How To Set Up The Cross

[questperilous]

This must have been covered here years ago, but I'll ask anyway.
What is/was the best way to set the victim on the cross? I'm aware of the method in which the victim is nailed/tied to the crossbar which is then hauled up by ropes and fastened to the already vertical main piece of the cross. But how is that achieved? How can a body of men raise a crossbar with victim attached above their heads, surely there has to be a pivot or fulcrum (what's the word?) in place ABOVE the full height of the cross? It would be impossible otherwise surely? Then how is it fixed in place? Presumably you need a man up a ladder behind the main piece who'll guide it into place to be secured how? And isn't there a risk that the victim, who'll be hanging and writhing by their wrists alone for several minutes, will fall off as the nails simply tear through their wrists and hands. I can't see how this method will work in reality.
As I see it the only way is to have the cross flat on the ground with the lower end at the edge of a deep pre-dug hole. The victim is then nailed/tied to it and the cross raised by ropes attached to the ends of the crossbar until the lower end drops into the hole and is secured upright. Two or three feet of the cross would need to be deep into the ground to prevent it from falling over.
Any illustrations or descriptions here that I can be directed to to see how a cross would be raised?

 

[LittleSiss]

It's easy!

Post and a way to cut wood.

DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Men????????????????

 

[thehangingtree]

This must have been covered here years ago, but I'll ask anyway.
What is/was the best way to set the victim on the cross? I'm aware of the method in which the victim is nailed/tied to the crossbar which is then hauled up by ropes and fastened to the already vertical main piece of the cross. But how is that achieved? How can a body of men raise a crossbar with victim attached above their heads, surely there has to be a pivot or fulcrum (what's the word?) in place ABOVE the full height of the cross? It would be impossible otherwise surely? Then how is it fixed in place? Presumably you need a man up a ladder behind the main piece who'll guide it into place to be secured how? And isn't there a risk that the victim, who'll be hanging and writhing by their wrists alone for several minutes, will fall off as the nails simply tear through their wrists and hands. I can't see how this method will work in reality.
As I see it the only way is to have the cross flat on the ground with the lower end at the edge of a deep pre-dug hole. The victim is then nailed/tied to it and the cross raised by ropes attached to the ends of the crossbar until the lower end drops into the hole and is secured upright. Two or three feet of the cross would need to be deep into the ground to prevent it from falling over.
Any illustrations or descriptions here that I can be directed to to see how a cross would be raised?

It's easy!

Post and a way to cut wood.

DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Men????????????????

Good answer Siss but he said 'the victim'!!!

Is he a sympathizer???

 

[LittleSiss]

Good answer Siss but he said 'the victim'!!!

Is he a sympathizer???

Possibly ???????????????????

MERCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[thehangingtree]

Possibly ???????????????????

MERCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mercy is nothing a brave woman would ask for and nothing granted to a weak one...

Tree

OK, who took the shot at my head???

 

[bobinder]

Any illustrations or descriptions here that I can be directed to to see how a cross would be raised?

The real experts around here are people like Jedakk, Tree and others who have carried out numerous executions in artwork and crux literature (and have really thought about the mechanics involved.)

For what it's worth, I would say it depends how high you want to hang your subject. I usually keep mine fairly close to the ground for practical reasons. If the execution team has the right combination of experience and muscle, I consider that a low crucifixion can be carried out successfully, entirely by brute force.

 

[thehangingtree]

The real experts around here are people like Jedakk, Tree and others who have carried out numerous executions in artwork and crux literature (and have really thought about the mechanics involved.)

For what it's worth, I would say it depends how high you want to hang your subject. I usually keep mine fairly close to the ground for practical reasons. If the execution team has the right combination of experience and muscle, I consider that a low crucifixion can be carried out successfully, entirely by brute force.

View attachment 539562 View attachment 539563 View attachment 539564

Read here and you will find THT Inc. agrees...
http://www.cruxforums.com/xf/thread...inally-goes-to-court.6383/page-14#post-348282

 

[messaline]

As I see it the only way is to have the cross flat on the ground with the lower end at the edge of a deep pre-dug hole. The victim is then nailed/tied to it and the cross raised by ropes attached to the ends of the crossbar until the lower end drops into the hole and is secured upright. Two or three feet of the cross would need to be deep into the ground to prevent it from falling over.

You're right and it's my preference ... and thanks to Rubens for his contribution

 

[Deleted member jedakk]

What is/was the best way to set the victim on the cross? I'm aware of the method in which the victim is nailed/tied to the crossbar which is then hauled up by ropes and fastened to the already vertical main piece of the cross.

This is a really good question and most people gloss right over this when writing about crucifixion. What we usually see is that the victim is nailed to the cross on the ground, and then the whole thing, cross and victim, is raised up. Here's an example of that:



One problem with that is when the cross is almost vertical and not yet dropped into the hole, you have a struggling victim perhaps ten or twelve feet in the air, very unstable and hard to control.



With the "X" cross shown here, the two executioner's helpers have the lower cross arms to hold on to. But with the more common "T" cross, the cross arm will be out of reach. There's only the limited space along the stipes, or central post, for both men to get their hands on and try not to get in each other's way. More men with ropes, poles, etc. are required to keep it from tipping one way or another until it drops into the hole.

With a "T" cross, there's the option of leaving the stipes permanently in place to be re-used. After nailing the victim's wrists to the patibulum, it would have been lifted up with the victim hanging from it by her nailed wrists and set in place atop the stipes.

If a low cross was used, it might have been possible to lift up the patibulum by hand:



This could be difficult with a struggling agonized victim. One particular risk was that with the victim's entire weight hanging by nails in the face of the beam, it could rotate or twist in the executioners' hands, breaking her wrists unless they were very careful.

How can a body of men raise a crossbar with victim attached above their heads, surely there has to be a pivot or fulcrum (what's the word?) in place ABOVE the full height of the cross?

Yes, for any cross tall enough that the patibulum could not be placed by hand, they would have had to have used some kind of lifting arrangement. The Romans commonly used tripods, shear legs, etc. with ropes and pulleys or pulley blocks for construction and probably used some of these for crucifixion too. The simplest would have been what we call a "gin pole" today, simply a tall pole roped to the back of the cross with its base resting on the ground and the ropes and pulley blocks attached to its top. Even simpler would have been a much shorter pole lashed to the upper portion of the back of the stipes. We use something similar today for erecting tall radio towers:



With a pair of typical two-pulley blocks, one person could easily lift a patibulum and victim into place with perhaps another person either on a ladder or using a pole to guide it into place so it could be lowered onto the tenon at the top of the stipes.

And isn't there a risk that the victim, who'll be hanging and writhing by their wrists alone for several minutes, will fall off as the nails simply tear through their wrists and hands. I can't see how this method will work in reality.

If they are going to tear the nails out of their hands during lifting, they are going to tear them out during their crucifixion. Nails have to be placed between the bones of the wrists, not through soft tissue in the palms of the hands.

 

[questperilous]

This is a really good question and most people gloss right over this when writing about crucifixion. What we usually see is that the victim is nailed to the cross on the ground, and then the whole thing, cross and victim, is raised up. Here's an example of that:

View attachment 539660

One problem with that is when the cross is almost vertical and not yet dropped into the hole, you have a struggling victim perhaps ten or twelve feet in the air, very unstable and hard to control.

View attachment 539662

With the "X" cross shown here, the two executioner's helpers have the lower cross arms to hold on to. But with the more common "T" cross, the cross arm will be out of reach. There's only the limited space along the stipes, or central post, for both men to get their hands on and try not to get in each other's way. More men with ropes, poles, etc. are required to keep it from tipping one way or another until it drops into the hole.

With a "T" cross, there's the option of leaving the stipes permanently in place to be re-used. After nailing the victim's wrists to the patibulum, it would have been lifted up with the victim hanging from it by her nailed wrists and set in place atop the stipes.

If a low cross was used, it might have been possible to lift up the patibulum by hand:

View attachment 539673 View attachment 539674 View attachment 539675

This could be difficult with a struggling agonized victim. One particular risk was that with the victim's entire weight hanging by nails in the face of the beam, it could rotate or twist in the executioners' hands, breaking her wrists unless they were very careful.



Yes, for any cross tall enough that the patibulum could not be placed by hand, they would have had to have used some kind of lifting arrangement. The Romans commonly used tripods, shear legs, etc. with ropes and pulleys or pulley blocks for construction and probably used some of these for crucifixion too. The simplest would have been what we call a "gin pole" today, simply a tall pole roped to the back of the cross with its base resting on the ground and the ropes and pulley blocks attached to its top. Even simpler would have been a much shorter pole lashed to the upper portion of the back of the stipes. We use something similar today for erecting tall radio towers:

View attachment 539683

With a pair of typical two-pulley blocks, one person could easily lift a patibulum and victim into place with perhaps another person either on a ladder or using a pole to guide it into place so it could be lowered onto the tenon at the top of the stipes.



If they are going to tear the nails out of their hands during lifting, they are going to tear them out during their crucifixion. Nails have to be placed between the bones of the wrists, not through soft tissue in the palms of the hands.

That's the kind of answer I was hoping for. I can't recall seeing any image of a person being raised on to the cross with the contraption you've described. There must undoubtedly have been such a contrivance, it would be impossible otherwise, but a visual depiction would not look great, it would look too "technical" and unless you know about these thing it would be difficult to put onto paper.
The nailing to the cross whilst on the ground and raising the whole thing looks better and appears far easier to achieve in reality.
As for nailing someone by their wrists alone then raising the cross so they dangle for several minutes before their feet are nailed, wouldn't there be a risk of the writhing victim literally tearing their hands off or through in the struggle? Once their feet are nailed the pressure on the wrists would be far less and therefore little danger of them tearing their hands through. Better to nail both wrists and feet first then raise the whole thing?

 

[Marcius]

As for nailing someone by their wrists alone then raising the cross so they dangle for several minutes before their feet are nailed, wouldn't there be a risk of the writhing victim literally tearing their hands off or through in the struggle?

Anatomically impossible, I think. If the nailheads were too small, there would've been a risk of the arms slipping off, but no executioner in his right mind would've used such nails.

 

[Deleted member jedakk]

As for nailing someone by their wrists alone then raising the cross so they dangle for several minutes before their feet are nailed, wouldn't there be a risk of the writhing victim literally tearing their hands off or through in the struggle? Once their feet are nailed the pressure on the wrists would be far less and therefore little danger of them tearing their hands through. Better to nail both wrists and feet first then raise the whole thing?

This is what I was addressing in my previous post:

If they are going to tear the nails out of their hands during lifting, they are going to tear them out during their crucifixion. Nails have to be placed between the bones of the wrists, not through soft tissue in the palms of the hands.​

If the nails are placed between the small bones of the wrists, then the stresses of a suspended body are being carried by the bones and the ligaments that join them, which are roughly 18 times as strong as muscle tissue.

It also depends on how widely the arms are outspread, too. I think 30 degrees from the vertical is a good angle for the arms, and that's what is shown in the pictures I attached to my previous post. If they were vertical, straight up from the shoulders, then each arm would theoretically carry 50% of the victim's weight, and that would be the force pulling against each nail, too. At 30 degrees, they should each carry about 58% of her weight, not that much more. But at 60 degrees, it becomes 100% of the victim's weight on each arm. There is a point where nails will bend, wrists may be torn apart, shoulders pulled out of joint, etc. The weakest link in the chain, shoulders to wrists, is what will break first.

 

[thehangingtree]

Anatomically impossible, I think. If the nailheads were too small, there would've been a risk of the arms slipping off, but no executioner in his right mind would've used such nails.

that's the truth!!!

 

[Naraku]

I gave this subject some thought when writing my story "Along the Via Nomentana". I came to the conclusion that, for a low cross which was probably the most common, three men could raise patibulum - and the condemned - in the following manner:
Two men take hold of each end and lift the patibulum over their heads. The third man stands on a small ladder or stool behind the stipes and guides the patibulum onto the tenon at the top. The victim would be left dangling - in my story, Basillius is over six foot and his feet touch the ground - until the feet can be secured.
For a taller cross, three men could still do the job. Two men use forked poles placed between the end and mid-point of the patibulum to push it up to the top of the stipes, where the third man, standing on a taller ladder, guides it into place. I saw this demonstrated in a documentary a few years ago. Forked poles were used for this sort of thing in construction until the development of powered tools.
I doubt if a complete cross being raised with the condemned attached was very common, but it could still be done by three men. One man is at the "top" of the cross and lifts the patibulum off the ground. The other two men pull on ropes attached to the ends of the patibulum. As the cross rises, the first man pushes and "walks" the stipes upward. There may have to be a fourth man to guide the stipes into the hole. I know there might be a less strenuous way using an A-frame, but I don't have the engineering knowledge to know how that would work.
Working class men of pre-industrial times were used to relying on muscle power to get things done and, whether soldiers, slaves or professional executioners, they would be in good physical condition. And, they would have no concern for the comfort of the person being crucified.

 

[questperilous]

I gave this subject some thought when writing my story "Along the Via Nomentana". I came to the conclusion that, for a low cross which was probably the most common, three men could raise patibulum - and the condemned - in the following manner:
Two men take hold of each end and lift the patibulum over their heads. The third man stands on a small ladder or stool behind the stipes and guides the patibulum onto the tenon at the top. The victim would be left dangling - in my story, Basillius is over six foot and his feet touch the ground - until the feet can be secured.
For a taller cross, three men could still do the job. Two men use forked poles placed between the end and mid-point of the patibulum to push it up to the top of the stipes, where the third man, standing on a taller ladder, guides it into place. I saw this demonstrated in a documentary a few years ago. Forked poles were used for this sort of thing in construction until the development of powered tools.
I doubt if a complete cross being raised with the condemned attached was very common, but it could still be done by three men. One man is at the "top" of the cross and lifts the patibulum off the ground. The other two men pull on ropes attached to the ends of the patibulum. As the cross rises, the first man pushes and "walks" the stipes upward. There may have to be a fourth man to guide the stipes into the hole. I know there might be a less strenuous way using an A-frame, but I don't have the engineering knowledge to know how that would work.
Working class men of pre-industrial times were used to relying on muscle power to get things done and, whether soldiers, slaves or professional executioners, they would be in good physical condition. And, they would have no concern for the comfort of the person being crucified.

Personally I prefer the image of the victim being nailed on whilst on the ground and the cross being raised in all its glory with a sickening jolt as it falls into place in the hole. Ideally the cross should be a high one with the victim's feet at about onlookers chest level. Ladders and forked poles may be the actual method used, but in my world we prefer the "grand reveal" of a slowly raised cross complete with writhing victim.
Thanks for the replies, I've now got a better picture of the logistics of it all.

 

[Loxuru]

The problem of the condemned hanging for minutes by the wrists only, can be overcome by having him/her standing on the ground when the patibulum is put on the stipes. Somehow like this pic Bobinder posted above in this thread:


The nailing of the feet could then be carried out by bending the legs and nailing sideward through the base of the ankles. This would imply that the condemned will not hang high above the ground, but with the head at normal headlevel. The toes will almost touch the ground, but this 'almost' makes a big difference.

Perhaps we got used to representataions of crucified hanging high above the ground, but maybe that is due to artistic paintings of a crucified Christ through the centuries. Maybe condemned were nailed to lower crosses.

Just a thought.

 

[Eulalia]

no executioner in his right mind would've used such nails.

that's the truth!!!

But a left minded executioner might use soft liberal nails?

 

[Eulalia]

The problem of the condemned hanging for minutes by the wrists only, can be overcome by having him/her standing on the ground when the patibulum is put on the stipes. Somehow like this pic Bobinder posted above in this thread:


The nailing of the feet could then be carried out by bending the legs and nailing sideward through the base of the ankles. This would imply that the condemned will not hang high above the ground, but with the head at normal headlevel. The toes will almost touch the ground, but this 'almost' makes a big difference.

Perhaps we got used to representataions of crucified hanging high above the ground, but maybe that is due to artistic paintings of a crucified Christ through the centuries. Maybe condemned were nailed to lower crosses.

Just a thought.

I think that version is very believable - I think there are literary references that imply that, at least at the Sessorium and other places where Crucifixion was regularly carried out (including Golgotha?), upright stipites were kept in place, the rotting bodies on their patibula (unless they were taken down, with official permission, by family or friends, as Jesus was) were quite possibly not removed until the stipes was needed for a new convict. A simple wheeled trolley or portable platform kept handy at the place of execution would be all that would needed to crucify her a bit higher, to make her more conspicuous to passers-by. But if the Gospel accounts are to be believed, Jesus wasn't hanging very high, low enough to converse with his mother and John, be offered a sponge soaked in vinegar and gall, and be stabbed in the side with a spear.

 

[Cella]

Personally I prefer the image of the victim being nailed on whilst on the ground and the cross being raised in all its glory with a sickening jolt as it falls into place in the hole. Ideally the cross should be a high one with the victim's feet at about onlookers chest level. Ladders and forked poles may be the actual method used, but in my world we prefer the "grand reveal" of a slowly raised cross complete with writhing victim.
Thanks for the replies, I've now got a better picture of the logistics of it all.

That's my fantasy. Seeing my whole cross laid out on the ground, with the hole in the ground at the end of the upright. Wow!

After my nailing comes the rising with my body sliding down as the cross is elevated and dropped into the hole. Yes! That's it! I'm high enough so my crotch is at eye level or slightly higher.

This may actually be easier than raising the crossbeam with me nailed to it up to an upright already fixed in the ground. My executioners have to raise up my body weight as well as that of the crossbeam. My feet still have to be nailed and it's arguably harder to do with me elevated than lying on the ground. More dangerous too if I lose control of my -- ahem -- bodily functions.

Raising the entire cross lets you use the base of the cross as a pivot point until it drops into the hole for it. The condemned is not able to kick out with her feet or anything as they are already nailed to the upright. And if I piss or shit myself while being nailed there's no concern for the executioners.

Not that the other method doesn't have its own appeal. Nailed to her crossbeam, a girl stands with her back to the upright, her naked body dripping with sweat as she awaits the moment her feet leave the ground . . . for the last time. That's heart-pounding too! Still, I prefer nailing to the full cross on the ground, then raised up. More visually dramatic and not that hard for the executioners.

 

[Marcius]

But a left minded executioner might use soft liberal nails?

A left-minded executioner would surely be hard left.