Talk:Blood eagle

message: I wouldn't trust Hutton's views in this regard since the cited book is little more than a polemic filled with logical fallacies, such as Special Pleading!  Indeed, Hutton is dismissive of the evidence of the Blood Eagle because the scholar he's criticizing didn't conform to some pedantic rule artificially imposed Hutton; a rule that Hutton breaks and does not himself follow a few pages afterward when he commits the same thing he charges the other scholar of doing!  Hutton is really an unreliable scholar when it comes to ancient paganism and should be taken with a HEAVY pinch of salt!
Such "unreliable scholars" who dare to have an opposing bias to the writers of historical record are themselves the pinch of salt that anybody should take with the many outlandish libels written by ecclesiastic "scholars" of the pagan religions they put to the sword.71.89.24.41 (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Hutton Reference

message: 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)
thread_title: Archaeology?

message: 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)
thread_title: Citations, etc.

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thoracic surgeon help needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed from execution methods 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sarum_(novel) had the viking blood eagle mentioned if I remember correctly. Rutherfurd claimed to have heavily researched and authenticate details as much as possible - perhaps a reference is in there.  Piandao  21:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

text: The long list (not selective enough, in my opinion) of references in fiction alone demonstrates that it is a cultural phenomenon, whether it existed historically or not.  It has also been subject to a scholarly debate spanning at least a half-dozen articles and books, in which two schools developed, one represented by Roberta Frank suggesting that it was all mistranslation and 'hey, look what our silly pagan ancestors got up to', and the other represented by Alfred Smyth, who took it as authentic and interpreted several other executions that were not all that similar in their surviving renderings as poorly described examples of the same authentic pagan rite.  That these serious historians dedicated journal articles or book chapters to the subject would likewise seem sufficient to justify a page.  Your problem would seem to be that we have no first-person testimony, but that is not a requirement for a Wikipedia article. Agricolae (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor article 

message: The Fiction section amounts to nothing more than an indiscriminate list of some extremely trivial popular culture references.  At a minimum it needs pared down, if not completely eliminated.  I have moved it here for the time being, but only significant mentions should be restored, rather than every book/movie/show/song that ever mentioned it - it's not like the page on Vikings lists every book and movie that names vikings. Agricolae (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I came here to explain the pop culture tag I just placed on it, but apparently this has been an ongoing problem for over five years. I don't know who unilaterally replaced this meandering unsourced list and for what justification after Agricolae removed it, but I am commenting it out. - CompliantDrone (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction trivia 

message: In Norse (and Icelandic) the words used are: RÍSTA BLÓÐÖRN: explained as: skera rifin frá hryggnum á e-m og draga út lungun = cut the ribs from somebody´s back and force (draw) out the lungs. / RÍSTA BLÓÐÖRN Á BAKI E-M: sbr: blóðörn, m. Blodørn; rísta blóðörn á baki e-m var en Maade, hvorpaa man dræbte sine i Strid fangne Fiender og ofrede dem til Guderne: hann brá þá saxi ok reist blóðörn á baki honum ok skar öll rifin frá hryggnum ok dró þar út lungun. / Að rísta blóðörn translates: TO SLASH A BLOODEAGLE. - and "að rísta blóðörn á baki e-m" translates: to slash a bloodeagle on someones back. In Fritzner´s dictionary these words are translated in Norwegian as: a mode one killed one´s enemies in war to sacrifice them to the Gods. --194.144.212.210 (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rísta blóðörn  

message: In Chinese torture there's a parallel method of torture which is called 開膛破肚 or "opening the chest and splitting the stomach", the Chinese wiki link is here: http://www.baike.com/wiki/%E5%BC%80%E8%86%9B%E7%A0%B4%E8%82%9A
Could this be incorporated with the article too?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pappymu (talk • contribs) 15:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible similarities with Chinese torture? 

message: I am curious as to the legal justice systems in ancient europe, i have read that the celts practice mostly tort law, i.e. money compensation for crimes. 
There were relatively violent and sadistic tribes in europe that were interested in violence, and relatively peaceful ones that focused more on nature and spirits. A parallel can be found in Amerindian tribes, almost all tribes were relatively war like, a man was measured by his warrior conquests, that he would dance and recount around the fire, and taking of slaves from other tribes... this was prevalent in most of america i have read, however when the europeans arrived, they introduced scalping to count number of indians killed by poachers for rewards, i have read that is where scalping may have come from... and it is not said that the american indians were generally sadistic, only some tribes were sadistic, and other's weren't... only a small number of american tribes were known for torturing captured victims. I am curious therefore as to the tribal prevalence of different levels of peaceful and war like behaviours in europe, the distribution and nature of their attitudes to corparal punishment, perhaps it's not really documented. 
I thought that they found a corpse in a peat bog in england/ireland where the cut was made along the thorax, and was attributed to blood eagle. here it sais they took the lungs from the back. The back of the lungs is home to major veins and arteries, and even the expert butchers that the warmonging tribes were, it would be very tedious and difficult to cut ribs at the back, they are attached by the sternum at the level of the lungs, and so you coulnt move them unless they were floating ribs. Furthermore, it would be almost impossible to do avoid killing someone by cutting ribs near the spine, as blood loss and arterial pressure would make the death anywhere between 10 seconds and loss of conciousness 20 minutes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.88.135.133 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  prevalence of corporal / capital punishments in celtic and nordic cultures? 

message: See . News article:  Sizeofint (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I saw this reported, but only in the form of a regurgiscience writeup based on a press release from the institution of the authors.  This seems to be of higher quality, but we shouldn't overplay it - the conclusion is that, in the authors' opinion, it is physiologically possible. Agricolae (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: New study