WTF is up with this dude, seriously?
>"compagnon" to one of the most influential Religious warriors in history, Joan of Arc.
>saved Duke John VI's ass
>Chosen to transport the Holy Ampulla to Consecrate the King
>Joan Dies 1431
>Does a sudden U-Turn and confesses to the most fucked up stuff since Nero
How did this guy go from Philanthropist & Saint to occultist Child Serial Rapist/Killer in a matter of 8 years
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
books.google.de
amazon.com
nytimes.com
theguardian.com
amazon.de
fr.wikipedia.org
books.google.de
twitter.com
maybe he was always both
Considering that he openly admitted that his first assault on a child was in 1432, I have the urging feeling you are wrong.
A: Torture
B: Confession allowed his property to be inherited instead of confiscated
I didn't know who this guy was. I read the first paragraph of his Wiki article and started laughing really hard.
His daughter left no progeny and ended up marrying her uncle anyways, so any inheritance of land ended in unfortunate futility
Dude, Royal/Noble histories are like, propaganda dude. This is suppose to be a history board. There's a reason they call that shit the "dark ages" bro. Shit be hard to determine based on biased sources created by the ruling elite. You'd be better off following more scientific sources, like those accessing the health of the general population, and how (they believe) different materials/resources were being manipulated (used,moved,implemented elsewhere, extracted, manufactured, processed, etc.) and the leading figure(s) with power capable of influencing the way things are manipulated (investors in coal mining, land owners, contractors, merchants, etc.).
His brother-in-law guiled him into the dark arts under the illusion that he could obtain wealth by signing a contract with a demon named BBrron. When nothing happened, The same clown allegedly told him that he had to appease Barron by bringing him the corpse of a child in glass jars.
It all went downhill from there
B-Bron, You done messed up B-Brron
Problem is many people confirmed in detail what he confessed.
>There's a reason they call that shit the "dark ages
Yeah, except nobody with half a brain does this anymore. Is he memeing?
The death of one's waifu can lead one towards dark paths.
Like tying boys up and cumming on their bellies before decapitating them?
He was pretty cool
They "confirmed" a bunch of bullshit stories they were probably fed. And they probably asked him under torture "did you do x y z?" And all he could say was yes.
Evidently, yes.
The war triggered the sadist inside of him
>Doubts on Gilles de Rais' guilt have long persisted because the Duke of Brittany, who was given the authority to prosecute, received all the titles to Gilles' former lands after his conviction.
He dindu nuffin! Was a good boy!
Because it was COOOOL.
>tfw when my last name is Barron
Actually one of the more logical answers ITT.
People with dangerous, violent psychologies frequently try to cope with this by behaving in the exact opposite fashion in their youth. These people are aware something is wrong with them, and it frightens them. They try to hold it together, and even banish their problems by striving to be exceptional individuals.
Ted Bundy, for example, volunteered at a suicide hotline, was a model student for a time, and was described as "kind, solicitous, and empathetic."
So what you're saying is that this is just another case of a psychopathic individual that had 30 years of festering psychopathic tendencies hidden behind a guise of near-saintdom, saving lives, building churches. And then it finally clicked, he fell over the edge, and started sadistically killing and raping children all the while sacrificing them to a relatively unknown member of the demonic heirarchy.
Now that I think about it, that's pretty plausible
He's probably one of the most JUST historical figures when you consider his fall from grace.
During the Middle Ages pedophile sadists were brought to justice and condemned.
Now they are elected to public office and their crimes are covered up.
He was framed.
#justiceforgilles
>Now they are elected to public office and their crimes are covered up.
Covered up my ass, have you seen how people react to the mere confession of paedophilia, not even child molestation?
Why not even attempt something remotely realistic?
Well the King, led by the people, royally screwed him over, made it to the point where Gilles basically couldn't sell anything or buy any luxuries(something he was very accustomed to doing), so I can see why he would start to dabble with demons for money.
Britain is a fine example
>Shit be hard to determine based on biased sources created by the ruling elite.
History pre-dating the 19th century in a nutshell, you mean?
How do you pronounce Gilles?
G-ee-le
Pronounce the G the French way, that is to say without a "d" sound at the beginning.
The S is mute
Nobody calls them the dark ages anymore. And even if they did, 1432 isn't the fucking dark ages. Good god.
jeel
>There's a reason they call that shit the "dark ages" bro
Yeah, ignorance
Because God is the greatest author, and the greatest author, needs the greatest villains.
Welcome to history bro. Now get you basic source criticism engines running and show me where something similar to Gilles de Rais was accounted for.
You are about to get slammed by everyone on Veeky Forums who has been suckered into "The Dark Ages weren't dark" meme... But that's not why you're wrong... The 1400's are kinda after the Dark Ages, the term being coined by Caesar Baronius in 17th century to refer to the tumultuous period in the 10th and 11th centuries. The 14th century was comparatively civilized - but shit happens, or at least, gets accused of happening.
It is a bit suspicious that the Duke of Brittany, who was given the authority to prosecute, received all the titles to Gilles' former lands after his conviction.
Jean-Pierre Bayard wrote a whole book about how it was all a plot of the inquisition. Additionally, there were never any corpses found, despite the ludicrous numbers being thrown about.
Not that it isn't entirely possible he was guilty - surely more staggering crimes have happened and continue to happen, even today.
Most people here know him here because of an anime.
in his confession he said he burned all the bodies in a fire place
An anime where Alexander is portrayed as a forty year old bearded beastly barbarian, Gilgamesh as a young beatific snobby boifuc, and King Author is a girl.
I suppose Rais was the one they fucked with the least, although seeing as how he died at 35, he's looking a bit over the hill there Yeah, you try burning bodies in a fireplace, without leaving a trace of evidence such as teeth and hearts. Crematoriums burn at kiln temperatures for a reason.
Not saying it isn't possible though - he said he buried some as well. But as we're talking ~600 kids, ya think there'd have been some evidence.
>Jean-Pierre Bayard
> Jean-Pierre Bayard, auteur spécialisé dans l'ésotérisme, le rosicrucianisme, les sociétés secrètes et la franc-maçonnerie
Never heard about him but he doesn't look like a historian. I worked on de Rais when I studied phenomenons of mass violence. From what I gather the only people who seriously doubt him a freemasons and Alister Crowley. I can't see any debate inside the scientific community at all and the fact that we got several non contradicting confessions from several people is pretty convincing.
>On 15 May 1440, Rais kidnapped a cleric during a dispute at the Church of Saint-Étienne-de-Mer-Morte.[33][34] The act prompted an investigation by the Bishop of Nantes, during which evidence of Gilles' crimes was uncovered.[33] On 29 July, the Bishop released his findings,[35] and subsequently obtained the prosecutorial cooperation of Rais's former protector, John VI, Duke of Brittany.
>the only people who seriously doubt him a freemasons
Tell me more about this, if you can.
Well, with 600 kids, ya think there'd be a whole lotta reports, but I don't think there's a transcript of the testimonies, or even their numbers.
The most thorough account existing, that I know of, is Jean-Pierre Bayard book "Plaidoyer pour Gilles de Rais", in which he makes the case for Rais' innocence, so I'm kinda surprised you didn't come across it in your research. (Granted, I can't seem to find the on-line text of it for the life of me - without shelling out some cash.)
There was a mock re-trial back in the 1990's, that found him innocent, but I dunno how serious they were, aside from getting some big headliners on board for the show.
Well this dude brings up Bayard and the court. The dude who initiated the court in 1992 is a Freemason and so is Bayard. None of the people involved received any historical training.
That ain't it.
This is:
amazon.com
But, yeah...
Man Bayard is not a historian. Stop bringing him up please or I will bring up Wolfgang Sofsky who has a whole chapter about de Rais murdering people.
Don't have to be a historian to collect sources, but unless you can find a historian who went in on the premise he was innocent, I pretty much have to assume research bias. To have any real picture of the matter, you at least need to compare and contrast research done from both perspectives, since, in such a case, an unbiased effort from any single source is unlikely, at best.
nytimes.com
theguardian.com
Can't find a transcript of the trial though - that'd be interesting.
>I pretty much have to assume research bias
The task of historians is not to decide whether he was guilty or not. Also you should ask yourself on what basis you have formed your assumption. The fact that they didn't include historians in the court/documentary speaks volumes.
If you want a recommendation start with: amazon.de
>Don't have to be a historian to collect sources,
No, but you need training to read and evaluate them.
>Concluding the debate, Henri Juramy, a lawyer who was chairman of the session, said that since no material proof of Gilles de Rais's guilt had been presented and that his confession was clearly obtained through torture the "court" called on President Francois Mitterrand to take up the question "so that the historical truth can be restored."
Now come on. They did a "trial" as a media stunt and made a movie and of course the sensational result is: Not guilty. If this is not biased I don't what is. Also discarding a statement that is hundreds of years old on the basis of the law in 1992 is not how you should operate.
When you make such a paper, you do in in an effort to prove a point. In such cases, research bias is absolutely inevitable.
I don't have an assumption one way or the other myself, but I have the same answer that the computer always gives in The Last Question, as I don't have the texts for any research that doesn't seem to an effort to confirm his guilt. ...despite the shady dealings around the trial, strong possibilities of ulterior motives given his relationship with Joan, and the lack of evidence.
Again, any research in this direction is going to be bias. What I'm looking for, is a professional bias effort from the opposing point of view. ...or at least the sources the non-professional from said opposing point of view is citing. But alas, my Google-fu dost fail.
Yes, but guilt and innocence are no categories used by historians. You also didn't point why any random historian would be biased against de Rais.
Also this is the guy who gathered the evidence for the "trial" in 1992:
fr.wikipedia.org
A fucking athlete.
Benedetti was already posted. Read it and we continue the discussion based on the book. You might find this useful: books.google.de
Looks bias as well... There's plenty of books I can find attacking Rias and his defenders - I just can't find any books from his defenders nor their sources (save behind a paywall), beyond some folks pointing out the obvious suspicious circumstances.
>You also didn't point why any random historian would be biased against de Rais.
They are always themed with "The crimes of Rias", "The worst pedophile ever", and similar such paraphrasing, usually with very ghoulish covers. To boot, most are examinations of his crimes, rather than an examination as to the truth of them.
It's human nature. I wouldn't expect anyone researching the subject not to do so with a specific conclusion in mind, or at least, not to come to a conclusion and then write up their report accordingly. Whenever you have a situation like this, the fact that humans are doing the research requires you to take in opposing viewpoints to come to any real conclusion yourself.
Even from your link:
>It is the purpose of the present article to examine how the tendency [ie. the defense of Rias] has manifested itself in some of the major examinations of Gilles's career. [...] in certain respects discussion of the crimes have remained strongly constant. [...] The article will also judge whether these efforts are in fact wholly justified, or whether borne out of other, more tacit concerns.
In other words, the entire piece is dedicated towards not only attacking the defenders of Rias and countering their arguments, but uncovering their motives for doing so. Which, skimming it over, it predictably goes on to do.
This is sort of view is easy enough to find, it's the opposing viewpoint that seems to have a lack of easily accessible press.
I'm the sort of dick that listens to Amy Goodman on the way to work and Rush Limbaugh on the way back.
