I came across an extremely bizzare reference to Richard the First of England the other day, I thought I'd share it with you history mavens.
This was in a passage in the romance
Richard Coeur de Lion where the author has Richard as a - cannibal.
That's right - he eats man-flesh. What's more, so does his whole army!
First, he comes down with a fever and gets an irresistable urge to eat pork. Being in the middle east, pork was scarce, so his servants substitute - human. First, without his knowledge, but when he finds out, rather than being horrified, he is delighted. Now, he'll never go short of meat!
Quote
"Shall we never die for default
When we may, in any assault
Slee Saracens, the flesh may take
And seethen, rosten, and do then bake,
And gnawen them flesh to the bones!
Now that I have proved it ones
For hunger erre I be woe
I and my folk shall eat moe."
The rest of his army, seeing the king smacking his lips over human meat, decides they will eat man-flesh, too - after all, if the king does it, it can't be wrong.
When Acre surrenders, he has a whole town of people as a larder to choose from - once Saladin refuses to pay the ransom for the prisoners. He invites Saladin's ambassadors to a friendly feast - of their friends. He adds labels to the dishes, a sort of who's who menu.
What's more, he then threatens to eat every Saracen in his path ...
King Richard I, honorary Orc. :D
You can read the gruesome details here ... http://books.google.ca/books?id=TIM9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA356&lpg=PA356&dq=Richard+Coeur+de+Lion+cannibalism&source=bl&ots=z10ocUMNCc&sig=zYX9VE5Erlg0wtzYQpHN3CPZSkY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7EblUrXeJonNsQT90YLAAg&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Richard%20Coeur%20de%20Lion%20cannibalism&f=false
Better than vegetarian.
I am sure there is fanfic worse than that; I shudder to think of what you'd find if you googled "Richard the Lionheart' and "Wesley Crusher!" :lol:
It is well known that Richard the Lion Heart too great pleasure in the placing of man flesh in his mouth. The mastication bit, though, seems to be fictional.
Quote from: Viking on January 27, 2014, 04:47:46 PM
It is well known that Richard the Lion Heart too great pleasure in the placing of man flesh in his mouth. The mastication bit, though, seems to be fictional.
I assume that would be the gist of googling fan-fic featuring him and Wesley Crusher ... :hmm:
But yeah, I'm just amused that some romance-writer thought of casting his hero as a cannibal. ;)
Quote from: Viking on January 27, 2014, 04:47:46 PM
It is well known that Richard the Lion Heart too great pleasure in the placing of man flesh in his mouth.
Not really.
There are, allegedly, accounts of cannibalism actually taking place during the first Crusade - mostly among the starving survivors of Peter the Hermit's gang. That it took place during the Third Crusade, and on the part of the king, though, is pretty clearly fictional. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2014, 04:53:09 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 27, 2014, 04:47:46 PM
It is well known that Richard the Lion Heart too great pleasure in the placing of man flesh in his mouth.
Not really.
Is it not common knowledge among the informed historical wargaming set that Richard-coer-lion was the most homofaggity homofaggit of the late middle ages?
Quote from: Viking on January 27, 2014, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2014, 04:53:09 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 27, 2014, 04:47:46 PM
It is well known that Richard the Lion Heart too great pleasure in the placing of man flesh in his mouth.
Not really.
Is it not common knowledge among the informed historical wargaming set that Richard-coer-lion was the most homofaggity homofaggit of the late middle ages?
Maybe but I just do not think he was.
Quote from: Viking on January 27, 2014, 04:59:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2014, 04:53:09 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 27, 2014, 04:47:46 PM
It is well known that Richard the Lion Heart too great pleasure in the placing of man flesh in his mouth.
Not really.
Is it not common knowledge among the informed historical wargaming set that Richard-coer-lion was the most homofaggity homofaggit of the late middle ages?
He wasn't exactly a straight homofaggit -
they don't usually have illegitimate children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_of_Cognac
Accounts of his sex habits are conflicting - I assume he swung both ways.
The film "The Lion in Winter" implied he was, though the Robin Hood films don't. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on January 27, 2014, 05:04:51 PM
Accounts of his sex habits are conflicting - I assume he swung both ways.
I think he just did his duty for France when Prince Philippe came calling. His reputation was very much 'lock up your daughters here comes Richard' generally. Or at least so far as I can tell.
But Edward II had illegitimate kids as well so...let's just say things were more fluid back then.
A queen for every king and a king for every queen, maid, and nun?
Quote from: Malthus on January 27, 2014, 04:58:32 PM
There are, allegedly, accounts of cannibalism actually taking place during the first Crusade - mostly among the starving survivors of Peter the Hermit's gang. That it took place during the Third Crusade, and on the part of the king, though, is pretty clearly fictional. ;)
Yeah, the cannibalism angle is real big in Arab accounts. I don't know think it was widespread through, and accounts like that are often second hand.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2014, 05:52:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 27, 2014, 04:58:32 PM
There are, allegedly, accounts of cannibalism actually taking place during the first Crusade - mostly among the starving survivors of Peter the Hermit's gang. That it took place during the Third Crusade, and on the part of the king, though, is pretty clearly fictional. ;)
Yeah, the cannibalism angle is real big in Arab accounts. I don't know think it was widespread through, and accounts like that are often second hand.
Well, it is hard to write a first-hand account, from inside the stewpot. ;)
My assumption is that cannibalism happened as it does whenever people are starving to death and there is no central authority to suppress it by force.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2014, 05:52:17 PM
Yeah, the cannibalism angle is real big in Arab accounts. I don't know think it was widespread through, and accounts like that are often second hand.
Yeah it was really played up to show the barbarity of the invaders. I saw this surreal documentary about the Crusades where some Arab historian was acting like it was some sort of planned act of terrorism to shock the Arabs into surrender or something. Dude was as mad about it as if it happened last Tuesday instead of 900 years ago.
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2014, 06:04:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 27, 2014, 05:52:17 PM
Yeah, the cannibalism angle is real big in Arab accounts. I don't know think it was widespread through, and accounts like that are often second hand.
Yeah it was really played up to show the barbarity of the invaders. I saw this surreal documentary about the Crusades where some Arab historian was acting like it was some sort of planned act of terrorism to shock the Arabs into surrender or something. Dude was as mad about it as if it happened last Tuesday instead of 900 years ago.
Arabs are like that with their history. ;)
But to be fair ... the (English) Romance in my OP cites cannibalism expressly used as terrorism to shock Arabs into surrender. While it is obviously fiction in that case, it does demonstrate that the idea wasn't as horrifying to Europeans of the 12th century as it would be today - presumably, the audience was supposed to *approve* of this. :lol:
How does this effect Richard's dice roll modifier in combat?
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 27, 2014, 06:28:21 PM
How does this effect Richard's dice roll modifier in combat?
If he rolls the highest number, he eats his opponent.
2d4 life drain powers. Similar to a ghoul.
Quote from: Valmy on January 27, 2014, 06:04:51 PM
Yeah it was really played up to show the barbarity of the invaders. I saw this surreal documentary about the Crusades where some Arab historian was acting like it was some sort of planned act of terrorism to shock the Arabs into surrender or something.
I recommend 'The Crusades Through Arab Eyes' on this which is a great and easy read:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Crusades-Through-Arab-Eyes/dp/0805208984
I've read a bit about the cannibalism in the First Crusade and there are reports of it on both sides and hints in the Christian chronicles that it was more widespread than they're saying. But there's Christian sources that describe the Crusaders as boiling adults and impaling children on spits. Deliberate or not I think the rumours of how barbaric the Crusaders were would have had an impact - and my understanding is that there are historians who think the sources do suggest there was a deliberate psychological element.
QuoteDude was as mad about it as if it happened last Tuesday instead of 900 years ago.
Well it's still relevant. After the Crusades it's overwhelmingly Mongols and Turks and Europeans ruling the Arab world, arguably they ended the sort of peak of Arab civilisation. Also the really striking thing is the number of times the Frankish states are able to survive because the Muslim kingdoms fall apart and fight among themselves, often wanting the Franks as allies.
I wonder if the 'Cannibal Richard' story represents some sort of conflation of the First and Third Crusades in the minds of the romance-writers. I'm pretty certain that, no matter how brutal Richard was, he didn't actually tuck into a nice fillet of Saracen. ;)
Yeah I think you're right. I think you've got a real event, an element of psychological warfare - and a joke - that have all been merged in the Romance about Richard.
As I say there's hints that cannibalism was a bit more widespread than is recorded. For example after long sieges there's a fair few Christian sources who sort of say 'after many days of excessive hunger finally Acre was seized and what happened there, stays there' regularly.
But then there is the siege of Maara which is just after the year long siege of Antioch and it's interesting because about a dozen Christian sources basically say that they ate infidels. So you get descriptions of adults cut up and boiled and infants impaled on spikes, or of crusaders who were too hungry to wait for the meat to roast - there's one chronicler who roughly says 'we were driven to eat Saracens and even dogs' :lol:
After that the Muslim sources go mental. Their basic theme is: 'they starved outside Antioch for a year to take it; they took Maara and ate the population. WTF!' So I think there may have been a psychological element to it and I've read there are academics who have a similar idea, but with far more substantiation. The crusaders resorted to cannibalism more than once, but at least once it seems they publicised it.
What I find a little curious is what they called it? 'Cannibalism' comes from the Caribs doesn't it? So was there a word for it then and was it less shocking in 11-13th century Europe than, say, to Columbus/early European colonisers?
Richard the Prion-Diseased.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 28, 2014, 07:31:33 PM
Richard the Prion-Diseased.
By most accounts, Richard's crusade did not reach New Guinea ... ;)
Quote from: Malthus on January 29, 2014, 10:24:54 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 28, 2014, 07:31:33 PM
Richard the Prion-Diseased.
By most accounts, Richard's crusade did not reach New Guinea ... ;)
This is soon to be disproved by Gavin Menzies' new book:
1192: The Year Richard Discovered New Guinea
Quote from: Malthus on January 29, 2014, 10:24:54 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 28, 2014, 07:31:33 PM
Richard the Prion-Diseased.
By most accounts, Richard's crusade did not reach New Guinea ... ;)
Lots of people have JCD.
It is weird that in pop culture it's so often depicted that cannibalism = kuru, which isn't any more true than McDonald's = mad cow.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 29, 2014, 11:15:00 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 29, 2014, 10:24:54 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 28, 2014, 07:31:33 PM
Richard the Prion-Diseased.
By most accounts, Richard's crusade did not reach New Guinea ... ;)
Lots of people have JCD.
It is weird that in pop culture it's so often depicted that cannibalism = kuru, which isn't any more true than McDonald's = mad cow.
I think you mean CJD, or Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease.
JDC is most definitely uncommon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Canon_Law :D
Kuru is associated with cannibalism and CJD generally isn't. Richard could munch on Saracens with relative impunity, as CJD is very uncommon ...
I thought it was Jakob-Cruetzfeldt. Well, anyway.
A genetic CJD sufferer is how kuru was initially introduced into the three New Guinean tribal populations that had high rates of kuru, iirc.
I wonder what the employment prospects are for a JCD though. :hmm: