• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Raising the Cross - Which Way?

Which method of Crucifixion arouses the sense more?

  • 1) Nailing feet and wrists to the cross, and then pushing the cross and victim upwards?

    Votes: 164 46.1%

  • 2) Nailing wrists to the crossbeam, and then hoisting the victim up, and then nailing her feet?

    Votes: 192 53.9%
  • Total voters
    356
Go to CruxDreams.com
Barbaria1 said:
I see the merit in Old Slave's choice, but I prefer to be laid out on the cross while it still lies on the ground, and for my wrists and feet to be methodically bound and nailed while I buck, writhe and scream with each hammer blow ... and then to be raised after my loincloth is ripped away ... sliding with gravity downward on the rough surface of the stipe, and then thrown wildly about like a rag doll on the impact of the stipe falling to the bottom of the hole. That's a sequence of terror, pain, humiliation and helplessness that is difficult to beat.
Click to expand...

That is so enticing.
 
_CADRE_ said:
Another interesting idea I just thought of a few days ago is that if the condemned is nailed (wrists and feet) before the entire cross is raised, this means they likely carried the entire cross to the site of their execution (not just the cross beam). After the scourging and pre-crucifixion torture, I feel it would be unlikely that they would have enough strength to carry an entire cross. Moreover, the entire point of crucifixion is to humiliate the victim and set an example for as many onlookers as possible. The taller the cross, the more likely the mob is to see every inch of her pain. Now, if the woman carried the entire cross, there’s little chance it would be more than 7 or 8 feet tall. If that were the case, not very many could see without pushing and shoving to gain a better vantage point. Just my thoughts
Click to expand...

This is something I've always wondered about. "The Last Temptation of Christ" has Jesus carry only the beam--the "stipes" is already at the site. But, they've taken it out of the hole, they attach the beam, then nail the body, and lift the whole thing. Andy01's story "An Execution in Arlete" has Livia carry only the beam, but it has a hole in the middle which is fitted to the upright through a peg at the top of the upright which fits in the hole.
I think the execution party was more interested in making the crucifixion easier for them. I also think a cross that would hold up under the strain of a crucifixion would be too heavy to carry. But there would then have to be a way to secure the "patibulum" to the stipes that would also hold up under the strain, and doing it with a writhing body attached is probably a little difficult. Since the stipes at least was reused, there also had to be a relatively easy way to remove the patibulum after the "festivities" were finished. So, I like Andy01's idea best from an engineering standpoint. It is unlikely they would fashion the whole cross for each prisoner and waste a lot of wood--the stipes could accommodate a lot of different heights and weights. The patibulum might have to be more customized for each individual. Josephus says that during the siege of Jerusalem they ran out of wood and just nailed people up on the walls. So it was probably mostly a practical matter in each instance, and varied somewhat with the circumstances.
I have also read (Hegel, I think) that most crosses were about 6 feet tall and were only taller for a prisoner the Romans wanted particularly to display (don't know how he determined that, since descriptions are fairly sparse in ancient literature). Also, an historian of the Spartacus revolt said (sensibly) that crucifying six thousand people was expensive. Again, what's practical?
Personally, I prefer things being done in a way that is realistic and maybe actually happened or at least could happen. That makes it more interesting--it might really happen.
 
messaline said:
Hum, for me, to be entirely nailed to the cross before raising is the first part of a process intending to show to the condemned that he (she) is totally fixed and having not any possibility to escape !
It's, in my opinion (and fantasy) the first stade of a crucifixion ...
The raising of the cross is also a great moment because it makes slowly discover by the victim what he (she) could have like horison for the future ...
And when the cross is falling down into its hole , it's like a birth, the birth of the end, the birth of the death that he (she) only can delay the expiration ...
but, just my opinion ...;)
Click to expand...

Your opinion has a strong basis.
 
Because i cant stomach the thought of shattered bones i will have to say definately nail the wrists first. Then raise the cross. Then the nails will be put in behind the ankle bone in that little flap of skin there. That way no bones are shattered
 
Frank Petrexa said:
This is something I've always wondered about. "The Last Temptation of Christ" has Jesus carry only the beam--the "stipes" is already at the site. But, they've taken it out of the hole, they attach the beam, then nail the body, and lift the whole thing. Andy01's story "An Execution in Arlete" has Livia carry only the beam, but it has a hole in the middle which is fitted to the upright through a peg at the top of the upright which fits in the hole.
I think the execution party was more interested in making the crucifixion easier for them. I also think a cross that would hold up under the strain of a crucifixion would be too heavy to carry. But there would then have to be a way to secure the "patibulum" to the stipes that would also hold up under the strain, and doing it with a writhing body attached is probably a little difficult. Since the stipes at least was reused, there also had to be a relatively easy way to remove the patibulum after the "festivities" were finished. So, I like Andy01's idea best from an engineering standpoint. It is unlikely they would fashion the whole cross for each prisoner and waste a lot of wood--the stipes could accommodate a lot of different heights and weights. The patibulum might have to be more customized for each individual. Josephus says that during the siege of Jerusalem they ran out of wood and just nailed people up on the walls. So it was probably mostly a practical matter in each instance, and varied somewhat with the circumstances.
I have also read (Hegel, I think) that most crosses were about 6 feet tall and were only taller for a prisoner the Romans wanted particularly to display (don't know how he determined that, since descriptions are fairly sparse in ancient literature). Also, an historian of the Spartacus revolt said (sensibly) that crucifying six thousand people was expensive. Again, what's practical?
Personally, I prefer things being done in a way that is realistic and maybe actually happened or at least could happen. That makes it more interesting--it might really happen.
Click to expand...

Good aspects Frank.

Due to my interest in roman history, and the to me exciting punishment of crucifiction,
the scenario at the execution site has always left countless questions for me, too.

If there has been something like a code of practice for the roman crucifiction, what were the single stages?

Today we think that the victims have been flogged, had to carry the crossbeam and were attached to
their crosses at a specific place, prepared for these executions.
That makes sense, so far.

I came to the conclusion (but that is my point of view, everything could have been possible), that part of the entertainment factor was, "how" the victims got crucified.
The teams crucifying had to humiliate the victims, deter, entertain and animate the audience.
Had to make sure the spectators accepted the dying as scapegoats.
Were responsible, to turn the crucifiction into a really breathtaking event.

So to say, raising the cross complete, just attaching the victim with the patibulum, nailing, tying, stripping could have
been elements that were deployed by the executioners, to create different scenarios and emotions for the crucified and the audience.
Bad enough that there is not that much documentation left, what role the crucifiction had really been playing in the roman culture,
or about the ways how it was done.

The shape of the crosses and who was actually carrying out the executions (female/male executioners) should also be considered.
How did the executioners behave?
What did they wear?

Hard to tell, but I'm pretty sure it was an outstanding spectacle.
 
Last edited:
Very nice thread. Very interesting.
I choosed number one for sure. Thats the way I like it the most. Been bound or nailed on the cross and then raised.
But I´m sure at the old roman times every town had a crucifixion place like Golgotha near Jerusalem where some upright stakes did wait for the victims. It sounds logically to provide those uprights ready to use put into the ground. All you have to do is binding oder nailing the victim on the horizontal crossbar and raise him/her and than fasten the feet.

I like it much better to be insolule fastened to the cross right from the start and to experience in complete helplessness how I will be raised with the cross.
I do not like the other kind of crucifixion, even though I can imagine a few interesting occurrences, even funny ones.
Imagine nailing a girl to the horizontal crossbar and pulling her up. She struggles and desperately steps around. Her foot hits a legionary in the face. He yells: „You bitch! You broke my nose! Just wait! For that I'll ... uuhmm … crucify you!“ The girl calls: „Gotcha!“ The audience would shit tears by laughing.
 
Sassi said:
Very nice thread. Very interesting.
I choosed number one for sure. Thats the way I like it the most. Been bound or nailed on the cross and then raised.
But I´m sure at the old roman times every town had a crucifixion place like Golgotha near Jerusalem where some upright stakes did wait for the victims. It sounds logically to provide those uprights ready to use put into the ground. All you have to do is binding oder nailing the victim on the horizontal crossbar and raise him/her and than fasten the feet.

I like it much better to be insolule fastened to the cross right from the start and to experience in complete helplessness how I will be raised with the cross.
I do not like the other kind of crucifixion, even though I can imagine a few interesting occurrences, even funny ones.
Imagine nailing a girl to the horizontal crossbar and pulling her up. She struggles and desperately steps around. Her foot hits a legionary in the face. He yells: „You bitch! You broke my nose! Just wait! For that I'll ... uuhmm … crucify you!“ The girl calls: „Gotcha!“ The audience would shit tears by laughing.
Click to expand...

Every crucifiction must have been so individual.
You are absolutely right Sassi. "Accidents" like the one mentioned, probably filled the sessorium with loud laughter.
No doubt, being a spectator at that scene, I'd have cracked up, too.
 
KKK_113.JPGMy heart races when I think about being raised up on a tall cross like this . . . and left . . . to hang.

KKK_126.JPGWow! Looking down at them as they look up at my naked body! Oh my!

They leave, but I have to stay! As my pain escalates. As strangers walk by to look at me, mock me, insult me . . .

Photo 3.jpg But you got to love this way too!

Which fantasy? Hell, why not both!
 
Last edited:
_CADRE_ said:
I've always wondered which method is preferred? Laying down the entire cross, and then nailing the wrists and feet before the cross and condemned are pushed upwards? Or do others prefer nailing the wrists first, and then hoisting up the crossbeam while the condemned hangs?

I've attached two renders, and my preferred method is obvious, though I'm curious what others think.
Click to expand...


I chose the second option. I might be wrong, but would that hurt more than doing it the way it was mentioned in option 1?
 
_CADRE_ said:
I've always wondered which method is preferred? Laying down the entire cross, and then nailing the wrists and feet before the cross and condemned are pushed upwards? Or do others prefer nailing the wrists first, and then hoisting up the crossbeam while the condemned hangs?

I've attached two renders, and my preferred method is obvious, though I'm curious what others think.
Click to expand...
 
Sassi said:
Very nice thread. Very interesting.
I choosed number one for sure. Thats the way I like it the most. Been bound or nailed on the cross and then raised.
But I´m sure at the old roman times every town had a crucifixion place like Golgotha near Jerusalem where some upright stakes did wait for the victims. It sounds logically to provide those uprights ready to use put into the ground. All you have to do is binding oder nailing the victim on the horizontal crossbar and raise him/her and than fasten the feet.

I like it much better to be insolule fastened to the cross right from the start and to experience in complete helplessness how I will be raised with the cross.
I do not like the other kind of crucifixion, even though I can imagine a few interesting occurrences, even funny ones.
Imagine nailing a girl to the horizontal crossbar and pulling her up. She struggles and desperately steps around. Her foot hits a legionary in the face. He yells: „You bitch! You broke my nose! Just wait! For that I'll ... uuhmm … crucify you!“ The girl calls: „Gotcha!“ The audience would shit tears by laughing.
Click to expand...
Also do I, the "normal" crucifixion and not more hodgepodge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom