I have searched and I am still unsure as to the answers I found. Could any history buff set me straight?
Thanks
Printable View
I have searched and I am still unsure as to the answers I found. Could any history buff set me straight?
Thanks
Catamite
A term for the youthful lover of an older man derived from the Latin name Catamus, a latinized form of the Greek "Ganymede."
Basically a body slave that you could do anything too. Utterly submisive and not the best place in the world for a slave to end up. That's why, in the description, it says in mock horror:
"Who would suspect such a man!"
A less verbose definition: boytoy
Well I never.....
I suspected some of the descriptions I had read were adopted by modern language. But now I know. All my spies have one, the dirty chaps.
to all spies - Less of the whatsie and more with the cutty throaty! Go on, go get the Greeks!
Seriously why would this be useful to a spy? Is this suggesting somekind of use of the catamite to get close and the catamite performs the kill? Or do people generally not suspect people who lean that way of being assasins?
"AAArrgghhhh...... but.. he was so well groomed... uuhhhh..."
The if the man is known as being a catamite 'who would suspect such a man'? A litte headshake would be all he would get from anybody as long as he didn't act strangely for his character. A most useful tool for a spy, just like the dancers.
A useful comparison would be Geishas from STW, using charms, wiles, and what-have-you to get close enough to a vulnerable target to strike. Catamite assassins or spies are the male Geishas... in a sense.
If you are lowest on the food chain you get noticed the least, and the catamite will have access to more intimate details... pillowtalk and all.
no the most useful comparison comes from pulp fiction, the gimp! catamites are gimps!
I must point out, back then it was pretty common for young boys/men to have a 'patron' - in fact, I believe in Athens at some point, it was thought that true love could only exist between two men, women were merely there to provide the next generation.
Admittedly, the Romans did frown on it somewhat, not to say that that didn't happen. Our very own C. Julius Caesar had some nasty rumours flying around about him and the king of Bithynia, as for the Scipii...
So the catamite in a retinue is not for the spy but for taking advantage of "targets" who have "pervert" or whatever as a vice?
Whoever... A known catamite would not be seen as a threat as he is so submissive. Thus he 'works' with anybody.Quote:
Originally Posted by GFX707
Okay then... I have catamites squared away now. Interesting stuff this.
To save starting a new thread - INCENDIARY PIGS
This sounds much more like a vicious Monty Python sketch than something that could have been much use in battle. Imagine dressing your lines, rallying your troops then trying to get the swine-herd into gear. Tarring the pigs, aiming them at the enemy then running round each one with a zippo?
I did google but the vast ammount of responses were for this game and pewter figures for table top play.
Does anyone have any historical references for this unit? I'm reading a history of the fall of Rome I hope it has a chapter on these pigs.
It's a unit that CA invented.
They were used once historically, weren't they? On a single occassion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Afro Thunder
Twice actually... Though they were only ignited once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trithemius
And what were those two occasions? I've seen numerous references to the "twice but ignited only once" here but never seen exactly when these happened. And against whom.
I'm guessing... but is the "used twice ignited once" referring to the pigs being set alight and aimed at the enemy (first use) then being eaten by the victorious Romans after the battle (second use).
Used twice ignited once.... where is that genius cap I had round here somewhere.....
The flaming pigs aren't made up. Here's a good description from (of all things) a Europa Barbarorum thread on this very org:
LINKQuote:
The ancient sources are very clear in indicating that pigs were used to deter elephants in battle. Pliny writes “elephants are scared by the smallest squeal of a pig; and when wounded and frightened, they always give ground (VIII, 1.27).” Aelian says that “it was by these squealing pigs, they say, that the Romans turned to flight the elephants of Pyrrhus and won a glorious victory (1,38).” The most frequently told tale concerning pigs as a counter weapon to elephants may be represented by Aelian and Polyaenus: when Antigonas Gonatas was besieging Megara, the Megarians succeeded in routing the besiegers’ elephants by dousing pigs in oil and igniting them and then turning them loose against the elephants. One might object that this is hardly a fair test of the elephant’s reaction to pigs per se; but both authors specifically state that the beasts were startled by the squeal rather than by the fire. The flames were simply a means of guaranteeing a satisfactory squeal. As a final instance of the effect of pigs on elephants in battle, it is feasible to examine Procopius’ account of events at Edessa. The city was being besieged by Chosroes, and an elephant with many soldiers on its back was driven up to the city wall and towered over it. The resourceful inhabitants thrust a squealing pig over the wall and into the face of the looming elephant. The result was panic and retreat.19 Altogether the pig seems to have been quite an effective weapon against the elephant, although its use does not appear to have been widespread in the ancient world.