🔥 | Latest

Anaconda, Apparently, and Assassination: prokopetz Everybody talks about Anastasia, which is a shame, because it's a far less interesting example of Russian fake heir drama than that whole business with the False Dmitries Okay, so Ivan the Terrible's youngest son, Dmitry, was assassinated in 1591 at the age of 8. Fast-forward nine years, and there's a guy going about Eastern Europe claiming that he is Dmitry, having secretly escaped the assassination attempt and lived in hiding under a false identity ever since. This sort of business isn't too unusual, but this guy actually pulls it off, managing to gain the Russian throne and rule for nearly eleven months before being dragged from the palace and publicly executed in early 1606. He'd subsequently go down in history as False Dmitry I Here's where it gets interesting. In mid 1607, a second impostor declares himself. Bizarrely, this one doesn't dispute the first impostor's legitimacy; instead, he claims to be the same guy, having miraculously survived his apparent execution the year before. He somehow wins the political support of False Dmitry I's widow, and with her vouching for his identity, he gains the allegiance of the Cossacks, rallies an army over 100 000 strong, and tries to take back" the throne. Though his march on Moscow ultimately failed, he successfully conquered most of Southeastern Russia, which he would rule until his untimely death in December of 1610, when he was beheaded in a drunken altercation with a Tartar prince. The history books know him as False Dmitry II Now jump ahead three months to March of 1611, when a third fucking impostor pops up. Dude apparently just magically appeared from behind a waterfall in goddamn Ivangorod and declared himself Tsar. Following the lead of False Dmitry I1, he doesn't dispute either of the two previous impostors, instead claiming some sort of spiritual reincarnation and/or magical resurrection - it's not entirely clear which - to establish himself as the same guy. He must have talked a good game, because he managed to win the support of the same fucking Cossacks who supported False Dmitry Il's claim. Unfortunately, he was a far less able commander, being forced to flee his stronghold only a year later, whereupon he was spirited away to Moscow and secretly executed. Though he never managed to actually rule anything, historians decided to stick to the theme and dubbed him False Dmitry Il At this point the historical record becomes confused, with some sources asserting there was a fourth False Dmitry, though others insist that the third False Dmitry was simply counted twice due to poor record-keeping. Still, whether we're talking about three False Dmitries or four, imagine the whole mess from the Tsar's perspective. Dude just wouldn't stay dead! gryphye ohh vou missed one of my favorite bits False Dmitry I not only was executed, it was KNOWN he was fake. Powers that be used him until he was trouble, and THEN executed him Then quartered hinm Then cremated what was left. Stuffed the ashes in a can And shot him out of a cannon back towards Poland, where he actually came from. He pissed off a few people, yeah prokopetz It was a very miraculous survival Source:prokopetz 8,898 notes Nobody made a movie about this because it was just too weird
Anaconda, Apparently, and Assassination: prokopetz
 Everybody talks about Anastasia, which is a shame, because it's a far less
 interesting example of Russian fake heir drama than that whole business with
 the False Dmitries
 Okay, so Ivan the Terrible's youngest son, Dmitry, was assassinated in 1591 at
 the age of 8. Fast-forward nine years, and there's a guy going about Eastern
 Europe claiming that he is Dmitry, having secretly escaped the assassination
 attempt and lived in hiding under a false identity ever since. This sort of business
 isn't too unusual, but this guy actually pulls it off, managing to gain the Russian
 throne and rule for nearly eleven months before being dragged from the palace
 and publicly executed in early 1606. He'd subsequently go down in history as
 False Dmitry I
 Here's where it gets interesting. In mid 1607, a second impostor declares
 himself. Bizarrely, this one doesn't dispute the first impostor's legitimacy;
 instead, he claims to be the same guy, having miraculously survived his
 apparent execution the year before. He somehow wins the political support of
 False Dmitry I's widow, and with her vouching for his identity, he gains the
 allegiance of the Cossacks, rallies an army over 100 000 strong, and tries to
 take back" the throne. Though his march on Moscow ultimately failed, he
 successfully conquered most of Southeastern Russia, which he would rule until
 his untimely death in December of 1610, when he was beheaded in a drunken
 altercation with a Tartar prince. The history books know him as False Dmitry II
 Now jump ahead three months to March of 1611, when a third fucking
 impostor pops up. Dude apparently just magically appeared from behind a
 waterfall in goddamn Ivangorod and declared himself Tsar. Following the lead of
 False Dmitry I1, he doesn't dispute either of the two previous impostors, instead
 claiming some sort of spiritual reincarnation and/or magical resurrection - it's not
 entirely clear which - to establish himself as the same guy. He must have talked
 a good game, because he managed to win the support of the same fucking
 Cossacks who supported False Dmitry Il's claim. Unfortunately, he was a far less
 able commander, being forced to flee his stronghold only a year later,
 whereupon he was spirited away to Moscow and secretly executed. Though he
 never managed to actually rule anything, historians decided to stick to the theme
 and dubbed him False Dmitry Il
 At this point the historical record becomes confused, with some sources
 asserting there was a fourth False Dmitry, though others insist that the third
 False Dmitry was simply counted twice due to poor record-keeping. Still,
 whether we're talking about three False Dmitries or four, imagine the whole
 mess from the Tsar's perspective. Dude just wouldn't stay dead!
 gryphye
 ohh vou missed one of my favorite bits
 False Dmitry I not only was executed, it was KNOWN he was fake. Powers that
 be used him until he was trouble, and THEN executed him
 Then quartered hinm
 Then cremated what was left.
 Stuffed the ashes in a can
 And shot him out of a cannon back towards Poland, where he actually came
 from.
 He pissed off a few people, yeah
 prokopetz
 It was a very miraculous survival
 Source:prokopetz
 8,898 notes
Nobody made a movie about this because it was just too weird

Nobody made a movie about this because it was just too weird

Apparently, Baked, and Beautiful: the-real-ted-cruz: scp2008: prospitanmutie: donesparce: youmightbeamisogynist: thisandthathistoryblog: hjuliana: dancingspirals: ironychan: hungrylikethewolfie: dduane: wine-loving-vagabond: A loaf of bread made in the first century AD, which was discovered at Pompeii, preserved for centuries in the volcanic ashes of Mount Vesuvius. The markings visible on the top are made from a Roman bread stamp, which bakeries were required to use in order to mark the source of the loaves, and to prevent fraud. (via Ridiculously Interesting) (sigh) I’ve seen these before, but this one’s particularly beautiful. I feel like I’m supposed to be marveling over the fact that this is a loaf of bread that’s been preserved for thousands of years, and don’t get me wrong, that’s hella cool.  But honestly, I’m mostly struck by the unexpected news that “bread fraud” was apparently once a serious concern. Bread Fraud was a huge thing,  Bread was provided to the Roman people by the government - bakers were given grain to make the free bread, but some of them stole the government grain to use in other baked goods and would add various substitutes, like sawdust or even worse things, to the bread instead.  So if people complained that their free bread was not proper bread, the stamp told them exactly whose bakery they ought to burn down. Bread stamps continued to be used at least until the Medieval period in Europe. Any commercially sold bread had to be stamped with an official seal to identify the baker to show that it complied with all rules and regulations about size, price, and quality. This way, rotten or undersized loaves could be traced back to the baker. Bakers could be pilloried, sent down the streets in a hurdle cart with the offending loaf tied around their neck, fined, or forbidden to engage in baking commercially ever again in that city. There are records of a baker in London being sent on a hurdle cart because he used an iron rod to increase the weight of his loaves, and another who wrapped rotten dough with fresh who was pilloried. Any baker hurdled three times had to move to a new city if they wanted to continue baking. If you have made bread, you are probably familiar with a molding board. It’s a flat board used to shape the bread. Clever fraudsters came up with a molding board that had a little hole drilled into it that wasn’t easily noticed. A customer would buy his dough by weight, and then the baker would force some of that dough through the hole, so they could sell and underweight loaf and use the stolen dough to bake new loafs to sell. Molding boards ended up being banned in London after nine different bakers were caught doing this. There were also instances of grain sellers withholding grain to create an artificial scarcity drive up the price of that, and things like bread. Bread, being one of the main things that literally everyone ate in many parts of the world, ended up with a plethora of rules and regulations. Bakers were probably no more likely to commit fraud than anyone else, but there were so many of them, that we ended up with lots and lots of rules and records of people being shifty. Check out Fabulous Feasts: Medieval Cookery and Ceremony by Madeleine Pelner Cosman for a whole chapter on food laws as they existed in about 1400. Plus the color plates are fantastic. ALL OF THIS IS SO COOL I found something too awesome not share with you!  I’m completely fascinated by the history of food, could I choose a similar topic for my Third Year Dissertation? Who knows, but it is very interesting all the same! Bread fraud us actually where the concept of a bakers dozen came from. Undersized rolls/loaves/whatever were added to the dozen purchased to ensure that the total weight evened out so the baker couldn’t be punished for shorting someone. [wants to talk about bread fraud laws and punishments] [holds it in] bread police Reblogging this tasty Bread History for 2016! @the-real-ted-cruz loafs were too valuable  i love lore
Apparently, Baked, and Beautiful: the-real-ted-cruz:

scp2008:

prospitanmutie:

donesparce:

youmightbeamisogynist:

thisandthathistoryblog:

hjuliana:

dancingspirals:

ironychan:

hungrylikethewolfie:

dduane:

wine-loving-vagabond:

A loaf of bread made in the first century AD, which was discovered at Pompeii, preserved for centuries in the volcanic ashes of Mount Vesuvius. The markings visible on the top are made from a Roman bread stamp, which bakeries were required to use in order to mark the source of the loaves, and to prevent fraud. (via Ridiculously Interesting)

(sigh) I’ve seen these before, but this one’s particularly beautiful.

I feel like I’m supposed to be marveling over the fact that this is a loaf of bread that’s been preserved for thousands of years, and don’t get me wrong, that’s hella cool.  But honestly, I’m mostly struck by the unexpected news that “bread fraud” was apparently once a serious concern.

Bread Fraud was a huge thing,  Bread was provided to the Roman people by the government - bakers were given grain to make the free bread, but some of them stole the government grain to use in other baked goods and would add various substitutes, like sawdust or even worse things, to the bread instead.  So if people complained that their free bread was not proper bread, the stamp told them exactly whose bakery they ought to burn down.

Bread stamps continued to be used at least until the Medieval period in Europe. Any commercially sold bread had to be stamped with an official seal to identify the baker to show that it complied with all rules and regulations about size, price, and quality. This way, rotten or undersized loaves could be traced back to the baker. Bakers could be pilloried, sent down the streets in a hurdle cart with the offending loaf tied around their neck, fined, or forbidden to engage in baking commercially ever again in that city. There are records of a baker in London being sent on a hurdle cart because he used an iron rod to increase the weight of his loaves, and another who wrapped rotten dough with fresh who was pilloried. Any baker hurdled three times had to move to a new city if they wanted to continue baking.
If you have made bread, you are probably familiar with a molding board. It’s a flat board used to shape the bread. Clever fraudsters came up with a molding board that had a little hole drilled into it that wasn’t easily noticed. A customer would buy his dough by weight, and then the baker would force some of that dough through the hole, so they could sell and underweight loaf and use the stolen dough to bake new loafs to sell. Molding boards ended up being banned in London after nine different bakers were caught doing this. There were also instances of grain sellers withholding grain to create an artificial scarcity drive up the price of that, and things like bread.
Bread, being one of the main things that literally everyone ate in many parts of the world, ended up with a plethora of rules and regulations. Bakers were probably no more likely to commit fraud than anyone else, but there were so many of them, that we ended up with lots and lots of rules and records of people being shifty.
Check out Fabulous Feasts: Medieval Cookery and Ceremony by Madeleine Pelner Cosman for a whole chapter on food laws as they existed in about 1400. Plus the color plates are fantastic.

ALL OF THIS IS SO COOL

I found something too awesome not share with you! 
I’m completely fascinated by the history of food, could I choose a similar topic for my Third Year Dissertation? Who knows, but it is very interesting all the same!

Bread fraud us actually where the concept of a bakers dozen came from. Undersized rolls/loaves/whatever were added to the dozen purchased to ensure that the total weight evened out so the baker couldn’t be punished for shorting someone.

[wants to talk about bread fraud laws and punishments]
[holds it in]
bread police

Reblogging this tasty Bread History for 2016!

@the-real-ted-cruz loafs were too valuable 

i love lore

the-real-ted-cruz: scp2008: prospitanmutie: donesparce: youmightbeamisogynist: thisandthathistoryblog: hjuliana: dancingspirals: iro...