Talk:Schandmantel
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Improve[edit]
Poorly written, uncited, etc. information which directly contradicts information on this topic found in the Iron maiden (torture device) article:
"The iron maiden was actually built in the 19th century as a misinterpretation of a medieval "Schandmantel" (infamy cloak), which was made of wood and tin but without spikes. The infamy cloak did not harm the body, and it was used as a chastisement for poachers and prostitutes, who were made to wear it in public for a certain time."
I assume that the better-structured and cited Iron maiden (torture device) article has the correct information, in which case this needs a complete do-over.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.94.130 (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Etymology[edit]
I'm not sure (because I have not researched it), but I believe I know where the word comes from. It seems to me it is derived from Dutch. 'Schand' namely means 'shame' and 'mantel' means 'cloak'. I don't know the word 'schandmantel' in Dutch, but we do have the word 'schandpaal' which litterly means 'shame pole'. It is what in English is called a Pillory. Also 'Schandtonne' could be derived from Dutch. A 'ton' is a 'barrel' and in older Dutch it probably was 'tonne' or this might be derived from German where 'tonne' still means barrel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.66.2 (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Schnadtonne means barrel of shame in german. as german and dutch are closely related its now wonder the words are similar. it is not there for torture but more for punishment by humiliation.--Tresckow 14:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Improve[edit]
As the article today, at 1-March-2012, the article on the iron maiden is a tattered mess that pretty much requires time travel to make sense (invented in the 19th century, first used in the 20th century, yet extant in previous centuries), I'd not rely upon that article for much, other than to cause confusion to the reader. As for the linguistics, I'm not fluent in the languages concerned, only barely functional in one and for the ancient forms, totally ignorant of them. But, considering both articles, THIS one sounds more probable and fact based, though it is UTTERLY lacking in citations. If anyone is familiar with this device, can they kindly provide citations for it?Wzrd1 (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)