Who can't be crucified?

[caesar novus]

I thought Romans reserved crucifixion mostly for defiant non-citizens. Of course groups rather than individuals took responsibility, but if your group didn't resist the invading Romans or rebel against them... weren't you safe, unlike the assertion in http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/epa_regulator_who_wanted_to_crucify_KaCOfGtSDTi3uhmlVDvTaM

 

Speaking to colleagues about methods of EPA enforcement, Al Armendariz is recorded saying,

[Kosmo]

That guy has no idea of what is he talking about. Probably his knowledge comes from what he has seen in movies.

BTW Romans never conquered little Turkish towns

[caldrail]

The quote above is trying to apply the sort of tactics the nazi's used to Roman occupation. Crucifixion was a criminal punishment ordered by a magistrate or senior noble, and regarded as a means of humiliating the victim at the same time, so clearly questions of honour are involved. I would seriously doubt that upper classes were subjected to anything like that sort of punishment.

 

There's very few examples I know of, which in itself might be indicative of the tolerant attitude the Romans had toward class. Caractacus was dragged to Rome in chains but allowed to live in Rome after showing defiance and courage in front of the senate. Caligula had some foriegn VIP killed for being more fashionable than he was, and Caesar had Vercingetorix regularly paraded as a prisoner until it all got boring and the gaul was quietly ritually strangled.

 

Soldiers arriving in a foreign village were more prone to looting and killing, depending on whether there was anything worth taking, the urgency of the route march, the behaviour of the people toward the soldiers, or whether the commander wanted to please his men with an opportunity to gather booty. Mostly legions would simply march through and not take any notice of such a small settlement. After all, the Romans were very keen to co-opt their leaders and thus create societal alliances at top level.

Edited April 28, 2012 by caldrail

[Divus Iulius]

Criminals.

 

 

Only Son of Gods are Crucified e.g. Emperors

 

 

Coin depicting the Crucifixion of Julius Caesar

 

Off course, they never place Real Bodies on the Cross, only parts of there Clothing, e.g. Armour, Shields of the Son of God.

The Criminals, are tied up, and placed on the Floor, near the Crucifix, not on the Cross.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Divus Iulius

[Kosmo]

Criminals.

 

 

Only Son of Gods are Crucified e.g. Emperors

 

 

Coin depicting the Crucifixion of Julius Caesar

 

Off course, they never place Real Bodies on the Cross, only parts of there Clothing, e.g. Armour, Shields of the Son of God.

The Criminals, are tied up, and placed on the Floor, near the Crucifix, not on the Cross.

 

You just blew my mind with the implications of what you're saying. From where is the first image?

[Divus Iulius]

 

 

You just blew my mind with the implications of what you're saying. From where is the first image?

 

 

The term "Crucifix" has nothing to do with Death, the word itself, means "Fixed to a Cross", or a "Cross-Figure", exactly what i am showing.

 

Not sure where the first image Epigraphy is located

 

 

Here is another Crucifix

 

Roman Tropaeum, Charlottenberg Museum, Berlin.

 

 

In some Coins the Crucifix is depicted like this

 

Since the Funeral of Caesar occurred around the Roman Bacchus festival, he became entwined with the Symbolism

 

The below symbol, is actually depicting Julius Caesar AS Bacchus.

 

 

Eventually mutating

Edited June 30, 2012 by Divus Iulius

[Divus Iulius]

Julius Caesar was deified, as Divus Julius with Clementia, did you know, alike Churches of Today, had a CROSS inside the temple, and either a Star or Cross upon the TRIANGULAR Roof.

 

 

 

4 Pillers, Roof as if on Fire, Star [sidus Iulium, eventually Star of David (SIDUS DIVUS] upon center of the Triangle Roof.

 

 

 

 

Temple of Julius Caesar [ I actually believe the Roof was not Flat, but Triangular ]

 

Notice the "Cross" upon the Top.

 

The so-called Tomb of Jesus is designed like a ROMAN Julius Caesar Temple

 

Christian Scholars [Liars] assume that in Pompey,there is a depiction of a Cross, and believed to be one of the earliest depiction of Christianity, that is wrong, it is a Depiction of the the Divine Julius Caesar, whom symbol was the Cross.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Divus Iulius

[Divus Iulius]

Christian Scholars are the most ignorant of all people, they all believed that in the 1st Century, a Man was Crucified in Judea, yet they can't seems to present any Archaeological evidence.

 

Here is Archaeological evidence of the REAL Crucified Son of God in Judea

 

(Son of God, Vespasian, and TWO CRIMINALS, tied up, on the floor)

 

IVDAEA = Judea

 

This is around 70CE , the Gospels is the Narrative of his Campaign, which was predates to 37CE

 

THIS IS THE ONLY DEPICTION OF A CRUCIFIED SON OF GOD IN 1ST CENTURY IN JUDEA.

 

It is highly likely that this "Crucifix" would be placed in the Capital of Judea, also in some depictions, this Crucifix is actually carried.

 

The Romans derived Capitolium from caput. The tale is that an Etruscan king, Olus (i. e. Aulus Vulcentanus) was killed and buried there, and that the Capitoline temple and hill received its name after his skull was later found:

Edited July 5, 2012 by Divus Iulius

[Northern Neil]

 

Speaking to colleagues about methods of EPA enforcement, Al Armendariz is recorded saying,

Edited July 6, 2012 by Northern Neil

[barca]

Criminals.

 

Only Son of Gods are Crucified e.g. Emperors

 

Off course, they never place Real Bodies on the Cross, only parts of there Clothing, e.g. Armour, Shields of the Son of God.

The Criminals, are tied up, and placed on the Floor, near the Crucifix, not on the Cross.

 

I'm not sure that I fully understand the context of all this. This process of crucifixion seems totally different from the crucifying of criminals. The first a ritual of honor; the second a form of humiliating punishment.

 

As I understand, the crosses that were used for criminals didn't look at all like the crucifixes we see today. Interesting how the Christians turned the tables and converted a humiliating punishment into a badge of honor, by copying the Romans. Am I understanding this correctly? Please feel free to elaborate, and correct me if I am mistaken. Also, can you cite some sources on this?

[barca]

 

If Roman Crucifixion is the most popular method of Roman Execution, why is it NEVER depicted in any Roman epigraphy,

 

The arena was probably the most popular.

 

But there is historical evidence for crucifixion as a form of punishment. Didn't Crassus execute thousands of Spartacus' followers by crucifixion?

[DecimusCaesar]

 

Isn't this image more of a battlefield trophy, usually erected after a major battle had taken place? Greeks as well as Romans would take a plank of wood and bury it in the ground where they nailed armour and placed a helmet on top. The Greeks sometimes called it a Tropaion. It was placed on the spot where the tide of battle changed, and was therefore used to represent the spot where the victors had won.

[wryobserver]

http://www.joezias.com/CrucifixionAntiquity.html

 

Unless I am misreading comments above, there is indeed other archeological evidence of the practice of crucifixion in Judea than that suggested and cited above, and it was evidently also used much more commonly that is being suggested above.

 

Not sure whether the comments above are entirely historically objective.

[Divus Iulius]

This is what was found in Judea

 

 

nails and whips were taken home by the superstitious locals for use as magic talismans with healing properties of some sort. The Jewish Rabbis permitted Jews to do this, even on the weekly Sabbath (The Mishnah, Shabbath 6.10)

 

The man

Edited July 8, 2012 by Divus Iulius

[Onasander]

Ummm.... this line of reasoning would be great except for one little, tiny flaw in reasoning...

 

How exactly did the romans store their gear when at rest at night?

 

In Iraq, many rooms had a 'crucifix', but with one subtle differance, the crucifix had a square base and the whole thing was waste tall. You put the vest on it, and if you cared to, the helmet on top.

 

Its generally bad, very bad, to have your equipment disorganized, dirty and tossed here and these. I dont think the roman army was any less demanding and exacting in the scope of their inspections. The roman soldier disheveled, out of conformity, and chaotically unprepared in his set up probably was looked down upon, at the very least.

 

Propping your crap up on a cross keeps them together, out of the muck, ready to go and very easy to inspect.

 

Its coincidence that it looks like a person, but not one that the roman legions would of overlooked. Its damn obvious if looks like a person.

 

However, there is a massive difference between having a cross holding up your armor and saying 'this is me crucified'. That is not the mentality of a soldier. Nobody walked into my room in Iraq and said 'behold the crucified one'. They asked where I got it and if they could get one too (weird thing is, no one assumed I built it. I think I should be insulted about that).

 

It makes for a very obvious battlefield trophy, or perhaps for a very lame gung ho few, a idol. But crucified? Hell no....... no no no no no no...... NO! Why would they crucify someone in their own uniform? How would that improve morale? Thats like, soldiers photo cropping their heads on the bodies of POWs being tortured. I dont want my head on John McCain's body during his stay in the Hanoi Hilton..... and especially dont show me that stuff before rolling out the gate, reminding me this could be me. It wouldnt boost my morale any.

 

A soldier isnt getting into Elysium by being crucified. That was a christian concept, and wasnt even a christian soldier's ideal path to martyrdom, neither St. Sebastion or St. Maurice went that way, or desired that sort of outcome.

 

I rarely even noted my armor cross was like a christian cross. It was my spacehog that I had to push aside on the way to the bathroom at night. Think coatrack.

 

It can be used as a battlefield memorial. American soldiers put helmets on shovels and rifles sometimes the same way...... at least in the movies. Im sure in WW2 or Vietnam or something.

 

100% certain roman soldiers were not into crucifying their own likeness, as well as certain command wouldnt want the uniform disgraced like that. Much less advertise if to subject populations. That would send a wacky message, wouldn't it? Heck, they probably offer to help out. Joshep and Jesus could of labored away building crosses to offer to the roman legion (it was the sixth, right) for the romans to crucify themselves in mass on. Every jew could of walked up and provided their own nail each, hammering them into each roman legionaire's hand, and the whole Roman legion could dance while being crucified, singing the song from 'The Life of Brian', with crowds of deeply amazed jews standing below the merrily dying romans dying, noting in Hebrew to each other the Romans certainly taught them a lesson!

 

Thats pretty much what your theory amounts to, in its inherent silliness. The Romans are not going to advertise crucifying its own legions and emperors. The mindset didnt make sense to them, of voluntary martyrdom for a god..... they could sacrafice anyone and everyone BUT them for a God, that they understood. But propaganda of them doing it to their best imperial representatives, hell no.

 

Imagine Napoleon posing for a mass produced picture with him lying, smiling on the guillotine.... do you think his troops would of reacted positively? Or Stalin tied up on the firing line during WW2? How deeply inspired after 9/11 do you think Americans would be if Bush issued photoshopped images of him being beheaded, or Hitler passing around imaged of himself being lethally injected?

 

That sort of stuff doesnt raise morale, nor reassure, or install fear in the enemy, much less cement a empire. Its a very bad, and very silly idea. It took 1000 years of highly specialized pressure for the shiites to develop the masochistic martyrs brigade, and its really just a thinly veiled and deeply veiled sadism saying 'we will never forget, will never forgive'...... and despite all the hype and hysteria, tactically its generally worthless, they only use it when convention force is unavailable due to weakness. The Sunnis know this, and therefore try to help the shiites ritually beat themselves by beating them to death.

 

It took a thousand years of demented hatred to tap into that mindset. Romans showing up in Jewish and Samaritan lands are definately not going to immediately jump into that mindset. Its absolute insanity.