Walk through any European castle dungeon today and you’ll see them. The spikes. The heavy iron casings. The rusted chains. Most people think they know exactly what torture devices medieval times were like because of Hollywood movies or "Museums of Torture" in tourist traps. But honestly? A huge chunk of what we believe about medieval cruelty is just Victorian-era fan fiction.
It’s weird. We have this collective obsession with how people suffered in the Dark Ages, yet we rarely talk about the actual legal frameworks or the psychological reality of the era. The truth is often more bureaucratic—and occasionally more terrifying—than the myths.
What Most People Get Wrong About Medieval Pain
If you’ve ever seen an "Iron Maiden," you’ve seen a fake. Historical researchers like Wolfgang Schild have pointed out that there is zero evidence of an Iron Maiden existing before the late 18th century. They were basically 19th-century carnival attractions designed to make people feel "civilized" compared to their ancestors.
The real torture devices medieval times relied on were often much simpler. They weren't always meant to kill. They were meant to extract a confession that could hold up in a court of law. Under many legal systems, like those influenced by Roman law, a confession was the "queen of proofs." Without it, you couldn't always get a conviction. So, the state got creative with physics.
It wasn't just chaos. It was a process.
The Rack: Simple Physics, Total Agony
The Rack is probably the most "authentic" device in the sense that it actually existed and saw heavy use. It’s basically just a wooden frame with a roller at one or both ends. The victim’s ankles were shackled to one end, and their wrists were tied to the roller at the other.
As the torturer turned the handle, the tension increased. At first, it's just uncomfortable. Then the muscles stretch. Then the ligaments tear. Eventually, the joints literally pop out of their sockets. It’s a loud, sickening sound.
In the Tower of London, this was the go-to. Guy Fawkes famously felt the "Duke of Exeter’s Daughter" (a nickname for the Rack) after the Gunpowder Plot. If you look at his signature before and after his interrogation, it’s a shaky, illegible mess. His hands were essentially ruined. This wasn't about "evil" for the sake of it; it was about the state protecting itself through systematic physical deconstruction.
👉 See also: The Gospel of Matthew: What Most People Get Wrong About the First Book of the New Testament
The Role of Water and Fire
Sometimes you didn't need a complex machine. You just needed a bucket or a brazier.
The "Strappado" was a favorite because it required almost no equipment—just a rope and a high beam. They’d tie your hands behind your back, throw the rope over the beam, and hoist you up. The weight of your own body would eventually pull your shoulders out of place. If they wanted to be extra cruel, they’d drop you partway and jerk the rope taut before you hit the ground. The sudden stop caused massive internal damage.
Then there’s the "Question of Water." This was basically medieval waterboarding. They’d force a cloth into the victim's mouth and pour water over it, or force-feed them gallons of water until their stomach distended to the point of rupture. It’s a clean torture. No blood. No broken bones. But the sensation of drowning while on dry land is a universal human nightmare.
Why Did They Do It?
It sounds barbaric. It was. But from the perspective of a medieval judge, torture was a way to reach the "truth" in a world where forensic science didn't exist. There were no DNA tests. No fingerprinting. You had witnesses (who could lie) or the suspect's own word.
Legal historians often point out that there were strict rules. In many jurisdictions, you could only torture someone once. Of course, "once" could be interpreted as a single session that lasted twenty-four hours. Or they’d just "continue" the session the next day, claiming it wasn't a "new" torture but a continuation of the first. Legal loopholes aren't a modern invention.
The Scavenger’s Daughter and Other Compact Horrors
While the Rack stretched you out, the Scavenger’s Daughter did the opposite. Invented by Leonard Skevington (hence the name), it was an A-shaped iron bracket. The victim was forced into a fetal position, and the device was tightened, compressing the body.
It forced blood out of the nose and ears. It crushed the ribs. It’s the perfect example of how torture devices medieval times experimented with the limits of human anatomy. It was compact, portable, and incredibly effective at causing internal hemorrhaging without leaving the massive external scars that might turn a public crowd against the executioner.
✨ Don't miss: God Willing and the Creek Don't Rise: The True Story Behind the Phrase Most People Get Wrong
The Psychological Component of the "Peine Forte et Dure"
Not all torture was for confession. Some was for compliance.
In English law, if you refused to plead "guilty" or "not guilty," the trial couldn't proceed. If the trial didn't proceed, the state couldn't seize your land and assets after you were executed. To save their family’s inheritance, some prisoners stayed silent.
The "solution" was peine forte et dure—heavy and harsh punishment. They would lay the prisoner on the floor and pile heavy stones on their chest. "As much as they can bear, and more." They’d keep adding weight until the person either entered a plea or was crushed to death. Margaret Clitherow, a Catholic martyr, died this way in 1586. She chose a slow, agonizing death by pressure to protect her family’s rights.
The Myth of the "Pear of Anguish"
You’ll see this one in every "Dark Ages" museum. It’s a metal device that looks like a pear and supposedly expanded inside a victim’s mouth or other orifices.
Most modern historians are incredibly skeptical of this one. There are no contemporary medieval accounts of it being used in a judicial setting. The surviving "pears" usually have mechanisms that are too weak to do much damage, or they lack the necessary leverage to be effective. It’s much more likely they were used as "mouth gags" to stop prisoners from screaming, or they were simply 18th-century curiosities designed to shock people.
We love the idea of these complex, clockwork-like devices because it makes the people of the past look like "mad scientists." In reality, they were mostly just people with ropes, fire, and a very grim sense of duty.
Judicial Realities vs. Dark Fantasies
It’s easy to get bogged down in the gore, but the "lifestyle" of the medieval inquisitor was actually one of paperwork. Torture was expensive. You had to pay the executioner, the guards, and the scribe who wrote down the confession.
🔗 Read more: Kiko Japanese Restaurant Plantation: Why This Local Spot Still Wins the Sushi Game
In many parts of Germany and France, torture was actually used less frequently than people think because it was such a high-stakes legal gamble. If a prisoner endured the torture without confessing, they were sometimes declared innocent because "God had given them the strength" to survive. It was an unofficial "Trial by Ordeal."
The Brazen Bull: Ancient or Medieval?
Another one people get mixed up is the Brazen Bull. That was actually an Ancient Greek invention, not a medieval one. While some medieval legends mention people being roasted inside metal statues, there is almost no evidence this was a standard practice in European courts.
Medieval people preferred things that were efficient.
- The Pillory: Not technically a torture device for confession, but a "shaming" device. You were locked in wood, and the public threw things at you. If the crowd liked you, they threw flowers. If they hated you, they threw stones or worse.
- The Stocks: Similar to the pillory but for the feet.
- The Ducking Stool: Mostly used for "scolds" (women accused of being too loud or argumentative). It was a localized, community-driven punishment.
Why We Should Care Today
Studying torture devices medieval times isn't just about being a morbid history buff. It shows us how the law evolves. It shows us what happens when "getting a confession" becomes more important than "finding the truth."
When you strip away the rust and the spikes, these devices represent a period where the human body was seen as a resource to be tapped for information. It wasn't until the Enlightenment that we started to realize that a person under torture will say anything to make the pain stop. A confession under the Rack is worth nothing because it's a confession born of survival, not honesty.
Taking Action: How to Spot Historical Truth
If you’re interested in this era, don’t just trust the first "Top 10 Scariest Torture Devices" video you see.
- Check the sources: Look for mentions of the device in actual court transcripts or "manuals for inquisitors" like the Directorium Inquisitorum. If it only appears in a museum from the 1800s, be suspicious.
- Understand the "why": Was the device for punishment, shaming, or confession? The "Brank’s Bridle" (a metal mask for "gossips") was about social control, not legal proof.
- Visit reputable sites: Places like the Museum of London or the Cluny Museum in Paris offer a much more grounded, evidence-based look at medieval life than the "Dungeons" attractions found in tourist districts.
- Read the experts: Look for books by historians like Edward Peters, whose work on the history of torture is the gold standard for separating fact from Victorian fiction.
Understanding the grim reality of the past helps us appreciate the legal protections we have now. The "good old days" were often quite painful, but they were also more complex than just a series of spiked chairs and iron masks.
Next Steps for History Buffs:
Check out the digitized archives of the Old Bailey or local European municipal records from the 14th century. You’ll find that the real stories of the people who faced these devices are far more haunting than any fabricated "Iron Maiden" could ever be. Focus on primary sources to see how the legal system actually functioned behind the dungeon doors.