• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Nailing Feet

Go to CruxDreams.com
The one thing almost everyone has said, is ........ foot over foot is just not practical. Just an artists way of making things pretty.

Foot rests ... not so much, either!

And if some were nailed foot over foot ... wouldn't it be more simple to pass the nail through intended top one and then position it over the other?

Thoughts?
 
LittleSiss said:
The one thing almost everyone has said, is ........ foot over foot is just not practical. Just an artists way of making things pretty.

Foot rests ... not so much, either!

And if some were nailed foot over foot ... wouldn't it be more simple to pass the nail through intended top one and then position it over the other?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Two strong men holding your legs just beneath your knees and your opposite big toe with one foot over the other, a well placed spike with a well delivered blow of the mallet will easily drive a spike through both feet and bed it into wood of the stipe with a single blow. The rest is easy...

So the question for Tree is should wrists be done first or feet?

For both men and women their legs are stronger than their legs. So would it be better to nail feet first so the prisoner doesn't know what they are in for or does it matter as the pain of their wrists nailed they may not even notice their feet being nailed until it is too late???

Thoughts?
 
I always automatically assume nail wrists first, but the idea of feet first is interesting. The problem with loose legs in such agony & struggle is that they will kick around unpredictably, aimed at the torturers as well I'd imagine. So to be on the nailing squad could have been a dangerous job, the risk from being kicked & drenched in piss* would be a constant hazard to keep clear of! It does make sense to nail the feet to keep the legs in a safe demobilised state first. A rope round the ankles temporarily would make it a lot safer for the executioners while the wrists are fixed, the victim would then writhe around like a caterpillar!

But some alternative scenarios are appealing to me. Maybe the wrists could be nailed first & the victim raised up to hang from them for a while before the feet are fixed, this would be extremely painful & loads of fun for everyone else to watch the victim kicking the air in agony & trying to relieve the weight by gripping the stipes with the feet. After a suitable time of this the feet or ankles can then be fixed to the front sides or even back of the stipes.

* I remember my sister's son when a baby one day without a diaper on, he was wriggling around & decided to have a wee, I will never forget my panic as I leapt away to escape the fountain of piss!
 
thehangingtree said:
Two strong men holding your legs just beneath your knees and your opposite big toe with one foot over the other, a well placed spike with a well delivered blow of the mallet will easily drive a spike through both feet and bed it into wood of the stipe with a single blow. The rest is easy...

So the question for Tree is should wrists be done first or feet?

For both men and women their legs are stronger than their legs. So would it be better to nail feet first so the prisoner doesn't know what they are in for or does it matter as the pain of their wrists nailed they may not even notice their feet being nailed until it is too late???

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think Tree that although the legs are stronger the arms are cleverer, more versatile, more dangerous. The crux victim with nailed arms is more constrained than the one with nailed feet.
 
My impression is that every "scholarly" account of how crucifixion was done is based on some remaining historical accounts (which contain only scant technical detail), some little archaeological evidence (which gets disputed), and a lot of best guess work based on knowledge of human physiology. I have become somewhat skeptical about accounts that say "this is how it was done". I speculated earlier that one nail might be less practical than two, and might have been represented that way in paintings for aesthetic reasons. I don't know that for sure. We know the physical effects of crucifixion. As to the rest, mileage may have varied depending on the execution (or even whether they counted enough nails that morning when they packed up to go to the job site). That said, I think it is also likely that if we can conceive of different poses of people on crosses, they were probably actually done in history. Things seem to work that way. ;) :rolleyes:
 
Jollyrei said:
My impression is that every "scholarly" account of how crucifixion was done is based on some remaining historical accounts (which contain only scant technical detail), some little archaeological evidence (which gets disputed), and a lot of best guess work based on knowledge of human physiology. I have become somewhat skeptical about accounts that say "this is how it was done". I speculated earlier that one nail might be less practical than two, and might have been represented that way in paintings for aesthetic reasons. I don't know that for sure. We know the physical effects of crucifixion. As to the rest, mileage may have varied depending on the execution (or even whether they counted enough nails that morning when they packed up to go to the job site). That said, I think it is also likely that if we can conceive of different poses of people on crosses, they were probably actually done in history. Things seem to work that way. ;) :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Of some 275 accounts researched, 223 use only general verbs or phrases such as to be raised on a cross, to be lifted up on a cross, to crucify and just a not specified method of attachment.
We have only some accounts with words like nailed or tied...
However, there is not a single account telling the procedure of the attachment. It seems as if people knew exactly how a crucifixion was done, there was no need in the ancient world to describe. And later, when Constantin abolished crucifixion there was shame to speak about this... we have not really paintings or pictures of crucified victims up to the 5th Cent C.E. and at this time, the "how to" was lost.
A couple of accounts seem to describe an attachment lying with the back on the cross, a few seem to be attached on standing crosses.
If the victim was scourged near to death, loosing a lot of blood and later it was fixed to the patibulum with outstretched arms, mainly tied and led through the streets of the city to the place of execution I can't imagine a big fight when being nailed. And the Romans knew who to handle a victim...
 
I think it's very unlikely that there was one 'standard' way, from the time the Romans (apparently) picked up the idea from the Carthaginians to the end of crucifixions after Christianity was adopted, throughout the vast area that became the Empire. Crucifixion always meant exposure on some kind of wooden cross in a way that was humiliating, painfully uncomfortable, causing severe trauma of several kinds (exposure, dehydration, blinding, attacks by insects, birds etc., and more) and - unless the victim was taken down - eventual death. But how exactly s/he was attached to the cross probably varied a great deal both for practical reasons and the according to the tastes and local customs of the executioners.
 
Eulalia said:
I think it's very unlikely that there was one 'standard' way, from the time the Romans (apparently) picked up the idea from the Carthaginians to the end of crucifixions after Christianity was adopted, throughout the vast area that became the Empire. Crucifixion always meant exposure on some kind of wooden cross in a way that was humiliating, painfully uncomfortable, causing severe trauma of several kinds (exposure, dehydration, blinding, attacks by insects, birds etc., and more) and - unless the victim was taken down - eventual death. But how exactly s/he was attached to the cross probably varied a great deal both for practical reasons and the according to the tastes and local customs of the executioners.
Click to expand...


I have thought for some time that the cross itself was not really the killing instrument, well not like a guillotine or a gibbet. I think it had the function of an early form of pillory or stocks where the exposure of a criminal to the fury, ridicule, mockery of a crowd was an important part. However it was a sort of pillory with inevitable death at the end of the period of public exposure. The cause of death could be from many causes, exhaustion, asphyxia, thirst, blood loss, septicaemia, heart failure, severe wounding from stones & things hurled by the crowd, or more likely the resulting trauma of having the legs broken by the executioners when they decided or were ordered to administer the killing action.
 
I haven't ever had my feet nailed on purpose but if I did I would have to take measures that the nail didn't hit bone or anything that could cripple me for life. In the Philippines they drive the nails through the fleshy parts of the feet (around the ball of the foot and between the toes), I guess that would be the best way. But I feel you, I too long to be stretched out on a cross and feel my feet positioned for the nails before the hammer pounds the nails through my bare feet and into the wood ;)
 
Eulalia said:
Please, no discussion of real crux-play with nails here,
see 'Terms and Rules' (bottom right). ​
Click to expand...
CrossMyHeart89 said:
You might not be able to feel the nails after awhile
Click to expand...
CrossMyHeart89 said:
I haven't ever had my feet nailed on purpose but if I did I would have to take measures
Click to expand...
CrossMyHeart89 said:
I think the pain would be similar for both
Click to expand...
Interesting question here.
That Philippine stuff, they do that every year, and it always gets some amount of coverage in the mainstream press. It isn't what most of us would consider crux from a BDSM perspective as they're usually standing fully supported on their feet, which is of course what makes it safe - there are many people who have participated multiple times in that ritual without any damage.

I'm totally on board with not suggesting nailed crux here, so that the forum doesn't run the risk of legal trouble. Admins will have to keep an eye on that.

As long as it's discussing what happens in the Philippines, what happened in accidents, and, as "what I would have" I'd hope it should be OK though. A slightly risqué mainstream press article could do that.

As I see it "CrossMyHeart89" is trying to wrap her mind around what the experience would be like, what with all that "might, think, would have" she's not suggesting that she will actually get her living flesh and bone nailed to a cross or suggesting others ought to.
 
Of course this is all fantasy, I'm too educated on the potential dangers of these activities to ever play with real nails. But I lament our litigious society all the same. And, to explain my comments, the Filipino devotees do their thing every year, it's not cruxplay so I assumed it didn't count. It's just fun to think about, and in the end, isn't that why we're here...?
 
Playing with nails is dangerous because everywhere on the foot you see the veins. I do not like an accident and must walk to the First Help. When fixed a cord is enough.
 
piedi said:
Have you ever experienced the feeling of being nailed? Feel on your skin the tip of the nail, the executioner pressing against your foot that nail long and rough left me breathless. I guess the first swipe! He has to beat strong, there is the bone pierce! I hold my breath and I look forward ...
View attachment 66916 View attachment 66917
Click to expand...
German: Aua! or Autsch!
English: Ouch!
 
I
CrossMyHeart89 said:
I think the pain would be similar for both (feet nailed one over the other OR side by side) but I would personally rather have my feet nailed side by side...i doubt that many people on here would kick and scream as they are crucified...I know I would lay still and wait for my feet to be nailed to the cross
Click to expand...
I think that nailing of the feet is much more painful than driving nails through the wrists, but I'm not sure. What do you think?
 
CrossMyHeart89 said:
I think the pain would be similar for both (feet nailed one over the other OR side by side) but I would personally rather have my feet nailed side by side...i doubt that many people on here would kick and scream as they are crucified...I know I would lay still and wait for my feet to be nailed to the cross
Click to expand...

The advantage of nailing the feet separately is that we can pause after the first foot is nailed, allowing the victim to anticipate the nailing of the second.

If we nail the ankles to the sides of the upright, as was apparently done with Jehohanan, and do so before the cross is elevated, then we should make a point of holding the heel off the ground during the nailing. That way, when we remove that support, the weight of the victim's leg is borne by the nail. The only way to relieve that is to try to raise the leg, straining the muscles of the stomach and thigh. This is not only hard work for the victim, but the play of the muscles allows the spectators (at least the ones in the front row) to see how the victim's struggling.

Of course, while the victim's trying to ease the pain of the weight of the leg pressing on the nail through the ankle, s/he can look forward to what it'll be like when the cross is elevated and the whole body's weight is on the nails...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom