Historical Myths Thread

[perplexedseeker]

So, if those Inquisitions were any guide (and they have a reputation for being especially bad!), then for a total across Europe it would most likely look like a figure in the low thousands? Still gruesome and unwarranted (from a modern persepective at least), but how does that compare to the numbers who were executed for secular crimes such as theft?

All this reminds me, when I was in primary school I caused controversy when I wrote a piece of work suggesting that (from a medieval perspective) burnings were considered merciful because they counted as penance... I can't remember where I got this from way back then, but does anyone know why burning at the stake was used, rather than any other method?

[himself]

eckadimmock

The numbers come from Herb Kamen's "The Spanish Inquisition." But be aware that there were spikes in the "normal" rates. At the very beginning there was a large-scale series of trials and executions of "New Christians." These were the sons or grandsons of those Jews who had converted to Christianity rather than be expelled by the Crown in Castile and the Crown in Aragon. They were accused of remaining secretly Jews or of attempting to Judaize Spanish Christianity. There is little evidence of this; but it is taken now as fact. (Jews who were openly Jews were outside the writ of the Tribunal.) This may have had more to do with political treason as with religious treason, for the other two spikes were associated respectively with a war scare of a Moroccan invasion, in which Moriscos - Spanish ex-muslims - were put on trial as being a sort of Fifth Column; and following the Spanish take-over of Portugal, in which Jews were forcibly converted and then prosecuted for insincerity. All three spikes have the whiff of enforcing political conformance. Remember, this was the age when the Kings had taken over the churches.

Another, broader book, is "Inquisition," by Edward Peters. It covers the history of inquisition from late Republican Rome onward, then the myth of the history, then the history of the myth.

[himself]

@perplexed seeker
Medieval figures are hard to come by as a) there was never a central "Inquisition" but only local tribunals convened for specific purposes; and b) most of the records that did exist were lost when Napoleon sacked the Vatican.

Even so, there were no inquisitorial tribunals in medieval England, Scandinavia, Northern Germany, Poland, or Northern France.

Inquisitio was a legal process best summarized by the opening of the TV show Law & Order. The people are represented by police who investigate crimes and prosecutors who try the criminals. The previous procedure was accusatio, in which the plaintiff has the responsibility to investigate the crime, collect evidence, compel witnesses, etc. This is fine and good for civil court -- and is still the basic process used there -- but not very good for bringing hardened criminals to trial. In inquisitio, unlike modern Anglosphere law, the investigators work for the prosecutor. We find echos of inquisitio in coroner's inquests, grand jury proceedings, and (in the US) the special prosecutor's office. The latter gives an especially good insight onto the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. Basically, one is prosecuting a =person= rather than a specific =criminal act.=

Peters' book is rich in such details.

[rtaylor]

I think that the story of Jesus is a myth. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all belong on the shelf marked 'mythology', alongside the myths of ancient Greece and Rome and everywhere else that produced fantastic stories in its history. What we now call 'myth' was generally believed to be 'truth' in ancient times. We have mythologized the religeons of the past. But if we look closely enough at these 'myths' we see many similarities with modern day religeons.
Some of these religeons even believed that Almighty God had sent his son to earth to teach mankind how to be civilised. This belief was prevalent in places like Ephesus, Rome, Galatia, Philipia, Corinth and Thessalonica. Prior to Christianity people in all these places believed that God had sent his son to earth, that he walked among men doing many wonderous things, curing disease, raising the dead etc, and that he died a violent death while in the prime of life.
After being dead for three days he was raised again and was taken up to heaven, to sit at the right hand side of God Almighty, his father.
Possibly the most famous of these was Aesculapious. The similarities between Jesus and Aesculpious are very clear. in fact the only difference between them is that the followers of Jesus claimed that he was the son of the Jewish God, Yahoo.
And he was a jealous God. Ex 20.5.
The worship of Aesculapious originated in Eygpt. He was well known as the god of the art of healing. His worship was established in Rome about 288 BC and flourished until about 485 AD.
Miracles where still being performed in his name nearly 500 years after the birth of Christianity.
One of his many titles was 'The Good Saviour'. The followers of Aesculapious and Jesus have et least one thing in common with each other. They all had or have, 'Faith'. The pagan faiths where for the most part tolerent. But the followers of Jesus had adopted Yahoo as his father.
This is what made Christianity become as intolerent as the Jews had always been.

[rtaylor]

Its not known how many people where killed during the Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps millions. Horribly tortured and brutally murdered in the name of Jesus. The office of the Inquisition was finally closed in about 1834. It lasted for about 400 years. It was even exported to the Americas by the Spanish and many people where burned alive there. It was a very dark time in human history and should never be forgotten. In the name of a loving God man behaves with inhumanity to his fellow man.
They where able to do this because they believe in a jealous god.
Their holy scriptures quite clearly say that the non-believer should be put to death.

[jamierobertson]

rtaylor, please provide some scholarly evidence for your claims about Aesculapious. That's what we do here if we're making historical claims - if you're genuine about "evidence over faith" then put your money where your mouth is.

EDIT - and for crying out loud, it's "Yahweh", not "Yahoo"

[James Hannam]

Guys,

rtaylor has dropped by the wrong board. I suggest we politely show him the door and suggest he's actually looking for:

www.freeratio.org/index.php?

where he should ask for Mountainman.

In the meantime, please stop offering him canapes.

Best wishes

James

[noons]

rtaylor,

you are posting opening assertions three pages into a thread. A thread which, by the way, is supposed to exclude topics like the Jesus Myth theory, as stated in the original post.


Now, one myth that I have been meaning to get to is Viking helmets. Did they really have horns, or is that just a creation of Wagner?

[merkavah12]

Speaking of Wagner, is there any truth to the story that Nietzsche physically assaulted him?

[Gigalith]

May 25, 2010 18:23:58 GMT rtaylor said:

Perhaps millions

The population of Spain in 1500 was 7 million. If the Spanish Inquisition actually killed 'merely' 2 million, they would have wiped out over %28 of their own population. The numbers do not add up.

We do, however, know how many people the Spanish Inquisition burned at the stake. The numbers are in this very thread.

You have frequently referenced this verse directly ordering Christians to kill non-believers. Please cite it.

[timoneill]

May 26, 2010 12:04:45 GMT noons said:

Now, one myth that I have been meaning to get to is Viking helmets. Did they really have horns, or is that just a creation of Wagner?

Actually, it's an invention of late Eighteenth Century French painters. Based on some Roman depictions of ceremonial Gallic helmets with (small) horns, it was decided that all ancient Gauls wore horned or winged helmets - which is why packets of Gauloise cigarettes are adorned with a picture of a winged helmet to this day. From there, the idea became that all "barbarians" wore horned or winged helmets and German, British and Scandinavian romantic artists of the Nineteenth Century routinely depicted Germanic and Viking warriors in them.

Exactly why the horned helmet image associated with Vikings stuck in the public consciousness is unclear. The only complete Viking helmet ever discovered - the Gjermundbu Helm - is distinctly hornless, as are all the helmets depicted in Viking art, such as the Sigtuna carving.

Actual battle helmets, as opposed to ceremonial head-wear, tend to avoid any large, solid projections - they tend to catch blows and, since the helmet is firmly attached to your head with a chin-strap, wrench your neck painfully. Decorative crests worn in the later Middle Ages were made of stuffed leather or even papier-mache and designed to come off if hit if they were ever worn into battle at all. Most helmet decorations tended to be feathers or horse-hair plumes or ribbons or other decorations that provided a bit of colour and movement but didn't give your enemy a solid target to thwack.

So no - no Viking horned helmets.

[penguinfan]

Hmmm, I'm not sure if the myth of Christianity causing the Dark Ages is the same thing that I had in mind, but what about Gibbon's belief that Christianity led to the decline and fall of the Roman empire?

[timoneill]

May 27, 2010 23:28:57 GMT penguinfan said:

but what about Gibbon's belief that Christianity led to the decline and fall of the Roman empire?

The Western Roman Empire fell. The Eastern Empire continued for another 1000 years. So anyone who wants to blame Christianity needs to explain why it was only the West that fell while the equally (or, actually, more) Christian Eastern Empire, with virtually the same Christian institutions and structures, didn't.

This idea simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[penguinfan]

I think the key word is decline. Obviously Christianity can't be said to be behind the fall of the Roman empire, but people would argue that Christianity was behind the decline of the empire. As for the Byzantines, that a band of Bedouins were able to route the empire's hold on much of the middle east, including Egypt and Syria, could be used as a nice argument that the Byzantine's were more than just exhausted from extensive warfare against the Persians, the Romans were rotting from the inside out.

But what do you think? I'm personally undecided but I think religious persecution and not Christianity would be the culprit. It should be said that the Romans were able lift themselves out of their mess a few centuries later under better leaders. So, it seems more like a social malaise during the end of the Roman empire in the West and much of it in the East until the ninth century or so.

Then again, I've never studied Roman history much and would like an expert's opinion.

[perplexedseeker]

I would highly recommend Tim's excellent book reviews about the fall of the Western roman empire:

armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/02/fall-of-west-death-of-roman-superpower.html
armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/03/ruin-of-roman-empire-new-history-by.html
armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/03/arther-ferrill-fall-of-roman-empire.html

They give a comprehensive overview of the current state of the debate.