6 ms·

In 1491, Charles Mann makes the case that the number of ritual sacrifices was far fewer than the number of public executions in European countries during these

In 1491, Charles Mann makes the case that the number of ritual sacrifices was far fewer than the number of public executions in European countries during these times. In both cases, people were killed in an effort to bind the citizenry together in the shared belief in the leadership. The initial horror at the Aztec using innocents is tempered when you think about the crimes that many in Europe would likely have committed. I think medieval European justice is probably not much better.

whatshisface 6y ago
>In both cases, people were killed in an effort to bind the citizenry together in the shared belief in the leadership. Are you suggesting that it doesn't make a difference whether you're executing people for crimes or for fun? Yes, the medieval European justice system was far from perfect, yes, it was so imperfect that people now call things "medieval" when they're cruel and stupid, but surely there is something to be said for the fact that the people being executed in Europe had sometimes done something wrong to get there.
- pavlov 6y ago
  Thomas More, author of "Utopia", had six people burned at the stake for heresy when he was Lord Chancellor of England in 1529-32. That's no different from human sacrifice to a god.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    It's difficult to weigh the difference between two extreme bads, so I understand how you could come to that conclusion. However "don't say anything on this list of things not to say" is an order that could at least by choice be complied with. Imagine yourself in Europe and also in Central America. Would you rather live under the fear of heresy laws or under the fear of human sacrifice? In the former case you could choose between complying with the unjust ruler or standing up to them, in the latter, you just die.
    - nullstyle 6y ago
      "Would you rather live under the fear of heresy laws or under the fear of human sacrifice?" citations needed
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      Honestly, if you gave me a choice between living in the Aztec Empire or in Spain in 1500, I would pick the Aztecs. Probably even knowing what was going to happen in 20 years and knowing that I would be alive for it.
      - pavlov 6y ago
        One would probably have better odds of living for 20 years in the Aztec empire (assuming you were a member of the ruling ethnicity). Tenochtitlán is said to have been a beautiful city of floating gardens. In Madrid, shit flowed in open sewers on sidewalks.
    - carok 6y ago
      I'm curious about how much do we actually know about was picked for sacrifice under the aztec rule. It seems like there is a consensus on this thread that all were innocent common citizens, but a lot of documentation shows that at least a sizeable portion of sacrifices were prisoners of war. This doesnt make it morally more excusable, but it tempers your point as not everyone was a potential target of sacrifice.
- velcrovan 6y ago
  The fact that the justice system was so shoddy, and the fact that public executions were a form of entertainment, really makes this a distinction without a difference.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    Their justice system had some amount of accuracy. Human sacrifice has no accuracy. If a distinction of degree is a distinction without a difference, then I propose that I give you 0% of my possessions in exchange for 10% of yours. ;)
- garren 6y ago
  Execution “for fun” seems inappropriate here, doesn’t it? The comparison to medieval European justice also seems a little apples and oranges. Maybe a comparison to the Inquisition and/or the burning of supposed witches - both religious in nature, both horrendous, both seemingly an attempt to unify societies under a common belief?
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    The Inquisition is getting closer, but moving the conversation from the justice system to the inquisition does make it look like we're just trying to compare the moral goodness of Europeans and Aztecs. Well, groups like "Europeans" can't have a level of moral goodness, only individual people can. Obviously any European serial killer was worse than the average Aztec. So if that's the discussion we're implicitly having, that's a poorly founded discussion.
    - WaxProlix 6y ago
      Religious death to religious death seems like a more reasonable comparison in the first place right? Also you managed to miss the (in my mind) legitimate criticism of your characterization of their sacrifices as being 'for fun'.
    - carok 6y ago
      Separating the church (religion) and justice in medieval europe doesn't make much sense, as the church was the highest political power in europe back then.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  First off, I’m just relaying information that I found interesting. Relax and try to have an interesting conversation rather than win an internet point. I think the European criminal system was far more widespread than Aztec sacrifices, so net net maybe it would be similar. It’s also probably worth noting the religious aspect of it - people in religions sometimes seem willing to sacrifice their life for their gods, so I’m not 100% sure that the sacrifice victims or society didn’t get something out of it. In fact, they got the same thing as Europe - a tighter societal bond. That being said, we know so little about the Aztecs compared to Europe that it would be impossible to make an informed if absurd decision as to which way I would want to be executed.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    >I think the European criminal system was far more widespread than Aztec sacrifices, so net net maybe it would be similar. You have to evaluate ideological systems by their net good/evil per follower, otherwise their relative scales would dominate any comparison. For example, medical malpractice has killed unimaginably more people than any suicidal cult ever has. Still, that does not mean it's better to join a suicidal cult than it is to visit the doctor's office. >we know so little about the Aztecs compared to Europe that it would be impossible to make an informed if absurd decision as to which way I would want to be executed. The reason you'd want to pick the justice system is that justice systems, even when imperfect, can still declare innocent people innocent. A justice system sometimes makes mistakes, the Aztec temple only made mistakes.
    - lotsofcows 6y ago
      Seem's a little disrespectful of others' belief systems. How can you possibly know that the God's sacrifices were a "mistake"?
      - whatshisface 6y ago
        Ancient religions had not evolved to be unfalsifiable like modern ones have. The Aztecs believed that they could get something by earning favor - and since they weren't actually getting anything, they were factually wrong in a way no modern religion can manage.
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  Moral relativism is a black hole. It's hard to say the actor in one atrocity is better or worse than another actor in another atrocity. But I think it could be said that the Aztec civilization was complicated, and of which the kidnap and brutal sacrifice from its neighboring tribes was one (rather sensationalized) aspect. And I've said it elsewhere, but the podcast really gives you a sense of what it was like to live in the place and time - as much as one can from researching the extant artifacts.
- carok 6y ago
  A lot of "witches" and heretics tortured and executed in medieval times probably didnt do much wrong
hutzlibu 6y ago
"I think medieval European justice is probably not much better. " I also rarely hear people suggesting to learn from medieval europe. But there is still respect, for example it does bother me, that all those kings still have a "great" in their name, when what it was what they were good at, was large scale slaughtering. King Karl the great? Not for me. By that standards Hitler would be a "Great", too. And that our awesome justice system roots in ancient rome. Which was mainly a empire. Conquering the world to steal riches and slaves.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  Consider this sentence: "Covid19 has caused a great loss of life." The word 'great' is not simply a more emphatic word for 'good', though in some contexts it might mean that. Great Britain isn't great because it's better than the other Britains, but because it encompasses all of the British Isles. I think it may also be the case that people are called great when their impact on history seems to have a great scale. For instance I think Catherine the Great is called great not because she was particularly benevolent (she personally owned half a million people), but because Russia became more powerful and expansive during her reign.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    "catherine the Great is called great not because she was particularly benevolent, but because Russia became more powerful and expansive during her reign. " Yes, I am aware of that. But in classic history this seems to be the same. Good and great is having conquered much. And also in the general perception. The hollywood movies of Caesar or Alexander? Pure admiration. No serious criticism(or any at all), I remember of. Nothing against presenting history as it was. But there is still lots of glorification going on. My school history classes were also speaking mainly great of the "great" people. Even though we would call them brutal dictators and barbaric enslavers if they would exist today.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      I think people are attracted to extreme things in general and power in particular. The great white shark is great because it's huge and powerful, though it's considered monstrous in popular culture. In my experience it's also the favorite shark of nearly any kid who likes sharks, probably because it is immense and powerful. "World's [blankiest] [blank]" is generally a pretty popular genre, regardless of the subject. Whether it's the tallest mountain, most venomous snake, longest railroad or fastest plane, people are fascinated with extremes. I think the obsession with the world's 'great' leaders like Genghis Khan or Alexander is just another manifestation of this.
blacksmith_tb 6y ago
That seems like a fair comparison, though the scale of Aztec sacrifice was pretty remarkable[1]. I would say in either case that it's incredible to me to think of societies where people were more valuable dead than alive - I suppose it suggests they were flourishing, to be able to afford it, but it's hard to imagine. 1: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-skull-tower-rack-evidence-aztec.html https://phys.org/news/2018-06-skull-tower-rack-evidence-azte...
pharke 6y ago
Did the Aztecs execute criminals in similar proportion to Europeans?

whatshisface 6y ago

>In both cases, people were killed in an effort to bind the citizenry together in the shared belief in the leadership. Are you suggesting that it doesn't make a difference whether you're executing people for crimes or for fun? Yes, the medieval European justice system was far from perfect, yes, it was so imperfect that people now call things "medieval" when they're cruel and stupid, but surely there is something to be said for the fact that the people being executed in Europe had sometimes done something wrong to get there.

pavlov 6y ago
Thomas More, author of "Utopia", had six people burned at the stake for heresy when he was Lord Chancellor of England in 1529-32. That's no different from human sacrifice to a god.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  It's difficult to weigh the difference between two extreme bads, so I understand how you could come to that conclusion. However "don't say anything on this list of things not to say" is an order that could at least by choice be complied with. Imagine yourself in Europe and also in Central America. Would you rather live under the fear of heresy laws or under the fear of human sacrifice? In the former case you could choose between complying with the unjust ruler or standing up to them, in the latter, you just die.
  - nullstyle 6y ago
    "Would you rather live under the fear of heresy laws or under the fear of human sacrifice?" citations needed
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    Honestly, if you gave me a choice between living in the Aztec Empire or in Spain in 1500, I would pick the Aztecs. Probably even knowing what was going to happen in 20 years and knowing that I would be alive for it.
    - pavlov 6y ago
      One would probably have better odds of living for 20 years in the Aztec empire (assuming you were a member of the ruling ethnicity). Tenochtitlán is said to have been a beautiful city of floating gardens. In Madrid, shit flowed in open sewers on sidewalks.
  - carok 6y ago
    I'm curious about how much do we actually know about was picked for sacrifice under the aztec rule. It seems like there is a consensus on this thread that all were innocent common citizens, but a lot of documentation shows that at least a sizeable portion of sacrifices were prisoners of war. This doesnt make it morally more excusable, but it tempers your point as not everyone was a potential target of sacrifice.
velcrovan 6y ago
The fact that the justice system was so shoddy, and the fact that public executions were a form of entertainment, really makes this a distinction without a difference.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  Their justice system had some amount of accuracy. Human sacrifice has no accuracy. If a distinction of degree is a distinction without a difference, then I propose that I give you 0% of my possessions in exchange for 10% of yours. ;)
garren 6y ago
Execution “for fun” seems inappropriate here, doesn’t it? The comparison to medieval European justice also seems a little apples and oranges. Maybe a comparison to the Inquisition and/or the burning of supposed witches - both religious in nature, both horrendous, both seemingly an attempt to unify societies under a common belief?
- whatshisface 6y ago
  The Inquisition is getting closer, but moving the conversation from the justice system to the inquisition does make it look like we're just trying to compare the moral goodness of Europeans and Aztecs. Well, groups like "Europeans" can't have a level of moral goodness, only individual people can. Obviously any European serial killer was worse than the average Aztec. So if that's the discussion we're implicitly having, that's a poorly founded discussion.
  - WaxProlix 6y ago
    Religious death to religious death seems like a more reasonable comparison in the first place right? Also you managed to miss the (in my mind) legitimate criticism of your characterization of their sacrifices as being 'for fun'.
  - carok 6y ago
    Separating the church (religion) and justice in medieval europe doesn't make much sense, as the church was the highest political power in europe back then.
edmundsauto 6y ago
First off, I’m just relaying information that I found interesting. Relax and try to have an interesting conversation rather than win an internet point. I think the European criminal system was far more widespread than Aztec sacrifices, so net net maybe it would be similar. It’s also probably worth noting the religious aspect of it - people in religions sometimes seem willing to sacrifice their life for their gods, so I’m not 100% sure that the sacrifice victims or society didn’t get something out of it. In fact, they got the same thing as Europe - a tighter societal bond. That being said, we know so little about the Aztecs compared to Europe that it would be impossible to make an informed if absurd decision as to which way I would want to be executed.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  >I think the European criminal system was far more widespread than Aztec sacrifices, so net net maybe it would be similar. You have to evaluate ideological systems by their net good/evil per follower, otherwise their relative scales would dominate any comparison. For example, medical malpractice has killed unimaginably more people than any suicidal cult ever has. Still, that does not mean it's better to join a suicidal cult than it is to visit the doctor's office. >we know so little about the Aztecs compared to Europe that it would be impossible to make an informed if absurd decision as to which way I would want to be executed. The reason you'd want to pick the justice system is that justice systems, even when imperfect, can still declare innocent people innocent. A justice system sometimes makes mistakes, the Aztec temple only made mistakes.
  - lotsofcows 6y ago
    Seem's a little disrespectful of others' belief systems. How can you possibly know that the God's sacrifices were a "mistake"?
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      Ancient religions had not evolved to be unfalsifiable like modern ones have. The Aztecs believed that they could get something by earning favor - and since they weren't actually getting anything, they were factually wrong in a way no modern religion can manage.
h0l0cube 6y ago
Moral relativism is a black hole. It's hard to say the actor in one atrocity is better or worse than another actor in another atrocity. But I think it could be said that the Aztec civilization was complicated, and of which the kidnap and brutal sacrifice from its neighboring tribes was one (rather sensationalized) aspect. And I've said it elsewhere, but the podcast really gives you a sense of what it was like to live in the place and time - as much as one can from researching the extant artifacts.
carok 6y ago
A lot of "witches" and heretics tortured and executed in medieval times probably didnt do much wrong

hutzlibu 6y ago

"I think medieval European justice is probably not much better. " I also rarely hear people suggesting to learn from medieval europe. But there is still respect, for example it does bother me, that all those kings still have a "great" in their name, when what it was what they were good at, was large scale slaughtering. King Karl the great? Not for me. By that standards Hitler would be a "Great", too. And that our awesome justice system roots in ancient rome. Which was mainly a empire. Conquering the world to steal riches and slaves.

bigbubba 6y ago
Consider this sentence: "Covid19 has caused a great loss of life." The word 'great' is not simply a more emphatic word for 'good', though in some contexts it might mean that. Great Britain isn't great because it's better than the other Britains, but because it encompasses all of the British Isles. I think it may also be the case that people are called great when their impact on history seems to have a great scale. For instance I think Catherine the Great is called great not because she was particularly benevolent (she personally owned half a million people), but because Russia became more powerful and expansive during her reign.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  "catherine the Great is called great not because she was particularly benevolent, but because Russia became more powerful and expansive during her reign. " Yes, I am aware of that. But in classic history this seems to be the same. Good and great is having conquered much. And also in the general perception. The hollywood movies of Caesar or Alexander? Pure admiration. No serious criticism(or any at all), I remember of. Nothing against presenting history as it was. But there is still lots of glorification going on. My school history classes were also speaking mainly great of the "great" people. Even though we would call them brutal dictators and barbaric enslavers if they would exist today.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    I think people are attracted to extreme things in general and power in particular. The great white shark is great because it's huge and powerful, though it's considered monstrous in popular culture. In my experience it's also the favorite shark of nearly any kid who likes sharks, probably because it is immense and powerful. "World's [blankiest] [blank]" is generally a pretty popular genre, regardless of the subject. Whether it's the tallest mountain, most venomous snake, longest railroad or fastest plane, people are fascinated with extremes. I think the obsession with the world's 'great' leaders like Genghis Khan or Alexander is just another manifestation of this.

blacksmith_tb 6y ago

That seems like a fair comparison, though the scale of Aztec sacrifice was pretty remarkable[1]. I would say in either case that it's incredible to me to think of societies where people were more valuable dead than alive - I suppose it suggests they were flourishing, to be able to afford it, but it's hard to imagine. 1: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-skull-tower-rack-evidence-aztec.html https://phys.org/news/2018-06-skull-tower-rack-evidence-azte...

pharke 6y ago

Did the Aztecs execute criminals in similar proportion to Europeans?