Beheading with sword or axe
Per-Erik Skramstad
sword *or* axe. Does anyone know when or why axe or sword was used? I
think it was rather late that beheading became the usual method, wasn't
it? Is there a significant difference, or is the use of either one
arbitrary? Has anything been written on the axe/sword topic?
Thanks for any help!
per-erik skramstad
norway
Graeme Davis
it worked. In England, at least.
Beheading was a form of execution used for the upper classes, largely
because it was quicker and more dignified than hanging (the neck-breaking
drop, as I understand it, was not introduced to hanging until after the
middle ages). Normally an axe was used, but when Anne Boleyn, the second
wife of Henry VIII, was executed, a sword was used, as being more fitting to
a lady. (There may have been other such instances, and perhaps the sword was
more usual in France and other mainland European countries; maybe someone
else on the ng has some info on this.) If I remember right, they had to
import an executioner from France for the job, since no executioner in
England was skilled in using the sword. The executioner's sword was a
special type, two-handed, with a square end instead of a point.
Per-Erik Skramstad wrote in message <35C9B873...@online.no>...
Abercjohn
writes:
>Subject: Re: Beheading with sword or axe
>From: "Graeme Davis" <gra...@vr1.com>
>Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:53:15 -0600
>
snip of interesting post saying that axes were used for upper class executions
as being more dignified, speedier etc than hanging with additional material
about
swords.
I think the broad distinction is true, at least in the early modern period.
But, anomalously,there was a rather primitive
guillotine (called The Maiden) in use in Edinburgh from some time in the 16th
century. I believe there was also one in Huddersfield. The Edinburgh one, at
least,
was used on all classes but hanging also remained in use.
Regards
John
abercjohn
John G Harrison
Alexander Maclennan
>
> I think the broad distinction is true, at least in the early modern
> period. But, anomalously,there was a rather primitive guillotine (called
> The Maiden) in use in Edinburgh from some time in the 16th century. I
> believe there was also one in Huddersfield. The Edinburgh one, at least,
> was used on all classes but hanging also remained in use.
> Regards
> John
The Edinburgh Maiden is still there, in the Museum of Antiquities. I
don`t think it has seen use for some time though.
--
Alexander MacLennan sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk
Paul J. Gans
>I am a bit confused about medieval executions concerning beheading with
>sword *or* axe. Does anyone know when or why axe or sword was used? I
>think it was rather late that beheading became the usual method, wasn't
>it? Is there a significant difference, or is the use of either one
>arbitrary? Has anything been written on the axe/sword topic?
>Thanks for any help!
>per-erik skramstad
>norway
I can't help you with your direct question. But beheading
was in England the method used to execute members of the
nobility. It was thought to be far more humane and less
painful than hanging. Treason of course could be dealt
with in a far more humiliating manner.
I have no idea when beheading became the standard method
for executing the nobility though. I don't believe that
it was used in the 12th century. The habit then seems to
have been to imprison those who were inconvenient.
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
MtLoweMan
skilled at it. I remember reading about 50 members of a regiment that
mutinied being sentenced to death, and the executioner beheaded them all in
about 30 minutes.
Chris----...@aol.Com
David C. Pugh
Paul J. Gans wrote in message <6qdi4j$r...@panix2.panix.com>...
>I have no idea when beheading became the standard method
>for executing the nobility though. I don't believe that
>it was used in the 12th century. The habit then seems to
>have been to imprison those who were inconvenient.
>
Well, Earl Waltheof was beheaded in 1076. As people have said, something
slower might be expected for treason, so maybe there were political reasons
for being nice to him.
Of course, if a noble bothers the king, it's treason, and if he bothers
someone beneath him, it's feudalism, so I don't see how he can be guilty of
an _ordinary_ capital crime .... ;-)
David
Sophia
>it worked. In England, at least.
>
>Normally an axe was used, but when Anne Boleyn, the second
>wife of Henry VIII, was executed, a sword was used, as being more fitting to
>a lady.
In fact she specifically requested the use of the sword, which was, in skilled
hands, much more reliable in producing a quick death. Many an English peer
suffered from repeated hacking (cf the notoriously botched execution of the
Duke of Monmouth) with the axe.
>(There may have been other such instances, and perhaps the sword was
>more usual in France and other mainland European countries; maybe someone
>else on the ng has some info on this.)
The sword was used in France and Western Germany until the Revolutionary
period, when it was replaced by the guillotine. Prussia kept the the axe until
this century.
The last person beheaded in England was Lord Lovat in 1746 for his part in
the 1745 uprising.
>
>>
>
>
Sophia:
Faith in fabulousness
Sophia
Abercjohn <aber...@aol.com> writes
>
>>Subject: Re: Beheading with sword or axe
>>From: "Graeme Davis" <gra...@vr1.com>
>>Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:53:15 -0600
>>
>
>snip of interesting post saying that axes were used for upper class executions
>as being more dignified, speedier etc than hanging with additional material
>about
>swords.
>
>But, anomalously,there was a rather primitive
>guillotine (called The Maiden) in use in Edinburgh from some time in the 16th
>century. I believe there was also one in Huddersfield. The Edinburgh one, at
>least,
'From Hell, Hull and Halifax,
Good Lord defend us.'
Hull and Halifax were both notorious for their bloody ideas of justice. The
Scottish Maiden was a direct copy of the Halifax machine and was
introduced by the Regent, Lord Morton. When he fell from power he became
a victim of it.
Sophia:
Faith in fabulousness
Matthew Harley
>
> I am a bit confused about medieval executions concerning beheading with
> sword *or* axe. Does anyone know when or why axe or sword was used? I
> think it was rather late that beheading became the usual method, wasn't
> it? Is there a significant difference, or is the use of either one
> arbitrary? Has anything been written on the axe/sword topic?
>
Antonia Fraser in her "Six wives of Henry VIII" referring to the
execution of Anne Boleyn says (Mandarin Paperback edition p253/4) that "
The ‘hangman of Calais’ had been summoned (at a cost of £24) since he
was an expert with a sword, thus in Anne’s case, the sharp efficient
‘sword of Calais’ was going to be substituted for the axe. This was a
favour to the victim since her dispatch was likely to be swift (the use
of the axe could sometimes mean a hideously long-drawn out affair)".
I think it was the old BBC T.V. series of the "Six wives" with Keith
Michel that claimed the sword was a concession from Henry but Fraser in
a footnote says there is no record of who made the decision.
On page 257 she describes how the act was done humanely: the sword was
hidden in straw near the block; the executioner distracted Anne and when
she turned her head, it seemed to watchers that "suddenly the hangman
smote off her head with a stroke".
Matt Harley
Lady Valois
section on it with names and dates.
Lady Valois
Per-Erik Skramstad wrote in message <35C9B873...@online.no>...
>I am a bit confused about medieval executions concerning beheading with
>sword *or* axe. Does anyone know when or why axe or sword was used? I
>think it was rather late that beheading became the usual method, wasn't
>it? Is there a significant difference, or is the use of either one
>arbitrary? Has anything been written on the axe/sword topic?
>
Alex Milman
Graeme Davis wrote:
> I can't quote sources for any of this, but here's how I've always *thought*
> it worked. In England, at least.
>
> Beheading was a form of execution used for the upper classes, largely
> because it was quicker and more dignified than hanging (the neck-breaking
> drop, as I understand it, was not introduced to hanging until after the
> middle ages). Normally an axe was used, but when Anne Boleyn, the second
> wife of Henry VIII, was executed, a sword was used, as being more fitting to
> a lady. (There may have been other such instances, and perhaps the sword was
> more usual in France and other mainland European countries; maybe someone
> else on the ng has some info on this.)
My impression is that sword had been widely used in Germany. OTOH, in Russiait
was an axe (if somebody had been lucky enough to get simply beheaded).
> If I remember right, they had to
> import an executioner from France for the job, since no executioner in
> England was skilled in using the sword. The executioner's sword was a
> special type, two-handed, with a square end instead of a point.
>
German executioner's swords I had chance to see looked exactly like that.
Jgissw
>Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 06:26:27 -0000
>Per-Erik Skramstad wrote
>>I am a bit confused about medieval executions concerning beheading with
>>sword *or* axe. Does anyone know when or why axe or sword was used?
>>Try finding the book "Old Time Punishments" by William Andrews. It has a
>section on it with names and dates.
Does the book discuss the reason for choice between axe and sword? I
would guess an axe would be heavier, so that one need merely guide it to cut
through at one stroke and not make a mess of it. Considered to be in bad
taste to keep whacking away. Perhaps a sword would suffice for a small neck.
"A sharp medicine, but one sufficient to cure me of all my ills."
Cheers
John GW
Kathy McIntosh
writes
>
snip
>beheading
>was in England the method used to execute members of the
>nobility. It was thought to be far more humane and less
>painful than hanging. Treason of course could be dealt
>with in a far more humiliating manner.
>
The far more humiliating method was, of course, hanging, drawing and
quartering, introduced by that paranoid land grabber, Edward 1. the
first victim was Dafydd ap Gruffud, Prince of Wales., [more correctly,
Gwynedd]. Technically he wasn't a traitor, as he was fighting to keep
independent Wales independent, as he was perfectly entitled to do.
Getting back to the original thread, if Henry had a sword used on Anne
Bolyn because she was a]female and b] Royalty, what did they use on
Mary, Queen of Scots?
--
Kathy McIntosh
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Robert Byrne.
Sophia
<jgi...@aol.com> writes
>
> Does the book discuss the reason for choice between axe and sword? I
>would guess an axe would be heavier, so that one need merely guide it to cut
>through at one stroke and not make a mess of it. Considered to be in bad
>taste to keep whacking away. Perhaps a sword would suffice for a small neck.
>
seen from the very high percentage of executions using it which were
bungled.
The swords used for executions were very long, broad bladed and had a
blunt tip: they were more than sufficient, in the right hands, to cut through any
neck.
Sophia:
Faith in fabulousness
Jgissw
>Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 08:54:41 +0100
>The sword required more skill, but the axe was far from easy, as can be
>seen from the very high percentage of executions using it which were
>bungled.
Yeah, IIRC, in Kendall's RIII, someone says he hopes the executioner won't
make a mess of the job. Very annoying for the condemned.
Cheers
John GW
Cometkazie
<ka...@vineries.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Getting back to the original thread, if Henry had a sword used on Anne
>Bolyn because she was a]female and b] Royalty, what did they use on
>Mary, Queen of Scots?
An axe & it took two whacks.
a15...@micronet.fr
Kathy McIntosh <ka...@vineries.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <6qdi4j$r...@panix2.panix.com>, Paul J. Gans <ga...@panix.com>
> writes
> >
> snip
>
> >beheading
> >was in England the method used to execute members of the
> >nobility. It was thought to be far more humane and less
> >painful than hanging. Treason of course could be dealt
> >with in a far more humiliating manner.
> >
>
> The far more humiliating method was, of course, hanging, drawing and
> quartering, introduced by that paranoid land grabber, Edward 1. the
> first victim was Dafydd ap Gruffud, Prince of Wales., [more correctly,
> Gwynedd]. Technically he wasn't a traitor, as he was fighting to keep
> independent Wales independent, as he was perfectly entitled to do.
>
> Bolyn because she was a]female and b] Royalty, what did they use on
> Mary, Queen of Scots?
According to Antonia Fraser in her Mary Queen of Scots, they used an axe and
made a mess of it - which I will not describe before the kids have gone to
bed. Why Mary deserved the axe rather than the sword I do not know. Perhaps
Elisabeth is still trying to answer that question....whereever she is.......
Matt Harley
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Laura Blanchard
>
> Without wishing to appear rude, this is a bit silly. Why was Edward a
> paranoid land grabber?
I think it was a metaphor for "cautious monarch pursuing his Manifest
Destiny." It all depends on which side of the Severn you live on, I
suppose.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu
Lady Valois
Walteof, The Earl of Huntingdon by sword. Some they hung and then cut off
their head.
Lady Valois
Jgissw wrote in message <199808072247...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>From: "Lady Valois" <ladyv...@itexas.net>
>
>>Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 06:26:27 -0000
>
>>Per-Erik Skramstad wrote
> Does the book discuss the reason for choice between axe and sword?
> Cheers
> John GW
Brian Austin
extend his rule over the whole of a comparatively small island, just as the
Romans had tried but never quite succeeded, and just as any strong ruler
would have. You can't apply modern morality and ideals to this period.
Interestingly, he was handed over to Edward by his fellow Welsh, just as
William Wallace was by fellow Scots. As to being hanged, drawn and
quartered, Powicke merely refers to him being hanged and quartered. It is
generally thought that Wallace was the first to be drawn as well, twenty
years later.
Brian Austin
Kathy McIntosh wrote in message ...
>
>The far more humiliating method was, of course, hanging, drawing and
>quartering, introduced by that paranoid land grabber, Edward 1. the
>first victim was Dafydd ap Gruffud, Prince of Wales., [more correctly,
>Gwynedd]. Technically he wasn't a traitor, as he was fighting to keep
>independent Wales independent, as he was perfectly entitled to do.
>
>Getting back to the original thread, if Henry had a sword used on Anne
>Bolyn because she was a]female and b] Royalty, what did they use on
>Mary, Queen of Scots?
D. Spencer Hines
thrown around rather loosely these days.
Everyone knows that Jeanne d'Arc was "paranoid" about the English and of
course Henry V was "paranoid" about the French.
Harry Truman was "paranoid" about Stalin, while George Bush was "paranoid"
about Saddam Hussein.
And, of course Captain John H. Miller, U.S.A. [Tom Hanks] is *entirely* too
"paranoid" about the Nazis.
Idly throwing around medical and psychological terms is not a substitute, or
even a good feint, for intelligent thought --- about difficult and enduring
historical issues.
D. Spencer Hines
Fortem Posce Animum
Lux et Veritas
--
"Well, that's what I mean. You know, if all the people who are named...deny
it....That's all, I mean, I expect them to come looking into it and
interview you and everything, uh, but I just think that if everybody's on
record denying it you've got no problem.....I wonder if I'm going to be
blown out of the water with this. I don't see how they can...if they don't,
if they don't have pictures." [N.B. No rope line hugs for this one.]
Governor Bill Clinton --- Telephonic Advice to Gennifer Flowers [1991]
Laura Blanchard wrote in message <35CCF8...@pobox.upenn.edu>...
>Brian Austin wrote:
>>
>> Without wishing to appear rude, this is a bit silly. Why was Edward a
>> paranoid land grabber?
>
Abercjohn
>Subject: Re: Beheading with sword or axe
>From: Kathy McIntosh <ka...@vineries.demon.co.uk>
>Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:40:57 +0100
>
>In article <6qdi4j$r...@panix2.panix.com>, Paul J. Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>writes
>>
>snip
>
>>beheading
>>was in England the method used to execute members of the
>>nobility. It was thought to be far more humane and less
>>painful than hanging. Treason of course could be dealt
>>with in a far more humiliating manner.
>>
>
>The far more humiliating method was, of course, hanging, drawing and
>quartering, introduced by that paranoid land grabber, Edward 1. the
>first victim was Dafydd ap Gruffud, Prince of Wales., [more correctly,
>Gwynedd]. Technically he wasn't a traitor, as he was fighting to keep
>independent Wales independent, as he was perfectly entitled to do.
>
>Getting back to the original thread, if Henry had a sword used on Anne
>Bolyn because she was a]female and b] Royalty, what did they use on
>Mary, Queen of Scots?
>--
An axe. See Mary, Queen of Scots, Antonia Fraser, p 634. The first blow struck
the back of the head, the second cut the neck 'all but a sinew' and the axe
was then used as a saw to cut that. [well, you did ask!]
Regards
>
>
abercjohn
John G Harrison
Kathy McIntosh
<Brian....@btinternet.com> writes
>Without wishing to appear rude, this is a bit silly. Why was Edward a
He also thought that if *he* didn't rule those lands, then they would be
out to get him. A case of "I'd do it, and if I'd do it, I bet that they
will", perhaps. He was certainly paranoid about the children he took
hostage when Daffyd was captured. He confined baby girls to life in
different nunneries, so they could not even talk to each other, and
Daffyd's son to life long imprisonment in Bristol castle. Most Kings
would have married the girl's off to "deserving" supporters.
>He was attempting to
>extend his rule over the whole of a comparatively small island, just as the
>Romans had tried but never quite succeeded, and just as any strong ruler
>would have. You can't apply modern morality and ideals to this period.
>Interestingly, he was handed over to Edward by his fellow Welsh, just as
>William Wallace was by fellow Scots. As to being hanged, drawn and
>quartered, Powicke merely refers to him being hanged and quartered.
My Welsh History Tutor at Uni always claimed Daffyd was the first.
>It is
>generally thought that Wallace was the first to be drawn as well, twenty
>years later.
>
>
--
Shane Russell
not having the provisions to sustain them, and being in disfavour with
their king, executed them all. Pictures/paintings that I have seen of
the massacre show them using axes, which I guess was largely due to
time constraints (killing 10,000+ would take a while) and IMHO the sword
would be too blunt to cleanly cleave the neck.
Shane.
Paul J. Gans
>David
Well, it wasn't *quite* that simple. The notion of the
absolute monarch, above the law and able to create law
at whim was a very late medieval development. It probably
belongs more to the early-modern than anywhere else.
Throughout the medieval period the tendency toward concentrating
power in the King's hands grew. In both England and France
(as you know) in the 12th and 13th centuries, the kings were
bound to take council with their major barons. Indeed, in
England that was one of the grievances against John. And
once trial by ordeal fell out of fashion, the notion of a
trial in front of a judge (often the king) became popular.
Of course the king could always do what he could get away
with, but the experienced king quickly recognized what was
foolish and what was not.
In the period I'm speaking about, the idea that the kingship
was *automatically* hereditary was not yet common. There
are many cases when the "proper" person did not become king.
One simple example is that William I left the kingdom to
his *second* son. But the choice still had to be ratified
by the barons -- and the new king annointed by the Bishop,
who could, and did, sometimes refuse.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Terry DiPaolo
of Saladin executing knights by beheading. For insults, he even had
Islamic monks, inexperienced in such things, chop away at captured
knights. I don't think there are any references to beheading by Europeans
before the crusades.
Per-Erik Skramstad wrote:
> I am a bit confused about medieval executions concerning beheading with
Matthew Harley
some states still apply this barbaric custom. Of course these states
include those uncivilised places that produce oil and bananas. Well, you
have to be tolerant of these primitive peoples who know no better due to
poor education and misguided religions. Some of these primitive peoples
use needles and electricity, obviously not as efficient as good old cold
steel (i.e. the sword). But, of course, this does not happen in
civilised countries, as in Europe and much of Asia and Africa, for
example. Of course we *did* export the least civilised among us.
Matt Harley
Curt Emanuel
>
> I'm not too sure, but I think it was the crusades. There are many accounts
> of Saladin executing knights by beheading. For insults, he even had
> Islamic monks, inexperienced in such things, chop away at captured
> knights. I don't think there are any references to beheading by Europeans
> before the crusades.
>
In 782 Charlemagne beheaded 4500 Saxons who surrendered at Verden. I
haven't looked for other instances but I don't imagine they'd be hard to
find(unfortunately, "beheading" isn't a term found in most indexes).
As far as the crusades, at the first major siege of the crusades at
Nicaea in 1097, the Crusaders hurled the heads of Turks who had been
captured and killed into the city and another 1000 heads were sent to
Alexius in Constantinople. The throwing of heads was repeated at
Antioch(others were paraded around on poles by the Crusaders). And of
course the taking of Jerusalem was butchery. I wouldn't blame Saladin(or
give him credit) for initiating the practice.
Curt Emanuel
John M. Atkinson
<matthew...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
..fr is France, right? Figures. Keep reinforcing those stereotypes.
But do it where I can't see you, OK? *PLONK* Wake me up when you've
got Nazis running your country and you want rescued.
Maybe this time we'll do the smart thing and wait for the Germans to
kill you off before retaking it.
>It makes me puke (= "throw up" for the linguistically challenged) that
>some states still apply this barbaric custom. Of course these states
>include those uncivilised places that produce oil and bananas. Well, you
>have to be tolerant of these primitive peoples who know no better due to
>poor education and misguided religions. Some of these primitive peoples
>use needles and electricity, obviously not as efficient as good old cold
>steel (i.e. the sword). But, of course, this does not happen in
>civilised countries, as in Europe and much of Asia and Africa, for
>example. Of course we *did* export the least civilised among us.
John M. Atkinson
Four things greater than all things are,--
Women and Horses and Power and War.
--Rudyard Kipling
David C. Pugh
Terry DiPaolo wrote in message <35D5ECE0...@worldnet.att.net>...
>I'm not too sure, but I think it was the crusades. There are many accounts
>of Saladin executing knights by beheading. For insults, he even had
>Islamic monks, inexperienced in such things, chop away at captured
>knights. I don't think there are any references to beheading by Europeans
>before the crusades.
>
"Many"? I expect you're thinking of the execution of Reginald and the Order
knights after Hattin, where he did indeed get the men of religion to do the
job. But it wasn't quite as routine as you make it sound. P.S. the term monk
is very misleading in an Islamic context.
"He ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead rather
than in prison. With him was a whole band of scholars and sufis and a
certain number of devout men and ascetics; each begged to be allowed to kill
one of them, and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve. Salah ad-Din,
his face joyful, was sitting on his dais; the unbelievers showed black
despair, the troops were drawn up in their ranks, the amirs stood in double
file. There were some who slashed and cut cleanly, and were thanked for it;
some who refused and failed to act, and were excused; some who made fools of
themselves, and others took their places."
'Imad ad-Din Isfahani, in Gabrieli, pp. 18-29
Seems to have been a fringe benefit for the clerisy. At an earlier date
'Imad ad-Din himself had been offered a prisoner to kill, but had declined,
not wanting to be laughed at.
David
Cheryl L Perkins
: On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 22:38:09 +0200, Matthew Harley
: <matthew...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
: ..fr is France, right? Figures. Keep reinforcing those stereotypes.
: But do it where I can't see you, OK? *PLONK* Wake me up when you've
: got Nazis running your country and you want rescued.
: Maybe this time we'll do the smart thing and wait for the Germans to
: kill you off before retaking it.
And you're from the US? The country which waited until the last possible
minutes to engage in the last couple of world wars? And who doesn't appear
to realize that the Nazis weren't around in the middle ages?
Cheryl
--
Cheryl Perkins
cper...@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca
Abercjohn
Perkins) writes:
>Subject: Re: Beheading with sword or axe
>From: cper...@stemnet.nf.ca (Cheryl L Perkins)
>Date: 16 Aug 1998 10:56:57 GMT
Quite. Mr A is the sort of American who gives America a bad name.
He believes in free speech -- so long as it is applause for the US!
Last time he threw these sneers around he ended by saying it was
nothing to do with morality but was all about power -- so, I say, why be
grateful?
And what about the help the US got from others in the Far East and elsewhere?
Regards
Ellen Pinegar
Abercjohn wrote:
As an American grievously embarrassed by Mr. Atkinson's
statements, I would like to point out that the United States
likely would not exist today without help from other countries
throught the years, and most of us realize and appreciate it.
"Lafayette, we are here."
I *hope* this is a dead horse I'm beating and that this line of
discussioin has ended.
Ellen Pinegar
Paul J. Gans
>Terry DiPaolo wrote:
>>
>> I'm not too sure, but I think it was the crusades. There are many accounts
>> of Saladin executing knights by beheading. For insults, he even had
>> Islamic monks, inexperienced in such things, chop away at captured
>> knights. I don't think there are any references to beheading by Europeans
>> before the crusades.
>>
>In 782 Charlemagne beheaded 4500 Saxons who surrendered at Verden. I
>haven't looked for other instances but I don't imagine they'd be hard to
>find(unfortunately, "beheading" isn't a term found in most indexes).
>As far as the crusades, at the first major siege of the crusades at
>Nicaea in 1097, the Crusaders hurled the heads of Turks who had been
>captured and killed into the city and another 1000 heads were sent to
>Alexius in Constantinople. The throwing of heads was repeated at
>Antioch(others were paraded around on poles by the Crusaders). And of
>course the taking of Jerusalem was butchery. I wouldn't blame Saladin(or
>give him credit) for initiating the practice.
Head-hurling seems to have been a particular insulting way to
treat your enemies. And messy too.
Jgissw
>Date: 16 Aug 1998 17:36:30 -0400
>Head-hurling seems to have been a particular insulting way to
>treat your enemies. And messy too
It was the _Romans_ who invented this - or at least knew of it, like all
great technological developments. Heaved Hasdrubal's head into Hannibal's
camp. Also might impair morale of the enemy, though on the other hand it
might annoy them.
I guess the Romans qualify as Europeans, even if not medieval.
Cheers
John GW
Paul J. Gans
Mea Culpa. I *should* have *known* the Romans invented it!!!!!
:-)
Paul J. Gans
>Jgissw wrote:
>
>> >Head-hurling seems to have been a particular insulting way to
>> >treat your enemies. And messy too
>>
>> It was the _Romans_ who invented this - or at least knew of it, like all
>> great technological developments. Heaved Hasdrubal's head into Hannibal's
>> camp. Also might impair morale of the enemy, though on the other hand it
>> might annoy them.
>> I guess the Romans qualify as Europeans, even if not medieval.
>
>Then this clearly is the origin of European football (soccer) which
>involves kicking heads until one side gives up!
Applies to American football as well...
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Curt Emanuel
>
> Charlemagne executed 10,000 prisoners? It sounds incredible!! First, to
> take 10,000 prisoners in *one* battle in the early 9th century seems
> extraordinary. Second, to execute them is unbelievable, whether with axe
> or sword.
Why?
>
> Who were these 10,000?
I imagine what Shane did was transpose the 4,500 Saxon prisoners
massacred at Verdun in 782, and the 10,000 that were forcibly deported
from west of the Elbe to various spots in France and Germany in 804.
Both incidents are recounted in the _Royal Frankish Annals_ and
Einhard's _Life of Chalemagne_.
From _Royal Frankish Annals_ for 782: "Then all the Saxons came together
again, submitted to the authority of the Lord King, and surrendered the
evildoers who were chiefly responsible for this revolt - four thousand
five hundred of them. This sentence was carried out." from Bernhard
Walter Scholz' translation.
From _Life of Charlemagne_, Chapter 7 "At last, after conquering and
subduing all who offered resistance, he took ten thousand of those that
lived on the banks of the Elbe River and settled them with their wives
and chidren in many different groups here and there in Gaul and
Gerrmany." from SE Turner's translation.
>
> Given the population of the time (or maybe anytime) such a deed would
> rank him with Hitler's extermination of the
> Jews, and others. How come I haven't heard of this terrible genocide
> before?
I don't know. If you've studied(or are even moderately well read in)
Carolingian History you should know about it. The wars with Saxony were
a prominent feature of Charlemagne's reign.
As far as comparing Charlemagne to Hitler, well, that's been done. He
enacted what are commonly known as the "terror capitulary" in 785,
officially the "Ordinances Concerning Saxony." Among the ordinances
were:
a) Any non-baptized Saxon who seeks to hide among his compatriots and
refuses to request the sacrament shall be put to death
b) Whoever refuses to respect the Lenten fast out of contempt for
Christianity and eats meat during the season shall be put to death
c) Whoever burns the body of a dead person according to pagan ritual and
reduces the bones to ash, shall be put to death.
"Thus, by means of humane legislation and inhumane deportations, the
first "Thirty Years War" came to an end in 804. Some have praised it as
one of the greatest glories of Chalemagne the conqueror, while others
have condemned it as one of the darkest episodes of his reign. Nazi
historians indicted Charlemagne for forcibly Christianizing the Saxons,
and adherents of their views tend even today to regard the chieftan
Widukind as an epic national hero of the Germanic past."
Pierre Riche, _The Carolingians: A Family Who Forged Europe_ pp106-107
Curt Emanuel
Ellen Pinegar
John M. Atkinson wrote:
Please - American nationalism didn't exist in the period covered by
the charter for this group. If you have to get into a "my flag is better
than your flag" argument, would you please take it ELSEWHERE?
Ellen
Matthew Harley
>
> Charlemagne, in one his battles took around 10,000 prisoners of war, but
> not having the provisions to sustain them, and being in disfavour with
> their king, executed them all. Pictures/paintings that I have seen of
> the massacre show them using axes, which I guess was largely due to
> time constraints (killing 10,000+ would take a while) and IMHO the sword
> would be too blunt to cleanly cleave the neck.
What is your source for this claim?
Charlemagne executed 10,000 prisoners? It sounds incredible!! First, to
take 10,000 prisoners in *one* battle in the early 9th century seems
extraordinary. Second, to execute them is unbelievable, whether with axe
or sword.
Who were these 10,000?
Given the population of the time (or maybe anytime) such a deed would
rank him with Hitler's extermination of the
Jews, and others. How come I haven't heard of this terrible genocide
before?
Matt Harley
Matthew Harley
> >Head-hurling seems to have been a particular insulting way to
> >treat your enemies. And messy too
>
> It was the _Romans_ who invented this - or at least knew of it, like all
> great technological developments. Heaved Hasdrubal's head into Hannibal's
> camp. Also might impair morale of the enemy, though on the other hand it
> might annoy them.
> I guess the Romans qualify as Europeans, even if not medieval.
Then this clearly is the origin of European football (soccer) which
involves kicking heads until one side gives up!
Matt Harley
cons...@mindspring.com
terry-...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> I'm not too sure, but I think it was the crusades. There are many accounts
> of Saladin executing knights by beheading. For insults, he even had
> Islamic monks, inexperienced in such things, chop away at captured
> knights. I don't think there are any references to beheading by Europeans
> before the crusades.
>
If one considers the Byzantine Empire European (well, parts of it were :),
beheading was used every so often, there. It makes you wonder why beheading
wasn't used in post-Roman Europe.
-Dean
John M. Atkinson
wrote:
>And you're from the US? The country which waited until the last possible
>minutes to engage in the last couple of world wars? And who doesn't appear
>to realize that the Nazis weren't around in the middle ages?
Has precisely the same amount of relevance to the Middle Ages as, say,
electric chairs and the US judiciary.
John M. Atkinson
>He believes in free speech -- so long as it is applause for the US!
I see. It's free speech if taking gratuitous off-topic potshots at
the US. It's supression of free speech if this is returned in kind.
Or perhaps it's my *PLONK* that offended? Rest assured, he can still
speak at length. I'm just using my freedom of association to avoid
associating with him while he does so.
CG Luxford
On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Matthew Harley wrote:
>
> Then this clearly is the origin of European football (soccer) which
> involves kicking heads until one side gives up!
>
severed heads as a ball. It was a very long time ago, and I haven't a clue
as to title or author.
Chris,
nort...@uswest.net
>
> In article <6r6dtp$i1o$2...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>, cper...@stemnet.nf.ca (Cheryl L
> Perkins) writes:
>
> >Subject: Re: Beheading with sword or axe
> >From: cper...@stemnet.nf.ca (Cheryl L Perkins)
> >Date: 16 Aug 1998 10:56:57 GMT
> >
> >John M. Atkinson (jatk...@ix.you.know.what.to.remove.netcom.com) wrote:
> >: On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 22:38:09 +0200, Matthew Harley
> >: <matthew...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >
> >: ..fr is France, right? Figures. Keep reinforcing those stereotypes.
> >: But do it where I can't see you, OK? *PLONK* Wake me up when you've
> >: got Nazis running your country and you want rescued.
> >
Ya know Mr. A: I am getting tired and embarassed by fellow Americans
like you who seem to remember WWII when we belatedly helped drive the
Germans home, and can't seem to remember that the French saved our ass
in the Revolutionary war. Without their navy we would still be singing
"God Bless The Queen" Not that it is a bad tune, you understand.
Chet
John M. Atkinson
<pine...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Please - American nationalism didn't exist in the period covered by
>the charter for this group. If you have to get into a "my flag is better
>than your flag" argument, would you please take it ELSEWHERE?
It has exactally the same relevance that out-of-the-blue commentary on
the US judiciary system does. But I get flack from the peanut
gallery, and he don't.
Alex Milman
John M. Atkinson wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 1998 21:50:00 -0500, Ellen Pinegar
> <pine...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Please - American nationalism didn't exist in the period covered by
> >the charter for this group. If you have to get into a "my flag is better
> >than your flag" argument, would you please take it ELSEWHERE?
>
> It has exactally the same relevance that out-of-the-blue commentary on
> the US judiciary system does. But I get flack from the peanut
> gallery, and he don't.
>
John, he was obviously joking. Don't take it seriously :-)
Paul J. Gans
>On Sun, 16 Aug 1998 21:50:00 -0500, Ellen Pinegar
><pine...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>Please - American nationalism didn't exist in the period covered by
>>the charter for this group. If you have to get into a "my flag is better
>>than your flag" argument, would you please take it ELSEWHERE?
>It has exactally the same relevance that out-of-the-blue commentary on
>the US judiciary system does. But I get flack from the peanut
>gallery, and he don't.
Ok, enough already from all sides. We don't need an
off-topic argument. If you folks don't stop (that means
*all* of you), I'll post my new findings on Agincourt.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Mary Gentle
(Paul J. Gans) wrote:
<snip>
> Ok, enough already from all sides. We don't need an
> off-topic argument. If you folks don't stop (that means
> *all* of you), I'll post my new findings on Agincourt.
>
> ------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
>
*Ah*... I love the smell of dysentery in the morning...
Does the thread come back by popular demand, for those of us
who didn't get to go on the campaign last time? Or does it
come round annually, and did we just miss the last train for
Agincourt? :)
Alex Milman
Paul J. Gans wrote:
> John M. Atkinson (jatk...@ix.you.know.what.to.remove.netcom.com) wrote:
> >On Sun, 16 Aug 1998 21:50:00 -0500, Ellen Pinegar
> ><pine...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>Please - American nationalism didn't exist in the period covered by
> >>the charter for this group. If you have to get into a "my flag is better
> >>than your flag" argument, would you please take it ELSEWHERE?
>
> >It has exactally the same relevance that out-of-the-blue commentary on
> >the US judiciary system does. But I get flack from the peanut
> >gallery, and he don't.
>
> Ok, enough already from all sides. We don't need an
> off-topic argument. If you folks don't stop (that means
> *all* of you), I'll post my new findings on Agincourt.
>
OK, this proves it. You are an orc! Don't bother with the photo :-)
Alex Milman
Mary Gentle wrote:
> In article <6rat0g$k...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com
> (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Ok, enough already from all sides. We don't need an
> > off-topic argument. If you folks don't stop (that means
> > *all* of you), I'll post my new findings on Agincourt.
> >
> > ------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
> >
>
> *Ah*... I love the smell of dysentery in the morning...
>
> Does the thread come back by popular demand, for those of us
> who didn't get to go on the campaign last time? Or does it
> come round annually, and did we just miss the last train for
> Agincourt? :)
Let me summarize it for you because this is rather complicated.
English were moving over a muddy countryside while French knights,
prematurely released from the local mental institution, had been
roaming over the freshly ploughed rice field with the battlehorses
on their backs. At the same time Mongols got stuck somewhere in the
Switzerland after reading the post which proved that they
can't not feed their horses anywhere outside American Great Plains.
All infantry had actually been mounted archers who used spears
instead of the bows. Spears had been made of a whole board 12' long and
it
was impossible to use them. Which led to the end of the Middle Ages and
their substitution with an Early Modern History which did not start yet.
People of MA (both Middle Ages and Massachussets) routinely strangled
their horses, drunk their blood and than threw the corpses over the
walls of
the castles they had been besieging. Which resulted in the long and
ineffective sieges (defenders had a lot of the horse meat) typical for
the western warfare.
English archers could shoot in all directions but did not because they
had been busy with putting the sharpened stakes into the ground all
over their way. As a result, they eventually run out of stakes and
had been thrown out of France. But after this they won at Agincourt
and French had been living in an eternal darkness ever after.
Due to the dysentery, all English army died two days before the battle
which confused French and resulted in their defeat.
Did I miss something?
Paul J. Gans
>Mary Gentle wrote:
Yes. You forgot the part about the French varlet who dented
Henry's helmet WITHOUT PERMISSION, resulting in the English
slaughtering all their prisoners for revenge, thus foregoing
all that nice juicy ransom. The English then marched on to
Calais where Henry announced that the entire expedition had been
to trace out a tourist route from Rouen to Calais, with
a surcharge for dysentery, should any tourist demand it.
So you see the expedition wasn't pointless after all.
The French? Oh they decided that there was more profit to
be made by bilking tourists than in battle, as the English
had, contrary to the laws of war, conveniently left all
their ransomable gentry home and had an army consisting of
three big guys and thousands of peasants with bows and arrows.
Paul J. Gans
>In article <6rat0g$k...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com
>(Paul J. Gans) wrote:
><snip>
>> Ok, enough already from all sides. We don't need an
>> off-topic argument. If you folks don't stop (that means
>> *all* of you), I'll post my new findings on Agincourt.
>>
>> ------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
>>
>*Ah*... I love the smell of dysentery in the morning...
>Does the thread come back by popular demand, for those of us
>who didn't get to go on the campaign last time? Or does it
>come round annually, and did we just miss the last train for
>Agincourt? :)
It is hard to say. It usually comes up when someone posts
something that someone else takes exception to. Then
Agincourt is used as an example and we are off and running
again.
Alex Milman
Paul J. Gans wrote:
> The French? Oh they decided that there was more profit to
> be made by bilking tourists than in battle, as the English
> had, contrary to the laws of war, conveniently left all
> their ransomable gentry home and had an army consisting of
> three big guys and thousands of peasants with bows and arrows.
>
>
Not too much profit from this type of the tourists. AFAIK, afterthese events
France had been closed to the English tourists for
decades until French eventually digged all stakes out and cleaned
results of the dysenteria English host left all along the road.
Jgissw
>Date: 18 Aug 1998 12:16:48 -0400
>Then
>Agincourt is used as an example and we are off and running
>again.
Which, of course, is what you would expect with all that dysentery.
Cheers
John GW
Jgissw
>Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:16:59 -0400
> If you folks don't stop (that means
>> *all* of you), I'll post my new findings on Agincourt. (Paul)
>>
>
>OK, this proves it. You are an orc! Don't bother with the photo :-)
Oh, I dunno - he hasn't threatened yet to choke anyone with a horse
harness. Yet.
Cheers
John GW
Laura Blanchard
[snip most of the account of Agincourt]
> English archers could shoot in all directions but did not because they
> had been busy with putting the sharpened stakes into the ground all
> over their way. As a result, they eventually run out of stakes and
> had been thrown out of France. But after this they won at Agincourt
> and French had been living in an eternal darkness ever after.
> Due to the dysentery, all English army died two days before the battle
> which confused French and resulted in their defeat.
> Did I miss something?
Yeah, you missed the late medieval invention of Izal. (The which
substance, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, I experienced in a public
convenience in Richmondshire last month -- and which I'm glad to leave
behind.)
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu
David C. Pugh
Paul J. Gans wrote in message <6rc9tm$q...@panix2.panix.com>...
>Yes. You forgot the part about the French varlet who dented
>Henry's helmet ......
Well, that's what you get when you entrust your armour to a varleting
service instead of your squire.
David
Abercjohn
<lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu> writes:
>
>Yeah, you missed the late medieval invention of Izal. (The which
>substance, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, I experienced in a public
>convenience in Richmondshire last month -- and which I'm glad to leave
>behind.)
>
>
To leave WHERE?
abercjohn
John G Harrison
Laura Blanchard
> >Yeah, you missed the late medieval invention of Izal. (The which
> >substance, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, I experienced in a public
> >convenience in Richmondshire last month -- and which I'm glad to leave
> >behind.)
And abercjohn responded:
> To leave WHERE?
If that's the best you can do with a straight line like that, I'm very
disappointed. But I'm sure Paul and Alex (maybe even Mary) will take
appropriate measures.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu
Laura Blanchard
> Oh, I dunno - he hasn't threatened yet to choke anyone with a horse
> harness. Yet.
No, no, no. We only choke *Romans* with horse harness.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu
Paul J. Gans
AAAARRRGGGHHHH!!!
Paul J. Gans
>le 17 Aug 1998 23:38:56 -0400, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) a écrit:
>>Ok, enough already from all sides. We don't need an
>>off-topic argument. If you folks don't stop (that means
>>*all* of you), I'll post my new findings on Agincourt.
>>
>What ? It is spelled AZincourt ? :-)
>Gaėtan
The English never spell anything correctly. You'd think
that they would note the local spelling, but NO. They
have to go and mangle it their own way.
We Americans then mangle English.
Most English are monolingual. Most Americans (in
my experience) alingual. (Don't believe me? Try
talking to a New York taxi driver.)
Terry DiPaolo
top of my head.
Terry
David C. Pugh wrote:
> Terry DiPaolo wrote in message <35D5ECE0...@worldnet.att.net>...
> >I'm not too sure, but I think it was the crusades. There are many accounts
> >of Saladin executing knights by beheading. For insults, he even had
> >Islamic monks, inexperienced in such things, chop away at captured
> >knights. I don't think there are any references to beheading by Europeans
> >before the crusades.
> >
>
> "Many"? I expect you're thinking of the execution of Reginald and the Order
> knights after Hattin, where he did indeed get the men of religion to do the
> job. But it wasn't quite as routine as you make it sound. P.S. the term monk
> is very misleading in an Islamic context.
>
> "He ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead rather
> than in prison. With him was a whole band of scholars and sufis and a
> certain number of devout men and ascetics; each begged to be allowed to kill
> one of them, and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve. Salah ad-Din,
> his face joyful, was sitting on his dais; the unbelievers showed black
> despair, the troops were drawn up in their ranks, the amirs stood in double
> file. There were some who slashed and cut cleanly, and were thanked for it;
> some who refused and failed to act, and were excused; some who made fools of
> themselves, and others took their places."
> 'Imad ad-Din Isfahani, in Gabrieli, pp. 18-29
>
> Seems to have been a fringe benefit for the clerisy. At an earlier date
> 'Imad ad-Din himself had been offered a prisoner to kill, but had declined,
> not wanting to be laughed at.
>
> David
gmoreau
John M. Atkinson
>Most English are monolingual. Most Americans (in
>my experience) alingual. (Don't believe me? Try
>talking to a New York taxi driver.)
That's just New Yorkers. You have to visit the United States for good
examples of proper 'Merican.
CG Luxford
On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Alex Milman wrote:
> Paul J. Gans wrote:
>
> > The French? Oh they decided that there was more profit to
> > be made by bilking tourists than in battle, as the English
> > had, contrary to the laws of war, conveniently left all
> > their ransomable gentry home and had an army consisting of
> > three big guys and thousands of peasants with bows and arrows.
>
> Not too much profit from this type of the tourists.
Especially with no duty free hypermarkets conveniently located next door
to the ferry terminal.
Chris,
Mary Gentle
(Paul J. Gans) wrote:
> David C. Pugh (davi...@online.no) wrote:
>
> >Paul J. Gans wrote in message
<6rc9tm$q...@panix2.panix.com>...
>
> >>Yes. You forgot the part about the French varlet who
>dented Henry's helmet ......
>
>
> >Well, that's what you get when you entrust your armour to
>a varleting service instead of your squire.
>
> AAAARRRGGGHHHH!!!
I should like to be associated with the remarks of the last
speaker.
Mary Gentle
(Paul J. Gans) wrote:
<snip>
> Most English are monolingual.
<snip>
Not all. I speak fluent gibberish.
Alex Milman
Jgissw wrote:
> >From: Alex Milman <am...@gte.com>
>
> >Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 07:16:59 -0400
>
> > If you folks don't stop (that means
> >> *all* of you), I'll post my new findings on Agincourt. (Paul)
> >>
> >
> >OK, this proves it. You are an orc! Don't bother with the photo :-)
>
> Oh, I dunno - he hasn't threatened yet to choke anyone with a horse
> harness. Yet.
True. But to do this you need to be a _big_ orc. He can easily be asmall
green orc. The same attitude but limited physical abilities.
Alex Milman
gmoreau wrote:
> le 17 Aug 1998 23:38:56 -0400, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) a écrit:
>
> >Ok, enough already from all sides. We don't need an
> >off-topic argument. If you folks don't stop (that means
> >*all* of you), I'll post my new findings on Agincourt.
> >
> What ? It is spelled AZincourt ? :-)
>
Not in orcish (and English) :-)
Alex Milman
Paul J. Gans wrote:
> gmoreau (le_drac@-PAS_DE_PUB_SVP-hol.fr) wrote:
> >le 17 Aug 1998 23:38:56 -0400, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) a écrit:
>
> >>Ok, enough already from all sides. We don't need an
> >>off-topic argument. If you folks don't stop (that means
> >>*all* of you), I'll post my new findings on Agincourt.
> >>
> >What ? It is spelled AZincourt ? :-)
>
> >Gaėtan
>
> The English never spell anything correctly.
They always spell things correctly. It's all other
world spells them wrong.
> You'd think
> that they would note the local spelling, but NO. They
> have to go and mangle it their own way.
>
They simply correct local's mistake.
> We Americans then mangle English.
>
Or rather correct mistakes English made.The result is an absolutely
correct spelling (2 levels of
correction). Who cares if locals can't recognize it.
> Most English are monolingual. Most Americans (in
> my experience) alingual. (Don't believe me? Try
> talking to a New York taxi driver.)
Strongly disagree:Many of these taxi drivers will speak a passable
Russian.
And I know quite a few Americans who speak fluent
Mandarin (not that I can check _that_ but they obviously
can understand each other). :-)
Alex Milman
John M. Atkinson wrote:
> On 18 Aug 1998 22:11:40 -0400, ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>
> >Most English are monolingual. Most Americans (in
> >my experience) alingual. (Don't believe me? Try
> >talking to a New York taxi driver.)
>
> That's just New Yorkers. You have to visit the United States for good
> examples of proper 'Merican.
Yep, welcome to Masswauchausewts
Alex Milman
Mary Gentle wrote:
> In article <6rdc8s$o...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com
> (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Most English are monolingual.
> <snip>
>
> Not all. I speak fluent gibberish.
An important question is, do you speak anything else? :-)
(sorry, it was too tempting)
Mary Gentle
lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu (Laura Blanchard) wrote:
Tsk. How could you suggest such a fundamentally improper
thing?
The Serious Scholar Formerly Known As Mary
Abercjohn
>Subject: Re: American nationalism; off topic
>From: ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans)
>Date: 18 Aug 1998 22:11:40 -0400
>
>
>The English never spell anything correctly. You'd think
>that they would note the local spelling, but NO. They
>have to go and mangle it their own way.
>
>We Americans then mangle English.
>
A friend, originally German speaking, says that the most difficult
part of learning English was finding out how to mis-pronounce
European place names correctly. Paris, Munich, Marseilles, etc.
Regards
abercjohn
John G Harrison
b_m_...@my-dejanews.com
>Jgissw wrote:
>> >OK, this proves it. You are an orc! Don't bother with the photo :-)
>> Oh, I dunno - he hasn't threatened yet to choke anyone with a horse
>> harness. Yet.
>True. But to do this you need to be a _big_ orc. He can easily be asmall
>green orc. The same attitude but limited physical abilities.
Having met Paul, I can vouch for the fact that he's not small. If he's
normally green, he must have been *very* sick at Kalamazoo (or wearing a
flesh-toned mask). Further deponent saith not, never having met an
undoubted orc. (Paul, of course, can't be an _undoubted_ orc: *lots* of
us have our doubts about him!)
Brian M. Scott
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Alex Milman
Mary Gentle wrote:
Appropriate measures will be defined based upon the following
poll.
Q1: Do you think that this deviation from a straight line can
beinterpreted as "improper relationship"?
Q2: Can his action be consider as his private business?
Measures:
If answer to the 1-st question is "yes" and to the 2-nd - "no",
we probably should wait until he decides to resign.
Otherwise we should not.
> The Serious Scholar Formerly Known As Mary
It's nice to know that Former Mary became a Serious Scholar(fall from
the stairs had been benefitial after all).
In the future she will be treated and addressed as such
except the cases when she will be addressed and treated
otherwise).
Alex
PS: Just in case (you can't be too careful this days). I never
had any sense of humor (even if I pretended otherwise),
never tried to make a joke and definitely never forced
anybody to make a joke, especially while under an oath
(of any type). But I'll refuse to make an oath regarding this
statement unless forced to. In which case, my statement may
or may not be correct but I still will be telling the truth as I
perceive it at this moment.
(Hopefully, I did not left any loose ends)
Alex Milman
Abercjohn wrote:
Not only. My wife just adores it when some phone operatormakes an attempt to
"correct" pronunciation of her name. Usually,
they don't do it second time.
Paul J. Gans
John M. Atkinson
>> >Most English are monolingual. Most Americans (in
>> >my experience) alingual. (Don't believe me? Try
>> >talking to a New York taxi driver.)
>>
>> That's just New Yorkers. You have to visit the United States for good
>> examples of proper 'Merican.
>
>Yep, welcome to Masswauchausewts
I prefer the part of the country where a child is halfway through his
formal education when he realizes Damnyankees is two words.
John Oliver
("Mary Gentle") wrote:
>In article <6rdc8s$o...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com
>(Paul J. Gans) wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Most English are monolingual.
><snip>
>
>
>Not all. I speak fluent gibberish.
I'm bilingual. Aussie English and US English.
RCLOVELY
Southwestern, Northwestern or Western. Sometimes even we in the US can't
understand eachother>
RC
John M. Atkinson
Worst case of two mutually incomprehensible dialects:
Had cousin from Texas join my family on vacation in Toronto. She's
got the Texas drawl going on so thick I can barely understand her, and
we stop in this little cafe and order some tea. Turns out the
proprieter is a recent immigrant from Scotland with a nice, thick
burr. I had to interpret between the two, since I speak a nice,
generic CNN English (comes of a childhood bouncing between military
bases) with a trace of a drawl--more when I'm annoyed, intoxicated, or
real laid back. :)
CG Luxford
On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Laura Blanchard wrote:
> Alex Milman wrote:
>
> [snip most of the account of Agincourt]
>
> > Did I miss something?
>
> Yeah, you missed the late medieval invention of Izal. (The which
> substance, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, I experienced in a public
> convenience in Richmondshire last month -- and which I'm glad to leave
> behind.)
>
Richmondshire, earldom of that well known usurper Henry Tudor?
Chris,
CG Luxford
On 19 Aug 1998, Paul J. Gans wrote:
> CG Luxford (cgl...@york.ac.uk) wrote:
>
> >> Not too much profit from this type of the tourists.
>
> >Especially with no duty free hypermarkets conveniently located next door
> >to the ferry terminal.
>
>
possibly put some of the Calais hypermarkets out of business.
Chris,
fredb...@my-dejanews.com
matthew...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> Terry DiPaolo wrote:
> >
> > I'm not too sure, but I think it was the crusades. There are many accounts
> > of Saladin executing knights by beheading. For insults, he even had
> > Islamic monks, inexperienced in such things, chop away at captured
> > knights. I don't think there are any references to beheading by Europeans
> > before the crusades.
> >
> >
> > > I am a bit confused about medieval executions concerning beheading with
> > > sword *or* axe. Does anyone know when or why axe or sword was used? I
> > > think it was rather late that beheading became the usual method, wasn't
> > > it? Is there a significant difference, or is the use of either one
> > > arbitrary? Has anything been written on the axe/sword topic?
>
> It makes me puke (= "throw up" for the linguistically challenged) that
> some states still apply this barbaric custom. Of course these states
> include those uncivilised places that produce oil and bananas. Well, you
> have to be tolerant of these primitive peoples who know no better due to
> poor education and misguided religions. Some of these primitive peoples
> use needles and electricity, obviously not as efficient as good old cold
> steel (i.e. the sword). But, of course, this does not happen in
> civilised countries, as in Europe and much of Asia and Africa, for
> example. Of course we *did* export the least civilised among us.
>
> Matt Harley
Matt - what is so barbaric about beheading?
If someone is to be executed it is the most humane way to die. Get a headsman
who is experienced in using either a sword or axe and the execution is carried
out quickly and painlessly, what could be better! If the execution is carried
out in public, as in Saudi Arabia, it is also a popular spectacle, ie both
efficient and entertaining.
Fred Peters.
Laura Blanchard
> >
> I could ask what a devoted Ricardian like yourself was doing in
> Richmondshire, earldom of that well known usurper Henry Tudor?
>
> Chris,
You could ask. I could answer that Richard duke of Gloucester held the
honour of Richmond for much of his adult life; I could also point out
that Middleham Castle is in Richmondshire (which, for those who don't
follow these things, is part of North Yorkshire).
Or I could simply comment that our hosts are connected with the
wonderful georgian theater in Richmond, and that we were there for an
anniversary celebration of its restoration.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu
Alex Milman
b_m_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 11:20:03 -0400, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>
> >Jgissw wrote:
>
> >> >OK, this proves it. You are an orc! Don't bother with the photo :-)
>
> >> Oh, I dunno - he hasn't threatened yet to choke anyone with a horse
> >> harness. Yet.
>
> >True. But to do this you need to be a _big_ orc. He can easily be asmall
> >green orc. The same attitude but limited physical abilities.
>
> Having met Paul, I can vouch for the fact that he's not small.
Small orc is small relatively to a _big orc_. Probably you will not deny that
his physical abilities also are limited.
> If he's
> normally green, he must have been *very* sick at Kalamazoo (or wearing a
> flesh-toned mask).
Which, again, proves my point: small orcs are devious and often use
disguises.
> Further deponent saith not, never having met an
> undoubted orc.
Never met somebody who sincerely believe that marching in formation is good
for amoral? Or that "discipline on a workplace must be tightened" ? Lucky you.
> (Paul, of course, can't be an _undoubted_ orc: *lots* of
> us have our doubts about him!)
But probbaly not about his orcishness. After all, he insisted on being an orc
and(doubts in other areas aside) we should trust him on something.
He also (more than once) mentioned his desire to be a _big_ orc. Now, only
small orc _wants_ to become a big orc. Big orc is already a big orc and
nobody else wants to be an orc (small or big).
Mary Gentle
b_m_...@my-dejanews.com () wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 11:20:03 -0400, Alex Milman
<am...@gte.com> wrote:
>
> >Jgissw wrote:
>
> >> >OK, this proves it. You are an orc! Don't bother with
>the photo :-)
>
> >> Oh, I dunno - he hasn't threatened yet to choke
>anyone with a horse harness. Yet.
>
> >True. But to do this you need to be a _big_ orc. He can
>easily be a small green orc. The same attitude but limited
>physical abilities.
>
> Having met Paul, I can vouch for the fact that he's not
>small. If he's normally green, he must have been *very*
>sick at Kalamazoo (or wearing a flesh-toned mask).
Bother! Paul, I *told* you not to try out the stealth-orc
mode. Now look what you've gone and done.
>Further deponent saith not, never having met an
> undoubted orc. (Paul, of course, can't be an _undoubted_
>orc: *lots* of us have our doubts about him!)
Yes, but are they to do with his orcishness? :)
Mary Gentle
Milman) wrote:
>
>
> Mary Gentle wrote:
>
> > In article <6rdc8s$o...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com
> > (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Most English are monolingual.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Not all. I speak fluent gibberish.
>
> An important question is, do you speak anything else? :-)
>
> (sorry, it was too tempting)
<grrrrrr>
Try harder!
Mary Gentle
Milman) wrote:
>
>
> Abercjohn wrote:
>
> > In article <6rdc8s$o...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com
(Paul J. Gans
> ) writes:
> >
> > >Subject: Re: American nationalism; off topic
> > >From: ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans)
> > >Date: 18 Aug 1998 22:11:40 -0400
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >The English never spell anything correctly. You'd think
> > >that they would note the local spelling, but NO. They
> > >have to go and mangle it their own way.
But that's because we know what it ought to be.
> > >We Americans then mangle English.
Oh, that's true. Isn't that why we shipped you all off to
the colonies in the first place?
> > A friend, originally German speaking, says that the most
>difficult part of learning English was finding out how to
>mis-pronounce European place names correctly. Paris, Munich,
>Marseilles, etc.
No, the most difficult part is learning to mispronounce
English place names properly. (Welwyn Garden City,
Leicester, and the river Thames are always good...)
> Not only. My wife just adores it when some phone operator
>makes an attempt to "correct" pronunciation of her name.
>Usually, they don't do it second time.
>
Survival rate too low, huh? :)
Mary Gentle
Milman) wrote:
>
>
> gmoreau wrote:
>
> > le 17 Aug 1998 23:38:56 -0400, ga...@panix.com (Paul J.
Gans) a écrit:
> >
> > >Ok, enough already from all sides. We don't need an
> > >off-topic argument. If you folks don't stop (that means
> > >*all* of you), I'll post my new findings on Agincourt.
> > >
> > What ? It is spelled AZincourt ? :-)
> >
>
> Not in orcish (and English) :-)
>
In orcish, it's spelled "BURRRPP!!" - well, someone had to
clear the place up afterwards...
Mary Gentle
Milman) wrote:
>
>
> Mary Gentle wrote:
>
<snip...>
> > The Serious Scholar Formerly Known As Mary
>
> It's nice to know that Former Mary became a Serious
>Scholar(fall from
> the stairs had been benefitial after all).
> In the future she will be treated and addressed as such
> except the cases when she will be addressed and treated
> otherwise).
Well, there you go; you can't say fairer than that...
>
> Alex
>
> PS: Just in case (you can't be too careful this days). I
>never had any sense of humor (even if I pretended
>otherwise),
We realise that.
> never tried to make a joke
Certainly we realise *that*.
>and definitely never forced anybody to make a joke,
Not too sure about that one; a definite bad influence on all
of us, I feel...
>especially while under an oath (of any type). But I'll
>refuse to make an oath regarding this statement unless
>forced to.
You can swear by Leif Ericsson's mushrooms. But only if you
take your trousers off first.
>In which case, my statement may
> or may not be correct but I still will be telling the truth
>as I perceive it at this moment.
>
> (Hopefully, I did not left any loose ends)
Bad news. She kept the wimple.
Alex Milman
Mary Gentle wrote:
> In article <35DB2BBE...@gte.com>, am...@gte.com (Alex
> Milman) wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Mary Gentle wrote:
> >
> <snip...>
>
> > PS: Just in case (you can't be too careful this days). I
> >never had any sense of humor (even if I pretended
> >otherwise),
>
> We realise that.
It's so nice to be understood
>
>
> > never tried to make a joke
>
> Certainly we realise *that*.
>
See above
> >and definitely never forced anybody to make a joke,
>
> Not too sure about that one; a definite bad influence on all
> of us, I feel...
>
"Legally" I did not _force_ anybody. Influence, good or bad,can be
debatable and does not fall into _my_ definition of _forcing_.
Anyway, there is a chance that it will not be
considered a criminal offense (providing all influenced are consenting
adults)
and I can an claim abused childhood (did not get enough chocolate) or
something of the kind which will definitely let me off the hook
> >especially while under an oath (of any type). But I'll
> >refuse to make an oath regarding this statement unless
> >forced to.
>
> You can swear by Leif Ericsson's mushrooms.
This can qualify as a substance abuse but I definitely did not
inhale.
> But only if you
> take your trousers off first.
>
Following which example, Leif's or Bill's?
> >In which case, my statement may
> > or may not be correct but I still will be telling the truth
> >as I perceive it at this moment.
> >
> > (Hopefully, I did not left any loose ends)
>
> Bad news. She kept the wimple.
In this case I'll confess voluntarily (if forced to). But I still did
not do it.
Alex Milman
Mary Gentle wrote:
> In article <35DAF09E...@gte.com>, am...@gte.com (Alex
> Milman) wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Mary Gentle wrote:
> >
> > > In article <6rdc8s$o...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com
> > > (Paul J. Gans) wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > Most English are monolingual.
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Not all. I speak fluent gibberish.
> >
> > An important question is, do you speak anything else? :-)
> >
> > (sorry, it was too tempting)
>
> <grrrrrr>
>
> Try harder!
Why? With a plenty of easy pray in the area I grew fat and lazy.
Alex Milman
Mary Gentle wrote:
> In article <35DB2D6B...@gte.com>, am...@gte.com (Alex
> Milman) wrote:
>
> > Not only. My wife just adores it when some phone operator
> >makes an attempt to "correct" pronunciation of her name.
> >Usually, they don't do it second time.
> >
>
> Survival rate too low, huh? :)
Yep. Some of them even learned how to pronounce it properly :-)