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?

You're ignoring some important differences there I'd say, fleeb. If these children's burials were just among adults, there'd be little issue. These are in a special sanctuary, mixed in with other urns containing animal remains, and the largest increase in them occurs at the same time the Carthaginians were facing a possible end to their very existence. Right at the time Diodoros says they were "freaking out" and offering huge sacrifices and offerings to the gods to save them. And when their enemies approached the walls of their city he says they started sacrificing their children too in large numbers as a last resort (looking at the Greek here in front of me). I've got no love or hate for them, but it sure seems like someone claiming it's all just Roman propaganda would have to be operating more on their own personal beliefs instead of looking at the evidence. If you really dislike a lot about the Romans, you'll find a lot of "truthiness" in the theory that it's all just a lot of propaganda and coincidince though.

Heh. Truthiness.. I love that word TA :) Sorry, just spam here. Move along.

yup...loser points

Anyone know the funerary rituals for the carthagineans? What did they normally did with their deads?

Did they bury them? (As christians do it today)
Did they cremated them? (As greeks did)
Did they threw them to the sea? (As modern era sailors did on high seas)
Did they leaved on silence towers to rot and be eaten by vultures? (like the persians did)

If their custom wasn`t to cremate their dead, then the argument that those bones were part of normal funerary rites is incoherent.

Cheers!!!

Should have gotten Urnamma or Tanit to reply here, but I remember Urnamma saying that it is very probable child sacrifices were done, as the Carthaginians' & Phoenicians' neighbours all write they did child sacrifice, from Hebrews in Middle east, to the Greeks of Syracuse and the Romans. And that most child sacrifices seem to have been carried out based on archaeological findings and time dating to be when Carthage was suffering heavily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcross

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?

---

If all you have is ashes, at best bones, then what possible ailment could you discern from that? I know you can tell a lot about a dead man from his bones, his diet etc.. but a baby hasn't lived long enough to "store" that information in its bones.. Also there are SO many ailments that can NOT be discerned from bones, that you have to think that there's no evidence of absence. I know there's an absence of conclusive evidence either way.

Still, I appreciate the fact that everybody sacrificed now and then.. but some just threw their babies on the junkyard.. so if we're going to have a whole building description dedicated to baby-sacrifice (albeit a heinous act, wouldn't have any geostrategic implications) - should we set up a building description for "Baby Scrapyard" as well to balance it out you think?

rcross, that joke was just ahead of it's time. Don't feel bad, it takes a while for it to sink into the readers subconsciousness. :san_cheesy:

I'm not very happy with the unsaid moral appeals in the discussion.

From the evidence it is really probable that the Carthaginans sacrifice children. Should we get upset? Should we defend them against Roman propaganda? I think we should only accept the difference of people and the historical dimension.

People did (and do) strange things because of ideology and religion is a rather strict form of ideology. Greeks and Romans killed children too because of another ideology and in many civilised countries nowadays "babies" are killed legally by abortion, caused by the ideology that people have the right to decide on their own lives. That may be a better ideology but one cannot really blame the Carthaginans for their believes.

The thing is not, IMO, about ideology or moral issues. I think that`s out of the subject.

The thing is to look at the facts and evidence and decide which was the most logical explanation according to the data we have. If an hypothesis is properly demonstrated by logically analyzed facts, then...

IMO, a good way to implement this is the "Concessio" mecanism that is already implemented with the romans. With like -5% population, +20% public order or something like that. Provided that the building is temporary.

Maybe when a carthaginian homeland province is beseiged it should get a temporary building called child sacrifice that decreases population by like 2-4% and increases the moral of troops by 1 or 2 because they feel they have appeased the gods.

Geala, I know everyone has their own opinions about todays issues with abortion but that really has nothing to do with this. Historically there seems to be alot of evidence to point towards the fact that the Carthaginians did sacrifice children. That doesn't make them bad people, they just had a very costly belief system.

BTW- Thanks Thaatu, I'll think about the future and my posthumous fame as a shi11y joke cracker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

I'm not very happy with the unsaid moral appeals in the discussion.

From the evidence it is really probable that the Carthaginans sacrifice children. Should we get upset? Should we defend them against Roman propaganda? I think we should only accept the difference of people and the historical dimension.

People did (and do) strange things because of ideology and religion is a rather strict form of ideology. Greeks and Romans killed children too because of another ideology and in many civilised countries nowadays "babies" are killed legally by abortion, caused by the ideology that people have the right to decide on their own lives. That may be a better ideology but one cannot really blame the Carthaginans for their believes.

---

Well said.

PS There is no such thing as a temporary building, unfortunately.

Quite a while back I saw a tv programme reconstructing the city of Carthage as the Romans would have experienced it. That programme adressed the same question: did the Carthies sacrifice their children?

Well, lots of tombs have been found where the remains of babies/ young childs were stored - all closely related to religion. This was explained by the Carthaginian belief that says all babies and young childs (to the age of 5, if I remember correctly) weren't like any other human being for they were a sort of 'martial form' of their gods. So all (very young) children that died were considered as reclaimed by the gods, and therefore regarded as sacred. Now when the Romans found lot's of tombs with to them a clear religious meaning (tombs containing depictions of gods, tombs surrounding sacred places and such), they came up with the story of child sacrifice.

Whether this is actually 'true' or not I don't know, just retold what I heard about it. :2cents:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos

Well, lots of tombs have been found where the remains of babies/ young childs were stored - all closely related to religion. This was explained by the Carthaginian belief that says all babies and young childs (to the age of 5, if I remember correctly) weren't like any other human being for they were a sort of 'martial form' of their gods. So all (very young) children that died were considered as reclaimed by the gods, and therefore regarded as sacred.

---

Very well said. Other religions happen to do the exact same like in Japan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos

Now when the Romans found lot's of tombs with to them a clear religious meaning (tombs containing depictions of gods, tombs surrounding sacred places and such), they came up with the story of child sacrifice.

---

I add that none of the existing contemporary roman writers like Polybius or Livy even make the slight mention to such practice. Writing for rome as they were, witnessing the fall of Karthadast (Polybius) or having a clear prejudice against anything Punic (Livy), it makes even more 'strange' why would they avoid mentioning it. It is only hundreds of years after the fall of Karthadast that a roman-sicilian, Diodorus, comes with that 'fact'.


---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos

If these children's burials were just among adults, there'd be little issue. These are in a special sanctuary, mixed in with other urns containing animal remains, and the largest increase in them occurs at the same time the Carthaginians were facing a possible end to their very existence.

---

uh? You mean the "time" where they were kicking the greeks out of the western Med and totally controling it, upgrading their ties in Iberia and geting filthy rich? Is that ur definition of facing end of existence?? Their population was geting bigger and bigger due to the mentioned prosperity so the possibility that more proportionate born-dead or premature-deaths is very plausible in consequence. And being mixed with other animals remnants doesnt proove anything. Consider them as an escort to the special entities recalled to heaven by Baal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos

I've got no love or hate for them, but it sure seems like someone claiming it's all just Roman propaganda would have to be operating more on their own personal beliefs instead of looking at the evidence.

---

So here's some more evidence:

-not even one inscription mentioned the deliberate killing of the child

-foreigners' inscripted vows (including greeks Teleklos) were found and I think they wouldn't 'offer' their healthy child just because they were spending some hollidays there... or does the "greek in you" (hm this sounds weird loool) thinks the opposite?

And i think u have a bit of hate for 'us' indeed. Maybe it's coz Karthadastim fight till the last man with great valour and military brilliance and greeks got steamrolled and pratically lowered their pants to romans. Or maybe coz of this: a while ago u asked wether a province in Iberia would have Karthadastim or Iberian culture in the Iberia protected forums. When someone said it would be iberian u said something like "good im happy it isnt carthie". The words may have not been those exactly but the intention was definitely it. I wouldnt forget it in a thousand years. And now u say u were the only one puting a mention to baby murdering in EB? Case closed. I'll meet you in the MultiPlayer lobby :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k_raso

Anyone know the funerary rituals for the carthagineans? What did they normally did with their deads?

Did they bury them? (As christians do it today)
Did they cremated them? (As greeks did)
Did they threw them to the sea? (As modern era sailors did on high seas)
Did they leaved on silence towers to rot and be eaten by vultures? (like the persians did)

If their custom wasn`t to cremate their dead, then the argument that those bones were part of normal funerary rites is incoherent.

Cheers!!!

---

well, phoenicians adopted the cremation as early as 1100 BC, well before the founding of Karthadast.

Cheers :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

I remember Urnamma saying that it is very probable child sacrifices were done, as the Carthaginians' & Phoenicians' neighbours all write they did child sacrifice, from Hebrews in Middle east, to the Greeks of Syracuse and the Romans.

---

Greeks of Syracuse and Romans are one and the same source, Diodorus. And as said in my last post, he was writing hundreds of years after the fall of Karthadast, when the contemporary writers didnt mention one thing about it, without reasons to hide it, quite the contrary.

About the phoenician neighbours, the only passage i know is the byblical passage :"He [the late- seventh-century B.C. Judahite king Josiah] defiled Tophet, which is in the valley of Ben-hinnom, so that no one would make a son or a daughter pass through fire as an offering to Moloch" (2 Kings 23:10). Passing through fire doesn't mean alive sacrifices, and as such the hypothesis of cremation of born-deads or premature-deaths as being special entities is untouched. I haven't access to other evidences that may proove the sacrifices and i don't deny they may exist, but so far it sure seems like propaganda.

Alright man, straight up, the whole agressive tone of your 3 posts right here speaks loads. You like the Carthaginians that's obvious, but it sounds as if you find child sacrifices morally objectionable or something and so you want to try and defend the carthaginians and make them look better in a modern perspective.

BUt Seriously there is nothing wrong with an acient civilization sacrificing children. Just like there is nothing wrong with old cultures that practiced cannabalism. Sure nothing like that should happen today, but back then it was part of their beliefs and cultures, they didn't know any better so it's ok.

You put alot of your own pure conjecture into some of your arguments like that thing about thinking of the dead animals as escorts.

You got very defensive about this whole thing and no one is really attacking you we are just talking about the idea that Carthaginians probably in times of hard ship reverted to their ancient customs and sacrificed children.

Don't get pissed let's just discuss

the case is never closed on history by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [cF]HanBaal

And i think u have a bit of hate for 'us' indeed. Maybe it's coz Karthadastim fight till the last man with great valour and military brilliance and greeks got steamrolled and pratically lowered their pants to romans. Or maybe coz of this: a while ago u asked wether a province in Iberia would have Karthadastim or Iberian culture in the Iberia protected forums. When someone said it would be iberian u said something like "good im happy it isnt carthie". The words may have not been those exactly but the intention was definitely it. I wouldnt forget it in a thousand years. And now u say u were the only one puting a mention to baby murdering in EB? Case closed. I'll meet you in the MultiPlayer lobby :D

---

Holy christ, are you serious?! I have a hatred for them? That is absolutely hilarious. :laugh4: You talk about "our" Carthaginian bravery, and Greeks' "lowering their pants to the Romans" and say that I'm baised?! That is positively the funniest thing I've heard in quite some time here. I have no idea what you are talking about on that Iberia thing - that is bizarre.

Here is where my information and prejudices come from in the matter: the only serious history on Carthage I have been able to get at my two large university libraries and written in the last couple of decades, and the passage in Diodoros Sikulos, who isn't making the Carthaginians out to be monsters or evil or anything of the sort - just very pious and very concerned about their city's future, seeing as there is an enemy army at the walls of their city. People do weird things when they are faced with situations like that. What happened to the Gallic women and children at Alesia? Or the Jews at Masada? I'm looking at this from a purely academic point of view. My only other prejudices come from understanding that the Carthaginians were a very pious people - talking about that in a positive way.

And by the way, dismissing Diodoros entirely because he's writing 250 years later ("centuries later!") is pretty weak. I suppose all the rest of his account of the war or anything earlier than that should be thrown away too, as well as things today like David McCullough's recent John Adams biography or anything else that is written about something two and a half centuries earlier. That would of course be silly. Anyone interested in the value and accuracy of Diodorus should take a look at Peter Green's very well received 2006 book on the Sicilian. As for no other contemporary writers mentioning those events, just how many other historians' works dealing with Carthaginian or Sicilian Greek history survive from the from the fourth century BC? :dizzy2:

Oh, and as for the one mention of baby killing, I did put it in as a joke, in a place where it is clearly seen as a joke. Just like I put in jokes about Macedonians being stupid and Greeks being effiminate and Gauls being poor fighters too. Get real. You just lost any credibility you might have had here.

Well on the contrary there are quite a few other Hebrew passages:

Leviticus 18.21

Quote:

---

And you shall not let any of your seed pass through Mo'lech, neither shall you profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.

---

Leviticus 20.2–5:

Quote:

---

Again, you shall say to the Sons of Israel: Whoever he be of the Sons of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that gives any of his seed Mo'lech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people; because he has given of his seed Mo'lech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do at all hide their eyes from that man, when he gives of his seed Mo'lech, and do not kill him, then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go astray after him, whoring after Mo'lech from among the people.

---

2 Kings 23.10 (on King Josiah's reform):

Quote:

---

And he defiled the Tophet, which is in the valley of Ben-hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire Mo'lech.

---

Jeremiah 32.35:

Quote:

---

And they built the high places of the Ba‘al, which are in the valley of Ben-hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire Mo'lech; which I did not command them, nor did it come into my mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

---

The 12th century rabbi Rashi, commenting on Jeremiah 7.31 stated:

Quote:

---

Tophet is Moloch, which was made of brass; and they heated him from his lower parts; and his hands being stretched out, and made hot, they put the child between his hands, and it was burnt; when it vehemently cried out; but the priests beat a drum, that the father might not hear the voice of his son, and his heart might not be moved.

---

A different rabbinical tradition says that the idol was hollow and was divided into seven compartments, in one of which they put flour, in the second turtle-doves, in the third a ewe, in the fourth a ram, in the fifth a calf, in the sixth an ox, and in the seventh a child, which were all burnt together by heating the statue inside.

Furthermore, In 1921 Otto Eissfeldt, excavating in Carthage, discovered inscriptions with the word mlk which in the context meant neither 'king' nor the name of any god. He concluded that it was instead a term for a particular kind of sacrifice, one which at least in some cases involved human sacrifice. A relief was found showing a priest holding a child. Also uncovered was a sanctuary to the goddess Tanit comprising a cemetery with thousands of burned bodies of animal and of human infants, dating from the 8th century BC down to the destruction of Carthage in 146 BC. Eissfeldt identified the site as a tophet, using a Hebrew word of previously unknown meaning connected to the burning in some Biblical passages. Most of the children's bodies appeared to be those of newborns, but some were older, up to about six years of age.

Eissfeldt further concluded that the Hebrew writings were not talking about a god Moloch at all, but about the molk or mulk sacrifice, that the abomination was not in worshipping a god Molech who demanded children be sacrificed to him, but in the practice of sacrificing human children as a molk. Hebrews were strongly opposed to sacrificing first-born children as a molk to Yahweh himself. The practice may have been conducted by their neighbors in Canaan. The relevant Scriptural passages depict Yahweh condemning such practices in harsh terms. Hebrews who made such a sacrifice were executed by stoning. Any who knew about such a sacrifice, and did not act to prevent it, were ejected from the community along with their family.

Similar "tophets" have since been found at Carthage and other places in North Africa, and in Sardinia, Malta, Sicily . In late 1990 a possible tophet consisting of cinerary urns containing bones and ashes and votive objects was retrieved from ransacking on the mainland just outside of Tyre in the Phoenician homeland

I don't see why it matters now, maybe they did, maybe they didn't. At the end of the day Carthage is dead and gone and we have no reason to fight over this. Since there is no conclusive evidence either way but there is evidence for both positions it isn't worth getting upset about.

Agreed dude. I'm just saying, theres a variety of sources out there that can support or condemn any argument you choose. Some folks bite off on a certain belief and hold on to it as bedrock, but the truth is that we cannot know for certain anything about these ancient cultures--our base of knowledge is second and third hand, and all we can do is make a guess off the majority of evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcross

BUt Seriously there is nothing wrong with an acient civilization sacrificing children. Just like there is nothing wrong with old cultures that practiced cannabalism. Sure nothing like that should happen today, but back then it was part of their beliefs and cultures, they didn't know any better so it's ok.

---

I find this offensive. I admit it, I'm pro cannibalism, and to suggest that ancient cultures who practiced it did it because they "didn't know any better" is absurd. In fact they knew better and we are just brainwashed by the greek, jewish and chinese way of thinking. Do people understand how much energy is wasted in cremation process? And we don't use that energy even to make us a nice cup of tea. Plus, it is rumored that human meat tastes great!

I dream of the day when someone gets run over by a car, and everyone is happy and smiling because they know the kebab taxi is coming to gather material for a man-kebab-special. With rice and some kebab sauce it's absolutely delicious! All I'm saying is give peace a chance and let's make good use of our dead. That's all.



(PS. Oh my god.. I actually got hungry writing this post. I think I'll go and puke. Thanks and my apologies... and merry christmas. :san_lipsrsealed: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcross

BUt Seriously there is nothing wrong with an acient civilization sacrificing children. Just like there is nothing wrong with old cultures that practiced cannabalism. Sure nothing like that should happen today, but back then it was part of their beliefs and cultures, they didn't know any better so it's ok.

---

I have to agree with Thaatu on the offensive part, in particular

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcross

they didn't know any better so it's ok.

---

First off, they knew what they're doing. Any human of any century at any time in their history, knew what the hell they're doing. You don't wander about the world a infant your entire, albeit maybe short life time. You may not develop the values that can exist in a more developed society that no longer relies quite so heavily on the individual, forcing them to provide any and everything for the survival of them and the group, but you sure as hell knew you were eating last weeks best friend Ivan who had a little too much to drink and fell off that cliff we kept telling him to never go to.

Second, and this is this what annoys me even more than the families of residents at work are as guilty as [insert explitive/severe comparison] that they put their parents in a home for those who have mental diseases, is that that line comes off as though its wrong. Maybe its wrong to you, since despite claiming there's nothing wrong with it in the first setence, you contradict yourself in the second. But what makes it wrong? A heritage of rights and wrongs as told by a book that contradicts itself all over the place? The history of a collective society that would lead us to believe that everyone is equal, some more than others? How does one know its better not to sacrifice your child and eat your family because it's proper as according to the tomes of religion and law, or is it because the reality of death and consumption of people would bother you, who very likely doesn't live in a society where death is common, and to some extent in your face, and in the case of consumption, where near-starvation is not the norm.

When it comes down to it, there is no right and wrong. There's survival and death. It all depends on what's more valuable to you, your life, or society. Your society may be the clan that is just a couple interbred families, it may be the global one that exists today. As your society expands, the need to keep it going will disappear, the breed and die cycle will be cracked, resulting in the value of the individual's life over the group, the prolonging of childish instincts of keeping for yourself, instead of the giving of maturity. Not to say the instinct is gone by any means, there are still many who would help others, especially in a individaul event, but it has declined over time, especially in modern times.

This is not intended as attack on you, merely a objection to the values placed on human life and the notion that people of different civilization and cultures need excusing.

Thus ends part 1 of Gazius's dissertation on society and values! For the low low price of just 19.95 euros (what I make in conversion from Euros to USD should more than cover, if it exists at the location it is, the cost of conversion) in just 49 installments, you can enjoy the rest of his public text on many topics! And if you order now, you can recieve free pre-cooked Santa and Co. meat! Also comes with a black olive or cherry. 399.95 for shipping and handling, void where prohibited, some restrictions apply. Please visit www.Christmas-is-Cancelled.com for more details. Not responsible for the transmission of bird flu or HIV. Offer ends post-decomposition.

It's up to you to either:

- try to understand the past. You must then try to forget your own morale values that do not apply to the world you are looking at, and try to interiorize the morale system of that world to make sense of what was happening. Try to understand the morale stance of Carthaginian elites, people, etc. on the subject you are speaking about, and do not use anything else in your analysis.

- try to judge the past. Then it is your right to use the philosophical/morale stance you want. But you do not try anymore to analyze the past, you are actually using the past to take position in contemporary philosophical/morale debates.

I think the EB team is trying to understand the past rather than judging it. And I think this is indeed a more constructive approach. If I dare to introduce morale judgements, it is the only way to respect people and cultures that have disappeared long ago: analyze them in their own framework, not in ours.

It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great town or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin doors, crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags and importuning every passenger for an alms. These mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in strolling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants: who as they grow up either turn thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native country to fight for the Pretender in Spain, or sell themselves to the Barbadoes.

I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these children sound, useful members of the commonwealth, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.

But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the children of professed beggars; it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of infants at a certain age who are born of parents in effect as little able to support them as those who demand our charity in the streets.

”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”

As to my own part, having turned my thoughts for many years upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of other projectors, I have always found them grossly mistaken in the computation. It is true, a child just dropped from its dam may be supported by her milk for a solar year, with little other nourishment; at most not above the value of 2s., which the mother may certainly get, or the value in scraps, by her lawful occupation of begging; and it is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for them in such a manner as instead of being a charge upon their parents or the parish, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall on the contrary contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands.

There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us! sacrificing the poor innocent babes I doubt more to avoid the expense than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.

The number of souls in this kingdom being usually reckoned one million and a half, of these I calculate there may be about two hundred thousand couple whose wives are breeders; from which number I subtract thirty thousand couples who are able to maintain their own children, although I apprehend there cannot be so many, under the present distresses of the kingdom; but this being granted, there will remain an hundred and seventy thousand breeders. I again subtract fifty thousand for those women who miscarry, or whose children die by accident or disease within the year. There only remains one hundred and twenty thousand children of poor parents annually born. The question therefore is, how this number shall be reared and provided for, which, as I have already said, under the present situation of affairs, is utterly impossible by all the methods hitherto proposed. For we can neither employ them in handicraft or agriculture; we neither build houses (I mean in the country) nor cultivate land: they can very seldom pick up a livelihood by stealing, till they arrive at six years old, except where they are of towardly parts, although I confess they learn the rudiments much earlier, during which time, they can however be properly looked upon only as probationers, as I have been informed by a principal gentleman in the county of Cavan, who protested to me that he never knew above one or two instances under the age of six, even in a part of the kingdom so renowned for the quickest proficiency in that art.

I am assured by our merchants, that a boy or a girl before twelve years old is no salable commodity; and even when they come to this age they will not yield above three pounds, or three pounds and half-a-crown at most on the exchange; which cannot turn to account either to the parents or kingdom, the charge of nutriment and rags having been at least four times that value.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

I have reckoned upon a medium that a child just born will weigh 12 pounds, and in a solar year, if tolerably nursed, increaseth to 28 pounds.

I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.

Infant's flesh will be in season throughout the year, but more plentiful in March, and a little before and after; for we are told by a grave author, an eminent French physician, that fish being a prolific diet, there are more children born in Roman Catholic countries about nine months after Lent than at any other season; therefore, reckoning a year after Lent, the markets will be more glutted than usual, because the number of popish infants is at least three to one in this kingdom: and therefore it will have one other collateral advantage, by lessening the number of papists among us.

I have already computed the charge of nursing a beggar's child (in which list I reckon all cottagers, laborers, and four-fifths of the farmers) to be about two shillings per annum, rags included; and I believe no gentleman would repine to give ten shillings for the carcass of a good fat child, which, as I have said, will make four dishes of excellent nutritive meat, when he hath only some particular friend or his own family to dine with him. Thus the squire will learn to be a good landlord, and grow popular among his tenants; the mother will have eight shillings net profit, and be fit for work till she produces another child.

Those who are more thrifty (as I must confess the times require) may flay the carcass; the skin of which artificially dressed will make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for fine gentlemen.

As to our city of Dublin, shambles may be appointed for this purpose in the most convenient parts of it, and butchers we may be assured will not be wanting; although I rather recommend buying the children alive, and dressing them hot from the knife, as we do roasting pigs.

A very worthy person, a true lover of his country, and whose virtues I highly esteem, was lately pleased in discoursing on this matter to offer a refinement upon my scheme. He said that many gentlemen of this kingdom, having of late destroyed their deer, he conceived that the want of venison might be well supplied by the bodies of young lads and maidens, not exceeding fourteen years of age nor under twelve; so great a number of both sexes in every country being now ready to starve for want of work and service; and these to be disposed of by their parents, if alive, or otherwise by their nearest relations. But with due deference to so excellent a friend and so deserving a patriot, I cannot be altogether in his sentiments; for as to the males, my American acquaintance assured me, from frequent experience, that their flesh was generally tough and lean, like that of our schoolboys by continual exercise, and their taste disagreeable; and to fatten them would not answer the charge. Then as to the females, it would, I think, with humble submission be a loss to the public, because they soon would become breeders themselves; and besides, it is not improbable that some scrupulous people might be apt to censure such a practice (although indeed very unjustly), as a little bordering upon cruelty; which, I confess, hath always been with me the strongest objection against any project, however so well intended.

But in order to justify my friend, he confessed that this expedient was put into his head by the famous Psalmanazar, a native of the island Formosa, who came from thence to London above twenty years ago, and in conversation told my friend, that in his country when any young person happened to be put to death, the executioner sold the carcass to persons of quality as a prime dainty; and that in his time the body of a plump girl of fifteen, who was crucified for an attempt to poison the emperor, was sold to his imperial majesty's prime minister of state, and other great mandarins of the court, in joints from the gibbet, at four hundred crowns. Neither indeed can I deny, that if the same use were made of several plump young girls in this town, who without one single groat to their fortunes cannot stir abroad without a chair, and appear at playhouse and assemblies in foreign fineries which they never will pay for, the kingdom would not be the worse.

Some persons of a desponding spirit are in great concern about that vast number of poor people, who are aged, diseased, or maimed, and I have been desired to employ my thoughts what course may be taken to ease the nation of so grievous an encumbrance. But I am not in the least pain upon that matter, because it is very well known that they are every day dying and rotting by cold and famine, and filth and vermin, as fast as can be reasonably expected. And as to the young laborers, they are now in as hopeful a condition; they cannot get work, and consequently pine away for want of nourishment, to a degree that if at any time they are accidentally hired to common labor, they have not strength to perform it; and thus the country and themselves are happily delivered from the evils to come.

I have too long digressed, and therefore shall return to my subject. I think the advantages by the proposal which I have made are obvious and many, as well as of the highest importance.

For first, as I have already observed, it would greatly lessen the number of papists, with whom we are yearly overrun, being the principal breeders of the nation as well as our most dangerous enemies; and who stay at home on purpose with a design to deliver the kingdom to the Pretender, hoping to take their advantage by the absence of so many good protestants, who have chosen rather to leave their country than stay at home and pay tithes against their conscience to an episcopal curate.

Secondly, The poorer tenants will have something valuable of their own, which by law may be made liable to distress and help to pay their landlord's rent, their corn and cattle being already seized, and money a thing unknown.

Thirdly, Whereas the maintenance of an hundred thousand children, from two years old and upward, cannot be computed at less than ten shillings a-piece per annum, the nation's stock will be thereby increased fifty thousand pounds per annum, beside the profit of a new dish introduced to the tables of all gentlemen of fortune in the kingdom who have any refinement in taste. And the money will circulate among ourselves, the goods being entirely of our own growth and manufacture.

Fourthly, The constant breeders, beside the gain of eight shillings sterling per annum by the sale of their children, will be rid of the charge of maintaining them after the first year.

Fifthly, This food would likewise bring great custom to taverns; where the vintners will certainly be so prudent as to procure the best receipts for dressing it to perfection, and consequently have their houses frequented by all the fine gentlemen, who justly value themselves upon their knowledge in good eating: and a skilful cook, who understands how to oblige his guests, will contrive to make it as expensive as they please.

Sixthly, This would be a great inducement to marriage, which all wise nations have either encouraged by rewards or enforced by laws and penalties. It would increase the care and tenderness of mothers toward their children, when they were sure of a settlement for life to the poor babes, provided in some sort by the public, to their annual profit instead of expense. We should see an honest emulation among the married women, which of them could bring the fattest child to the market. Men would become as fond of their wives during the time of their pregnancy as they are now of their mares in foal, their cows in calf, their sows when they are ready to farrow; nor offer to beat or kick them (as is too frequent a practice) for fear of a miscarriage.

Many other advantages might be enumerated. For instance, the addition of some thousand carcasses in our exportation of barreled beef, the propagation of swine's flesh, and improvement in the art of making good bacon, so much wanted among us by the great destruction of pigs, too frequent at our tables; which are no way comparable in taste or magnificence to a well-grown, fat, yearling child, which roasted whole will make a considerable figure at a lord mayor's feast or any other public entertainment. But this and many others I omit, being studious of brevity.

Supposing that one thousand families in this city, would be constant customers for infants flesh, besides others who might have it at merry meetings, particularly at weddings and christenings, I compute that Dublin would take off annually about twenty thousand carcasses; and the rest of the kingdom (where probably they will be sold somewhat cheaper) the remaining eighty thousand.

I can think of no one objection, that will possibly be raised against this proposal, unless it should be urged, that the number of people will be thereby much lessened in the kingdom. This I freely own, and 'twas indeed one principal design in offering it to the world. I desire the reader will observe, that I calculate my remedy for this one individual Kingdom of Ireland, and for no other that ever was, is, or, I think, ever can be upon Earth. Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients: Of taxing our absentees at five shillings a pound: Of using neither cloaths, nor houshold furniture, except what is of our own growth and manufacture: Of utterly rejecting the materials and instruments that promote foreign luxury: Of curing the expensiveness of pride, vanity, idleness, and gaming in our women: Of introducing a vein of parsimony, prudence and temperance: Of learning to love our country, wherein we differ even from Laplanders, and the inhabitants of Topinamboo: Of quitting our animosities and factions, nor acting any longer like the Jews, who were murdering one another at the very moment their city was taken: Of being a little cautious not to sell our country and consciences for nothing: Of teaching landlords to have at least one degree of mercy towards their tenants. Lastly, of putting a spirit of honesty, industry, and skill into our shop-keepers, who, if a resolution could now be taken to buy only our native goods, would immediately unite to cheat and exact upon us in the price, the measure, and the goodness, nor could ever yet be brought to make one fair proposal of just dealing, though often and earnestly invited to it.

Therefore I repeat, let no man talk to me of these and the like expedients, 'till he hath at least some glympse of hope, that there will ever be some hearty and sincere attempt to put them into practice.

But, as to my self, having been wearied out for many years with offering vain, idle, visionary thoughts, and at length utterly despairing of success, I fortunately fell upon this proposal, which, as it is wholly new, so it hath something solid and real, of no expence and little trouble, full in our own power, and whereby we can incur no danger in disobliging England. For this kind of commodity will not bear exportation, and flesh being of too tender a consistence, to admit a long continuance in salt, although perhaps I could name a country, which would be glad to eat up our whole nation without it.

After all, I am not so violently bent upon my own opinion as to reject any offer proposed by wise men, which shall be found equally innocent, cheap, easy, and effectual. But before something of that kind shall be advanced in contradiction to my scheme, and offering a better, I desire the author or authors will be pleased maturely to consider two points. First, as things now stand, how they will be able to find food and raiment for an hundred thousand useless mouths and backs. And secondly, there being a round million of creatures in human figure throughout this kingdom, whose whole subsistence put into a common stock would leave them in debt two millions of pounds sterling, adding those who are beggars by profession to the bulk of farmers, cottagers, and laborers, with their wives and children who are beggars in effect: I desire those politicians who dislike my overture, and may perhaps be so bold as to attempt an answer, that they will first ask the parents of these mortals, whether they would not at this day think it a great happiness to have been sold for food, at a year old in the manner I prescribe, and thereby have avoided such a perpetual scene of misfortunes as they have since gone through by the oppression of landlords, the impossibility of paying rent without money or trade, the want of common sustenance, with neither house nor clothes to cover them from the inclemencies of the weather, and the most inevitable prospect of entailing the like or greater miseries upon their breed for ever.

I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of my country, by advancing our trade, providing for infants, relieving the poor, and giving some pleasure to the rich. I have no children by which I can propose to get a single penny; the youngest being nine years old, and my wife past child-bearing.

The End

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos

Holy christ, are you serious?! I have a hatred for them? That is absolutely hilarious. You talk about "our" Carthaginian bravery, and Greeks' "lowering their pants to the Romans" and say that I'm baised?! That is positively the funniest thing I've heard in quite some time here. I have no idea what you are talking about on that Iberia thing - that is bizarre.

---

eheh teleklos got nervous here. i think i hit some nerve in the "greek in you", using ur own words eheh. Dont get upset. You said urself u have a "greek in you" so its normal. You made a joke about carthies --> i made a joke bout greeks lowering their pants to romans (actually its a double joke considering the greeks gay past eheh). consider it even :P

and im 99.9% sure of that remark in that iberian province, but thats not important now.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcross

Alright man, straight up, the whole agressive tone of your 3 posts right here speaks loads.

---

uh? where was i agressive?? apart from that joke-back to teleklos maybe ... and i wasnt being insulting, just provoking him back for a duel in the MP lobby :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcross

You put alot of your own pure conjecture into some of your arguments like that thing about thinking of the dead animals as escorts.

---

that was the only conjecture i said AND as a response to the ALSO conjecture of teleklos saying the presence of animals was a proof of sacrifice. so, not conclusive at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcross

the case is never closed on history by the way.

---

again u put words out of context. the "case closed" was refering to teleklos 'joke'. Read the last words of my post and u see the contrary: "I haven't access to other evidences that may proove the sacrifices and i don't deny they may exist".

---

@Zaknafien
thx for the adding quotes. However, apart from that 12th century one, none is conclusive.

About the excavations you mention which uncovered around 20.000 infants urns from a long timespan, i don't think its conclusive neither. Considering the population of Carthage in its days of greater prosperity reached almost 1million inhabitants, acording to ancient greek sources, and the lack of medical assistance/technology in those days, the number 20000 for such a long period makes the hypothesis of young obituaries or born dead still very plausible. And as said, in all those urns, not a single mention of the deliberate killing and the presence of foreigners incriptions (like in greek) underlines it.

---

@ Numahr
I'm definitely trying to "understand" rather than to "judge" as many here and in the past have done. If the proofs are inconclusive and/or based on centuries-later-heresay when none of the remaining contemporaries mentions it, then it doesn't belong in history or in EB. That's my opinion.

And if someone ever prooves it, i'll accept it and won't judge it. Different times, different costums. I mean, romans and greeks also made human sacrifices. Actually romans could also kill a child with the aprooval of 5 other random adults. The colosseums were a stage for some form of 'entertained' human 'sacrifice' too. Pedophilia was widespread and accepted in both rome and greece. Many other nations made human sacrifices too so it's wrong for anyone to judge them based on today's moral values.

Thx

Everyone simmer down now (what the *bleep* does that mean anyway...)!

And in a relatively breaking news, it is widely accepted that inhabitants of Bartix sacrificed their first, second and third borns (resulting in their disappearance from history after a while).

Kudos to "A Modest Proposal" over here, Fleeb. That wins an internet.

However, I must disagree, Gazius, with your Nietzsche-esque assessment of "right and wrong"; I deeply believe they do exist in an absolute sense, but we humans have vested interests in defining them as best suits our purposes.

As for the Carthaginians sacrificing babies, I think it's an open-and-shut case: they did. The tophets are too darn big for these to be creamated remains of children and animals that died as infants. Too many outside sources agree on the Phoenician/Canaanite/Carthaginian culture-group as practicing human sacrifice, especially the sacrifices of children/infants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [cF]HanBaal

eheh teleklos got nervous here. i think i hit some nerve in the "greek in you", using ur own words eheh.

---

No, I doubt "nervous" is the word, he is likely incensed that someone who spent so long as an EB member with so few posts in attempting to help EB, especially when we needed help with this very faction, is making a thinly veiled ad hominem argument.

I think your number of months as an EB "member" exceeded the number of posts you made, and this at a time when we could have really used the help. So no "joke" you make is going to be accepted as such when considered in light of past history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

No, I doubt "nervous" is the word, he is likely incensed that someone who spent so long as an EB member with so few posts in attempting to help EB, especially when we needed help with this very faction, is making a thinly veiled ad hominem argument. I think your number of months as an EB "member" exceeded the number of posts you made, and this at a time when we could have really used the help. So no "joke" you make is going to be accepted as such when considered in light of past history.

---

wow... For your knowledge, I wrote the Karthadastim faction description for EB (the first 2/3rds are exactly my words and the long description I wrote must be in some file somewhere i think), wrote most of the Karthadastim buildings with Kikosemmek (ask him) and most if not all of Hannibal's quotes in EB were suggested by me (check the quotes thread for EB). I always said im no programmer and my pratical work within EB would end there. Actually, I feel my presence in EB is quite nice and visible ^^

Besides, historical research in the begining was where i was more participating. I was also the one in the begining to support the 4turn system and the introduction of scripts, the importance of mines in ancient times, etc. I also helped in defining the right cities and the right provinces for my area (NAfrica and Iberia). And again, historical research was where I think I helped the most, either for Karthadast (with Urnamma mostly) or for Iberia (with Aymar mostly). I even friggin translated a nearly 10 page document written in spanish to english to underline the military importance of the Lusitans/Lusotannan. Oh wait, probably u weren't in EB yet.

*Cough* Maybe you guys should take this to your private forums or perhaps to PMs/AIM/MSN or something else...

I'm surprised that noone here ever mentioned Spartan's attitude towards ill children.

I was just thinking that...

True, nearly all greeks commited infantacide to deformed children and the Spartans did to any child sub-par. Left them in the wilderness to just die there, IIRC. (Stupid side note: A while ago, when reading the 300 preview thread, I thought up a cool fictional/romanticised greek story based on an abandoned Spartan child.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

Stupid side note: A while ago, when reading the 300 preview thread, I thought up a cool fictional/romanticised greek story based on an abandoned Spartan child.

---

:beam: God of War (PS2) had the exact same thing in it... :idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HFox

Didnt bush just sacrifice rumsfeld?

---

No he was forced by public opinion to sack a military incompetent nitwit who thinks starting a war is as cut and dry as a corporate takeover and as easy to run as a game of C&C. With his involvement in planning the Vietnam ground war thats two strikes so hopefully he'll never get another job in defence.
Mind you my own Australian Defence Minister was on national TV saying we had a full mechanized infantry brigade to send to Iraq as opposed to not having a brigade of any description and the single mechanized infantry battalion(3RAR) that the RAR actually has, so Rumsfeld isn't alone in the totally incompetent military stakes.

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.

---

Death rates in Nazi concentration camps were actually lower than those of the original concentration camps set up by the US in Cuba during the Spanish-American War where the dead consisted of the old, women and in the majority children. German prisoner of war camps in 1944-45 were no pick-nick either especially those for eastern European POW's who got very little in the way of food and supplies. If the US economy in 1944-45 had of been as bad as that of Nazi Germany at that time there would of been a huge death rate increase of civilians of German, Austrian, Check, Romanian, Bulgarian, Italian and Japanese heritage in the US concentration camps (detention centres) of WW2 whose death rates were in the order of 10-15% anyway, mostly infant children.

Just thought we should get the facts straight.

Back on topic, did the Carthaginians practice adult cremation?

If so the minimal archeological evidence would probably support the infant cemetery for natural causes of death theory. Rome's propaganda war against Carthage was an absolute so we may never know one way or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slartibardfast

Death rates in Nazi concentration camps were actually lower than those of the original concentration camps set up by the US in Cuba during the Spanish-American War where the dead consisted of the old, women and in the majority children. German prisoner of war camps in 1944-45 were no pick-nick either especially those for eastern European POW's who got very little in the way of food and supplies. If the US economy in 1944-45 had of been as bad as that of Nazi Germany at that time there would of been a huge death rate increase of civilians of German, Austrian, Check, Romanian, Bulgarian, Italian and Japanese heritage in the US concentration camps (detention centres) of WW2 whose death rates were in the order of 10-15% anyway, mostly infant children.

Just thought we should get the facts straight.

---

Wow, I didn't realize the holocaust happened because the germans were short on supplies. That should absolve them of any lingering guilt at least I guess. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

Wow, I didn't realize the holocaust happened because the germans were short on supplies. That should absolve them of any lingering guilt at least I guess. :laugh4:

---

Yeah, all living germans are nazis of course ~:rolleyes:

Oh man, those evil Americans, of course..certainly on par with Nazi death camps. Totally the same.

If all Germans are nazis, then I guess all Finns are nazis too... OH CRAP!
I hope nazis don't get banned. Merry christmas everyone..? :san_lipsrsealed:

But anyway, back on topic! What was it anyway..? Oh yeah, killing babies. :hanged:

In Roman and Carthaginian law werent infant's under the age of 1 not considered to be "people"? The idea of infantcide probably didn't even cross their minds when child sacrafices occured in the temple's of carthage. Nor would it have been something severly obscene by roman standards.

Quote:

---

Death rates in Nazi concentration camps were actually lower than those of the original concentration camps set up by the US in Cuba during the Spanish-American War where the dead consisted of the old, women and in the majority children. German prisoner of war camps in 1944-45 were no pick-nick either especially those for eastern European POW's who got very little in the way of food and supplies. If the US economy in 1944-45 had of been as bad as that of Nazi Germany at that time there would of been a huge death rate increase of civilians of German, Austrian, Check, Romanian, Bulgarian, Italian and Japanese heritage in the US concentration camps (detention centres) of WW2 whose death rates were in the order of 10-15% anyway, mostly infant children.

---

The detention centre's were for japanese not the european enemies. As for death rates, there's quite a bit of difference there. Namely violent death was near nill in those detention centre's. But as the name implies the Nazi Death Camp's had a much higher violent death rate. But also when discussing death rates one should note the obscene difference in the total number of deaths...:juggle2:

Have a happy and sunny Mithra's day.~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

True, nearly all greeks commited infantacide to deformed children and the Spartans did to any child sub-par. Left them in the wilderness to just die there, IIRC.

---

Not to mention all those other peoples who rid themselves of unwanted offspring...

Back to the Spartans in particular: they had a more sure way to get their unwanted babies killed then just leaving them in the sticks. Instead of waiting for nature to do the trick, their priesthood simply threw the babies into a gorge - one dedicated to some god (Apollo?) and, more importantly, frequented by wild animals such as wolves.

And to round this post off, merry Christmas everyone... ~:santa:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

Death rates in Nazi concentration camps were actually lower than those of the original concentration camps set up by the US in Cuba during the Spanish-American War where the dead consisted of the old, women and in the majority children.
Just thought we should get the facts straight.

---

I know that the actual number of deaths in Nazi concentration-camps were exaggerated, but even when you take this obvious exaggeration into account, I doubt the veracity of your "facts." From what records did you deduce these facts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

...the original concentration camps set up by the US in Cuba during the Spanish-American War...

---

Ah interesting.. I thought the original concentration camps were those set up by the British in the Boer Wars ordered by Lord Herbert Horatio Kitchener, Milner and Roberts. In reality, the idea of a concentration camp has been around since ancient Assyria, so it's wrong to say the Spanish or the US were first. The term concentration camp was first used by the British military during the Boer War (1899-1902). Facing attack by Boer guerrillas, British forces rounded up the Boer women and children as well as black people living on Boer land, and sent them to 34 tented camps scattered around South Africa.

The proper strategy consists in inflicting as telling blows as possible on the enemy's army, and then causing the inhabitants so much suffering that they must long for peace, and force the government to demand it. The people must be left with nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war.
(U.S. Army General Philip Sheridan, advice to Otto Von Bismark, 1870)


These camps were originally set up for refugees whose farms had been destroyed by the British "Scorched Earth" policy (the burning down all Boer homesteads and farms to stop the aid of Boers). Then, following Kitchener's new policy, many women and children were forcibly moved to prevent the Boers from re-supplying from their homes and more camps were built and converted to prisons. This relatively new idea was essentially humane in its planning in London but ultimately proved brutal due to its lack of proper implementation. This was not the first appearance of concentration camps. The Spanish used them in the Ten Years' War that later led to the Spanish-American War, and the United States used them to devastate guerrilla forces during the Philippine-American War. But the concentration camp system of the British was on a much larger scale.

27,927 Boer (of whom 22,074 were children under 16) and 14,154 black Africans had died of starvation, disease and exposure in the camps. In all, about 25% of the Boer inmates and 12% of the black African ones died (although recent research suggests that the black African deaths were underestimated and may have actually been around 20,000).


http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/kind2.gif

http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/hellkamp.htm
http://sahistory.org.za/pages/specia...oer-war2ii.htm

This thread has become focused on evil deeds :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slartibardfast

Death rates in Nazi concentration camps were actually lower than those of the original concentration camps set up by the US in Cuba during the Spanish-American War where the dead consisted of the old, women and in the majority children. German prisoner of war camps in 1944-45 were no pick-nick either especially those for eastern European POW's who got very little in the way of food and supplies. If the US economy in 1944-45 had of been as bad as that of Nazi Germany at that time there would of been a huge death rate increase of civilians of German, Austrian, Check, Romanian, Bulgarian, Italian and Japanese heritage in the US concentration camps (detention centres) of WW2 whose death rates were in the order of 10-15% anyway, mostly infant children.

Just thought we should get the facts straight.

---

Uuuuuh... yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

For the moment, I will grant these numbers, because I don't feel like taking the time to refute them. In that case, what about the death rates of the extermination camps? Or the work camps? Frankly, it's impossible to beat the death rate of a camp designed for the sole purpose for the machine-style pacification, extermination and cremation of entire races of people. To compare it to anything else is, frankly, ignorant.

"...I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames."

Hmm, the discussion becomes more and more special...

The worth of human life was valued in many different ways during history. I think history is not over and in 200 years there might be another sight than now. The relativity of human moral can not be overlooked. The times of absolute systems in philosophy are over. That is a pity, but also a fact.

We have slow changing moral systems and we live in a certain system. At the moment we appreciate the life of every human being in the same way and give the same rights to every human. At least in the western world. Even now we have moral systems in the world with a different view. We should be very careful with moral statements. And the ancient view was very different. We have to accept this. Nevertheless I would defend the western system at all costs because I like it. But that is subjective.

So we cannot really blame the Carthaginans, Romans or Greeks for killing some children. But we can judge from the sources that these things happened. I think that is what some of the EB members mean. It has nothing to do with being biased.


Camp concentration debate:
I think we can blame the USA, Great Britain etc. for using concentration camps because the moral system at that time was rather similar than it is today and it was hypocrisy to value human rights and use concentration camps of that kind at the same time. USA first used concentration camps in the 1830s against the southeast Indians before they were forced to the terrible march to the west. Great Britain used it against the Bures who suffered a lot. To be continued. Nothing easy to defend I think. Of course there were also some "good and rational" reasons for doing it.

German concentration camps (KZ) of the Nazis were a different thing in my opinion. I would not like to compare it with that kind of cc used before. Maybe you can compare it to the Gulags of Stalin but even that is very doubtful.

Firstly: numbers does not mean much. Would it be a moral difference, if not 6 million but "only" 3 million people were killed? Or just 100000? I don't think so.
It is an additional thing. The KZ were not only used to concentrate people -accepting the fact that many would die because of the bad living conditions- but to murder them. Some KZ (Treblinka f.e.) were purely designed for the purpose of killing people. And even in the "normal" KZ, for example Dachau or Auschwitz, thousands and thousands of people were murdered only because they belonged to a certain group (being Jews f.e.). So the idea behind the KZ was a rather special one. It was that diabolic ideology what set the German KZ apart from that used by other nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geala

Firstly: numbers does not mean much. Would it be a moral difference, if not 6 million but "only" 3 million people were killed? Or just 100000? I don't think so.

---

My sentiments precisely.

"Kill one man, it's a tragety. Kill a million, it's a statistic."
-Joseph Stalin

(BTW, what's the name of the law about the internet where every conversation if lasting long enough eventually gets to Hitler/Nazis?)

Godwins law, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Godwins law, I think.

---

Hähä, good old Mike Godwin. His law is the argument for the divine ability of mankind for differentiated discussions.

To be honest, Nazism was such a stroke to civilisation and humanity that it comes to mind very quickly. I suffer from Godwins law myself sometimes.:stupido2:

Indeed, and who are we to say the killing of children is morally wrong? Our opinions have been skewed by hundreds of years of Judeo/Christian/Muslim morality.

It is morally wrong within the very framework you mention, because that is the framework of the societies with the biggest sticks. ~:)