Body of Richard III identified

[Alexander's Horse]

buried under a carpark sounds like a mafia hit

[MichaeltheGreat]

Given the penetrating wound in the top of the skull, you're not far off.

[Alexander's Horse]

he also seems to have a nasty slicing blow that penetrated his cheek bone and took his nose off

scientists have come up with a facial reconstruction, which surprise, surprise, looks just like his portrait

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/richard-iii-facial-reconstruction-shows-1586792

Did they think people back then couldn't draw or something...

[kentonio]

Typical historian nonsense, they get caught up in these little theories about things like 'Shakespeare portrayed him as a cripple just to make people think he was evil!' when as we've just seen he was probably just actually disabled. I often wonder what our view of history would be like if it was based a bit more on things we actually know and a bit less on what idiotic theory some random historian or archaeologist made up and which has since become accepted as truth.

Also if people are going to make up theories, it might be nice if they assumed that people then were pretty much the same as people now, instead of assuming they were all ****ing idiots.

[Dinner]

Part of it was true and part of it wasn't. For instance, yes, he had a hunch back but, no, he didn't have a dwarf arm or leg as some period historians claimed. So, yeah, there was a bit of exaggeration done by the people who defeated him and wanted to demonize him.

[molly bloom]

Sometimes a story is a tale of unadorned joy and wonder in its own right. This is one.

However it's good to see that we get to add another entry on my list of "Kings suffering appalling bumhole impalements".

Do you know what happened to Andronicus I Comnenos ?

One eye torn out, teeth extracted, right hand amputated. Then hauled through the highways and lanes of Constantinople, having human excrement thrown at him, before being suspended Mussolini style, his genitals severed, and then finally the coup de grace- swords run through his mouth and between his arse cheeks.


When you really want to say goodbye, do it in the Byzantine fashion.

[Dinner]

I had honestly never heard of Andronicus I Comnenos but his wiki article begins by describing him as "licentious" which is always a good indication he'd make a good subject for a historical filth article. His lurid demise just proves the point.

[molly bloom]

... by describing him as "licentious" which is always a good indication he'd make a good subject for a historical filth article. His lurid demise just proves the point.

The Byzantines were quite fond of mutilating unsuccesful Emperors, would-be Emperors, et cetera- hands chopped off, noses slit, tongues severed, eyes gouged out. That sort of thing.

Basil Bulgaroctonus went one better when he defeated the Bulgar army and had the majority of them blinded, leaving a one eyed survivor out of every hundred to guide the others back to the Bulgar khanate. Apparently the Bulgar khan died of apoplexy at the sight...

The Japanese definitely had a yen for creative tortures too- from the purge of Japanese Christians in the 17th Century (suspended upside down in a pit of human excrement, a slit in the forehead to stop you blacking out, immersion in geysers, bamboo splints in the skin...) to cold water/exposure experiments on Allied prisoners of war, biological and chemical warfare experiments on Chinese civilians and Allied prisoners of war...

Sometimes you think the human race just can't get any better....

[MichaeltheGreat]

Typical historian nonsense, they get caught up in these little theories about things like 'Shakespeare portrayed him as a cripple just to make people think he was evil!' when as we've just seen he was probably just actually disabled. I often wonder what our view of history would be like if it was based a bit more on things we actually know and a bit less on what idiotic theory some random historian or archaeologist made up and which has since become accepted as truth.

Also if people are going to make up theories, it might be nice if they assumed that people then were pretty much the same as people now, instead of assuming they were all ****ing idiots.

The thing I find interesting is the assumption that other wounds were post-mortem. You can't distinguish ordinary post-mortem* wounds from perimortem wounds from skeletal remains.

* yes, you can distinguish some later post mortem wounds if the wound position is such that the wound couldn't have been inflicted on a more or less intact body.

The working hypothesis is that the wound at the base of the skull was a battle wound, and the rest post-mortem humiliation wounds, then the hands were tied at burial. Why would you care?

Another scenario which seems more plausible to me is that he was taken alive (there is an arrow wound in his back), bound with hands in front so he could be dragged, struck blows to the face and up the bum while still alive, the base of skull wound from a (accidentally or otherwise) botched beheading (possible his stenosis didn't make for convenient head positioning or he moved), then the final square bladed dagger through the top of the skull to finish him. Then dump the already bound body into the shallow grave like so much rubbish. Of course, that might upset modern sensibilities, but given his popularity and the nature of both warfare and punishment in those days, it seems more plausible to me than the sanitized version. Since he wasn't given Christian burial, if all his enemies had was his already dead corpse, it doesn't seem likely to me that they'd just limit their post mortem mutilation to the face, top of skull and one perfunctory blade thrust up the bum - I'd expect hacking wounds (at least one or two, if not a hackfest) around other parts of the body.

[Sava]

this thraede makes me want to play Mount and Blade

[PLATO]

The Richard III Society seems to be taking this opportunity to try and clarify Richard's deeds. CNN ran an article from them yesterday in which they claimed that all the crimes that Richard supposedly committed could be dispelled by the evidence...except that nagging "missing" Nephews item....

[MichaeltheGreat]

The only ambiguity there is that Henry would have had incentive for the nephews to disappear as well, if Richard hadn't got round to it yet. Richard could possibly have found some hostage value for them alive - that wouldn't be totally obviated by their declaration as bastards. Odds are Richard was responsible for their death - even if not, he was guilty of enough regardless, but IMO it's not open and shut that Richard is directly responsible for their deaths.

[Sava]

There seems to be a creepy cult of personality in the UK that wants desperately to rewrite the history of this guy and make him out to be some sort of saintly figure. I'm not sure of the costs, but the Brits are going to bury this guy at Leicester cathedral and probably engage in some sort of regal fellating event.

And then it's off to war against Argentina... again.

[kentonio]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It's pretty hard to find a pre-Tudor monarch who didn't have people killed when they found it expedient.