Talk:Inarus

Problems with the article - inconsistencies, lack of citations
There are quite a few problems with this article. For instance, the lead says he was defeated and executed in 454, but later on we are told he was not executed for 5 years. There are other similar problems, which are probably because this is an unintentional conflation of Thucydides, Ctesias (and in this case, a failure to check Ctesias, who does not say Inarus was crucified but says he was impaled), and Herodotus, all of who have slightly different stories, different names for participants, etc. It'll take a while to sort it. We need specific references for each bit, with an explanation of where the historical sources differ--Doug Weller (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I fond some evidence, that implies that Inarus was crucified:

                           


 * I have pointed out that the livius.org article may say crucified, but the translation of Ctesias on that site says impaled. What you haven't discovered it seems is that different translations of Thucydides say different things, so that needs to be checked. In a case like this, you should always go to the original sources and see what they say. Doug Weller (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And it appears that the Jowett and Crowley translations of Thucydides differ, with Crowley saying crucified, Jowett impaled.

Your choice of references interests and worries me. One of them, is to a book "on the ancient Sun Kingdoms of Egypt and India and their voyages into Indonesia and the Pacific circa 1500" published by [[David Hatcher Childress]'s Adventures Unlimited company.  is at least not fringe, but is still not a reliable source.  You don't seem to know what is or what is not a good source.
 * There are clearly differences between different translations, Jowett says impaled.


 * What is worse, is that you have twice inserted text into a quote which is not in the original, you moved my reference and added a reference which doesn't quote Photius's fragement of Ctesias at all but use it so anyone would think it did. This is just not honest. You also continue to add your personal opinions of what is interesting, and that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Crucifixion or impalement
Here is what I have been told: Ctesias uses the verb anastaurizô, whilst Thucydides, Herodotus and Plato (Gorgias, 473 c 4-5) have anastauroô, both verbs (from stauros, "pole") meaning "bound with an idea of height", viz. in the Classical period "impale". See M. Halm-Tisserand, Réalités et imaginaire des supplices en Grèce ancienne (Paris, Belles Lettres, 1998), 13-15 Anastaurizô / anastauroô means "to be put upwards (ana) on a stauros", be it to hang or to die (as is the case with Inaros), so, strictly speaking, in each case where the verb is found we are left to guess whether we are dealing with impalement or what we call crucifiction. Impalement per se, either specified by the verb pêgnumi, "to fix", in Aeschylus, Eumenides, 189-190 kai muzousin oiktismon polun / hupo rhakhin pagentes, "and where one moans with long and piteous cries under the stick (driven) through the spine", cf. A. H. Sommerstein, Aeschylus Eumenides ("Greek and Latin Classics", Cambridge, C.U.P., 1989) p. 115. by the Wortbildung (the semantically cruel compound anaskhinduleuô in Plato, Republic, II, 362 a 1 is based on skhindulêsis, "the cleaving into pieces", and its composition mirrors anaskhizô, "to rip up", "to open up") ; or by the lexique (Euripides, Iphigeneia in Tauris, 1430, and Electra, 898, uses skolopismos, "impalement", from skolops, "anyting pointed", especially "barb, pale, stake" ; the unknown author of the Rhesos, 514-515, has rhakhin stêsô, "by the neck I will stick him up" (on the city gates)), never was a part of the Greek criminal law ; to die on a pole driven through the body was seen in the Classical texts as so extreme a torture that it can only befit Barbarians or unworthy Hellenes (Herodotus IX 79). --Doug Weller (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)