Hi, sorry for the late response, but I've been super busy the past day or so and haven't been able to actually sit down and write out a solid answer.

​

The first thing I would like to note is that Crucifixion wasn't always done in the style that we most often see it today. Seneca the younger notes that one could witness crucifixion in all sorts of different ways, sometimes, particularly with women, the condemned would be strung up (or nailed) with their back facing the crowd, some peope were crucified on an X, a Y, the Standard T, and sometimes just the one beam. Some crucifixions had people pierced through their genitals, and others had a sort of seat (most usually a wedge to further discomfort) so that the condemned would live a prolonged torture, as most crucified people actually died from asphyxiation as a result of the positioning of their bodies putting pressure on their rib cage and lungs. So, to that end, you do kind of hit on a point in your question, being able to support your weight allows for a much longer time frame for the condemned to suffer.

Another big part of crucifixion was the principle of talio, according to which the punishment was meant to be reflective of the crime, such as with arsonists being burnt. This applies to crucifixion in that those who were crucified were seen to have commited crimes that were related to them having pretensions of being higher in status than they were. Crimes for which crucifixion was usually used include things such as slaves killing their masters (in which case every slave would be crucified), rebellion, treason, etc. Crucifixion was also most commonly used for non-citizens.

The last bit that I would like to draw your attention to is the usage of crucifixion specifically against the christian minority in Rome. Christians, depite popular belief, weren't persecuted for being christians, there were other religious minorities that, despite technically not being legal, existed fairly simply. Christians were persecuted for being a growing minority that wouldn't show the proper respect to those at the top of the empire, notably not following the "imperial cult", crucifixion served a dual purpose here, one one hand it served as a parody of the crucifixion of Christ that was the basis for christianity, and it also served the talionic principle, wherein the christians who were "elevating" themselves by not abiding by the expectations of the imperial cult were literally elevated on a cross, in a position where they were litterally lifted up and held above others.

​

tldr: People were actually crucified in a lot of different ways, usually in a way that had symbollic importance for those condemned and those who were doing the condemning, and was usually ment to act as a sort of parody.

Sources used, and things I reccomend for further reading, even if just for the sake that they're interesting.

Hopkins, Keith. "Death and Renewal, Sociological Studies in Roman History, Volume II" Cambridge university press, Cambridge, 1983.

Joel Marcus, "Crucifixion as Parodic Exaltation", Journal of Biblical Literature (125), Duke Divinity School, Durham NC, 2006.

Coleman, K.M., " Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments" , The Journal of Roman Studies Vol.80 pp. 44-73, Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, 1990.

​

Interesting reading:

Felicity Harley, Crucifixion in Roman Antiquity

John Granger Cook, Crucifixion as Spectacle in Roman Campania.

Mark T. Finley, Servile Supplicium: Shame and the Deuteronomic Curse— Crucifixion in Its Cultural Context