Axayacatl
Assistant executioner
Lovely...simply lovely
-
Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.
Feet Or Wrists First?
- Thread starter mp5stab
- Start date
Nicolaides1313
Condemned
It is highly unlikely the hands or wrists were, in fact, ever nailed. No skeletal remains of crucifixion victims has ever been found with any indication whatsoever of nails in that area. And, for good reason. As soon as the nails go into the wrists; the person would be alive for maybe 10~15 minutes only. Major arteries are there and the blood lost upon nailing would be so great that it would defeat the purpose of crucifixion which is to give a slow, lingering, painful death. Same with the feet- nailing a person through their feet would also result in massive blood loss. Feet have major arteries also; and, in fact, there is a "pedal pulse" there. People who have been "nailed" (by accident) in their feet are seen to have enormous blood spurts that are remedied only with immediate first aid. The only place where a person could be nailed and not die immediately would be through their heal bones; NOT the ankle but the heels. Very painful but with low blood loss. And, in fact, the only place where nails have been found in skeletons of ancient crucifixion victims.
mp5stab
Hair and Nails
Very good bit, but this is cruxforums, the one place where almost everyone will disagree with you, and then have the knowledge to back it up.
You are right that we have exactly one piece of evidence for a nail driven through the heel bone, this much is true. But then you state with a wild and frankly unwarranted level of confidence that the victim was never nailed anywhere else. If anything archaeologists have stronger evidence to suspect nailing was the most common method of crucifixion.
Additional evidence is sparse largely because of the grisly nature of the punishment. Ancient writers did not dwell on it. But the terms that they used, the “hanging upon the piercing cross” would lead you to believe that the victims were nailed.
You then state completely ironically that nailing the wrists would hit an artery. No, it wouldn’t. You’ve two two arteries in your wrist, as you know, I hope, the radial and ulnar arteries. They are not centered on the wrist, or near the carpal tunnel where the nails would have most likely gone. They are on the sides, unlikely to be struck; and even if they were, as I’m sure you would know, impalement injuries tamponade bleeding. You don’t spurt out blood if there is a big fuckoff piece of metal in the way; it’s just not physically possible.
I’ve seen actual industrial accidents where the person had a piece of rebar go clear through them. Hell of an X-ray I’m sure. But they didn’t bleed out. Exsanguination, or death by blood loss, only happens in very quickly like your stated time of 10-15 minutes if it is something catastrophic, like a limb being blown off, or deliberate, like wrist-slitting, and even wrist slitting takes longer than your figure of 15 minutes, the artery is far more distal, blood has to move around before it gets to the leak, and the body will shunt blood to the core as a trauma response.
The reason that only heel bone was found way because it was stuck in the heel, so the whole foot was removed and placed in a separate ossuary, where it was preserved. I read the paper. It would be much easier to pry the nails from between the bones of the upper arm than to pull one from a heel bone.
3/10 see me after class
Nicolaides1313
Condemned
Well, the only way to verify any of this would be to enact an actual crucifixion; with nails. Needless to say, that would be highly immoral. I do challenge you to show any archaeological evidence that people were nailed ANYWHERE in the arms or hands or wrists or through the foot (through the arch of the foot) in ancient times. I suspect that if it happened then it happened a grand total of once; after the victim died within a very short time (okay, maybe not within 15 minutes but in that general amount of time) then the executioners knew not to do that again. Unless they wanted to hasten death instead of prolonging the suffering. BTW, we have two proven examples of ancient crucifixions. The only nailings found in either skeleton are through the heel bones; which is to be expected upon analysis. Actually, I am not certain the victims were even nailed alive to the cross (maybe only post mortem as a continued warning to others) but that is debateable.
crumera
Crucifier of Pixels
Non arguments since you dont have any archeolgical evidence for crucifixion with ropes.
SMH
\
You dismiss crucifixion in historical documents as evidence?
maybe read up on the siege of Jerusalem in 66--> nails are explicitly mentioned.(Josephus
Josephus, Book 5, Chapter XI War of the Jews)
2 crucifixions? ever heard of the defeated army of Spartacus? 6000 crucified along the appian way!
SMH
\
You dismiss crucifixion in historical documents as evidence?
maybe read up on the siege of Jerusalem in 66--> nails are explicitly mentioned.(Josephus
Josephus, Book 5, Chapter XI War of the Jews)
2 crucifixions? ever heard of the defeated army of Spartacus? 6000 crucified along the appian way!
Last edited:
Quote from Martin Hengel's classic work on Crucifixion, 31:
It should be noted that in Roman times not only was it the rule to nail the victim by both hands and feet, but that the flogging which was a stereotyped part of the punishment would make the blood flow in streams. Binding the victim to the cross only with bonds remained the exception.
(These statements are supported in the footnotes with numerous references to Classical sources)
It should be noted that in Roman times not only was it the rule to nail the victim by both hands and feet, but that the flogging which was a stereotyped part of the punishment would make the blood flow in streams. Binding the victim to the cross only with bonds remained the exception.
(These statements are supported in the footnotes with numerous references to Classical sources)
mp5stab
Hair and Nails
Why are you here?
If you don’t think people were nailed to crosses, what are you doing? What’s the goal? You don’t really know enough about this topic to convince anyone.
It doesn’t seem like you read what I wrote. You didn’t get that archeological and historical evidence presented more likelihood of nails than ropes.
Anyways, you’ve forgotten one key detail; rope was not machine-made — it had to be weaved. It was, consequently, far more expensive than people seem to act. More expensive than certain clothing in some cases. Nails on the other hand were cheaper and more common than everyone acts. The Romans had stockpiles of millions of nails!
They weren’t going to use a whole bunch of rope when they could damn well ensure someone would die… and painfully too… with their plentiful nails.
Puritan
Magistrate
Things getting a bit heated here!
I think people many want a sense of realism and historical accuracy either for the sake of it (because that’s how they’re wired) or because it’s necessary to prop up a particular fantasy
It’s strange that realism is a requirement because 99.9% of people here wouldn’t really dream of hurting anyone or allowing anyone else to do so.
It’s just a strange quirk of how the mind works
How do any of us end up here anyway????
That’s another thread, another topic…I digress
As I’ve stated before. The act of crucifixion happened over such a long period of time (millennia in one form or another) and such geographical range; Hadrian’s wall to eastern Turkey and beyond, by soldiers recruited from all over the known world.
In that context EVERYTHING you’ve ever imagined probably happened at some point somewhere.
Maybe not on a ‘cross’ in a town square, maybe just a small squad with a captured rebel in some isolated woodland miles from anywhere
There were certainly no rules in such scenarios. Just the acts of out of control maniacs twisted by a life of brutal warfare and hardship
Consequently crucifixion ranged from hastily improvised cruelty in the field to well staged professional executions in dedicated locations in big settlements
I think people many want a sense of realism and historical accuracy either for the sake of it (because that’s how they’re wired) or because it’s necessary to prop up a particular fantasy
It’s strange that realism is a requirement because 99.9% of people here wouldn’t really dream of hurting anyone or allowing anyone else to do so.
It’s just a strange quirk of how the mind works
How do any of us end up here anyway????
That’s another thread, another topic…I digress
As I’ve stated before. The act of crucifixion happened over such a long period of time (millennia in one form or another) and such geographical range; Hadrian’s wall to eastern Turkey and beyond, by soldiers recruited from all over the known world.
In that context EVERYTHING you’ve ever imagined probably happened at some point somewhere.
Maybe not on a ‘cross’ in a town square, maybe just a small squad with a captured rebel in some isolated woodland miles from anywhere
There were certainly no rules in such scenarios. Just the acts of out of control maniacs twisted by a life of brutal warfare and hardship
Consequently crucifixion ranged from hastily improvised cruelty in the field to well staged professional executions in dedicated locations in big settlements
crumera
Crucifier of Pixels
Also think the nail it self worked as plug, even if it nicked an artery.
Another consideration that I've seen mentioned, I'm not sure if there's any good source for the idea, or whether it's just speculation - condemned left just tied on crosses would need guarding until they were dead, or beyond hope. Not only was there the possibility that kith and kin might try to rescue them, slaving gangs would come and take them down to be sold for profit. Using nails would obviously make it a lot more difficult to rescue or to steal the condemned, and they wouldn't be in saleable, or even saveable condition if they were un-nailed. So less need for guards.
woodflesh
Magistrate
Nicolaides1313
Condemned
Hey you all. I do think people were nailed to crosses. The evidence is certainly there. And, yes, I think that quite a few people met their end on a cross; unfortunately. However, there are only two cases where we can look at the remains and definitely, say "This person was nailed to a cross". And, in both cases, the evidence points only to nailing in the heel bones. And, if one takes a realistic view of the method of crucifixion, that makes sense. I am not saying they did not occasionally nail people in different manners; probably they did though nobody can say for certain. And, it is possible, with nails being in short supply at times, that the victim would be whipped and then tied to a cross to die of exposure. I can't prove that happened; can you prove it did not?
Marcius
Tribune
These are two cases where we can look at the remains and definitely say 'This is a heel-bone... with a nail sticking out of it!'
The rest is guesswork.The English skeleton is considered as that of a crucifixion victim only because of the Israeli one. Some crucifixion, with only one heel nailed!
As for the Givat HaMivtar bones -- why not a case of upside-down crux with the titulus nailed to the heel in question?
Last edited:
mp5stab
Hair and Nails
You are wrong about the burden of proof here, there is actually more reason to be suspect of the widespread use of ropes as opposed to nails, based on the factors I had elaborated on above. Although you still believe that nailing through the wrists was "unrealistic", a wholly ludicrous complaint based on a misunderstanding of the anatomy of the upper arm and the mechanics of blood flow throughout the body.
Fine. I can just look through original sources.
In a private discussion recently a friend of mine recommended the play "Mostellaria", by the Roman author Platus, so I had to look into it myself, and sure enough there is a reference to crux (seeing as their are many slave characters in the play, and it is set in Athens). Act 2, Scene 1:
Égo dabo eí taléntum, prímus qui ín crucem éxcucúrrerit ;
Séd ea lége, ut óffigántur bís pedés, bis bráchia.
"bís pedés, bis bráchia"; that's an exact fucking quote. Two for the arms and two for the feet. That was about 210 BC.
Here's the link to to the pdf of the book on Google, you can look for yourself.
Nails were never in short supply. Valuable, yes. Rare? Almost never. I will actually quote my friend Jeddak at length here:
"When the Romans abandoned their outpost at Inchtuthil in Scotland in 86 AD, they left a hoard of over 875,000 square nails along with other iron objects buried, apparently underneath a building which they then burned to further disguise and hide the site. The hoard was found in 1960, so their ploy worked. What it shows is while those nails were valuable, they were not indispensable, not even worth the cost of the labor needed to haul them back south. Had it not been for the hostile Scottish tribes, there might not have been a need even to bury and hide them as they did."
I've heard of the hoard there before, especially referenced in our own "Roman Resources" thread, but still, it presents a very striking picture. Nearly a million nails! Enough nails to crucify 200,000 people, truly a ridiculous number. But we do know that the Romans did crucify en masse in that way. Thousands at a time, even. Remember, the after the third servile war, the revolt of Spartacus, the executions along the Appian Way? The siege of Jerusalem? The crucifixions of the slaves of Pedanius Secundus? All involving thousands or hundreds of executions. It is unlikely that every single cross could have been so carefully guarded as to prevent escape if simple ropes were used. No, they must have been secured with nails, through the heel or foot, and the wrist.
"bís pedés, bis bráchia"
So my question to you is, which one did you think they nailed first? Feet or wrists?
Last edited:
crumera
Crucifier of Pixels
You first say a nailed crucified one will die in 15 minutes and so wasn't practiced more then once?
I begin to suspect you are a troll.
Of course people also were tied to crosses but think more of them were nailed then tied for execution.
Natural fibre ropes are good for connecting static things(otherwise they chafe),
expensive and quite susceptible to moisture(sweat for example)
People on crosses aren't staticBTW
Iron nails can be recovered and reused or reforged when damaged
and cause permanent damage to the executed criminal even if he somehow survives.
More semi permanent that way nails can't be removed as quickly as cutting ropes with a knife.
Your 15 minutes then dead by blood loss? In normal cases NO!
Sure it would have happened once in a while.
Strange anatomy can cause major arteries go where normally go,
but the nail is plugging the wound anyway, so 15 minutes is extremely unlikely by blood loss caused by nailing alone.
15 minutes is possible with an open arterial wrist wound provided you make sure no clotting of any kind will occur.
But I think hardly that a crucified would be have his wrist immersed in water to stop the blood clotting.
As for pure archeological evidence alone it could be argued Romans didn't wear clothes cause they rarely find clothing from that time in archeological digs. Does that mean they wore no clothing or only damaged clothing more then leather shoes which are found more frequently somewhat intact
Of course not! In their statues, monuments writing etc clothes are shown and refernced
But probably less then peoples hearts giving out, caused by the shock of getting your limbs unceremoniously spiked to the wood.
Last edited:
woodflesh
Magistrate
Normally the vertical stake was already fixed at the execution place and the piece of wood 'patibulum' where the arms were fixed was carried by the delinquent to the stake. So the wrists were nailed first and the patibulum was lifted up. Afterwards the feet were nailed to the stake, while the victim was hanging by the wrists.
crumera
Crucifier of Pixels
Nice find!!