To: tiamat
Try to be a little more specific with your criticisms. :)
6 posted on
02/29/2004 12:50:49 PM PST by
Restorer
To: Restorer
Well, first, I was considering the source: a Canadian rag, so I DID sort of blow it off.
The whole : "there were three methods of execution under the Romans" is just not so.
Without resorting to dragging our my Durants, people seem to be under the impression that the Romans crucified people at the drop of a hat. They did not. Not only were there many different types and severities of crucifixion , in general, crucifixtion was saved for "special" cases and was often a last resort. ( the Spartacan rebellion being the spectacular exception to that) Usually it was just cheaper and easier to hang the sucker.
Also, while the Legions were not a bunch of sweet,sensitive, modern guys, most of them HATED execution detail if it involved crucifixion. No one wanted the duty and I can't blame them, either.
Strangulation or hanging were also popular forms of execution and were more expediant than crucifixion.
There were also differeces in how citizens were handled, as opposed to slaves and NON citizens. Often it was safer to be a slave than to be a citizen under the Romans. A slave is property and therefore some value. Also, citizens were expected to know the law and were held more responsible.
The Roman penalty for denying your citizenship in order to escape persecution ( it happened) was to be tied into a bag with a dog, a rooster and a poisonous snake and then thrown into a river.
And of course many of these rules CHANGE depending on whther we are talking Roman Republic or Imperial Rome....
And rather than continue to flaggilate the deceased equine....
12 posted on
02/29/2004 1:08:53 PM PST by
tiamat
("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno World!")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson