I mean, it's not uncommon for it to have pasta. Or rice. (Or both, I guess.) But it's not essential in the slightest.
The main aspect as far as I'm concerned is the size and consistency of the veg. No hard bits, no big bits, but not blended mush either. After that, it's all good - beans, no beans, rice, no rice... (I like pearl barley in mine, and lentils.)
Wikipedia - from which I drew my new-found knowledge that pretty much veg is all that's required - describes it as "thick soup of Italian origin made with vegetables".
To me thick soup requires a thick base, while it sounds like your description ("vegetables in broth") would have a thin base. On the plus side, if you put enough bits of veg in it, even a broth-based soup becomes something one could no longer describer as thin.
But broth-based vegetable soup with optional extra stuff in it sounds like exactly the kind of soup I like/make. So perhaps I am a huge fan of minestrone after all. Not sure I'm going to start trusting it on menus, though, since I think the brown-tomato-sludge is often the model in the UK.
Yeah, I'm not sure about that - I suspect my default of it being a thinner broth comes from making my own, because I don't really have the patience to bother with faffing around to make it thicker. That said, if you get the veg right, each spoonful is quite thick even if the underlying broth is thin, IYSWIM?
I think there's a case to be made for being a bit more descriptivist about one's minestrone. The authenticity thing is all very well, but after four decades of the thin, vaguely tomatoey stuff with pasta floating in it the idea of declaring that to be "not minestrone" seems pointless.
(See also the thing about bolognese being made with milk and wine and absolutely no tomato.)
I agree. But I don't think anyone is suggesting that the thin, vaguely tomatoey stuff with pasta isn't minestrone. Just that lots of other, nice things also are!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2016-03-03 03:24 pm (UTC)The main aspect as far as I'm concerned is the size and consistency of the veg. No hard bits, no big bits, but not blended mush either. After that, it's all good - beans, no beans, rice, no rice... (I like pearl barley in mine, and lentils.)
no subject
Date: 2016-03-03 03:45 pm (UTC)To me thick soup requires a thick base, while it sounds like your description ("vegetables in broth") would have a thin base. On the plus side, if you put enough bits of veg in it, even a broth-based soup becomes something one could no longer describer as thin.
But broth-based vegetable soup with optional extra stuff in it sounds like exactly the kind of soup I like/make. So perhaps I am a huge fan of minestrone after all. Not sure I'm going to start trusting it on menus, though, since I think the brown-tomato-sludge is often the model in the UK.
no subject
Date: 2016-03-03 03:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-03-04 09:25 am (UTC)(See also the thing about bolognese being made with milk and wine and absolutely no tomato.)
no subject
Date: 2016-03-04 09:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-03-04 09:33 am (UTC)I still agree though :-)
no subject
Date: 2016-03-04 09:34 am (UTC)