Long, short or ground-level cross?

[specimeat]

Art has traditionally (and powerfully) depicted the crucifixion with tall, imposing crosses full of dramatic symbolism. However, not a few scholars and experts say that no way. Such tall or "long crosses" would be barely short of a small engineering project (think of stability to start with), not exactly inexpensive and filled with practical problems of all kinds ---from raising and attaching the patibulum with a kicking and writhing guy at that height, to checking if s/he's still alive or not.

The Romans were pragmatic people, crucifixions were a matter-of-factly, cheap method of execution and most possibly they used what has been defined as the "short cross", maybe 7 feet tall or so. You can always cut an old beam to do the job without building something like a ship's mast. Indirect literary evidence from the "most famous crucifixion" also suggests this. For instance, the soldier who gave Jesus drink used a branch of hyssop, up to 60 cm long in the best case. And this would be in "prepared" execution places.

For run-of-the-mill executions, maybe they just actually went arbor infelix or they used whatever two pieces of cheap, sturdy lumber available. As far as the condemned's feet are tied or nailed a palm above the ground, it's enough to do the job.

So, if the decision was up to you, what would you chose? (Please choose one and tick or don't tick the last one.) (Comments are super appreciated)

 

[malins]

Hmmm as so often 'it depends'

A long, high cross might make sense ... if it's ceremonial or a unique display of power and victory, as in
... all of the troops / all of the people are supposed to see it, even if they're far off.

The big advantage of lower crosses is apart from the practicality, of course ummm 'victim accessibility' and the very different position for a victim who may be hanging even below eye level of the executioners.

In practice of course there's the question of whether full crosses were in fact raised each time someone was crucified,
or if, as it's also shown in many stories and artworks, there's a more or less permanent vertical post,
and the victim is first fixed to the crossbar on the ground, and then pulled up with that.
It would be a lot easier to do.
Obviously pre-existing trees, with a bfew branches cleared away, can easily serve as such posts.

Also if one assumes the 'cross raising' approach, to be stable perhaps the cross has to have about 1/3 of its length in well-packed earth,
or there has too be some kind of 'socket' for it.
That means after each crucifixion, the work has to be done to extract that very same cross out of the ground again,
lay it down, put on the next victim, and then reinsert the post again ...
that seems like a lot of unnecessary work!

Nevertheless in terms of the fantasy the idea of carrying the cross to the suffering-ground, and then getting raised on it, is one I find very intense,
so even if this idea is perhaps not the most 'practical' or 'realistic' one I like it!

 

[cruxlover]

Does my memory serve me correctly or not:
In the film "Alexander the Great" king Xerzes of Persia has been killed by his generals after being defeated by Alexander.

Alexander adddreses the army of his defeated enemy "Whoever killed King Zerzes come forward and I will raise him up above his people".
So the generals presented themselves before Alexander hoping for their reward.
Alexander had them crucified atop long poles (stipes?)

(Did I spell Zerzes right?)

 

[specimeat]

Does my memory serve me correctly or not:
In the film "Alexander the Great" king Xerzes of Persia has been killed by his generals after being defeated by Alexander.

Alexander adddreses the army of his defeated enemy "Whoever killed King Zerzes come forward and I will raise him up above his people".
So the generals presented themselves before Alexander hoping for their reward.
Alexander had them crucified atop long poles (stipes?)

(Did I spell Zerzes right?)

i think you mean Xerxes, but i can't see how they could be contemporary or anything.

However, this would be a "kingly execution" of top-level prisoners intended for maximum effect and exemplarity ("thou shan't kill your king, especially now that I'm your king"), no matter the cost or practical difficulties. i don't think that the "weekly crucifixion" would be so elaborate, or very elaborate at all.

 

[petraherz]

Depending on political crimes i think it was a practice to nail the victims on high crosses. They can be seen from a far distance. I could also imagine that such crosses were painted perhaps in a white manner to become aware of them. Therefore Jesus would probably nailed to a such high cross.

 

[hornet1ba]

Probably not realistic or historical but a telescopic cross could be designed to began the crucifixion at low level to let the executioners work on the victim...
And then raise the cross when their task are done to let the victim exposed to a greater number of spectator!

 

[mp5stab]

I believe that there was art of that. I’ll post it if I find it. But also that’s would be a great idea for you to tackle.

 

[IgnikaMarcus]

Hmm.......
All of them.
Depending on occasion.

 

[Madiosi]

 

[bobinder]

​

Damian's executioners have adapted a siege catapult to provide a practical, and portable solution. This means that post mortem, the body can be lowered and detached, and then, without further handling, the corpse can be ejected a considerable distance in any chosen direction.

Following such a spectacular deposition, a team of horses can be harnessed to haul the 'Catacrux' to its next location. And if horses are not available, there is always the traditional option of forcing the next victim to drag it, single handed... Here's another one, without the defensive shield.

​

 

[Naraku]

Does my memory serve me correctly or not:
In the film "Alexander the Great" king Xerzes of Persia has been killed by his generals after being defeated by Alexander.

Alexander adddreses the army of his defeated enemy "Whoever killed King Zerzes come forward and I will raise him up above his people".
So the generals presented themselves before Alexander hoping for their reward.
Alexander had them crucified atop long poles (stipes?)

(Did I spell Zerzes right?)

i think you mean Xerxes, but i can't see how they could be contemporary or anything.

However, this would be a "kingly execution" of top-level prisoners intended for maximum effect and exemplarity ("thou shan't kill your king, especially now that I'm your king"), no matter the cost or practical difficulties. i don't think that the "weekly crucifixion" would be so elaborate, or very elaborate at all.

The Persian king who lost to Alexander was Darius III.

And I do think that the Romans would normally use the shorter, 7 foot or two meter or such, cross because it would be cheaper and easier to mount. A tall cross may have been used in special cases, but it would have been rare.

 

[hornet1ba]

View attachment 900653​

Damian's executioners have adapted a siege catapult to provide a practical, and portable solution. This means that post mortem, the body can be lowered and detached, and then, without further handling, the corpse can be ejected a considerable distance in any chosen direction.

Following such a spectacular deposition, a team of horses can be harnessed to haul the 'Catacrux' to its next location. And if horses are not available, there is always the traditional option of forcing the next victim to drag it, single handed... Here's another one, without the defensive shield.

View attachment 900654​

Ingenious!

 

[cire]

For whatever reason, when I think about crucifixion, I never think of high crosses. Of course that doesn't mean that "high crosses" haven't been in use. Everything was possible. Like mentioned by specimeat, it's a much bigger issue to stabilize something that high.

Isn't it much easier for the execution team to nail the victim to the Patibulum, then lift her/him up and just attach the victim with the Patibulum to the Stipes? At this point of the execution, there is no need that the victims feet are off the ground already. With the feet on the ground, a condemned is able to "help" the executioners to bring the Patibulum in position. Then she/he can be advised to may step on some footrest for further action.

Most christian paintings and bible films show high crosses. But to me it's much more exiting to have the delinquents on eye level. The executed are so close to the spectators. In a way they all belong together there at the execution site. There is only a few little differences between the condemned and the audience.

 

[Crux-Emperor Baracus X]

Here's the ideal short-crux scenario....
The filthy whore,condemned to kneel,bound until she dies....her only sustenance being the sperm,she's forced to ingest.
No escape from the heat,discomfort and total degradation, she must suffer,for her obscene acts.

 

[PhilX]

Feet about head height, 6ft or 2metres above the ground or a bit higher, then everyone watching can see the whole body. It also is practical to be raised in the hinged way one can see in the film Risen (the most practical & believable way of making a crucifying machine).

The problem with low level crucifying apart from the fact it's not that visible (one of the important features of such an execution) is that, yes, the victims are easy to get at to inflict sadistic abuse, but because of that they would be too easy to be put out of their misery by sympathetic friends or relatives unless attentively overseen by guards all the time.

 

[old slave]

they would be too easy to be put out of their misery by sympathetic friends or relatives

Maybe all visitors have to be naked and searched first. Then the crucified would know who really loved/hated them.
No visitors = no real friends = greater humiliation.

 

[crumera]

I like high and low crosses and everything in between.
limiting my fantasy to one choice seems so restrictive either as executioner or as public.

Guess the same applies to victim preference I would guess for people who are into that.

 

[Loxuru]

For practical reasons, a low cross seems most obvious : cheaper in material cost, better stability, easier execution of the condemned.

From our fantasy approach, all options are open. On the low cross, the condemned's toes may touch the grass, but the soil is still far away.

A high cross may serve for an exemplatory execution. But what is 'high'? Feet one and a half meter about ground level to my opinion. Or medium height, which offers 'advantages' of both (feet about 75 cm above the ground).

And the advantages of a high crossfor the condemned are obvious from this classic ::

Jezus : "John! John!"
Disciples : "Our Lord is talking! Let's hear!"
Jezus : "John!"
John ; "Yes, My Lord, speak to me!"
Jezus : "John! I can see your house from up here!"

 

[Crux-Emperor Baracus X]

Another low cross....

 

[Cella]

We are presented with high or low options. High is better for public display but difficult to raise. Low is easy for the executioner but the condemned are too close to the spectators and not as visible to the crowd.

I always imagine something in between. A medium height cross. (This might be someone's idea of a tall cross.) The condemn person's crotch would be just above eye level to the average-height spectator standing close to the cross. Low enough for extreme humiliation but tall enough for more to see. The cross would also be erected at the high point of slightly sloping ground next to a road, perhaps, so passersby could see the condemned.

My feet (oh dear, I'm personalizing this!) would be nailed a few feet or so up on the wood when the cross is raised. I imagine a spectator allowed to reach up and put his hand between my thighs, investigate my . . . well, you know!