• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Roman Resources

Go to CruxDreams.com
In bed with the Romans

The Latin for ‘Lesbian’ women was tribades or fricatores – “those (women) that rubbed”

Let us turn now to Messalina, empress to Claudius: queen of the imperial whores, she is said to have regularly snuck out of bed while Claudius slept to visit a fetid brothel, using the working name ‘Lycisca’ (‘Wolf Bitch’)

https://www.historyextra.com/period...pB-9k8zP9w1U3w8Woq_svJvzwd-LOErquldhC1tm7o7Ms
 
phlebas said:
In bed with the Romans

The Latin for ‘Lesbian’ women was tribades or fricatores – “those (women) that rubbed”

Let us turn now to Messalina, empress to Claudius: queen of the imperial whores, she is said to have regularly snuck out of bed while Claudius slept to visit a fetid brothel, using the working name ‘Lycisca’ (‘Wolf Bitch’)

https://www.historyextra.com/period...pB-9k8zP9w1U3w8Woq_svJvzwd-LOErquldhC1tm7o7Ms
Click to expand...
Many historians now believe that the tales of Messalina's sexual excesses are either exaggerated or fabricated posthumously in order to discredit her and justify her execution. The main sources are Tacitus, Suetonius, Juvenal and Pliny the Elder writing between 30 and 70 years after her death.

She did cheat on Claudius, whom she had been forced to marry by Caligula, and she did marry her lover Gaius Silius while Claudius was out of town. This may have been part of a failed coupe attempt. However, her motive may have been more about protecting her son Britannicus and his succession than a grab for power. Claudius' niece, Agrippina, was maneuvering to have her son, Nero named as successor. Of course, Agrippina became Claudius' second wife, had Nero named successor, poisoned Claudius and had Britannicus murdered. Interestingly, a memoir by Agrippina is one of the few sources Tacitus cites by name....though he may have made that up.
 
Naraku said:
Many historians now believe that the tales of Messalina's sexual excesses are either exaggerated or fabricated posthumously in order to discredit her and justify her execution. The main sources are Tacitus, Suetonius, Juvenal and Pliny the Elder writing between 30 and 70 years after her death.

She did cheat on Claudius, whom she had been forced to marry by Caligula, and she did marry her lover Gaius Silius while Claudius was out of town. This may have been part of a failed coupe attempt. However, her motive may have been more about protecting her son Britannicus and his succession than a grab for power. Claudius' niece, Agrippina, was maneuvering to have her son, Nero named as successor. Of course, Agrippina became Claudius' second wife, had Nero named successor, poisoned Claudius and had Britannicus murdered. Interestingly, a memoir by Agrippina is one of the few sources Tacitus cites by name....though he may have made that up.
Click to expand...

Naraku’s fractured Roman tales :rolleyes:
 
Naraku said:
Many historians now believe that the tales of Messalina's sexual excesses are either exaggerated or fabricated posthumously in order to discredit her and justify her execution. The main sources are Tacitus, Suetonius, Juvenal and Pliny the Elder writing between 30 and 70 years after her death.
Click to expand...
However, I think not a single source contradicts them. As much as I respect, for example, Harriet Flower, the 'Messalina was smeared 'cos other powerful women were smeared too' line is purely conjectural.
 
Marcius said:
However, I think not a single source contradicts them. As much as I respect, for example, Harriet Flower, the 'Messalina was smeared 'cos other powerful women were smeared too' line is purely conjectural.
Click to expand...
One can look at better documented cases from the European Middle Ages and the Renaissance to test the likely accuracy of such claims. Clearly, most marriages were political, and there was a lot of adultery, and women (like Eleanor of Aquitaine) weren't just pawns. Supposedly Genghis Khan's principal wife was a master politician and pushed the case for her sons. William the Conqueror is also known as William the Bastard. Henry VIII was more "flamboyant" about it, but he wasn't the only one. Then there is the question of when authors wrote. Supposedly Shakespeare's "history" plays never get very close to Elizabeth and her immediate ancestors for political reasons. Stories can be planted to confer legitimacy of lines (or illegitimacy). I don't think a lot of people credit all the sycophantic legends about Alexander the Great. Then one has to wonder whether anyone in a long line of copyists was a prude (or favored the policies of one emperor over those of another). Multiple sources and archeology can help, but "fake news" is an ancient phenomenon.
(When I was in high school, we had to read Julius Caesar. One guy wrote an English essay about it. Caesar was really a Monty Python Life-of-Brian-like character hanging out in the stadium. One day he unfurled a banner "Veni, Vidi, Vici" and the rest is history.)
 
Last edited:
Marcius said:
However, I think not a single source contradicts them. As much as I respect, for example, Harriet Flower, the 'Messalina was smeared 'cos other powerful women were smeared too' line is purely conjectural.
Click to expand...
There is also the case of Madame Chiang Kai Shek. She slept around for political reasons. There's pretty good documentation about that. She was a real political animal too, and worked hard for her husband's political interests.
 
Naraku said:
Many historians now believe that the tales of Messalina's sexual excesses are either exaggerated or fabricated posthumously in order to discredit her and justify her execution. The main sources are Tacitus, Suetonius, Juvenal and Pliny the Elder writing between 30 and 70 years after her death.
Click to expand...
But you name four sources that are effectively our only sources for that era. It is hard to prove them wrong.
Marcius said:
However, I think not a single source contradicts them. As much as I respect, for example, Harriet Flower, the 'Messalina was smeared 'cos other powerful women were smeared too' line is purely conjectural.
Click to expand...
Agree its conjectural, but it is plausible. WE know that the sources mentioned all disliked the Julio-Claudian Emperors. They are were part of the Senatorial party which longed or the days with an oligarchy of Senators ruled Rome for their own benefit. These same historians liked to paint Claudius as a drooling idiot (as a drooling senior, I resemble that!). However, inscriptions and other records sometimes contradict them. But in the case of private lives, the historians relied mostly on rumor and gossip. We really don't know. But where there's smoke there is often fire and Messalina put out a lot of smoke!
 
Praefectus Praetorio said:
But you name four sources that are effectively our only sources for that era. It is hard to prove them wrong.

Agree its conjectural, but it is plausible. WE know that the sources mentioned all disliked the Julio-Claudian Emperors. They are were part of the Senatorial party which longed or the days with an oligarchy of Senators ruled Rome for their own benefit.
Click to expand...
The aristocratic monarchy had gone out of fashion by the time they wrote -- much like Victorians looked back at the Regency and the 18th century with tut-tutting disapproval. However, I don't think the authors mentioned belonged to a distinctive political current -- Tacitus served Trajan well, and his pro-Senate stuff appears to be mostly posturing.

The rest weren't even senators -- Pliny, the only one who did serve the old dynasty, was mostly writing on WTF and oddities, not politics (much safer and better career-wise; he might have made it to a great prefecture in Rome, but Vesuvius had other plans for the admiral). Suetonius was an equestrian ex-courtier who earned his dismissal in a murky scandal -- and decided to sell a bunch of the same -- from the olden days -- to the public. Juvenal, yet another eques, liked making Rome great again and didn't like women and immigrants. Those people don't really care about the Senate, although they still like to be in the majority there. :angel2:
 
phlebas said:
How to build your cross

View attachment 649667View attachment 649668View attachment 649669View attachment 649670View attachment 649671View attachment 649672View attachment 649673View attachment 649674View attachment 649675
Click to expand...
The lashing method would have been suitable when a standing tree truck was being used.
Dia 1.jpg
But, when a permanently standing stipes was being used, I think the mortise and tenon method would be less labor intensive.
7g.jpg
Praefectus Praetorio said:
Can you imagine an IKEA cross kit and instruction? Now that is a nightmare!:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Click to expand...
No, pretty simple, really.
ikea-krucifix.jpg
Barbaria1 said:
I love those little screw thingies :p
Click to expand...
I thought you preferred girls.:p
 
Naraku said:
The lashing method would have been suitable when a standing tree truck was being used.
View attachment 649984
But, when a permanently standing stipes was being used, I think the mortise and tenon method would be less labor intensive.
View attachment 649985

No, pretty simple, really.
View attachment 649986

I thought you preferred girls.:p
Click to expand...
I just took the drawing to my local timber-ware store. I told them I want it as close as possible to the drawing and that I wanted to make sure of the design by testing it. They were very helpful and promised to have it ready by tomorrow Sunday in the morning. They also told me they would help me to test it. Very cheap too. Indeed a very obliging group of timber workers...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom