• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Historical Question: How did crucifiers get people on the cross without encountering extreme resistance?

Go to CruxDreams.com
Back in the days when New York had the death penalty, Stan Goldman put a couple of people on death row. They went to the electric chair protesting their innocence all the way. It later turned out they were right:doh:. Damn that DNA!
Of course, a lot of those sent to the cross will be "guilty" in the strict sense - even if only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
Read "The Hangman's Tale" By Syd Dernley who was a professional hangman in England for four years from 1949.
He describes the process with detachment and doesn't pass judgment on those he hung, with just one exception. That of Timothy Evens who he assisted hang with Albert Pierrepoint.
 
Back in the days when New York had the death penalty, Stan Goldman put a couple of people on death row. They went to the electric chair protesting their innocence all the way. It later turned out they were right:doh:. Damn that DNA!
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. - Maybe the tree of justice is thirsty too?
Besides where wood is chopped, splinters must fall.
I am sure there a lot more silly excuses to soothe the conscience of every supporter of the death penalty.
 
the social pressure of “doing the right thing,” not “making a scene,” not making these big soldiers mad - could those considerations hold some weight for some people, especially if for the moment they’re not in any pain?
Interesting point. Social pressure, to me, could certainly be a factor. Particularly in a mass crucifixion situation, in which everyone around me appears to be accepting of their fate and docily cooperating with the demands of their executioners.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure we have very good numbers on how many did that vs how many put up little or no resistance. The Zealots at Masada killed themselves rather than be captured by the Romans. I certainly wonder about people being made to carry their cross up a hill. Yes, they are whipped if they lie down, but why not just lie there and let them whip you to death. And perhaps some did...Since I much prefer whipping to crucifixion, perhaps I should use that as a story...
I doubt that they'd whip you to death. If whipping you didn't get you to stand and carry the cross, they would have found another way of getting you there and probably additional punishment for not cooperating. I'd be interested in reading that story, though, if you decide to write it.
 
Crucifixion was typically carried out by specialized teams, consisting of a commanding centurion and his soldiers. First, the condemned would be stripped naked and scourged. This would cause the person to lose a large amount of blood, and approach a state of shock.
 
Even in peace time I highly doubt that

I rather think a centurion with 80 soldiers and 20 noncombattant under his command would have better things to do.
He would rather give the order to one of the 10 conterbiniums or even half such a unit to fix a criminal to the cross.

Or even more likely, get a thrust-worthy veteran roman soldier and assign some auxilairy troops to him to get the job done.


In roman cities there would be no legionairy soldiers stationed normally.

That doesn't mean some enterprising retired soldier couldn't crucify someone with some help of slaves/ hired people to crucify a criminal.

Specialized centuries would be out of the question.. for example:
The whole of Judea , Sameria and Gallilee wouldn't have more then 4 centuries of legionairs in peace time during beginning of AD.
The bulk of the closest legion was based out of Syria where the desert was less severe and frontlines with parthia were much closer to the roman lands.

Legionairs were combat troops... the elite troops if you please.
They need to be kept in optimal fighting condition... marches and weapon training.
In a full legion yeah maybe they had some specialists who performed crucifixions if needed in addition to other duties.

But crucifixion wan't standardized.. think most roman legionaires could perform a sort of crucifixion.
Nothing to fancy mind you
Secure forearms/wirst with ropes or nails. secure feet with ropes or nails.. the nearest tree will do nicely.
or any wooden structure for that matter..

If victim was in danger of ripping free of the nails.. just add more nails/ropes.. :D
 
Even in peace time I highly doubt that

I rather think a centurion with 80 soldiers and 20 noncombattant under his command would have better things to do.
He would rather give the order to one of the 10 conterbiniums or even half such a unit to fix a criminal to the cross.

Or even more likely, get a thrust-worthy veteran roman soldier and assign some auxilairy troops to him to get the job done.


In roman cities there would be no legionairy soldiers stationed normally.
It's an interesting topic. Death sentences imposed by Roman governors were executed by their military staff, i.e. the soldiers detached for special duty from their legions and/or auxilia. A state execution could very well have been supervised by a centurion -- there was at least one around according to Boris Rankov in 'The governor's men: the officium consularis in provincial administration' (from 'The Roman Army as a Community'. eds. A. Goldsworthy ; I. Haynes. 1999. pp. 15-34.
Although a governor would normally have had some centurions in attendance, the title of the senior centurion - princeps praetorii - and that of his deputy - optio praetorii - suggest that he was in overall charge of the governor’s headquarters (praetorium) rather than his staff (officium) as such.
However, this supervision could have involved crowd control and keeping order in general only. If I had to guess, centurions were likely to organize mass 'military' crucifixions in time of war -- for example executions during the siege of Jerusalem reported by Flavius Josephus.
That doesn't mean some enterprising retired soldier couldn't crucify someone with some help of slaves/ hired people to crucify a criminal.
A private crucifixion is another matter, at least according to the Puteolan law on the subject. The undertakers will flog, burn, crucify your slave -- just pay up!

Or not -- if you're the city magistrate who has officially condemned someone to the cross.
 
Interesting reference. must get my hands on that book.
Think it will be very interesting read
 
The chapter can be found on the Net. The bits most relevant to us are:

... Ulpian quotes a rescript of Hadrian’s in which the emperor forbids optiones, speculatores and commentarienses to profit from the personal effects of executed prisoners (‘pannicularia’, literally ‘rags’).
and
Speculatores in the provincial officia were certainly used as couriers, especially between the provinces and Rome, occasionally on outpost duty like the beneficiarii, and in one instance as a sort of military police. But their best known duty was as executioners, a task they apparently took over from the lictors. Their method was decapitation by the sword. They acquired this role very early on, since Seneca twice describes speculatores decapitating criminals, and St Mark even uses the word spekoulatora to describe the executioner of John the Baptist under Herod. We have already noted their association with executions in the rescript of Hadrian quoted by Ulpian, and St Cyprian was executed by a speculator.
No mention of crucifixion. Indeed, decapitation was the 'default' execution method in Imperial Rome. However, governors did condemn brigands to be crucified and arsonists to be burned -- they must have used their speculatores for that as well.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom