Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Arvioustus

Surender Not Acceptable

Recommended Posts

Rapes certainly took place, it was part of sacking a city or town, but I doubt in many instances male rape would have been tolerated in the soldiery and have not heard of it before - what's your source ? Sounds dodgy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did you read this? Give us a source please.

 

On a side note, the idea of rape was pandimount in Roman thought. Going off to war was seen as a masculine thing, the idea of penetrating into virgin land beyond that is wild and untamed. Many symbols are even seen today like a plow digging into fresh land, the idea of the virgin land. The Greeks were also very heavy in this. As for statues, there exist many and coin images which always depict land as a woman. Two statues that come to mind is one of Nero and Claudius.

 

The first shows the emperor [Claudius] in heroic nudity apart from a helmet, cloak, and baldric with empty scabbard, standing over and holding down, with his knee on her thigh, the female figure of Britannia. With his right army he raises a sword and with his left he pulls Britannia's head back by the hair, while the woman struggles with her right arm raised, one breast exposed, and with her left arm she holds her tunic from slipping off. The second displays Nero, also nude with cloak, baldric and empty scabbard, standing with his legs apart behind the female figure of Armenia, who is slumped on the ground between his legs. As her cloak falls away, she is revealed fully nakes and her arms spread-eagled by the man. There is little doubt that both highly erotic scenes were intended to present a metaphor of conquest and rape.

 

"Rome and its Frontiers: the Dynamics of Empire" by C.R. Whittaker, pg115

 

Such images were on coins as well, though when it came to rebellious roman provinces they were not shown in such a bad light but more of a seated woman who has been 'romanized' and so is not violated yet still in a dominated light. The same type of scenes, (of women being conquered and having thier hair pulled), is shown on Marcus Aurelius and Trajan's column though Trajan's is not as graphic or as violent as Marcus'. The point I am making is while rape and conquest were a constant in Roman thought I have never EVER come across such a thing was used wide-spread as terror tactic although I am sure a few times it was but not the scale you are asking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may have taken place, but such a thing would be very serious frowned upon by Roman society and the Roman Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this couldn't have happened, at least not often. As soem one stated earlier, such a thing would not have been tolorated by the Roman Centurions and comanding officers. It quite simply wasn't going to happen anyways, why would any self respecting soldier choose rather to rape a hardened bloody sweaty disgusting warrior, and not the lovely young virgins of the town. Rape was part of sacking a city, not part of disgracing an enimies manlyhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, this couldn't have happened, at least not often. As soem one stated earlier, such a thing would not have been tolorated by the Roman Centurions and comanding officers. It quite simply wasn't going to happen anyways, why would any self respecting soldier choose rather to rape a hardened bloody sweaty disgusting warrior, and not the lovely young virgins of the town. Rape was part of sacking a city, not part of disgracing an enimies manlyhood.

 

By and large I agree. However its possible a more handsome enemy might have been dragged to a certain officers tent once in a while. Humans haven't changed much in 2000 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, he had a point, why would the Roman soldiers do that to men, while there were perfectly good virgins through out many towns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the character of Roman conquest changed very much after the sacking of Corinth and Carthage. Is there any evidence prior to this period that the Roman conquerors viewed themselves as so thoroughly superior to the vanquished that they should celebrate their raping of women?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Such a thing has been present through every epic of history.

 

I hate the fact that I actually know something about this topic. Not strictly relevant to Rome but as an example that this does happen during warfare in some cultures. In '91 I was in Turkey/Northern Iraq for Operation Provide Comfort. I worked with Special Forces A-teams who were training the Kurdish guerrillas against the Iraqis. The Iraqis had been very harsh on the Kurds exterminating whole villages, gassing, raping, etc. The SF guys were pretty taken aback about the fact that the Kurds bragged about raping captured male Iraqi soldiers before executing them. Harsh and disturbing but apparently it happens in warfare even in our time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a thing has been present through every epic of history.

 

I hate the fact that I actually know something about this topic. Not strictly relevant to Rome but as an example that this does happen during warfare in some cultures. In '91 I was in Turkey/Northern Iraq for Operation Provide Comfort. I worked with Special Forces A-teams who were training the Kurdish guerrillas against the Iraqis. The Iraqis had been very harsh on the Kurds exterminating whole villages, gassing, raping, etc. The SF guys were pretty taken aback about the fact that the Kurds bragged about raping captured male Iraqi soldiers before executing them. Harsh and disturbing but apparently it happens in warfare even in our time.

 

I agree. And I think many can't comprehend it because they think of rape as a sex driven event. Male on male rape in the situation you described above would be more an issue of humiliating your enemy. Think about the Abu Ghurayb pictures. If you think that's humiliating to an Arab, imagine how they'd have reacted if on top of all that the males were raped by other males. I personally cannot think of anything more humiliating than being violated by another man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still dispute that it would have been anywhere near common in a conquering Roman army. If not, please show us the evidence. There are noted instances where homosexual behavior was punished in the legions, the Marius incident for example. Despite as you mention Felix, the fact that in war rape is not always a sexual thing but a dominance thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Map of the Roman Empire

×