Child Sacrifice

Hello team, I have started a game as carthage and I had a look at their wiki page to get a very quick(and inaccurate overview), but other than on subjects I can see the mistakes, there is a section on child sacrifice. Was child sacrifice ever confirmed? Because reading it, it says that Roman and Greek historians commonly mention it, but that conclusive proof wasn't found. It does say that lots of child graves have been found though.

Now I want to here from people who know what they're talking about. Did Carthage sacrifice children? Was this Propaganda spread by Romans? Wouldn't that lead to population problems? Do we actually know for sure?

link to an extended article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...hild_sacrifice

Sacrifices of children to Baal and his various derivities is attested in multiple sources, in the Bible as well as Greek histories. Carthaginian religion was decended from that pantheon and there is evidence of child scrifice, mass graves for example. The question is really how common it was and whether it was still happening on a regular basis by 270 BC.

Yeah, they killed babies. But as PVC(Plastic Guy) said, not so sure about later on.

Actually Goldsworthy say that the amount of sacrificed babies increased pretty much every year until 146 BC.

I'll try to find where he got that info from.
First, let's qoute that particular passage from Goldsworthy's The Fall Of Carthage, also known as The Punic Wars (I have both versions):

"In at least one aspect of religious practice the Carthaginians were more conservative than the people of Tyre. They continued the ghastly Moloch sacrifices of infants which were killed and burned in honour of Ba'al Hammon and his consort Tanit, a practice which had been abandoned at Tyre by the time Carthage was established.
The Tophet of Salammbô, the cult site where this ritual occured, is the oldest structure yet discovered by archaeology at Carthage and the excavations have shown that the practice continued until 146 BC. Disturbingly, the proportion of sacrifices where a lamb or other animal was substituted for the child decreased rather than increased over the centuries.
Similar tophets have been discovered at other Carthaginian foundations, but rarely if ever on sites founded directly by the Phoenicians. Religion was closely controlled by the state at Carthage and its senior magistrates combined a political and religious function."

In the back of the book it is stated he gathered this information from:

"Sacrifice to Melquart, Polybius 31. 12; religion and culture, Picard & Picard (1987), pp. 35-50, Lancel (1995), pp. 193-256, esp. 245-56."

I beg your pardon because i cannot provide a source but i heard the thery, that those baby skelettons were from deadborn babies.

You can't sacrifice something that isn't alive. So that theory makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

You can't sacrifice something that isn't alive

---

Actually you can.

Sacrifice only requires that you give up something with any preceived meaning.

I watch a documentary a year or two ago which looked over carthage (i think maybe the documentary that went with BBC's Hannibal) and they basically said that the sources on child sacrifice were Roman and the bible, and we know how accurate that is after all every enemy of the isrealites was deamonised along with thier gods.
I think in the docmentary it was mistaken ritual burial of children and babies that caused the rumours of child sacrifice.

I hate to sound like a jerk, KosaK, but I learnt long ago not to completely trust those documentries on the history channel. I think it'd be best to hear the views of a EB Member on this matter. Most of them, after all, are historians by practice.

I am of the opinion, live sacrifice probably happened, but no where near the level the Romans claimed.

A lot of it was probably offering still born children to some god. "Sacrifice" also could mean putting your baby up for priesthood. The later if I'm correct happened in the "civilized" greco-roman world too. There was also the whole thing about the Romans executing POW's in front of a statue of Mars. That screams ritual murder to me.

One theory I saw somewhere went that by Roman times the Carthies only sacrificed live children in exceptional circumstances, ie. national emergencies and the like, and normally only offered up children who'd died of other causes (of which there should have been no shortage of for all the usual reasons).

Like sacrificing your daughter so the gods don't sink your fleet so you can get your brother's whore of wife back.

Human sacrifice wasn't exactly uncommon in the ancient world. I don't really understand why people want to play devil's advocate for those who did. Does sacrificing less people make it less bad in the 21st century? It happened but no one knows really to what extent. Most everyone did some sort of human sacrifice.

Well I can't be sure but I have heard from several places that many cemeteries containig only the remains of (probably cremeated) children have been discovered around Carthage. This seems to support the claim of Child Sacrafice however we should think about the fact that child-mortality was very high in thoose days and cremation was a common form of burial. Besides as stated above: dead born or early died children could have been offered to the gods so they protect them in the afterlife.

I could also mention the case of Hamilcar Barcas "lost" son. Sources claim he had four sons however we only know the names of the first three - Hannibal, Hasdrubal and Mago.
Some speculate that the fourth son (whose name has never been mentioned anywhere) was sacrificed to win the gods help in war against the romans. If we think about it though: he could just have died of natural causes - in Antiquity children were only given a name at the age of 5 or later because it was very possible they wouldn't live to reach their teens.

Also as stated above human sacrafices were not very uncommen in the Ancient world. It is even suspected that the romans and the greeks made human sacrafices in some extent (above all Prisoners of War). After the punic wars the romans finally outlawed all forms of such practices.

There is a possibility he could have given him to the priesthood too.

Was the sacred band around during the Second Punic War?

The whole baby sacrifice in mass numbers has to have been roman propaganda. I can see if their was a small amount of shild sacrifice, but for there to be huge numbers like the romans said is bound to be hate propaganda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antinous

The whole baby sacrifice in mass numbers has to have been roman propaganda. I can see if their was a small amount of shild sacrifice, but for there to be huge numbers like the romans said is bound to be hate propaganda.

---

Good propaganda is 100 percent true. That could have been based upon a trader seeing one particular incident of mass sacrifice out of nowhere. That one time only incident eventually spawned into, "dem Carthagians give millions of babies for their gods to eat!"

And if I was a roman hearing that I would hate the carthaginians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Sacrifices of children to Baal and his various derivities is attested in multiple sources, in the Bible as well as Greek histories.

---

lol.

I admit to total ignorance on this subject, but those aren't by any stretch infallible sources. What greek histories, BTW?

Oh yeah I also remember such greeks sources - The Illiad claims Agamennon killed his daughter as sacrifice to the goddes Diana so the greeks could sail to Troy safely. Sure the Illiad is a legend or partly fictional work but it has been proven that it does contain many accurate details.

He killed his daughter?!?!?! I can't believe he sacrificed his own child. What a horrible father!!

Achilles went on a sacrificing spree when his cousin was killed by Hector.

I know he killed alot of animals, but I don't know if he killed any humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antinous

He killed his daughter?!?!?! I can't believe he sacrificed his own child. What a horrible father!!

---

Well thats what we all think. However Diana was merciful so she took Iphigenea from the pyrre and (brought her north to the lands of the thracians) replaced her with a young deer (or something like that)
But I even remember worse cases of human sacrafice in greek or roman mithology -not very often but it is there. If only half of them are true then I woulnd't be suprised if evidence for human sacrafice was found.

You see what is interesting is that the greeks and romans didn't show any favor towards human sacrifice. It was more like a loathing towards human sacrifice, but it seems there are accounts of both greeks and romans performing human sacrifice. Now what is weird is that is they detested it then why do human sacrifice. They were basically being a hypocrites.

Lobf, The Bible, like it or not, contains Semetic histories which are just as reliable as Greek or any other works from that period. To suggest that it "must" be propganda is to apply modern ethics to the ancients.

The Greeks and Romans were not dead set against human sacrifice, what disturbed them was gratuitous human sacrifice. That is a very important distinction and worth bearing in mind. It is also worth bearing in mind that the Druidic religion, as well as the Norse religion demanded human sacrifice at certain periods. This is attested in both cases, in the former a drugged and executed bog body has been found.

Antinous, Akhilleus executed the Trojan prisoners he took after he recieved his new armour, he also denied mercy to Trojan nobles he defeated, killing them in cold blood.

Death was a part of the ancient world and ancient religion guys.

I know that Achilles killed all the nobles that he found but that also is a part of the fact that Achilles did not give mercy to his victims. Plus this wasn't ritual sacrifice as much as it was revenge for the death of Patroclus, if you notice in the Illiad Achilles vows never to give mercy to the trojans ever again after Patroclus was killed by Hector.:skull:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methuselah

I hate to sound like a jerk, KosaK, but I learnt long ago not to completely trust those documentries on the history channel. I think it'd be best to hear the views of a EB Member on this matter. Most of them, after all, are historians by practice.

---

Absolutely right. History channel is a piece of crap that is designed to be maximally interesting for all audiences. Quite a bit of the things there are exaggerated, embellished or plain false. I remember one kid was recently telling me about that Nostradamus and Bible Code documentaries they recently showed. Bullshaize if you ask me. Purely baseless conjecturing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Lobf, The Bible, like it or not, contains Semetic histories which are just as reliable as Greek or any other works from that period. To suggest that it "must" be propganda is to apply modern ethics to the ancients.

---

When did I suggest it "must" be propaganda? Do you know what quotation marks mean?

My point is that while the Bible contains broad strokes of history, the details are unreliable to a historian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HunGeneral

Well thats what we all think. However Diana was merciful so she took Iphigenea from the pyrre and (brought her north to the lands of the thracians) replaced her with a young deer (or something like that)
But I even remember worse cases of human sacrafice in greek or roman mithology -not very often but it is there. If only half of them are true then I woulnd't be suprised if evidence for human sacrafice was found.

---

I've always heard that that was added later to 'tidy' it up. But yeah, he kills his kid and brings back a mistress after the war. Then his wife kills him while he's taking a bath and also his mistress and makes her lover king. Then Agamemnon's son kills the good queen and her lover and gets aquitted. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

I've always heard that that was added later to 'tidy' it up. But yeah, he kills his kid and brings back a mistress after the war. Then his wife kills him while he's taking a bath and also his mistress and makes her lover king. Then Agamemnon's son kills the good queen and her lover and gets aquitted. :laugh4:

---

actually, yes it was. Agamemnon was said to have had her sacrificed to please some diety he offended, in order to safely reach and capture Troy. I wish I remembered the details, but all records I have are in Kuwait:no:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agamemnon

Homer and Euripides on demand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agamemnon

Homer and Euripides on demand.

---

thank you!

Regarding Roman human sacrifices: gladiator fights were originally a ritual fight to the death at the grave of a deceased and thus part of burial tradition. It was performed by 2 slaves and originally an Etruscan tradition, later adopted by the Romans. So it was basically human sacrifice. With time the cultic meaning got lost and became pure spectacle and bloodlust until, during the invasion of the Cimbri and Teutones, it became the gorefest organised by the state to please the people.

Also regarding the Bible: Think about the story of Abraham being ordered to sacrifice his firstborn son to Jehova. Jehova stops Abraham at the last minute, but you don't get the impression that this demand is extremely cruel or outragious or even extraordinary. It seems to be more extraordinary that a god might be pleased by the obedience being proven and does not demand any actual human sacrifice.
This is of course a most obvious reference to the religion of Baal but it depicts human sacrifice as quite conventional, not like the Roman sources on Carthage who focus on condemning the practice as outragious and barbaric. But there is of course quite a time gap in between those two sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methuselah

I hate to sound like a jerk, KosaK, but I learnt long ago not to completely trust those documentries on the history channel. I think it'd be best to hear the views of a EB Member on this matter. Most of them, after all, are historians by practice.

---

Never said i believed it or infact that it was from the history channel..which i detest for the frequent contradictions in it...

Anyway, Did the Romans not bury two greeks and two gauls alive a few times?

Never heard of the romans burying people alive before as a way of torture or sacrifice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antinous

Never heard of the romans burying people alive before as a way of torture or sacrifice.

---

KozaK13 is making reference to the events following the great Roman defeat at Cannae, Livy 22.57:

Meanwhile on the authority of the Sacred Books some unusual rites were performed: one of them consisted in burying alive in the cattle market a pair of Gauls, male and female, and a pair of Greeks. The burial was in a walled enclosure, which had been stained with the blood of human sacrifice - a most un-Roman rite.

Well you learn somthing new every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antinous

Never heard of the romans burying people alive before as a way of torture or sacrifice.

---

Vestal Virgins got buried alive periodically when they were found to have slept with someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Vestal Virgins got buried alive periodically when they were found to have slept with someone.

---

That was because it was illegal to kill them, they weren't actually burried, they were walled up underground with food and water. That way you didn't offend the Gods, because you hadn't actually killed them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antinous

I know that Achilles killed all the nobles that he found but that also is a part of the fact that Achilles did not give mercy to his victims. Plus this wasn't ritual sacrifice as much as it was revenge for the death of Patroclus, if you notice in the Illiad Achilles vows never to give mercy to the trojans ever again after Patroclus was killed by Hector.:skull:

---

Nope, he killed twelve young Trojans before the funeral pire along with the horses, oxen etc., book 23. You can check.

Also, there is contested evidence that the wives of Makedonian kings were killed when their husbands died.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

That was because it was illegal to kill them, they weren't actually burried, they were walled up underground with food and water. That way you didn't offend the Gods, because you hadn't actually killed them.

---

I know that, but I don't think that would hold up in a modern court. "I didn't kill her, I buried her in a small room with some water and food for a few days with no intention of digging her up."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Vestal Virgins got buried alive periodically when they were found to have slept with someone.

---

That was a punishment, not torture or sacrifice.

That doesn't sound like murder at all.(with lots of sarcasm)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atilius

That was a punishment, not torture or sacrifice.

---

And how do the psychological and physical effects of being buried alive not factor in?

I'm sure they were left with an oversized butter knife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

And how do the psychological and physical effects of being buried alive not factor in?

---

What? My point was that you quoted Antinous' post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antinous

Never heard of the romans burying people alive before as a way of torture or sacrifice.

---

and responded with an example of something that was neither torture nor sacrifice.

That sure does sound like torture. There is no way that can be put as a punishment. If I was one of those women I would ask for a special drink made of hemlock for myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antinous

If I was one of those women I would ask for a special drink made of hemlock for myself.

---

Maybe they were given something like that..
By the way has anyone of you heard of any evidence of such a "Punishment" having been found?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antinous

That sure does sound like torture. There is no way that can be put as a punishment. If I was one of those women I would ask for a special drink made of hemlock for myself.

---

It was not torture. We have said, it was a punishment because killing her was illegal under any circumstances. Nor would she be given hemlock, as that would be allowing her to commit suicide. This a religious issue, not a jurisprudal one.

If you don't like it either get over it or study another culture.

Wow, thanks guys! This has started a nice little discussion.

Quote:

---

What? My point was that you quoted Antinous' post and responded with an example of something that was neither torture nor sacrifice.

---

You're right, it was just something that came to mind in relation to buried alive rather than the latter part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

It was not torture. We have said, it was a punishment because killing her was illegal under any circumstances. Nor would she be given hemlock, as that would be allowing her to commit suicide. This a religious issue, not a jurisprudal one.

If you don't like it either get over it or study another culture.

---

Way to over react: "You object to part, therefore you reject the whole." I guess you love everything associated with Roman culture huh? :inquisitive:

Look, we aren't saying that Roman culture = bad, we were saying that that punishment would totally suck. We were also saying that it had a side effect of inflicting mental distress. If you've read or seen commentary by people who have actually been buried alive, the most common sentiment is that they never want to do it again because its a psychologically terrifying experience. There is something primally terrifying in being buried alive.

So yes it was a punishment. We aren't saying that the primary intent wasn't punsihment. We are just saying that there is an element of torture that is a side effect of being buried alive because many of us would consider being placed in a position like that extremely terrifying.

Quote:

---

tor⋅ture   /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [tawr-cher] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, -tured, -tur⋅ing.
–noun 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.
–verb (used with object) 6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1530–40; < LL tortūra a twisting, torment, torture. See tort, -ure
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.

---

On a side note: I don't really see what's wrong with calling it a ritualized killing when you understand the intent and the fact that its a way to get around a law.

Yeah, but you overlooked the second part of the definition quoted by you: "as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty".
The punishment was not intended to get any kind of information or to be cruel. The cruelty was not the intention, it was more kind of a "byproduct" of the punishment. This is not meant as a defense of burying someone alive but it certainly is not torture. Also it's not correct to call it ritualized killing because they were not "actively" killing them, they were letting them die.
From an ethical point of view the difference is certainly marginal, but from a juristic point of view it is important.

That's what Philipvs wanted to say.

Thankyou, theat is a much better way of putting it.

You also missinterpreted my closing comment, however. I was not overreacting, I was responding to Antinous insistence that it must be torture, I will quote something Prof. D. Braund said once, "I am not required to like the cultures I study."

Exactly so, trying to impose any anachronistic moral standard on an ancient, and dead, culture is utterly pointless.

Now, it is written that the Romans enclosed Vestal Virgins below ground instead of killing them. Whether or not the then died is something the Romans are actually a bit fuzzy on. Remember that the Roman religion had an underworld below the ground, not a heaven above. The Roman understanding of spatial metaphysics meant that they could reasonable maintain the beleath that they were not actually killing the women, technically at least.

Of course, that doesn't mean that they actually believed any of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by machinor

Yeah, but you overlooked the second part of the definition quoted by you: "as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty".

---

I interpreted it as a list of things as in:

Quote:

---

The act of inflicting excruciating pain as punishment or revenge.
The act of inflicting excruciating pain as a means of getting a confession or information.
The act of inflicting excruciating pain for sheer cruelty.

---

@PVC, glad we talked things out. Sorry for over reacting to a preceived overreaction. :laugh4:

Yeah I didn't mean to make you angry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

I interpreted it as a list of things as in:


@PVC, glad we talked things out. Sorry for over reacting to a preceived overreaction. :laugh4:

---

That's fine, bear in mind with a word that it always carries all associations with it, not just the one you intended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antinous

Yeah I didn't mean to make you angry.

---

You haven't, there is no reason for me to be angry. If I am abrupt it is because I am responding to your points, three years at a university will lead to a sparse writing style when you have such small word-limits.

Lancel's terrific book on Carthage does talk about the child sacrifices. Excavations have not confirmed the reality of the collective sacrifices mentioned by Diodorus, but it does show that in the earliest times the "sacrifices" were either newborn or stillborn babies and in the fourth century deposits they are largely of children aged one to three, and one out of three urns would contain remains of two or more children. When you notice at certain periods that animals are "substituted" in the burial urns it does seem to point more towards the possibility that these were indeed sacrifices instead of just burials. Lancel seems to me to doubt that they were just burials of infants in a time of high infant mortality rates - the children aged two to four that were common in some burials seems to indicate to him that they were sacrifices instead of just burials (the slightly older ages being outside the ranges where the highest mortality rates occur). The fact that animals' remains are found in the same urns with those older children would seem to point their sacrifices and not just burial. He does say firmly that evidence "in its present state does not permit a categorical denial of the reality of Carthaginian human sacrifice."

Why was it that the carthaginians had to use children mainly for the sacrifice to Baal instead of animals?

Well, think about it. Which would you value more? My guess would be that when times were good they used animals, when things went wrong they offered the "proper" sacrifice.

That just seems dumb though because those kids will be your future soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antinous

That just seems dumb though because those kids will be your future soldiers.

---

Well, Carthaginian society was hardly designed for maximum military effectiveness.

Plus, if the sacrifices make Baal happy, he'll make sure your soldiers win.

:rolleyes: It also seems dumb that a high infant mortality rate killed off a lot of kids, because they could have been future soldiers, too.

EDIT: I was being very, very sarcastic with Antinous, but he didn't seem to notice it. *sigh*

I bet the kids paernts weren't too happy.

From what I know the sick or frail babies were sacrificed to Ba'al.

Well as a parent with a dying baby they might have taken things a little better.

sacrificing a baby is actually not that bad of a deal, it's probably going to die anyway. Sacrificing the four year old is more major.

Of course, today we see no difference.

Well ya, back then once you weren't a baby you had a better chance of survival.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

when things went wrong they offered the "proper" sacrifice.

---

I think thats the true situation - according to my knowledge many sources which mention the sacrafice by the Carhaginians also say that it was only done in times of crisis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antinous

I bet the kids paernts weren't too happy.

---

Either that or they would have been ecstatic about the way they honour the gods by giving them their child and basking in your fellow citizens's admirings for this noble gesture which is bound to bring peace and prosperity to the republic.

Of course those parents kept silent this the kid in question was going to die anyway, it suffered constantly from high fevers and had barely eaten for 2 or 3 days. But still, the noble gesture...

It sounds more like natural selection now.

Has anyone mentioned the episode (dramatised so wonderfully by Flaubert in Sallambo) where Hamilcar saves his son from mandatory sacrifice during the Mercenary war (and makes him swear to destroy Rome)?

Its nice bit of dramatic irony: we know that Hannibal will fail to destroy Rome, or even save Carthage. Is it because he wasn't killed? Huzzah for 20/20 hindsight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

...
Of course, that doesn't mean that they actually believed any of this.

---

Nice point. The Romans seem pretty pedantic about points of superstition when it suited them. Great way to raise morale though: we get beat so we roll out the big ceremonial guns. I guess ritual murder was a sort of divine stimulus package.

I imagine the Cartho's were somewhat similar: they have to "get serious" so they butchered their own kids. I guess it was an incentive make sure you didn't let things get to the crisis stage in the first place.

Well it seems that the romans really had some good material to hit the carthaginians back with. If I was a foreign nation I wouldn't want to be known as friends of "child murders".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Like sacrificing your daughter so the gods don't sink your fleet so you can get your brother's whore of wife back.

---

I actually never saw it that way :thinking2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by penguinking

Well, Carthaginian society was hardly designed for maximum military effectiveness.

---

I think it was. It was much more potent, militarly speaking, than Sparta, even though it didn't encouraged their own population to bear arms and to get good at it like the Lambda guys. However, they dedicated themselves to produce excellent generals and admirals, and to produce money destined to buy and equip the best armies available.

I think it's a very effective society, militarly speaking. They just did it differently.

Well, I think he was alluding to the whole mercenary war thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k_raso

It was much more potent, militarly speaking, than Sparta, even though it didn't encouraged their own population to bear arms and to get good at it like the Lambda guys. However, they dedicated themselves to produce excellent generals and admirals, and to produce money destined to buy and equip the best armies available.

I think it's a very effective society, militarly speaking. They just did it differently.

---

Thinking about it I have to say I find it quite true - The Carthaginians never had a large punic populace to serve as the basis for large armies they however had money to hire others to fight for them and willingnis to train, become great generals or officers to lead thoose armies (+ admirals and sailors who ruled the whole western mediteranian). It is even better then the Idea of the Spartans - they could never create a larger kingdom but the Carthaginians did.

By the way: the Spartans themselve "sacraficed" their own children very often - even if the brutal spartan educational system was used just for a short time...

Spartans did not sacrifice children...

And: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutchhoplite

Spartans did not sacrifice children...

And: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/image...s/rolleyes.gif

---

I think he meant the practice of exposure: IIRC, them spartans would "expose" unfit babies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antinous

I know that Achilles killed all the nobles that he found but that also is a part of the fact that Achilles did not give mercy to his victims. Plus this wasn't ritual sacrifice as much as it was revenge for the death of Patroclus, if you notice in the Illiad Achilles vows never to give mercy to the trojans ever again after Patroclus was killed by Hector.:skull:

---

Lol...dont know much about sacrifices,but....for the homer fans here...

There is as yet no direct evidence of the existence of Homeric heroes; i.e., no inscriptions, signatures, eye-witness accounts, etc. Theories about them have to rely on a preponderance of other evidence, which alone are not solid enough to warrant much conclusiveness.

Once such piece of quasi-evidence is the names of Trojan heroes in the Linear B tablets. Twenty out of fifty-eight men's names also known from Homer, including e-ko-to (Hector), are Trojan warriors and some, including Hector, are in a servile capacity. No such conclusion that they are the offspring of Trojan captive women is warranted. Generally the public has to be content with the knowledge that these names existed in Greek in Mycenaean times,Hector "may very well be ... a familiar Greek form impressed on a similar-sounding foreign name."