Was crucifixion the worst type of punishment the romans bestowed, or was there something worse they did ?

Answer 1

It might depend on what you mean by "worse". If you mean "more painful" there might be some competitors, and there were certainly many tortures short of death that might be used.. But pain is not the only measure of better or worse -- certainly was not in the Roman Empire.

I suspect you are thinking of the crucifixion of Jesus and wondering whether that was the 'worst' they could do to him. Well, in some key respects there was NO worse punishment they could dole out. . but NOT because of pain.

Contrary to one previous answer, crucifixion was NOT reserved for "the lowest of the low" (unless I misunderstand their use of the term). It was specifically for crimes of REBELLION. In fact, that is what Jesus stood accused of ('leading a revolt against Caesar's kingship'), what Barabbas was to have been crucified for ('leading an insurrection') and what the two "thieves" (better translated 'insurrectionists') alongside Jesus were being punished for.

The point of the FORM of punishment was not simply to make the person suffer physical pain, but more importantly to SHAME them -- by displaying them in public (not to mention naked).-- in a way that served as a strong visible reminder to any who might dare to consider rebelling themselves.

This mode of execution was actually close kin to other forms of execution used against rebels, conquered kings, and such in the ancient empires. In many cases the person was executed first and THEN their head and or body was hung on a tree or impaled on a stake lifted up for everyone to see. (Examples: the five kings executed by Joshua [Joshua 10:26-27}, and the punishment Xerxes commands for Haman and his sons -- the one Haman himself was planning for Mordecai for having dishonored him [book of Esther]).

Incidentally, the Bible does connect these -- Paul notes that Jesus, by being crucified, was under the curse of the OT law "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree" (a reference to the act of impaling or hanging the body out for display). Thus the NT problem of a "crucified" Messiah (which Paul reflects on in 1 Corinthians 1, for example) -- as one who died in SHAME, under a public CURSE (which is whole lot more than our idea of embarrassment)..

I would take nothing away from the actual physical pain suffered in this form of execution. But the biblical emphasis is as much if not more on the SHAME he submitted to (and shame was a VERY big deal in the Mediterranean cultures). This also makes better sense of the emphasis on the story of his being raised from the dead and so GLORIFIED (vs. shame) and VINDICATED by God.

Note too the other "shame" elements in the story -- nakedness, being spit upon, public mocking. (In fact, note that much of the story, esp. that of the crucifixion itself, says little about PAIN. It is the shame and the mocking --and enduring it without uttering a word of anger or self-defense-- that gets the focus.)


(Compare John 12:32, where Jesus declares that ""And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." John adds the note, 'He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.' The point of these verses is the wordplay in "lifted up" -- it can refer both to being lifted up on a cross, displayed in shame, AND to being raised up to an honored position [glory!]. In fact, John is hinting that BOTH will happen with Jesus and even, ironically, that the shameful lifting up on a cross is the route to the lifting up in glory.)
_______________________________

Back to the original question -- it is almost irrelevant whether crucifixion was the most physically painful death. It WAS the most shameful.

Answer 2

Being burned at the stake would probably be more agonizing. Especially, if the fire source is built around you and not under you. I believe you would cook until you suffocated and then you be consumed by the fire. In comparison, however, Crucifixion could be equally as gruesome. You're tied in a position so that eventually, you will hyper extend your chest muscles and loose the ability to breath. If you're tied to the tree as opposed to nailed, the agony will be prolonged. You could hang on the cross for days. Dehydrating, starving, exposed to the elements. There are records that indicate that Roman soldiers would break the legs of the victim in order to hasten death after several days of agonizing torture hanging there. Burning at the stake would only take a few hours at most. There is also impalement. Which was employed by Vlad Tepes. Very gruesome.

Answer 3

I don't think the Romans had anything worse. Looking it up, it seems at the time most other Roman capital punishments involved stoning, flogging, crudling, and whipping, which might not be as bad as crucificion. Plus there was banishment, which could be worse since you'd have the mental anguish of knowing your home country doesn't want you, and the possible physical pain if you were tortured or killed by barbarians beyond Rome's boarders, but then again there you at least had the possibility of having at least a satisfactory life, if you were strong, smart, and/or lucky.

That doesn't mean there wasn't worse since.

Vlad the Impailer would impail some of his enemies on long spikes through their guts. But if there were ones he REALLY didn't like, he'd have them impailed on their anus, so the spike would work itself up their anus and through their body. Now, IMHO, THAT'S a lot worse than simple crucifixion.

Middle Age Europeans had drawing and quartering, the Spanish Inquision had the Rack and Iron Miden, and some tax collectors were tortured or murdered in the American colonies by hot tar and feathers or forcing them to swollow hot lead. How exactly those compair to impalement or crucifxion is up to personal opinion. Some sci-fi stories, such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Dune, and Alpha Centauri envision even worse tortures, such as chemicals or direct pain induction that make ever nerve ending in the body fire at once, plus measures to stop the dulling of pain. So, horrible as crucifiction was, there have been worse punishments since, and there will likely be worse punishments in the future.

Answer 4

It was the the punishment reserved for the lowest of the low. Not only was it excruciatingly painful but it was very public and embarrassing. The nails were driven into the wrists, not the hands-the nails would rip through he hands, but the joint in the wrist would hold the body. The shoulders often came out of joint meaning even more pain. The most common death from crucifixion was suffocation. When a person is hanging they need to be able to lift a little for each breath, When being crucified it became too painful to breath eventually and the person suffocated. It usually took a long time for that to happen, so depending upon the mercy of the executioners a person could have his legs broken, thus preventing him from being able to lift himself and breath. otherwise he could die quickly from shock or slowly from suffocation.

The Romans were masters of pain and suffering, they really enjoyed it. Something worse? It's all a matter of opinion. Being fed to lions or used as a human lantern and being lit on fire are all pretty bad, but crucifixion was meant to be slow, painful and public.

Answer 5

Crucifixion was one of the worst. However, the punishment for parricide might arguably be worse. The condemned was whipped, naked through a gauntlet and forced into a leather bag. Into this bag was placed a wild rooster, a snake and a monkey or a wild dog. Then the sack, water tight, was thrown into a river. Eventually the torments inflicted by the whipping and the animals would end when the sack eventually sank.

The punishment for a Vestal Virgin who was caught in flagrante delicto was buried alive in a tomb. She was given some food and the tomb was large enough for her to move around in.
Regards.

Answer 6

Well, I don't like to get on this subject, but crucifixion seems to have been pretty bad. The suffering during crucifixion is very acute and lasts a long time, with extreme difficulty in being able to expel air during breathing adding to the agony of spikes piercing the bones. It might not have been any worse, or even as bad, as skinning people alive, boiling them in oil, staking them on ant beds, and other tortures sometimes done by human beings to others out of the wonderful motives so often stemming from the human heart in times of conflict. But I had not heard of the ancient Romans practicing these other forms of torture. How can we brag on them enough? (Let's not talk about this too often!)

Answer 7

Yes easily. You know that Jesus feet are placed on a wooden block on the main stem of the cross, did you also know that the normal practice was to break both the legs. This had the effect of making the body sag. I don't know the exact details, but this had an asphyxiating effect, so that the victim died a slow but agonising death from internal pressure of displaced organs or something, as well as from loss of blood.

The Romans weren't the first to use crucifixion, they copied the idea from the Persians, and it may be even older than that!

Answer 8

There were probably worse things that they did, but crucifixion was a matter of policy and was much more wide spread than whatever some individual sadist was able to come up with.

Answer 9

Throwing the person into the coliseum and letting out the lions was pretty horrible as well, considering you weren't given armor, a sword, and all of this was done for the entertainment of the emperor and pretty much everyone else in Rome.

Answer 10

Crucifixion was Rome's worst punishment.
~