5th century execution practices

[cinzia8]

Hi all:

 

I have another research question I need some help with. I discovered that the Huns liked to behead there captives if they weren't keeping them, but what style of execution did the Romans use? It seems that Constantine banned crucifixion, but what did they move to? Drowning, hanging? What would you call a firing squad with arrows? If they even did this. ???

 

Help, <g>

 

Cinzia

[barca]

Hi all:

 

I have another research question I need some help with. I discovered that the Huns liked to behead there captives if they weren't keeping them, but what style of execution did the Romans use? It seems that Constantine banned crucifixion, but what did they move to? Drowning, hanging? What would you call a firing squad with arrows? If they even did this. ???

 

Help, <g>

 

Cinzia

 

 

As I recall they enjoyed tossing them into an pit with wild beasts. Burning them alive was also popular.

[cinzia8]

Hi all:

 

I have another research question I need some help with. I discovered that the Huns liked to behead there captives if they weren't keeping them, but what style of execution did the Romans use? It seems that Constantine banned crucifixion, but what did they move to? Drowning, hanging? What would you call a firing squad with arrows? If they even did this. ???

 

Help, <g>

 

Cinzia

 

 

As I recall they enjoyed tossing them into an pit with wild beasts. Burning them alive was also popular.

 

Thanks, Barca. I think a pit of vipers was also popular.<g>

 

I did some digging via the execution of Crispus (Constantine's son) and Fausta (Constantine's wife) and although there seems to be no actual account on the method of execution Constantine employed for Crispus (He outlawed crucifixion) there is a reference that another victim at the same time as Crispus, Licinius ii, was hanged. It might not be wrong to assume that Constantine chose the same style of execution for his 20 year old son (caught up in an intrigue

[GhostOfClayton]

I seem to remember something particularly nasty and unsettling in relation to the torture of Christians by Julian the Apostate. Anyone remember the detail?

[cinzia8]

I seem to remember something particularly nasty and unsettling in relation to the torture of Christians by Julian the Apostate. Anyone remember the detail?

 

This is what I found on Julian the Apostate. You were right, GhostOFClayton, Julian was a real winner when it comes to torture. My God, where does this desire to destroy so painfully come from? Even one's worst enemy's simple death should be satisfaction enough if one desires revenge; however, it seems that was not the majority viewpoint in the past. ??

 

["Julian determined to examine Basil himself, when that holy man being brought before him, the emperor did every thing in his power to dissuade him from persevering in the faith. Basil not only continued as firm as ever, but, with a prophetic spirit foretold the death of the emperor, and that he should be tormented in the other life. Enraged at what he heard, Julian commanded that the body of Basil should be torn every day in seven different parts, until his skin and flesh were entirely mangled. This inhuman sentence was executed with rigor, and the martyr expired under its severities, on June 28, A.D. 362.

Donatus, bishop of Arezzo, and Hilarinus, a hermit, suffered about the same time; also Gordian, a Roman magistrate. Artemius, commander in chief of the Roman forces in Egypt, being a Christian, was deprived of his commission, then of his estate, and lastly of his head.

The persecution raged dreadfully about the latter end of the year 363; but, as many of the particulars have not been handed down to us, it is necessary to remark in general, that in Palestine many were burnt alive, others were dragged by their feet through the streets naked until they expired; some were scalded to death, many stoned, and great numbers had their brains beaten out with clubs. In Alexandria, innumerable were the martyrs who suffered by the sword, burning, crucifixion and stoning. In Arethusa, several were ripped open, and corn being put into their bellies, swine were brought to feed therein, which, in devouring the grain, likewise devoured the entrails of the martyrs, and in Thrace, Emilianus was burnt at a stake; and Domitius murdered in a cave, whither he had fled for refuge."]

 

I'm not quite sure what to assume was standard practice going into the 5th century after reading this. I have a scene where an Roman official threatens crucifixion of his victim's (also a Roman citizen) loved one, but I think I better just use hanging because several of my readers thought crucifixion to be antiquated (not based on any research they did just on modern observation). Any thoughts on this?

 

Cinzia

[GhostOfClayton]

Just to rub salt into the wound (I'm speaking metaphorically, but he probably did that as well) I heard the JTA's burning victims were burnt slowly, and splashed with cold water when the pain caused them to pass out, in order that they awoke to experience more pain.

 

He was what we call in Yorkshire "a rum lad".

 

By the way, I'd also come across execution by being hit (not too heavily) on the head with a very large mallet. The context was much, much earlier than we're talking here, but it could well have persisted into the 5C. Something to do with Charun, I think.

[Artimi]

Christian persecution of pagans.

335 Constantine sacks many pagan temples in Asia Minor and Palestine and orders the execution by crucifixion of

Edited February 22, 2012 by Artimi

[caesar novus]

the emperor did every thing in his power to dissuade him from persevering in the faith.

I thought executions of Christians by pagan Romans typically had mitigating circumstances. Didn't they simply ask the Christians to show respect to pagan gods so the gods didn't take revenge on the community? Not to believe in them, just avoid jinxing everyone by not attending to superstitious ritual. Sort of like someone today asking you to not walk under a ladder and bring bad luck. Or not to "diss" a gangster - you don't have to actually have respect or change your beliefs. Romans could apparently hate and curse a pagan god privately, but must be manipulatively complient in public ritual. So maybe the Christian refusal to go thru empty motions wasn't really required due to incompatibly with their faith, but almost a suicidal choice to attain some religious transcendance (like some suicide bombers of today?). Or are these delusions of a Roman lover (pax romana and all that)?

[caldrail]

There is a fundamental difference between pagan and christian worship in the context of late imperial Rome. Pagans worship is individualistic, a client/patron relationship where the worshipper enters the temple, or a deities atrium to all inents and purposes. Since the Romans saw power as evidence of divine status, it therefore follows that extremely powerful individuals like the caesars should be given demigod status (and many of them played up to this idea - they had done ever since Julius Caesar proclaimed he was descended from divine ancestory, so clearly this was also a means of impressing their subjects as much as a social aspect)

 

Notice that to the pagan, it was entirely plausible that a man could become a god if sufficiently deserving, and also notice it was possible for the senate to elevate a man to that status by decree. In their minds the distinction between mundane and supernatural worlds was a little blurry.

 

Christian worship in this period wasn't quite the austere regime of later eras. Women in late imperial times were able to become priests (although this distinction was soon to be removed and images of female clerics vandalised as women were ousted, sometimes painfully). I've said this many times but the movement was factional, not united, and even after the Council of Nicaea there were still heretical or non-conformal groups. Bishops were notorious for getting wealthy on the backs of their congregations and as soon as they realised their social control and ownership of land was about to bring them real influence politicially, "the roads were filled with galloping bishops" as Marcellinus tells us.

 

We therefore have a situation where a Roman citizen chose between religious mindsets. On the one hand, he might ask and appeal to his chosen god for clemency or favours in the face of the ravages of life, or indeed, the fear of death, whereas a christian received a promise of eternal life after death in paradise if he simply obeyed, conformed, and stayed a paid up member of the chosen club.

 

So when christians refuse - for instance to serve in the legions, or to take part in arena events, or other such activity regarded as offensive or dealing in blood, it's a statement of their faith To make a mere gesture toward christian alignment is something we're accustomed to in the modern day when belief is usually no more than an uninvolved tick in the box. In former times, christianity was something much deeper in the minds of the congregation if not the cleric, something much more similar to the evangeklical movements of the US for instance.

 

A simple gesture is enough to satisfy a pagan. For them, an action is real, a visible identifier of allegiance, since there's no emotional or intellectual ownership. A man must display his loyalty in other words by deed, not thoughts or words. Christians do not have this choice. They face eternal damnation if they do not adhere to their faith. As many human social structures discover, strength is sometimes found through suffering, something a pagan would not entertain.

 

There's little comparison with modern suicide bombers because those individuals are zealots who want to inflict harm and see their own death as a means of cleansing their guilt and earning the rewards of paradise in the process, while christian refuseniks are simply saying that they cannot do these things because it would interfere with their chances of achieving the same.

 

Incidentially the suicidal infliction of violence did exist in ancient times. Jewish zealots were known for practises vaguely similar to middle eastern suicide bombers albeit lacking the modern invention of explosives. By the late empire this had largely been addressed.

[barca]

A simple gesture is enough to satisfy a pagan. For them, an action is real, a visible identifier of allegiance, since there's no emotional or intellectual ownership. A man must display his loyalty in other words by deed, not thoughts or words. Christians do not have this choice.

 

 

It seems to me that from the standpoint of the Roman Magistrate it would be the same as refusal to recite the pledge of allegiance. In the USA all schoolchildren are expected to do this. I don't know of any who have refused, and I don't know if there would be any consequences for doing so. In the old postbellum south there were many southerners who were philosophically opposed to the very idea of a pledge of allegiance, since they did not choose to be part of the Union in the first place, but it was easier to go along with it than to fight the Federal Government.

[cinzia8]

A simple gesture is enough to satisfy a pagan. For them, an action is real, a visible identifier of allegiance, since there's no emotional or intellectual ownership. A man must display his loyalty in other words by deed, not thoughts or words. Christians do not have this choice.

 

 

It seems to me that from the standpoint of the Roman Magistrate it would be the same as refusal to recite the pledge of allegiance. In the USA all schoolchildren are expected to do this. I don't know of any who have refused, and I don't know if there would be any consequences for doing so. In the old postbellum south there were many southerners who were philosophically opposed to the very idea of a pledge of allegiance, since they did not choose to be part of the Union in the first place, but it was easier to go along with it than to fight the Federal Government.

 

I'm not sure if I quite understand the context of gesture and allegiance being made here, but in the public high schools today in the U.S. students will hear the pledge of allegiance, but they are not required to acknowledge it. It is their choice, at least in Illinois. They do not have to stand or recite it; in fact, many tend to talk through it because the class has not "officially" started until the pledge and announcements are over.

[barca]

I'm not sure if I quite understand the context of gesture and allegiance being made here, but in the public high schools today in the U.S. students will hear the pledge of allegiance, but they are not required to acknowledge it. It is their choice, at least in Illinois. They do not have to stand or recite it; in fact, many tend to talk through it because the class has not "officially" started until the pledge and announcements are over.

 

I may have gone off on a separate tangent when referring to the old south.

 

We live in a much more peaceful world today. The Romans on the other hand, even during the Pax Romana, were not always far from a violent outburst of some sort. We don't punish people for failure to make an oath or pledge of allegiance because we live in a relatively secure world. Romans were constantly on guard against barbarian invaders, usurpers, etc. They depended on the stability of the Roman State to protect them from the violent world out there.

 

When Christians refused to worship or offer sacrifices to the Roman gods or to the Roman emperors that was considered treason. Such worship was evidence of a person

Edited February 24, 2012 by barca