Michael Kuettner wrote:

>> There's a debate going on, obviously everybody wants the paternity
>> of that dish.

> No debate. The paternity is in Vienna.

LOL

>> There are some differences too, the Shcnitzel is made from a
>> boneless veal slice while the Milanese is from a veal chop with the
>> bone.

> Most Milanese I've had were pork.

Hence those were not milaneses

>> A documented Schnitzel exuisted before the first documented
>> apparition of the Milanese, but it was not breaded: just floured.

> Yes, but that't the name of the cut. "Schnitz" means "cut, slice",
> "Schnitzel" is the diminuitive "little slice".

I know, but what matters here is that the Schnitzel pre-milanese was not
breaded, it appeared in its breaded form only AFTER the milanese

>> Then there's a report from general Radetzky, who J. Strauss tributed
>> with a famous march, who had a cutlet in Milan which was washed in
>> beaten eggs and "differently from the Austrian Schnitzel" was
>> breaded.

> With a mixture of egg and grated Parmiggiano.

And then what do we discover? Nowadays Schnitzel is breaded just like a
milanese

>> Then there's a document from 1148, quoted bu teh historian Pietro
>> Verri, where is described a solemn lunch where the third course was
>> "lombos *** panitio" aka breaded veal chops. This would set

> Which also could mean veal chops with small rolls. Medieval Latin and
> Italian is rather diffuse.

In fact the best source is Radetzky.

>> the title to Milan but a quoted source isn't certain as a concrete
>> source. So the debate goes one, while historians search for sources
>> and people eat cutlets

> Not cutlets, Schnitzel ;-)

Not schnitzels, Cotolette
--
Firma predefinita