What would life have been like for a Medieval Executioner and his family, or executioners of any period of time...

>'m finding accounts ranging from saying they were the lowest of the low and thought of as sometimes worse than the criminals they killed

this is probably from some source about the late middle ages, because at the time a executioner was a tool of political control.

Ah well that makes sense.
In the most archaic lawtexts (lex salica/saxon laws) the guy who executed could even be the one who had brought the case to court in the first place besides other more general personnel as you said.

Dangerous

I would just use some common sense here, homeless Joe isn't going to be given authority to kill by the state, and the act of killing should generally be kept as a monopoly of the state/aristocracy

Read Joel F Harrington "The faithful executioner", a book about a famous 16th century executioner of Nuremberg. Because most answers here a utter bullshit made up by idiots.

P.S. early medieval executioners were viewed in the pagan tradition as an agent who eradicates your sins and makes you at peace with the god(s) again. In that sense it was a fit job for every free man and someone was just apointed to do it.

Late medieval executioners was vastly different, they were seen as ritually unclean, so much as that if they ate at an inn their plate and cup was smashed after the meal so no honest man would come in contact with it. On the plus side, the town executioner was likely the best paid tradesman in town with considerable side incomes, together with the aforementioned social stigmata this lead to entire executioner dynasties.

No, this is not the case.

Being an executioner was a dishonest profession, which made the executioner and his family outcasts. They had to live segregated from the other people, were not allowed to inter-marry with honest citizens and usually held other jobs that were regarded dishonest, e.g. disposing of animal carcasses.

This led to actual executioner dynasties, that existed well into the 20th century up to the point where most European countries had gotten rid of the death penalty.

Do you remember the name of the biography?

>Being an executioner was a dishonest profession, which made the executioner and his family outcasts. They had to live segregated from the other people, were not allowed to inter-marry with honest citizens and usually held other jobs that were regarded dishonest

Peasants grew their own food and had to give a "tenth" to their lord, either a local noble or the local monastery

I've heard that in England they used Axes for beheadings whereas on the continent they used swords.

Jokes on you, because he is spot on dear brainlet.

Executioners in Sweden were other prisoners given a chance to redeem themselves

That's fucking badass

Honest men would do it themselves

[citation needed]

blog.svd.se/historia/2011/03/20/skarprattare-och-bodlar/
>I källor från 1400-talet finner vi att stupagreven har utvecklats till en regelrätt bödel med förhållandevis bra lön men usel social status. Ingen yrkesman i en svensk stad var mer föraktad, och få lär ha tagit jobbet frivilligt. Det var inte ovanligt att dödsdömda brottslingar fick välja mellan att dö eller bli bödel, ett rekryteringssätt som förbjöds så sent som 1699.

>Jokes on you, because he is spot on dear brainlet.

>his example is a fictional character
Why do you do this

It's hilarious then that Mary Queen of Scots' executioner took three attempts at removing her head (the last of which was made with his personal pocket knife).

The problem is that he is
generalizing to much, is a big difference beetwen a executioner in the early and late middle ages.

Everybody who generalizes 1000 years of history is a brainlet.

>Det var inte ovanligt att dödsdömda brottslingar fick välja mellan att dö eller bli bödel

lmao, some choice

Even priests did the job sometimes to prove that was a divine job/justice of god.

this was probably on purpose

Name your early medieval sources which support your idea that professional executioners were not societally shunned during that time.

>Demanding sources
AskHistorians

The executioner as a profession only came up during the late middle ages. Before that, law was mostly a communal/family matter. Vagrancy wasn't as common and therefore legal matters were usually between men of somewhat equal standing who knew each other and each other's families and could therefore work something out. Executions weren't a common sight and professional executioners weren't needed. During the late middle ages, in particular within the cities and their vicinity, the legal system adapted to the changing conditions. This also required the office of the executioner. While high medieval legal sources such as the Sachsenspiegel still name the executioner's office as honest (though they probably didn't refer to a "professional" executioner here), claiming the executioner could carry out his duty free of sin, it is only natural that someone who kills people for a living would soon be socially shunned. This is not just a western European phenomenon: in Japan for example, the families who held executioner's offices still count as Burakumin and live even today with social stigma.

tl;dr - before the late middle ages there generally were no "executioners", in a sense of people executing others professionally. If there was an execution it may have been carried out by a retainer of the guy who wanted someone executed. The executioner as a job came up probably around the 13th century and it pretty much immediately came with social stigma.

Are you fucking retarded? And the writer of the source is probably to. Is some fucking interpretation problem?

a social stigma was created because of in the 13th century a executioner became a tool of social control, he would not only kill someone, he would make of the execution a way to control people - probably some weird shit. Was not because of: OMG HE IS KILLING PEOPLE !!!!! Dude, was the middle ages.

I hear what you're saying, but have you really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

It took me some hunting, but I found the guy's name. Franz Schmidt

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Schmidt_(executioner)

There is a biography of him though I haven't found the name. I read it from my college library almost two years ago.

But I recall the writer describing how Franz was trained on large vegetables and finally dogs before he was put in front of a person. The whole concept was he was killing people with a single swipe. It was about the salvation of the condemned through their death.

The whole giving them a good feast, time with a priest, and allowing them to be executed with dignity.

Although I do recall an account in the book where Franz had wrote about his busted heart over a girl that was executed who went to her death crying and begging. Shit must've been a hard profession, even for a hardier stock of man.

But take everything I say with a grain of salt since I don't even remember the book and only the name of the executioner.

Also there are plenty of accounts like Jan van Leiden who was horribly tortured during his execution, but he was considered a heretic.

Yea in the biography I read, the writer cited some historic facts that mobs came to see a head of a criminal lopped off and presented. Fucking that up could sour the crowd's mood.

The implication was that they might riot over the headsman's shitty job. I find that to be unbelievable. But it could make a great black comedy sketch.

see here