Viking one that we went to recently had open fires and the smoke got in her eyes. Then men with chain-mail and heavy shields fought and she asked if we could go home! But she did seem to absorb lots of details about their clothes, their food, their cooking methods and so on. So, even though she claimed not to have liked it I think that trip was worth it. Thinking about King Alfred makes me think of Saxon food. But in practice it seems so similar to Viking food that it doesn't seem worth making a special effort to visit such a re-enactment. Would this be fair? My daughter is very young. I think perhaps we'll visit Winchester when she's older. But for now we'll read about Sutton Hoo, (maybe visit) but beyond that will leave the Saxons alone.

I think Saxon food matters.

In context.

I love history and I am also a teacher. With my kids, Saxon food would only matter if they were in a position to learn something from it. its particularly pointless if they don't do this and they don't enjoy it either.

So I tend to hold back on these sorts of activities unless they:

1. Show an interest in it from a book or film etc
2. They are studying it at school and what we do re-enforces they school work.

raspberryroop I think the first time she went was to see what her mum was doing (I was a student and was taking part in a Viking camp with appox 500 children aged 4-6 along with other students from my uni) but she was hooked and we ended up spending most weekends travelling around England to various events at her request. She even dragged her boyfriend to Yorvik when he took her to York for a romantic weekend ... so you could say it's stuck.

How about learning how people in the 1970s lived and give her Crispy pancakes and Angel delight for tea?

My DD is 5.5 and obsessed with history. My DH and I both are interested, we have an A-level in history, we have the house full of books and visit castles, museums etc since she is born and was in a sling.

Her idea of a wet day outing is a museums visit.

I personally think that it is actually good to get an interest early, no wonder children are often put off later as nobody showed them how to appreciate it.

DD's school changed their annual outing from a castle to a manor house and DD said: "How sad for the others not to be able to see it". We are running out of local castles/manor houses to go to.

I personally think that there is no such big difference between Saxon and Vikings but if it is available, why not.

We had phases where she suddenly wasn't keen on the fighting bit but otherwise she always enjoyed it.

We still go to the park, play with her toys, paint, do arts & craft and watch TV.

Um, mmelind, I think another way I could have asked the same question would have been to ask: Does historical detail matter? And I might have left the part about re-enactments out completely. The problem then would have been that people would have wanted to know what I meant by historical detail, which part of history, matter to whom and so on. So my framework was specific in order to avoid all of these questions. The downside of being so specific is that many people now seem to believe that I'm some kind of history junky who wants to force my daughter to eat raw meat because the Mongols carried meat beneath their saddles and ate it that way. Or they believe some other dreadful aspect of history must obsess me. I don't think going to a family day out qualifies you as a monster. I won't be asking my daughter to help me build a great tower of skulls because Tamerlane liked doing that.

Learnandsay
Look at the difference between your post and Noramum's post.

You took your daughter to a reenactment that she did not particularly enjoy, Norasmum's DD loves visiting castles and asks to do this every weekend.

That is my problem with your OP.

If your daughter did not enjoy the day, why not try different historical activities and see if she likes that better? If she shows no interest in history, will you still take her to these places?

We go on an 'educational' visit several times a year, interspersed with cinema, going to the beach, park, for a walk etc. - where they also learn about other things.

mmelind, we have done. She loved the Roman excavations at Kempten in Germany. She loved the Roman day at our local museum. My question is not should I do things with my daughter that the loves? I think I can work the answer to that out on my own. My question is much more about historical detail and what its significance is. I don't think that it is unimportant that in the Middle Ages much more was known about plants and their use in medicine than it is today, for example. Modern education doesn't seem to me to find that important. Is it important? If I don't point it out to my children then who will? I'm not saying four year olds have to know about Medieval medicine. But I am raising the possibility that if we want our children to know some of the details about ancient life we are going to have to teach them ourselves. And some people might not want that. That's fine.

She is 4. Expose her to a wide range of experiences now, worry about the fine details later when she's old enough to actually appreciate them.

Well, I'm only going on what you wrote in your OP where you said she didn't Ike it, and the fact that you are getting bogged down with details instead of showing the big picture.

She is only 4yo.

And you cannot say, 'I only want opinions on this, not on whether I'm overloading my child with historical details' cause this is Mumsnet where we all have opinions we are glad to share :)

I get that you are intensely interested in history, and if your dd does grow up to share your passion, then that will be wonderful for you both.

But what if she doesn't?

Did she like Roman food ...my daughter had the horrors at the idea of dormice .

On the topic of Medieval medicine we made a few visits to Shrewsbury to the Cadfael experience (don't think it's still there ) but part was making medicines from plants in the Abbey garden ... they also had a mystery to solved which was perfect for introducing children to life as a medieval monk

Mrz - I'm sure its suck but it didn't start as'' I must know what the difference between Saxon and Viking breakfasts were'' at 4 ? I think running around like heathens with 500 other kids sounds a bloody fantastic start though :P - Learnandsay kids learn through play and observation and interest not you pointing something out or at 4 having a lesson/life plan or curriculum. Take her to loads of different thing and even better do the immersion thing if you can but let her learn by just enjoying stuff. You sound wonderfully informed and interested that's all your child needs - relax go find a Saxon puddle to splash in. Do read some books about autonomous education if you can.

And no Cadfael has gone ;(

There's a 'poison garden' at Alnwick Castle too. Great for a visit.

Ok, I'll give an example from my life.

My DH loves classic cars. We go to classic car shows a couple of times a year.

8yo DS is also interested. I enjoy the day out. 10yo DD is totally disinterested.

So we choose car shows where we can have a wander around together before Dd and I go and look at something that interests her more, such as art galleries or museums.

And DH doesn't do what I saw a man a few years ago do - stand with his DS and explain the ins and outs of a engine, "Look, these are the pistons, and they do suchandsuch, this car is a 4 valve, as you can see here, but the one over there is a 6 valve which means it has 359 HP more, and has a top speed of 239 kmh, with a torque of 345 newton meters"

(yes, I know none of that makes sense, but it didn't to the poor little lad who was bored out of his mind and just wanted to look at shiny cars)

Age appropriate learning is the key here. Give them the big picture and they will later want to learn the details.

I agree with noblegiraffe, at 4 the wide experiences and seeing you enjoy it/enjoying it together is worth the world and what details are important can be seen to later when their interests and thinking can be easier to discuss.

But I also agree with you learnandsay that a lot of things have to be taught by us parents if we want them to be taught and that hands-on education is very important (though maybe put a pack of eye protectors/goggles for any future re-enactments with fire and a cloth to cover her face if it bugs her, I know I can be quite sensitive to it). For older kids, World History for All of Us (worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/) is a framework I use for a lot of the history that is ignored/rushed/one-sided perspective whereas this gives a greater arching global one and it gives a lot of good details. Along with keeping a list places like those find in this site, I also have a reading list of books I want to expose the children to that are outside the normal box to cover details that I find important (more diverse authors for starters...).

Of our 2 dc one is ore interested in History as a subject than the other. dh is enjoying sharing his passion for modern history with ds as part of his gcse course. Ironically he doesn't enjoy any of the "living" type of activities you describe whereas dd does. Last summer both got more fun out of rushing in and out of towers, walls and ramparts of Welsh castles than taking the time to absorb exhibitions or those ghastly cinema things. Did it matter, of course not! At 4 she has a lifetime yet to explore topics and activities of her choosing, wait your time and you may find you do have something to share.

Like I said earlier, we like history here. Even simple discussions, such as about the differences in medicine then and now has helped them with history, when it cropped up.

But, my DCs are 12.5 and nearly 9, they are more able to appreciate the deatil now, whereas at the age of four, the detail went over their heads. They would have been interested in a bit of dressing up and maybe tasting one or two items of food, but that's as far as it went.

weren't the Saxons and Vikings dreadfully sexist though?

these re-enactment camps, are they a bit more right on? are the women allowed to be independent?

genuine question.

My eldest (at age 4 or 5) would have had the engine stripped down in seconds before putting it back together MmeLindorNOTYET40 but he also found the gruesome bits of history fascinating at the same age ... it's stages not ages. If a child is interested however young it's worth encouraging ...and as a mum I've been bored to death at air shows and various sporting events over the years too

learn, when you say 'Saxon food', how does this strike you?

To be properly authentic, you'll need, say, a cow that's stopped giving milk and is looking a bit ill. Ideally something scrawny and sinewy, not a nice fat Aberdeen Angus. Then you need to butcher it, hang it up somewhere unhygenic, and let it smoke for a bit while brushing the flies off now and again. Then hang it up inside your house and keep cutting bits off to eat while it slowly rots. You need to accompany this with some nice barley bread with bits of grit in it, which will tend to break your teeth.

Your 4 year old DD might get a wee bit sick, but you'll be very authentic!

Obviously I'm not actually recommending this, but I think a bit of flexbility about the authenticity might let you relax a bit and your DD enjoy herself a bit more?

If you're interested in something similar-but-different, there's a really nice book by LM Boston called 'The Stones of Green Knowe', which your DD is too young for really, but which she might enjoy read to her in a couple of years. It's got a lovely story about a boy whose grandmother is Saxon and whose dad is setting himself up in a new Norman world.

my DD. Was scared by the fighting in re-enactments at the same age- it's way too realistic for them, they think it's real.

Food was all organic burgers and tofu-type stuff though, not saxon!

No donnie the Viking women played an important role in society and even went into battle. Women maintained and controlled the household estate (not even their husbands could contradict a wife's orders relating to the daily running of the home) and inherited their husbands wealth on his death.

Aberdeen Angus cattle probably came over with the Vikings the Saxon's didn't eat much meat in comparison

Saxons eat a fair amount of meat - not just cattle, but also pigs and sheep. We know a lot about the cattle and sheep because they then wrote books on their skins, so we can tell roughly how big the cows great in comparison to modern animals (which of course have been bred carefully and fed with all sorts of things, which make them very different).

(Btw, not that it matters, but AA cattle wouldn't be Viking - they don't have horns and all the Norse stuff assumes cows come with horns. I do not know how many 4 year olds need to know this ...)