Life in the Middle Ages

[MENTION=10759]BrokenDaniel[/MENTION]

I find commonly slaughtering and eating your own children extremely primitive and barbaric. What about you?
 
[MENTION=10759]BrokenDaniel[/MENTION]

I find commonly slaughtering and eating your own children extremely primitive and barbaric. What about you?

What kind of question is that? These rites were as i said were overly stated, these weren't performed as much as it is made out to be. Also the one who implied a fondness of interracial gore was you...
 
May the most popular opinion win! One defends a civilations practice of human sacrifice and another praises a conquerer's destruction of that empire. It's all blood and gore and death either way.
 
What kind of question is that? These rites were as i said overly stated, these weren't performed as much as it seems to be. Also the one who implied a fondness of interracial gore was you.

"So i don't think you can draw the line that easily when it comes to "primitiveness' or even... "bestiality". You put one in the bag, and you put em'all, specially in that time." - BrokenDaniel

Some are far more primitive and barbaric than others. I think there is a bold line to drawn here between Europeans and the Aztecs in terms of primitive and barbaric behavior. Did Europeans of the time sacrifice millions or eat their children? I think not.
 
May the most popular opinion win! One defends a civilations practice of human sacrifice and another praises a conquerer's destruction of that empire. It's all blood and gore and death either way.

I wonder what people would think about human and child sacrifice were it still commonplace in Central and South America today. Would they defend it then?
 
"So i don't think you can draw the line that easily when it comes to "primitiveness' or even... "bestiality". You put one in the bag, and you put em'all, specially in that time." - BrokenDaniel

Some are far more primitive and barbaric than others. I think there is a bold line to drawn here between Europeans and the Aztecs in terms of primitive and barbaric behavior. Did Europeans of the time sacrifice millions or eat their children? I think not.

Where did you get that? Millions? Eat their children? You're making up bullshit to prove your point. Read the post that you just quoted me instead of responding out of the blue. Try again...


I wonder what people would think about human and child sacrifice were it still commonplace in Central and South America today. Would they defend it then?

Of course not. We're in the 21st century, the thread is about medieval ages, neither i do anyway, reread my posts. Although you do find bliss and delight in the annihiliation of an entire civilization, while talking for the poor little children of that same civilization that were sacrificed... You're a hypocritical, and also illiterate on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Yup, gonna be annoying and copy/paste everything from this source in one giant ass post. :D

Top 10 Medical Advances from the Middle Ages

Medieval medicine has often been portrayed as a time when physicians were ignorant and health care remained the stuff of superstitions and quackery. However, a closer look reveals that were many ways in which medical knowledge and care improved during the Middle Ages.

1. Hospitals
By the fourth century the concept of a hospital — a place where patients could be treated by doctors with access to specialized equipment — was emerging in parts of the Roman Empire. The origins of hospitals begin in Christian religious establishments that were meant to provide lodgings and care for the poor and travellers. In Byzantium and Western Europe hospitals were usually run by monasteries and gradually became larger and more complex over the Middle Ages. Meanwhile, in the Arabic world hospitals emerged in the 8th century as more secular institutions, and in larger cities they could be staffed by dozens of physicians, had several wards for different illnesses, and could even have amenities like musicians playing in the halls.

Hotel_Dieu_in_Paris_about_1500.gif

Hôtel-Dieu de Paris circa 1500. The comparatively well patients (on the right) were separated from the very ill (on the left).​

2. Pharmacies
The first pharmacy was established in Baghdad in the year 754. As one medieval Arabic physician said these were places for “the art of knowing the materia medica simples in their various species, types and shapes. From these, the pharmacist prepares compounded medications as prescribed and ordered by the prescribing physician.” Pharmacies proved to be very popular and more drug stores soon opened up around the Arabic world. By the 12th century they could be found in Europe. Having pharmacies greatly aided the development of knowledge about drugs and how they could be made.

pharmacy.jpg

Illustration of a pharmacy in the Italian Tacuinum sanitatis, 14th century.​

3. Eyeglasses
We are not sure who invented eyeglasses to help correct vision, but by the end of 13th-century it seems that the product was well known in Italy. A Dominican friar named Giordano da Pisa said in a sermon from the year 1305: “It is not yet twenty years since there was found the art of making eyeglasses, which make for good vision… And it is so short a time that this new art, never before extant, was discovered. … I saw the one who first discovered and practiced it, and I talked to him.” The earliest depiction of a person wearing glasses comes from the year 1352, when Tommaso da Modena included an image of Cardinal Hugh of Provence as part of a fresco in a church. It shows the cardinal wearing the glasses as he writes at his desk.

first-eyeglasses-570x379.jpg

Tommaso da Modena depicting eyeglasses in 1352.​

4. Anatomy and dissection
Many historians have believed that knowledge about anatomy stagnated in the Middle Ages. However, there is a great deal of evidence that medieval physicians were conducting experiments and examining the anatomy of the human body. In the year 1315 the Italian physician Mondino de Luzzi even conducted a public dissection for his students and spectators. The following year he would write Anathomia corporis humani, which is considered the first example of a modern dissection manual and the first true anatomical text.

Dissection_of_a_Cadaver.jpg

Dissection of a cadaver, 15th century painting​

5. Medical Education in Universities
The rise of universities throughout Europe would bring about important, but gradual, changes to the practices of medicine. Many medieval universities would teach physicians and become the main centres through which medical knowledge would be shared. Thomas Benedek explains in his article, ‘The Shift of Medical Education into the Universities‘: “In 1231 Frederick II promulgated a set of laws concerning medical education standards and licensure that were far ahead of his time. Although these laws did not have an immediate effect on medical training and practice, his codification of the importance of premedical education probably reinforced and stabilized an educational method which was developing and which became a cornerstone of the professionalization of physicians.”

6. Ophthalmology and optics
Ancient writers believed that humans could see things through invisible beams of light that were being emanated from the eyes. The 11th century scientist Ibn al-Haytham, came up with a new explanation for vision through his research on optics and the anatomy of the eye. His work, Book of Optics, would be considered the most important research in the field for hundreds of years. Medieval Arabic physicians were also notable for their advances in the area of ophthalmology, including the invention of the first syringe, which was used to extract a cataract from the eye.

Cheshm_manuscript-375x500.jpg

Anatomy of the Eye, from about the year 1200​

7. Cleaning wounds
Ancient medical writers believed that during surgery some pus should remain in the wounds, thinking that this would aid in its healing. This idea remained widespread until the 13th-century surgeon Theodoric Borgognoni came up with an antiseptic method, where wounds were to be cleaned and then sutured to promote healing. He even had bandages pre-soaked in wine as a form of disinfectant. The Italian surgeon is also know for pioneering the use aneasthetics in surgery. Borgognoni would make patients fall unconscious by placing a sponge soaked in opium, mandrake, hemlock and other substances under their nose.

8. Cesarean sections
While cesarean sections were practiced throughout the Middle Ages, this was done because the mother had died or had no chance of survival — and in some cases where the child was also already dead. But around the year 1500 we have the first written record of having both a mother and baby surviving a cesarean section. A Swiss farmer named Jacob Nufer performed the operation on his wife. She had been in labour for several days and was being assisted by thirteen midwives, but was still unable to deliver her baby. The operation was a success, with the mother subsequently going on to give birth to five more children, including twins. The baby lived to be 77 years old.

9. Quarantine
The concept of quarantine — to keep groups of people apart so that disease could not spread — began in the aftermath of the Black Death. In the year 1377 the city of Ragusa (now known as Dubrovnik) issued orders to combat the plague that included making arriving ships wait 30 days in the harbour before docking, so that authorities could be sure no one was infected. For land travellers this period was expanded to 40 days (in Italian quaranta). The success of these measures led to it being used in other parts of Italy and Europe by the end of the Middle Ages.

10. Dental Amalgams
One of the most important contributions to medicine from medieval China was to creation of amalgams for dental procedures. A text from the year 659 details the first use of a substance for tooth fillings, which was made up of silver and tin. The process was not used in Europe until the 16th century.
 
Where did you get that? Millions? Eat their children? You're making up bullshit to prove your point. Read the post that you just quoted me instead of responding out of the blue. Try again...

Of course not. We're in the 21st century, the thread is about medieval ages, neither i do anyway, reread my posts. Although you do find bliss and delight in the annihiliation of an entire civilization, while talking for the poor little children of that same civilization that were sacrificed... You're a hypocritical, and also illiterate on the subject.

If you were Cortes what would you have done?
 
If you were Cortes what would you have done?

Who cares, that's an irrelevant question. I doubt that if you were an aztec, or incan, would gladly offer yourself for punishment for the "barbaric acts" that in the eyes of the western church commited.
If anything i could argue that these civilizations were transparent regarding more taboo subjects like death, whereas the europeans lived in a state of guilt, fear, repression and release. Also in the case of Aztecs, gold was the main motive behind the fall of Tenochtitlan. Maybe if they didn't had so much gold, we'll have an hibrid of sacrificial christianity today in the Americas for the indignated crusaders like you seem to be to fight and bash against.
And that syncretism already exists anyway, in Mexico. Santa Muerte. St Death. Recently banned from being considered as a cult.

2l91s7q.jpg
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION]

You barely know your own history.

A custom of the sea is a custom that is said to be practiced by the officers and crew of ships and boats in the open sea, as distinguished from maritime law, which is a distinct and coherent body of law that governs maritime questions and offenses.

Possibly the best-known of these customs is the practice of shipwrecked survivors drawing lots to see who is to be killed and eaten so that the others might survive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custom_of_the_sea

Middle Ages

Reports of cannibalism were recorded during the First Crusade, as Crusaders were alleged to have fed on the bodies of their dead opponents following the Siege of Ma'arrat al-Numan. Amin Maalouf also alleges further cannibalism incidents on the march to Jerusalem, and to the efforts made to delete mention of these from western history. During Europe's Great Famine of 1315–1317 there were many reports of cannibalism among the starving populations. In North Africa, as in Europe, there are references to cannibalism as a last resort in times of famine.

The Moroccan Muslim explorer Ibn Batutta reported that one African king advised him that nearby people were cannibals (although this may have been a prank played on Ibn Batutta by the king to fluster his guest). However Batutta reported that Arabs and Christians were safe, as their flesh was "unripe" and would cause the eater to fall ill.

For a brief time in Europe, an unusual form of cannibalism occurred when thousands of Egyptian mummies preserved in bitumen were ground up and sold as medicine. The practice developed into a wide-scale business which flourished until the late 16th century. This "fad" ended because the mummies were revealed actually to be recently killed slaves. Two centuries ago, mummies were still believed to have medicinal properties against bleeding, and were sold as pharmaceuticals in powdered form (see human mummy confection and mummia).

In China during the Tang dynasty, cannibalism was supposedly resorted to by rebel forces early in the period (who were said to raid neighboring areas for victims to eat), as well as both soldiers and civilians besieged during the rebellion of An Lushan. Eating an enemy's heart and liver was also claimed to be a feature of both official punishments and private vengeance. References to cannibalizing the enemy has also been seen in poetry written in the Song dynasty (for example, in Man Jiang Hong), although the cannibalizing is perhaps poetic symbolism, expressing hatred towards the enemy.

While there is universal agreement that some Mesoamerican people practiced human sacrifice, there is a lack of scholarly consensus as to whether cannibalism in pre-Columbian America was widespread. At one extreme, anthropologist Marvin Harris, author of Cannibals and Kings, has suggested that the flesh of the victims was a part of an aristocratic diet as a reward, since the Aztec diet was lacking in proteins. While most pre-Columbian historians believe that there was ritual cannibalism related to human sacrifices, they do not support Harris's thesis that human flesh was ever a significant portion of the Aztec diet. Others have hypothesized that cannibalism was part of a blood revenge in war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism#Middle_Ages
 
Last edited:
Could you clarify what point, if any, you are trying to make?

It almost seems as though you are trying to equate cannibalism out of starvation/necessity with ritualistic killing/cannibalism; but I don't want to assume that was the point you were making.

I am making the comparison and I did expect you or someone to bring up the distinction, but it'll be interesting to see whether you believe you can actually define the distinction AND determine their mutual exclusivity.

Here's a hypothetical situation for you to ponder:

Suppose a group of people under such conditions, believing it necessary for their survival, commit to the act of cannibalism. Then suppose they are discovered/rescued/relieved the very next day. Was the act necessary for their survival?

Regardless of your answer, by what reasoning would it have to be the case that it cannot be both ritualistic and also necessary?
 
I am making the comparison and I did expect you or someone to bring up the distinction, but it'll be interesting to see whether you believe you can actually define the distinction AND determine their mutual exclusivity.

Here's a hypothetical situation for you to ponder:

Suppose a group of people under such conditions, believing it necessary for their survival, commit to the act of cannibalism. Then suppose they are discovered/rescued/relieved the very next day. Was the act necessary for their survival?

Regardless of your answer, by what reasoning would it have to be the case that it cannot be both ritualistic and also necessary?
I think I'll wait to answer these questions until you have answered mine; to make sure you're actually serious.

I'll repost:
Could you clarify what point, if any, you are trying to make?

It almost seems as though you are trying to equate cannibalism out of starvation/necessity with ritualistic killing/cannibalism; but I don't want to assume that was the point you were making.
 
I think I'll wait to answer these questions until you have answered mine; to make sure you're actually serious.

I'll repost:
Could you clarify what point, if any, you are trying to make?

It almost seems as though you are trying to equate cannibalism out of starvation/necessity with ritualistic killing/cannibalism; but I don't want to assume that was the point you were making.

My point was directed at [MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION]'s usage of cannibalism as a form of misplaced blood libel justification, ie the mere fact of cannibalism in one culture not only justifies condemnation, but also grants a moral superiority against all other cultures as well. As this post suggests:

Without diving into detail, I think it is acceptable to destroy a civilization that primitive.

As the wikipage on cannibalism mentions:

Unsubstantiated reports of cannibalism disproportionately relate cases of cannibalism among cultures that are already otherwise despised, feared, or are little known. In antiquity, Greek reports of cannibalism (often called anthropophagy in this context) were related to distant non-Hellenic barbarians, or else relegated in Greek mythology to the "primitive" chthonic world that preceded the coming of the Olympian gods, e.g., the explicit rejection of human sacrifice in the cannibal feast prepared for the Olympians by Tantalus of his son Pelops. All South Sea Islanders were cannibals so far as their enemies were concerned. When a whale rammed and sank the whaler Essex in 1820, the captain opted to sail 3000 miles upwind to Chile rather than 1400 miles downwind to the Marquesas because he had heard the Marquesans were cannibals. Ironically, many of the survivors of the shipwreck resorted to cannibalism to survive. Historically, allegations of cannibalism were used by the colonial powers as a tool of empire to justify the subjugation of what were seen as primitive peoples.

However, Herman Melville happily lived with the Marquesan Typees for a time after the other two tribes on the island told him they were cannibals. In his semi-autobiographical novel Typee, he reports seeing shrunken heads and having strong evidence that the tribal leaders ceremonially consumed the bodies of killed warriors of the neighboring tribe after a skirmish.

William Arens, author of The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy, questions the credibility of reports of cannibalism and argues that the description by one group of people of another people as cannibals is a consistent and demonstrable ideological and rhetorical device to establish perceived cultural superiority. Arens bases his thesis on a detailed analysis of numerous "classic" cases of cultural cannibalism cited by explorers, missionaries, and anthropologists. He asserted that many were steeped in racism, unsubstantiated, or based on second-hand or hearsay evidence. Arens' findings are controversial and have been cited as an example of postcolonial revisionism.

Conversely, Michel de Montaigne's essay "Of cannibals" introduced a new multicultural note in European civilization. Montaigne wrote that "one calls 'barbarism' whatever he is not accustomed to."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism#As_used_to_demonize_colonized_or_other_groups

[MENTION=10759]BrokenDaniel[/MENTION]

I find commonly slaughtering and eating your own children extremely primitive and barbaric. What about you?

Survival was a moral as well as a physical struggle. A woman doctor wrote to a friend in June 1933 that she had not yet become a cannibal, but was "not sure that I shall not be one by the time my letter reaches you." The good people died first. Those who refused to steal or to prostitute themselves died. Those who gave food to others died. Those who refused to eat corpses died. Those who refused to kill their fellow man died. Parents who resisted cannibalism died before their children did.

The Soviet regime printed posters declaring: "To eat your own children is a barbarian act." More than 2,500 people were convicted of cannibalism during the Holodomor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

I think it's a moral and physical struggle that shouldn't be discussed so misleadingly.
 
My point was directed at @Elegant Winter's usage of cannibalism as a form of misplaced blood libel justification, ie the mere fact of cannibalism in one culture not only justifies condemnation, but also grants a moral superiority against all other cultures as well.
I think it's a moral and physical struggle that shouldn't be discussed so misleadingly.
That doesn't seem like a reasonable representation of ElegantWinter's point. It seemed pretty clear that the point ElegantW was making was that cultures, in which ritual infanticide (with subsequent cannibalism) is acceptable, should be considered/treated as unacceptable cultures.

Trying to spring an "aha" because starving soldiers may have eaten the remains of enemies slain in battle is missing the point. Cannibalism isn't in itself abhorrent, except that it doesn't respect the bodies of the dead; but this respect for the bodies of the dead cannot take precedence over the needs of the starving living.

Culturally entrenched ritual infanticide and ritual child murder seem to be the issue.


I am making the comparison and I did expect you or someone to bring up the distinction, but it'll be interesting to see whether you believe you can actually define the distinction AND determine their mutual exclusivity.

Here's a hypothetical situation for you to ponder:

Suppose a group of people under such conditions, believing it necessary for their survival, commit to the act of cannibalism. Then suppose they are discovered/rescued/relieved the very next day. Was the act necessary for their survival?

Regardless of your answer, by what reasoning would it have to be the case that it cannot be both ritualistic and also necessary?
In the example of rescued cannibals, whether it was necessary depends on whether they knew the would be rescued, and whether they could have made it to the next day. If they had no reason to expect rescue, then it was necessary.

Ritualistic murder/cannibalism could indeed be necessary for the preservation of the life of the cannibals. But in that instance the need does not justify the killing - you cannot take an innocent, non-threatening life to save another life. But returning to the topic in question, the ritual sacrifice of children in Central America was performed on such a large scale that there were literally hills of rotting corpses left outside the temple precincts after major ritual days. These were rituals run by the "state." Cannibalism was token and ritualistic, if practiced at all in the majority of cases. Such a culture had to be overturned and never allowed to return.

In the contemporary situation, global governments want to overturn leaders who use chemical weapons on their people. Can you imagine what would happen if the President of Mexico appointed a native religion commission and they started to tear the beating hearts out of children at a rate of more than 10,000 a day, just like in the pre-colonial times?
 
That doesn't seem like a reasonable representation of ElegantWinter's point. It seemed pretty clear that the point ElegantW was making was that cultures, in which ritual infanticide (with subsequent cannibalism) is acceptable, should be considered/treated as unacceptable cultures.

I don't find it unreasonable in the least. It is entirely consistent with statements previously made in this and other threads. This post clearly indicates annihilation to be synonymous with genocide:

I like how Hernan Cortes annihilated the Aztecs. It's wonderful.

Perhaps you remember the thread where EW used 'annihilation' as a metaphor for proselytizing or conversion and adamantly denied any association with violence?

This post here, which you apparently agree with, conflating the process of civilizing others and committing genocide to be equally acceptable:

Any white person (that is to say any European) who brought the element of civilization (key words) had the right to take over this continent, yes.

Hence, it would seem that proselytizing/converting other cultures and killing/destroying them are equivalent activities to you both. Nobody is asking you to accept or condone any such behavior. That doesn't make it acceptable to make misleading and spurious claims based on such little information that is leading towards acts of blatant hypocrisy.

If they had no reason to expect rescue, then it was necessary.

We can't seem to agree on a reasonable representation of EW's point. There are times when either option is a fully and equally plausible outcome and thus likened to the flipping of a coin.

Ritualistic murder/cannibalism could indeed be necessary for the preservation of the life of the cannibals. But in that instance the need does not justify the killing - you cannot take an innocent, non-threatening life to save another life. But returning to the topic in question, the ritual sacrifice of children in Central America was performed on such a large scale that there were literally hills of rotting corpses left outside the temple precincts after major ritual days. These were rituals run by the "state." Cannibalism was token and ritualistic, if practiced at all in the majority of cases. Such a culture had to be overturned and never allowed to return.

This is a very spurious claim as to the extent that is not backed by the available evidence.
 
[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION]

Regarding your own beliefs, could you please explain to me how the Eucharist significantly differs from ritual cannibalism?

Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the change of substance by which the bread and the wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the physical Body and Blood of Jesus the Christ.
 
Swiss Armor 1.webp

Here is a suit of Swiss armor from 1480 that I like. I think some of the plate armor from the Middle Ages is very nice.
 
Forced self-cannibalism as a form of torture or war crime has been reported. Erzsébet Báthory allegedly forced some of her servants to eat their own flesh in the early 17th century. In the 16th century, Spanish colonizers forced natives to eat their own testicles. Incidents were reported in the years following the 1991 Haitian coup d'état. In the 1990s young people in Sudan were forced to eat their own ears.

More great examples of the benevolence of the morally superior. Simultaneous proof AND punishment! A brilliantly efficient cultural achievement.
 
Back
Top