Pink Praetorians?

With the recent US Court Ruling that openly gay men and women are allowed to serve in the US Armed Forces I got to thinking, did the Roman Army (Republic, Principate or Dominate) descriminate against enlisting based on grounds of sexual orientation? I know slaves, freedmen, women and eunuchs (and before Trajan men with only one testicle) were barred from service but were gay men? Does anyone know? Personally I wouldn't be surprised if it homosexuality was perfectly legal in the Roman army, considering how common it was in the upper echelons of Roman and Greek society.

Thanks in advance!

I suggest you start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...n_ancient_Rome
It's a surprisingly extensive article. Though it doesn't seem to address your question directly, it should help.

As to gays in the US military, they're fairly unique among the developed nation services in making a big deal about sexual orientation. Britain, most European nations, Canada and so on don't much care nowadays.

Talking about Rome there were standing orders in the Republic's time against homosexual conduct. A nephew of Gaius Marius was murdered by a legionary who he made advances towards, and Marius rewarded the man.

Something else worth pointing out. While the Greek ideal of love between a man and boy was fairly accepted and practised, that isn't the same thing as relationships between two grown men. That was often frowned upon. Notions of orientation weren't as strict or defined as we tend to see them today.

And here in the Netherlands, you won't be accepted in anything if you don't have some doubts about your sexual orientation~

Just be careful, this thread can go sour pretty quickly.

The Roman army punishment for homosexual acts was the same as sleeping on guard duty: death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

And here in the Netherlands, you won't be accepted in anything if you don't have some doubts about your sexual orientation~

---

Haha. That cracks me up.

According to the Wikipedia article that Lysimachos shares with us, we can go into one big conclusion, as long as you are the one who take the "active" role, it was meant to be a method for humiliating non-romans. but when you are the one who took it, well, you'll die anyway...

Back to an age when sexual relations are supposed to be male dominated, entering a male person will make you more than a male, but if you take it... you are slave, or lower...

Thanks for the answers everyone!

According to many historians it seems that in the legions there was no place for homosexuals, on many occasions such acts where punished by dead. Marius did execute a relative on such an accusation. On the other hand later on, homosexual affairs where accepted, on the condition that the male concerned was mot the reciever. Emperors Trayanus and Hadrianus had such an affair.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reno Melitensis

Marius did execute a relative on such an accusation.

---

I thought the story was that his nephew made advances towards a legionary, and the legionary killed him. Rather than punishing him, he rewarded the legionary.

As opposed to having him executed.

Hmm, at least. homoexuality are held as equal in ancient Hellas, mostly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

I thought the story was that his nephew made advances towards a legionary, and the legionary killed him. Rather than punishing him, he rewarded the legionary.

As opposed to having him executed.

---

Correct!

I still remember that Cute Wolf made a new unit skin for EBNOM, not exactly gay praetorians, but a Sertoriani unit, with Flowery cloak...

ahh, found it:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/pictu...ictureid=42405

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

I thought the story was that his nephew made advances towards a legionary, and the legionary killed him. Rather than punishing him, he rewarded the legionary.

As opposed to having him executed.

---

My mistake, you corrected me.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Hmm, at least. homoexuality are held as equal in ancient Hellas, mostly.

---

Eh, no, not really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Eh, no, not really.

---

Indeed, not at all. Even aside from the fact that modern conceptions of sexuality didn't exist, it came down to this. The master of a Greek household, by old customs, was entitled to avail themselves of anyone within it, male or female. Add to that notions of love between man and boy (note not that between two adult men) being seen as a higher form of love, and certain soldier-bands encouraging (eg Theban Sacred Band) relationships between comrades, and it can give the impression that what we'd call homosexuality was accepted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

I still remember that Cute Wolf made a new unit skin for EBNOM, not exactly gay praetorians, but a Sertoriani unit, with Flowery cloak...

ahh, found it:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/pictu...ictureid=42405

---

ugh, Sonic, Anubis88 won't be happy when you spoil the next unit preview prematurely. Not to mention that unit was still in development.

BTW, Pink is not necesarrily gay colour, especially if Pink dyes was made by mixing the expensive murexide dye with some other red-white dye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

BTW, Pink is not necesarrily gay colour, especially if Pink dyes was made by mixing the expensive murexide dye with some other red-white dye.

---

Are you just defending the colour of your pink wolf? :p

The pink soldier guy looks awesome, lol.

I'm wearing pink today. A girl told me it makes my eyes look good. Haha. I must be gay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urg

Haha. I must be gay.

---

Let's get it on. ~:flirt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urg

Are you just defending the colour of your pink wolf? :p

The pink soldier guy looks awesome, lol.

I'm wearing pink today. A girl told me it makes my eyes look good. Haha. I must be gay.

---

BTW, the royal guard of ********* (insert a kingdom or tribe) really wear pink coat over their armour. Bright Pink was much more expensive to produce than red, because the murexide and ammount of finest chalk and cinnabar needed to obtain the bright gradation of pink. Back in ancient days, pink are the "almost royal" colour, and generally honoured just sightly less than the purple, they didn't have the feminine conotation like today... (SPOILER!!!)

Let's get back to topic, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Let's get back to topic, please.

---

OK. Being serious for a moment, I'm not sure I agree with what everyone else said, that the standard punishment for homosexuality in the army was death.

It seems that most of the historical examples of punishment of homosexuality in the army are for rape, or at least pressure from senior officers for sexual favours from junior soldiers, eg Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 16.4

Apparently, there are a series of anecdotes of homosexual acts in the military in Valerius Maximus 6.1 (I think it starts at 6.1.10 but maybe before this). I don't have access to a translation so I can't check whether any of these are stories of consensual activities.

The reference in Polybius (6.37.9) to punishment of death for "immorality" may be too vague to be taken as a reference to consensual homosexual acts - some people think it translates as a reference to masturbation.

punsihments may only applied to those who "receive" it, the "giver" will be most likely free, as sodomy was used as a method of torture in ancient world, it was the humiliation effect that took place.

I can't remember reading anything in Roman texts about sodomy being a punishment, per se.

But you are correct in suggesting that a free Roman citizen male taking the "passive" role in sodomy was viewed with contempt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urg

OK. Being serious for a moment, I'm not sure I agree with what everyone else said, that the standard punishment for homosexuality in the army was death.

---

Just because something is the prescribed punishment for a crime, doesn't mean its actually enforced in practise. In "lax" times when discipline was allowed to weaken (from the Romans' perspective of these things) nothing would be done about it. The example with Marius played a political role in making a point about how serious he was about "improving standards".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Just because something is the prescribed punishment for a crime, doesn't mean its actually enforced in practise. In "lax" times when discipline was allowed to weaken (from the Romans' perspective of these things) nothing would be done about it. The example with Marius played a political role in making a point about how serious he was about "improving standards".

---

I agree. But I'm still not convinced that death was the standard penalty, or that there was any standard penalty (or any penalty at all?), unless someone can show otherwise...

I remember a story from the Celtiberian wars of a Celtiberian chief visiting the nearby Roman camp with his sons in order to discuss a ceasefire. According the the story they found the commanding Roman general enaged with a boy prostitute. I don't have the reference to hand right now but I will look it up tomorrow. My point is that maybe the rules for certain behaviour were (as they still are) less enforced amongst the upper classes.

Btw very interesting points so far guys, thanks!

That assumes modern and Classical prohibitions on homosexuality are for the same reasons, but this is not the case. Modern anti-gay sentiment is mostly religious in origin. The way I see it, the Roman and Greek prohibition derives from the assumption that the man who took the female position was submitting himself to the man in control. If the former was a slave, then that obviously wasn't a problem.

However, in Roman and Greek society the idea was that a citizen was a free man, with emphasis on both free and man. If he could not or would not defend his freedom, he didn't deserve to be a citizen; and allowing yourself to be taken by another man means you are either not in control, or not a man. This is different from the modern notion of homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter) as relations between equals. It also isn't a condemnation of homosexuality itself, merely of free men taking the role of women or slaves.

Now, when joining the army a Roman citizen ceased to be free and had to submit to the rule of his superiors. This was reasoned as temporarily suspending ones freedom in order to defend it. If an officer used his position to force a legionary into taking the female position, he wasn't just abusing his power. He was degrading the legionary and violating one of the most basic ideals of the city state. As Marius' judgement indicates, it was not just understandable but even admirable for the victim to respond with violence.

@Ludens

The homosexual thing is not the only one in Ancient Roman society where you encounter the difference in submission.

Also oral sex was only a one way ticket (this is for heterosexual, i don't know for sure about the other). The woman pleasuring the man was considered nothing strange. But the other way around was looked down upon. This is from two viewpoints, the first being the one discussed here earlier (the one who pleasures the person is submitting to the other, a man could not submit to a woman). The other was that the man had to keep his mouth "clean" for orations. If the man pleasured the woman, the mouth of the man would be defiled and so his speeches would be polluted too.

My source is a Dutch magazine about history, called: Historia.

~Fluvius

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus

@Ludens
The other was that the man had to keep his mouth "clean" for orations. If the man pleasured the woman, the mouth of the man would be defiled and so his speeches would be polluted too.

---

Could explain the frequency of divorces in Roman aristocracy.

Although we know, that there were laws that punished love between two free men by death, I would be really surprised if it was a punishment often used. We know about so many roman laws and custom (Like burying people alive etc.), which seemed to be only nominal things, which were never really done.
A scociety hunting and killing people for homosexual intercourse did never exist except for Nazi germany. Even in the medival times, when they also had a law against it, we do only know about a few cases when people were actually punished.

I agree completely with what Ludens wrote. For those of us brought up in western societies, our traditional ideas of what is moral or immoral are in large part influenced by 19th century european concepts of right and wrong, which are in turn, as Ludens points out, based on strict religious views. We should not use those views to interpret Roman social history.

The alleged Roman law against homosexual relations, the Lex Scantinia, is shrouded in mystery. We should not assume, based on our own ideas of what is moral, that the Lex Scantinia punished homosexual behaviour per se.

The source usually relied upon by 20th century historians to justify the idea that homosexuality in the Republican Roman army was illegal is Polybius, 6:37:9, who refers to capital punishment "on young men who have abused their persons" (according to the Loeb translation). That is hardly conclusive.

We should also be careful not to let our ideas on Roman republican morals be influenced by late Roman Christian thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

Although we know, that there were laws that punished love between two free men by death, I would be really surprised if it was a punishment often used. We know about so many roman laws and custom (Like burying people alive etc.), which seemed to be only nominal things, which were never really done.

---

I think it's necessary to distinguish the harsh discipline in the legions (which was itself selectively applied) from whatever was actually done in society at large. Romans accepted from their earliest days as a Republic that a citizen gave up a lot of rights when serving their Republic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urg

Polybius, 6:37:9, who refers to capital punishment "on young men who have abused their persons" (according to the Loeb translation).

---

Sounds like death for masturbation? Or capital punishment for attemptted suicide. That translation makes me think of self harm more so than any abuse directed at others.

Quote:

---

Or capital punishment for attemptted suicide.

---

What.

That reminds me of Belgium, where up until the 19th century, attempts at suicide were punishable. By death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

What.

That reminds me of Belgium, where up until the 19th century, attempts at suicide were punishable. By death.

---

I suppose the punishment was for the failure, not for the attempt :)

The burying alive of Celtic man and woman and Greek man and woman was recorded early in the Republic, usually after times of instability. An example quoted by Polybius is after the disaster at Cannae.

Execution for homosexual acts amongst active legions was stated in Goldsworthy's recent book 'The Fall of Carthage' and comes from contemporary sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

What.

That reminds me of Belgium, where up until the 19th century, attempts at suicide were punishable. By death.

---

As if the suspect cares...

Quote:

---

As if the suspect cares...

---

I know, eh. It's not like we in the Low Lands really care about reason or something!

Most people that try to kill themselves actually want to be rescued and not really die. Though to punish this with death is not very clever...

Umm, speaking a bit off the way, did anyone know about the castration punishments used on Homosexuals in ancient Persia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blxz

Sounds like death for masturbation? Or capital punishment for attemptted suicide. That translation makes me think of self harm more so than any abuse directed at others.

---

I disagree with your two thoughts, but your last one sounds more like it. "young men who have abused their persons" sounds like self mutilation, or as the Zulu tribes do, "Scarification". It sounds like (for lack of a better word) "pagan rituals" of scarification were deemed barbaric and for a Roman to partake in such "barbarism" was a threat to Roman society in itself, lest the 'habit' spread and 'infect' other good Roman citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

I disagree with your two thoughts, but your last one sounds more like it. "young men who have abused their persons" sounds like self mutilation, or as the Zulu tribes do, "Scarification". It sounds like (for lack of a better word) "pagan rituals" of scarification were deemed barbaric and for a Roman to partake in such "barbarism" was a threat to Roman society in itself, lest the 'habit' spread and 'infect' other good Roman citizens.

---

I rather think the reason is that the soldier in question, who injures himself, impairs his ability for action. Self-mutilation by military personal is still punishable today.

but it is not about soldiers... Its about "young men" Is Polybius referring only to young soldiers? if so why only the young ones? Are the older allowed to mutilate their bodies for a certain purpose? And if it does infact pertain to military personnel, and it does infact mean homosexuality, he means that only the younger men may not engage in it? or does it mean the older men may "abuse" the younger? I cannot see the Romans of Polybius' era being lenient let alone allowing of homosexuality in the legions. I do not think they had the same view as the Greeks, or the Spartans especially in "brotherly love" thinking they would fight harder. I would more see them thinking it making strong men weak, and weak for each other. Perhaps of a later era, during the Imperial age, when influences from abroad, especially Greece were accepted (see Hadrian, his love of Greece, and a young man/boy), and increases of vices that plagued the citizenry, especially of a sexual manner (the prevalence of the good ol' roman orgy) where as the Republican era is marked generally with "moral strength" and the upholding of "good old Roman virtues" - This could also be part of the reason for the collapse of their empire (no not because people were gay, and gays were in the army, I simply mean that the fat cats became fatter with increasing wealth, and gave in to many more vices than the leading class did of the Republican era.)

If "abusing their persons" (or whatever the original latin phrase is) refers to self-mutilation, which from the wording I find more nearby than assuming a reference to homosequality, then there is a good reason why it is only forbidden to young men. Every young roman had to expect being called on campaign as a soldier, while the old ones no longer did.
But if it describes something forbidden for moral reasons, I don't see why it should apply only to young men. Aren't old men supposed to be examples of moral virtue for the younger ones?