>these locations have some of the words most bountiful marine life swimming and crawling around their shores
>people have been living their for millennia
>the best ideas any of them could come up with for this cornucopia of top-tier seafood was to deep fry them and smother them in vinegar to cover them in cream and bake them in fucking pies
You can't make this shit up.
Including Northern France in that map was a mistake.
Anyway, as far as Europe is concerned Northern cuisine is universally shit, and nobody should be surprised by this fact. Those locations traditionally had a hard time getting access to exotic spices, unlike the countries that border the Mediterranean. They also had an unsuitable climate for agriculture, meaning they had to rely on more resilient crops (wheat and later potatoes) rather than more luxurious, weather dependent ones (olives for example).
France's unique location is probably why it has some of the best cuisine of the world. It shares borders with both Italy and Spain, both of which have world class cuisines, has access to the Mediterranean, has some of the most fertile soil in all of Europe and also shares proximity to Germany, Belgium and the UK. It can combine the refinement and high quality of southern cuisines with the rustic goodness of northern cuisines. As such this country can claim both bouillabaise and boeuf bourgignon as well as quiche and pot au feu as its traditional meals.
Blaming the British for their climate is unfair. Had it somehow bordered the Mediterranean and somehow had access to more luxurious agricultural goods, we'd be praising their cuisine as one of the best and the Franco-Italian "muh cuisine" shitposting would be Franco-British shitposting.
>Including Northern France in that map was a mistake.
>implying that's not British clay
Though I agree with you. Location is important. Hell Greenland eats rotten seal carcasses full of birds, and they'd figure out how to use spices if they were along historical trade routes! It's a shame some of the traditional foods get lost to time though. Cattails make damn good food, and daylillies when you cook them up right, but no one would ever ask for them at a restaurant. Probably plenty of roots and native grains and such that would do wonders to British cooking if they were "discovered again".
Some bad assumptions.
Cooking culture and cuisines didn't exist like they do today among most people until the mid to late 1800s in the west. Most people endured famines on a regular basis, especially in europe until the introduction of maize and potatoes in the 1600s to 1700s. That changed everything, along with the use of bat and bird guano to re-introduce nitrogen to the soil.
France has its cuisine primarily because the royalty took such an interest in it, and they codified it. When a lot of chefs lost their jobs after the revolution, many became the first restaurant owners as we'd recognize a restaurant today, that is. Most of the planet did the whole food market stall thing if you wanted to go out to eat and weren't literal royalty.
Many of the essential foods of those cuisines weren't native the Europe, and weren't introduced until after the columbian exchange: potatoes, tomatoes, chilies, corn, squash/pumpkins, are just a few examples. Many foods also were never available in any decent quantity enough to become a part of any kind of food culture until the past few centuries either.
The real reason Britain has a shit food culture is due to things like these:
1. The convenience of modern industrialized food. People stop using traditional ingredients, and over time fewer and fewer ingredients are used. So many herbs, spices, vegetables, and even fruits have been forgotten in places like the UK and the US.
2. Industrial revolution started there, and thus started the super long work week and a lack of time for families to eat together and thus not have the time/opportunity to develop a national cuisine properly. Notice how nations that have stronger families tend to have a richer food culture?
3. In nations where the industrial revolution was strongest, the cuisines and culture of that country suffered greatly. The US and the UK suffered much from this.
4. You made this point, but some things just don't grow in colder areas.
5. The sudden availability of spices during the 1800s also hurts the native cuisine, at least initially. In the case of Britain, it seemed to permanently harm it combined with the other issues.
6. Over fishing has always been bad around the Atlantic Isles. They needed to fish so far away they overfished waters across the Atlantic ocean ffs to the point of collapse many times over.
Also, the food culture isn't completely miserable. You can still find things in the US and UK from times gone by, and at least in the US, they are seeing a resurgence. I can't wait until I can find sunchokes in the store on a regular basis, or any number of native herbs like culantro, mexican oregano, white cinnamon, etc.
I'm also really looking forward to being able to buy frozen pawpaw fruits in the store. There are now huge groves of them in the upper south/eastern midwest, but the fruit turns to booze so fast that you have to freeze it almost as soon as you harvest it.
He's right. Potatoes originated from the Andes region and I think tomatoes were Mexican. The Spaniard just imported them in such massive numbers that they became staple foods. Especially the potato, which is so resilient it could grow in even the more hostile climates of Europe. This is why Frederick the Great (Prussia/German) and Parmentier (France) did such great efforts to introduce the potato to their respective peoples. The latter even had a silly scheme where he'd organize grand dinners for the nobility themed around the potato, have carts full of potatoes outside and cover them up to give them the illusion of great value. Furthermore, he stationed guards around those carts and ordered them to accept bribes from anyone who wanted to steal the contents of the carts. This way he managed to introduce potatoes to peasants who were expecting to steal something valuable.