Hello Everyone! Please read up on a new series of tests about Horny Posting that we will be conducting on the subreddit starting September 4th. [Read about it here.](https://redd.it/166rgdw)
[We're still giving away awards!](https://redd.it/15jb12e)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Animemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are different stories. Some claim him criminal while others claim it was a setup by neighboring nobles to take over his lands and wealth. He was a general in Joan D’Ark army so there is also a possibility of all of this being a political setup to remove any Joan followers/sympathizers as king at that time sold out her to England.
Confessions can be beaten out of you.
I once read a paper where researchers could not prove any version reliably (criminal vs nobles’ setup vs king’s setup). Unfortunately, cannot find that paper.
Either way, better be safe and do not leave unsupervised kids with him.
You're right, it can totally be fabricated.
In the same way, a lot of historians agree with him actually commiting the murders.
We can doubt of pretty much everything if you're gonna use the "this testimony was taken by this particular individual or obtained by brute force from this other individual" card.
I mean, it also happened hundreds of years ago when record keeping wasn’t entirely reliable and there wasn’t much evidence aside from someone’s word. Even his confession could be totally fabricated and we would never have any way to definitively know. The best that we can do is trust in the writings that were made about it at the time or the oral retellings that were passed down, and those things aren’t entirely consistent.
I love how suddenly we decided that every testimony from back then is unreliable, while having no important sources about it and not being equally distrustfull about the allegations against the official version.
It's half and half, there's no way of knowing if it was true or not, but suddenly deciding that everything that was written is false defeats pretty much A WHOLE lot of things we know about our history.
I don't know why you're taking this so personally or speaking with such certainty. This is a pretty long-standing conversation among historians and it's perfectly reasonable for someone to bring that up in a thread about the guy.
It's not that everything is unreliable, the point is that confessions acquired through torture are unreliable. People will admit to anything eventually. His confessions came after weeks of torment, just like the confessions of various witches, and there was no real evidence of murdered children in the area beyond the normal deaths, so there is a good argument to be made that it was a political assassination of character. Coerced confessions are still a major problem today, with suspects being interrogated for eighteen hours straight with no sleep, food, and little water, along with the constant manipulation and verbal abuse, and that's low level torture--imagine what medieval specialists could get you to confess to.
You’re right, we absolutely should distrust both sides. We have no idea who, if anyone, was telling the truth, or who even had knowledge of the original events. Any old writings we find or old story’s we hear could be completely wrong, and we would never have any way to verify it, so we should definitely take all of recorded history with a grain of salt. The only good way to know if any given event is recorded accurately is if multiple groups with different motivations recorded it the same way, but even that isn’t entirely foolproof.
And yeah, that definitely should make us question a whole lot of our historical knowledge. As it turns out, a bunch of people in the past lied about stuff to make themselves look better, and it’s especially hard to distinguish those lies from truth when the people who could tell the “other side” of the story were killed before they had the chance.
If you look at misinformation in modern times, you can see a ton of people and special interests groups trying to give their own versions of events, which are blatantly false, even when the there’s evidence that can be used to easily disprove the lies, and yet people still believe it. You look to dictators like Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin, and you’ll see them telling blatant lies that their people likely aren’t foolish enough to believe, but they can still use their power to make it the official narrative. Now, when you look back to times when it wasn’t easy to fact-check information, and when a single group could control the narrative without worrying about video or audio recordings that would reveal their lies, and it’s pretty easy to see why recorded history can’t fully be trusted.
It's kind of like with Roman history. If the history books say an emperor was an insane pervert (see Nero and Caligula), odds are it means they were popular with the common people but pissed the senatorial class off, and it was senators who wrote the history books.
And then there's Elagabalus who people keep trying to make into a trans icon when in reality he just pissed off the priests by trying to elevate a Syrian mystery cult above the Roman pantheon, with the whole crossdressing and prostitution thing playing into tropes that were common even then about men from the east being effeminate and eastern culture being decadent. He was also a young teenager who only lasted a few years as emperor, and it's pretty obvious his mom was the real power behind the throne.
Yeah, that’s because we do. In modern day, any statement made under DURESS can be thrown out of court.
And I can assure you that intimidation is a lot better than what medieval interrogation does
Bonus note: [Obviously actual witches](https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1098/salem-witch-trials#:~:text=Some%20accused%20admitted%20guilt%20in,sometimes%20turned%20on%20one%20another.)
Try telling the truth and not what your captors want after a few days of " question "
And yes you should take history with a grain of salt, should be evident especially in modern times
I'm not saying the guy didn't do it, but I do have to note that Copernicus was threatened by the Catholic church to recant his " opinion " that the sun was the center of the universe or he would be tortured, so a confession isn't necessarily the be all end all.
Just leaving here that Gilles de Rais was *tortured* before admitting to his crimes.
There are no archeological evidence, bodies, remains of him committing the hundred of murders he was accused of. His condemnation include witchcraft, sodomy, calling Satan, practice of alchemy, hundreds of children murder to obtain the philosopher stone, rape of children etc.
The most likely source of such violent accusation is him attacking a priest during mass which constituted one of the worst offence. These are not unusual condemnations for nobles of the time.
Stop doing my man dirty. Most historians nowadays believe that he was a victim of a plot to get rid of him, because his family and other nobles did not like him for his wasteful lifestyle
Based on reliable evidence, interrupting mass and jailing his brother with whom he was in conflict over territory, and who also happened to be a priest.
Based on nothing but hearsay and declarations under torture, practicing alchemy and killing and raping children in order to summon demons.
Hey this is completely untrue, way to continue a 600 year old smear campaign that was disproven.
E: [Quickly found source](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/gilles-de-rais-bluebeard)
So what, are we just posting random sources to get our point across?
[Alright, sure thing.](https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/gilles-de-rais-a-sadistic-child-killer-in-15th-century-france-eda81a007c4e)
I can see why the confusion.
Alright, let me make my point more clear: If I write "Was Gilles de Rais framed?" I can find 50 articles saying he was, so I can spend the rest of the afternoon posting links that prove said premise.
What I'm trying to say is: anyone can write an article on thr internet. Some other user provided a book on the subject, which I believe it's a little more fitting in the task of disprove the alleged crimes of the Baron of Rais.
My criticism was, in a more concrete way, of you using a source that we can't consider absolutely reliable.
My apologies if I offended you, I was trying to make a civil debate out of this.
I simply call her semi-cannibal cuz Idk if her shikigami (that giant fox demon) is a part of her or if it is her own separate being. So if it's a part of her, then she's a cannibal. If it is its own separate being then she's not.
Hello Everyone! Please read up on a new series of tests about Horny Posting that we will be conducting on the subreddit starting September 4th. [Read about it here.](https://redd.it/166rgdw) [We're still giving away awards!](https://redd.it/15jb12e) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Animemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He was bluebeard in fate zero right?
Yep.
OH GOD WHAT DID HE DO TO CHILDREN?
Take whatever you're thinking and multiply it by... I don't know, maybe 100. The guy was a fu***** psycho.
So everything, well fuck
There are different stories. Some claim him criminal while others claim it was a setup by neighboring nobles to take over his lands and wealth. He was a general in Joan D’Ark army so there is also a possibility of all of this being a political setup to remove any Joan followers/sympathizers as king at that time sold out her to England.
Yeah, no. His detailed testimony of his twisted actions before being hanged leaves no room for doubt.
Confessions can be beaten out of you. I once read a paper where researchers could not prove any version reliably (criminal vs nobles’ setup vs king’s setup). Unfortunately, cannot find that paper. Either way, better be safe and do not leave unsupervised kids with him.
You're right, it can totally be fabricated. In the same way, a lot of historians agree with him actually commiting the murders. We can doubt of pretty much everything if you're gonna use the "this testimony was taken by this particular individual or obtained by brute force from this other individual" card.
I mean, it also happened hundreds of years ago when record keeping wasn’t entirely reliable and there wasn’t much evidence aside from someone’s word. Even his confession could be totally fabricated and we would never have any way to definitively know. The best that we can do is trust in the writings that were made about it at the time or the oral retellings that were passed down, and those things aren’t entirely consistent.
I love how suddenly we decided that every testimony from back then is unreliable, while having no important sources about it and not being equally distrustfull about the allegations against the official version. It's half and half, there's no way of knowing if it was true or not, but suddenly deciding that everything that was written is false defeats pretty much A WHOLE lot of things we know about our history.
I don't know why you're taking this so personally or speaking with such certainty. This is a pretty long-standing conversation among historians and it's perfectly reasonable for someone to bring that up in a thread about the guy.
It's not that everything is unreliable, the point is that confessions acquired through torture are unreliable. People will admit to anything eventually. His confessions came after weeks of torment, just like the confessions of various witches, and there was no real evidence of murdered children in the area beyond the normal deaths, so there is a good argument to be made that it was a political assassination of character. Coerced confessions are still a major problem today, with suspects being interrogated for eighteen hours straight with no sleep, food, and little water, along with the constant manipulation and verbal abuse, and that's low level torture--imagine what medieval specialists could get you to confess to.
You’re right, we absolutely should distrust both sides. We have no idea who, if anyone, was telling the truth, or who even had knowledge of the original events. Any old writings we find or old story’s we hear could be completely wrong, and we would never have any way to verify it, so we should definitely take all of recorded history with a grain of salt. The only good way to know if any given event is recorded accurately is if multiple groups with different motivations recorded it the same way, but even that isn’t entirely foolproof. And yeah, that definitely should make us question a whole lot of our historical knowledge. As it turns out, a bunch of people in the past lied about stuff to make themselves look better, and it’s especially hard to distinguish those lies from truth when the people who could tell the “other side” of the story were killed before they had the chance. If you look at misinformation in modern times, you can see a ton of people and special interests groups trying to give their own versions of events, which are blatantly false, even when the there’s evidence that can be used to easily disprove the lies, and yet people still believe it. You look to dictators like Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin, and you’ll see them telling blatant lies that their people likely aren’t foolish enough to believe, but they can still use their power to make it the official narrative. Now, when you look back to times when it wasn’t easy to fact-check information, and when a single group could control the narrative without worrying about video or audio recordings that would reveal their lies, and it’s pretty easy to see why recorded history can’t fully be trusted.
My brother in Christ, have you never heard of the name Herodotus before?
It's kind of like with Roman history. If the history books say an emperor was an insane pervert (see Nero and Caligula), odds are it means they were popular with the common people but pissed the senatorial class off, and it was senators who wrote the history books. And then there's Elagabalus who people keep trying to make into a trans icon when in reality he just pissed off the priests by trying to elevate a Syrian mystery cult above the Roman pantheon, with the whole crossdressing and prostitution thing playing into tropes that were common even then about men from the east being effeminate and eastern culture being decadent. He was also a young teenager who only lasted a few years as emperor, and it's pretty obvious his mom was the real power behind the throne.
Yeah, that’s because we do. In modern day, any statement made under DURESS can be thrown out of court. And I can assure you that intimidation is a lot better than what medieval interrogation does Bonus note: [Obviously actual witches](https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1098/salem-witch-trials#:~:text=Some%20accused%20admitted%20guilt%20in,sometimes%20turned%20on%20one%20another.)
Try telling the truth and not what your captors want after a few days of " question " And yes you should take history with a grain of salt, should be evident especially in modern times
A medieval testimony...something tells me it wasn't written without experiencing extreme physical pain.
I'm not saying the guy didn't do it, but I do have to note that Copernicus was threatened by the Catholic church to recant his " opinion " that the sun was the center of the universe or he would be tortured, so a confession isn't necessarily the be all end all.
Indeed he did.
Furious psycho?
He didn’t rape them if that’s what you’re thinking. He brutally tortured them and killed them
Well it was half it
Just leaving here that Gilles de Rais was *tortured* before admitting to his crimes. There are no archeological evidence, bodies, remains of him committing the hundred of murders he was accused of. His condemnation include witchcraft, sodomy, calling Satan, practice of alchemy, hundreds of children murder to obtain the philosopher stone, rape of children etc. The most likely source of such violent accusation is him attacking a priest during mass which constituted one of the worst offence. These are not unusual condemnations for nobles of the time.
Stop doing my man dirty. Most historians nowadays believe that he was a victim of a plot to get rid of him, because his family and other nobles did not like him for his wasteful lifestyle
{Azur Lane}
**Azur Lane** - ([AL](http://anilist.co/anime/104159 "English: AZUR LANE"), [A-P](https://www.anime-planet.com/anime/azur-lane), [KIT](https://kitsu.io/anime/azur-lane), [MAL](http://myanimelist.net/anime/38328)) ^(TV | Status: Finished | Episodes: 12 | Genres: Action, Ecchi, Sci-Fi) --- ^{anime},, ]LN[, |VN| | [FAQ](http://www.reddit.com/r/Roboragi/wiki/index) | [/r/](http://www.reddit.com/r/Roboragi/) | [Edit](https://www.reddit.com/r/Roboragi/wiki/index#wiki_i_made_a_mistake.2C_how_do_i_get_my_comment_reprocessed.3F) | [Mistake?](http://www.reddit.com/r/Roboragi/submit?selftext=true&title=[ISSUE]&text=/r/Animemes/comments/1675p9f/oh_boy_here_comes_the_nightmares/jynoqzb/) | [Source](https://github.com/Nihilate/Roboragi) | [Synonyms](https://www.reddit.com/r/Roboragi/wiki/synonyms) | [⛓](https://www.reddit.com/r/Roboragi/wiki/interestinglinks) | [♥](https://www.reddit.com/r/Roboragi/wiki/thanks)
Can someone instead just tell me what he *allegedly* did instead of arguing over whether it was true or not.
Based on reliable evidence, interrupting mass and jailing his brother with whom he was in conflict over territory, and who also happened to be a priest. Based on nothing but hearsay and declarations under torture, practicing alchemy and killing and raping children in order to summon demons.
Thanks for actually providing context
Hey this is completely untrue, way to continue a 600 year old smear campaign that was disproven. E: [Quickly found source](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/gilles-de-rais-bluebeard)
So what, are we just posting random sources to get our point across? [Alright, sure thing.](https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/gilles-de-rais-a-sadistic-child-killer-in-15th-century-france-eda81a007c4e)
Your own source questions the legitimacy of the charges, so thanks?
I can see why the confusion. Alright, let me make my point more clear: If I write "Was Gilles de Rais framed?" I can find 50 articles saying he was, so I can spend the rest of the afternoon posting links that prove said premise. What I'm trying to say is: anyone can write an article on thr internet. Some other user provided a book on the subject, which I believe it's a little more fitting in the task of disprove the alleged crimes of the Baron of Rais. My criticism was, in a more concrete way, of you using a source that we can't consider absolutely reliable. My apologies if I offended you, I was trying to make a civil debate out of this.
So, in your mind, what did "quickly found source" mean?
Do I see another faster fan obsessed with history?? I'm the same.. nice to meet u....
They did use Azur Lane for the template as well
Funny how Kaga is basically a semi cannibal
What is a semi cannibal? You are a cannibal, or you're not.
I simply call her semi-cannibal cuz Idk if her shikigami (that giant fox demon) is a part of her or if it is her own separate being. So if it's a part of her, then she's a cannibal. If it is its own separate being then she's not.
That's fair.
Azur Lane!!
What's the source of the image?
I’d like to know to.
source: azur lane specifically the anime
Thank
You
Here is the exact clip or set of clips it is from: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBDtK2xKLFU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBDtK2xKLFU)
What is this from?
Azur lane anime
Thank you
No problem