In April 1590 Henry IV of Navarre, the Protestant heir presumptive to the French crown, led his army of 20,000 to the outskirts of Paris and laid siege to the Catholic city of 220,000. Grain inventories amounted to only a one month supply, so food prices immediately soared. Poor citizens were wracked by acute hunger in less than two weeks, and city officials forced the Jesuit College to share its stock of food. But before long the Parisian poor had to move on from eating grain to consuming their own cats and dogs, which were “killed and cooked with herbs and roots in large pots,” producing a runny stew that was consumed with an ounce of bread. By mid-summer the city’s elite was exchanging their jewels, tapestries, and other treasures for porridge of “cooked grass and weeds without salt, and pots of horse-meat, ass, and mule.”
The Case for Cannibalism
The starving poor rioted in August, but the unrest was viciously put down by the city government, determined to avoid surrender to the hated Protestants. The body count proceeded to mount; “some mornings there were 100, 150, and at times as many as 200 dead of hunger in the streets,” a contemporary reported. Extreme measures were in order. Bones in a cemetery were disinterred, ground into powder and mixed with water to form wafers. Cannibalism inevitably followed, which raised delicate theological issues. A prominent Catholic argued “there was less danger [in the hereafter] by eating a child in such circumstances, than by recognizing . . . a heretic [Henry IV].” Historian Lauro Martines, in his fine book Furies, estimates that at least 13,000, but possibly as many as 30,000, perished in the siege.
Two Centuries of Religious War
This tale of cannibalism on the Seine was far from unique in early modern Europe. The siege of Paris was just one of many horrific sieges, wars and sackings motivated by religious fanaticism in the 16th and 17th centuries. There was the siege of Sancerre, a Protestant stronghold in the Loire Valley, in 1572; the sacking of Magdeburg in 1631 (part of Germany’s Thirty Years War); the sacking of Brescia (1512) when a quarter of the city’s population died; and the sacking of Antwerp in 1576. Although real politic was also in play, all of these and many other catastrophic military clashes were inspired by religion. To the combatants, a few weeks or months of hell on earth was preferable to eternal damnation.
Connecticut Conflagration
Nor was this fanaticism restricted to the eastern shores of the North Atlantic. In New England in the 1630s sporadic deadly clashes between Pequot Indians and English Puritan settlers culminated in a horrific conflagration in 1637, well described by celebrated historian Bernard Bailyn in his latest book, The Barbarous Years. The Pequots, including not only warriors but several hundred men, women and children, retreated to a fort in Mystic, Connecticut, which was immediately surrounded by 90 English troops. They proceeded to block the exits, set fire to the fort, and kill about 40 Indians who attempted to escape the flames. In all an estimated 600 to 700 Pequot perished in the blaze. It was, a witness averred, “an awful sight to see them thus frying in the fire, and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof.” But in what they termed this “divine slaughter” the English perceived the righteous hand of God, “who had wrought so wonderfully for them, thus to enclose their enemies in their hands and give them so speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enemy.”
From Paris 1590 to Damascus 2013
Europe’s religious fanaticism throws current events in the Middle East into sharp historical perspective. To my inexpert eye, there is not much difference between Sunni vs. Shia today and Protestant vs. Catholic in 1590–nor is Muslim hatred of Jews and Christians particularly surprising or unnatural. As we learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, the notion that Muslim fanaticism and factionalism in the Mideast can be moderated by enlightened western intervention is simply false. For the U.S., such incursions are all cost and no benefit—not even much gratitude from the intended beneficiaries. The West can do nothing more in the region than protect its own interests and let history play out—including civil wars such as the one now raging in Syria. A great many individuals on both sides of that conflict hate the U.S. and Israel. It is indeed unfortunate that the death toll is 70,000 and climbing, but there is little we can do about it; indeed, our intervention might prolong the conflict. Nor do we have a moral obligation to intervene – any more than the British did in the 1860s, when 625,000 perished in the American Civil War.
Given the costly failure of past American interventions, which were viciously condemned by the left, it’s downright weird to read New York Times pundit Bill Keller’s fanciful tale of how things would play out if we intervened in Syria. From his comfortable office overlooking Times Square, Keller sketches this pleasant reverie: “The United States moves to assert control of the arming and training of rebels. . . . We [bomb Syria and force the Assad regime to sue for peace]. All of this must be carefully choreographed, and accompanied by a symphony of diplomacy to keep our allies with us and our adversaries at bay. The aim would be to eventually have a transition government….” Which raises the obvious question, “transition” to what? Very likely to a democratically elected regime of anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Israel Muslim fanatics, similar to the one now governing Egypt. No thank you. (To be fair to Keller, some Republicans such as John McCain and Bill Kristol share his naïve optimism.)
On a more positive note, Christianity’s long-term trend toward moderation is applicable to Islam as well. All texts, including religious texts, are subject to wide interpretation. Muslim fanaticism in the Middle East may well moderate over time. But as the history of European Christianity shows, that can be a very protracted process.
Sources: Lauro Martines, Furies: War in Europe, 1450-1700 (New York, 2013); Bernard Bailyn, The Barbarous Years: The Conflict of Civilizations, 1600-1675 (New York, 2013).
Copyright Thomas Doerflinger 2013. All Rights Reserved.
