PhilX
Governor
I missed this thread the first time round.
we have discussed the cornu I know before. But I have come round to believing in some cases an anal or vaginal penetration of the victim very likely. It is only a small step on from impalement, but the canny Romans would have designed the penetrating object to be the right size not to cause mortal injuries inside the body (unlike impalement).
I cannot offhand remember the Roman writer who described crucifixion as a disgusting method of execution, just hanging a naked person from a cross would hardly be seen as being disgusting unless something gross was added to the humiliation & torture. Romans were quite used to seeing naked people (in the baths), so the nudity of crucifixion could not fit the description of being disgusting (it might well do so now).
The humiliation of a victim publicly exhibited nude & very visibly enduring anal or vaginal penetration, that a whole crowd could observe due to the victim's splayed legs, would send a powerful message to anyone watching. A horrible parody of copulation illustrating the State of Rome raping malefactors or anyone guilty of sedition.
Of course most likely there were many ways crucifixion could have been done from the rapid roping people to crude crosses for them to starve to death, to the exhibition execution where a noted criminal was degraded & tortured as severely as could be in front of a large crowd. Jesus might have merited the latter as he was regarded as a dangerous influence on the fragile peace of Palestine.
we have discussed the cornu I know before. But I have come round to believing in some cases an anal or vaginal penetration of the victim very likely. It is only a small step on from impalement, but the canny Romans would have designed the penetrating object to be the right size not to cause mortal injuries inside the body (unlike impalement).
I cannot offhand remember the Roman writer who described crucifixion as a disgusting method of execution, just hanging a naked person from a cross would hardly be seen as being disgusting unless something gross was added to the humiliation & torture. Romans were quite used to seeing naked people (in the baths), so the nudity of crucifixion could not fit the description of being disgusting (it might well do so now).
The humiliation of a victim publicly exhibited nude & very visibly enduring anal or vaginal penetration, that a whole crowd could observe due to the victim's splayed legs, would send a powerful message to anyone watching. A horrible parody of copulation illustrating the State of Rome raping malefactors or anyone guilty of sedition.
Of course most likely there were many ways crucifixion could have been done from the rapid roping people to crude crosses for them to starve to death, to the exhibition execution where a noted criminal was degraded & tortured as severely as could be in front of a large crowd. Jesus might have merited the latter as he was regarded as a dangerous influence on the fragile peace of Palestine.
Last edited:
