tbf, Roman soldiers formed relationships with local women, and relatives of other soldiers interestingly enough, with great regularity, to the point where many towns trace their origin to the surrounds of Roman fortress and camp positions. It’s doubtful that anywhere they went there was a shortage of women, except on the most brutal and focused of campaign marches - especially if you account for camp followers.
One of the issues is that a republican-era law, possibly never formally repealed, forbade Roman soldiers specifically from being willingly penetrated (as that would demonstrate, as representatives of the republic, the republic itself being metaphorically violated), which would cause roughly half of all soldier-soldier liaisons to be in an… unfortunate position.
You’ve actually re-ignited some questions I’ve had for a while about the details of gay sex in the Roman military, I’m gonna do some extra reading on the subject.
lmao, when I call my (conservative, Christian) mom this week and she asks what I’m reading, I’m gonna have to answer with a vague “Oh, just some books on Roman history”, when in detail it’s:
Ancient Rome and the Construction of Modern Homosexual Identities
The Marriage of Roman Soldiers (13 B.C. - A.D. 235): Law and Family in the Imperial Army
Homosexuality and Civilization
Un-Roman Sex; Gender, Sexuality, and Lovemaking in the Roman Provinces and Frontiers
Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity
THIS IS ACADEMIC STUDY OF SAY GEX, YOU WOULDN’T UNDERSTAND, MOM
You’ve actually re-ignited some questions I’ve had for a while about the details of gay sex in the Roman military, I’m gonna do some extra reading on the subject.
I’m happy I’ve reignited that passion … for gay sex … eh, for Roman gay sex … um, for Roman gay sex performed by others … ahhh, for Roman gay sex performed by others in the past … ummm, for Roman gay sex performed by others in the ANCIENT past!
Damn. I finished the chapter relating to homosexuality in The Marriage Of Roman Soldiers, and it didn’t answer my core questions.
I know way more about ancient Roman sexual practices than anyone who isn’t a specialist (or at least titillated by such subjects) should, but I’m still in the dark about Roman frotting, handjobs, and intercrural sex! Romans regarded penetration as shameful - so I’m wondering if soldiers who rubbed or ‘gave a comrade a hand’ were permissible. Was that ‘just being a good friend’, or was it regarded as some metaphorical form of penetration? I know Greeks participated in frotting and intercrural sex, so it’s not like such practices would have been unknown to Romans.
Hopefully, one of the other four books is more fruitful.
That being said, there was a passage mentioned of interest to this conversation - during the reign of the Emperor Domitian (may his name be forever cursed), a tribune and a centurion both admitted to being ‘passive’ homosexuals (as a means of asserting that they were not part of a conspiracy, because being ‘passive’ homosexuals meant that they did not command the necessary social sway amongst their fellow soldiers to play such politics), and were not punished for it.
That seems to my reading, to fairly definitely suggest that the mid-Republic punishment for passive homosexuality in the Roman military (suggested by the Greek writer Polybius, contemporary with the mid-late Republic, who was enamored with Rome but not always 100% accurate on the details) did not last into the Principate, if indeed it was accurately reported by Polybius. No way you get high-ranking officers like that up and publicly confessing to being passive homosexuals without punishment if it’s still a crime against military discipline - especially with one as a member of the brass (the tribune would have been a member of the two highest classes of Roman society) and the other as an enlisted man (the centurion would have been a man of prestige and authority, but ultimately a common soldier - one of the miles caligati ).
tbf, Roman soldiers formed relationships with local women, and relatives of other soldiers interestingly enough, with great regularity, to the point where many towns trace their origin to the surrounds of Roman fortress and camp positions. It’s doubtful that anywhere they went there was a shortage of women, except on the most brutal and focused of campaign marches - especially if you account for camp followers.
One of the issues is that a republican-era law, possibly never formally repealed, forbade Roman soldiers specifically from being willingly penetrated (as that would demonstrate, as representatives of the republic, the republic itself being metaphorically violated), which would cause roughly half of all soldier-soldier liaisons to be in an… unfortunate position.
You’ve actually re-ignited some questions I’ve had for a while about the details of gay sex in the Roman military, I’m gonna do some extra reading on the subject.
lmao, when I call my (conservative, Christian) mom this week and she asks what I’m reading, I’m gonna have to answer with a vague “Oh, just some books on Roman history”, when in detail it’s:
Ancient Rome and the Construction of Modern Homosexual Identities
The Marriage of Roman Soldiers (13 B.C. - A.D. 235): Law and Family in the Imperial Army
Homosexuality and Civilization
Un-Roman Sex; Gender, Sexuality, and Lovemaking in the Roman Provinces and Frontiers
Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity
THIS IS ACADEMIC STUDY OF SAY GEX, YOU WOULDN’T UNDERSTAND, MOM
I’m happy I’ve reignited that passion … for gay sex … eh, for Roman gay sex … um, for Roman gay sex performed by others … ahhh, for Roman gay sex performed by others in the past … ummm, for Roman gay sex performed by others in the ANCIENT past!
Roman bed death would be such a terrible fate 😭
Damn. I finished the chapter relating to homosexuality in The Marriage Of Roman Soldiers, and it didn’t answer my core questions.
I know way more about ancient Roman sexual practices than anyone who isn’t a specialist (or at least titillated by such subjects) should, but I’m still in the dark about Roman frotting, handjobs, and intercrural sex! Romans regarded penetration as shameful - so I’m wondering if soldiers who rubbed or ‘gave a comrade a hand’ were permissible. Was that ‘just being a good friend’, or was it regarded as some metaphorical form of penetration? I know Greeks participated in frotting and intercrural sex, so it’s not like such practices would have been unknown to Romans.
Hopefully, one of the other four books is more fruitful.
That being said, there was a passage mentioned of interest to this conversation - during the reign of the Emperor Domitian (may his name be forever cursed), a tribune and a centurion both admitted to being ‘passive’ homosexuals (as a means of asserting that they were not part of a conspiracy, because being ‘passive’ homosexuals meant that they did not command the necessary social sway amongst their fellow soldiers to play such politics), and were not punished for it.
That seems to my reading, to fairly definitely suggest that the mid-Republic punishment for passive homosexuality in the Roman military (suggested by the Greek writer Polybius, contemporary with the mid-late Republic, who was enamored with Rome but not always 100% accurate on the details) did not last into the Principate, if indeed it was accurately reported by Polybius. No way you get high-ranking officers like that up and publicly confessing to being passive homosexuals without punishment if it’s still a crime against military discipline - especially with one as a member of the brass (the tribune would have been a member of the two highest classes of Roman society) and the other as an enlisted man (the centurion would have been a man of prestige and authority, but ultimately a common soldier - one of the miles caligati ).
deleted by creator