Talk:Breaking wheel

Broken reference
The reference to "Probertenencyclopaedia - illustrated" doesn't work now.

AWhiteC 21:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

But now it does. (It's not really up to standard, but has one relevant image.)--Niels Ø 08:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Torture?
From the introduction (added in the series of edits ):
 * It was not used for coercion through torture.

From the following paragraph (added from EB1911 ), ==Description==:
 * Breaking on the wheel was a form of torture and execution formerly in use

I find it hard to believe it was never used for torture, and it would be impossible to prove it wasn't, but know nothing of the subject matter; it just looks like a self-contradiction to me.--Niels Ø 08:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The contradiction is only an apparant one, depending on two uses of the term torture: in 'torture and execution' it simply means a torturous or very painfull way to apply capital punishment, on itself torture 'proper' is any cruel technique to coerce, i.e. force the victim to confession, conversion, obedience... but since breaking is lethal, there is no way to comply, so coercion would be utterly pointless, while a non-terminal dose of the same torturous technique of breaking, say, one or two limbs, (possibly on an identical wheel) makes rather effective torture (virtually reintroduced in Israel against the Intifada, be it without wheel and using stones rather then mallets). Still a bit of rephrasing maybe be advisable Fastifex 13:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The wheel clearly was used for torture at times, for example by the Castilian Inquisition. I have removed the assertion that it was not used for coercive torture. CanadrianUK (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * torture, like aggravated assault, is not defined by its possible use as an interrogation method. Rather its gravamen is "cruel and extreme pain and suffering for the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion or any other sadistic purpose" (See CA Penal Code Section 206).  Mostly it is in the context of the latter that we see this phenomenon.  Take Abu Ghraib where the abuse was entirely gratuitous, performed mostly for the warped sadistical entertainment value it gave to the perpetrators, ditto for psychopaths like Leonard Lake and Charles Ng, John Wayne Gacy etc.

Use in the Holy German Empire
the article states : "In the Holy Roman Empire, it is named (alongside impalement) as a mode of execution in in the "Cautio criminalis" of the Habsburg Emperor Charles V, against traitors, highway robbers and notorious debauchees.". I questioned this, and somebody said it was from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The passage indeed seems to be derived from there, but even in context, said passage is about impossible to understand and verify. I mean : a) I can't find any references to a Hapsburg "cautio criminalis", b) This is the first time I hear of impalement being mentioned in a Western European criminal code and c)the three crimes cited would not normally be punishable the same way, especially debauchery, which ordinarily entailed relatively light penalties, or went all the way to even worse than the wheel if it entailed such dreadful abominations as homosexuality or bestiality. So overall this passage does not make sense, and unless it can be improved in a hurry, I'm motioning to get suppressed altogether. --Svartalf 20:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added a short referenced section on the use of the wheel under law in the HRE. CanadrianUK (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Diet of 1532 promulgated the so-called "Peinliche Halsgerichtsordnung" (Constitutio Criminalis Carolina, CCC - short "Carolina"), which mainly revised earlier constitutions for the execution of criminal law (Bamberg and Brandenburg). This was necessary and willfully agreed upon by the estates of the German Diet, because these matters became more and more extravagant with the inner-german migration and the multitude of concurrent courts of law. A murdering student from Saxony, who killed a hassian serf at night in a monastery of which he was granted the freedom of the place, could face various charges or none at all. Since executions - leaving the example given before - where mostly a somewhat cultured part of long medieval tradition, the application and execution of the sentenced method of choice would vary accordingly. It wasn't always clear who was allowed to be the executioner or how an overly worded sentence had to be taken into a real form of executive event. People should not confuse the "Carolina" with a form of statute-law, it was a manual for procedure to get rid of customary odds and ill. A legal text to display a common understanding of proverbial methods of lethal punishment! 77.8.116.242 (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Use in the Swedish Kingdom
During the Scanian War, this method was widley used to kill captured danish guerilla fighters and other captives that opposed Sweden during the great wars of Europe to make examples and as a form of psycological warfare aginst the enemy.

Cleanup
The paragraph beginning with "The methods of execution by crucifixion..." needs a cleanup. I'm not sure what it's trying to say. The entire "Description" section should be in chronological order as best as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.112.23.58 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

This - "Philip, Duke of Orléans, who was regent of France from 1715 to 1723, gave the term the sense of impious and callous debauchee, which it has borne since his time, by habitually applying it to the very bad male company who amused his privacy and his leisure." - is hardly encyclopaedic. I suspect cut and paste. --Hugh7 (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Content removed
I removed the following, which seemed like a haphazard collections of factoids without sources, sometimes of a dubious relevance: David.Monniaux 13:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Holy Roman Empire, it is named (alongside impalement) as a mode of execution in the "Constitutio Criminalis Carolina" of the Habsburg Emperor Charles V, against traitors, highway robbers and notorious debauchees.

The methods of execution by crucifixion (as under the Roman law), or breaking on the wheel (as under the Roman Dutch law and the Holy Roman Empire), were never recognized by the common law, and would fall within the term cruel and unusual punishments in the English Bill of Rights, and in the United States would seem to be unconstitutional (In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 446 (1889).) Even in the early 20th century, the Roman-Dutch modes of executing the sentence by decapitation or breaking on the wheel had not been formally abolished, but in practice the sentence in the Cape Colony was executed by hanging, and in Transvaal hanging was the sole mode of executing capital punishment (Criminal Procedure Code, 1903, S. 244). The Roman-Dutch law as to crime and punishments has been superseded in Ceylon and British Guiana by ordinance.

Another notable executee of the breaking wheel, Jean Calas, was executed for allegedly killing his son. This inspired some of Voltaire's work, which led to Calas' rehabilitation, and to a movement for the abolition of such tortures in judicial practice.

Peter the Great had more than 1,000 Streltsy executed, either by hanging, beheading, or being broken on the wheel, after he returned from the Great Embassy to find that over 2,000 of them had again revolted. After this he disbanded the remaining 16,000, confiscated their houses and their weapons, and exiled them, together with their families, to Siberia and other remote places in Russia.

In Roman Catholicism, the breaking wheel is the corresponding punishment in Hell for one of the Seven Deadly Sins, Pride.

Process
I've read the article twice through, and it lacks enough relevant imagery to help one picture what the wheel is or how it works. People were tied to a wheel? Why a wheel? You could beat someone up tied to a post or chained to a wall. What do "gaps" in the wheel have to do with it? Was the wheel vertical or horizontal? What about the "beams" and the "Saint Andrews Cross?" Is a cross a kind of wheel? I'm not deliberately trying to be snarky; the fact is, my understanding of this subject has not increased as a result of this article. I came to the article not knowing what "breaking on the wheel" means, and I left it still not knowing. 161.11.130.249 (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above comment. I did not understand how the wheel works. " In some cases the condemned were lashed to the wheel and beaten with a club or iron cudgel, with the gaps in the wheel allowing the cudgel to break through. Alternatively, the condemned were spreadeagled and broken on a St Andrew's cross consisting of two wooden beams nailed in an "X" shape,[1][2] after which the victim's mangled body might be displayed on the wheel" This is the second sentence. I don't get it. What was the USUAL practice, then? Why rotate the wheel? Why choose a wheel? Please make sure that these questions do not arise in a reader's mind when you revise the article. Thank You.--TheTechPriest (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Basics to be reworked: breaking was a TWO-fold process 1. A person was "spread-eagled", and a big wheel was smashed down, in a number of strokes, breaking his bones. 2. The mangled body, either dead or alive, was then WEAVED between the spokes of another wheel (made possible because his bones were..broken). That wheel, with the in-weaved body 8dead or alive) was then hoisted up in some position. Obviously, under 1., you didn't really need a WHEEL to do the smashing, a cudgel would do the job equally well. Arildnordby (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This subsection needs substantial reworking!
"The breaking wheel was used as a form of execution in Germany as recently as the early 19th century. Its use as a method of execution was not fully abolished in Bavaria until 1813, and still in use until 1836 in Hesse-Kassel. In Prussia, the punishment of death was inflicted by decapitation, with a large sword, by burning, and by breaking on the wheel. There, where atrocious criminals were required, by the penal code, to be broken upon the wheel, the king always issued an order to the executioner to strangle the criminal (which was done by a small cord not easily seen) before his limbs were broken. The last execution of this stronger form of capital punishment was on 13 August 1841.[10]"

this does not distinguish well enough between PRE-mortem breaking on the wheel ("von unten auf") and POST-mortem breaking of the condemned. In Kurhessen, for example, the criminal was, in the 19th century, BEHEADED before his body was broken.

With either prior beheading in Kurhessen, prior strangulation in Prussia or "Gnadenstoss" (first blow on chest to kill prior to breaking of rest of body) in other states, "breaking on the wheel" was not, really a form of EXECUTION, but an indignity performed on the corpse.

As it stands, it is really muddled. Arildnordby (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Current Use
This needs revision, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.33.164 (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

What is this?
The wheel was typically a large wooden wagon wheel with many radial spokes, but a wheel was not always used. In some cases the condemned were lashed to the wheel and their limbs were beaten with a club or iron cudgel, with the gaps in the wheel allowing the limbs to give way.[clarification needed] Alternatively, the condemned were spreadeagled and broken on a saltire, a cross consisting of two wooden beams nailed in an "X" shape,[1][2] after which the victim's mangled body might be displayed on the wheel.

This does not say what happened. They are fastened to a wheel. Is the wheel moved? I read the whole way through this article, and I still have no idea what wheel breaking is. There is no reason to be so coy about it. Primium mobile (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I found this on another site:

The victim's limbs were tied to the spokes and the wheel itself was slowly revolved. Through the openings between the spokes, the torturer usually hit the victim with an iron hammer that could easily break the victim's bones. Once his bones were broken, he was left on the wheel to die, sometimes placed on a tall pole so the birds could feed from the still-living human.

Why does this article not mention anything about the wheel being revolved, or what happened at all to cause injury? Primium mobile (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * .I'm not sure how you read, but I put into the article the following fairly precise description from an original 16th century source, Züricher Blutgerichtsordnung:

" Firstly, the delinquent is placed belly down, bound hands and feet outstretched to a board, and thus dragged by a horse to the place of execution. The wheel is then slammed two times on each arm, one blow above the elbow, the other below. Then, each leg gets the same treatment, above and below the knees. The final ninth blow is given at the middle of the spine, so that it breaks. Then, the broken body is woven onto the wheel (i.e. between the spokes), and the wheel is then hammered onto a pole, which is then fastened upright in its other end in the ground. The criminal is then to be left dying "afloat" on the wheel, and be left to rot"

Isn't this graphic enough for you??

This is the detailed of one "breaking whell" execution type that actually have been described; there was no single, set ritual here, but, rather, a collection of somewhat similar procedures. I am at a loss of seeing the force of your argument.Arildnordby (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There's not any need to be snarky. I'm not looking for anything graphic. I'm an engineer, and when I see "wheel" I think of a simple machine that rotates on an axle. The article doesn't say anything that I can see about the wheel rotating. Other people do say the wheel was rotated. I just think the description needs to have something about that in there because a lot of people don't interpret the word "wheel" as something that isn't designed to be fastened to an axle.


 * I'm sorry if I was unclear on that. But I'm not looking for anything to satisfy my morbid curiosity. I just want to know if it was really a wheel or not. Primium mobile (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the "France" section DOES contain a mention of a rotating wheel. Furthermore, your confusion as to how, or if, the wheel went into the execution procedure is an understandable confusion. As far as I can make out, there are basically THREE distinct roles of the wheel, in varying combination of related rituals. FIRSTLY, The "French" version is that a person is placed on a (possibly) rotating wheel, his limbs smashed by the means of a cudgel, or mallet. SECONDLY, In the "German" version, the person is not necessarily affixed to the wheel; rather, a large, iron-rimmed wheel was used as the actual instrument of smashing his limbs. THIRDLY, once the person was broken, his body was lashed onto a wheel (in the German version, occasionally said to be the wheel he was smashed with) and raised on a stake, upon which wheel the guy expired/was left to rot. So, the rotating wheel+axle machine/system during smashinf ritual is really only confined to some cases in FranceArildnordby (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. Primium mobile (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * People change their wheels on cars and bicycles all the time, so I don't really see how it should be a conceptual probleem to regard the wheel as separate from the axle.Arildnordby (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the definition of "wheel" from the Wikipedia page: A wheel is a circular component that is intended to rotate on an axial bearing. When I hear "wheel", that's what I think of. What I am asking you is whether the Breaking Wheel was actually a wheel, or if it was just a torture device made to be in the shape of a wheel. When I came to this page, (I just click on random pages when I am bored) I expected the rotation of a wheel to be part of the torture because that's what wheels do-they rotate. Of course you can remove a wheel from an axle. But a wheel is a device that is designed to be on an axle. There are other things that we call wheels because of their superficial resemblance to a wheel, but they aren't really wheels. I just wanted to know which this was. That's all I was asking. It's really not a big deal, so please don't worry about it. Primium mobile (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, what would be the point of the axle when you use the (wagon) wheel as a smashing device?? THe executioner (or his assistant) slammed the wheel onto the limbs of the immobilized convict, thereby breaking the bones. No rotation going on here, the wheel makes a substitute for the cudgel or mallet.Arildnordby (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You're missing my point. I'm not saying it would have an axle. I am saying that a wheel is something designed to turn on an axle. If it's not designed to turn on an axle, it is not a wheel. It might look a wheel, and you can call it a wheel, but it's not a wheel. When I first read through this article, I did not see any kind of clarification of whether or not it was a wheel (I came here originally thinking that maybe people were attached to a large wheel on some kind of carriage and then pushed/pulled around so attached) or if it was just something resembling a wheel. (which is perfectly ok to call a wheel, it's just not correct in the engineering sense) You have cleared that up very well, so thank you. Primium mobile (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I get it now. No, if I understand it correctly, it was, for example, a perfectly standard wagon wheel upon which the guy was lashed after having been broken (often, the floppy, broken limbs are said to have been "weaved" between the spokes. Ugh!). Then, one end of the stake/pole was secured in the axle-hole of the wheel, and the other end of the pole was placed in the ground.Arildnordby (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As for the wheels actually used, one way or the other, during the execution rituals, some acconts seem to say the wheels had to be new (you couldn't just take the wheels off some old wagon), and the wheels were not to be used for any purposes after having been used as instruments of execution. That's probably derived from ideas that such an "evil" use of the wheel would contaminate it for ever afterwards.Arildnordby (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As for the revolving version, look at the image concerning Jean Calas at the bottom. For a "typical" German version, look at the image right next to it, concerning the execution of Matthias Klostermayr. Different smashing procedures and roles of the wheel, both regarded as a "breaking wheel" procedure.Arildnordby (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Breaking wheel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028170512/http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/cgi-bin/res.pl?keyword=Breaking+on+the+Wheel&offset=0 to http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/cgi-bin/res.pl?keyword=Breaking+on+the+Wheel&offset=0
 * Added tag to http://www.thrashmetalbands.com/lyrics1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hellenistic origins
A detailed story of torture by the breaking wheel occurs in the late 1st to early 2nd century Fourth Book of the Maccabees, chapters 9-11. 68.55.36.161 (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Samgwan Spiess

Screen depictions
Although I don't speak the language, I remember seeing a German TV movie or series which depicted this punishment. This was in the 1990s and I assume the show is also from that era. Does anyone know what this was? DancesWithGrues (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)