I know almost nothing about Rome after ...
Submitted by A.I. Watcher on March 3 2002 18:12:17
In reply to Re: Soldiers weren't allowed to keep slaves submitted by Heather on March 3 2002 00:07:53
|
... the Julio-Claudian era - so what Roman attitudes were towards Christiany's sexual proscriptions, I'm afraid I have no idea. For some reason my interest flags after the transition from Republic to Empire. As to the Centurian - it's all so much speculation. Roman soldiers were prohibited from having sex with one another on penalty of death. Traditional, conservative, republican Roman attitudes toward sex with male slaves were pretty much against. If we knew who the man's commander was, we might be able to venture more of a guess. Military men were traditionally conservative people - funny how that's true even today. But promagistrates who were not military men often commanded armies - at least for short periods of time. If the commander was well known for soft living, his Centurians might have felt emboldened to live more luxuriously than if an austere man like Caesar were at the helm. Odds are that the Centurian was NOT having sex with his servant. Such things seem to have been abnormal in that day in age. But of course there is no evidence one way or the other. |
Follow ups: