<strike>Do you die faster if people break your legs or jam a spear up your side?</strike> Is it more merciful to crucify someone with legs broken or to leave them whole? Discuss.
<strike>Spear obviously. That’s not the question though.</strike> It’s more merciful to be left whole until you die, because that means you’ll have died before the maximum allowed time of crucifixion.
Romans would only let you live 2-3 days on the cross, then they’d break your legs to speed it up, after you had already suffered longer than someone who died before their legs were broken. So it was a longer crucifixion and more painful too, in the long run.
This thread stemmed from an argument with Hades. The basic thing I was arguing was that breaking someones legs during/before they were crucified was considered the more merciful death.
People being crucified died of suffocation from being forced to hang from just their arms. They helped themselves breath by propping themselves up with their feet, this way they could take several days to die. Breaking someones legs ensured they could not prop themselves up and quickly suffocated and died. More merciful to have your legs broken.
<strike>CH is a hat!!!</strike> If they broke them before your crucifixion, then yes, it’d be more merciful. But that apparently barely ever happened (if ever), and it wasn’t the point of breaking someone’s legs on the cross at all.
It hardly ever happened? Where did you get this info?
And if that wasn’t the point what was?
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say crucifixion was used to kill people. And I don’t think it much matters how they died as long as they died. After a bit of torture, snap go the legs and a little bit later dead goes the crucifee (?) and all is good. Having the legs broken is merciful, but having them broken prior to the beginning of the crucifixion makes the act pointless.
Crucifixion in general was pointless They could’ve just STABBED the criminals
CH: The point was, you can’t just post guards at a cross forever. The point was to torture them, but they were expected to die sooner than 3-4 days later. Breaking legs was a way to speed up the crucifixion if it took too long. Not a method of administering mercy.
And when I said it “hardly ever happened” I was talking about breaking legs prior to crucifixion so the man doesn’t suffer as long.
No, not only torture, the point of crucifixion was that it was the method used to execute slaves, so it was considered a very insulting death.
As to it “hardly ever happening” you’re just guessing at that, what reason do you have to think that it hardly ever happened.
I just naturally came to that conclusion since if it was a form of mercy (as opposed to ‘normal’ crucufuxion) chances are they wouldn’t give it to very many people, and if it wasn’t, then it’d defeat crucifixion’s purpose.
If you agree that it’s a form of mercy as opposed to normal crucifixions then you agree with me, since that was what I’ve been arguing in regards to the original post. How often they happened has nothing to do with anything and is pointless to argue about since neither of us really know.
… so, why in the hell were you arguing about something like this anyway?
When did I say it was? I said IF it was. I don’t think it was intended for that purpose, and I still don’t think breaking someone’s legs can be considered mercy. You’re underestimating how painful it is to break both of your legs. It’s not like bumping your head on a door.
Ah ok, I missed that “if”.
And of course it’s painful, but it’s still merciful to have your legs broken and die fairly quickly rather than to be nailed up for days and die slowly.
What do you mean, You’d crucify your king? He’s done no wrong. No, not the slightest thing
If he had his legs broken, he had probably already been hanging for days.
If they broke his legs almost right after they hanged him, then it’d depend on just how much shorter his suffering was.
I believe crufixion was used mostly on those who commited greater crimes and served as a warning to everyone else.
No, it was the method used to execute slaves, sometimes it would be used on more serious criminals as a very insulting and painful death. No Roman would want to bear the indignity of dying a slaves death.
Executions were not the precise instrument they are today. The crucifixion could become more or less brutal depending on the seriousness of the crime and the mood of whomever was doing the sentencing. It was not merely a case of hang someone up for exactly three days and then finish them off if they’re not dead.
We turned to Rome
To sentence Nazareth
We have no law
To put a man to death
We need him crucified
It’s all you have to do
Jing thinks Charle is quoting Jesus Christ Superstar. And… Just ouch.