Talk:Brazen bull

Originality

So who copied who? http://www.perillos.com/brazenbull.html --Sully76 (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions

The German article of Phalaris mentions, that he died after Pythagoras spoke and the people started to throw stones at him... Which one is correct?

Are we talking about one object or several? The article switches back and forth between "a" and "the" bull. I'm not sure if the bull was reproduced or not. Rainman420 06:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was. I remember watching a program on the History Channel about the Romans and it mentioned they were reproduced (there weren't many made).

At the risk of sounding morbid, are there any schematics/blueprints for these things around? I mean, the body is simple enough, but there's supposed to be some pretty complex tubing in there. And, are there any around in museums nowadays? Zuiram 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick google turned up this Bastie 01:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That link is no good.2604:2000:F22D:5100:6C5A:1827:5A34:F411 (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Why does it say "likely fictional"? this is not supported anywhere in the article.216.51.188.246 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

the sources for this seem dubious

But the results seem spectacular! Brazen Bull is my favorite torture method of all time. I think it is the most creative - and deliciously slow - way to cook a human alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.112.204 (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is his bull brazen (of bronze) or brass? The article uses both terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.180.58 (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This must have been the inspiration for Terry Pratchett's brass turtle in Small Gods? The turtle device was used by the inquisition in the book to kill people who thought the world was disc shaped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.249.174 (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Pressure and sound

I also just saw this on TV, and I'd heard before the idea of the tubes 'converting' screams to bull noises. But the the show speculated that this might have been the first example of a brass wind instrument. Which brings out a much more likely explanation... wouldnt a sealed vessel like that create a lot of pressure? It seems to make more sense that expanding gases being forced through a tube is a more likely source of bull noises... Just like a whistling teakettle. And it would work even if there wasn't a person in it, a side of beef or a couple of gallons of water would suffice. It even seems to me that this device might have been used as an entertaining pressure cooker for food most of the time - and an instrument of execution only rarely. The execution element might merely be hyperbole. Of course, Wikipedia isn't the place for original research or idle speculation, but I can't think of anywhere else to share this idea. stephan.com (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Execution methods vs. Category:Execution equipment

Category:Execution equipment is itself a category within Category:Execution methods. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation NOT needed

I propose that "citation needed" is for stuff where an actual citation is, um, needed. It is not for when the citation is right there in the text. For instance: I did watch Immortals, much as I was dragged there and didn't enjoy it, and I can attest that the brazen bull was an integral part of what I'm going to loosely define as its "plot". Excuse the rant, but this "citation needed" abuse is annoying me. --Zimriel (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. A reliable, published source is to be available for everything without resorting to original research. Asking for a citation is meerly asking for proof of that source.WTucker (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Linking to the movie's wiki page, as is being done now, works fine for me. --Zimriel (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

While this may work for you, it is not a proper citation and the movie's wiki page is not a reliable source.WTucker (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

So instead of finding the citations, which would take 5 seconds, you took 10 seconds to complain about how inadequate they are. Wikipedia never changes, does it? 74.212.52.140 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

half-joking reference to Perillos name

Where did the "Perillos" name come from? I thought, half-jokingly, of the English word "peril". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Section "uses of device"

The current version of the section "uses of device" reads

"The Romans were recorded as having used this torture device to kill some Jews, as well as some Christians, notably Saint Eustace, who, according to Christian tradition, was roasted in a brazen bull with his wife and children by the Emperor Hadrian. The same happened to Saint Antipas, Bishop of Pergamum during the persecutions of Emperor Domitian and the first martyr in Asia Minor, who was roasted to death in a brazen bull in AD 92.[4] The device was still in use two centuries later, when another Christian, Pelagia of Tarsus, is said to have been burned in one in 287 by the Emperor Diocletian."

As with many articles in wikipedia on saints,etc., this repeats medieval fabrications as true. While admitting within the same sentence that this is "according to tradition" or "legend" or such a thing is "said" to have happened (in other words, there is absolutely no reliable historical evidence for such tales), it then asserts that people were killed, roasted to death, burned, etc. This is no good in my opinion, therefore I am going to change it.

The statement "The Romans were recorded as having used this torture device to kill some Jews" - the statement about Jews is unsourced, I am removing it. The rest I have re-written as "Reputed uses of device in later Christian legend

According to Christian legend, unsupported by any historical evidence, the Romans used this device to kill some Christians, notably Saint Eustace, who was supposed to have been roasted in a brazen bull with his wife and children by the Emperor Hadrian. The same story, unsupported by any evidence, is related of Saint Antipas, Bishop of Pergamum during the persecutions of Emperor Domitian and the first martyr in Asia Minor, who was said to have been roasted to death in a brazen bull in AD 92.[1] Another Christian, Pelagia of Tarsus, is said to have been burned in one in 287 by the Emperor Diocletian."Smeat75 (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to cathegorically reject all of Christian tradition pertaining to the period as "medieval fabrications", you'd better bring some proper evidence, sources or references to back that up. I'll be the first to admit that this particular source (a random website that doesn't provide any references itself) is not exactly the best of sources - but as it stands, you've still mangled a properly cited passage to the point that it no longer represents the cited article. All without providing any sources, articles or references to back up your changes. Additionally, the cult of saints and Christian literature pertaining to (among other things) saints' lives are well attested by late Roman times. Case in point; Chris Wickham's The Inheritance of Rome flat-out states that "the huge quantity of Christian writing after 350 substantially outweighs in quantity the work of late Roman secular élites" (p. 53) and that "relics of saints began to be associated with major churches as early as the fourth century" (p. 55) - and that's just what I managed to dig up in half an hour of searching. In that light, I really see no reason to consider accounts like those of the martyrdom of Pelagia of Tarsus (287) as "a medieval fabrication". Nor is Wickham's position on this matter in any way unusual; it's representative of modern scholarly consensus upon the subject.

In other words: your changes conflict with the only given source, you failed to provide any sources or references of your own, and you wrote from a point of view (the wholesale denunciation of Christian tradition on the matter as "medieval fabrications") that shows either utter disregard or utter ignorance towards the findings of modern scholarship. Hence, reverting your edits is in order. 86.87.123.90 (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Historical precedents

I reverted this recently added material because the source used did not support the paragraph's text (apparently synthesis). The proposed source's text is available here. —PaleoNeonate – 12:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)