La représentation des peuples des Balkans dans les chroniques de France lors de l’expédition de Hongrie : une synthèse des images du Turc et de l’Orthodoxe qui conduit à une nouvelle voie
Main Article Content
Abstract
About the Balkan’s image, we decide to include the Hungarian’s negative
representation. Effectively, Hungary is the privileged link between the Occidental and Oriental worlds. Nevertheless, in the French Chronicles, the Hungarians are: either the first victims of the Nicopolis defeat, or the total responsible of it, without alternative way. Quickly, the chroniclers, who accept
the second interpretation, assimilate Slavic people and Hungarians. In this
kind of texts, Hungarians are bloodthirsty against weak people, but coward in
front of an organized army and, Sigismond represents the bad king who can’t
assume the responsibility of the expedition. The Chronicles present essentially the Bulgarians. This nation is humiliated by the crusaders who sack the region and his king is unable to help the expedition by a levy of troop. In the same way, the extermination of the Rachova’s Slavic prisoners, the day before the battle of Nicopolis, proves all the scorn about the natives of this area.
We must understand that this region has a double inheritance: Balkan’s
people are doubly infidels, first because of the Greek orthodox image and,
secondly, they are considered as Turks, an another type of Saracen. The result
of this superimposition of images is a disparagement and a distrust towards
them. Nevertheless, even if the crusaders have the religious right for them to act as they did, because they are in the pagan world, some chroniclers, as the
religieux de Saint-Denis, decide to condemn the catholic army’s acts. By this
strong line, we can see the humanist spirit beginning to appear and this is the
real new way of thinking.
representation. Effectively, Hungary is the privileged link between the Occidental and Oriental worlds. Nevertheless, in the French Chronicles, the Hungarians are: either the first victims of the Nicopolis defeat, or the total responsible of it, without alternative way. Quickly, the chroniclers, who accept
the second interpretation, assimilate Slavic people and Hungarians. In this
kind of texts, Hungarians are bloodthirsty against weak people, but coward in
front of an organized army and, Sigismond represents the bad king who can’t
assume the responsibility of the expedition. The Chronicles present essentially the Bulgarians. This nation is humiliated by the crusaders who sack the region and his king is unable to help the expedition by a levy of troop. In the same way, the extermination of the Rachova’s Slavic prisoners, the day before the battle of Nicopolis, proves all the scorn about the natives of this area.
We must understand that this region has a double inheritance: Balkan’s
people are doubly infidels, first because of the Greek orthodox image and,
secondly, they are considered as Turks, an another type of Saracen. The result
of this superimposition of images is a disparagement and a distrust towards
them. Nevertheless, even if the crusaders have the religious right for them to act as they did, because they are in the pagan world, some chroniclers, as the
religieux de Saint-Denis, decide to condemn the catholic army’s acts. By this
strong line, we can see the humanist spirit beginning to appear and this is the
real new way of thinking.
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles