American Carnifex
Spectator
One of my favorite stores, The Object Lesson, one is a bit sadistic and one somewhat more even tempered (and professiona). I think they are a good play off each other.
-
Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.
the crucifiers?
- Thread starter sherwine
- Start date
Marcius
Tribune
I have to disagree, with a qualification. Quantification here seems impossible to me.
The Digest stresses that the right to execute, not subject to delegation, was vested in provincial governors only. The majority of them had legionaries in their retinue... and sometimes auxiliaries as well -- we may well infer that rulers of Syria or Britain did not travel without a sizeable military force in tow.
Municipalities all over the Empire presumably used local talent to execute slaves, just like the masters. However, at some point during the Principate local authorities lost the power to put slaves to death, spelt out in the Puteolan law. Ulpianus says:
Did it happen when Italy gained senatorial iuridici under Marcus Aurelius? Hardly earlier: the idea of having to haul a servile criminal all the way to Rome from, say, Mediolanum is absurd.
Speaking of Rome -- if I had to guess, I'd say praetorians executed those condemned by the Emperor or their own commander, while men of urban cohorts and vigiles -- condemned by respective prefects. The city carnifex presumably fulfilled the needs of slaveholders.
Unfortunately we have to guess.
willowfall
Senator
And that part is so true because the Roman writers left out the parts they thought everybody already knew (like has ANYONE every seen a manual on how to put on pants?).
However, to your point about Legionaries as bodyguards that is very true.
But is was a small number of men out of a fairly small army (28 Legions at full strength during the Republic and early Empire would have totaled only about 168,000 men and they were almost never at full strength) who for the most part would probably have not been wasted for common everyday executions OUTSIDE of the army itself.
Also the Romans did not invent crucifixion (they adapted it from someone else) so it isn't like there wasn't extensive knowledge through out the Med basin as to how to get it done outside of the Legions.
Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.
Very few Legionaries very spread out verses the large number of executions Empire wide would seem to indicate that they just didn't have the time to do the vast majority of them especially when you consider their other responsibilities, defense, security for VIPs and oh yeah all those roads, ports (naval personnel) and forts they built.
Kisses
willowfall
Marcius
Tribune
It appears that they took the 'security for VIPs' part very seriously -- imperial governors were rarely assassinated by lone swordsmen. Off the top of my head I can think of Lucius Calpurnius Piso, a Tiberian governor of Hispania Tarraconensis, only. Soldiers despatching their commander to Hades -- either on their own volition or by imperial order -- was way more common.
My point is, the sole 'hanging judge' of the province had -- more often than not, it appears, yet I'd go with 'no' regarding Pilate -- a legionary detachment under his command, to protect and to put gladius into ius gladii. The stereotype of legionaries as executioners may well be right for a wrong reason, and throwing in mass crucifixions during great rebellions firms it up a bit more.
Not that a governor having both legionaries and auxiliaries (or auxiliaries only) with him could not use the latter or conscript a local executioner.
Naraku
Draconarius
From the Second Century onward, the "Roman" Army was increasingly non-Roman. In order to defend the Empire, the Romans had to rely on feoderati, non-Roman troops recruited from the provinces and mostly from Germanic tribes who were granted land in exchange for service. Although they were under the overall command of Roman officers, they were under direct command of their own - usually tribal - leaders. The "Roman" army that defeated the Huns at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains (or Campus Mauriacus, or Chalons, or Troyes or whatever) in 451, was under overall command of Flavius Aetius but was made up almost entirely of Germans, mostly Visigoths, under the command of their own leaders.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.
These troops would have maintained their own rules of discipline. Being tribal in nature and part of a warrior culture, they might not have had need for floggings or decimation. Any warrior showing cowardice or deserting would have been disgraced not only before his fellow warriors but his entire tribe and bring shame upon his entire family.
Mutiny, on the other hand, would have involved pretty much the entire tribe. In fact, most of the barbarian tribes who "invaded" the Empire - including the Visigoth who sacked Rome in 410 - were feoderati who mutinied due to poor treatment by Roman authorities.
willowfall
Senator
Sometimes VIPs took it seriously enough NOT employ Legionaries for protection but foreigners. I guess they were proven right considering how many Emperors were made (or unmade) by the Legions.
And we are kind of parsing things here a bit finely. A judge in modern society orders the execution but doesn't pull the switch. Neither does his staff. But people employed by the same government do. And certainly all governmental executions in the Empire were conducted by SOMEBODY in the pay of the Empire.
I always felt that in the west we were indoctrinated that the Legions (Roman Soldiers) crucified people based on the stories in the New Testament.
What we forget is when they were first created (verbally) Rome was seen as an oppressive foreign conqueror by large swaths of the people inside the Empire. If you want to unite disparate peoples, who many times had been enemies, you give them a common easy to hate 'enemy' (Think Nazis since 1945). So the Legions, as the ultimate enforcers of Rome's will, were easy targets as "the bad guys". And they also fit (and I hate to use this word but I can think of no other) propaganda in the story of Longinus.
Until someone invents a time machine this is all a fun theoretical discussion but thank you for playing along, I love these kinds of conversations.
kisses
willowfall
Crucified Life
Magistrate
I wasn't quite sure where to write this, so I have chosen this thread as it seems the closest to what I have to say.
I think that in the times of crucifixion, meaning Classical and Roman times, that people expected to be crucified. Not as an absolute certainly, but as a likely experience that you might have in your life. I think that the reason is the widespread use of it, everyone has seen one, and the brutality of the times, meant that people were used to seeing them, and accepted it as normal. I think that the effect of this was that people had the same attitude towards it that we do now about getting a speeding ticket when driving. It's not a desired experience, but it is something that can happen to anyone, and you just go through with it and get it over with. So I think that a person who finds themselves caught for a crime and is sentenced, out of the range of possible outcomes, to crucifixion, (with or without whipping), just accepts it, is non-resistant, and cooperates. It could have happened to anyone or to me at anytime, and it's a part of life, quite normal. It's the exception that fight or resist, or get upset about it. People who find themselves having to go through crucifixion know what to expect, take it as it comes, weather and take it all, endure it, and try to go through it with the least agony they can, almost embrace it and make the most of it especially once on the cross. I'm not dead yet, still alive, but I am going to spend the rest of my time nailed out to this cross. Ok. I can do this... The difference between men and women is probably only in how it is experienced. Men are overwhelmed with dealing with their pain and physical agony, women rise above their pain, but experience more embarrassment, especially from the nudity or near-nudity, and from bare breasts. Otherwise it is probably the same for both. I think the crucifiers react to this acceptance with a little positive understanding.
I think that in the times of crucifixion, meaning Classical and Roman times, that people expected to be crucified. Not as an absolute certainly, but as a likely experience that you might have in your life. I think that the reason is the widespread use of it, everyone has seen one, and the brutality of the times, meant that people were used to seeing them, and accepted it as normal. I think that the effect of this was that people had the same attitude towards it that we do now about getting a speeding ticket when driving. It's not a desired experience, but it is something that can happen to anyone, and you just go through with it and get it over with. So I think that a person who finds themselves caught for a crime and is sentenced, out of the range of possible outcomes, to crucifixion, (with or without whipping), just accepts it, is non-resistant, and cooperates. It could have happened to anyone or to me at anytime, and it's a part of life, quite normal. It's the exception that fight or resist, or get upset about it. People who find themselves having to go through crucifixion know what to expect, take it as it comes, weather and take it all, endure it, and try to go through it with the least agony they can, almost embrace it and make the most of it especially once on the cross. I'm not dead yet, still alive, but I am going to spend the rest of my time nailed out to this cross. Ok. I can do this... The difference between men and women is probably only in how it is experienced. Men are overwhelmed with dealing with their pain and physical agony, women rise above their pain, but experience more embarrassment, especially from the nudity or near-nudity, and from bare breasts. Otherwise it is probably the same for both. I think the crucifiers react to this acceptance with a little positive understanding.
crumera
Crucifier of Pixels
Edited the wall of text above to make it more readable(for dyslexic people like me)
I wasn't quite sure where to write this,
so I have chosen this thread as it seems the closest to what I have to say.
I think that in the times of crucifixion, meaning Classical and Roman times,
that people expected to be crucified.
Not as an absolute certainly, but as a likely experience that you might have in your life.
I think that the reason is the widespread use of it, everyone has seen one, and the brutality of the times,
meant that people were used to seeing them,
and accepted it as normal.
I think that the effect of this was that people had the same attitude towards it,
that we do now about getting a speeding ticket when driving.
It's not a desired experience, but it is something that can happen to anyone,
and you just go through with it and get it over with.
So I think that a person who finds themselves caught for a crime and is sentenced,
out of the range of possible outcomes, to crucifixion, (with or without whipping), just accepts it,
is non-resistant, and cooperates.
It could have happened to anyone or to me at anytime, and it's a part of life, quite normal.
It's the exception that fight or resist, or get upset about it.
People who find themselves having to go through crucifixion know what to expect, take it as it comes,
weather and take it all, endure it, and try to go through it with the least agony they can,
almost embrace it and make the most of it especially once on the cross.
I'm not dead yet, still alive, but I am going to spend the rest of my time nailed out to this cross.
Ok. I can do this... The difference between men and women is probably only in how it is experienced.
Men are overwhelmed with dealing with their pain and physical agony,
women rise above their pain, but experience more embarrassment,
especially from the nudity or near-nudity, and from bare breasts.
Otherwise it is probably the same for both.
I think the crucifiers react to this acceptance with a little positive understanding.
I wasn't quite sure where to write this,
so I have chosen this thread as it seems the closest to what I have to say.
I think that in the times of crucifixion, meaning Classical and Roman times,
that people expected to be crucified.
Not as an absolute certainly, but as a likely experience that you might have in your life.
I think that the reason is the widespread use of it, everyone has seen one, and the brutality of the times,
meant that people were used to seeing them,
and accepted it as normal.
I think that the effect of this was that people had the same attitude towards it,
that we do now about getting a speeding ticket when driving.
It's not a desired experience, but it is something that can happen to anyone,
and you just go through with it and get it over with.
So I think that a person who finds themselves caught for a crime and is sentenced,
out of the range of possible outcomes, to crucifixion, (with or without whipping), just accepts it,
is non-resistant, and cooperates.
It could have happened to anyone or to me at anytime, and it's a part of life, quite normal.
It's the exception that fight or resist, or get upset about it.
People who find themselves having to go through crucifixion know what to expect, take it as it comes,
weather and take it all, endure it, and try to go through it with the least agony they can,
almost embrace it and make the most of it especially once on the cross.
I'm not dead yet, still alive, but I am going to spend the rest of my time nailed out to this cross.
Ok. I can do this... The difference between men and women is probably only in how it is experienced.
Men are overwhelmed with dealing with their pain and physical agony,
women rise above their pain, but experience more embarrassment,
especially from the nudity or near-nudity, and from bare breasts.
Otherwise it is probably the same for both.
I think the crucifiers react to this acceptance with a little positive understanding.
crumera
Crucifier of Pixels
@Crucified Life
I personally don't think people just accepted to be crucified or expected to die like that.
People who commit crimes in general do expect to get away with it.
It was a possibility for criminals but most people rightly feared to be put to death in such a painful manner.
Normal law abiding people and slaves certainly would not expect to end up crucified for sure.
A speeding ticket is not the end of the world, but crucifixion is for sure just that in the most painful and drawn out manner.
Sure I reckon some people with a certain attitudes just accepted once it was unavoidable,
Giving people no realistic chance to resist(having enough guards for example) will dissuade some people form trying to get away/struggle.
With some mass executions in for example ww2,
the prisoners to be executed were told they would endanger their families/neighbors/friends if they resisted
That's a effective way to avoid resistance.
Most people would rather sacrifice themselves and save their loved ones
Think many people would rather commit suicide then be nailed to the cross. if they had a chance.
I think being exposed involuntary naked/being raped for both sexes, then and also now a humiliation.
Either before a hostile crowd, an indifferent neighbors or your own shocked family.
About the pain: maybe there is some difference between males and females.
The sheer brutality on the senses being held up by nails scraping bones and nerves,
with every movement is for both sexes difficult to bear.
Yeah women are suited to bear the pains of child birth. but if all goes well there will be a newborn and the active pain will stop.
With crucifixion there is no relief except death.
With most crucifixions in roman times there would be no burial.
No burial would mean quite a lot in those times,
as it would mean you couldn't pass into the afterlife in the proper manner.
Think the executioners would use any means neccesary to avoid resistance.
Well that's my 2 cents.
I personally don't think people just accepted to be crucified or expected to die like that.
People who commit crimes in general do expect to get away with it.
It was a possibility for criminals but most people rightly feared to be put to death in such a painful manner.
Normal law abiding people and slaves certainly would not expect to end up crucified for sure.
A speeding ticket is not the end of the world, but crucifixion is for sure just that in the most painful and drawn out manner.
Sure I reckon some people with a certain attitudes just accepted once it was unavoidable,
Giving people no realistic chance to resist(having enough guards for example) will dissuade some people form trying to get away/struggle.
With some mass executions in for example ww2,
the prisoners to be executed were told they would endanger their families/neighbors/friends if they resisted
That's a effective way to avoid resistance.
Most people would rather sacrifice themselves and save their loved ones
Think many people would rather commit suicide then be nailed to the cross. if they had a chance.
I think being exposed involuntary naked/being raped for both sexes, then and also now a humiliation.
Either before a hostile crowd, an indifferent neighbors or your own shocked family.
About the pain: maybe there is some difference between males and females.
The sheer brutality on the senses being held up by nails scraping bones and nerves,
with every movement is for both sexes difficult to bear.
Yeah women are suited to bear the pains of child birth. but if all goes well there will be a newborn and the active pain will stop.
With crucifixion there is no relief except death.
With most crucifixions in roman times there would be no burial.
No burial would mean quite a lot in those times,
as it would mean you couldn't pass into the afterlife in the proper manner.
Think the executioners would use any means neccesary to avoid resistance.
Well that's my 2 cents.
Crucified Life
Magistrate
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I don't know exactly for sure. I just write my impressions
I am not living in those times. I'm no expert and my opinions may or may not be correct. You are probably more correct here. But that is the beauty of this forum. We can share our impressions. Thanks again for your reply.
ShadowWolf
Tribune
There are two other cultures that used crucifixion that I would consider which would be the Chinese and Japanese. There is something that all 3 cultures have in common during the early periods of their history which was that the men were in charge and set the rules and the women's power mostly did not extend much beyond the home. Also all three used a form of crucifixion to punish thieves and murderers.
lember
Magistrate
I remember two detailed answer on the forum: stories of Zac, the professional and Talbus, the guard
Frank Petrexa
Tribune
Yes, and you have to consider that death was much more "accepted"--so many people died of disease and life was short. Death was a common penalty, and keeping control of slaves was important--hence draconian measures.
Also, Rome had auxiliary troops. The legions were the top of the pyramid, and served for years, but others could be brought in as needed.
crumera
Crucifier of Pixels
@Frank Petrexa Death was more accepted, yes regular death wit a proper burial.
The not given a burial thing was a biggie in that time.
I'm sure disease as act of the gods is more acceptable then suffering crucifixion however.(act of man)
@ShadowWolf Japanese only introduced it as a consequence to christian missionairies (1500or later)AFAIK.
Also it was only the prelude to spear the condemned shortly after displaying him/her on the cross.
Don't know much about the chinese custom. but I doubt it was in the early part of their history. suspect it was the japanese using it on chinese.But if you have references about pre 1500 japanese or chinese useing crucifixion, I would be glad to learn about them
However Carthage in antiquity and Alexander the Great macedonians and the persians,
were cultures that used forms of crucifixion even before the Rise of Rome.
The not given a burial thing was a biggie in that time.
I'm sure disease as act of the gods is more acceptable then suffering crucifixion however.(act of man)
@ShadowWolf Japanese only introduced it as a consequence to christian missionairies (1500or later)AFAIK.
Also it was only the prelude to spear the condemned shortly after displaying him/her on the cross.
Don't know much about the chinese custom. but I doubt it was in the early part of their history. suspect it was the japanese using it on chinese.But if you have references about pre 1500 japanese or chinese useing crucifixion, I would be glad to learn about them
However Carthage in antiquity and Alexander the Great macedonians and the persians,
were cultures that used forms of crucifixion even before the Rise of Rome.
cynthia the inocent
Tribune
I need to comment on this. Over my fairly long life span I have been interested in society and human nature. I am not highly educated like many on this site, but have a curiosity that has taken me places I never expected to go (IE., this site for one ) It is my observation that humanity has an inherent mean streak. Most other animals on this planet kill for food or protection. Through out history humans seem to enjoy enjoy killing as a form of entertainment. Lets admit that we are here on this site to observe at a distance, things that our ancestors enjoyed close up.
willowfall
Senator
I would definitely agree and here again our "intellect" is responsible. I lion could never even conceive of killing something for entertainment. To it's hardwired biology that is a waste of time and effort with the potential you could seriously be hurt. Creatures on the lower end of the intellectual scale are pretty much oriented toward propagation of the species. Not that they don't feel or enjoy pleasure (even a puma likes to be petted, and yes I have) but it is not a driving force in their lives.
For us our brains produce a ton of endorphins when we feel pleasure (why do you think we have sex for the sake of sex?). Unfortunately we can derive pleasure from a variety of sources including the suffering of those with in our power.
Our brains are both a blessing and a curse. Let's face it as wild animals we are pretty pathetic. We aren't strong per pound, we are slow, our teeth are dull, our claws are blunt, our eyesight and hearing suck and it takes anyone of us almost a decade to become useful to the pack. To say nothing of taking 12-13 years before we are ready top propagate the species. This is where our brain is a blessing it has allowed us to invent techniques and technologies to overcome all that.
The curse is we can derive pleasure from the suffering (real or fantasized) of others. Witness this site and MMA.
kisses
willowfall
Crucified Life
Magistrate
I don't disagree. We do have a mean streak as a species and what's more we have such trouble overcoming personal selfishness, or "what's best for my family" to help others or the planet. But where I will slightly disagree is that I think that many spectators to crucifixion actually did emphasize and feel sorry for the poor men and women nailed nearly naked in agony in front of them. But their brains drew pleasure from the erotic look, positions and emotions of the sweaty agonizing victims which overcame their compassion so they watched. Only victims family were there for genuine reasons.
I understand there's some evidence that the wine-vinegar based drink given to Jesus and other crucified ones (which sounds disgusting, but was apparently drunk by Roman soldiers too) was provided by a charitable organisation of women - in Jerusalem, Jewish, but apparently there were groups dedicated to doing what they could to help prisoners and alleviate the worst sufferings of the condemned in cities around the Empire. Whatever the religious or ideological slant, relieving suffering has been regarded as meritorious - by at least some groups, especially of women - in most civilisations.
This could be the basis of a very interesting story. I have always said that offering the crucified victim a drink is an incredibly intimate experience. The crucified one hangs, fixed to the cross, unable to do more than open their mouth and accept the offered drink. They are wholly and completely helpless, at the mercy of another to receive the life giving liquid. Drinking greedily and without grace, it dribbles down theit chin and onto their bare chest.
Introduce to this the idea of a group of people who go around easing the suffering of the condemned. Maybe they do this out of compassion, and that would surely be how they are seen. But perhaps some do it out of desire to be close to those naked suffering criminals, deriving pleasure from the complete control that they have. It could be interesting to explore this.
This is the moment I live for, the moment that I walk forward to greet a new victim, offering the cup of life sustaining drink. It thrills me, to see the big man made helpless, his strong arms unable even to hold a cup. It thrills me to see soft breasts glistening with liquid spilled so carelessly, her eyes grateful for the humiliation I bring her. And yet some see me as a good person for doing this.
willowfall
Senator
I wound agree that women (generally) are more prone to alleviate suffering and to think on a communal level. I think a good deal of that is biological hardwiring (after all we do bear the biggest burden in propagating the species) but I think part of it may also have been societal. Generally (until modern times in the west) most women were on a lower rung of the ladder than men. When you have been in a group that is "oppressed" (I hate using that word here because of it's idiotic modern connotation) it is easier for you to sympathize with others in bad situations.
Throughout history those who lived in the service of others (for no reward) have always been noticed. But I think they get noticed because they are the exception not the rule.
kisses
Willowfall