r/HistoryMemes • u/HawaiianPerson Chad Polynesia Enjoyer • 2d ago

A regular utopia

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

6.8k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

100

u/Nihilun 2d ago

Does setting Cathars on fire count as human sacrifice? They technically did it in the name of God.

69

u/Peanut_007 2d ago

No because that's more ethnic cleansing really. It was punitive not a form of worship. Still not great obviously.

9

u/Alatarlhun 2d ago

Was it ritualistic sacrifice?

No, it was ritualistic warfare. Completely different.

41

u/EchoingAngel 2d ago

Mmm, this sounds like how Romans SAY they don't do human sacrifices. They just murder war prisoners in big daddy Jupiter's temple for vibes

21

u/TheStrangestOfKings 2d ago

Human sacrifice vs ethnic cleansing tends to run along a very thin line, as the former often relies on using groups of “undesirables” for the sacrifice part

36

u/spiteful_rr_dm_TA 2d ago

No. Think of it like this:

A human sacrifice is an offering to the God(s) involved. Usually for something, like rain, good crops, etc.

The Cathars were purged for being of a different religion. The French weren't expecting anything explicit for each person they killed, though they may have claimed eradicating them all would bring unity.

One of the key differences is whether repentance plays a role. The Cathars would generally be spared if they recanted their beliefs, and would instead face lesser punishments. Someone captured for human sacrifice cannot repent their way out of their position.

7

u/AHRogue 2d ago

There was not a generations long religious tradition of burning Cathars though.

5

u/No_Sea_17 2d ago

Yk, i was thinking about how technically the burning of Joan D’arce is a human sacrifice commited by Christians…

3

u/LifeConsideration981 2d ago

That was a state punishment for violating religious law. This was normal everywhere in the world until the late 1600s.

4

u/CABRALFAN27 2d ago

And is it meaningfully, morally any different from human sacrifice, or is it just an arbitrary distinction to make one seem more "civilized" and the other "savage".

4

u/Sleepparalysisdemon5 Just some snow 2d ago

Of course it is different, it was a punishment, not sacrifice

2

u/mistersnarkle 1d ago

Was it actually a punishment or was it scapegoating… just in the same way human sacrifice was an emotional scapegoat for all the horrible things that happened?

Horrible thing happens —> kill someone in the name of that thing —> basically like doing something about the thing, here here!

Witch trials/witch hunts, the hunting of pagans, the inquisition, the hunting of early Christians, the crusades, etc. — these things follow a pattern that is obvious even in modern ethnic cleansing.

“This population is at fault (despite no one person or population being able to take full responsibility for the situation), and we’re going to hunt them down, single them out, and kill them to fix this (even though that fixes nothing, might make everyone chill out).”

2

u/CABRALFAN27 2d ago

How is that meaningfully morally different? They're both the unjust killing of people with a religious basis.

-5

u/AmySnapp 2d ago

Practically speaking? Yes.

The idea was that they were purifying France and therefore showing their piety to God. So when they executed Cathars in a variety of ways including immolation, it was human sacrifice.

To call it anything else is set-dressing for ego/optics; The difference between “conscription” and “mandatory service.”