The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: Cannibalism During the Crusades

Re: Cannibalism During the Crusades
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Thursday, July 31 2008, 21:45:56 (CEST)
from *** - *** Network - Windows XP - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

Tiglath wrote:
>Crusades-Encyclopedia
>
> Return to Crusades-Encyclopedia
>
> Cannibalism During the Crusades
>
>Several Christian sources of the First Crusade report instances of cannibalism. Specifically, starving crusaders were reported to have eaten their fallen Muslim opponants. Although such behavior was undoubtedly very rare, sources claim that Muslims spread terrifying rumors of crusaders "who fed very greedily on the bodies of saracens."
>
>Radulph of Caen, an eyewitness to events at Ma'arra in 1098, wrote, "In Ma'arra our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled." (1)
>
>The chronicler Albert of Aix seemed to rank Muslims lower than dogs when he wrote, "Not only did our troops not shrink from eating dead Turks and Saracens; they also ate dogs!"
>
>Guibert of Nogent, in his work Historia Hierosolymitana, provides more details on the incident of cannibalism at Ma'arra. There he notes that whenever the Tafurs who took part in the expedition discovered "scraps of flesh from the pagan's bodies" cannibalism was practiced with little discretion. According to Guibert, the Tafurs were well aware that the Muslims feared them because of cannibalism. For that reason, on at least one occasion, the Tafurs publicly "roasted the bruised body of a Turk over a fire as if it were meat for eating, in full view of the Turkish forces." Guibert notes that the Franks also practiced cannibalism, but they did so "in secret and as rarely as possible."
>
>Fulcher of Chartres also refers to the same instance of cannibalism at Ma'arra. In his Historia Hierosolymitana, also known as A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, Fulcher confirms that when the crusaders "suffered from excessive hunger" at Ma'arra, they engaged in cannibalism. He wrote, "I shudder to say that many of our men, terribly tormented by the maddness of starvation, cut pieces of flesh from the buttocks of Saracens lying there dead. These pieces they cooked and ate, savagely devouring the flesh while it was insufficiently roasted."
>
>Raymond of d'Aguilers also recorded incidents of cannibalism...
>
>[Continued...]
>
>Anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum...
>
>[Continued...]
>
>Anna Comnena- Normans- Roasted babies
>
>[Continued...
>
>Muslim authors also attest to the practice by Crusaders...
>
>[Continued...]
>
>Concerning the more specific claim that the crusaders ate babies, Dr. Helen Nicholson notes,
>
> 'Eating babies' is a standard accusation in Western civilisation against one's religious or political
> opponents. It is the ultimate taboo, as you will realise. Hence the Romans accused the early
> Christians of eating babies, the medieval West accused Jews and heretics of eating babies, in
> medieval literature pagans eat babies, the Revolutionary French peasantry accused the French
> nobility of eating babies. The crusaders did eat their horses (which in Britain at least is only one
> step up from eating babies) and during the first crusade one group of warriors (the 'Tafurs') were
> accused of eating babies...The Tafurs were recorded to have resorted to cannibalism at the siege
> of Ma'arra; this was reported by Raymond of Aguilers, but not by other chroniclers of the First
> Crusade (France, Victory, p. 315 and note 49). It is tempting to deduce that they were accused of
> this crime because they were poor warriors, even peasants, despised and feared by the more noble
> warriors who regarded them of being capable of any depravity. In other words, the accusation reflects
> fear and distrust between classes, rather than what actually happened. The Christian peasantry were
> regarded as 'other' and 'alien' by the Christian nobles. In contrast, the Muslim warriors were brave
> and had their own code of warrior ethics which was very like the Christian warriors' code of ethics.
> But peasants did not share any warrior-ethic; they fought dirty. Hence Christian nobles could regard
> Christian peasants as being far more alien than Muslim warriors. They were sure that warriors
> would always act honourably, but they were sure that they could never trust the peasants to behave
> honourably! Alternatively, it is possible that the story of cannibalism originated with the Tafurs
> themselves. If they put it about that they ate the bodies of their dead enemies after battle they would
> scare their enemies so much that any enemy they met would flee rather than fight them.(2)



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9