J
Juan1234
Guest
Just wondered what you think. It seems a shorter cross puts you more among the crowd of onlookers, and a tall cross puts you more on display for a greater distance.
-
Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.
Crucified Life
Governor
I think the tall one wins out. The short one is admittedly good for those who prefer physical interaction including slapping and sexual abuse. Although it can also facilitate mercy like wiping of the victims brow, stroking, whispering words of encouragement and giving of water. Of course it is going to depend on the onlookers personal connection or attitude to the victims (friend/family or foes and sadistic strangers respectively) as to what they will give if anything and the policy of the guards. But it gives some human contact which can help the victims even if negative or abusive. You know the old sayings that "Bad attention is better than no attention." And that Johnny Cash song about hurting yourself to prove you can still feel. Hence I think that the potential for attention that a short or low cross brings actually helps the victims whether "good" or "bad" attention except for inflicting serious injury of course.
But a long/tall/set high cross is different. It puts the victim into their own unreachable dimension of dealing with their own suffering. The crowd can't reach them either to help or harm, but the victims isolation from physical interference makes the suffering more pronounced. They have a better ability to communicate with fellow victims who are up there on their level off to each side of you, but reduced ability to communicate with the crowd unless someone makes the effort to shout up there from the base of the cross. Only the feet are easily accessible except via long poles. Water or torture can be given through this process which takes effort to reach the victims. The victims are set slightly apart from the crowd below and their agony is magnified by this. Also they are displayed better at a distance but close up onlookers can only see a good view of the feet, maybe legs and thighs, above that the view is less distinct due to the angle of viewing from the ground and the distance to the upper body and head/face, except for some view of the arms secured outward.
So my vote is the higher positioned cross on average of all things.
But a long/tall/set high cross is different. It puts the victim into their own unreachable dimension of dealing with their own suffering. The crowd can't reach them either to help or harm, but the victims isolation from physical interference makes the suffering more pronounced. They have a better ability to communicate with fellow victims who are up there on their level off to each side of you, but reduced ability to communicate with the crowd unless someone makes the effort to shout up there from the base of the cross. Only the feet are easily accessible except via long poles. Water or torture can be given through this process which takes effort to reach the victims. The victims are set slightly apart from the crowd below and their agony is magnified by this. Also they are displayed better at a distance but close up onlookers can only see a good view of the feet, maybe legs and thighs, above that the view is less distinct due to the angle of viewing from the ground and the distance to the upper body and head/face, except for some view of the arms secured outward.
So my vote is the higher positioned cross on average of all things.
crumera
Crucifier of Pixels
Some things to ponder about large crosses
1
A large cross is quite expensive in material.
Especially in earlier times such large pieces of timber are sought after to build ships or build other large constructions
2
Less efficient-> More difficult to raise/hoist the victim on. larger execution crews.
3
A small cross can be put on something else to get the "large" cross feel.
A small hill/ platform /podium for example.
Hang it from top of the city walls, side of a tower or city gate to get the required height.
And about low crosses:
Think in any case giving the public close access to low crosses is a bad idea.
Crowds do stupid things
A 2meter 6-7 feet minimum security space around the crosses will give the public a good enough distance to view the suffering.
Prevents people form doing unwanted things to the crucified unnoticed.
1
A large cross is quite expensive in material.
Especially in earlier times such large pieces of timber are sought after to build ships or build other large constructions
2
Less efficient-> More difficult to raise/hoist the victim on. larger execution crews.
3
A small cross can be put on something else to get the "large" cross feel.
A small hill/ platform /podium for example.
Hang it from top of the city walls, side of a tower or city gate to get the required height.
And about low crosses:
Think in any case giving the public close access to low crosses is a bad idea.
Crowds do stupid things
A 2meter 6-7 feet minimum security space around the crosses will give the public a good enough distance to view the suffering.
Prevents people form doing unwanted things to the crucified unnoticed.
Crucified Survivor
Guard
I personally would be conflicted with choosing a cross height. Both short and tall crosses have their pros and their cons.
A short cross, with the condemned being on the cross with his or her nipples at eye-level of the onlookers, puts the condemned on the cross in reach of the those on the ground. It makes it easier to crucify the victim; a low level cross will be easier to raise (either raising a full cross with the condemn fixed to it or raising a patibulum, with the condemn on it, up onto the stipe) and perform other tasks in the crucifixion process. Being crucified at that level also allows for the executioners/guards and/or public onlookers (if their allowed) to interact with the victim in various ways; they can offer some relief to the victim on the cross or they could torture and harass the victim, physically and/or sexually. I find some of these activities interesting as they can make the event more intriguing and stimulating (the torture and sexual abuse particularly), though the fact that some of these activities can offer some relief to the victim's suffering does lessen the agony factor of the experience to some extent.
A tall cross, with the condemned being on the cross with his or her feet at or above eye-level of the onlookers, puts the condemned on the cross almost or fully out of reach of the those on the ground and in better view for all to see. Raising the cross and its victim upright and performing other tasks in the crucifixion process can be a bit more difficult with a taller cross. The executioners/guards and/or public onlookers won't be able to interact with the victim at this height, which leaves the victim in uninterrupted agony, though it does put the victim on full display for all to see so very little of the spectacle is missed. While it eliminates the factors gained from physical interactions during suffering, it leaves in condemned, enduring continuous and natural agony, in full view to see.
A short cross, with the condemned being on the cross with his or her nipples at eye-level of the onlookers, puts the condemned on the cross in reach of the those on the ground. It makes it easier to crucify the victim; a low level cross will be easier to raise (either raising a full cross with the condemn fixed to it or raising a patibulum, with the condemn on it, up onto the stipe) and perform other tasks in the crucifixion process. Being crucified at that level also allows for the executioners/guards and/or public onlookers (if their allowed) to interact with the victim in various ways; they can offer some relief to the victim on the cross or they could torture and harass the victim, physically and/or sexually. I find some of these activities interesting as they can make the event more intriguing and stimulating (the torture and sexual abuse particularly), though the fact that some of these activities can offer some relief to the victim's suffering does lessen the agony factor of the experience to some extent.
A tall cross, with the condemned being on the cross with his or her feet at or above eye-level of the onlookers, puts the condemned on the cross almost or fully out of reach of the those on the ground and in better view for all to see. Raising the cross and its victim upright and performing other tasks in the crucifixion process can be a bit more difficult with a taller cross. The executioners/guards and/or public onlookers won't be able to interact with the victim at this height, which leaves the victim in uninterrupted agony, though it does put the victim on full display for all to see so very little of the spectacle is missed. While it eliminates the factors gained from physical interactions during suffering, it leaves in condemned, enduring continuous and natural agony, in full view to see.
Loxuru
Graf von Kreuzigung
Some technical issues : to anchor a wooden pole safely into the ground, one needs half the lenght extra in the ground, of the section above the ground. A pole two meters high, has one extra meter in the ground.
But our pole will get a top weight of a crucified condemned, so I figure, to keep it stable, there will have to be as much lenght in the ground than above the ground. A higher cross will also have to be thicker and stronger (torsion by the whriting and 'dancing' top weight. If you don't have concrete avaliable, the diameter of the foundation hole also ought to be as close as possible to the equivalent diameter of your stipes. That's all hard to dig, especially in rocky grounds. Not to mention the technical difficulty of putting patibulum plus nailed condemned on the stipes on a high cross.
Perhaps, our notion from a 'high' cross is influenced by ancient paintings of a crucified Christ, who, for the sake of 'propaganda', was depicted on a high cross, high above the people. Let's say, feet at eye level or higher.
My guess is, that a low cross is : condemned's toes touch the grass, high cross is : loins at eye level. If one wants to create the illusion of a high cross, it is also possible to put the cross upslope of the level where the onlookers stand.
But our pole will get a top weight of a crucified condemned, so I figure, to keep it stable, there will have to be as much lenght in the ground than above the ground. A higher cross will also have to be thicker and stronger (torsion by the whriting and 'dancing' top weight. If you don't have concrete avaliable, the diameter of the foundation hole also ought to be as close as possible to the equivalent diameter of your stipes. That's all hard to dig, especially in rocky grounds. Not to mention the technical difficulty of putting patibulum plus nailed condemned on the stipes on a high cross.
Perhaps, our notion from a 'high' cross is influenced by ancient paintings of a crucified Christ, who, for the sake of 'propaganda', was depicted on a high cross, high above the people. Let's say, feet at eye level or higher.
My guess is, that a low cross is : condemned's toes touch the grass, high cross is : loins at eye level. If one wants to create the illusion of a high cross, it is also possible to put the cross upslope of the level where the onlookers stand.
Crucified Life
Governor
In response to this I would like to agree totally. When I said in my post just above yours a high cross I certainly was not meaning some very long plank made from a tall tree trunk. No that would be expensive and difficult to acquire. But the ideal is where there is a structure like a bigger frame or scaffold which they can hoist and attach smaller crosses or parts thereof to and give that high cross effect like in the 1977 film Jesus of Nazareth.
And I 100% agree. Allowing mass crowd contact is chaotic, random, unpredictable and detracts from the authenticity of the crucifixion experience for the victims. And we wouldn't want to do that. The maintenance of the true crux experience was considered to be important like a bubble you don't interrupt.
However certain selective and supervised contact is permissible without damaging the authenticity, such as allowing a mother or wife or sister or partner or friend (either gender) or a small group of two or more of the above to comfort the victim, say words, touch and maybe with permission give water to and wipe the brow of. But these are controlled interactions, limited and carefully supervised. While they may provide a small temporary relief for the victim, they do little to alter the overall effect, to say nothing about the eventual outcome of, the crucifixion as a whole.
I have to disagree with you there. When we set up the maypole in Thuringia's Holzland, it is placed in a 2m deep hole and then wedged with pieces of wood. The largest maypole we erected was 38m high and did not fall over, even though several storms shook the tree that year.
Here is a picture from my hometown from last year:
mp5stab
Hair and Nails
I don’t think there is one optimal cross height. I bet that differences in lumber supply, location, and carnifex preferences affected how high or short a cross was. I do agree that the ultra high display cross is an invention of biblical art, however, I can very easily imagine capture queen and princesses getting a higher “throne” that the thieves, adulteresses, and lieutenants that surround them.
For best effect, make the cross height part of the ritual of the execution. Short crosses to humiliate, degrade, and molest. Tall crosses to display defeated, for everyone to see.
For the best of both worlds, crucifixion on the parapets and walkways of the city walls makes the victim very visible to thousands of people, but extremely accessible and at eye level to the guards and assorted (paying) citizens along the walls.
For best effect, make the cross height part of the ritual of the execution. Short crosses to humiliate, degrade, and molest. Tall crosses to display defeated, for everyone to see.
For the best of both worlds, crucifixion on the parapets and walkways of the city walls makes the victim very visible to thousands of people, but extremely accessible and at eye level to the guards and assorted (paying) citizens along the walls.
Loxuru
Graf von Kreuzigung
It is of course a matter of weight distribution and centre of gravity, and how you secure it into the ground. Adding support of wooden beams and wedges in the ground could obviously reduce the necessary depth. Although it could be needed to drive the wooden support deeper than the bottom of the cross pole.
A taller cross is better over a shorter one. If I'm standing in front of the crucified woman and I have to raise my head a bit to look between her legs. then it's the right height. Her feet should be at least a yard (meter) off the ground.
You can't make her too accessible to the spectators. They must be kept back. Look but don't touch!
If you're naked and exposed it's humiliating, regardless of the height.
You can't make her too accessible to the spectators. They must be kept back. Look but don't touch!
If you're naked and exposed it's humiliating, regardless of the height.
Lucas Soranus
Governor
If I had to choose, I would probably go with a shorter one because that makes it worse as I am so close to the ground (and hence freedom). An alternative idea (although I doubt it's technically feasible) would be some kind of adjustable height on the cross. Start me out close to the ground, and then slowly raise me up as my sentence goes on, leaving me at the highest possible height by the time I die.
dfg42
Consul
It was probably not feasible for the Romans to make adjustable high. Not they could not do it, it would be to much effort for them. Doing it today it is no problem and it depends what the aim is. If the aim is to humiliate the crucified, then an active cross would not help today. The crucified has to be exposed in a cheap way and he must sit volunteerly on the cornu. If the aim is to expose him helplessly (eg fucked by the state) a modern cross would lift the crucified turn him, spread him for the audience and push actively cornu, nails etc into the crucified one.
Last edited:
scrofetta
Spectator
short, within reach of the people, nailed to a "tau cross humilis" in this pic with legs spread (feet nailed to the sides or the back of the "stipes", high)
or upside down in the "St Andrews Cross", or impaled and scourged in those "crux acer"
thecuriousone
Governor
Keep it low, so you can harrass the crucified more easy. Or add extra torture.