Are Mummies Zombies?

[Sephiroth]

Yesterday I have watched Big Bang Theory and so I come up with this question here.

I have talked with one person about it and he gave me "no" as answer with the RPG-esque reasoning zombies are lesser undeads and mummies have their own will.

But that is an extremely generalized answer and wrong considering there are many types of mummies/zombies in fiction.

Be aware I am not talking about the actual mummy that we have - a dead person with bandages. Therefore "mummies are real" does not count.

Some zombies are animated through voodoo, some with a virus.
Some zombies have a consciousness and can learn, some don't. It is true that by now it is more of a wonder if it happens but in several cases they were people from the very beginning (in Pirates of the Caribbean IV for example).
Some zombies are hungry for flesh and some not. If they bite you depending on the story they might infect you. That is actually the only real thing that is not normally the case with a mummy but it is not like it is the case with all zombies. There are also many types of humans and still we are all humans because of some core aspects. Still we differ. Same goes for manay zombie types so basically a mummy is also just another wandering dead entity.

What is your opinion about it?

[fire_of_avalon]

Mummies are desiccated and zombies are squishy. Opposites!

[Shiny]

Mummies are historical and actually exist but don't actually come to life. Zombies are fictional and can "come to life". Mummies in fiction can come to life but are not interested in consuming human flesh in order to survive-- at least not in any horror film I have seen.

[Shorty]

Mummies are individuals revived as a result of ancient religious ceremonies or curses who act as protectors of tombs, burial spaces, and possessions, or are themselves the owners/residents of these things. They are not zombies because, as Shiny, because they cannot consume flesh or become infected with zombie viruses, etc.

[Spuuky]

They aren't real, so there can't be facts about them. They aren't from a specific franchise, so there can't be canon about them. There can inherently be no answer to your question.

[Sephiroth]

I can't believe that the counter argument "mummies are real" is used even though I have already explained in the starting post that it doesn't count because I am talking about the fictional mummy, the undead being and not a dead king with bandages in a pyramid that we have in our world or simply every being that was ever conserved. Or the thing that zombies eat flesh or come to life with a virus even though that is not the case in all stories. Especially not a classic zombie from long ago (which should be the voodoo zombie, which is also nothing but another form of religious ritual). So basically right now I feel like my starting post was not read at all.

[Loony BoB]

Mummies are individuals revived as a result of ancient religious ceremonies or curses who act as protectors of tombs, burial spaces, and possessions, or are themselves the owners/residents of these things. They are not zombies because, as Shiny, because they cannot consume flesh or become infected with zombie viruses, etc.

I like this answer and I'm gonna go along with it.

[Slothy]

They aren't real, so there can't be facts about them. They aren't from a specific franchise, so there can't be canon about them. There can inherently be no answer to your question.

Yeah, but that's boring.

[Pike]

How dare you say such a thing about my mum

[Sephiroth]

The amount of effort going into ignoring the aspects posted in the first post is admirable but I would have wanted an actual though fitting to this post. By the way, even Mummies can consume people. Imhotep in the Mummy series always absorbed body parts of people. He did not need to eat them like some zombies do - which are not even all - but he still did something like that. So if not even all aspects are used for zombies and they are still called zombies basically mummies can also be zombies as it ultimately just breaks down to them being wandering undeads that have more in common than the two of them and undeads like vampires for example. Which is why the topic exists (which also exist in different versions and are still called vampires). Maybe that makes it more understandable.

[Shauna]

They are all "undead" creatures, but they're just different brands. Boiling them down to undead creatures that wander around is inclusive of many monsters, but we still have distinctions between zombies and vampires even though they can both be described as such.

But a mishmash of what Shiny and Shorty said is probably the best answer.

[Sephiroth]

They are all "undead" creatures, but they're just different brands. Boiling them down to undead creatures that wander around is inclusive of many monsters, but we still have distinctions between zombies and vampires even though they can both be described as such.

Vampires are not simply known in fiction as just wandering corpes that have been revived through some different ways while a mummy and a zombie has often many similiarities in fiction.

But a mishmash of what Shiny and Shorty said is probably the best answer.

Going by what I said a few times, that I do not talk about real mummies which lie around in museums and the thing that many differences are between many zombies and they are still considered zombies it is not so easy to go with such an answer. A zombie can be an individual or not. A mummy can be one or not. A zombie can be revived religiously or not. A mummy can be revived religiously or not. A zombie can eat flesh or not. There are those types and then the other.

[Shiny]

We weren't just talking about realistic zombies as the posts dictate. Basically no one agrees with you because mummies and zombies aren't the same. Side note Big Bang Theory is a terrible show.

I think Shorty gave the best answer in that zombies are infected and that infection allows their brains to function on a very primal level whereas mummies in fiction are just simply undead.

[fire_of_avalon]

Ugh you guys over complicate everything. One is dry and dusty, one is gooey and moist. Hear that, Shorty? Mmmmmooooist.

Also Imhotep is kind of sex in his ancient Egyptian underpants.

[Shorty]

They are all "undead" creatures, but they're just different brands. Boiling them down to undead creatures that wander around is inclusive of many monsters, but we still have distinctions between zombies and vampires even though they can both be described as such.

Vampires are not simply known in fiction as just wandering corpes that have been revived through some different ways while a mummy and a zombie has often many similiarities in fiction.

But a mishmash of what Shiny and Shorty said is probably the best answer.

Going by what I said a few times, that I do not talk about real mummies which lie around in museums and the thing that many differences are between many zombies and they are still considered zombies it is not so easy to go with such an answer. A zombie can be an individual or not. A mummy can be one or not. A zombie can be revived religiously or not. A mummy can be revived religiously or not. A zombie can eat flesh or not. There are those types and then the other.

I don't really get at what you're going for here. People gave you the answers of their opinions. Okay, sure, in the fictional realm of mummies, I guess they can be revived religiously or not. Sure, I guess in the realm of possibilities of a fictional world it might be plausible for zombies to not eat flesh (but that wouldn't really mean it's a zombie to me, just another undead creature). However, as these two things are pretty astute defining characteristics of each of these ghoulies in which you asked for public opinion on, I'm not really sure at what you're getting at by mentioning these two hypothetical possibilities for zombies and mummies.

Mummies are associated with curses on those who have broken into a tomb or a sacred place. Zombies are associated with the eating of flesh and are primarily infected with viruses to form. Both of them are undead, and these are the usual circumstances we would find for these beings in media. What further clarification do you need?