In which European country the inhabitants ate their prime minister

The year 1672 in Holland was called by the locals "the year of disasters". The state was on the verge of complete occupation by the French, and in order to resist the onslaught of the aggressor, it had to take an unprecedented step - to artificially flood part of its territory. This caused a large-scale political crisis in the country. Decades before, the conflict between the extras (supporters of the republican system) and the Orangemen (supporters of the monarchy) flared up with renewed vigor, and against the backdrop of all this, the once super-popular leader of the extras, Prime Minister Johan de Witt was forced to resign after a series of failed assassination attempts on his life.

However, this was clearly not enough for the Orangemen, and with their submission, his brother, the famous Admiral Cornelis De Witt, was arrested. When Jan De Witt visited his brother in prison, the guards of the state institution under a dubious pretext left their duty stations, and a crowd of maddened commoners, spurred on by hunger and the advancing enemy army, by an "amazing" coincidence, gathered just next to the prison and, starting with chanting offensive slogans , then moved on to more decisive action-assault. The absence of guards made this task quite simple, and thus the brothers were literally carried out into the street to commit a terrible lynching.



A simple beating of the crowd was not enough, and in a fit of some kind of animal rage, De Witta was literally torn to pieces and dismembered by the "protesters". Pieces of their flesh were passed from hand to hand, fed to the dogs, fires were made there on the square, on which the "dish" was fried and eaten by already distraught townspeople. This event was described in world literature, in particular, in the novel "The Black Tulip" by Alexander Dumas.

Thus, already in the rather civilized 17th century, one of the most shameful events in the history of Western Europe took place, when citizens ate their own prime minister. Moreover, according to many historians, this was the scenario of one of the first "color" revolutions, which are still very popular today.

Thanks.

Man's inhumanity to man knows no limits.

originally posted by: 727Sky
Man's inhumanity to man knows no limits.

Unfortunately, now too (((

a reply to: RussianTroll

That's horrific!

It looks like Dutch Prime Ministers still aren't very popular. Here's some news from just a few days ago.

The Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, who cycles to work in The Hague, has reportedly been given extra personal security in response to raised fears of a kidnapping or attack by organised crime.

The decision was made after “spotters” were seen scoping out Rutte’s movements, raising concerns about a possible move by one of the country’s drug gangs.

www.theguardian.com...

Not cannibalism levels, but macchiavelian, nonetheless.

Reading through your OP and the wiki-link, conjured visions of what would happen if QEII incited the UK population to physically depose the PM, I laughed.

Then I thought of Steinbeck's character Lee in East of Eden and the narrative of his birth.

It is indeed a terrible thing when man abandons reason and gives into base emotion that destroys life.

a reply to: RussianTroll

Maybe they were hungry?

Tell you one thing, if politicians were afraid of the people they are supposed to represent and help, as opposed to hinder and line there own pockets, under fear or punishment of being ripped apart and eaten by there constituents, they might do there jobs as advertised.

Doesn't sounds like a bad idea now in a few countries. Not that I'd want to partake of the fare, but overall it might would set some things right.

the guards of the state institution under a dubious pretext left their duty stations, and a crowd of maddened commoners, spurred on by hunger and the advancing enemy army, by an "amazing" coincidence, gathered just next to the prison and, starting with chanting offensive slogans , then moved on to more decisive action-assault. The absence of guards made this task quite simple

History does repeat.
This is great info, I'd never heard of this incident before, nor the Dumas novel. Definitely going to check it out.

originally posted by: RussianTroll

I think it was more about hostility than hunger.

The political background needs to be explained. The De Witt party was associated with a policy of trusting Louis XIV of France and keeping on friendly terms with him, so they were being blamed for the disaster of the invasion. Their policy had failed.

However, this was clearly not enough for the Orangemen, and with their submission, his brother, the famous Admiral Cornelis De Witt, was arrested. When Jan De Witt visited his brother in prison, the guards of the state institution under a dubious pretext left their duty stations

The story in the Cambridge Modern History is that the prison was being protected by De Tilly with a squad of cavalry. But the Deputies governing the town got word that an angry mob of peasants were approaching the town gates, and wanted Tilly to transfer to the gates and keep them out. He refused to leave his post without written orders, so he was given written orders to take post at the gates and leave the civic guard to protect the prison from the town mob.

a reply to: RussianTroll
Incidentally, you mustn't get the idea that De Witt's party were "for the common people against the aristocracy", and therefore good. Not in this case. These "republicans" were an oligarchy, an elite of wealthy merchant capitalists. As frequently happens in history, the ordinary people were looking to the monarchy to protect them against the aristocrats.

Oh the virtues of discipline:

Their naked, mutilated bodies were strung up on the nearby public gibbet, while the Orangist mob partook of their roasted livers in a cannibalistic frenzy. Throughout it all, a remarkable discipline was maintained by the mob, according to contemporary observers, making one doubt the spontaneity of the even

en.wikipedia.org...

Right, anyone for liver?
Let's make a straight line over here.

Questions you may get while teaching this in primary school history:

"Teacher, is this why both 'prime minister' and 'prime steak' have a 'prime' in them?

"Er, yip absolutely Suzie, well spotted".

Just goes to show, if the politicians won't deliver, eventually the people shall de-liver!

From pagan times though, to say I eat your heart or liver wasn't just an idle threat.
But then the case under scrutiny here wasn't pagan.
This was well into the Christian era, and not our (pagan) doings.

Plain liver, or with salt, onions or at least vinegar.

What you think they had a liver-stand?
With mustard and ketchup?

Not quite, but I also doubt they had it plain.