How often did flaying actually happen historically?

How often did flaying actually happen historically?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Often times on dead bodies to get a better understanding of muscles and ligaments.

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Venetians stole a flayed commander from the Ottomans sometime in the XVII century.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ottomans did it all the fricking time. They flayed an entire noble family during the albanian rebellion

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    would it really be good for morale to have flayed troops on your shields?
    doesnt really inspire men to hold firm

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Almost like Martin is a midwit hack who makes things pointlessly edgy to spite Tolkien in the literary equivalent of "Frick you, dad!"

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Both is ok though

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >good vs evil cliche hasnt been done to death

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Midwits mistake novelty for depth. Good vs evil is a timeless story universal to all human cultures because it's emotionally resonant on a deep, human level. That's why 80 years after it's publishing LOTR and chronicles of Narnia are still relevant and a few years after GOT finished it's already forgotten.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I wouldn't say ASOIAF is forgotten at all. House of the Dragon is well received and is eagerly being anticipated for its second season and people discuss The Winds of Winter every week.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >people discuss The Winds of Winter every week.

            Maybe at Game of Thrones subreddits. Other than that it's basically forgotten and is clear fat frick will not finish it

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            nta but it's still in the top 20 tv shows being watched

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Considering absolute state of current television it's enough for show to be decent to have audience

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lord if the Rings was pretty subversive to the fantasy genre when it came out though. Stuff like the Scouring of the Shire would never have been found in pre-WWII fantasy or sword and sorcery books. People only think of LotR as a "normal" fantasy series because of how many copycats it had and how influential it was.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          True, but that's not the point I'm making. It may have been subversive elements, but its overall themes were conservative and timeless. That's different from "what if everyone bad" of GOT or the "what if trope, but opposite" ala "The Last Jedi" or Amazon's "The Boys".

          Reminds me of something someone said in /vrpg/ once and I wish I had screen capped it about hoe LOTR is quintessentially European and conservative in comparison to American RPGs like D&D. Essentially because D&D is quintessentially American because it focuses on leveling up and rising through the ranks- the American fantasy that a peasant can become king through merit and hard work. Where LOTR is European and aristocratic because even though they all take part in the adventure, aragorn is a king, frodo is an aristocrat and Sam is a servant because of their birth and that can't be changed. They all have their place and their role and they act within those confines

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          True, but that's not the point I'm making. It may have been subversive elements, but its overall themes were conservative and timeless. That's different from "what if everyone bad" of GOT or the "what if trope, but opposite" ala "The Last Jedi" or Amazon's "The Boys".

          Reminds me of something someone said in /vrpg/ once and I wish I had screen capped it about hoe LOTR is quintessentially European and conservative in comparison to American RPGs like D&D. Essentially because D&D is quintessentially American because it focuses on leveling up and rising through the ranks- the American fantasy that a peasant can become king through merit and hard work. Where LOTR is European and aristocratic because even though they all take part in the adventure, aragorn is a king, frodo is an aristocrat and Sam is a servant because of their birth and that can't be changed. They all have their place and their role and they act within those confines

          there was no fantasy Genre prior to Tolkien

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes there was you moron, ever heard of Conan the Barbarian?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah they were called legends or mythology or something. Tolkein blatantly plaigarized finnish legends for his lord of the rings franchise but knew that no one would notice

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        True, but that's not the point I'm making. It may have been subversive elements, but its overall themes were conservative and timeless. That's different from "what if everyone bad" of GOT or the "what if trope, but opposite" ala "The Last Jedi" or Amazon's "The Boys".

        Reminds me of something someone said in /vrpg/ once and I wish I had screen capped it about hoe LOTR is quintessentially European and conservative in comparison to American RPGs like D&D. Essentially because D&D is quintessentially American because it focuses on leveling up and rising through the ranks- the American fantasy that a peasant can become king through merit and hard work. Where LOTR is European and aristocratic because even though they all take part in the adventure, aragorn is a king, frodo is an aristocrat and Sam is a servant because of their birth and that can't be changed. They all have their place and their role and they act within those confines

        Did we read the same books? There's very clearly good and bad in game of thrones, it's just not as cookie cutter clear as in lord of the rings. And there's some clear themes how the good eventually reap their rewards, while the bad eventually get what's theirs, even if it doesn't always seem that way at first.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        If only ASOIAF were more like Declan Finn's masterpiece 'Love at first bite' series- gritty vampire romance novels packed full of "all his typical explosions, action and Catholic world-building wrapped in a New York Vampire giftbag. Both Urban Fantasy and Paranormal Romance readers will love his foray into the bloody, holy water filled world of the undead."

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >all his typical explosions, action and Catholic world-building wrapped in a New York Vampire giftbag
          honestly sounds like a fun read

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        cool but there are clearly good and evil characters in asoiaf

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        True, but that's not the point I'm making. It may have been subversive elements, but its overall themes were conservative and timeless. That's different from "what if everyone bad" of GOT or the "what if trope, but opposite" ala "The Last Jedi" or Amazon's "The Boys".

        Reminds me of something someone said in /vrpg/ once and I wish I had screen capped it about hoe LOTR is quintessentially European and conservative in comparison to American RPGs like D&D. Essentially because D&D is quintessentially American because it focuses on leveling up and rising through the ranks- the American fantasy that a peasant can become king through merit and hard work. Where LOTR is European and aristocratic because even though they all take part in the adventure, aragorn is a king, frodo is an aristocrat and Sam is a servant because of their birth and that can't be changed. They all have their place and their role and they act within those confines

        You're a teenage zoomer who has never read any actual ancient works and pretends internet memes reflect reaity
        Grey morality was the norm in ancient times. Read the illiad and the odyessy, read some acutal epics instead of reading watered down trash like tolkien

        [...]
        there was no fantasy Genre prior to Tolkien

        Cope tolkiendrone

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        this is such a moronic and gay critique, i can enjoy black and white in the same way i can enjoy grey. some stories benefit from it and others do not

        this is just homosexual contrarianism because GoT is popular among normies and you cant convnice me otherwise

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Game of Thrones is for moorooons

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        "Older literature" wasn't even like that though, is the only "old" literature they read Tolkien?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Tolkien was a Great War vet, Martin is just an edgy boomer urbanite.
        Former was confronted with state-of-the-art atrocities beyond human comprehension, and still wrote an epos centered around chivalry, patriotism and hope.
        Latter afaik was just a basic edgy boomer urbanite, and could only write about squalor where everyone is Gollum, including the coomer reader.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      You are showing the shield to the enemies, so yeah
      >this is going to be you!

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >now your enemies fight to the last man and try to kill as many of your men as possible because they don't want to be captured alive knowing what will happen to them

        Congrats, now the battle/siege is going to be much harder.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >If you don't surrender you get skinned
          Do you even psychological warfare?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the enemy can always surrender

            Nope, not going to live under people who skin their enemies. Now what?

            >>now your enemies fight to the last man and try to kill as many of your men as possible because they don't want to be captured alive knowing what will happen to them
            Lol ok general reddit

            OK general dumb c**t.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Now what?
            You aren't an enemy so you are safe

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nope, not going to live under people who skin their enemies. Now what?
            Now you get skinned for being a moronic moralgay

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >>now your enemies fight to the last man and try to kill as many of your men as possible because they don't want to be captured alive knowing what will happen to them
          Lol ok general reddit

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    test

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    as an execution
    likely not very common.
    seems a lot of attestations of it happening are stories of religious martyrs or the fate of overly ambitious kings that are for obvious reasons, likely just embellished.
    As an actual punishment it seems to be mainly reserved for people who have commited very serious crimes, like leading a revolt or taking sometype of particularly heinous action against a monarch.

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous
  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Except Achaemenid Persia and Assyria almost never. And Martin is an edgy moron

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    > Why yes I will make South America size continent to speak the exact same language and same dialect, how do you know?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      All of europe coukd speak latin at one point. That's what a commin tongue is

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >all of europe
        homie what? Maybe the priests and scholars could, but why would some Balkan mud farmers and German pig herders speak latin?

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ottomans did it quite commonly.

  10. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Probably quite common because worst possible torture method anyone could imagine. Also skinning animals was common skill for the peasantry.

  11. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    israelites do not want you to believe in Good vs. Evil because they are pure evil. It's like the devil trying to convince you there is no devil. It's easier to subvert you when you don't understand the threat, nor do you understand the solution to that threat.

  12. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Ned lost
    >Robb lost
    >Catlyn lost
    >Sansa tasted BBC (Big Bolton wiener)
    >Arya became a shit character
    >Jon fricked his aunt and watched the show go to shit
    >Bran the broken
    >direwolves dead
    >Theon a dickless cuck

    Ramsay and Roose lived as heroes while stark rats fricking lost.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ramsay still get his genitals ripped by dogs tho

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Roose Bolton got killed by his bastard son and his bastard son got killed by his bastard dogs.

  13. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Also loved this moment when Daenerys became turbo crazy in last episodes. It really made sense and it was just funny to watch how D&D played their Hitler analogy

  14. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    *wins*

    Game of thrones had a comfy happy ending, the people who understood the real world but were not unnecessarily mean ended up winning, all the socios managed to frick up somehow alongside the naive goody2shoes they were tormenting

    This often happens in real life too, during the battle of Britain Hitler diverted bombing from RAF targets to London which allowed the RAF to recover and subsequently shoot down scores of enemy bombers performing daylight raids, his sadism and delusions led to this blunder, it was an irrationality just like naivety and wishful thinking. After the war they started crying about Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but these were legitimate military targets, it is like crying because a murderer was killed.

    Good doesn't always win, but evil people and edgy homosexuals like many here tend to be impulsive, emotional and useless when it comes to a real fight and make stupid mistakes. The winners tend to be people who are ordinary psychologically but were pushed into violence and war for practical reasons and set about it in an intelligent reasonable manner, doing work that a psycho would find boring and unsatisfying, accepting reality and making decisions based on that instead of just believing whatever they want to believe and screeching at subordinates for rationally criticizing them.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the people who understood the real world but were not unnecessarily mean ended up winning
      > if the king dies with no heir there would never be a civil war because there are no heirs to fight over!
      That was the dumbest idea ever, as soon as king Hotwheels dies, whole thing descends into an even worse civil war, since he left no children.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *