16 replies to this topic

[Boot]

Let's say the warriors of one Cimmerian clan camp on a ridge overlooking a forthcoming battlefield. Their blood-enemies have been sighted afar. The conflict is immenient.

But, this clan has captured one of the enemy scouts.

What are Cimmerians likely to do captured enemies? Would they torture the captive in order to learn their enemy's battle plans?

Thoughts?

[Ironhand]

Torture another Cimmerian? Maybe not?

[thatericn]

My feeling is that REH would have felt torture was a dishonorable vice of decadent, dishonorable civilizations, or as an ugly habit of the savage, like the Picts.

Among fighting men of that middle ground - the barbarian - a captured Cimmerian would probably be killed immediately out of rage or bloodlust, or held captive until the end of the current bout of feuding ran its course, with an outside change of being held for ransom or extortion.

It would be interesting to see what the more scholarly members think.

[Kortoso]

I'd suggest looking to what an Apache warrior would do in this situation.

[Lunatic]

No scholar but heres my rant.

Depends on how noble they are. Ongoing conflicts will probably make cynics of most men. But if Crom shut his doors to the "unworthy" in afterlife and ideally a cimmerian has the "noble savage" morality in this fantasyworld then no, I think they would just offer the spy to talk or die in combat with Conans´ big cousin. However most cimmerians don´t seem to get to Crom´s mountain instead their unhappy spirits dwell in the cimmerian mist forever.

The apaches faced the threat of genocide while scalphunting parties roamed their hills looking for their children. That would make some people more cynical I imagine.

[Kortoso]

The apaches faced the threat of genocide while scalphunting parties roamed their hills looking for their children. That would make some people more cynical I imagine.

The Apache's savagery extended more deeply into their culture than that. The book "The Code of the Warrior: Exploring Warrior Values Past and Present" explains how this was driven by their beliefs. And I don't think REH had any illusions about this. He talked quite freely about the cruelty of the American Indian.

The Vikings, also, were not afraid to enjoy bloodthirsty tortures.

And again, we are at the point where Conan is either noble or a savage. But keep in mind these lines:
BtBR: "Bloodshed and violence and savagery were the natural elements of the life Conan knew; he could not, and would never, understand the little things that are so dear to civilized men and women."

[constantine]

Even though Howard often presents his barbarians as ''noble savages'', one should remember the treatment Conan dealt upon Aram Baksh: he handed him to the cannibals, a deserved fate for sure, but also a horrid one, unlike, say, a quick and ''clean'' death.

Further, in ''The House of Arabu'', Pyrrhas beats the crap out of Amytis in order to learn who can help him against Lilith. Though an Argive, he is still a barbarian and

Finally, speculating on Boot's question, tribesmen A may demand info from scouting tribesmen B, the latter probably spit their defiance, whereupon tribesmen A kill them without further ado and prepare for battle...

And again, we are at the point where Conan is either noble or a savage. But keep in mind these lines:
BtBR: "Bloodshed and violence and savagery were the natural elements of the life Conan knew; he could not, and would never, understand the little things that are so dear to civilized men and women."

Seems to me that Conan here and there throughout the yarns appreciates a few little things dear to him and, possibly, to civilized folk as well.

[thatericn]

Howard's dour and gloomy Cimmerians do not seem the torturing type, but ALSO they do not seem the surrendering type, either.

The vast majority of Cimmerians, I would think, would "die game," rather than allow themselves to be caught. I would figure this even more true for any Cimmerian warrior with the reputation, skill and bravery to be selected to scout ahead of other fighting men.

This is on the micro scale, if Cimmerians ALWAYS fought to the death, there would be very few Cimmerians - not nearly enough to muster "howling hordes" to overwhelm Venarium... I would think that at a clan or tribal level, groups would give in if they lost significant battles, but then always be planning for eventual revenge and reconquest of lost land. Tribal cultures have LONG memories.

Aram Baksh, the "cannibal caterer," certainly reached a special, low level of criminality. Conan's special treatment, while very grim, does not ring true as standard villainous hard-hearted or sadistic torture, but more of ultra-rough justice.

Consider also, that in BtBR, Conan came to the assistance of captives facing hideous, torturous deaths...

[Ironhand]

In Red Nails, Conan tortures Olmec for information, and seems to get a kick out of it.

I had read, and it may be totally wrong, that among Amerindians, torture had a "chivalrous" aspect to it, offering a captive one last chance to display his bravery.

[RobP]

In similar historical societies weren't prisoners often handed over to the women for questioning?

[Boot]

Conan follows a personal code in the stories that sometimes seems contradictory between tales except when you consider what Conan values. For lack of a better term, let's call this "honor". For example, in The God in the Bowl, Conan finds Petranius honorable, and would die protecting him, until Petranius proves himself to be dishonorable by giving up Conan a an outside thief.

My take with the OP is that, if a Cimmerian finds you honorable, foe or not, you are treated with a sense of fairness. If the Cimmerian finds you dishonorable, then you're screwed, because you mean no more to him than the paper he uses to wipe his arse.

[Fernando]

In The Valley of the Worm, Niord/JA says: "We did not torture. We were no more cruel than life demanded. The rule of life was ruthlessness, but there is more wanton cruelty today than ever we dreamed of. It was not wanton bloodthirstiness that made us butcher wounded and captive foes. It was because we knew our chances of survival increased with each enemy slain".

I guess (correct me, if I'm wrong) Cimmerians also had the behavior above. Of course, Conan did some torture, as pointed out by Ironhand, but this was not always his way of dealing with his foes. I guess he used more to kill his enemies as quick as possible - with some exceptions, like the Count Thespius (THotD), for instance.

[Lunatic]

Even though Howard often presents his barbarians as ''noble savages'', one should remember the treatment Conan dealt upon Aram Baksh: he handed him to the cannibals, a deserved fate for sure, but also a horrid one, unlike, say, a quick and ''clean'' death.

Further, in ''The House of Arabu'', Pyrrhas beats the crap out of Amytis in order to learn who can help him against Lilith. Though an Argive, he is still a barbarian and

Finally, speculating on Boot's question, tribesmen A may demand info from scouting tribesmen B, the latter probably spit their defiance, whereupon tribesmen A kill them without further ado and prepare for battle...

And again, we are at the point where Conan is either noble or a savage. But keep in mind these lines:
BtBR: "Bloodshed and violence and savagery were the natural elements of the life Conan knew; he could not, and would never, understand the little things that are so dear to civilized men and women."

Seems to me that Conan here and there throughout the yarns appreciates a few little things dear to him and, possibly, to civilized folk as well.

Aram had it coming! But wasn´t like that you had to give the cannibals a man to feast on, or you wouldn´t be able to leave town in the night as Conan wanted to?. I thought it was really noble of him to cut Arams tounge and hand him over to the Darfarites.

In CtB2011 Conan does torture a noseless Aquilonian but he was also a torturer.

Edited by Lunatic, 04 August 2012 - 09:06 PM.

[deuce]

In The Valley of the Worm, Niord/JA says: "We did not torture. We were no more cruel than life demanded. The rule of life was ruthlessness, but there is more wanton cruelty today than ever we dreamed of. It was not wanton bloodthirstiness that made us butcher wounded and captive foes. It was because we knew our chances of survival increased with each enemy slain".

I guess (correct me, if I'm wrong) Cimmerians also had the behavior above.

An excellent quote, Fernando.

While one can't always draw direct parallels betwixt the Cimmerians and the Nordheimr, they seem to be on the same general "wavelength". If anything, Howard portrayed the Nordheimr (and their descendents, the Germanic tribes) as MORE "ruthless" than the Cimmerians/Gaels. Yet, the AEsir did NOT engage in torture.

[deuce]

My feeling is that REH would have felt torture was a dishonorable vice of decadent, dishonorable civilizations, or as an ugly habit of the savage, like the Picts.

Among fighting men of that middle ground - the barbarian - a captured Cimmerian would probably be killed immediately out of rage or bloodlust, or held captive until the end of the current bout of feuding ran its course, with an outside chance of being held for ransom or extortion.

I think you've got good instincts.

[deuce]

Depends on how noble they are. Ongoing conflicts will probably make cynics of most men. But if Crom shut his doors to the "unworthy" in afterlife and ideally a cimmerian has the "noble savage" morality in this fantasyworld then no, I think they would just offer the spy to talk or die in combat with Conans´ big cousin. However most cimmerians don´t seem to get to Crom´s mountain instead their unhappy spirits dwell in the cimmerian mist forever.

I think your opinion sounds reasonable.

[deuce]

Even though Howard often presents his barbarians as ''noble savages'', one should remember the treatment Conan dealt upon Aram Baksh: he handed him to the cannibals, a deserved fate for sure, but also a horrid one, unlike, say, a quick and ''clean'' death.

Further, in ''The House of Arabu'', Pyrrhas beats the crap out of Amytis in order to learn who can help him against Lilith. Though an Argive, he is still a barbarian and

Finally, speculating on Boot's question, tribesmen A may demand info from scouting tribesmen B, the latter probably spit their defiance, whereupon tribesmen A kill them without further ado and prepare for battle...

Aram and Olmec BOTH violated the sacred laws of hospitality, known throughout the world to various tribal/primitive peoples. They received "easy" treatment from Conan, if anything.

Pyrrhas the Argive was tormented by a demonic being. Amytis (as coached) gave up the name of such.

I agree with your assessment of Cimmerian options.