sexual life of Roman soldiers

[caiusbeerquitius]

Anyone ever wondered why Hannibal bothered to take dem Elephants across the Alps? However, was it the trunks or the other side they were interested in? :lol:

[Peroni]

Q: Why did the Roman Army have Auxillia....

A: Because sheep would have been too obvious

Not too far from the truth! :wink: Tacitus cites this in his documentary of the Batavian Revolt!

"Batavians of military age were being conscripted. The levy was by its nature a heavy burden, but it was rendered still more oppressive by the greed and profligacy of the recruiting sergeants, who called up the old and unfit in order to exact a bribe for their release, while young, good-looking lads (for children are normally quite tall among the Batavians) were dragged off to gratify their lust. This caused bitter resentment, and the ringleaders of the prearranged revolt succeeded in getting their countrymen to refuse service".

Tacitus, Histories 4.14

[Ironhand]

So I guess recruiters sucked even then.

[Bran ap Maclou]

As Britton we learnt that the english were calling us "sheep fuckers". Not fair !

However Morcant found some text about the enthronement of the irish high king. Well, the new king had to fuck a white mare and then to eat her.

Perhaps that it was only gossips because the text was written by some of the first christian monks in this barbarian land...

Bye :?

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

I would need to see some evidence that the cattle were used in illicit ways. Sounds a bit like the idea that soldiers are deployed for long periods surrounded by men so they must all be gay concept.

Agree here. Usually troops were for most time accompanied by civilian tross, partially for exact that reason. and a prostitute didn't cost more than a glass of wine. further there were slaves, who didn't cost anything.

and further are there somewhere lonely places around a legions camp where one could make off with a sheep? I guess, this is nothing, where legionaries were proud of. :?

[Ironhand]

St. Patrick wrote about something similar. However, it doesn't mean that horse screwing was considered normal or acceptable. It was however very ritualistic and was a symbolism of the king's strength and virility. Without evidence I doubt this was the norm or else it wouldn't be so impressive in contrast if everyone was bedding mares, but it does show a bit into the older ways of thinking which were less black and white than today's perceptions.

[Na Saighdiuir]

I'd say there would be simpler ways than cows.

Sheep? :roll:

You just had to go and drag the Irish into this conversation didn't ya?


:wink:

Watch yourself,your treading on very thin ice there my friend!

[Primvs Pavlvs]

Watch yourself,your treading on very thin ice there my friend!

Its all good, my Dads family are from Cork. I have heard these jokes all my life :wink:

[PMBardunias]

This puts Hannibal's "Flaming Cow" tactic in a whole new light!

[Sardaukar]

Didn't take long for this thread to drop down the gutter, didn't it ?

But for Roman soldier, during late Republic era for example, there was plenty of opportunities for sexual release. If you participated to successful campaign, siege etc. there were plenty of womenfolk sold to slavery. And in many occasions, the troops were given opportunity to "sample the loot", so to speak.

On the other hand, homosexuality was detested by Roman military and was crime punishable by death. For example, Marius did not punish his subordinate who killed his distant relative who was trying to take sexual advantage on him.

Bestiality...now, I don't even want to go there...or other things...

[Na Saighdiuir]

Watch yourself,your treading on very thin ice there my friend!

Its all good, my Dads family are from Cork. I have heard these jokes all my life :wink:

Sure its grand,i was only trying to pick a fight anyway .Anyways its the kerry men who specialise in sheep,the rest of us are totally innocent.

[M. Demetrius]

Didn't take long for this thread to drop down the gutter, didn't it ?

Well, it didn't exactly start off at the church altar, y'know.

[Bran ap Maclou]

But for Roman soldier, during late Republic era for example, there was plenty of opportunities for sexual release. If you participated to successful campaign, siege etc. there were plenty of womenfolk sold to slavery. And in many occasions, the troops were given opportunity to "sample the loot", so to speak.

Rule 1 with a slave : Never mistreat the one who prepare your food !

Bye !

[Na Saighdiuir]

But for Roman soldier, during late Republic era for example, there was plenty of opportunities for sexual release. If you participated to successful campaign, siege etc. there were plenty of womenfolk sold to slavery. And in many occasions, the troops were given opportunity to "sample the loot", so to speak.

Rule 1 with a slave : Never mistreat the one who prepare your food !

Bye !

Or the one who gets your wine/alcohol!!A guy needs a drink that bit more!

[Quintius Clavus]

I have probably said this in one or more of the other threads cited earlier in this topic, but I'll say it again:

The Romans (and other ancient people as well) did not describe sexuality along the lines of sexual object choice (what we call sexual orientation), but rather by sexual roles (active/passive or who did the penetrating vs who was penetrated).

Roman soldiers had sexual relations with both females and males.
Getting away from the noteworthy scandals of the mid and late Republic - Tacitus in "The Histories", about the Year of the Four Emperors and the Batavian Rebellion mentions that one of the triggers of the Batavian rebellion was the actions of the Roman recruiters, who were conducting a draft to augment the auxiliaries, taking bribes to excuse the old and infirm and dragging the young male Batavians "behind the tents to satisfy their lusts." These were not senior officers doing this. More likely, they were optiones and similar men of principales ranks.

Even in the Late Roman period, soldiers were not just sexually exploiting women. One of the abuses by the Romans leading up to the Battle of Adrianople was the lustful behavior of the soldiers toward the Gothic women and boys during the resettlement process after the Goths were permitted to cross the Danube. This is during a time when penalties for a whole range of sexual matters were much more severe and rigid in their application than had been true in the earlier Principate. Yet the soldiers, and these are low ranking soldiers, are still having sexual relations with both genders, but should not be described as "homosexuals or heterosexuals" in our modern way.

In the Late period, prejudices against women of low status increased: "Adultery cannot be committed with any woman who keeps a business or shop." (Paul, Sent. 2.26.11 - cited in Phang, The Marriage of Roman Soldiers, Brill, 2001, pg 211). It would make them fair game and unprotected against unwanted attentions by soldiers and other men. Free women of low status had little or no access to legal remedies if they were molested or assaulted by soldiers or other higher status men. Low status free women in the earlier Principate also had few protections, but were not as unprotected as their late Roman sisters.

Try to keep the premise in mind that modern sexual orientation is not the way to view ancient Roman sexual practices.