RomanArmyTalk

There's a lot of information about sex in Rome, but I was interested in what happened when Roman Soldiers met Native British Women (or boys). But except for the accounts of the rapes of Boudica's daughters, I can't think of anything. Nor can I think of any grave stones and come to think of it, I've never heard of a British brothel.

However - I've noticed that many older works are a bit prudish and hide details about sex.

Can anyone think of anything from Britain or the other near places like Gaul & Germany.
(Note I've already read about the Batavia boys)

Needless to say, our literary sources are generally silent on the issue!

Brothels apparently existed in Roman London (and presumably elsewhere) - a supposed* brothel token was recently unearthed on the banks of the Thames.

But I would say relations between Romans and natives within the province were likely fairly amicable, after a slow start. If Britain followed the usual pattern for frontier provinces, there was probably plenty of intermarriage and cultural mingling - and Britons were apparently serving in the Roman army from around the mid 1st century.

The only tombstone I can think of is CIL 08, 02877, from Lambaesis in Numidia, which records a 3rd century centurion of III Augusta who had previously served in XX Valeria Victrix and VI Victrix in Britain, and had apparently married a British woman and brought her with him to Africa. They had two sons, and the woman was named Lollia Bodicca!

D(is) M(anibus) / T(iti) Fl(avi) Virilis |(centurionis) leg(ionis) II(I) Aug(ustae) / |(centurionis) leg(ionis) XX V(aleriae) V(ictricis) |(centurionis) leg(ionis) VI Vic(tricis) / |(centurionis) leg(ionis) XX V(aleriae) V(ictricis) |(centurionis) leg(ionis) III Aug(ustae) / |(centurionis) leg(ionis) III Parth(icae) Sever(ianae) / VIIII hast(ati) poster(ioris) / vixit annis LXX / stip(endiorum) XXXXV Lollia / Bodicca coniux / et Flavi Victor et / Victorinus fili(i) / heredes ex HS / |(mille)CC n(ummum) faciendum / curaver(unt)

* - Mary Beard, among others, doubts these 'tokens' were actually used in brothels!

(12-01-2016, 10:36 AM)MonsGraupius Wrote: [ -> ]I've already read about the Batavia boys

Weren't they big in Soho in the 60s?

(12-01-2016, 02:39 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: [ -> ]Needless to say, our literary sources are generally silent on the issue!

Brothels apparently existed in Roman London (and presumably elsewhere) - a supposed* brothel token was recently unearthed on the banks of the Thames.

Interesting - so when I read that there was a brothel attached to every British fort - it's "speculative".
Are these Army brothels a bit like the "we who are about to dye ... salute ewe?"

And whilst I'm on the subject of women - I presume there's no evidence they ever fought in the Roman army - even as Auxiliaries?

(12-01-2016, 03:08 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: [ -> ]I presume there's no evidence they ever fought in the Roman army - even as Auxiliaries?

No evidence, no - and extremely unlikely, I'd say! With a culture of frequent near or total nudity, and communal nude bathing, it would have been virtually impossible for a woman to conceal her sex in the Roman army, auxiliary or legionary.

Various people have suggested otherwise, but the 'evidence' is often rather slim, and usually rests on assumptions of women warriors appearing in certain 'barbarian' cultures. There's no evidence of anything of the sort except (apparently) among some Sarmatian/eastern steppe peoples.

You might find this thread interesting:

Female soldiers in a Roman unit

(12-01-2016, 03:27 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2016, 03:08 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: [ -> ]I presume there's no evidence they ever fought in the Roman army - even as Auxiliaries?

No evidence, no - and extremely unlikely, I'd say!

Thanks - I've just always assumed Roman soldiers were men - but I realised I'd never seen anything saying that.

I presume the same applies to Eunuchs?

(12-01-2016, 03:38 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: [ -> ]I presume the same applies to Eunuchs?

Eunuchs were extremely rare, and a valuable commodity - it was also illegal to 'make' them within the empire. So it's unlikely that a eunuch would find himself in that position... Besides, slaves or freedmen were banned from the army, and eunuchs would have been one or the other! Army recruits also had a medical examination upon enlistment, which could well have exposed any abnormalities on the sex or gender front...

(12-01-2016, 03:48 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: [ -> ]Eunuchs were extremely rare, and a valuable commodity - it was also illegal to 'make' them within the empire. So it's unlikely that a eunuch would find himself in that position...

But what did they do in case of a legionary finding himself in the position of a eunuch after a battle? 

(12-04-2016, 07:24 PM)Flavius Inismeus Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2016, 03:48 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: [ -> ]Eunuchs were extremely rare, and a valuable commodity - it was also illegal to 'make' them within the empire. So it's unlikely that a eunuch would find himself in that position...

But what did they do in case of a legionary finding himself in the position of a eunuch after a battle? 

Do the guy a favor and help him fall on his sword.

(12-01-2016, 03:38 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: [ -> ]I've just always assumed Roman soldiers were men

Just an additional point - it seems that women were entirely banned from Roman military camps (although they seem to have lived in more permanent frontier forts in the later era).

Dio (Book 59) writes of Cornelia, wife of the legate Calvisius Sabinus, accused under Caligula of entering an army camp in Pannonia: "The charge against her was that she had made the rounds of the sentries and watched the soldiers at drill".

Tacitus expands on the story (Histories I.48): Cornelia, "prompted by a shameful desire to see the camp, entered it at night disguised as a soldier. After she had interfered with the guard and the other soldiers on duty with unfailing effrontery, she had the hardihood to commit adultery in the general's headquarters."

It's not clear whether the adultery or the trespass was the greater crime, but she was executed.

(12-04-2016, 10:45 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: [ -> ]It's not clear whether the adultery or the trespass was the greater crime, but she was executed.

Thanks. That's interesting. Especially useful to get the text!

From what I remember adultery wasn't ever a capital crime. And I think there is evidence for children in the forts at Hadrians wall perhaps even women

(12-05-2016, 06:01 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: [ -> ]From what I remember adultery wasn't ever a capital crime.

Depends on how puritanical the emperor(s) of the day chose to be - there are accounts from the 4th century of senators being burned at the stake for adultery!

(12-05-2016, 06:01 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: [ -> ]I think there is evidence for children in the forts at Hadrians wall perhaps even women

Yes, discussed here. I suspect things changed when the old Republican pattern of the temporary military camp developed into something more permanent; while officers and centurions might have been expected to do without their wives and families for the duration of a campaign season, once the camp turned into a permanent fortress it would be rather more onerous! Officers' wives seem to have lived in auxiliary forts from at least the later 1st century (Vindolanda again), and during the late empire this may have been extended to the families of soldiers too.

(12-05-2016, 07:55 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: [ -> ]Depends on how puritanical the emperor(s) of the day chose to be - there are accounts from the 4th century of senators being burned at the stake for adultery!

Yes you are right, there were a lot of reforms on adultery about 200AD - but I wasn't aware of burning.

(12-05-2016, 09:32 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: [ -> ]but I wasn't aware of burning.

It's in Ammianus Marcellinus, Book 28 - although I confess I was confusing the adultery trials with the witchcraft trials around the same time; it seems the adulterers were 'only' beheaded... (although one of their executioners was later burned alive for stripping his female victim naked!)

(12-05-2016, 06:01 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-04-2016, 10:45 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: [ -> ]It's not clear whether the adultery or the trespass was the greater crime, but she was executed.

Thanks. That's interesting. Especially useful to get the text!

From what I remember adultery wasn't ever a capital crime. And I think there is evidence for children in the forts at Hadrians wall perhaps even women

This deals with Republican times but adulterous wives could expect capital punishment. 

Punishment for adultery. Rome, 2nd cent. B.C. (Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 10.23, 2nd cent. A.D. L)

(12-01-2016, 10:36 AM)MonsGraupius Wrote: [ -> ]There's a lot of information about sex in Rome, but I was interested in what happened when Roman Soldiers met Native British Women (or boys). But except for the accounts of the rapes of Boudica's daughters, I can't think of anything. Nor can I think of any grave stones and come to think of it, I've never heard of a British brothel.

However - I've noticed that many older works are a bit prudish and hide details about sex.

Can anyone think of anything from Britain or the other near places like Gaul & Germany.
(Note I've already read about the Batavia boys)

Pompeii Graffiti is pretty explicite as to attitudes: The Writing on the Wall

There can be little doubt that women and children were frequently found in forts as the shoe evidence is too compelling and living on the frontier must have been pretty unsafe after all so it doesnt surprise me to find this.... and of course Men + Women + children = sex at some point.......