|
Grevling posted:I would like to travel back in time to tell some Etruscans that no one in our time has heard of Havens. Their minds would be blown. Conversely we are all about those Boar Vessels.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 18:11
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
I’m enjoying the irony of referring to a millenia-old deity as “new”
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:I’m enjoying the irony of referring to a millenia-old deity as “new” Well I "Haven"'t seen em before
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
New gods just dropped, check it out
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
New God who dis?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2022 23:25
|
|
|
New god just apotheosized Edit: did not realize I was two days late to the joke, terrible bump Rochallor fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Nov 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 14:15
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:New God who dis? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 16:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/i_zzzzzz/status/1591566399142789120
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2022 00:34
|
|
|
HOG LAW! HOG LAW!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2022 13:17
|
|
|
Funniest thing to me about old Germanic law systems is that each party would bring witnesses, not because they'd seen or knew anything about the crime in question, but to say what a stand-up guy he is who would never commit a crime or bring a false law suit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2022 13:30
|
|
|
Grevling posted:Funniest thing to me about old Germanic law systems is that each party would bring witnesses, not because they'd seen or knew anything about the crime in question, but to say what a stand-up guy he is who would never commit a crime or bring a false law suit. it continued quite long, and is still part of islamic laws
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2022 14:18
|
|
|
"Character witnesses" are still a thing in American courts, too. They're not the backbone of the system any more, but they still matter, especially in cases where there isn't much or any objective evidence to go on. Or things like child custody disputes where each party claims they're better suited to caring for the child.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2022 14:37
|
|
|
Grevling posted:Funniest thing to me about old Germanic law systems is that each party would bring witnesses, not because they'd seen or knew anything about the crime in question, but to say what a stand-up guy he is who would never commit a crime or bring a false law suit. That's thoroughly Roman, am I right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
My understanding was that character witnesses were just like, the go to in the vast majority of societies. Bureaucracy was not nearly advanced or comprehensive enough to compare to having a few people be able to vouch for you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
I mean, that's how it was done during middle ages in Scandinavia as well. You needed a certain number of people of sufficient standing in the local community to swear in front of the ting/käräjät that no way you could have done it. Also, medieval Swedish law had a clause where killing an attempted rapist in self-defense was not punishable if the woman could get twelve men of good standing to vouch for her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:That's thoroughly Roman, am I right? yes, it was a time honored tradition of roman courts
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
Eyewitness testimony is not necessarily reliable (as any modern psych 101 can remind you with the gorilla basketball video or whatever) and some people in antiquity were aware of this. Thucydides’ introduction, the bit where he excuses himself for having made up some of the speeches, points out fairly defensively that he wouldn’t have had to make things up if witnesses could remember what they saw/heard, or agree on how to interpret it without bias. There’s a fascinating section in the Digests of Justinian about torturing slaves for testimony in court cases. I don’t have the precise citation but it just goes on and on about all the special cases that Roman lawyers ran into while operating under the assumptions that 1) some slaves saw everything that went on in the house of their master and it was therefore important to interrogate them in criminal proceedings, and 2) you couldn’t trust them at all unless you applied force. Testimonies of freemen on the other hand, were to be trusted without resort to torture (unless the emperor really felt like it).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
I've been reading about 17th century witch trials in Iceland and the way they worked was that the accused had a certain length of time to find 12 people who could swear an oath that he* wasn't a sorcerer before the trial. If he could do that he was automatically acquitted. However as most people accused were eccentrics and other people on the fringes of society they usually had a hard time finding these 12 people and ended up burning. Especially in those cases where there was damning physical evidence which might make potential oath takers hesitant to risk their own honour swearing for a potential wizard. Though usually not at the stake as the preferred method was dousing the condemned with fish oil and throwing them into a burning pile of wood. As Iceland had no forests the wood was usually either driftwood or wood sourced from the condemned's property (fences torn down and such). *Almost every single person even accused of witchcraft in Iceland was male as magic was seen as a masculine phenomenon in Iceland and little folklore about witches existed. And as Icelandic magic relies heavily on sigils/staves carved into certain types of skin or wood there was often actual physical evidence that the suspects practiced magic. FreudianSlippers fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Nov 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
An interesting exception that proves the rule on the importance of character witnesses is Babylonian Law in the mid to late 1st millennium BC. In this period, written evidence was often held to be superior to witness testimony and oaths. In one case from the 6th century BC, a man alleged that another man stole animals from him, but the defendant swore an oath that the animals had been entrusted to his custody. The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the grounds that the defendant failed to provide an itemized written contract showing the animals had been placed in his custody. In another case from around the same time, a man alleges that his sister has been illegally enslaved for the last 40 years. He claimed to have proved this in court 40 years ago, but since he was unable to present any documentation from this (alleged) case, the judge dismissed his new case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 03:56
|
|
|
skasion posted:Eyewitness testimony is not necessarily reliable (as any modern psych 101 can remind you with the gorilla basketball video or whatever) and some people in antiquity were aware of this. Thucydides’ introduction, the bit where he excuses himself for having made up some of the speeches, points out fairly defensively that he wouldn’t have had to make things up if witnesses could remember what they saw/heard, or agree on how to interpret it without bias. That was a staple of both Roman and Greek law for like a thousand years. You couldn't trust slaves to honestly testify so they had to be tortured first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 06:11
|
|
|
Koramei posted:My understanding was that character witnesses were just like, the go to in the vast majority of societies. Bureaucracy was not nearly advanced or comprehensive enough to compare to having a few people be able to vouch for you. We (Germans) also tried for far too long to solve law problems with Trial by Combat. Like, even up to the 30-Years-War that kind of thing shows up. I remember reading about a case from around this time with a rapist being judged by the local lord (the rapist was totally guilty) and because the rapist didn't want to be gelded, he declared his right to have a trial by combat against the woman he raped. Sadly, this must have annoyed the lord enormously, presumably because he wanted to get back to a busy schedule of hunting, so "to make things fair", he ordered that yes, by law the rapist was allowed to fight the woman he had raped, but he also had to be dug into the ground up to his shoulders, with only one arm left free. Then both got a club, and the case transcript then noted that the woman, after being a bit scared at first, eventually noticed her rapist couldn't really do anything as long as she stood on his blind side, him being stuck in the ground and all that. She then caved his head in with her club. Case closed, the rapist was guilty after all! German law. Another odd thing about our laws was our obsession with executing people by chopping their heads of with a sword. That went on up to WWII: The leaders of the Weiße Rose were famously judged to be executed by sword. And so Hitler's goons chopped those kids' heads off with a sword. In the 1940s
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 10:34
|
|
|
Libluini posted:We (Germans) also tried for far too long to solve law problems with Trial by Combat. Like, even up to the 30-Years-War that kind of thing shows up. I remember reading about a case from around this time with a rapist being judged by the local lord (the rapist was totally guilty) and because the rapist didn't want to be gelded, he declared his right to have a trial by combat against the woman he raped. Fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 10:42
|
|
|
Libluini posted:
That's not true they were killed with Fallbeil (Guillotine) The last executions in Austria were done with a Würgegalgen a kind of garrote in i think 1950 btw I Love Loosies fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Nov 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 13:37
|
|
|
Ed: Mistake
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 13:41
|
|
|
it was common to even the odds and make men fight in pits and women didn't use maces, but rocks in veils  
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 13:56
|
|
|
How common was trial by combat anyway? It strikes me that it was probably fairly unusual and therefore very interesting to everyone so it got well documented as a result, but that's a theory. Anyone got STATS?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 14:05
|
|
|
Trial by combat always seemed weird to me. "You're accused of wanton violence and murder " "If I violently and wantonly murder my accuser, am I innocent?" "Gosh, I guess!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 14:14
|
|
|
sullat posted:That was a staple of both Roman and Greek law for like a thousand years. You couldn't trust slaves to honestly testify so they had to be tortured first. Yeah. Weirdly, there were legal provisions that slaves couldn’t be tortured to testify against their masters—I guess this is understandable from the master’s point of view, but it leads to the insane conclusion that his presumably perfectly loyal slave has to get tortured just to get people to listen when he backs his boss up. Also if you happened to piss off the emperors, they’d just buy all your slaves for the state and torture them to incriminate you anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
skasion posted:Yeah. Weirdly, there were legal provisions that slaves couldn’t be tortured to testify against their masters—I guess this is understandable from the master’s point of view, but it leads to the insane conclusion that his presumably perfectly loyal slave has to get tortured just to get people to listen when he backs his boss up. "Love my master. Great dude. Never hurts me for no reason." "Oh what, like THIS? He'd never do THIS!?!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 14:21
|
|
|
Brawnfire posted:Trial by combat always seemed weird to me. It's fairly common before, like, 1000 or so, especially in Iceland/ Scandinavia where there were professional duelists who went around fighting like you might get someone who files a lot of lawsuits today, and actually pretty rare after that. The logic isn't so much about guilt or innocence as it was "well, these people are gonna keep stabbing each other over this. Might as well let them fight it out and be done with it." But then people started exploiting the system and Christianity made people think more about morality and justice and so forth and here we are. Trial by combat was technically legal in England still up to the 1800s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 14:24
|
|
|
I found the bit in Digests I was thinking of. Book 48, chapter 18:quote:Tit. 18. Concerning torture. Very considerate, Augustus. Anyway there’s like 50 arguments in this chapter, I’m not gonna post them all but here’s some fun notions for modern jurisconsults to ponder: quote:(3) Those whom the accuser produces from his own house should not be tortured, for it is not easy to believe that a substitution has been made for one whom both parents consider their dear daughter; as is stated in a Rescript of the Divine Brothers addressed to Lucius Tiberianus. This must have been a hell of a case quote:(7) It has frequently been stated in Rescripts that a slave belonging to a municipality can be tortured when citizens are accused, because he is not their slave, but the slave of the community. The same thing should be stated with reference to the slaves of other corporations, for a slave is not considered to belong to several masters, but to the corporate body. The underwhelming compensations of public service quote:(15) If anyone should allege that a slave has been purchased at a sale which was void, he cannot be tortured before it has been established that the sale was not valid. This our Emperor, with his Divine Father, stated in a Rescript. Hope you kept the receipts! quote:(21) The magistrate in charge of the torture ought not directly to put the interrogation whether Lucius Titius committed the homicide, but he should ask in general terms who did it; for the other way rather seems to suggest an answer than to ask for one. This the Divine Trajan stated in a Rescript. I won’t have any leading questions in MY torture court, thanks. quote:(26) When anyone has betrayed robbers, it is stated by certain rescripts that no confidence should be placed in those who betrayed them. In others, however, which are more specific, it is provided that the evidence should not be entirely rejected, as is usual in similar cases; but, after proper consideration, it should be determined whether it is entitled to credit or not. For the majority of such persons, who fear that those who have been arrested may mention them, are accustomed to betray the latter for the purpose of themselves obtaining immunity, because accused persons who denounce those who have betrayed them are not readily believed; nor should immunity indiscriminately be granted to them as a reward for betrayals of this kind; nor should their allegations be believed, when they say that they have been accused by the others for having given them up, for this weak proof based on mendacity or calumny ought not to be considered against them. Also known as the “snitches get stitches” proviso.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 14:39
|
|
|
The next section “On Punishments” is also great, and really serves as an excellent reminder that you did not want to get involved with the law in imperial Romequote:8. Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book IX. quote:18. Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book III. Well, at least something is legal. quote:23. [Modestinus], Rules, Book VIII. quote:30. [The Same], On Penalties, Book I. quote:25. The Same, Pandects, Book XII.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 15:06
|
|
|
"Whoops, forgot to put 'six months' for this mine sentence." "Just call it ten. Years."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
Brawnfire posted:"Whoops, forgot to put 'six months' for this mine sentence." The sad part is it’s probably intended as the opposite of this—in context it seems that the default usage of condemnation to the mines was a life sentence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
I think i read somewhere that mine work was functionally a death sentence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
Torture in the context of slave testimony is a really weird topic because the assumption has to be that everyone on both sides is torturing the slave.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think i read somewhere that mine work was functionally a death sentence. The lead mines absolutely were, from what I've read, but I'm not sure if the same is true for, say, iron, or tin, or copper. I'm sure it was awful work but I'm not sure it's universally true that mining was a death sentence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
I Love Loosies posted:That's not true they were killed with Fallbeil (Guillotine) Huh. So they were. No idea where I got this from, then. Brawnfire posted:Trial by combat always seemed weird to me. You're not thinking religious enough. Trial by Combat is a Gottesurteil, e.g. human justice can be fallible, but if you're trusting in god, he will make sure only the guilty party will die.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 16:11
|
|
|
It was only a few weeks ago that I got that this was the reason behind drawing lots - it's not leaving it up to chance, like we'd think, but leaving it up to providence, which is a crucial difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:22 |
|
|
I do not think that is true in all historic situations when it comes to drawing lots. For instance, I don't think that Athenians believed that sortition would bias towards the best and most qualified candidates in a democracy, and that was not the goal. Rather, all candidates in the pool were considered equal and therefore sortition is a fair way of determining who holds office.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 16:33
|
|