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

Pre-crucifixion Scourging? Add-on Or Necessity?

Go to CruxDreams.com

nux581

Magistrate
I have been noodling my way through various archives, and discussions in a number of threads center on what was "normal" in the crucifixion of Jesus, and what was unusual. I have come to believe that a brutal scourging of the condemned was a necessary component of a crucifixion using nails.

Quite simply, holding a strong, desperate male tight against the wood for nailing his limbs down would be no easy matter. Could a group of equally strong (but not so desperate) men accomplish the deed? Of course, but probably not without bloody noses, scratched faces, and various bruises to show for it. That is why the scourging is a necessity. Nothing like taking the starch out of a person than a horrific scourging.

Searing pain as skin is torn to shreds coupled with massive loss of blood and lymph would put the victim into shock. After the grinding, stumbling walk carrying the heavy patibulum (or perhaps the entire cross) to the place of execution, enduring further pain and blood loss, the condemned would be in no state to resist. Ensuing struggles would be weak and ineffective, if they took place at all.

I presume that women were subjected to a lesser level of pre-crux preparation. I have seen suggestions that the scourging was limited to buttocks and upper thighs, using a smaller, lighter flagellum. That would fit the picture; a woman would be easier to dominate during the nailing.

The Romans were definitely an efficient people. Scourging prior to crucifixion provides a memorable spectacle, and effectively preps the condemned for nailing to the cross. It was probably standard practice.

Anyways, those are my thoughts...
 
The Romans were definitely an efficient people.

Oh, yeah? You think so? Let me tell you that crucifixion is the most cost-inefficient means of execution ever invented. If it's so damn efficient, how come I got an Email from Caesar just this morning that said: "Pilate, you're over budget again! Stop crucifying so damned many people!" Well, Mr. Fancy-Pants Emperor, you put me in charge of the most rebellious province in the Empire, so what am I supposed to do? You know what wood and nails cost these days? And scourges? Not to mention all those soldiers standing around for days just watching until everyone is dead.

You want efficient, look at Henry VIII. You take an ax, you chop the heads off, done. Then you can use the ax to chop down trees. Or the Aztecs with their obsidian daggers. Two seconds and it's over and you can use the knife to carve your steak at dinner. We should learn from the future, we Romans.

Take the guys I crucified today-PLEASE! One of them went on and on about God and how he forgave us. Jesus Christ! Yeah, that was his name, they told me. I don't need that crap. Two more years and then I can retire to my Tuscan villa. Can't come soon enough.

Regards,

Pontius Pilate
 
Scourging prior to crucifixion provides a memorable spectacle, and effectively preps the condemned for nailing to the cross. It was probably standard practice

The Romans crucified people for about a thousand years and all over the empire that they eventually conquered. From accounts like those of Josephus and Seneca, it seems that there was no rigid standard of practice for crucifixion. As far as overpowering a strong male victim, a hard blow of a truncheon to the balls would go a long way toward accomplishing that goal whether he had been whipped, scourged, or not. And once that first wrist was pinned to the timber by a nail, it wouldn't have been much of a contest.
 
yep. but where is the fun of the spectators, who want or even enjoy seeing the victim suffer?

We come down to that bane of bureaucracies everywhere, which budget do you use? The standard army consumables, or the public relations one? You want cheap, the army axe. You want a show, the PR full crucifixion.
 
Oh, yeah? You think so? Let me tell you that crucifixion is the most cost-inefficient means of execution ever invented. If it's so damn efficient, how come I got an Email from Caesar just this morning that said: "Pilate, you're over budget again! Stop crucifying so damned many people!" Well, Mr. Fancy-Pants Emperor, you put me in charge of the most rebellious province in the Empire, so what am I supposed to do? You know what wood and nails cost these days? And scourges? Not to mention all those soldiers standing around for days just watching until everyone is dead.

You want efficient, look at Henry VIII. You take an ax, you chop the heads off, done. Then you can use the ax to chop down trees. Or the Aztecs with their obsidian daggers. Two seconds and it's over and you can use the knife to carve your steak at dinner. We should learn from the future, we Romans.

Take the guys I crucified today-PLEASE! One of them went on and on about God and how he forgave us. Jesus Christ! Yeah, that was his name, they told me. I don't need that crap. Two more years and then I can retire to my Tuscan villa. Can't come soon enough.

Regards,

Pontius Pilate

Well said... But the efficiencies go beyond the mere mechanics of torturing rebellious undesirables to death. The pageantry and display are critical aspects. Just think! A stimulating upper body workout for the two wielding the scourges. A pleasant strut through town, displaying martial might as the condemned drags his or her cross. The easily-subdued rebel is fixed to the wood and raised on high for all to see and jeer. Nails and gravity and sun add to the torn flesh to supply many hours of excruciating torture, while the crew loafs about the foot of the cross, leaning on their spears and idly gambling over the victim's rags.

Not mass-murder, but a horrific, casual brutality by the Roman state upon individual who crossed the line.
 
The Romans crucified people for about a thousand years and all over the empire that they eventually conquered. From accounts like those of Josephus and Seneca, it seems that there was no rigid standard of practice for crucifixion. As far as overpowering a strong male victim, a hard blow of a truncheon to the balls would go a long way toward accomplishing that goal whether he had been whipped, scourged, or not. And once that first wrist was pinned to the timber by a nail, it wouldn't have been much of a contest.

A "field" crucifixion, certainly. Beat the man senseless on the spot, fix him to the wood, and up he goes. But for a parade through the streets... I am given to understand that a blow to the testicles makes a man want to curl up. Walking is the last thing he is thinking of.

I am thinking of Jeddak's wonderful depiction of Lucilla in "The Serpent's Eye." On the way to her cross, she breaks free and runs amuck for a few minutes. Imagine if she was a he, and a burly field-hand to boot, swinging a massive cross-beam. Better to have him in shock post-scourging for the parade, desperately trying to keep his feet.
 
A "field" crucifixion, certainly. Beat the man senseless on the spot, fix him to the wood, and up he goes. But for a parade through the streets... I am given to understand that a blow to the testicles makes a man want to curl up. Walking is the last thing he is thinking of.

I am thinking of Jeddak's wonderful depiction of Lucilla in "The Serpent's Eye." On the way to her cross, she breaks free and runs amuck for a few minutes. Imagine if she was a he, and a burly field-hand to boot, swinging a massive cross-beam. Better to have him in shock post-scourging for the parade, desperately trying to keep his feet.

Ok, what I had in mind was the point at which the executioners were actually placing the man in position for nailing. If you're talking about walking to the place of execution, you would want them to be still physically able to carry the patibulum no matter what you had done to them before that point.

I didn't visualize what Lucilla did as running amok; all she actually did was manage to get a little slack in her lead chain so she could launch herself onto the back of one of the bystanders and try to strangle him before they pulled her off. Then she managed to elbow Hercules in the testicles and drop him, and that was it. I did think about writing something in there about what she had done to them during one of her previous crucifixions when she turned her patibulum into a weapon and hurt people who made the mistake of getting within her range.

Burly field hand, gladiator, whatever, experienced executioners likely had their ways of handling them just like trained people do today, i.e. police, insane asylum attendants, etc. And inexperienced executioners probably got hurt sometimes. And condemned who hurt their executioners might well have paid dearly for that later.
 
Oh, yeah? You think so? Let me tell you that crucifixion is the most cost-inefficient means of execution ever invented. If it's so damn efficient, how come I got an Email from Caesar just this morning that said: "Pilate, you're over budget again! Stop crucifying so damned many people!" Well, Mr. Fancy-Pants Emperor, you put me in charge of the most rebellious province in the Empire, so what am I supposed to do? You know what wood and nails cost these days? And scourges? Not to mention all those soldiers standing around for days just watching until everyone is dead.

You want efficient, look at Henry VIII. You take an ax, you chop the heads off, done. Then you can use the ax to chop down trees. Or the Aztecs with their obsidian daggers. Two seconds and it's over and you can use the knife to carve your steak at dinner. We should learn from the future, we Romans.

Take the guys I crucified today-PLEASE! One of them went on and on about God and how he forgave us. Jesus Christ! Yeah, that was his name, they told me. I don't need that crap. Two more years and then I can retire to my Tuscan villa. Can't come soon enough.

Regards,

Pontius Pilate

Regulations old chap, beheading's for Roman citizens, crux for the riff-raff.
This guy you crucified, was he the long-haired loony in a goatskin,
who said we must wash ourselves in a river and not a respectable bath-house,
and live on a diet of locusts?

And who's this Enricvs viii? Some barbarian I'll warrant, trying to wriggle out of the Pax Romana.
Well you can tell him, beheading's for reject wives and ranks of dux and above -
and if it's too chilly to put on a good crucifixion wherever he is on the edge of the world,
burning alive is another good old Roman way of dealing with deviants.

Chin up Poncy!

Tiberius Caesar Dīvī ... oh, you slavegirl, get some squid-ink and write the rest of my name,
this new technology's more than an emperor can be expected to cope with.
 
This guy you crucified, was he the long-haired loony in a goatskin,
who said we must wash ourselves in a river and not a respectable bath-house,
and live on a diet of locusts?

No, that loony was actually beheaded. Saved a few bucks there:p. It was his follower that other long-haired hippie. I excuse you, though, it's damned hard to keep track of these Commie pinkos.
And who's this Enricvs viii? Some barbarian I'll warrant, trying to wriggle out of the Pax Romana.
Well you can tell him, beheading's for reject wives and ranks of dux and above -
and if it's too chilly to put on a good crucifixion wherever he is on the edge of the world,
burning alive is another good old Roman way of dealing with deviants.

True, but Mexico is very warm, but the Aztecs still did OK with daggers. :rolleyes: And they had tomatoes but no pizza. Imagine if they and the Romans had ever gotten together....
 
I have seen suggestions that the scourging was limited to buttocks and upper thighs, using a smaller, lighter flagellum. That would fit the picture; a woman would be easier to dominate during the nailing.
Hi - just curious - where did this concept come from? Is this historical?
 
We've discussed the pre-crux scourging here a few times.

I certainly don't like the scenario in Mel's bloodbath movie, that sort of scourging I reckon would have been over the top. In fact in my opinion it spoilt the film because the scourging was so bad it made the actual crucifixion look less of an ordeal.

Back to the subject. Was scourging part & parcel of crucifixion? We really don't know for sure. The gospels are more or less our only accounts, & only in Matthew & Mark is a scourging mentioned, & that was intended to be Christ's ONLY punishment.

For mere cruelty a whipping of the back & buttocks to lacerate the skin would have added amusement because of the extra pain these would give when in contact with the rough timber of the cross.

The flesh-ripping hooked scourges that are commonly associated with pre=crucifixion (& what we see in Mel's film) I think were more commonly used with a sentence of scourging to death. Such scourges would very quickly tear the abdomen wall & cause disembowelment, this would more or less cancel any plan for a crucifixion!

I don't think the purpose of crucifixion was intended to be a killing device such as the guillotine or the gallows, or even just the block of wood & the axe. I think it was much more like the pillory, a means to exhibit the victim to ridicule from the watching crowd. An advertisement of the punitive power of Rome, a brutal message. It was an agonising & humiliating exposition of the criminal until he or she died after hanging for days on it or was dispatched by the executioners by the breaking of legs when they thought the time right for that.
 
Hi - just curious - where did this concept come from? Is this historical?
It seems to be pretty universal in historically-minded accounts of THE crucifixion, and crucifixions in general. There was a TV presentation on crucifixions (Nat Geo?), which I saw pieces of on the web. They all seem to involve a scourging before the walk to the place of execution. That got me to thinking about the purpose of it all.
 
I agree about the discussion so far, but I like the idea, that the flogging may have served three purposes at the same time:

- weakening the victim and break the will to resist so he/she would not be able to struggle too much, kick or fight back in panic when the moment came when he/she would be nailed to the cross(beam). That may have been especially important when the public execution served deterrence purposes and examples of Roman justice should be conducted on runaway slaves or rebels. It surely did not "look good" to the audience when the executioners had problems to "handle" the victims properly and the flogging may have helped to avoid such situations.
- intesify the pain, when the bloody back scratched along the rough wood of the pole when the victim moved his/her naked body slowly up and down the pole to breath
- hasten death by blood loss when very strong or fit victims may have lived for days. well, from the Gospels we know that the "crucifragium" served the same purpose as "final measure".

The only problem I see, is the correct "amount" of torture to be conducted - the victim should be sufficiently weakened but at the same time still able to carry the cross(beam). I can imagine that was not easy, even for experienced torturers and executioners. Depending on age, fitness, starvation etc. of the prisoner that wasnt always easy to judge, I think.
Well, from the Gospels we know that it went "wrong" (more often than "sometimes", I would presume) with some victims...
 
I wonder how much of an 'event' the executioners wanted to make the crucifixion of a notable criminal.

For the sake of the entertainment of the crowds (who would undoubtedly turn out in large numbers to watch such criminals) it would be far better to crucify them fairly fit and compos mentis so that the crowd can see the suffering and exchange insults & banter. The victims fighting & struggling on the cross & shouting back at the crowd would be considered great entertainment. To hang a half dead carcass beaten to a torpid & almost unconscious state by a traumatically violent scourging with great loss of blood & the effects of shock would be poor entertainment.
 
I'm doubtful whether scourging was a standard pre-crucifixion procedure.
In the case of Jesus, remember
  • When Pilate ordered him to be scourged, he was hoping that would satisfy the Temple priests as sufficient punishment
  • When carrying his cross to Golgotha he collapsed and had to be helped by Simon of Cyrene
  • He died in less than 3 hours, the condemned were expected to live at least 6 (till beyond sunset)
If scourging were part of my sentence, I think it would have to be carried out separately,
and I'd spend some time in a death cell recovering sufficient strength
to put up an exemplary final performance on my cross.
 
Back
Top Bottom