Talk:Blood eagle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Blood eagle is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

Contents

[edit] Archaeology?

One thing might settle this dispute: have any skeletons been found in Viking graves with bone damage of the sort described? Anthony Appleyard 22:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations, etc.

I am re-arranging the presentation of the citations, following Wikipedia's style guide: Never Start With Skaldic Poetry Ethan Mitchell 16:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Skaldic Poetry does not define a Blood Eagle.

I visited York, England about twenty years ago. There was a 'dungeon museum' in the city, which displayed different tortures associated with the history of York. The 'Blood Eagle' stands out in my memory over all the others. They showed a wax figure of a man nailed to a cross, his chest cavity opened up, and above his head was nailed his bloodied ribs. I am not sure, but I thought that the ribs were severed on each side and then pulled away by the sternum. They were nailed in an inverted position, so that the sternum resembled the body, the ribs the wings. It looked like the stylized eagles seen on some European coats of arms. It was not clear if the victim was alive when this was done, and I pondered how long he might have lived. . . I thought that the organs were left in tact. It left such a strong visual impression upon me, I assume it was an effective way to terrorize the population.

[edit] Thoracic surgeon help needed

A thoracic surgeon would be able to say whether this procedure – bringing lungs out through a wound without pulling them off their attachments – is possible. If you are a thoracic surgeon you can help clear this myth up! BlueValour 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Who ever said they were not pulled off their attachments? If they were ever extracted in the first place, it was likely as a coup de grace, with no attempts at keeping the trachea (or main bronchial tract) intact. --Svartalf 04:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There also seems to be many different assumptions of how the procedure was carried out (none of which really make sense anatomically). If you cut the ribs from the back and pull out the lungs you don't get wings of ribs or flesh, you just get some wounds with blobs of lung flesh (which do not resemble wings at all). Lungs are soft and actually quite small when not filled with air. If you open up the chest cavity from the front you get a gaping wound, but no wings. However, if you cut the ribs from the spine, from behind, then open the chest cavity from the front, you might get something like wings (though the ribs will stay curved) but the victim would have been long dead by that point and the whole process would be more taxadermy than torture (plus, the "salt in the wounds" comments would not make much sense). Also it should be noted that once the lungs are traumatically disturbed unconciousness/death occurs very quickly from asphyxiation. Furthermore, it seems that if the term "eagle" is to be used this procedure must have resulted in something more than a victim laying face down with some bloody innards protruding a few inches out of two wounds along the spine. I'd like to see an attempt to sketch/draw this procedure. —Preceding CS_Weaver comment added 13:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from execution methods

I've removed the references to this being an execution method. If the blood eagle was real, it was simply a way of torturing prisoners to death. It wasn't a judicial punishment inflicted for a crime; thus it's not an execution. Pirate Dan 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Whichever way you turn it, the goal of the procedure was execution. I have reverted your edit, because you made it out to be "only" torture.--Berig 21:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor article

This is another article which seems to be built on some editor's (or editors') personal interpretation of saga material. That is, it is original research. Is there any modern historian who thinks that this is not all based on a medieval misunderstanding? I never saw one yet, and this doesn't cite any. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but unfortunately I am not familiar with scholarly expertise in the matter. Since the article mainly concerns British sources, and you are more familiar with such matters, maybe you could provide some scholarly opinions on it.--Berig (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert, and I freely acknowledge that I am strongly prejudiced against treating saga as historical narrative. Still, I'll have a go. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have never seen you POV-push in that direction. I am personally a fan of legends generally, and I think that sagas have great value in themselves, whether every element is historical or not. I consider them to be in a grey zone between fact and fiction, like most medieval chronicles. Historical reliability is something that comes in degrees, even within a given source.--Berig (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)