Was Crucifixion more Painful than getting stoned to death?

Answer 1

Crucifixion was a slow and excruciatingly painful way to die through asphyxiation, whereas stoning probably caused localised numbness after a short time and would have been fairly quick if there was a large enough mob to do the stoning. I would rather be stoned than crucified any day (better still die of old age).

In addition to the above:

The Romans were a technologically advanced nation for the time, and immensely clever, but also amazingly cruel. It has been said that of all the methods by which a victimcan be executed (firing squad, electric chair, beheading, garotte, hanging etc) by far the most barbaric and cruel was crucifixion. Not only was it designed to inflict the most excrutiating pain for as long as possible before death, it was also designed to humiliate and shame the victim by hanging him (or her) naked for all to see. The 'loin cloth' worn by Christ in art in actuality did not exist. Nailing to a cross through the wrist (not palm as seen in the movies) inflicted severe agony as the nerves leading to the most sensitive parts of the body, the hands, would be severely damaged. Death came as a release after a few hours or even longer, by asphyxiation. Legs would be broken by being shattered with a mallet if the victims were deemed to have suffered enough as this brought on asphyxiation quicker as the victim could not support the weight of his body any more, and the major shock of the injury caused further heart problems and death.

The measure of how cruel crucifixion was can be seen when one realises that it was the preferred method of execution only for non-Romans. Rome banned it for use on its own citizens because of its unbelievable cruelty. Roman citizens were beheaded by sword instead as it was swift and deemed relatively humane. It is believed that both Saints Peter and Paul were executed by the Romans - Peter, being a Jew, by crucifixion (upside down) and Paul, as a Jew but also a Roman citizen by birthright, by beheading.