Talk:Thumbscrew (torture)

Pliers?

Why the mention of pulling out finger/toe -nails? It's been mentioned in a few other articles, too, so it's redundant, but the main thing is that's not what the thumbscrew is for. Maybe by similarity it deserves a see also, but this seems like writing an encyclopedia article on the USA with half the article describing Sweden. If I knew more about this device I'd remove the text and extend the article, but maybe somebody with this knowledge could stand in? 71.197.131.165 20:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambig?

This needs a disambig page: Thumb screws - hardware, Thumbscrews - Mac OSX app Ha Ha Ha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.75.213 (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of Thumbscrews on Other Body Parts...

Having travelled throughout Europe and touring almost 50 locations, I'm amazed that this article doesn't mention something that is almost universally mentioned by tour guides all over Europe when talking about thumbscrews.

These guides almost universally mention that thumbscrews weren't used on thumbs or toes as often as they were used on another body part: namely, the testicles. Many, if not most, of the guides mention that the thumbscrew got its name from the fact that the torturer used his thumbs to tighten the device, and the body part on which it was used was typically unmentionable in polite company and certainly could not be recorded in the official accounts.

I have no written citations or sources, however I can list the places in which the guides have explained this while demonstrating the use of, or displaying, thumbscrews: The Tower of London torture chamber; the London torture museum; the torture chamber in the castle of Bouillon, in Belgium; the torture chamber in the Castle of the Counts of Flanders in the city of Ghent, Belgium; the tour guide on the Alsace Wine Route (rue de Vin) tour in France, at the village of Riquewihr; the city guide who led us through the Castle of the Count of Brabant in the village of Turnhout, Belgium; the guide who showed us through the Castle of the Dukes of Nassau/Orange in Vianden, Luxembourg; the guide in Westminster Abbey when talking about the tortures of Denham in conjunction with the execution of Catherine Howard; the present host at Bolebroke Castle in Hartfield, East Sussex; the city guide in Leiden, Holland, talking in general terms about torture in the days of Balthasar Gerard (and who mentioned that it was likely that the thumbscrews were used on him but not his thumbs, even though the official record doesn't describe it). , Some of the guides (Ghent, Tower of London, Bouillon) point out that a similar but different device was used on thumbs and fingers -- a device on which the actual crushing surfaces were much longer, or more contoured to knuckles, nails, fingerbones, etc, while the displayed thumbscrews have a fairly narrow crushing surface, and in the case of the samples on display in Ghent and Bouillon, have interior surfaces which are very vividly rounded in two dimensions -- obviously and without question intended for globe-shaped objects rather than cylindrical-shaped fingers. The size of the compartment as well as the spacing are congruent with their use on male reproductive glands.

Further, the guides point out that fingers quickly become numb, whereas testicles do not. Fingers, once crushed, could rarely be mended properly, preventing the victim (often of royalty, the knightly class, a tradesman, a palace worker, writer, etc.) from resuming useful service to the crown, duke, whomever, whereas crushing testicles did not necessarily interfere with the usefulness of the person in the off-chance that the victim was pardoned or otherwise released.

At least two of the guides mentioned that crushing the fingers was easily show-able to society, and could easily be complained about to the church and the general public -- to gain sympathy and arouse empathy and ill-feeling towards the crown. Crushed testicles on the other hand were something that society found taboo and therefore it was unlikely to be talked about -- hence the victim was less likely to publicly complain about the treatment or to publicly provide "proof" necessary to gain sympathy and rouse the rabble.

I won't change the article, but ask that someone else investigate these "rumors", and if corroborated, the article may be updated to include references to the use on testicles, since it seems obvious that men would certainly find that treatment much more torturous than merely having fingers crushed.

History Prof, but not of European history... —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryProf401 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on female painter Artemesia Gentileschi says she was tortured by thumbscrews during a criminal trial. Clearly it did not ruin her ability to paint, but also clearly it could not have involved the torture described above. So exactly what did happen to her? 71.59.43.26 (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Date of use

I have changed the introductory comment to refer to the use of these devices in the early modern period, as the previous assertion of their use in the medieval period seems to have been an assumption not supported by any of the sources cited. 92.12.100.239 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Tongue screw

https://canadianmennonite.org/stories/halloween-means-more-costumes-and-candy has a picture of and is about a tongue screw which seems similar to the thumb screw. That article mentions

The Bloody Theatre or Martyrs Mirror tells the story of Maeyken Wens, who was burned to death in 1573. After the crowd had dispersed, her son sifted through the ashes to retrieve the tongue screw that had been used to torture his mother. He kept the screw to remind him of her and her undying faith.

I could not find any mention of Maeyken Wens on Wikipedia. It seems she would be notable enough that WP would already have an article.

Thus, the existence of the tongue screw and Maeyken Wens should be treated with skepticism until reliable sources are found. The book Martyrs Mirror by Thieleman J. van Braght may be used as a source but I don't know how reliable it is. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The boot "obviously based upon the thumbscrew"? How?

This very article says the thumbscrew was "first used in early modern Europe." Then this statement in the opener says "Obviously based upon the thumbscrew...the foot-crushing boot enjoyed extreme popularity in the torture chambers of medieval and Enlightenment France."

Clearly this makes no sense. How could the boot have been based on the thumbscrew if the boot was used in medieval France, and the thumbscrew wasn't used until the early modern period? The early modern thumbscrew would have been totally anachronistic in medieval France. Did the author of this sentence get them backwards? But I don't see any evidence that either device was "based on" either. There are dozens upon dozens of vise-like torture devices in history, all over the world. Asserting without any source that one must have been based on another is silly. Vises are simple enough that I think human beings are smart enough to figure out how to make one into a torture device on their own. There doesn't need to be a genetic relationship between two vise-like torture devices to explain how they got there. Crushing someone's body parts hurts. Doesn't take a genius (or a plagiarist) to figure that out. Aminomancer (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

This article doesn't describe how thumbscrews actually worked

As someone who doesn't actually know, I'm not equipped to rectify this. What was the precise means by which they actually caused pain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMcCarthy17 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)