Question about Roman judicial executions: RE those wacky martyrs

[Sarpedon]

I'm reposting this question I asked in the 'religious texts' forum because maybe none of you history types would notice it there:

Also, in double checking a few things before posting, I noticed the assertion that Paul was beheaded because he was a citizen of rome, versus Peter, who was crucified. Can one of our Roman scholars verify that this was indeed a thing? In art, the beheading of Paul is depicted as taking place with a sword in a style which would not have existed at the time. This does not mean that he wasn't decapitated, but I don't know if that's a genuine part of Roman Law. I always associated (correctly or incorrectly) Roman honorable execution being through stabbing. I also seem to recall roman citizens getting crucified in cases of treason.

 

[Perspicuo]

The Story Of Religious Controversy
Chapter XV
Legends of Saints and Martyrs
http://infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/chapter_15.html

 

[Sarpedon]

Thank you for the information on the martyrs. While illuminating, it doesn't answer the actual thing I asked.

 

[Perspicuo]

I know. It's all I could find.

Something closer could be this: http://www.duhaime.org/LawMuseum/La...-Cruel-Edges-of-Roman-Justice-circa-0-AD.aspx

... but exactly Paul not being crucified and instead beheaded because he was a civis romanus... nope.

 

[Sarpedon]

Aha, the reminder that Romans inflicted exceedingly cruel punishments on their citizens, apparently arbitrarily, casts doubt that Paul would get any sort of clemency.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

While I don't know the specifics of Roman law in this case, from what I do know of Romans it makes sense. There was a very clear and distinct demarcation between Romans and barbarians (who were everybody who wasn't a Roman). Even if it wasn't an official law to have them killed in different ways, it would be reasonable to assume that there was a judge who decided to let the Roman die quickly while the barbarian had to suffer a long, drawn out execution.

 

[Togo]

Wasn't Paul of a much higher social class than Peter?

 

[Bronzeage]

Crucifixion was the regular sentence for any kind of treason, including rebellious slaves. A Roman citizen would not be spared the cross, if convicted of such a crime. It was a public death and meant to be an example to others. If a Roman Citizen had a large estate and an extended family, he might be given the chance to commit suicide before being convicted. A conviction of treason meant all his property was seized by the government(the Emperor). Of course, this did not prevent a few people being accused of treason, for the purpose of seizing their property.

Beheading has the advantage of being fast, efficient, and can be carried out in private. This was an advantage when the prisoner was a popular public figure. It's possible a prisoner would be beheaded to avoid public protests(which always meant a riot).

St Paul and St Peter were both caught up in Nero's persecution of Christians, which were charged with blasphemy, the equivalent of treason. Why one was beheaded and the other crucified, there's no evidence as to why, other than St. Paul was just lucky.

 

[credoconsolans]

To reiterate: No one knows for sure how Paul died. It could have been of old age for all we know.

No one knows for sure if Peter even existed, much less that he was martyred.

Citizens of Rome were often given several options, depending upon their social status and crime: suicide, banishment and out and out execution (soldiers show up and kill you).

Lower classes and non-citizens could be killed in various ways, out and out execution (soldiers show up and kill you), hanging, crucifixion, fun times in the arena.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Generally, crucifixion was reserved for treason, revolt, and such. For Romans it depended on rank, specific crime, and location.
A low ranking Roman could end up in a gladiator show for example. Beheading was common otherwise for capitol crimes.
Slaves were commonly executed for a wide range of crimes. At some times in Rome, strangulation seems to have been practiced.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Wasn't Paul of a much higher social class than Peter?

Paul was a Roman citizen, Peter was a mere Jew, a subject, less than a citizen, more than mere slave.

 

[Bomb#20]

Generally, crucifixion was reserved for treason, revolt, and such. For Romans it depended on rank, specific crime, and location.
A low ranking Roman could end up in a gladiator show for example. Beheading was common otherwise for capitol crimes.
Slaves were commonly executed for a wide range of crimes. At some times in Rome, strangulation seems to have been practiced.

And let's not forget the perennial favorite: getting thrown off the Tarpeian Rock.

 

[Duke Leto]

In general, assuming Christian traditions have any fact backing them up is a mug's game.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Maybe not quite on topic, but my favourite Roman method of execution is, and always will be, that meted out to parricides: the Poena cullei. To be thrown into the Tiber (or whatever neaby body of water) in a sack with a cock, a dog, a monkey and a viper. Maybe not so spectator-friendly as the gladiatorial arena, it beats all other punishments hands-down for inventiveness and just sheer insanity.