Are Mummies Zombies?

[Sephiroth]

I would just like to say that you can't discount the fact that mummies are real.

Of course I can discount the fact that mummies are real because a dead real mummy and a wandering fictional mummy still are two different things, the latter one also does not exist no matter what is is based on and exactly this one shares many traits with zombies. Which is why I said multiple times, if there are different zombies and they are still called zombies as the core aspects of a zombie obviously is not used for all zombies a mummy can pretty much also be seen as just another type of zombie. So, yes, I very much can discount the fact that mummies are real because the argument "mummies are not zombies, mummies are real" completely misses the point of which mummies I am talking about, undead mummies. Does it matter what a mummy is based of? No. Zombies are also based of something. And now many types of zombies exist in fiction.

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.

Which is wrong because it is too generalized since not all zombies are infected. And even now those types of zombies are used in fiction.

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?

Classic zombies were meant to be revived by voodoo and they did not have all those popular characteristics so I think it is too important to not think abot this aspects when we think about how the fictional zombie was created. Even now, and again it is fascinating that people continously think what I do not understand even though pretty much everything in my first post which already has shown that I knew these things and still was ignored by the posters, even now it is fascinating that somehow that I know these things is ignored. You focus too much on saying "x is not y because x has this and y has that". But that is the problem. There is so much fictional stuff around there that is official and known by people and there are so many different types of mummies, so many different types of zombies and zombie a is completely different from zombie b, is not revived the same way, has an actual will, is not just driven by the desire to eat flesh and zombie b is - now with such things why would there not be a reason to just see another different type of a zombie in a mummy if even what is called zombie itself has so many different types? And while what you do not see as a zombie when it does not have certain traits is absolutely fine for you, don't get me wrong, it still won't change that these things (like PotC zombies) are called zombies so I have to use them as an example. Zombies being revived in some hocus pocus manor and not as a hungry undead still are a thing, no matter if the other ones are more popular. I see no reason in a super class "zombie" not having a sub class "mummy" just because the mummy does not have exactly the same traits of sub class "viral zombie" when even the subclass "magical zombie" has not the same traits. I would normally agree with everyone who says "thing x has a very important aspect that thing y does not have" but those "virus" things and "flesh eating" things and such are not even present for all zombies. I would agree if you say "mummies are not like modern zombies" but that doesn't really answer it because, as mentioned, if you look at the sub classes of zombies and notice that what is so popular about zombies is pretty much just part of one sub class and they are still called part of the super class "zombie" then the super class can be broken down to "an undead revived through something" and the branches of sub classes all individually explain by how (hocus pocus zombies by magic/rituals, viral zombies by an infection, etc.), if they are individuals when they wander around, if they eat flesh, et cetera. Just like there are different types of humans because, while we all do not share the same traits we share some core aspects. Yet, sharing core aspects does not means there is no specific trait on each sub class branch - as the voodoo zombies and viral zombies also show. That is nothing hypothetical because different types of zombies are introduced in fiction so of course that is important for the comparison in the fictional realm.