Broadly, it was about criminals.Low social status is also important, because a senator was possibly murdered (for political reasons), but not crucified.
Known is the Spartacus rebellion, of slaves.Once it was precipitated, thousands of insurgents were crucified. Hollywood has also made a beautiful film about this uprising, which ends with a picture of the crucified ones along Via Apia.
The story about this uprising is really a must.You can keep reading it, and you always hope that it ends well, because Spartacus has also taken wrong decisions. The attack instead of the flight.
Crucifixion was the honorless standard punishment.Approximately as one later the people ophing.
Crucifixion was intended to be the capital punishment of the state’s enemies at the time of the Roman Republic and the later empire.The punishment could only be made to persons with status â € ̃Peregriniâ €™, so not a Roman citizen.It was intended for rebellious slaves (these had no Roman citizenship, even after the year 212 not), or pirates (also without Roman citizenship), or insurgent provincials or residents in a protectorate without Roman citizenship.
It was thus a status-dependent death penalty for enemies of the state.People who were not allowed to complete this punishment were, for example, Saul of Tarsus, better known as the Apostle Paul, because he was a Roman citizen if it had been classified as a state enemy.
People with whom the punishment was allowed to be and also possible to complete were: Jesus of Nazareth and Spartacus.From the surviving followers of Spartacus at least it is reasonably certain that these are crucified (the entire road from Rome was full of it).
For Spartacus was the reason he had revolted in what is called the Third servile War.This war was in fact a slave rebellion near Capua (south of the city of Rome) led by Spartacus and Crixus. Crixus is not crucified, because he died in the battle near Mount Gargano.
For Jesus of Nazareth, the matter is much more complicated, and for this reason it is not so certain to point out, if it is already there, because that too is not so certain.This was seen as the enemy of the state, but was arrested by the provincial authorities and handed over to the Roman authority and under Pontius Pilate condemned.
To understand how that works legally, it is useful to dwell on how religion works in a state cult of polytheistic empires, because that was often much grayer than is being looked at with the present Western monotheistic perception.
First of all, it can be mentioned that at the time in many particularly oriental areas within the Roman Empire the cult worship of the Emperors was strong (stronger than the western provinces), except in the protectorate, at least for those strictly Monotheistic.The practice was then a much more gradual transition. You could in some way argue that many henothest (recognizes other gods, but there is one prominent), although it is also disputed. Not every one will agree. Something that shows the Greek and Egyptian influence in the region. Remember that many of these areas were owned by Diadochen (the imitators of Alexander the great) before they became Roman.
This kind of transitional forms is still noticeable in Christianity to the Angels.It is also somewhat noticeable in zoroastrism (a belief from present-day Iran), although this is often called monotheistic and also in Hinduism, although this is often called polytheistic.
Historically, it is certain that Jesus would have existed, which is not so certain are the events surrounding the person.According to the early Christians, there was no God other than God, which, according to Roman law, would logically imply that Jesus did not accept the Emperor as God. This was also customary among other Jewish Rabbiâ €™ s in the Council that were part of the same Jewish authorities, so there was probably no legal problem there. The Romans were not so strict in that regard. Incidentally, it is also true that for â € ̃Peregriniâ €™ The Emperor’s worship ran through the cult of Roma (the goddess understood, not the city), which was also not recognized by Jewish authorities, both his idolate in that vision.Incidentally, it was not yet an obligation in the Roman Empire, but it was desirable.
No, the problem probably lay in the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was seen as the son of God and if then it follows that there is only Ã © Ã © n God and no other than his â € ̃Auctoritasâ €™ (a Roman virtue) at least for the â € ̃caesarâ €™ Not Recognised.Under Roman law, it would be seen as a state-undermining and therefore a sovereign enemy. Note that with â € ̃Caesarâ €™ Title here is meant, not the person Caesar.Incidentally, only that title was created in the year 68 so after Jesus had already died (in the year of the Four emperors), but already connected with the title â € ̃imperator Caesarâ €™ in the year 27 for the usual year count and from the Year 4 it was already common To denote the successor with â € ̃caesarâ €™.The first to whom that happened was Emperor Tiberius. Son of the only God would then come down to usurpation in a state cult and that may have been just a bit too radical.
It was simply a method of execution.As the US now has the gas chamber and electric chair.
Quite a horribleone.But that is atrocious according to ethical rules that we have NOW. Partly because of the thought of one of the victims of the time.
There were many different reasons for crucifixion.A very common reason was insurdigeljngen or runaway slaves.
The story of the slave uprising of Spartacus is known.After the rebellion was precipitated, the prisoners were crucified, with 6000 (!) crosses being erected along the Via Appia, the way from Rome to Capua.
It is also known that at the Siege of Jerusalem during the Jewish uprising around the year 70 many people were crucified to break the morale of the defenders and force the city to surrender,