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

the crucifiers?

Go to CruxDreams.com
S

sherwine

Onlooker
Do we picture the crucifixion team as sadistic? Do they take their duties personally, maybe mocking or intentionally causing their victims even more degradation and pain that is called for?
Or? Are they total professional? Totally business like in their duties?
And which approach by the crucifixion team would actually be more cruel? The personal? Or the impersonal?
I picture a team of professionals. They follow protocols , they perform a set forth procedure, terribly impersonal. But so matter of fact. They without emotion , but with over whelming force, as a team, put the victim to her cross.
It's an ugly job, yes. Messy. But when these men take her, they are totally cold, totally without emotion. Totally professional.
She can't bargain she can't alter their moves in any way. Good or bad for her. These men are the last human contact she will ever have. They put her in position. They nail her and they hoist her up. Simple as that.
 
sherwine said:
Do we picture the crucifixion team as sadistic? Do they take their duties personally, maybe mocking or intentionally causing their victims even more degradation and pain that is called for?
Or? Are they total professional? Totally business like in their duties?
And which approach by the crucifixion team would actually be more cruel? The personal? Or the impersonal?
I picture a team of professionals. They follow protocols , they perform a set forth procedure, terribly impersonal. But so matter of fact. They without emotion , but with over whelming force, as a team, put the victim to her cross.
It's an ugly job, yes. Messy. But when these men take her, they are totally cold, totally without emotion. Totally professional.
She can't bargain she can't alter their moves in any way. Good or bad for her. These men are the last human contact she will ever have. They put her in position. They nail her and they hoist her up. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
One should enjoy the work they do.
 
One can act professional about their job being an executioner but they could hide the emotion they feel about their job. Hiding the emotion could influence their performance on how they do the job. It could cause one to inflict more cruelty on the person being subjected to the crucifixion if they become over zealous about the joy of doing the job or seeing the person being executed having to be treated with extreme hate as part of the job. Of course there is the possibility of the person not liking the job and the hate of the job being directed towards the person being executed. I do agree with william23 one should enjoy the job they have. If they enjoy it then the best performance should come out.
 
Interesting question. However, would question in how many locations were there in fact crucifixion teams?
More likely in larger cities. But, suspect in other areas executions probably would be ad hoc duties of local constabulary or militia personnel? The demeanor of these folks toward the condemned was likely problematic.

Had a somewhat related discussion with Apostate et. al. some while ago concerning my belief that the largest majority of Roman crucifixions were crux simplex — particularly by the military in the field. Crux simplex being much more efficient and expeditious; quicker death with no construction by just finding a single post or tree.

Still believe that to be true. Yet, the most intriguing thought from that discussion was whether the Romans might intentionally have used the cross when more of a spectacle was desired — with a slower death and more/longer show. That would likely have involved a more professional team.
 
I don't think you can understand the act of crucifying someone, and why someone would do it, based on what we feel and believe today.

You are talking about cultures (not only Rome) where war, up close and personal, was very common. Rome was sort of unique in their time period for having large standing armies. Most armies of the time period were made up of what we'd call citizen soldiers. For a man to go through their entire life without lifting a weapon to defend their community would have been uncommon. There was a Greek philosophical argument that War not Peace was man's natural state.

Blood sports were very common to many cultures. Slavery was damn near universal and most slaves became that way through warfare. The secret to long life was living past the age of 12 and a lot of them didn't.

Horrific public punishment was viewed as a deterrent (I mean who wants to watch their spouse and children being tortured to death for something they had done). And being a public executioner was a real JOB.

So no, they weren't a bunch of stone cold psychopathic killers who read out of the manual what to do.

They probably were, fairly normal for their times and had about the same emotional involvement in what they did as a butcher slaughtering a pig for meat.

kisses

willowfall
 
sherwine said:
Do we picture the crucifixion team as sadistic? Do they take their duties personally, maybe mocking or intentionally causing their victims even more degradation and pain that is called for?
Or? Are they total professional? Totally business like in their duties?...
...I picture a team of professionals. They follow protocols , they perform a set forth procedure, terribly impersonal. But so matter of fact. They without emotion , but with over whelming force, as a team, put the victim to her cross.
It's an ugly job, yes. Messy. But when these men take her, they are totally cold, totally without emotion. Totally professional.....

... They put her in position. They nail her and they hoist her up. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

I agree with that otherwise how could they do that if they had any empathy for the condemned people ?
It' a so much cruel kind of execution which is not let any possibility to have the less doubt from the executionners !

In an other hand, I think that in the human nature, you'll always find people ready to make the others suffering , with sadism and even pleasure !
It's valuable for all the societies since that they're existing ...
 
sherwine said:
Do we picture the crucifixion team as sadistic? Do they take their duties personally, maybe mocking or intentionally causing their victims even more degradation and pain that is called for?
Click to expand...
The answer is hidden in this axioma:
Women never were executed by this method
 
sherwine said:
Do we picture the crucifixion team as sadistic? Do they take their duties personally, maybe mocking or intentionally causing their victims even more degradation and pain that is called for?
Or? Are they total professional? Totally business like in their duties?
And which approach by the crucifixion team would actually be more cruel? The personal? Or the impersonal?
I picture a team of professionals. They follow protocols , they perform a set forth procedure, terribly impersonal. But so matter of fact. They without emotion , but with over whelming force, as a team, put the victim to her cross.
It's an ugly job, yes. Messy. But when these men take her, they are totally cold, totally without emotion. Totally professional.
She can't bargain she can't alter their moves in any way. Good or bad for her. These men are the last human contact she will ever have. They put her in position. They nail her and they hoist her up. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

I believe there were contractors who handled "private" crucifixions--masters wanted their slaves executed, and a magistrate approved, but damned well wasn't going to pay public money for it. If I recall, Seneca disapproved of a mass crucifixion of all the slaves in a house where one of the slaves had killed the master. I think Tiberius ordered it, and provided troops to make sure the law was enforced despite widespread sympathy for the innocent condemned. I wonder how those executioners felt, especially knowing they had to live in the area and deal with the disapproval.

The crucifixion team in Monte Python's "Life of Brian" doesn't hide its emotions at all, but aren't all that professional, as you would expect.
 
I love the idea of the executioner as a compassionate sadist, someone who will say “OK I’m going to need you to lay down. The nails are going to hurt tremendously, but that’s part of your punishment.” Sort of a politeness but not necessarily a kindness.
 
sherwine said:
Do we picture the crucifixion team as sadistic? Do they take their duties personally, maybe mocking or intentionally causing their victims even more degradation and pain that is called for?
Or? Are they total professional? Totally business like in their duties?
And which approach by the crucifixion team would actually be more cruel? The personal? Or the impersonal?
I picture a team of professionals. They follow protocols , they perform a set forth procedure, terribly impersonal. But so matter of fact. They without emotion , but with over whelming force, as a team, put the victim to her cross.
It's an ugly job, yes. Messy. But when these men take her, they are totally cold, totally without emotion. Totally professional.
She can't bargain she can't alter their moves in any way. Good or bad for her. These men are the last human contact she will ever have. They put her in position. They nail her and they hoist her up. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
Wile I obviously can't speak for soldiers from two thousand years (plus) ago, I can for modern soldiers. All the time we are given BS taskings that we hate doing and bitch and moan about being made to do them but we still get them done and done correctly.
I would think this is the same approach the average group of Roman soldiers would have about carrying out crucifixions. It was probably carried out on a rotational basis and when it was time for a particular group of Romans to carry out this weeks execution they might have complained about being picked to sit out on a hill or by a roadside for hours on end but would have done it since they were good soldiers and would have carried it out with the same level of professionalism that they did every other task with.
The Roman military was the most disciplined and professional fighting force in ancient times, so I agree that the executioners approach would have been one of a business like and impersonal attitude.
 
Althanie J said:
Wile I obviously can't speak for soldiers from two thousand years (plus) ago, I can for modern soldiers. All the time we are given BS taskings that we hate doing and bitch and moan about being made to do them but we still get them done and done correctly.
I would think this is the same approach the average group of Roman soldiers would have about carrying out crucifixions. It was probably carried out on a rotational basis and when it was time for a particular group of Romans to carry out this weeks execution they might have complained about being picked to sit out on a hill or by a roadside for hours on end but would have done it since they were good soldiers and would have carried it out with the same level of professionalism that they did every other task with.
The Roman military was the most disciplined and professional fighting force in ancient times, so I agree that the executioners approach would have been one of a business like and impersonal attitude.
Click to expand...

Mostly I agree, every military ever in existence has had boring bothersome fatigue details to attend to but the average Roman soldier had a seriously different outlook on both life and his duties than a modern soldier does.

For starters making it past the age of 12 was something of an accomplishment, and oh a 12 year old "girl" was a marriable, breedable woman. Public executions were horrific and fairly common as was corporal punishment. Blood sports were common and death in the arena was a crowd pleaser. A sack of a city was considered a soldier's right (and there is at least one recorded instance of a Roman Army refusing to conduct a second assault on a city after their commander had called them back from the successful first one because he didn't want the city sacked).

Those are all very different mindsets than today's western soldiers.

I read an article (I can't remember where, maybe Military History Quarterly) where the author was contenting that part of the purpose of the "games" was to indoctrinate the Roman population to be able to kill casually, brutally and easily. Now not the author, you or I can step into the minds of men who have been dead over 2,000 years but he made a persuasive argument.

My thought on the subject is the Roman soldier (as did his counterparts in other militaries of the time) had a much easier time killing than today's soldiers did. And because they (the Romans) relied on the sword for a good part of their history they had to do it up close and personal. There is a story about a spectacular moral killer event conducted by Phillip V (?) of Macedon after his army had confronted a detachment of Romans. He decided to give his dead soldiers a hero's send off with a bug funeral and celebration of their heroics. So the bodies of the "heros" were displayed. His soldiers were horrified. In Greek\Macedonian fighting most of the wounds were fair "clean" (spear thrusts etal). Well these guys were all chopped up. Arms and legs hacked off, heads cleaved and his men wanted no part of that kind of death or injury.

SO was the Roman soldier able to conduct crucifixions and other brutal executions relatively easily. I'm sure they were.

But we are also dealing with a New Testament\Hollywood fallacy here. At the time of Augustus he trimmed the number of legions from about 60 to 28 (one of the reasons he was so upset about The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. He lost more than 10% of his mobile field army.) and they were assigned to the perimeter of the Empire. Most of the internal security functions inside the Empire were handle by auxiliary forces often made up on non-Latins. In fact the Roman government loved using "British" troops to police Palestine and Syrian troops to police Spain. The foreign boys had no local connections thus they probably wouldn't be willing to side with the local population against Rome. Which also means killing the locals as their employers demanded was no big deal. I suspect that the vast majority of judicial executions were not carried out by the Legions. People in the pay of Rome yes, the hardcore of the Army? No.

kisses

willowfall
 
Roman soldiers were also subjected to harsh discipline. Beatings and floggings were common place. Severe infractions such as cowardice or mutiny were punishable by decimation. Lots were draw and one out of every ten men in the unit were ordered to be beaten to death by their comrades.
Studies of the soldiers who carry out tortures and executions of civilians in modern nations, show that they are subject to violence themselves, beginning in basic training, so that the become immured to the suffering of others.
 
willowfall said:
Mostly I agree, every military ever in existence has had boring bothersome fatigue details to attend to but the average Roman soldier had a seriously different outlook on both life and his duties than a modern soldier does.

For starters making it past the age of 12 was something of an accomplishment, and oh a 12 year old "girl" was a marriable, breedable woman. Public executions were horrific and fairly common as was corporal punishment. Blood sports were common and death in the arena was a crowd pleaser. A sack of a city was considered a soldier's right (and there is at least one recorded instance of a Roman Army refusing to conduct a second assault on a city after their commander had called them back from the successful first one because he didn't want the city sacked).

Those are all very different mindsets than today's western soldiers.

I read an article (I can't remember where, maybe Military History Quarterly) where the author was contenting that part of the purpose of the "games" was to indoctrinate the Roman population to be able to kill casually, brutally and easily. Now not the author, you or I can step into the minds of men who have been dead over 2,000 years but he made a persuasive argument.

My thought on the subject is the Roman soldier (as did his counterparts in other militaries of the time) had a much easier time killing than today's soldiers did. And because they (the Romans) relied on the sword for a good part of their history they had to do it up close and personal. There is a story about a spectacular moral killer event conducted by Phillip V (?) of Macedon after his army had confronted a detachment of Romans. He decided to give his dead soldiers a hero's send off with a bug funeral and celebration of their heroics. So the bodies of the "heros" were displayed. His soldiers were horrified. In Greek\Macedonian fighting most of the wounds were fair "clean" (spear thrusts etal). Well these guys were all chopped up. Arms and legs hacked off, heads cleaved and his men wanted no part of that kind of death or injury.

SO was the Roman soldier able to conduct crucifixions and other brutal executions relatively easily. I'm sure they were.

But we are also dealing with a New Testament\Hollywood fallacy here. At the time of Augustus he trimmed the number of legions from about 60 to 28 (one of the reasons he was so upset about The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. He lost more than 10% of his mobile field army.) and they were assigned to the perimeter of the Empire. Most of the internal security functions inside the Empire were handle by auxiliary forces often made up on non-Latins. In fact the Roman government loved using "British" troops to police Palestine and Syrian troops to police Spain. The foreign boys had no local connections thus they probably wouldn't be willing to side with the local population against Rome. Which also means killing the locals as their employers demanded was no big deal. I suspect that the vast majority of judicial executions were not carried out by the Legions. People in the pay of Rome yes, the hardcore of the Army? No.

kisses

willowfall
Click to expand...
Good points made. I suppose I should have clarified that my belief is that for soldiers that did carry out crucifixions was that the act would have been similar to modern details that we have to carry out, all be it in a more brutal and barbaric fashion.
Were their legionaries that were sadistic and took personal pleasure in the act, of course. Were the majority of soldiers like this? I doubt it. If handed a "crucifixion detail" by their superiors I'm sure the legionaries approached it with a: fuck me, I'm always put on these crappy details. Oh well lets get it over with, or something to that effect attitude.
 
I think the executioners approach may have been like a sports coach, showing empathy and encouraging their victims to go through it better. To a young man who is struggling to endure his whipping they might say something like, "I know how much a young man like you can take..." To the girl who cries with the crown of thorns being put on her, "You're stronger than you realize. Some faint from the crown." They might encourage a victim to complete their walk carrying the cross, maybe saying, "Come on, girl, not far to go now..." To endure the nails, "The nailing is very painful but once the nails are in it's not that bad." (Which might be said to a victim of either gender), and maybe a word of understanding to a woman nailed on her cross awaiting raising who expresses her embarrassment to her executioners at the thought of her naked body, loincloth only, being viewed from the cross bare breasts and all once they raise her, "Don't worry, girl, the agony your body will feel once we raise you will take your mind off that." And lastly, said to a man on the cross worried he will die soon, "You will last much longer yet." They would do what they have to do to them, but doing what they can such as giving water. I think they engaged with their victims helping them through it. I don't think they were sadistic by emotion or approach nor sympathetic. The discipline of their order prevents either extreme. Their actions were sadistic but their emotions were acknowledging of the victims experience which would have been acceptable to all. I think the sadistic executioners were a stereotype.
 
Naraku said:
Roman soldiers were also subjected to harsh discipline. Beatings and floggings were common place. Severe infractions such as cowardice or mutiny were punishable by decimation. Lots were draw and one out of every ten men in the unit were ordered to be beaten to death by their comrades.
Studies of the soldiers who carry out tortures and executions of civilians in modern nations, show that they are subject to violence themselves, beginning in basic training, so that the become immured to the suffering of others.
Click to expand...
Yes, immune and detached from the acts, but not a sadistic feeling of gratification from the committing of the acts themselves. Again, the Legionaries, by and large, were not a bunch of pain loving crazy men like many pieces of Hollywood fiction, especially films related to Jesus, would have you believe.
Now, with that said I understand their are outliers to any given population and the Military is no exception. Just like their are modern service members who genuinely enjoy killing people in combat, all be it an overwhelming minority of them, their no doubt were ancient soldiers from every nations' armies in history who were the exact same. Maybe even more in the past since ancient peoples would be more tuned out to the sight of suffering and death than we would be.
 
Naraku said:
Roman soldiers were also subjected to harsh discipline. Beatings and floggings were common place. Severe infractions such as cowardice or mutiny were punishable by decimation. Lots were draw and one out of every ten men in the unit were ordered to be beaten to death by their comrades.
Studies of the soldiers who carry out tortures and executions of civilians in modern nations, show that they are subject to violence themselves, beginning in basic training, so that the become immured to the suffering of others.
Click to expand...

Cruel punishment was common enough in western armies into the 20th century. Australian troops who went off to fight for the Empire in WWI were shocked by the punishments deemed acceptable to the British army of the time. The Australians were all volunteers, and held the privilege of being "immune from the death penalty, except for mutiny, desertion to the enemy and traitorous activity". You might well ask what other grounds would justify the death penalty! The Australians were used to a greater degree of autonomy in their civilian lives, and didn't take to pointless military discipline. They were good troops when facing the enemy, but had the worst disciplinary record away from the frontline of any in the British Imperial forces.

It's interesting to speculate what cultural and local differences might similarly have been found in Roman times.


Crime and punishment on the Western Front: the Australian Imperial Force and British Army discipline - Murdoch University Research Repository

researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au
 
phlebas said:
Cruel punishment was common enough in western armies into the 20th century. Australian troops who went off to fight for the Empire in WWI were shocked by the punishments deemed acceptable to the British army of the time. The Australians were all volunteers, and held the privilege of being "immune from the death penalty, except for mutiny, desertion to the enemy and traitorous activity". You might well ask what other grounds would justify the death penalty! The Australians were used to a greater degree of autonomy in their civilian lives, and didn't take to pointless military discipline. They were good troops when facing the enemy, but had the worst disciplinary record away from the frontline of any in the British Imperial forces.

It's interesting to speculate what cultural and local differences might similarly have been found in Roman times.


Crime and punishment on the Western Front: the Australian Imperial Force and British Army discipline - Murdoch University Research Repository

researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au
Click to expand...
Very true. All good points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom