13. Longitudinal impalement was favored for longer torments
A miscreant sentenced to longitudinal impalement was placed face down on a slab, and the executioners opened a gash in his body near the anus, which was immediately covered with a greasy paste to staunch the flow of blood and assist in the next step. The pale was then inserted in the wound and driven towards the head, with executioners holding the body in place as the pale was driven home through the blows of a heavy mallet. The executioners usually stopped the insertion before the tip of the stake reached the heart. The stake was in diameter described as being as big as the arm of a man. Despite the agony of the insertion, the true pain of impalement was yet to begin.
The pale was then raised upright, and precautions were taken to ensure that the victim’s weight did not force the stake deeper into the body, killing him too soon. Stays were used to hold the victim in the right position and to support the stake, which was sometimes placed in a gibbet similar to those used in hangings. The presence of the stays prevented the victim from struggling too much against his pain, and the use of the grease ensured that not much blood was lost. If the victim did not die quickly, occasionally a magistrate would have mercy, and order his position shifted so that the tip of the pale emerged through the chest, allowing the victim to die quickly. Others merely left them to eventually die.
14. Transversal impalement was used to ensure a quicker death
Transversal impalement, in which the stake or pale was driven through the body from front to back (or vice versa) could be used to cause near immediate death or a longer, tormented death, depending upon where in the torso the stake was inserted. The victims of transversal impalement usually died quickly, causing the method to be considered by Persian society a more humane method of inflicting capital punishment. Other methods of impalement have been attributed to the Persians, such as suspending victims from meat hooks, but there is little documented evidence of their doing so. The methods of impalement which they did use were gruesome enough that they don’t need embellishment.
A third method of impalement attributed to the Persians was anal impalement, in which the stake was not sharpened to a point but was deliberately left rounded. In this method, the pole was inserted far enough so that the victim was able to stand on his toes after he was stayed with ropes to prevent him from sliding further down the pale and thus dying too quickly. Depending on long the victim suffered on the pale, the stays could be released, allowing him to end his own life by thrusting downwards. Those executed by anal impalement suffered longer than those impaled by the other methods. Impalement in general lost favor as a means of capital punishment when the Persians adopted crucifixion.
15. The Persian legal system was extensive and protected the rights of the accused
The government of Ancient Persia included a parliamentary body which ensured that the rights of the free people of the empire were not infringed upon by despotic acts of the king (though many of the kings attempted to abuse their power throughout the history of the five dynasties). Those accused of crimes were brought before judges and magistrates, who reviewed the charges, assured that the police had not exceeded their powers in making arrests, and considered the evidence brought by the accuser as well as the defense of the accused. Testimony was under oath, and given the Persian attitude towards lying, the act of perjury was harshly punished. The Persians even had bail for some pending cases, set by the magistrates.
Defendants had the right to counsel, though at their own expense, and were allowed to be absent if their attorney was present in cases where corporal or capital punishment was not indicated. In addition to the criminal courts, there were ecclesiastical courts dealing with religious and family matters and the military operated its own courts with jurisdiction over its members. Despite the clear brutality of the various punishments practiced by the Persians, often a party found guilty of minor transgressions of the law was merely fined, or sentenced to jail for a short time. Persian law reached into the home, with clear definitions of the obligations and responsibilities of all family members towards each other and to Persian society.
16. Was Persian cruelty as bad as believed by many?
Much of what was repeated as being historical fact about ancient Persia over the centuries since the demise of the empire came from sources which in the later twentieth century became more and more discounted by scholars. This is particularly true of the tales of some of the tortures described here and elsewhere. They were first described in the west in Greek, by the writer Herodotus, and by a writer named Ctesias, who is often repeated in Herodotus. Ctesias published the history of Persia in 23 volumes, which was entitled Persica. The gruesome punishments inflicted by the Persians are first described in detail within the volumes.
Persica was written for Greek eyes and is a comparison of what Ctesias considered a despotic and barbaric system to the orderliness and progress of the Greek city-states, Athens in particular. Many of his accounts did not match other records, such as the cuneiform records of the Assyrians. A Syrian satirist named Lucian referred to Ctesias’ work as “mendacious history” in his famous satire of sensationalist writers who create false records A True Story. A more modern writer in 1984 referred to Ctesias’ inaccuracy and called the equally questionable work of Herodotus a “model of reliability” in comparison. There is no question that barbarous cruelty was part of ancient life, but some tales could well be exaggerated, and many modern scholars believe that they were.
The magistrates finding a subject before them guilty of a crime had several options available as forms of corporal punishment, including maiming, blinding, deafening (by penetrating the eardrums), and whipping at the stake, which the Persians called striping. In this, they were no different from virtually all other cultures around the world. The practice of whipping miscreants continued in the west well into the eighteenth century, and the number of blows allowed by the magistrates was in many cases staggering, literally and figuratively. In the 18th century Royal Navy, 1,000 lashes were not unheard of, through flogging through the fleet.
Five hundred or one thousand stripes was the usual Persian sentence, which could be had for beating a dog or otherwise abusing an animal (stealing a dog could be subject to capital punishment in some cases). As has been seen, the punishments were not carried out all at once, a period of recovery was allowed in between bouts of the punishment being inflicted. The wealthy and members of noble families were allowed to send their servants to receive their punishment, thus sparing their own backs as well as the idle time while recovering from the lashings. Similar punishments were still allowed in the British Royal Navy as late as 1879 before they were abolished.
18. The Persians were no worse than the rest of the ancient world
Although the methods of execution ascribed to the Persians are gruesome and in some cases nearly unbelievably so, in their ingenuity dedicated to inflicting maximum suffering they are in no way unique. The ancient Greeks, though they did not record their tortures, nonetheless practiced violence, though most often against fellow Greeks. The bible is filled with stories of whole cities destroyed, their populations put to the sword, their leaders killed in various ways. The New Testament contains the story of King Herod ordering the killing of all male Jewish infants under the age of two. The ancient world was a brutal one.
The Romans used crucifixion, beheading, stoning, people torn apart by wild animals before a cheering audience, drowning, and many other means of applying judicial punishment on the people foolish enough to get on the wrong side of the law. In colonial America, the Spanish and English settlers encountered ritual torture and cannibalism among the natives. The English settlers used whipping and pressing to death with heavy stones as two means of enforcing the law. The barbarous practices of the Persians, those that are true and those which are the creations of fertile but prejudiced minds, are not as far removed from modern man as most would like to think.
Where do we find this stuff? Here are our sources: