Pink Praetorians?

[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.
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.

[Urg]

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.

[QuintusSertorius]

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.

[Blxz]

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.

[Hax]

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.

[Lysimachos]

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 :)

[SaigonSaddler]

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.

[Skullheadhq]

What.

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

As if the suspect cares...

[Hax]

As if the suspect cares...

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

[Rahl]

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...

[Cute Wolf]

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

[Celtic_Punk]

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.

[Lysimachos]

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.

[Celtic_Punk]

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.)

[Lysimachos]

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?