Submitted by AutoModerator t3_11bkh5p in history
Rahodees t1_j9z6f1h wrote
In the movie The Northman, some raiders, after having raided a village and enslaved much of its population, then threw a bunch of people (the rest whom they didn't enslave?) into a house and burned them alive.
I found a thread here in which someone states, with a citation, that this was indeed a practice at that time and place. However, no explanation was offered there as to why they did this?
So that's my question. What would be the reason for killing those people? Why not just leave them behind?
shantipole t1_j9zzqqx wrote
You don't usually leave people who can recognize you and are highly motivated to do you harm in a position to act on that motivation. Especially if you plan to raid anywhere near here in coming seasons.
Plus, it encourages your next victims not to fight back (by running away as soon as they see you coming, in this case). Brutality now to prevent resistance from others later is a pretty common tactic.
Doctor_Impossible_ t1_j9zt8a0 wrote
>What would be the reason for killing those people? Why not just leave them behind?
Raiding was often mutual, and enmities and feuds were well-known. A raid could be opportunistic, or part of a long campaign against an enemy, to frighten their people, to weaken their economy, to gain renown.
GSilky t1_ja428ma wrote
It was common place for a long time, and leaving people alive after a conquest is usually a stage in social development. You see it in the middle east ancient history. For a long time it was a tribe coming out of the desert or hills replacing the existing people wholesale. Then you see people like the Assyrians taking slaves and relocating whole populations. The Babylonians would only take the leadership class and eventually the Persians took only taxes to everyone's acclaim (it has been offered that the messiah mentioned in the Tanakh was Cyrus or maybe Darius, ICR which).
Rahodees t1_ja4c4y2 wrote
>eventually the Persians took only taxes to everyone's acclaim
That's interesting, was it seen as like a surprising innovation, or something people often hoped for but rarely saw happen?
GSilky t1_ja4zfou wrote
I think it was the influence of a more cosmopolitan outlook, it was certainly a first, afaik, but that is also an over gloss, it was more complicated of course, but that is the traditional textbook take. I personally think that it depends on the time and place, while mercy has been developed by today, it's always been present in individuals, there are surprisingly modern examples of this type of behavior, I would think that the knowledge of past behavior like being discussed was also not necessarily the norm, but those bizarre headline grabbing scenarios of today.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments