"Spear that pierced Christ" Topic

Any sources on whether the spear that pierced Christ that Peter Bartholomew found, which led the crusaders to win the battle of Antinoch was a pilum? If it was a Pilum then it could be the actual spear and a magical weapon.

Oh, this should be fun.

If it is still around, I would love to see it carbon dated. Where is it now, in the Nazi Museum of Thule?

Don't forget the True Cross!

It's kept in the House of the Temple, in Washington, DC. I thought everyone knew that.

link

Not that the Scottish Rite is going to show you, or even admit it. Sheesh.

Allen

Without trying to offend anybody's religion, the inhabitants of the middle East during the first bit of the second milennium must have had a field day selling bits of everything to tourists:

- enough parts of the cross to construct several, with an abundance of nails to go with it
- any leftover bone belonged to a saint
- any Roman (looking) weapon was the spear that stabbed JC
- not to mention the production of shrouds, etc.

Yes it was a pilum. As in 'Now pilum the other one.'

He didn't find it. He bought it from Billy Mays. In fact, by calling in the next 29 minutes he got two.

- any leftover bone belonged to a saint

A proper inventory of medieval relics would have had to suggest that polydactyly must have been more common in ancient times than now.

Probably was a pilum. But to be fair, unlikely to have been found. But "something" was found, and the Crusaders believed it to be magic, enough to be fired up with martial frenzy. It is not necessary for it to be magical or even real, as long as people believe that it is magic and real.

I think you are referring to the object also known as 'The Spear of Longinius' – and it was definitely NOT a pilum. It would have been called a 'hasta' if a Roman had seen it – a long (can't remember how long) multi fullered & waisted blade – rather like an early Gladius Hispaniensis.

Also remember that not all 'Romans' were legionaries, about an equal number would have been auxiliaries, carrying javelins & spears (pl. hastae). If you were the local military commander, would you be wasting your legionaries keeping some unwashed rabble in line when some provincial oik would do as good a job?

I think it's far more likely to have been a late roman/dark ages spear, than a pilum. But of course whatever they 'found' there, they put there themselves.

– any Roman (looking) weapon was the spear that stabbed JC

Consider that most of the folks probably had very little idea on how a Roman weapon actually looked like, so anything oldish looking might have been able to be called "Roman".

Griefbringer

I read that 'whatever it was' was lost at the battle of Hattin

Gungnir, not to mention Jesus' many foreskins.

If every church claiming to have one was to be believed, the poor little mite must have had about twenty of the things removed from him by the local mohel (that's assuming they had mohels in them days, and it wasn't just done by the family butcher).

This is the first I ever heard of this relic existing. I thought the crusades were bought about due to:
1. The search for the Holy Grail.
2. The desire to take control of the city of Jerusalem.

You ran read the info on it in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
link

None of the "known" spears look like a pilum, however. They are larger.

Regards, the Gorb

I think the Holy Grail business is a bit anachronistic in connection with the early Crusades.
The Spear was "found" at a rather important juncture and was probably some old-looking bit of stuff that could be passed off as "Roman" – highly unlikely to be a pilum, then.

This is the first I ever heard of this relic existing. I thought the crusades were bought about due to:
1. The search for the Holy Grail.
2. The desire to take control of the city of Jerusalem.

Nah. Mostly:

1. Getting noblemen and their armies the heck out of your country before they got any ideas.
2. Hearing that there was lots of good stuff to steal in the middle east.
-Kle.

Who was the saint that had 3 skulls officially recognised as relics in the middle ages ?

And have any of them ever been reclassified as not belonging to the saint ?

How heavy was the true cross if all the slivers of it are added together ?

Basically, it was about the Latin church destroying all rivals, be they Christian (Greek, for example) or not.

I'm Spartacus!

ahhh the spear of Destiny …………. I thought it was a cured Item ?

Whoever had it would control great power but in the end u lose everything ?

There is book of the same title ( Spear of Destiny ) but forgot the writers name

The Holy Cross was an interesting case of a relic, as it held (and still holds in orthodoxy) immense symbolic power. I.E the Persians and Heraclius beating each other up among other things over it as well. Heraclius won, and the Persians haven't been quite the same since then.

There is book of the same title ( Spear of Destiny ) but forgot the writers name

I recall browsing through a copy of said book last winter in a sort of library – it was a bit on the esoteric side. I also think a significant part of it was about Hitler's intention to use it for occult purposes – lots of scenario idea for pulp gamers there!

Griefbringer

Ask "The Librarian"….

ah yes the spear of density

Ooh, rampant secularism…

There is a James Herbert horror novel, called 'Spear'IIRC.

Also in the tv series "Roar!", one of the main villains was the Roman soldier who stabbed Christ. He was cursed with immortality and could only be slain by the Spear ( which I think was lost?)

I only saw 3 episodes so I'm no expert.

For something different, Iron Crown Enterprises published a supplement called Cybereurope for their Cyberspace RPG. This supplement includes an adventure scenario featuring a quest for the said spear.

On another note, certain mr Armintrout wrote another supplement for that game, but that is another story.

Griefbringer

You probably mean Trevor Ravenscroft's 1973 book "The Spear of Destiny."

Although you may be referring to "HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL," by a trio of authors…

-- (googling pause) --

…Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh & Henry Lincoln.

These were the guys who sued Dan Brown for "stealing their premise" in a London court (and lost). Oddly enough, I think Ravenscroft actually had success when he sued James Herbert (of Dune fame) in a similar way in the '70s, claiming that Herbert had stolen "his idea" of the Spear of Destiny for use in his novel titled, "The Spear."

It's currently in the army or general museum in Vienna afaik. And it is just a rough spear point (not a pilum) mounted in another spear on a shaft. The Spear Of Destiny book is factually incorrect in many spots e.g. by including Rudolf Steiner but is a reasonable read. Various famous soldiers have supposedly had it in their possession e.g. St Maurice of the Theban Legion, and Charlemagne. Hitler sent a party of men to grab it when Germany invaded Austria. All I can say is that wherever you go in Europe to sites associated with the spear, the same very old religious organisation seems to be there "protecting things". Reality is a lot more bizarre than the Da Vinci Code.

"James Herbert (of Dune fame)"

That would be Frank Herbert, who was American, and is deceased. James is still alive (being 23 years younger than Frank), and British.

Damn- Plynkes got there first. There were about 12 in the Middle Ages doing the rounds (pull the 'udder' one)

No I'm Spartacus!

didn't Charlemange own it for some time?

BTW…he's Spartacus -----> 8-)

'These were the guys who sued Dan Brown for "stealing their premise" in a London court (and lost).'

Yes. I thought that was particularly funny as they published HB,HG as 'factual'. Of course it was not, but how would you steal a 'factual' premise anyway?

Their legal problem, as I interpret it, was that they had a case if they admitted it was fiction, but no case if they claimed it was factual.
One of the three, Lincoln, did not take part in the lawsuit.

Thanks, Farstar -- I knew that didn't make any sense, in terms of subject matter!

[Their legal problem, as I interpret it, was that they had a case if they admitted it was fiction, but no case if they claimed it was factual.]

I did not follow the case, other than to read there was one, and they lost.

But it sounded an odd situation indeed. They apparently thought HB,HG was factual when they wrote it, having been fooled by themselves with one or two helpers. But at least one of the three had come to his senses and realised it was fantasy in more recent years.

I read HB,HG at about the same time I read another fantasy called 'The beginning was the end.' where somebody claimed that human evolution was the result of Ape cannibalism and the 'Apple' of genesis was 'really' a human brain. It went downhill from there. A lovely mix of fervent vegetarianism, Biblical fanaticism and nutcase science.

It's currently in the army or general museum in Vienna afaik.

Surely not in the military museum – I have been there and it sports only items from the 17th century onwards. The imperial weapon and armour collection sports items from 14th to 16th centuries.

OTOH, Vienna also sports the headquarters of the Teutonic knights (or what is left of them) in the old town, which also features some assorted Roman era ruins.

Griefbringer

The Holy Cross was an interesting case of a relic, as it held (and still holds in orthodoxy) immense symbolic power. I.E the Persians and Heraclius beating each other up among other things over it as well. Heraclius won, and the Persians haven't been quite the same since then.

Don't you have that backwards? The Persians seem to be doing quite well (recent voting fracas notwithstanding). The Heraclian Byzantines, …….not so much.

Ralph

Except for the fact that all of the candidates are Azeri Turks, and so are half the mullahs. And the last time a "Persian" dynasty ruled them was in the Zands (and even they were Lurs and not Parsi). The successor states of Eastern Rome (Greece and Turkey essentially) are still ruled or dominated by people of mixed origins , who are closer to the eastern roman reality at the time or can trace their origins to the Eastern Empire.

So no, Heraclius got it better. The Persians got Iranian Islamic Republic.

In my opinion, there are limits to mixing religious concepts into any type of gaming whether it is Pulp, fantasy or historical

If it is still around, I would love to see it carbon dated.

Oh come on John, think big. If there's some DNA on it still from the blood, imagine the cloning opportunities.

are they called that because when they're not being used they pilum in the corner?

No, I'm Kyotblue

So no, Heraclius got it better. The Persians got Iranian Islamic Republic.

Excuse me, what have the Byzantines got now? Persians still have their land, their language, their culture, etc. But I agree about that Islamic Theocracy thing. A shame.

Ralph

Ralph
HMMM
Greece and Turkey?

Democracy(problematic in Turkey but far better then in Iran), Language (Greek), religion (Orthodoxy), Culture (both Greece and Turkey), not ruled by Azeris?

Sorry we the people and countries that are thr successor states of Byzantium (in culture, in outlook, in ideas governing government) are better off then the Islamic Republic of Iran. And generally it is the fault of Khorsoes and secondly Heraclius.

KT

I too would greatly rather be a Greek than an Iranian living under an Islamic Republic. (If I had my choice I'd live in Pireaus, in the apartments right by the yacht club! But that is just me.)

Having said that: while democracy is certainly a Greek invention, the fact that you live in a democracy today has nothing to do with Heraclius nor Byzantium. The same way that modern Iranians, who live under a theocratic dictatorship today, has equally nothing to do with Khorsoes nor the Sassanids.

Like other western nations, your governance and legal institutions were developed originally in Rome and, again have nothing to do with Heraclius nor Byzantium.

The fact that Greeks speak modern Greek means that it naturally derived from ancient Greek and has nothing to with Heraclius nor Byzantium, any more than the fact that modern Iranians speaking modern Persian has anything to do with Khorsoes and the Sassanids.

The fact that the Greeks and Serbs retained their Orthodox religion is due to the fact that many countries in Europe exerted themselves in expelling the Turkish invaders from most of European soil. Had that not happened, the southeast corner of Europe could well be the most western provinces of Turkey today, and the inhabitants would, most likely, not be Orthodox today. Lets give credit where credit is due. The fact that Greeks are still Orthodox today has nothing to do with Heraclius nor Byzantium.

To count yourself as a "successor state" of the Byzantine Empire is a very long stretch and strains the current English useage of the term "successor". Would you consider Germany and England "successor states" of Rome?

Ralph

On the matter of democracy I would agree. But

a)Our legal institutions do come from Rome, which by the way is what Byzantium was (Roman Empire was it's title). It was the vehicle through which many of those roman institutions were passed down to modern Greece.

b)On Language: Heraclius was actually the Emperor that made Greek the official state language in the empire, Modern Greek is heavily formed by Medieval Greek, which in turn derives from Ancient Greek. Heraclius made the language not only the language of science and letters, or everyday use, but also of the state.

c)On orthodoxy. But the national liberations happened in the 19th century, while the Ottomans had conquered those areas from the 15th century. That is a 300 year period. A very important element of Ottoman Imperial rule was the position it had towards Orthodox Christian institutions. While part of it was informed by Islamic theology, an equally big part was derived from Eastern Roman norms of State-Church relations, and the fact that the Sultans (until Selim III) tended to see themselves as the legitimate successors of Eastern Rome.

Germany and England are not successor states of Rome. Germany was never part of the Empire and usurped the imperial title with Papal conspiracy. Roman institutions were brought in a lot later(18th century). England is built on the ruin and rape of Brittania. The modern state is not built on Roman institutions but Anglo-Saxon and Norman. That is why the Brits don't have Roman Law, but Common Law.

Anyway this is not a good conversation. I would like to apologize for the remark, especially to Iranians .