3 ms·

> the only thing saving you from existential despair might be that some ancestor's violence and cruelty was only offset by their utter forgettability in the fl

> the only thing saving you from existential despair might be that some ancestor's violence and cruelty was only offset by their utter forgettability in the flow of history. I think you're forgetting about the fact that in all human history, Genghis stands out as one of the cruelest and most violent rulers. As far as I know, Iranians (Persians) never did the same thing to other nations, not even for revenge. I guess that's the main reason saving Iranians from "existential despair".

pavel_lishin 9y ago
I guess Genghis has a heck of a mote in his eye, eh?
Lokran 9y ago
How do you feel about this ancient Persian torture method? "The intended victim was stripped naked and then firmly fastened within the interior space of two narrow rowing boats (or hollowed-out tree trunks) joined together one on top of the other with the head, hands and feet protruding. The condemned was forced to ingest milk and honey, and more honey would be poured on the victim to attract insects, with special attention devoted to the eyes, ears, mouth, face, genitals, and anus. In some cases, the executioner would mix milk and honey and pour that mixture all over the victim. The victim would then be left to float on a stagnant pond or be exposed to the sun. The defenseless individual's feces accumulated within the container, attracting more insects which would eat and breed within the victim's exposed flesh, which—pursuant to interruption of the blood supply by burrowing insects—became increasingly gangrenous. The individual would lie naked, covered from head to toe in milk, honey, and his own feces. The feeding would be repeated each day in some cases to prolong the torture, so that fatal dehydration or starvation did not occur. Death, when it eventually occurred, was probably due to a combination of dehydration, starvation, and septic shock. Delirium would typically set in after a few days.[1]." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaphism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaphism
Lokran 9y ago
Equally, how do you feel about killing a servants son and having him eat him because he had refused to kill a child? "Herodotus accounts for the turn of Harpagus' support to a version of the cannibal feast of Thyestes.[1] He reports that Astyages, after having a dream that his daughter, Mandane, would give birth to a king who would overthrow him, ordered Harpagus to expose the child at birth. Harpagus, reluctant to spill his own royal blood, gave the child (Cyrus) to a shepherd named Mitradates,[2] who raised him as his own son. Ten years later, when Cyrus was discovered alive, Astyages cruelly punished Harpagus by killing Harpagus' only son and feeding him to the courtier during a banquet. It is said that Harpagus did not react during the banquet, other than to gather the pieces of his son and remove them for burial." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpagus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpagus
- bhnmmhmd 9y ago
  So you made a fake account just to come here and rant about something unrelated to the main topic? Plus, you should consider the fact that Greeks and Persians were at war in those times. It's only natural that a historian (like Herodotus) would exaggerate some events, or even write lies about their arch enemy. Unfortunately, many history books were burnt in Persian libraries by the Mongols, so we only get the perspective of the Greeks, not the Persians. > He reports that Astyages, after having a dream that his daughter, Mandane ... Ok, such drama coming from a historian... History isn't a movie man. I don't want to bash you, but do you think your comment below is even remotely civil and suitable for HN?
  - Lokran 9y ago
    > So you made a fake account just to come here and rant about something unrelated to the main topic? I don't understand how it's a fake account. Would you mind keeping the discussion on a civil level? > Plus, you should consider the fact that Greeks and Persians were at war in those times. It's only natural that a historian (like Herodotus) would exaggerate some events, or even write lies about their arch enemy. Unfortunately, many history books were burnt in Persian libraries by the Mongols, so we only get the perspective of the Greeks, not the Persians. Yes, the Persians and the Greeks were at war and enemies. In fact, that was part of my point. The portrayal you have of Genghis Khan comes from his enemies too. > Ok, such drama coming from a historian... History isn't a movie man. I understand how if you're not familiar with Herodotus it can be hard to believe anything he says since he does enjoy to add details to personify stories. That is no reason to discount everything he says though, most of ancient written history is embellished. There's a lot of work on the reliabiliy of his texts if you're interested. > I don't want to bash you, but do you think your comment below is even remotely civil and suitable for HN? Uh...absolutely? There is nothing uncivil about in and it's literally on the same topic that your post was about.

pavel_lishin 9y ago

I guess Genghis has a heck of a mote in his eye, eh?

Lokran 9y ago

How do you feel about this ancient Persian torture method? "The intended victim was stripped naked and then firmly fastened within the interior space of two narrow rowing boats (or hollowed-out tree trunks) joined together one on top of the other with the head, hands and feet protruding. The condemned was forced to ingest milk and honey, and more honey would be poured on the victim to attract insects, with special attention devoted to the eyes, ears, mouth, face, genitals, and anus. In some cases, the executioner would mix milk and honey and pour that mixture all over the victim. The victim would then be left to float on a stagnant pond or be exposed to the sun. The defenseless individual's feces accumulated within the container, attracting more insects which would eat and breed within the victim's exposed flesh, which—pursuant to interruption of the blood supply by burrowing insects—became increasingly gangrenous. The individual would lie naked, covered from head to toe in milk, honey, and his own feces. The feeding would be repeated each day in some cases to prolong the torture, so that fatal dehydration or starvation did not occur. Death, when it eventually occurred, was probably due to a combination of dehydration, starvation, and septic shock. Delirium would typically set in after a few days.[1]." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaphism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaphism

Lokran 9y ago

Equally, how do you feel about killing a servants son and having him eat him because he had refused to kill a child? "Herodotus accounts for the turn of Harpagus' support to a version of the cannibal feast of Thyestes.[1] He reports that Astyages, after having a dream that his daughter, Mandane, would give birth to a king who would overthrow him, ordered Harpagus to expose the child at birth. Harpagus, reluctant to spill his own royal blood, gave the child (Cyrus) to a shepherd named Mitradates,[2] who raised him as his own son. Ten years later, when Cyrus was discovered alive, Astyages cruelly punished Harpagus by killing Harpagus' only son and feeding him to the courtier during a banquet. It is said that Harpagus did not react during the banquet, other than to gather the pieces of his son and remove them for burial." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpagus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpagus

bhnmmhmd 9y ago
So you made a fake account just to come here and rant about something unrelated to the main topic? Plus, you should consider the fact that Greeks and Persians were at war in those times. It's only natural that a historian (like Herodotus) would exaggerate some events, or even write lies about their arch enemy. Unfortunately, many history books were burnt in Persian libraries by the Mongols, so we only get the perspective of the Greeks, not the Persians. > He reports that Astyages, after having a dream that his daughter, Mandane ... Ok, such drama coming from a historian... History isn't a movie man. I don't want to bash you, but do you think your comment below is even remotely civil and suitable for HN?
- Lokran 9y ago
  > So you made a fake account just to come here and rant about something unrelated to the main topic? I don't understand how it's a fake account. Would you mind keeping the discussion on a civil level? > Plus, you should consider the fact that Greeks and Persians were at war in those times. It's only natural that a historian (like Herodotus) would exaggerate some events, or even write lies about their arch enemy. Unfortunately, many history books were burnt in Persian libraries by the Mongols, so we only get the perspective of the Greeks, not the Persians. Yes, the Persians and the Greeks were at war and enemies. In fact, that was part of my point. The portrayal you have of Genghis Khan comes from his enemies too. > Ok, such drama coming from a historian... History isn't a movie man. I understand how if you're not familiar with Herodotus it can be hard to believe anything he says since he does enjoy to add details to personify stories. That is no reason to discount everything he says though, most of ancient written history is embellished. There's a lot of work on the reliabiliy of his texts if you're interested. > I don't want to bash you, but do you think your comment below is even remotely civil and suitable for HN? Uh...absolutely? There is nothing uncivil about in and it's literally on the same topic that your post was about.