Question for the Lictors: How Much Whipping is Too Much?

[maumau59]

You have been asked to prepare a person that you judge to have average strength and stamina for a real crucifixion. The whipping you inflict is expected to produce the maximum possible discomfort for the condemned. There is no set number of lashes, but the crowd and the authorities expect to see some blood. However, if the condemned expires after hanging for less than six hours on the cross, you will be blamed. You have a choice of whips and techniques at your disposal based on your previous experience. Which of the following statements describe how you would proceed? (multiple statements may apply)

1. Use a single tail whip, snap the tip to tear the skin in short cuts up to a few inches long, spreading the wounds evenly across the back and buttocks, stopping before isolated wounds merge.
2. Use a single tail whip to tear the skin in long gashes an inch or so apart, changing hands or working with a partner to crisscross strokes, stopping when skin is removed or hangs in ribbons across the upper back and buttocks.
3. Use a scourge to puncture the skin of the back and buttocks, stopping when blood drips from the condemned’s body to the ground.
4. Use a scourge to open wounds on the back and buttocks, dragging each lash across the body until skin is removed.
5. Use a flogger or lighter strokes of one of the whips above on the front of the body, avoiding serious injuries to the abdomen or genitalia, but terrifying the condemned as they see the whip coming at their most sensitive places.
6. Other (please specify)

Any images that illustrate “what right looks like” are welcome. Thank you, Lictors!

Use a scourge to puncture the skin of the back and buttocks, stopping when blood drips from the condemned’s body to the ground.

 

[PhilX]

This we have discussed this before. I am extremely doubtful about the History Channel program where a bed quilt is ripped to shreds by a hooked scourge with the implication that victims of crucifixion were similarly flayed. This is far too over the top. Blood loss would be tremendous, the shock of such wounding would have taumatic consequences, & a point I have made a few times here is that such tearing of flesh would be far too likely to rip open the abdomen & the guts spill out. This would not be appropriate if the victim was to next be subjected to crucifixion.

Such scourging I am sure was a standard Roman punishment, but surely a punishment of a 'scourging to death'.

Whipping or lightly scourging a criminal to be crucified across the naked shoulders & buttocks till the flesh is lacerated & raw makes good sadistic sense, it would be agony to rub those wounds constantly against the rough timber of the cross as one raises & lowers oneself.

 

[maumau59]

This we have discussed this before. I am extremely doubtful about the History Channel program where a bed quilt is ripped to shreds by a hooked scourge with the implication that victims of crucifixion were similarly flayed. This is far too over the top. Blood loss would be tremendous, the shock of such wounding would have taumatic consequences, & a point I have made a few times here is that such tearing of flesh would be far too likely to rip open the abdomen & the guts spill out. This would not be appropriate if the victim was to next be subjected to crucifixion.

Such scourging I am sure was a standard Roman punishment, but surely a punishment of a 'scourging to death'.

Whipping or lightly scourging a criminal to be crucified across the naked shoulders & buttocks till the flesh is lacerated & raw makes good sadistic sense, it would be agony to rub those wounds constantly against the rough timber of the cross as one raises & lowers oneself.

Of course I agree with you, in ancient Rome there was the death penalty by flagellation, which must have been atrocious, and certainly only that involved the use of hooked whips in order to cause the maximum possible pain to the condemned person and practically flay him to whiplash. Often two torturers were used, so the lashes came from two different whips, on different points of the body. For the crucifixion the flagellation certainly had to be lighter (still causing wounds and lacerations but not as deep) because the aim was not death but only to cause an increase in the punishment. The real torture was being on the cross nailed to the wood, with your back, buttocks and legs whipped in contact with the wood, but the maximum suffering was caused by the crucifixion and not by the whippings. The whippings could not be too violent, otherwise the condemned would die too soon and this was inconceivable to the public: the crucifixion had to last many hours, if not days…

 

[PhilX]

Of course I agree with you, in ancient Rome there was the death penalty by flagellation, which must have been atrocious, and certainly only that involved the use of hooked whips in order to cause the maximum possible pain to the condemned person and practically flay him to whiplash. Often two torturers were used, so the lashes came from two different whips, on different points of the body. For the crucifixion the flagellation certainly had to be lighter (still causing wounds and lacerations but not as deep) because the aim was not death but only to cause an increase in the punishment. The real torture was being on the cross nailed to the wood, with your back, buttocks and legs whipped in contact with the wood, but the maximum suffering was caused by the crucifixion and not by the whippings. The whippings could not be too violent, otherwise the condemned would die too soon and this was inconceivable to the public: the crucifixion had to last many hours, if not days…

It might have been amusing with a scourging to death to begin with the victim fully dressed. The hooked scourges would start by tearing off the garments, then the flesh, long hair would be ripped out (really painful!) & male genitals would soon be torn away as would female breasts - both of these events would be totally wrong if a crucifixion was to follow, mainly because the victim would be bleeding to death already!

 

[maumau59]

It might have been amusing with a scourging to death to begin with the victim fully dressed. The hooked scourges would start by tearing off the garments, then the flesh, long hair would be ripped out (really painful!) & male genitals would soon be torn away as would female breasts - both of these events would be totally wrong if a crucifixion was to follow, mainly because the victim would be bleeding to death already!

The Romans were great technicians in the construction of aqueducts and monuments and also in torture: the crucifix had to remain on the cross for a long time and suffer atrociously for his sins (real or presumed), so even if fascinating your idea could not have been appreciated by them . But it’s not a bad idea!

 

[ianwarrick]

You have been asked to prepare a person that you judge to have average strength and stamina for a real crucifixion. The whipping you inflict is expected to produce the maximum possible discomfort for the condemned. There is no set number of lashes, but the crowd and the authorities expect to see some blood. However, if the condemned expires after hanging for less than six hours on the cross, you will be blamed. You have a choice of whips and techniques at your disposal based on your previous experience. Which of the following statements describe how you would proceed? (multiple statements may apply)

1. Use a single tail whip, snap the tip to tear the skin in short cuts up to a few inches long, spreading the wounds evenly across the back and buttocks, stopping before isolated wounds merge.
2. Use a single tail whip to tear the skin in long gashes an inch or so apart, changing hands or working with a partner to crisscross strokes, stopping when skin is removed or hangs in ribbons across the upper back and buttocks.
3. Use a scourge to puncture the skin of the back and buttocks, stopping when blood drips from the condemned’s body to the ground.
4. Use a scourge to open wounds on the back and buttocks, dragging each lash across the body until skin is removed.
5. Use a flogger or lighter strokes of one of the whips above on the front of the body, avoiding serious injuries to the abdomen or genitalia, but terrifying the condemned as they see the whip coming at their most sensitive places.
6. Other (please specify)

Any images that illustrate “what right looks like” are welcome. Thank you, Lictors!

I would choose a combination of 1 and 2. That is a single tail producing short cuts but with two whippers changing every three lashes. The whole of the culprits back, bottom and breasts should taste the whips until fainting. Each lash should be separate so no blood only severe whip marks