Anglo-Saxon torture methods
Mikhail Gershovich
There is a lengthy description of tortures in the 1137 annal of the
Pterborough Chronicle. I'm curious about its historicity. Does anyone know
of any recent (or not so recent) work done the torture techniques used during
the English Anarchy (1135-54)? I've looked and looked and can't find any
specific treatment of this subject. Can anyone offer any advice?
MG
Steve Gordon
In article <5don84$m...@chaos.dac.neu.edu>, mger...@lynx.neu.edu (Mikhail
Gershovich) wrote:
These would not be Anglo-Saxon torture methods if they are post-Conquest
(after 1066), to be technical about it. Books on the Anglo-Saxon battles
against the Vikings are one source of information, including of course the
famous Viking Blood Eagle (as in death of Anglian King Edmund), and the
snake pit used against one of the invading Viking lords who was captured.
These appear to be methods of cruel execution, rather than torture
intended to extract information.
Dave Forth
Sgo...@calstatela.edu (Steve Gordon) wrote:
>These would not be Anglo-Saxon torture methods if they are post-Conquest
>(after 1066), to be technical about it. Books on the Anglo-Saxon battles
>against the Vikings are one source of information, including of course the
>famous Viking Blood Eagle (as in death of Anglian King Edmund), and the
>snake pit used against one of the invading Viking lords who was captured.
>These appear to be methods of cruel execution, rather than torture
>intended to extract information.
The authenticity of both events is in doubt. In the case of St. Edmund
the 12th century life shows him being executed by a group of archers.
England has a serous shortage of deadly snakes unless you allergic to
ander venom.
Dave
St. Ives, England
Steve1066
Although Edmund's death may have been by arrows (slowly) instead of the
Viking "blood eagle," the latter method of execution is also reported for
other Saxon nobles, such as Aelle of Northumbria as the Vikings burned
York in 867. The blood eagle was a rite in which the victim was offered to
Odin; the ribs and lungs were cut from the living victim and spread like
eagle's wings (presumably the lungs moved like wings with breathing).
As for the question of poisonous snakes in saxon England, i will check my
sources; I recall a Viking leader being cast into a snake pit (maybe
non-poisonous snakes as a cruel joke!!??), and then after his death, his
sons arrived for revenge and eventually became mercenaries leading Vikings
alongside Saxons against some other army (Picts?)
Dave Forth
stev...@aol.com (Steve1066) wrote:
>Although Edmund's death may have been by arrows (slowly) instead of the
>Viking "blood eagle," the latter method of execution is also reported for
>other Saxon nobles, such as Aelle of Northumbria as the Vikings burned
>York in 867. The blood eagle was a rite in which the victim was offered to
>Odin; the ribs and lungs were cut from the living victim and spread like
>eagle's wings (presumably the lungs moved like wings with breathing).
>
I am not so sure. I think it's quite possible such stories were Church
propaganda against the pagans.
Dave
St. Ives, England
Markus Nybom BKF
Dave Forth (dfo...@kos.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
Well, tese stories exist over here in the Nordic countries as well.
Of course, we too have a church.
regards,
Markus
Steve1066
Is there evidence for the use of the "blood eagle" in England? Most
sources I've consulted affirm this use. Gwyn Jones' "A History of the
Vikings" (Oxford, 1968, pg. 219) notes "This inhuman rite of cutting away
the victim's ribs from his spine, then pulling out his lungs and spreading
them like wings on his back, probably had a moral or religious as well as
a sanguinary significance for its perpetrator. It was unhappily no fiction
-- but owes its eminence in psudo-lore almost entirely to fiction, from
the exultant Fornaldarsogur to the frisson-seeking nineteenth century."
Steve1066
The story of the Saxon snake pit is from Ragnar's Saga, a possibly
mythical account of the life of Ragnar Lodbrok (Hairy-breeches), who had
besieged Paris, but met his snake-pit death in York inthe late 860s from
King Aella of Northumbria. Aella in 867 got the "blood eagle" from
vengeful Vikings, the sons of Ragnar, including the marvelously named
great warrior, Ivar the Boneless. I haven't found any sources on whether
poisonous snakes existed in Saxon England. It's not impossible however
that a trading town such as York would have seen snakes imported from
other lands.
wmcle...@aol.com
> It's not impossible however
>that a trading town such as York would have seen snakes imported from
>other lands.
"Hahah, Ragnar. An ill day for you when you fell into the hands of Aella of Northumbria. Prepare yourself, for soon you shall die in the PIT OF VIPERS!
Just as soon as the snakes clear customs.."
Will
Steve1066
There were no customs barriers for snakes to have to pass in medieval
York, but it was indeed a "custom" to import unusual animals into Britain.
Recall that the Romans brought over an elephant as part of a celebration
of their conquest of Britannia. More recent imports have included (?) the
leopard now reported in the moors, and Dracula into the coastal resort of
Whitby!!
Dave Forth
stev...@aol.com (Steve1066) wrote:
Your average venomous snake might have found a pit a mite chilly in
Northern England.
Dave
St. Ives, England
Steve1066
Hmmm....would chilly snakes be vicious when awakened from their stupod by
a Viking victim? I don't know when the purported snake-pits were used,
such as the one of Aelle of Northumbria at York, but when I stayed in York
in Summer 1995, the weather was quite warm even in the medieval
excavations where the Viking may have encountered "Saxon Hisssspitality!"
ma...@iafrica.com
On 14/02/97 21:38, in message <19970214193...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Steve1066 <stev...@aol.com> wrote:
> The story of the Saxon snake pit is from Ragnar's Saga, a possibly
> mythical account of the life of Ragnar Lodbrok (Hairy-breeches), who had
> besieged Paris, but met his snake-pit death in York inthe late 860s from
> King Aella of Northumbria. Aella in 867 got the "blood eagle" from
> vengeful Vikings, the sons of Ragnar, including the marvelously named
> great warrior, Ivar the Boneless. I haven't found any sources on whether
> poisonous snakes existed in Saxon England. It's not impossible however
> that a trading town such as York would have seen snakes imported from
> other lands.
Since adders are native to England I would imagine that Aella could have been
able to arrange for a few to be on hand when he wanted to dispose of the odd
Viking or so who happened to pass by :-). If sufficient adders bite a person I
think that death would result. However, the thought of some Saxon king actually
importing poisonous snakes for the purpose of disposing of his enemies seems a
bit off the wall. Space for really important trade goods must have been at a
premium and both Saxons and Vikings were pretty practical people unlikely to go
traveling off to remote parts of the then known world for snakes on the off
chance that someone might want to use them to dispose of enemies inventively. I
have a thought, St Patrick is reputed to have banished all the snakes from
Ireland - perhaps they wound up in Aella's snake pit:-).
Since Ragnar Lodbrok was an important person in his day it would seem likely
that the tale of how Aella killed him and how Aella himself met his end are
probably true. Lots of witnesses for one thing and the recorded deaths of other
kings and chieftains are not generally disputed unless there is a particular
mystery about them. In this case both deaths were bizarre enough to a), be
remembered and b), disputed vigorously at, or about the time, if there was any
doubt.
ma...@iafrica.com
>
I am intrigued that contributions to this thread have focussed on particularly
unpleasant forms of execution. Is there not a difference between execution -
being the end of the line of a judicial process, no matter how primitive, and
torture?
Other than torture for the sadistic pleasure of the torturer, which I do not
think was the object of this exercise. I would have thought that it would have
been used and condoned in two ways. As an adjunct to a legal process
(acceptable almost universally until historically recent times) and as a means
of extracting secrets from an enemy or competitor (still the case but who
admits it?).
The judicial process amongst both Anglo-Saxons and Norse, was, to generalise,
evidentiary in the criminal sense and by "ordeal" in the civil. "Ordeal" though
decidedly unpleasant was not torture as such and it would seem that in the
process of assessing evidence the basic methods of inflicting pain on a suspect
or witness were so accepted as to be unworthy of specific comment. The phrase
"Being put to the question" I think refers to a slightly later period than the
immediate pre-Norman but it is unlikely to represent any sudden change in
attitudes. In short it is likely that Anglo-Saxon torture methods were pretty
basic and the same as just about everybody else's and they stayed that way for
a very long time indeed. Not a very pleasant subject at all!
Tom Cain
The 'Blood Eagle' idea has recently been refuted. I can't remember the
exact reference for the article (a recent volume of Anglo-Saxon
England I think) but the references to the deaths of both St.Oswald
(who was supposed to have been sacrificed to Woden by Penda's troops
in a way similar to the Blood Eagle) and the death of St.Edmund are
all late hagiography, the intent of the story was not to show the
method of death, but the elevation to eternal life through miraclulous
events that occur immediately after both death (see Susan Ridyard's
book 'Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England').
Another more plausable version of Ragnar's death was that he was
thrown into a pit of wolves (they used this one on the Kirk
Douglas/Tony Curtis film 'The Vikings'). Vitually every story about
Ragnar is apocraphal, being found as topos stories attested to every
Northern European hero from Alfred the Great to Robert Guiscard of
Calabria or his son Bohemond.
Instead of arguing dodgy Scandinavian saga stories, how about the
story told by Abbo of St.Denis that at the siege of Paris (870's
sometime), the Viking beseigers used some unfortunate prisoners to
display some 'terrible, bloody sight' that terrified the Parisians so
much that they begged Count Robert to surrender. Whether 'Blood
Eagled' or simply tortured to death Abbo does not say.
Another terrible act that can be confirmed was the fate of the
hostages given to Swegn 'Forkbeard' for English good conduct when he
conquered England in 1015. On his death, instead of immediately
choosing Cnut as his heir, the English witan recalled the aged
Ethelred. Cnut reputedly left the hostages on the beach at Sandwich -
minus hands, feet and eyes - as a lesson to their relative for
infidelity. At least one of them survived to 1066, as Domesday Book
records him holding lands in King Edward's time.
Hope this is of use.
Cheers,
Tom
Henrik Ernoe
In article <N.021697....@196-7-177-92.compusys.iafrica.com>,
ma...@iafrica.com wrote:
I don`t buy that at all.
First of all the "death in the snake-pit" is used in several versions in
different sagas. As for exampel in "Sigurd Fafnersbane", where Sigurd is
thrown into the bit by King Atle (=Attila), but manage to keep the snakes
quiet by striking a harp with his toes. Then Atle discovers the harp and
takes it, the snakes wake up and kill Sigurd, who dies but just before
that manages to exhort his sons to take vengeance. (Sounds familar, no?)
Secondly there is several different versions of Regnar Lodborgs death and
of Ellas as well. There is indeed several different versions of Ragnars
saga, with differences as, whom he marries, how many and which sons he
has, and so on.
There existed certainly a Danish King who served as the basis for the
tales of Regnar Lodbrog but to take any of the "Regnar sagas" as
"documentaries" is naive. One should be very, very carefull about using
the early sagas like Regnars, Sigurds, Stärkodders or Rolf krakas Lejre-
tales as historical truth told by "witnesses". They all contain so many
fantastic elements that the historical core is totally overshadowed.
As for the "blood eagle" that term is also used for several different
forms of grisly deaths, from beind simply flogged to death as to the
elaborate version where the ribs are broken from the spine and forced
outwards and forwards.
Personally I think that the most grisly version are simply fairy tale elements
incorporated for effect, simply to make the listeners grasp.
Finally, one would not have to go far to get adders, they would be there
just outside the door, in winter you could probably find them in the
stables, in fact adder-skeletons have been found in several
viking-settlements in DK.
Furthermore, adders hibernate during the winter in deep pits, which can
contain up to several hundreds of the beasts. It would be dead easy to get
a pitfull of them if you wanted to...
Paul J. Gans
Dave Forth (dfo...@kos.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
Perhaps politicians were used? :-)
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Paul J. Gans
wmcle...@aol.com wrote:
: In article <19970214193...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, stev...@aol.com (Steve1066) writes:
:
: > It's not impossible however
: >that a trading town such as York would have seen snakes imported from
: >other lands.
: "Hahah, Ragnar. An ill day for you when you fell into the hands of Aella of Northumbria. Prepare yourself, for soon you shall die in the PIT OF VIPERS!
:
: Just as soon as the snakes clear customs.."
Perhaps they were two-legged vipers.. :-)
Mitchell Holman
In article <19970214203...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, wmcle...@aol.com wrote:
}
}
}"Hahah, Ragnar. An ill day for you when you fell into the hands of Aella of
} Northumbria. Prepare yourself, for soon you shall die in the PIT OF VIPERS!
}
}Just as soon as the snakes clear customs.."
}
No need for snakes - the "Vipers" being referred to
were in fact *lawyers*.........
Mitchell Holman
"There is no hell. There is only France."
-- Frank Zappa --
Todd A. Farmerie
Henrik Ernoe wrote:
> =
> In article <N.021697....@196-7-177-92.compusys.iafrica.com>,
> ma...@iafrica.com wrote:
> =
> > Since Ragnar Lodbrok was an important person in his day it would seem=
likely
> > that the tale of how Aella killed him and how Aella himself met his e=
nd are
> > probably true. Lots of witnesses for one thing and the recorded death=
s
> of other
> > kings and chieftains are not generally disputed unless there is a par=
ticular
> > mystery about them. In this case both deaths were bizarre enough to a=
), be
> > remembered and b), disputed vigorously at, or about the time, if ther=
e
> was any
> > doubt.
> =
> I don`t buy that at all.
=
And I buy even less than you.
> First of all the "death in the snake-pit" is used in several versions =
in
> different sagas. As for exampel in "Sigurd Fafnersbane", where Sigurd i=
s
> thrown into the bit by King Atle (=3DAttila), but manage to keep the sn=
akes
> quiet by striking a harp with his toes. Then Atle discovers the harp an=
d
> takes it, the snakes wake up and kill Sigurd, who dies but just before=
> that manages to exhort his sons to take vengeance. (Sounds familar, no?=
)
The connection here is unmistakable.
=
> Secondly there is several different versions of Regnar Lodborgs death a=
nd
> of Ellas as well. There is indeed several different versions of Ragnars=
> saga, with differences as, whom he marries, how many and which sons he
> has, and so on.
> There existed certainly a Danish King who served as the basis for the
> tales of Regnar Lodbrog =
I would suggest that there were several Danish kings, vikings, and
fathers (or mothers) of vikings confused/combined into the legendary
Ragnar Lothbrok. For a good discussion of this, see:
http://herb.algonet.se:80/~anderzb/genea/medieval/ragnar.htm
> but to take any of the "Regnar sagas" as
> "documentaries" is naive. =
> One should be very, very carefull about using
> the early sagas like Regnars, Sigurds, St=E4rkodders or Rolf krakas Lej=
re-
> tales as historical truth told by "witnesses". They all contain so many=
> fantastic elements that the historical core is totally overshadowed.
Yes.
=
> As for the "blood eagle" that term is also used for several different
> forms of grisly deaths, from beind simply flogged to death as to the
> elaborate version where the ribs are broken from the spine and forced
> outwards and forwards.
> =
> Personally I think that the most grisly version are simply fairy tale e=
lements
> incorporated for effect, simply to make the listeners grasp.
=
As I have mentioned here before, an argument has been made (by Roberta
Frank in English Historical Review, and subsequent discussion in the
Saga Book of the Viking Society) that the original text simply indicated
that the back of the victim was cut by eagles, similar to other
references to being defeated in battle to become the prey of carrion
birds (see, for instance the saga account of the battle at Vendil, which
left the loser with the nickname Vendil-crow). From the first
misreading of this to mean that it was done as a torture, it expanded
into a ballet limited only by the vivid imagination of the saga writers.
taf
ma...@iafrica.com
On 01/03/97 21:29, in message <331883...@po.cwru.edu>, "Todd A. Farmerie"
<ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
> Henrik Ernoe wrote:
> >
> > In article <N.021697....@196-7-177-92.compusys.iafrica.com>,
> > ma...@iafrica.com wrote:
> >
>
To avoid unnecessary repetition might I summarise by saying that I made an
assumption, carelessly and without checking, that Ragnar was a real person.I
had based my assumption on the history of the Vikings by Professor Johannes
Brondsted, Pelican Original,1965. In the course of setting out the historical
perspective Prof.Brondsted refers to Ragnar being dispatched by the Danish King
Horik (son of Godfred)to capture Paris. At no time does he refer to Ragnar as
anything but a real person. He also mentions Ragnar's sons in the context of
attacks on England which were launched from a base in East Anglia.
To continue being lazy, may I ask whether or not Aella was a real person or,
was he also a mere figment of a sagaman's imagination. I am not being
sarcastic, it would be interesting to know if this can be established. If he
was not a real person, then it all boils down to a good gory story for the long
winter nights. If, however, Aella was really a king of Northumberland during a
generally accepted period of time it could pose some interesting questions. Did
he capture and execute an important Viking leader? If he did, who was it that
he killed? Given that the snake pit had been the feature of legend and saga
would it have been possible that Aella was aware of this and might have thought
it an appropriate end for an important captive? Is there only one version of
Aella's death? Would it be fair to say that sagas very often had a solid basis
of fact at the core, even though they would have been painted in somewhat
brighter colours to enthrall an audience?
Todd A. Farmerie
ma...@iafrica.com wrote:
>
> On 01/03/97 21:29, in message <331883...@po.cwru.edu>, "Todd A. Farmerie"
> <ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>
> > Henrik Ernoe wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <N.021697....@196-7-177-92.compusys.iafrica.com>,
> > > ma...@iafrica.com wrote:
> > >
> >
> To avoid unnecessary repetition might I summarise by saying that I made an
> assumption, carelessly and without checking, that Ragnar was a real person.
Just to confuse things further, there is a minority opinion, represented
primarily (or at least most vocally) by Alfred Smyth, which accepts
Ragnar Lothbrok as a single historical entity. That's history for you.
> To continue being lazy, may I ask whether or not Aella was a real person or,
> was he also a mere figment of a sagaman's imagination. I am not being
> sarcastic, it would be interesting to know if this can be established. If he
> was not a real person, then it all boils down to a good gory story for the long
> winter nights. If, however, Aella was really a king of Northumberland during a
> generally accepted period of time it could pose some interesting questions. Did
> he capture and execute an important Viking leader? If he did, who was it that
> he killed? Given that the snake pit had been the feature of legend and saga
> would it have been possible that Aella was aware of this and might have thought
> it an appropriate end for an important captive? Is there only one version of
> Aella's death?
(from memory)
Aella was a historical king, who usurped the thrown of Northumberland,
and ruled successfully for some time. The contemporary account (ASC?)
simply states that he was defeated and killed in battle with the great
viking army, (which was led by individuals attributed to be the same as
the sons of Lothbrok). It is likely that the "Ragnar" episode was
invented (or stolen from the earlier legend) to excuse the treatment he
later received at the hands of the vikings, which then simply became his
"just deserts". This nasty treatment, in turn, probably resulted from a
misunderstanding of the metaphoric description of his defeat in battle.
> Would it be fair to say that sagas very often had a solid basis
> of fact at the core, even though they would have been painted in somewhat
> brighter colours to enthrall an audience?
I would say that the surviving sagas were constructed from a combination
of the available heroic poetry and the slim authentic historical
records. These were then blended into a narrative which presented an
entertaining story, but in the process lost any historical reliability.
If anything, I would say that the history was used to string together
the fun stories, rather than the stories used to spice up the history.
taf
Tony Jebson
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
> Aella was a historical king, who usurped the thrown of Northumberland,
> and ruled successfully for some time. The contemporary account (ASC?)
> simply states that he was defeated and killed in battle with the great
> viking army
AElle ruled Northumbria from 560 to 588 according to the Chronicle (A)
which merely states:
560
... ond AElle feng to Northanhymbra rice...
[ and AElle succeeded to the kingdom of Northumbria ]
588
Her AElle cyning forthferde...
[ Here King AElle died. ]
I'm not sure where else AElle is mentioned in the Old English corpus
but I imagine he'll appear in various Regnal lists et al...
However, there is an older (legendary) AElle who, according
to the Chronicle, arrived in 477 and was the "founder" of Sussex.
[c.f. various Indo-European foundation myths]
You should also realise that the Chronicle is not "contemporary".
The oldest surviving recension of the chronicle was probably started
no earlier than 891, some three hundred years after the fact.
--- Tony Jebson