Just in case for some reason you haven’t heard the phrase ‘Don’t shoot the messenger’

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    13 hours ago

    They realized it was a mistake after they killed the first messenger to show how badass they were, and then couldn’t get any volunteers to carry that message back to the original party.

  • Melobol@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    It was pretty common to take the anger out on the messengers in dark ages and medieval times, even later on.
    This is why it was really dangerous to be a representative for a country in the past: ambassadors were actual targets. For the same reason as messengers.

    • fizzle@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Well I guess killing the messenger is a message in itself, isn’t it.

      Life was a lot cheaper in the feudal era. If you weren’t of the land owning ruling class then you were subservient to them and disposable. You could die any day from a simple bacterial infection, and lords were whelping a dozen bastards a year on their servant girls.

      If want to pick a fight then killing the messenger is a pretty clear way to do so.

  • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Wasnt “messengers sent by one country being attacked by rival they were sent to” a source of a number of historical conflicts? I seem to recall the mongols destroying some empire in revenge over that, at the very least.

    • Hegar@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Messengers of state and embassadors were considered sacred, sacrosanct or had some kind of official immunity in most states throughout history.

      It was a fairly common practise because it’s just really hard to conduct affairs of state if anyone you send fears for their life.

      When you want to provoke someone into war, killing their messengers is a tried and true method. I believe that was the goal of the khwarizmian shah when he killed those mongol messengers.

    • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Well either they kicked a dude into a hole that was intended for some other purpose and then they had to fish out the remains to return it to its original purpose… or that dude had a soft landing (relative to rock) at the bottom of their “kicking people down” hole.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        The hole could lead down to a ramp instead of a flat bottom. Something steep enough that anyone who falls down keeps going after the first impact.

        Though my guess (if anyone ever actually used a kick to death hole) would be they had an access tunnel to get rid of the bodies so they wouldn’t eventually make the kick to death hole stinky. Assuming they could even smell it over the usual classical/pre-classical age stink.

  • Lumisal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    In really ancient times, before writing was common, opposing states would send items to send a message…

    The problem is that the items could have different meaning.

    For example, of you got a box and it had a feather, a frog, and an arrow, what do you think it means? A warning? Insult? Deceleration of war? Peace Offering?

    And so, based on the interpretation of the contents, the messenger might not have been so lucky.

  • AeronMelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Enemy messenger: “This is a little awkward, but can you send the same message with a new messenger. We shot the first one before we heard the message.”