andy01
Magistrate
I think you underestimate the body's desperate need to survive.
-
Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.
Blue
Magistrate
So then 12 hours, 24 hours? Her execution is part of the story.
Are you the writer of Execution in Arelate and Gabriella? If so, I love your work.
Blue
Magistrate
It is an execution. It’s an unusual scenario: can’t divulge details.
Would denial of water speed up the process? Essentially create a cascading series of events: severe cramping leading to less strength to push/pull up, leading to more severe cramping resulting in even less strength etc...
Blue
Magistrate
That’s quite a dick!
Judging by the mount (but with no frame of reference) it doesn’t look like it is intended to support one’s body weight fully.
CruxGirl
Magistrate
I loved Crucifixion in Arelate. Isn't it on BDSM Library?
DjEtla
Magistrate
Growing up in the Christian church we were told that 36 hours was a typical average time. We were also told that Jesus probably died in around 18 hours due to the especially severe whipping and other brutal mistreatment before he was placed on the cross, which weakened his body more than most. I don't know if that's the consensus view among others. But that's what I was taught.
Frank Petrexa
Tribune
John's gospel says three hours (sixth to the ninth hours) while Mark says six (third to the ninth hours). In both cases Jesus dies of "natural" causes and is not prematurely killed. Pilate is surprised in the synoptics that Jesus was dead so soon, and asks the centurion to verify it, so he expected a longer course. Only John says what happened to the "two others" curcified with Jesus--he claims their legs were broken and they were taken down for religious reasons. So Jesus apparently had a short crucifixion in both tellings. There is of course a question of how old Jesus was, and how severely he was flogged (in Luke apparently not at all). I don't have other sources: Nero's "persecution" of Christians used as a scapegoat for the great fire of Rome did crucify people in the palace gardens, but they were burned alive while on the crosses to provide light to a party after dark, so they didn't die naturally. Jesus does show his hands and feet in Luke to the disbelieving disciples, and in John mentions both the nails and the stab wound (only in John). John is the only place where nails are specifically mentioned.
I have read that crucifixion was not standard--it was left to the "imagination, and cruelty" of the executioners. So ropes only are a possibility, the posture on the cross could be variable, whether there was impalement or not could vary, how much support the body had could vary--if the nails were simply add-ons and weren't required to support the victim's weight then the result would be different.
People have done experiments (with ropes) in modern times, and there are people on this site who have engaged in this as well. Such things at least identify the effects (breathing, muscle pain) and might give a clue.
Romans didn't dwell on this. So it is hard to know.
I have read that crucifixion was not standard--it was left to the "imagination, and cruelty" of the executioners. So ropes only are a possibility, the posture on the cross could be variable, whether there was impalement or not could vary, how much support the body had could vary--if the nails were simply add-ons and weren't required to support the victim's weight then the result would be different.
People have done experiments (with ropes) in modern times, and there are people on this site who have engaged in this as well. Such things at least identify the effects (breathing, muscle pain) and might give a clue.
Romans didn't dwell on this. So it is hard to know.
crumera
Crucifier of Pixels
Depriving water could kill anyone very quickly especially in warm climates.
Torture or whipping could also reduce the length for sure.
Pre crucifixion exhaustion another factor.
And if the time comes you want the executed dead, breaking legs or a well placed deep stab-wound in the torso might bring the survival time down a lot.
You could even pull the nails out of the feet leaving them dangling freely.. same effect as breaking legs as long as the cross is smooth.
1972Golgatha
Assistant executioner
I agree in the average time of suffering, which is much more than one day, but I think Jesus died much faster than the mentioned 18 hours - according to the gospels (as far as I remember), he was crucified in the morning and died in the afternoon - for the reasons you mentioned much faster than others.
cire
Governor
From what I understand, the romans "exhibited" the victims.
I'm only guessing, the success of an execution probably had a lot to do with "who witnessed the execution" and also "how many people witnessed the execution"?
Well possible that the time that the victims spent alive on their crosses played a role, just like psychological aspects for the crowd and the delinquents. Was there huge variation on how the people got crucified? The executioners may have been very well able to direct, how long a person was able to survive on the cross. The romans had a lots of experience.
Also there is hints, that the victims received some special posca-mix to drink for anesthesia.
If I had the task to nail people to the cross and to get the most effect out of it, my victims would receive a sedile and a footrest to keep them alive and conscious as long as possible. I would make sure that they have the chance to find positions that enables them to reduce the pain, at least for a short while. They'd be able to communicate to the crowd, I would want it to appear as if the crucifixion is the most normal thing in the world.
We can't tell and don't know. Maybe crucifixions have been executed totally primitive. No plan, no deeper meaning, no message, no know how. The delinquents then would have suffered from the lack of craftsmanship of their executioners (missing the nails with the hammer, hands and feet crashed).......
I'm only guessing, the success of an execution probably had a lot to do with "who witnessed the execution" and also "how many people witnessed the execution"?
Well possible that the time that the victims spent alive on their crosses played a role, just like psychological aspects for the crowd and the delinquents. Was there huge variation on how the people got crucified? The executioners may have been very well able to direct, how long a person was able to survive on the cross. The romans had a lots of experience.
Also there is hints, that the victims received some special posca-mix to drink for anesthesia.
If I had the task to nail people to the cross and to get the most effect out of it, my victims would receive a sedile and a footrest to keep them alive and conscious as long as possible. I would make sure that they have the chance to find positions that enables them to reduce the pain, at least for a short while. They'd be able to communicate to the crowd, I would want it to appear as if the crucifixion is the most normal thing in the world.
We can't tell and don't know. Maybe crucifixions have been executed totally primitive. No plan, no deeper meaning, no message, no know how. The delinquents then would have suffered from the lack of craftsmanship of their executioners (missing the nails with the hammer, hands and feet crashed).......
1972Golgatha
Assistant executioner
I suspect that the crucifixions in the conquered, often troubled provinces were very different from the crucifixions in the homeland in Rome and the surrounding area.
Cicero wrote, for example, that the cross should be kept away from the perception, eyes and ears of the Roman citizens.
A crucifixion in a rebellious province, on the other hand, was a political statement. Deterrence was achieved through cruelty and long suffering on the cross.
PhilX
Governor
Yes, I am convinced that the main function of crucifixion was to exhibit the criminals (deterrents for crime), very much like the stocks though more painful, more humiliating & with death at the end.
Loxuru
Graf von Kreuzigung
Most likely, in Cicero's times, there were as well people who were in favour of crucifixion, 'for law and order', and opponents, as today, there are people in favour of, or against death penalty, for the same reasons as 2000 years ago.
DjEtla
Magistrate
Here's another indication about how long a crucifixion takes. I guess the healthiest men and women are the ones who lasted the longest. But a lot of other variables come in to play too I'm sure, especially the temperature at the time and whether they are under the direct desert sun.
source: https://familytombofjesus.wordpress...-of-jesus-was-to-be-completed-before-sundown/
culus
Governor
Exhibiting or displaying crucifixion victims was, no doubt, an important part of the public phase of punishment, both as a perceived deterrent to crime, disobedience, rebellion, etc. and as a means to humiliate and degrade the person condemned to death. Even in cultures where male nudity was acceptable, primarily in sporting events, the sight of a stark naked man, tied or nailed to a cross, must have been shocking. For the casual spectators I imagine it would be more curiosity, coupled by a prurient interest in being able to watch. For those who might have suffered harm from the condemned, feared or disliked them, it would have been a form of closure and the ultimate pay back. The longer and more horrible the victim's suffering the more justice would be meted out, in their minds. Of course, the helpless man, hanging naked on the cross, was oblivious to anything but the inexorable approach of death.
Blue
Magistrate
After reading a bit more, and doing some thinking about it from a literary point of view I am going to go with a 26-36 hour window with a sedile and 20-28 hour window without. Need to give condemned water as part of the story now as well. Thanks to all who responded and hope this thread continues to garner interest.
crassuswild
Magistrate
excellent thread
PhilX
Governor
Yes, I have said it several times here that the cross was like the stocks but with death at the end. Two functions, humiliation of the victim plus torture to death. Golgotha we are told was on the busy way into Jerusalem so that many more than those from the city would see the executions, it was meant to be very public.
I am sure the humiliation & torture was tailored to the severity of the criminal, or the determination of the authorities to cause maximum ridicule & humiliation as a deterrent. Maybe not all crucified victims were stripped naked maybe that was saved for the extreme cases. With mass crucifixions such as Alexander's slaughter of the population of Tyre, maybe those poor folk were just roped up on very rudimentary crosses (or even stakes) dressed in what they had, not much need to make a spectacle of an individual, this was genocide & only the soldiers in Alexander's army to witness it. The slaves in Spartacus's revolt were probably much the same.
However what we can surmise from the Gospels is interesting though sketchy, & sadly it is maybe the best account of a crucifixion. Two thieves were put to death alongside Christ, maybe they were simply roped up in their filthy tunics, they were pretty unimportant & their execution commonplace. But Christ was a very different case, the three main authorities, The Temple (blasphemy), Herod (word getting around that he being the King of the Jews, a rumour most likely put about by the Romans) & the Romans (a possible insurgent leader, though during the trial Pilate doubted that eventually) all wanted him dead & made an example of with his death intending to be shocking to everyone who witnessed it.
If the two thieves were standard executions Jesus's crucifixion had to be far worse in both humiliation & the agony of torture. Such severe crucifixions must have been used all over the Empire & Rome itself for 'star criminals' that had to set the gravest example as a deterrent. Jerusalem was a tinder-box about to explode, despite Pilate believing Jesus to be an innocent idiot he had to go along with it.
The accounts hint at different treatment. Why did the two thieves have their legs broken to hasten death whilst a spear was plunged into Jesus's side? I seems to me that he was given the added humiliation of cornu penetration, this would of course necessitate him to be stark naked - an beautiful added extra of humiliation. If the two thieves were just hanging roped by their arms and ankles smashing their legs would of course mean they hung from their arms leading to asphyxiation. However that wouldn't work on Jesus because sitting impaled on the cornu his weight was supported, hauling him up & off the cornu so that he would only hang from his arms would have been difficult, so a spear in the side was the best way to finish him off. That he was found already dead is another matter.
Loxuru
Graf von Kreuzigung
Maybe? Maybe not. The 'special' character of Christ's crucifixion is what history has made of it. Starting with the Gospels.
Perhaps, they crucified every month someone who claimed to be the son of God or the king of the Jews, and had made a bit of riot.
My personal theory is, that Christ got crucified for a mock reason (there was no freedom of speech), because he was as a rabbi too charismatic, and a womaniser. Better to crucify the rabbi for his speech, than lapidating all these married women he seduced.
dfg42
Senator
That could be. The use of cornu in the case of christ would make sense in a Roman mind. The meaning of it was that the state, represented by the cross, fucks the victim. The two other crucified men were normal thieves, so it is civil law, whilst christ was considered to be a rebel, or kind of, where the state was the crucifier. It is already horrible to the jewish mind set of that time, that he was nude, and therefore showing his circumcision..... Today one would just say, "so what", funny enough for those claiming to be christians, had hard time to imagine it....¨
