Killing babies

So I've noticed a historical inaccuracy lately and I would like some one to correct it.

While playing as qarthadast I noticed that none of the temple descriptions I've read so far say anything about the child sacrifices that were known to happen in Carthage at the temples. So, If you guys want to be historically accurate shouldn't there be something about killing babies in the description of one of the temples? I think it's only right. And maybe the temple can decrease the population slightly or something. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcross

So I've noticed a historical inaccuracy lately and I would like some one to correct it.

While playing as qarthadast I noticed that none of the temple descriptions I've read so far say anything about the child sacrifices that were known to happen in Carthage at the temples. So, If you guys want to be historically accurate shouldn't there be something about killing babies in the description of one of the temples? I think it's only right. And maybe the temple can decrease the population slightly or something. :yes:

---

afaik the killing of babies in the Temples of Quart Hadast had stopped before the EB timeframe. But i'm not sure and not a historian or something like that.

At the conclusion of the third Punic war, Rome destroyed Carthage. They did it physically, by dismantling/burning all structures and salting the Earth. They did it culturally by enslaving the residents and murdering all Carthaginian nobility and their progeny. And they did it historically: they destroyed all Carthaginian primary texts. Until recently, almost all accounts of Carthage come to us second hand, as related by the Romans, who were far from objective on the matter. There is much debate in historical circles over whether the Carthaginians ever actually practiced child sacrafice as did their Phonecian ancestors, as no mention of it is made by 3rd parties: the Selucids, the Egyptians, etcetera. All accounts of Cartaginian child sacrafice come from Roman histories, so it's been called into question in more recent times.

I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm just saying it's not the forgone conclusion it once was.

There is one mention of killing babies I know. I put it in - but it's not easily seen I think. :grin: I can't answer for anything else on that faction, we have had a hard time getting people to write for it.

Personally, I can't believe they ever sacrificed a child. Did the Germans of 1914 and the Nazi's of the late thirties ever eat Belgians as claimed by the entente/allied side? No? Didn't think so. However, nor do I believe Rome salted the earth, except maybe in a few select regions, since wasn't salt at the time worth its weight in gold according to one of the text descriptions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gazius

Personally, I can't believe they ever sacrificed a child. Did the Germans of 1914 and the Nazi's of the late thirties ever eat Belgians as claimed by the entente/allied side? No? Didn't think so.

---

Errr, do you know what the holocaust was? Nazi's never killed children? Get your facts straight, the Nazis killed a whole lot of children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gazius

Personally, I can't believe they ever sacrificed a child. Did the Germans of 1914 and the Nazi's of the late thirties ever eat Belgians as claimed by the entente/allied side? No? Didn't think so. However, nor do I believe Rome salted the earth, except maybe in a few select regions, since wasn't salt at the time worth its weight in gold according to one of the text descriptions?

---

AFAIK the story about salting the earth around Carthage is almost certainly a myth. No contemporary source mentions it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glaucus

Errr, do you know what the holocaust was? Nazi's never killed children? Get your facts straight, the Nazis killed a whole lot of children.

---

He isn't refering to the holocaust, but to Allied propaganda during WWI. Allied propaganda agencies regularly published stories about German soldiers tormenting and killing babies in occupied Belgium. I don't quite see how these stories could be revived during the thirthies, though. Belgium was only invaded in 1940.

Salting the earth is clearly a myth, though the sacrifice of young children to Ba'al Hammon or Tanit may not be a myth. There are three branches of evidence that support a claim that child sacrifice was done by Carthage.

1) The evidence furnished by Roman writers (which is the weakest branch).

2) The evidence of historical ancestry. The Amorites (Caananites) on the coast of the coastal Middle East (from Tyre to the border of Egypt) were notorious for offering child sacrifices to their version of the Ba'alim. The Carthagenian progeny resulting from the Phonecians may have inherited child-sacrifice from their ancestors, since it is clear that at least some of the religious practices of Carthage and the Amorites are similar.

3) The evidence of archaology. Recent finds have indicated that "healthy" children from infants to six year olds have been found in mass-graves at or near temple sites. No diseases have been found in the remains (which were burnt with fire, a common practice of the Amorites when sacrificing their first born). I find it unlikely that this large number of young children would have died of natural causes and been separated from common burials AND burned with fire (though I am uncertain of the Carthagenian's method of human body disposal- burial or cremation?).

For a decent read on both sides of the issue, you might consider:
Child Sacrifice in Phonecia/Carthage

I seem to recall there being a reference to this topic in some of the Sacred Band unit descriptions.

Anyway, I don't see why the Carthies could not have done it, especially if they were desperate. Religions can get seriously peculiar, and sacrificing your own children kind of makes sense in an "ultimate sacrifice" sort of way - I don't think there's ever been a culture on the planet that did not value its offspring very highly, and the whole point of sacrifice is to offer up something of value isn't it ?

I watched a documentary a while ago that showed a cemetary with rather small tombstones alleged to have been exclusively for babies. The implication in the documentary was that here lie the sacrificed (what I would call murdered) children, but it really can't be that clear, unless they've been exhumed. Perhaps they had a special cemetary for the stillborn or short-lived children, seems quite plausible.

Human sacrifice was just something that happened back then. And the more precious the victim the more it was worth. I have heard of the cemetary too: a cemetary of purely infants on holy ground.

Though don't think that the Romans were better, when Hannibal was wrecking havic on the Roman countryside, the Romans sacrificed a couple of virgins (last recorded Roman human sacrifice).

Didnt bush just sacrifice rumsfeld?

Carthie child sacrifice is a problematic issue. Diodoros Sikulos says they did - hundreds of children of aristocratic families in fact, being placed in a statue that then precipitated them into a fire. Archaeology hasn't confirmed the truth of the statement, but certainly the burned remains of many many children were found in the Tophet at Carthage. The only question on that account that remains is whether the children were dead or undead when they or their remains were burned. One option may make you feel better about them but the other one sure sounds like archaeology confirming a written account. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HFox

Didnt bush just sacrifice rumsfeld?

---

Haha!! Thats hilarious.

It would have been better if he were a baby though.

I definetly remember watching a report about that mass burial site where they found lots of child and baby bodies. Sounds like that along with the Ammonite (or whatever) tradition points pretty strongly towards dead babies. Maybe Carthage should have a dead baby cemetary as one of their buildings:idea2: :smash: :yes: . Then us qarthadast players can make dead baby jokes.

I wasn't sure what war it was, the book I was reading talked about from the guy being able to remember from 1914 and was being written after WWII, and he talked about the wars inbetween without any real division.

Before the PunicWars with Rome one of the Carthaginian commanders did sacrificed his son during their unsuccessful claiming of Sicily.
People weren’t treating children exactly the same way we do in modern times.

There is a theory that Hannibal had a brother that was sacrificed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiniMe

Before the PunicWars with Rome one of the Carthaginian commanders did sacrificed his son during their unsuccessful claiming of Sicily.
People weren’t treating children exactly the same way we do in modern times.

---

Early Romans were also completely okay with killing their children, even for no good reason at all- it was seen as a prerogative of the pater familias.

Damn, when I read the topic I thought this was a "how-to" question... Well, back to google. :san_tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

There is a theory that Hannibal had a brother that was sacrificed.

---

Big deal he had about 10 brothers. Hamalcar Barca wasn't exactly flaccid as the trait goes.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiniMe

Before the PunicWars with Rome one of the Carthaginian commanders did sacrificed his son during their unsuccessful claiming of Sicily.
People weren’t treating children exactly the same way we do in modern times.

---

Well, in Euripides' Ion, one of the mentioned mythological kings of Athens (Erechtheus, IIRC) sacrifices one of his daughters to gain victory. This doesn't mean it should be in KH temples.

A practise that may or may not have actually happened, probably wasn't commonplace and likely did not continue into the timeframe.

I don't really give a flying F*#@ about the old greeks, I just want some kind of killing baby thingy for the Carthaginians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcross

I don't really give a flying F*#@ about the old greeks, I just want some kind of killing baby thingy for the Carthaginians.

---

Seesh if you want it that bad you can edit it in yourself, just go into the export_buildings file in the text folder, then search for what temple description you want to edit*you want Baal-Hammon's right? Search for Hakdasa Baal-Hammon then.* As they said, the team isn't going to put something in unless they are 100% sure that it really happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcross

I don't really give a flying F*#@ about the old greeks, I just want some kind of killing baby thingy for the Carthaginians.

---

If we can't confirm it, and it's just propaganda, why bother?

We have been victim to Roman propaganda far too long. I think it's time now to be objective and distance ourselves from emotional assessment of history, and try to be objective.

True, I'm not tryign to be an asshol or anything, I'm just tickled by the idea of having dead baby jokes in some descriptions. I probably could do it myself if I really wanted, but right now I'm just having fun talking about it.

We're not talking about Pegasus and Polyphemus here. If histories written in the last decade about Carthage have to devote twenty-plus pages to the issue, I'd say it hardly deserves a comparison to something like Agamemnon sacrificing Iphigenia. Seventh century "substitute sacrifices" in the tophet (animal remains in the urns instead of children's remains in them) number nearly a third of those found, while in the fourth century they are about one in ten. Archaeology tells us that there was a reduction in substitute sacrifices in the classical period, and it also tells us that in the earlier times the human remains were mostly either newborn or stillborn babies, but in the group datable to the fourth century the remains are largely those of children aged between one and three years, rarely more. Additionally, one out of three urns contains the remains of two or even three children. Much less likely to be chance deaths it seems given that. For certain the archaeological remains do not provide a categorical denial to the baby slayin' arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shigawire

If we can't confirm it, and it's just propaganda, why bother?

We have been victim to Roman propaganda far too long. I think it's time now to be objective and distance ourselves from emotional assessment of history, and try to be objective.

---

True but,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

We're not talking about Pegasus and Polyphemus here. If histories written in the last decade about Carthage have to devote twenty-plus pages to the issue, I'd say it hardly deserves a comparison to something like Agamemnon sacrificing Iphigenia. Seventh century "substitute sacrifices" in the tophet (animal remains in the urns instead of children's remains in them) number nearly a third of those found, while in the fourth century they are about one in ten. Archaeology tells us that there was a reduction in substitute sacrifices in the classical period, and it also tells us that in the earlier times the human remains were mostly either newborn or stillborn babies, but in the group datable to the fourth century the remains are largely those of children aged between one and three years, rarely more. Additionally, one out of three urns contains the remains of two or even three children. Much less likely to be chance deaths it seems given that. For certain the archaeological remains do not provide a categorical denial to the baby slayin' arguments.

---

so there is some solid evidence that this is not just Roman propaganda, which is why this is such an interesting topic:beam:

Here's a real bad one.
How many Barca's does it take to sacrifice a baby?







A: Any number they're all Barc-ing mad.

Quote:

---

but in the group datable to the fourth century the remains are largely those of children aged between one and three years, rarely more. Additionally, one out of three urns contains the remains of two or even three children.

---

Ever been to a New England cemetary and looked at the graves from the mid to late 1800's? About half the graves are for children, most under 8. Does this mean that they were sacrificed? No, it just means that infant mortality was very common. Also not uncommon to see siblings buried together. I would assume infant morality rates to be even greater if you're talking the BCE time frame.

I think the idea is that these children were burned though, like in a sacrificial temple. If you read above there is some evidence that the children found had no physical or health problems, they were simply burned. I'm sure infant mortality was high, but remember we're talking about ancient times not medeival or dark ages, they did have a sense of hygien even if their doctors and medicine weren't very advanced.

does anyone like my joke or do I just get loser points?