I'm fascinated by varieties of people I come to believe are genuinrly snd deeply stupid misunderstanding what is right, wrong, good, or bad about anything.
I was disgusted by what was being said by the nincompoops on Reddit nine years ago about how thinking of the Middle East or Middle Eastern culture positively was wrong to do, like they were suggesting that showing anything to do with the Middle East in any positive way or fun way was a terrible thing "considering" the supposed reality that they were all worthy of being slaughtered. Like what the hell. The craziest thing about it is they seemed to thjnk THAT was the politically correct view, lol, and in a way they, in their consummate stupidity, were right, the West went from fun with Didney's Aladdin to spending now 30 years spreading blatant racist hatred that has continued the torture and open mass murdering of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of ordinary human beings for well over just these 3 decades even, traumatizing and changing the trajectory of so many survivors or people trying to navigate the pretty much totally facetious and fabricated hate just to keep the people from turning on the people really causing all the problems and directing them to constantly hate big populations of people in poverty instead of the evil, mismanaging, overlords destroying their lives. So hearing from the dumb as sh*t brainwashed dufuses writing on Reddit nine years ago was, pretty much as always, disappointing. Now, similarly slack jawed mutants are shepherded by people like "Asmongold", who openly promotes all kinds of vile things as though it is just a matter of fact. I had been away from seeing much of this distressing stuff since my phone has been broken, but it brought it all back, how much it is necessary to apparently forever live in hiding from these ugly m*therf*ckers.
Anyway, Orientalist treatment of fantasy material often comes off as irritating and boring to me, and that is all the problem is for me and probably most people. If it had more that looked cool and interesting, giving those signals, and wasn't one dimensionally lame like almost every effort made by people not familar with where to draw the line, since they are creating borders for material and concepts not present and then restricting things severely so that "Middle Eastern" things simply can't have as much as the others, so why would that be attractive? Just slap on a bunch of turbans on everyone and a few skeletons? There is no strict distinction with the "Middle East", so when they try to make things distinct, they come up with very little overall in the "Specific" settings, so when they go Aztec, Chinese, Japanese, even Norse, it can feel especially limited and boring even if they put in everything they can, while the default setting of anything and everything for anyone and not specific or limited is always going to be the most attractive by giving and having the most potential. Some of the genius people have been suggesting instead that nothing from any part of the world should be brought up except by people with arbitrary quantum, blood ties to those historic regions and ethnicities, even if they were raised like anyone else, somehow their blood shall make whatrver they come up with acceptable. Are people listening to themselves? They are so hysterically nonsensical, I could not even imagine approaching people who are putting their lack of critical thinking and reasoning skills on full display without shame, they seem to think they are smart, total Dunning-Kruger going on.
"
Drow
Drow are a creation wholly of Gary Gygax, and oh boy are they famously racist! Drow have been traditionally depicted as evil elves who despite everything good and wonderful about their surface kin. And oh yeah, before Paizo came along their skin was black. They were also notorious torturers and slavers.
Not only are they basically identical to elves, who are presented as “always good,” in every way (except they’re black), but they’re also notoriously evil and cruel, favoring things like torture, slavery, murder, and more. Their matriarchal society is also one of constant distrust and backstabbing, where people get on top by being the cleverest or the most powerful. There is a lot wrong with this portrayal, but some of the big ones include the idea that a group of dark-skinned people would naturally gravitate towards evil (compared to their fair-skinned cousins, who are portrayed as usually good), the idea that a matriarchal society would also inherently lean towards evil, and the idea that a predominately black society would exalt in slavery (more on that later).
Gnolls
Gnolls are partially a Gygaxian concept; they’re ravenous hyenafolk who are spawned from fatten hyenas who dined upon the flesh of a demon lord and became mindless servants to that entity. But the notion of hyenas who could assume human shape is a real folklore myth in Africa called boudas (it’s less of a anthromorphic hyena thing and more of a witch who turns into a hyena thing). They’re seen as demon worshipers, usually dressed in ragged skins and armors with very basic weapons, incapable of real society beyond the “pack” which is basically portrayed as a tribe, and of course they like to eat people. Oh, and hyenas are from Africa and gnolls are often coded as African. (I talked a lot more about the problems with gnolls a few weeks ago. Check it out!)
"
They want to come along and ruin or eradicate all my favorite groups. The approach is totally wrong, all their "solutions" are incorrect, because it is coming from the same sort of idiots who created the problems in the first place.
I got on this because I was about to buy a very expensive racist book about the Drow who are being wiped out of all these things now.
"
The second example of power rings I can find in historical cultures are the Vikings. The Viking tradition of wearing rings, may have in fact been culturally adopted from Islam. A viking ring was found in the grave of a viking woman, with the Islamically significant agite/carnelian stone with the arabic words, “For Allah” engraved upon it. Once one digs further, he can find a long history if Islamic culture upon the Vikings, and even many Vikings themselves being Muslims. It is entirely possible that the “power rings” of the Vikings, stemmed from the religion of Islam.
"
"
The usual response to criticism of Islam is to call such criticism “racist” and “Islamophobic.” But, as the bien pensants have not yet figured out, Islam is not a race. It’s a religion. The title “Sauron comes to Middle England” is not meant to imply that Muslims are an evil people. It’s meant to imply that there is something wrong with their religion as well as with the British authorities who facilitate its spread.
"
What a disgusting world that I'm forced to share with the people writing these things, I wish them the worst, freaking hate mongers.
They ghettoize people, building a pressure cooker of disemfranchixed and alienated people who are blocked from integration and assimilation, a second or even third class, even a slave class in many ways, and all the various nations have seemingly adopted this project and have largely targeted Muslims to put into this category, or Islam happens to appeal to the poor people forced into these situations, though sometimes they are just poor and pressured into stereotypes and a minority position, like in India and China and other places, the whole system profits off of creating a class that can't be considered normal and is pressured to scurry around hiding and serving and pandering to the vile scum who put them in that situation in thefirst place.
That is why I like when the true colors of everyone are shown and they play their hands and expose what they think and really are, and I also want people, like Muslims, to be angered by how they are viewed by people and not to pander and try to please such people but to face the facts and expose it, fight it, uproot it, abolish it, or go elsewhere if they can, but never to just cooperate, proliferate it, support it, accept it, or let themselves and their families be spoken of and thought of and treated like they are, on television and in so many conversations and articles that are part of a huge conspiracy against billions of people that have been targeted because inside the book of the Muslims there are certain things that seem to oppose the oppression and perversity that the wealthy and ruling classes want to impose on a deprecated and desperate overall population stripped of all dignity and really all rights and protections.
The Natives Americans, The African Americans, The Communists, The Slavic People, and Muslims have all been put down, and really crushed, and the population of thos last "challenge" is massive. So many paths of attack have been used, and they are outright murdered like they are less than bacteria and many people are pleased and overjoyed by that, in this grand effort to create another class of slaves to the rich. So may every evil fall upon those workers of iniquity.
"
The Five Barbarians, or Wu Hu (Chinese: 五胡; pinyin: Wǔ Hú), is a Chinese historical exonym for five ancient non-Han "Hu" peoples who immigrated to northern China in the Eastern Han dynasty, and then overthrew the Western Jin dynasty and established their own kingdoms in the 4th–5th centuries.[1][2][3][4] The peoples categorized as the Five Barbarians were:[1][3][5]
Xiongnu
Jie
Xianbei
Qiang
Di
Of these five tribal ethnic groups, the Xiongnu and Xianbei were nomadic peoples from the northern steppes. The ethnic identity of the Xiongnu is uncertain, but the Xianbei appear to have been Mongolic. The Jie, another pastoral people, may have been a branch of the Xiongnu, who may have been Yeniseian or Iranian.[6][7][8] The Di and Qiang were from the highlands of western China.[1] The Qiang were predominantly herdsmen and spoke Sino-Tibetan (Tibeto-Burman) languages, while the Di were farmers who may have spoken a Sino-Tibetan[9] or Turkic language.[10]
"
"
With the proposal of the Dené–Yeniseian language family, the Yeniseians have been linked to Native Americans, particularly the Athabaskans. It has been suggested that the Yeniseians represent either a back-migration from the Bering land bridge to Central Siberia, or that early Dene-Yeniseian speakers originated in Central Siberia, with Na-Dene speakers expanding into the Americas while Yeniseian speakers remained in Siberia.[6][7]
"
"
According to the Book of Han, "the Xiongnu called the Heaven (天) 'Chēnglí' (撐犁) and they called a child (子) gūtú (孤塗). As for Chányú (單于), it is a "vast [and] great appearance" (廣大之貌).".[4]
L. Rogers and Edwin G. Pulleyblank argue that the title chanyu may be equivalent to the later attested title tarkhan, suggesting that the Chinese pronunciation was originally dān-ĥwāĥ, an approximation for *darxan.[5] Linguist Alexander Vovin tentatively proposes a Yeniseian etymology for 撐犁孤塗單于, in Old Chinese pronunciation *treng-ri kwa-la dar-ɢwā, from four roots: **tɨŋgɨr- "heaven",[6][7] *kwala- "son, child", *dar "lower reaches of the Yenisei" or "north", and *qʌ̄j ~ *χʌ̄j "prince"; as a whole "Son of Heaven, Ruler of the North".[8][9]
Bailey derives from Proto-Iranian *tark- "to speak, command", from Proto-Indo-European *telkʷ-. He also compares a Saka title with the same semantic shift. Compare also Khotanese ttarkana and Ossetian tærxon. [10]
Dybo derives from a Turkic root meaning "vast as the sky", and compares Old Uyghur *tarḳan- and tarḳar-.[11] The Old Uyghur tarḳan- listed in her work is not found in Wilkens (2021),[12] and Caferoğlu (1968)[13] glosses tarḳan- as "to feel embarrassed, to get tired of, to worry". tarḳar-, meanwhile, is glossed by both as "to expel, to distance oneself from something; to destroy, to expunge".
"
"
The Book of Han and Shiji do not make any special note of the physical appearance of the Wusun. The first description of the Wusun's physical appearance is found in a Western Han dynasty book of divination, the Forest of Changes by Jiaoshi Yilin, which describes the women of the Wusun as "with deep eyesockets, dark, ugly: their preferences are different, past their prime [still] without spouse."[47][48] A later 7th century commentary to the Book of Han by Yan Shigu[49] says:
Among the barbarians (戎; Róng) in the Western Regions, the look of the Wusun is the most unusual. The present barbarians (胡人; húrén) who have green eyes and red hair, and look like macaque monkeys, are the offspring of this people.[49][50][51]
Initially, when only a few number of skulls from Wusun territory were known, the Wusun were recognized as a Caucasoid people with slight Mongoloid admixture.[49] Later, in a more thorough study by Soviet archaeologists of eighty-seven skulls of Zhetysu, the six skulls of the Wusun period were determined to be purely Caucasoid or close to it.[49][52]
"
The Wusun are generally believed to be an Indo-European people[53] and speak a language belonging to the Indo-Iranian branch.[54][55][56][57] They are thought to be Iranian-speaking by the archaeologist Elena Kuzmina,[58] linguist János Harmatta,[59] Joseph Kitagawa,[60] David Durand-Guédy,[61] Turkologist Peter B. Golden[62][63] and Central Asian scholar Denis Sinor.[26][64] Yan Shigu (581–645) described the Wusun's descendants with the exonym 胡人 Húrén "foreigners, barbarians",[50] which had been used since the 6th century to denote Iranian peoples, especially Sogdians, in Central Asia, besides other non-Chinese peoples.[65] Archaeological evidence also supports the idea that Wusuns were Iranian speakers.[66]
Edwin G. Pulleyblank has suggested that the Wusun, along with the Yuezhi, the Dayuan, the Kangju and the people of Yanqi, could have been Tocharian-speaking.[67][68][69][70] Colin Masica and David Keightley also suggest that the Wusun were Tocharian-speaking.[71][72] Sinor found it difficult to include the Wusun within the Tocharian category of Indo-European until further research was done.[54] J. P. Mallory has suggested that the Wusun contained both Tocharian and Iranian elements.[63][73] Central Asian scholar Christopher I. Beckwith suggests that the Wusun were Indo-Aryan-speaking.[11] The first syllable of the Wusun royal title Kunmi was probably the royal title while the second syllable referred to the royal family name.[11][74] Beckwith specifically suggests an Indo-Aryan etymology of the title Kunmi.[11]
In the past, some scholars suggested that the Wusun spoke a Turkic language. Chinese scholar Han Rulin, as well as Ármin Vámbéry, A. Scherbak, P. Budberg, L. Bazin and V.P. Yudin, noted that the Wusun king's name Fu-li 拊離 (OC (20 BC) *phoʔ-rai > LHC *pʰuoᴮ-liai ~ *pʰuoᴮ-lie[75]), as reported in Chinese sources and translated as 'wolf', resembles Proto-Turkic *bȫrü 'wolf'. This suggestion however is rejected by Classical Chinese Literature expert Francis K. H. So, Professor at National Sun Yat-sen University.[76] Other words listed by these scholars include the title bag, beg 'lord'.[77] This theory has been criticized by modern Turkologists, including Peter B. Golden and Carter V. Findley, who explain that none of the mentioned words are actually Turkic in origin.[78][79][80] Findley notes that the term böri is probably derived from one of the Iranian languages of Central Asia (cf. Khotanese birgga-).[79] Meanwhile, Findley considers the title beg as certainly derived from the Sogdian baga 'lord',[80] a cognate of Middle Persian baγ (as used by the rulers of the Sassanid Empire), as well as Sanskrit bhaga and Russian bog. According to Encyclopædia Iranica: "The origin of beg is still disputed, though it is mostly agreed that it is a loan-word. Two principal etymologies have been proposed. The first etymology is from a Middle Iranian form of Old Iranian baga; though the meaning would fit since the Middle Persian forms of the word often mean 'lord,' used of the king or others. The second etymology is from Chinese 伯 (MC pˠæk̚ > bó) 'eldest (brother), (feudal) lord'. Gerhard Doerfer on the other hand seriously considers the possibility that the word is genuinely Turkish. Whatever the truth may be, there is no connection with Turkish berk, Mongolian berke 'strong' or Turkish bögü, Mongolian böge 'wizard, shaman.'"[81][82]
"
"
Gong was a title of ancient and imperial Chinese nobility roughly equivalent to and usually translated as duke. It was also historically used within Chinese fiefs as a respectful term of address to any living liege (similar to the English "lord") and is still used in modern Chinese as a respectful term of address for any man of high status (similar to "sir"), particularly for the honored deceased as with formal reference to Chiang Kai-shek as Jiǎng Gōng (蔣公) in Taiwan.
"
Added in 1 day 3 hours 35 minutes 10 seconds:
"
However, the goal of the Saracens might reveal something of the origins andidentity of the Saracens in King Horn: they wanted to kill Christians inorder to conquer their lands and to convert them to Islam, which is similarto the goals of the Vikings who were also looking for “land” and “power”(Speed, 585). Additionally, in terms of the journey the Saracens made,their “fleet” could in reality just as likely be from Saracens as fromVikings, since in the Middle Ages both peoples were infamous regarding“their strength at sea” and their “fleet[s]” (Speed, 590). Therefore, theSaracens mentioned in King Horn could be both of real Islamic descent as ofScandinavian origins (Speed, 585-595). Since the origins and whereabouts ofthe Saracens are therefore quite unclear the negative image of Saracens inKing Horn is stressed even more. Additionally, the looks of the Saracensare described as “fierce” (Speed, 580) and “black” (Hall, l. 1319, 77;Hall, 198), which underlines the negative image depicted of Saracens inKing Horn as well.
"
"
Another Arabic verb root from which the name of Saracen might be
derived is 'sarisa', which means to behave immorally. It is also used as a noun
to refer to a man with penile agenesis. (al-Zabidi, Mohammed Murtadha,
2004) However, this term is no longer in use in the modern Arabic language
nowadays.
It is worth mentioning that the name of Saracen appeared not only in
the literary works but in political documents as well. The ancient Roman
administrative document of Notitia Dignitatum, which enumerates the major
offices of the government and the army units of the late Roman Empire,
contains the name of Saracens along with the name of Arabs. The Saracens
were distinguished from Arabs as two different comprising units of the Roman
army. (Resto, Jan, 2014) The Roman document of Notitia Dignitatum is very
important for this research in part because it reveals that the name of Arabs
was also known and used in Latin and Greek, which were the official
languages of the Roman Empire, and in part because it reveals that the name
of Saracen was not always used in a negative way. In this vein, the name of
Arabs was widely used in the major languages of the people who had contact
with the Arabs and Muslims, such as the Persian, Turkish, Kurdish, and
Chinese languages.
After the preceding account, we come to know three important points:
First, since the word 'Saracens' was used to describe different peoples living in different vast areas of Asia and Africa, the word was not used ethnically to
describe a specific group of people living in a limited region. Second, since
both names of 'Saracens' and 'Arabs' were used in the Roman administrative
document of Notitia Dignitatum, they probably refer to different peoples, or
Arabs were considered to be part of a larger group of people who shared
certain characteristics and were thus all called the Saracens. Third, since the
two words of 'Saracen' and 'sariqin' were used almost in the same periods of
time in different writings, the first word has nothing to do with the latter one.
Each word has its own literal meanings and connotations. In addition, the
name of Saracen was clearly restricted to the European languages, so it must
have come originally from a European language which had a profound
influence on the other languages of the continent. It is never related to the
Arabic words of 'sariqin', 'sharquiyin' or 'sarisa'. It is of a purely European
origin.
Does the word 'Saracens' refer to peoples sharing certain characteristics?
And what are the characteristics those peoples have in common?
My answers to the above questions come as a main aim of this
research. Basically, ethnicity and religion have nothing to do with the use of
the word 'Saracens' although it was often used to describe groups of people
with certain religious beliefs, usually pagans. It is the color which gave this
name. All peoples that were referred to as 'Saracens' have the same skin color;
it is the color of buckwheat, which was heavily focused on when describing
those peoples. In the second above excerpt from the medieval romance King
of Tars, the Sultan of Damascus is described as a pagan with black skin, and
when he converts into Christianity, his skin tone changes from black to white.
The color black is thus heavily present in the King of Tars, and it is
prominently present wherever the Saracens are mentioned as well. It is,
therefore, worth considering the concept of color when the word 'Saracens' is
investigated as a description of certain peoples who share certain
characteristics.
Semantically, what is the relationship between the word 'Saracens' and
the skin color that characterizes those peoples mentioned in the old
writings?
It is clearly noted that most peoples who live in the Middle East and
North Africa share the same skin color which is the color of buckwheat. This
small dark grain is known as grano saraceno in Italian and sarrasin in French.
According to Le Petit Robert, a popular French dictionary, the word 'sarrasin'
is the name of a grain of dark color, which is grown in France, especially in
Brittany. (Le Nouveau Petit Robert de la langue française, 2006) The Bretons
of Brittany are the last vestiges of the Celtic Britons that migrated from Great Britain and gave their name to this northwest section of France. The word
'sarrasin' is, therefore, used in the Breton language, which is the only Celtic
language still spoken on the European continent today. (Walker, Suzette,
2019)
According to Louis Reynier (1762-1824) in his De l'Économie
Publique Et Rurale des Celtes, des Germains Et des Autres Peuples du Nord
Et du Centre de l'Europe, the French name 'sarrsin' was Keltic. (de Candolle,
Alphonse, 2018) Thus, the name 'sarrasin' was given to the Arabs and other
peoples because of their skin color, which is the same as the color of
buckwheat, and it has nothing to do with the name of Abraham's free wife,
Sarah. It has nothing to do with the Arabic root word 'srq', either.
Can colors be used to denote peoples?
Some colors are widely used in several languages to represent groups
of people that share the same skin tone. 'Negro', from Spanish and Portuguese
from Latin niger, nigr- ‘black’, (Negro. The American Heritage Dictionary of
the English Language, 2019) is a prime example of people represented by their
complexion.
The Latin word niger, meaning black, is probably derived from the
Proto-Indo-European root 'nek' , which means 'to be dark'. 'Nek' and night are
akin, and this explains how 'negro' was first used to donate peoples with dark
skin.
Another example of peoples represented by their complexion is from
the Arabic language. The ancient Arabs used different terms to refer to the
European peoples. The most common of these are 'Ifranaj' or 'Firanjah', which
is the Arabic form of the name Franks, and 'Rum'. However, the skin color
was also considered by the Arabs in the terms they applied to people. 'Bani Al
Asfar', which means 'sons of the yellow', was another term applied to the
Europeans by the ancient Arabs. They first used this term to refer to the Greeks
and Romans, and later to the natives of Spain and to all the Europeans in
general. It is clear that the Arabs applied this term because of the lighter skin
color of Europeans, seen as yellow in contrast with the brown color of the
Arabs and other Middle Eastern peoples and the black color of the African
peoples.
Unlike 'negro, however, 'Bani Al Asfar' was never used by the Arabs
as an offensive description. It was used neutrally in literature and in some
prophetic traditions as well.
Oday Bin Zaid, a poet from the Pre-Islamic era, mentions 'Bani Al
Asfar' in his verse that tells how life changes from a state to another, that no
kings or powers are to remain for good. (Al-Alousi, Mahmoud Shukri, 2009) O man, who gloats over the others' grief, are you the best?
Are you faultless?
Are you in protection against the misfortunes of life?
Or do you think life won't make you suffer like the others do?
You are such an ignorant, arrogant man.
Look where Khosrow 26 Anūshirvan is now!
And look where Shapur 27 is now!
And look where the honorable kings of 'Bani Al Asfar' are now!
None of them still lives today. (My translation)
Another Arab poet who used the name of 'Bani Al Asfar' in his verse
was Abu al-Salt (1068 – 1134). In the following lines, Abu al-Salt describes
how he feels about the beauty of a lady from 'Bani Al Asfar' who has
fascinating eyes: (Diwan Al-Hakam Bin Abi Al-Salt, 2019) I am suffering from
A deadly arrow of fascinating eyes
Shot at my heart by a lady from 'Bani Al Asfar'
She shot me closely with a glance-arrow
From her eyebrow
Her eyes are like Ali bin Abi Talib's sword 28
Stabbed in my heart. (My translation)
Unlike Edmund Spenser and the other writers who used the name of
Saracens in a pejorative way, it is clear that Abu al-Salt, since expressing his
love to that lady from 'Bani Al Asfar', did not use the name of 'Bani Al Asfar'
in an offensive way. Neither did Oday Bin Zaid. The messenger of Islam, Muhammad, also used this name in a neutral way to refer to the Romans.
(Sahih Al-Bukhari, 2019)
It is also worth mentioning that the concept of the skin color is also
heavily present in the names of some countries. Geographers or explorers used
the skin color of the inhabitants as a name or part of the name to the country
or the region in which those people live. For example, the name of the Afro-
Arab country of Sudan 'derived from the Arabic expression bilad al-sudan
("land of the blacks"), by which medieval Arab geographers referred to the
settled African countries that began at the southern edge of the Sahara.'
(Sudan. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2019).
The name of the African country of Ethiopia is also based on the
concept of the skin color. 'Most writers, however, credited the Greeks for
coining the term Aethiopia, which repeatedly means "burnt-faces," and it is
widely believed to have been by Homer.' (Bekerie, Ayele, 2004)
Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to point out the real explanation of the use
of the name of Saracens to describe Arabs and Muslims and to argue the other
given explanations. Despite the limited length of the article, the research done
in the article revealed that the skin color is used in several languages to
represent people, sometimes offensively and sometimes neutrally. The
research also revealed that the word 'Saracen', which is the French name of
buckwheat, was used to describe Arabs and some other peoples with the same
skin tone, akin to the color of the buckwheat, because of their complexion.
However it was often used to refer to peoples with certain moral qualities and
religious beliefs. The name of Saracens, therefore, does not have any negative
meanings by its own. It is the way the writers used the name that makes it
acquire negative connotations of immorality, paganism, violence, and
brutality. In The ancient Roman administrative document of Notitia
Dignitatum, for example, the name of Saracen was used formally and neutrally
to refer to certain people who were part of the Roman Empire and formed a
major military unit of its army.
"
"
The earliest known reference is in Ptolemy's 2nd-century Geography, which describes a region called Sarakēnḗ in the northern Sinai Peninsula and a people, the Sarakēnoí, living near the Taeni and Arabes.
"
"
But of course the account in Narrations, like other ethnographic forms, is not meant to describe the Saracens’ actual behaviour. It is rather meant to underline the stalwart dedication of monks going out into a fancifully imagined borderlands, confronting enemies both cosmic and mortal, potentially becoming martyrs for the cause of the monastic life. In reality, the Saracens likely haunted the Christian imagination because by this time Christians were actively colonizing the Sinai desert. Wild descriptions such as these of native inhabitants worked then to rationalize that colonization. The passage below likewise shows how descriptions of the Saracens were meant to provide contrast to the virtuous restraint and beautiful goodness of the monastic way of life.
"
"
[Ethnographic excursus on the barbarians’ / Saracens’ way of life, as narrated by the Nilus character to travellers]
The previously mentioned people (ethnos) [of barbarians] inhabits the desert extending from Arabia to Egypt’s Red Sea and the River Jordan. They practise no craft, trade, or agriculture at all, but use the dagger alone as their means of subsistence. They live by hunting desert animals and devouring their flesh, or else get what they need by robbing people on roads that they watch in ambush. If neither is possible and their provisions run out, then they consume pack animals – they use camels called dromedaries – for food. Theirs is a bestial and bloodthirsty way of life. Killing one camel per clan or cluster of tents, they soften its flesh with heat from a fire only insofar as it makes it yield to their teeth without having to be too forcefully torn. In a word, they eat like dogs.
They know no god abstractly conceived or materially hand-crafted, but bow down instead to the Morning Star. When it appears on the horizon they offer to it the best of their spoils, if anything suitable for sacrifice falls into their hands from their bandit raids.
They especially like to offer children distinguished by beauty and the bloom of youth. These they sacrifice on piles of stones at dawn. What troubles and worries me so, my friends, is that my body’s comeliness might be appetizing to the lawless ones for their accustomed impieties, seeming serviceable for their purpose. I fear in case his pure soul’s body be offered up as a sacrificial victim to abominable demons on behalf of unclean people, to be, as they believe, their atonement and cleansing. Habituated as they are to performing human sacrifice without reservation, they feel no pity for the children whom they slaughter, even if the suppliants sing their laments as seductively as Sirens.
But if no children are available, they make a camel that is white and free from blemishes bend down on its knees. Then they circle around it three times in a procession that is drawn out by the multitude of participants involved. The person who leads in the procession and in singing a hymn they compose for the [Morning] star is either one of their kings or one of their priests distinguished by old age. After the third circuit, but before the throng has finished its hymn, while the last refrain is still carrying on in their tongues, this man draws a sword and vigorously strikes at the victim’s sinews. Eagerly, he is the first to have a taste of the blood. Then the rest run up with daggers drawn. Some cut off just a small patch of hide and hair, others seize whatever flesh they see and hack away, while others go straight for the innards and entrails. No part of the sacrifice is left unconsumed, so that nothing remains to be seen when the sun appears. They do not even refrain from eating bone and marrow, gradually overcoming its hardness and toughness through perseverance.
Such is the traditional way of life and cult among the barbarians. In this way they subsist in the desert, moving from place to place, making encampments wherever they find easy pasturage for their flocks and plenty of water.
"
"
But those who pursue the solitary way of life select a few places in the desert for themselves where water suffices to meet the needs of their bodies. Some build huts, while others inhabit caves or grottoes for their entire existence. Few have bread in their diet, only those whose diligence forces the barren desert to yield up grain. With a small trowel they work a wretchedly small and solid piece of earth, only as much as needed to just barely survive. Most observe a diet of raw fruits and vegetables. They prefer their meals plain and simple, having bid farewell long ago to chores of cooking and baking, in case by spending too much time on needs of their bodies they neglect the more important object of their care. And so they attend the cult of the divine with pure and sober minds, because they neither load down their thoughts by gorging on meats, nor do they stimulate their stomachs with rich aromas of fatty sauces.
For such is the insatiable force of gluttony today that people feel compelled to minister to their desire with sights, aromas, and tastes, inflaming their sense of pleasure with a blend of juices that is embellished by an ever-changing variety of scents, colours, and textures. . . [section omitted on the pleasures of food enjoyed by non-ascetics]. . . . All this they do so that their mistress, their stomach, might receive an exact consistency of dressings and give her assent to things already tested in advance by the senses mentioned above, as if persuaded by discerning experts.
The dietary regimen of the these [monks] tends not towards such delicacies. Not only have they renounced those pleasures of quality, deriding a superfluous sense of need as foolish and irrational, but they also strive, as a matter of competitive honour, to abstain from excess with respect to quantity. They eat only as much as they must, so as not to die against the will of their creator, and lose thereby all recompense for the good works they did in life. Some touch food only on the Lord’s Day [i.e., Sunday] after seven days without it. Others cut that time in half by having meals twice a week, while others eat every other day. The latter demonstrate that they cherish austerity and abstemiousness, but still obey nature’s laws and yield reluctantly to the body’s necessity, stopping to this need only when they perceive that their physical capacity has utterly expired and can no longer sustain their labours virtuously. Each of them is suffused with such fervour for angelic conduct that he rises to mimic the austerities [of other monks] by being content with little, striving to transcend his innate deficiencies with an abundance of zeal.
Caesar’s coinage has no currency among them, since they know neither buying or selling. Each freely offers the other what he needs and take back whatever remains. Vegetables, fruits, an occasional loaf of bread – such is the generosity among them, using anything at hand to represent tokens of charity. Such love is demonstrated, not by the cost of the materials involved, but by the magnanimity of the outlay; in this way a wealth of intention becomes conspicuously clear even in gifts that are small.
"
"
However, the Saracens (Saraceni), whom we never found desirable either as friends or as enemies, ranged up and down the country in a brief space of time and destroyed whatever they could find. In doing so, they were like rapacious birds of prey (kites) which, whenever they have caught sight of any prey from on high, seize it with swift swoop and quickly take off. Although I recall having told of their customs in my history of the emperor Marcus [in one of the lost books], and several times after that, yet I will now briefly relate a few more particulars about them.
Among those descent groups (gentes) whose original home extends from the Assyrians to the cataracts of the Nile and the frontiers of the Blemmyians [an Ethiopian people], all alike are warriors of equal rank. They are half-nude, wearing dyed cloaks down to the crotch, ranging widely with the help of swift horses and slender camels in times of peace or of disorder. No man ever grasps a plough-handle or cultivates a tree, none seeks a living by farming. Instead, they roam continually over wide and extensive tracts without a home, without fixed settlements or laws. They cannot endure the same sky for long and the sun of a single district never makes them content.
Their life is always on the move, and they have mercenary wives, hired under a temporary contract. But in order that there may be some appearance of marriage, the future wife, by means of a dowery, offers her husband a spear and a tent, with the right to leave him after a stipulated time, if she chooses to do so. It is unbelievable how much effort both sexes give themselves up to sexual passion. Moreover, they wander so widely as long as they live, that a woman marries in one place, gives birth in another, and rears her children far away, without being given an opportunity for rest.
They all feed upon game and an abundance of milk, which is their main sustenance, and on a variety of plants, as well as any birds they take by hunting. I have seen many of them who were wholly unacquainted with grain and wine. So much for this destructive people (natio). Let us now return to our original theme.
"
"
(14.2) In fact, this was not the only calamity to afflict the East with various disasters. For the Isaurians [a people in Pisidia in southwestern Turkey] too, whose approach is to keep the peace at one moment and put everything in turmoil by sudden bandit-activities (latrocinii) at the next moment, abandoned their occasional secret plundering expeditions.
As impunity stimulated for the worse their growing boldness, they broke out in a serious war. For a long time they had been inflaming their war-like spirits by reckless outbreaks, but they were now especially exasperated. In relation to the shameful treatment of some of their associates – who had been taken prisoner and thrown to beasts of prey in the shows of the amphitheatre at Iconium, a town of Pisidia – they publicly engaged in an outrage without precedent. In the words of Cicero [For Cluentius 25.67], like wild animals generally return to the place where they were once fed when they are hungry, so all the Isaurians, swooping like a whirlwind down from their steep and rugged mountains, made for the districts near the sea. Hiding themselves there in pathless lurking-places and defiles as the dark nights were coming on — the moon being still crescent and so not shining with full brilliance — they watched the sailors. And when they saw that they were sound asleep, creeping on all fours along the anchor-ropes and quietly making their way into the boats, they came upon the crew all unawares. Since their natural ferocity was fired by greed, they spared no one, even of those who surrendered. Instead, they massacred them all and, without resistance, carried off the cargoes, either because of their value or their usefulness.
However, this did not continue long because, when the fate of those whom they had butchered and plundered became known, no one afterwards landed at those ports. Instead, avoiding them as they would the deadly cliffs of Skiron, they coasted along the shores of Cyprus, which lie opposite to the crags of Isauria. As time went on and nothing came their way from abroad, they left the sea-coast and withdrew to that part of Lykaonia that borders on Isauria. Blocking the roads with close barricades, they lived there by stealing the property of the provincials and of travellers. Anger at this aroused the soldiers quartered in the numerous towns and fortresses which lie near those regions. Each division strove to the best of its ability to check the marauders as they ranged more widely, now in solid bodies, sometimes even in isolated bands.
But the soldiers were defeated by their strength and numbers. This was because the Isaurians were born and brought up amid the steep and winding defiles of the mountains. They bounded over them as if they were a smooth and level plain, attacking the enemy with savage howls. Sometimes our foot soldiers in pursuing them were forced to scale lofty slopes, and when they lost their footing, even if they reached the very summits by catching hold of underbrush or briars, the narrow and pathless tracts allowed them neither to take order of battle nor with mighty effort to keep a firm footing. Meanwhile, the enemy, running here and there, tore off and hurled down masses of rock from above, they made their perilous way down over steep slopes. Or if our foot soldiers were forced by dire necessity to make a brave fight, they were overwhelmed by falling boulders of enormous weight. Therefore, extreme caution was shown after that, and when the marauders began to make for the mountain heights, the soldiers yielded to the unfavourable position. When, however, the Isaurians could be found on level ground, as constantly happened, they were allowed neither to stretch out their right arms nor poise their weapons, of which each carried two or three, but they were slaughtered like defenceless sheep.
Accordingly these same bandits (latrones), distrusting Lykaonia, which is for the most part level, and having learned by repeated experience that they would be no match for our soldiers in a stand-up fight, the Isaurians made their way by retired by-paths into Pamphylia. Pamphylia was long unmolested, it is true, but through fear of raids and massacres, it was protected everywhere by strong garrisons, while troops were spread all over the neighbouring country. Therefore they hurried in order by extreme swiftness to anticipate the reports of their movements, trusting in their bodily strength and activity. But they made their way somewhat slowly to the summits of the hills over winding trails. When, after overcoming extreme difficulties, they came to the steep banks of the Melas [Manavgat River, Turkey, near Ptolemais], a deep and eddying stream, which surrounds the inhabitants like a wall and protects them, the lateness of the night increased their alarm, and they stopped for a while and waited for daylight. They thought, indeed, to cross without opposition and by their unexpected raid to destroy everything before them. But they endured the greatest hardships for no reason because, when the sun rose, they were prevented from crossing by the size of the stream, which was narrow but deep.
"
"
(27.9) Now in Isauria bandits (praedones) were over-running the neighbouring places, harassing towns and rich villas with unrestrained plunder, and inflicting great losses on Pamphylia and the Cilicians. Musonius, the deputy-governor of Asia at that time [368 CE], who had formerly been a teacher of rhetoric in Attic Athens, perceived that, since no one resisted the bandits, they were devastating everything with complete destruction. Finally, finding the situation deplorable and finding that the luxury of the soldiers made their assistance week, he gathered together a few half-armed troops, whom they call Diogmitians and attempted to attack one group of the bandits, if there was opportunity.
But in passing down through a narrow and winding pass Musonius came into an ambush from which he could not escape, and he was killed there with those whom he was leading. When the bandits, very excited by this success, with greater confidence extended their raids in various directions, at last our troops were called out and after killing some of them drove the rest to the rocky retreats in the mountains where they live. Then, since no opportunity was revealed there for taking rest or finding anything good to eat, they called a truce and asked that peace be granted them, following the advice of the citizens of Germanicopolis, whose opinions were always decisive with them, as if they were those of the standard-bearers in battle. Then they gave the hostages that were demanded, and remained quiet for a long time, without venturing on any hostile act.
"
"
In particular, Tyler Creer (2020) convincingly argues that the ethnographic digressions on Romans which you can read further below are, in part, quite consciously drawing on or alluding to Ammianus’ characterizations of other foreign or “barbarian” peoples, such as Gauls (link), Persians (link), and Pontic peoples (link). He does so in order to critique certain behavioural tendencies at Rome. Note, for instance, the comparison between the bad sexual behaviour of some Romans and the tendencies of female monarchs among Parthians, Egyptians, Carians, and Palmyrenes. See also Ammianus’ complaint that some Romans behave like the worst of all “savages,” the Taurians north of the Black Sea. Compare the excessive drinking of some Romans with his depiction of a “descent group greedy for wine” in his account of Gauls (link) and, generally, set the Roman decline into luxury alongside his account of “effeminate” and luxury-loving Persians, particularly with respect to clothing (link). Despite the supposed decline in Roman mores among some, Ammianus seems to hope for a full return to some idealistic picture of the Roman past, but on Roman elite terms.
While Ammianus’ two passages critique both the Roman elites and the common people, it is important to notice that it is only a few of the Roman elites who are under fire while the entire body of the plebeians is condemned for their lifestyles. Somewhat typical Roman elite class prejudice is at work here. Moreover, despite the critiques and calls for a return to the good old days, Ammianus ultimately presumes Roman elite supremacy over all other “savage” peoples and over the lower strata of the population at Rome itself.
"
Re: Warduke
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2026 6:04 am
by kFoyauextlH
I'm not totally sure, but as far as I'm aware there are not too many images or sculptures depicting injuries.
I'm wondering if there was some kind of policy to avoid mutilating the face for some reason, which is why the helmets had the faces fully exposed a lot of the time.
"
In the same line of thought, Walters has convincingly argued
that Roman citizens lost their masculinity when their body was violated.
The Roman soldier was an exception to this rule if his wounds were
the result of a beating in the interest of military discipline or inflicted
during battle, but nevertheless he was “dangerously like the slave, that
ever-present, unmanly inferior and outsider.” 10
An important factor that determined whether the integrity of the
body was preserved or endangered was the position of the injuries. Scars
on the back of the body hinted at the soldier having fled during the
battle. Because of this cowardly deed he lost his dignity (dignitas), the
honor of his body (decus corporis) was threatened, and he no longer had
virtus.11 Virtus is a general concept and includes all positive, male vir-
tues or qualities. With regard to impaired and disfi gured veterans, these
virtues are courage, fearlessness, perseverance, and the readiness to die for the Roman Republic. Besides, as Baroin argues, scars on the back
also had a strongly cultural and stigmatizing value, being associated with
slaves who had been beaten by a rod.12
Scars to the front of the body showed evidence of bravery during
battle.13 They did not, however, guarantee a positive judgment by the
Roman population, for scars damaged and deformed the body and made
it ugly.14 This was certainly true for impairments that were difficult to
conceal, like facial disfigurements, the loss of a limb, or lameness.15
Medical writings are concerned with scars left by wounds and offer rec-
ipes to avoid permanent marks on the body. 16 The body’s beauty played
an important role in one’s image, as the various statues of Roman heroes
with their untouched, beautiful, muscled, and symmetrically propor-
tioned bodies prove. Vergil also writes: “Virtus (male bravery) is more
pleasing when it appears in a handsome body” (Aen., 5.344).
Although the principles of physiognomy did not apply directly to
disfigured and impaired veterans—for physiognomy only analyzed
congenital externals—the appearance of these veterans still played an
important role. Deep-rooted prejudices about congenital deformities
played, wittingly or not, a role in the judgment of persons who were
mutilated during their lifetime. The general tendency to equate beauty with virtue was a steady value in Roman consciousness. 17 In addition,
like scars on the back, Baroin argues, scars on the face also had a cul-
tural and stigmatizing value, since criminals and escaped slaves received
branded or tattooed stigmata on the forehead. 18
Ia. Case Studies: Advantages and Disadvantages of War Injuries
One should always take the author’s intention into account when in-
terpreting stories of war-wounded soldiers. The simplistic scheme of
honorable and dishonorable scars in relation to their position on the
body is valid and useful in analyzing literary sources about bravery
on the battlefield. Writers often listed soldiers’ merits and military
honors (decora) together with the injuries, for they were equally val-
ued, leading soldiers to boast about both. 19 Soldiers who continued to
fight despite their injuries are especially praised for their courage and
perseverance (pertinacia). 20 This representation of the military virtue
of devotio (obedience, dedication and self-immolation) generated its
own literary topos in which wounds are used as metaphors for her-
oism, similar to the practice in ancient Greek literature, as Salazar’s
study shows. 21
A representative selection of Roman examples: Livy 4.28.8; 10.17; 26.44.9; Suet.,
Jul., 68–69; Caes. Civ. 3.53; Plu. Cat. Ma. 1.5–6; Cic., Rab. Perd., 13.36–37; J. BJ, 1.193;
Sen. Constant. 19.3; De Libero (above, n.13) 175–77. Tacitus (Ger. 7) ascribes the same
ideal to Germanic warriors. Even more remarkable is the admiration for Catiline’s soldiers.
Despite being portrayed as conspirators against Rome, they are praised as brave warriors
because their bodies only showed scars on the front after they were killed in battle, which
indicated that they had fought bravely, Sal. Cat. 61. Greek sources present a similar view,
D.S. 8.12.8; Arr. An. 7.10.1–2; For an analysis of the treatment of war wounds in ancient
Greek literature, see Salazar 2000 (above, n.1), 126–208
Now we will look at attitudes towards wounded soldiers after their
retirement. We will show by means of several examples what benefits
and disadvantages someone could experience because of his war wounds
and in what manner these veterans dealt with their deformity. As the
following case studies will show, the literary topos of heroic injured sol-
diers refl ects only partially the Roman attitudes in reality.
Starting with the advantages, some politicians capitalized on their
war years by wearing no tunic underneath their toga at the elections. In
this way, a part of their chest was bared to reveal their scars of bravery
(the evidence of their military service), by which they hoped to receive
the people’s vote. 22 Military prestige paved the way for individuals to
pursue a political career. According to generally accepted beliefs, Ro-
mans who distinguished themselves in the army were considered eligible
political candidates.23
In lawsuits, the war hero’s status could also play a decisive part.
Some would show their war scars in court to increase their authority
and to convince the jury of their virtue and dignity through their past
service for the Republic. Highlighting the rhetorical climax by showing
scars on one’s chest seems not to have been a unique event in a court of
law.24 The same rhetorical strategy was also applied outside the court of
law by poor and powerless veterans who demanded reciprocal loyalty
from Rome, especially by ex-soldiers who ended up in slavery owing to
debts. As proof of their service to Rome (merita) they showed their scars
(cicatrices). On the one hand, they strengthened their argument, and,
on the other hand, they won over the sympathy and support of the peo-
ple (plebs) .25 Soldiers in service who suffered from excessive labor and
corporal punishments also saw themselves as being degraded to slaves (in modum servorum) and were concerned about losing their dignity
as Roman citizens. 26 This kind of hardship led repeatedly to threats of
mutiny. 27 Ultimately, the soldiers’ bodily mutilation grew into a powerful
symbol of their demand for gratia from Rome.
Some soldiers became aware of the possible advantages and the pres-
tige to be gained by their war injuries and exploited them. In Plautus’
comedy Curculio, a soldier named Curculio appears on stage with an
eye patch. He tries to attract attention by claiming that he had fought
bravely during the war, while he actually had been wounded in the eye in
an ordinary fight in an inn. His story has, however, little persuasiveness
because his antagonists question the correctness of his words and mock
him.28 Plautus’ play suggests that soldiers boasting about their exploits
while showing their scars was a historical reality, at least around the time
(second century BC) it was written and perhaps also in later periods when
it was still performed. The personage of Curculio was probably based on
(ex-)soldiers’ behavior that was considered stereotypical and that must
have held some truth in order for the audience to appreciate the humor.29
Scars are usually the only solid evidence of one’s virtus. Anyone
can, after all, tell exciting and heroic stories about themselves. 30 People
from both the higher and the lower classes could prove their bravery on
the field.31 For the lower classes this was often the only possible way to
do so. The aristocracy, on the other hand, could appeal to their ances-
tors’ good name and reputation via the imagines maiorum, or family
portraits. Only the aristocracy had the privilege of carrying these family
portraits at funeral processions, at which their ancestors’ various bene-
factions were commemorated with speeches. 32 A clear example of the
protest against this privilege is Marius’ speech, constructed by Sallust to deliver a moralizing message. Marius was not an aristocrat, but he had
managed to climb the social ladder and had joined the political elite as
homo novus, a new man, and he stands for consul at the next elections. 33
To prove he has at least as much virtus as the aristocrats, he says:
I cannot, to justify your confidence, display family portraits or the
triumphs and consulships of my forefathers; but if occasion requires,
I can show spears, a banner, trappings and other military prizes, as well
as scars on my breast. These are my portraits, these are my patent of
nobility, not left to me by inheritance as theirs were, but won by my
own innumerable efforts and perils.
(Sal. Jug. 85.29)34
Through his speech, Sallust gives Marius’ scars a positive meaning and
compares them with military rewards and family portraits. Thus, Sallust
describes how Marius uses his mutilation as a weapon in the electoral
battle, probably because his military actions were his only credentials,
and at the same time Sallust criticizes certain members of the aristocracy
who have personally accomplished nothing but rather live on the repu-
tation of their forefathers. His speech delivers a message critical of the
social structure with a remarkable conclusion: war wounds and virtus
are inseparable. This argument conflicts with the Roman ideal of beauty
and Vergil’s words stated above.35
In Rome, some citizens bore an odd family cognomen that referred to
disfigurements. In semi-mythical storytelling, Livy tries to explain some of
these names by associating them with war heroes’ mutilations.36 A known
example is Gaius Mucius, a mythic figure who wanted to show his deter-
mination to the Etruscan king by putting his right hand in the fire until
it was completely scorched. The Etruscan king was so impressed that he
concluded peace with Rome. Henceforth, Gaius Mucius was given the
nickname Scaevola, meaning left-handed, which was passed on to his de-
scendants.37 Another semi-mythical example is Publius Horatius, who was
named Cocles (one-eyed) after he had lost his eye in defense of Rome.
The cognomen Cocles is especially noteworthy because in other instances one-eyed people were often ridiculed and compared with a cyclops.38 The
historical value of these semi-mythical stories is nil, but they represent the
mores of the period of their composition, which is difficult to reconstruct,
at least until the time of Livy. Perhaps these semi-myths originate from
the storytelling of families about their own glorious past. Although disfig-
urement and impairment were often associated with vice, in these cases
they served as a kind of honorary nickname. In the same context, physical
anomalies on Roman portraits from the first century BC and AD were possi-
bly part of aristocratic families’ identities, as Dasen argues.39
If we look beyond the literary topos of heroism we get a glimpse of the
different challenges and attitudes soldiers with disfigurements had to face
upon their return to society. As the following examples will show, the con-
ventions of the literary topos of heroic injured soldiers and the dichotomy of
honorable and dishonorable war wounds did not always hold up in real life.
There were veterans who were not in the least proud of their inju-
ries. Afraid of being ridiculed and losing their dignity, they withdrew
with shame from public life. Even people from the higher classes did
not want to run the risk of being publicly humiliated. Spurius Carvilius,
for example, was consul twice during the third century BC. He avoided
public appearances because he limped heavily due to a war injury. His
mother tried to remove his shame with encouraging words: “Why don’t
you go outside, my Spurius? Each step you take will remind you the
same number of times of your virtues (tuarum virtutum).” 40 This story,
whether historically accurate or not, indicates it was not self-evident that
impaired and disfigured soldiers, regardless of their social status, would
be welcomed as heroes by society. 41
V. Dasen, “Autour du portrait Roman: marques identitaires et anomalies phy-
siques,” in A. Paravicini Bagliani, J.-M. Spieser and J. Wirth, eds., Le portrait. La représen-
tation de l’individu (Florence 2007) 26–28
Some veterans were left with impairments not related to military
service. In a fictional court case a war hero preferred to be blinded for
robbing a prostitute of her sight so he would not be sentenced to be her
guide. Someone noted that his deformity would not be regarded in the
same way as it would have been had he suffered it in battle, and thus was
not honorable.42 Some other veterans were accused of bearing scars not
related to the battlefield. In one of his polemics Cicero accuses Antonius
of baring scars that came from a gladiatorial fight, an activity unworthy
of a Roman citizen. Thus Cicero attempts to blemish Antonius’ reputa-
tion as a trustworthy politician. 43 In both cases, the impairment and the
disfi gurement were despised by society.
There was a very thin line between ridicule and admiration, and
admiration could suddenly change into ridicule or vice versa. This was
also true for veterans who suffered from injuries due to their military
service. By way of illustration, we return to 167 BC, right after the Third
Macedonian War (171–168 BC), the year in which Aemilius Paulus’
triumph was under discussion. 44 Aemilius Paulus ended the war, but
Servius Sulpicius Galba did not grant him a triumphal procession. Ini-
tially, Galba was more convincing, until Marcus Servilius Pelux Geminus
became involved in the debate and sided with Aemilius Paulus. To make
his arguments more persuasive he hinted at the scars in the front of his
body: “My body is covered with honorable scars, every one received in
front” (Livy, 45.39.16). 45
While Marcus Servilius Pulex Geminus undressed, he explained
the origin of each injury on his body. In his enthusiasm he revealed by
accident the swelling in his groin (tumor inguinum), which resulted in laughter from the bystanders. Marcus Servilius Pulex Geminus was not
thrown off balance and won back the listeners’ respect:
This which you are laughing at I got from sitting on horseback night
and day, and I am no more ashamed of this than of my other scars;
it has never hindered me from serving the commonwealth faithfully,
either at home or on the field of battle. As an old soldier I have often
shown this body of mine, hacked with the sword, to the young ones.
Let Galba strip and show his smooth skin with not a scar upon it.
(Livy 45.39.18)
45 C. Roberts, tr., Livy; History of Rome (New York 1912). Other individuals also
used their war wounds to persuade their audience. The following two semi-mythical ex-
amples prove the importance of martial values that was cultivated by authors in the first
century BC and AD . For instance, Gaius Marcius Coriolanus (fifth century BC), who had
been accused of tyranny, pointed during the climax of his apology to the scars on his chest
as proof of his benevolence to Rome and convinced a large part of the population, D. H.
7.62; Marcus Manlius Capitolinus liberated many veterans from their debts and slavery,
which was not appreciated by the patricians, who accused him of demagogy and tyranny.
Capitolinus, previously the hero of Rome due to his blockage of the Gauls’ invasion of the
Capitol (390 BC), was declared an enemy of the Republic. He hinted also at the scars on his
chest during his defense, Plin. Nat. 7.103–104; Livy 6.14.6; 6.20.7–9
With these words he contrasted his own mutilated body, an indication
of personal merit and bravery, with Galba’s intact body, an indication
of inexperience and lack of personal prestige. Moreover, he knew how
to present his embarrassing physical disorder as something glorious. By
confronting the listeners with his services for the Republic, he converted
their laughter into reverence and respect.
A second example, given by Seneca as a training exercise for law-
yers, concerns a war hero who lost both his hands in battle. On his
return home the hero discovered his wife in bed with an adulterer. He
reached for his sword, for he had the right to kill his wife and her lover,
but he was unable to grip it. At the same time, his wife and the adulterer
laughed at him. As an act of despair, he tried to block their flight with
his mutilated body (truncum corpus). In the end, the hapless war hero
was left standing and thought back to his many victories and his spoils
of war. He never thought he would feel the loss of his hands until the day
he caught his wife with another man without being able to take proper
action.47 “Was it then for the benefit of adulterers too that I lost my
hands?” (Sen. Con.1.4.2).48
The wounded hero stated that he was prepared to sacrifice his hands
to the safety of Rome, but obviously he did not agree with the impunity
of his adulterous wife and her lover. That was why he called on the
help of the Roman Republic (Te, res publica, invoco, quae manus meas possides). 49 This story provides an opportunity for lawyers to train in
their declamations for instances when law and ability are in conflict (in
this case, the wronged husband is not able to kill the adulterer though
he has the legal right to do so). Although disability is not the focus of
interest here, this story is so absurd that it is hard to think that Seneca
is not mocking the war hero. The irony of the impotent hero and his
clumsiness recall comedy more than tragedy.
The complexity of attitudes Romans had towards a disfigured soldier
is illustrated well in the following case study. Sertorius was known as a
brave soldier in battle with the Cimbri and Teutons and also during the
War of Allies in 91–88 BC . He was even compared to Hannibal because
of his military qualities. During one of the fights he lost an eye, which
made him visibly mutilated.50 The esteem that was connected with his
war wounds appeared to be considerable. He enjoyed great fame and he
prided himself over the loss of his eye while he extensively elaborated on
his war deeds. 51 The majority of the people and Sertorius himself seemed
not to be bothered by his conspicuous facial deformity. The aristocracy,
however, saw Sertorius, who was of low birth, as a threat to their au-
thority. Out of envy, the historians at that time did not include him in
their historical works. Or they presented his mutilated face as something
disgraceful and ascribed to him a dehonestamentum corporis, that which
dishonors the body.52 The fact that Setorius fought against the Romans
with the Lusitanians and the African forces during the Sertorian War
(80–72 BC) also contributed to this negative judgment, which attests to
the importance of social and political context in a person’s evaluation.
Sertorius is not the only one-eyed man who was looked upon with fear
and disgust. Tacitus describes Claudius Sanctus, leader of Legion XVI,
as effosso oculo dirus ore, ingenio debilior (“detestable in appearance,
after having one eye stabbed out, and even more infirm in intellect") and portrays him as a general of low caliber after his defeat against the
other one-eyed Batavian commander Civilis. 53 The adjective dirus stems
from the language of augurs, which bears the meaning of ill-omened,
and is also frequently used to characterize someone as detestable. In his
Ode 2.12, Horace uses the same expression to describe Hannibal, the
emblematic archenemy of Rome.
In Aulus Gellius (2.27), we find an additional reason for the neg-
ative portrayal of Sertorius. Aulus Gellius cites Titus Castricius, who
comments on both Philip II of Macedonia and Sertorius and their behav-
ior regarding their war wounds. Despite their similar visible mutilations,
Castricius advocates admiration for Philip II and scorn for Sertorius.
Inspired by stoic values, Castricius criticizes Sertorius for rejoicing in his
bodily disfigurement and describes his behavior as insolens et immod-
icum (“unheard of and extravagant”) because he valued his mutilated
body too much, which contrasts with the ideal of indifferentia (“indif-
ference”). Following this stoic line of reasoning, soldiers displaying hon-
orable scars on their chest would be equally frowned upon. Philip II
is praised for his indifference regarding his injury. Castricius, however,
has been very selective in the use of his sources and deliberately ne-
glected elements in the story that did not fit the stoic ideal. According
to Pseudo-Demetrius (De Elocut. 293), Philip II forbade anyone from
mentioning the term “cyclops” in his presence, for he felt ashamed of his
mutilated face. Historical representation was of course not Castricius’
primary concern. From this passage we conclude that the disapproval of
rejoicing in war wounds reflects the thoughts of a small group of aristo-
cratic supporters of stoicism, but this episode is in no way representative
of the mentality of the majority of Romans.
We find ambiguity like that toward Sertorius in the attitudes towards
the one-eyed Flavus, the brother of Arminius. In Tacitus (Ann. 2.9), Ar-
minius asks whence came Flavus’ facial disfigurement (deformitas oris),
to which Flavus names the place and battle he fought and the rewards
he received for his bravery. Flavus links the loss of his eye directly to his
merits on the battlefield and the military honors (increased pay, neck
chain, crown, and other military gifts) he received. Tacitus character-
izes him, unlike Sertorius, as “a man famous for his loyalty” (insignis
fi de) because he did not turn against Rome. Flavus is linked to another one-eyed Roman hero, Horatius Cocles, rather than to Sertorius, Hanni-
bal, or Civilis, all once enemies of Rome, whose facial disfigurements are
referred to negatively. Arminius, however, interpreted his brother’s lost
eye as a price paid for his submission to Rome and his military honors
as a price of low value in exchange for slavery (vilia servitii pretia).54
Again, this passus suggests that external factors—in this case politically
motivated—were far more important in determining how a soldier’s dis-
fi gurement and impairment were valued than its intrinsic meaning.
In Roman elegies, we also see how a soldier’s reputation suffers from
his disfigured and impaired body. The poet-lover often competes with an
(ex-)soldier over a girl. To harmfully portray the soldier as booty-seeker, the
poet-lover characterizes him as effeminate and his wounds as a sign of greed.
These elegies clearly show the soldier’s masculinity and status as hero were
negotiable in both the literary and nonliterary sphere, as Tohm argues.55
From the moment ex-soldiers became part of civil life, they were
no longer certain of their status as glorious heroes. Mutilation could
contribute to a soldier’s heroic status, but it could just as well induce
ridicule and disdain. Partly for this reason, veterans often chose to marry
into military families so as to form their own community in their cities.
In that way, impaired and disfi gured soldiers could integrate into society
with their fellow fighters’ support. The latter would be able to empathize
with the impairment and the mutilated fellow soldiers’ appearance.
Because of the strikingly ambiguous attitude towards mutilated vet-
erans, we do not agree with the speculation of Salazar, later elaborated
by Samama, who states that Romans attached less importance to exter-
nal beauty and perfection in comparison with the Greeks. According to
Samama, Romans were inclined to perceive war wounds in a positive
manner due to their hardiness. She suggests that the Romans interpreted
war scars solely as tokens of bravery, as opposed to the Greeks, who did
not take pride in their war wounds: “The Roman fascination with the
body image of elder citizens as noble and tired, from the last years of the
Republic to the first century CE, made it easier for soldiers to swagger
around showing off their scars or mutilations.” 58 Her study, however,
exposes a difference in the representation of soldiers wounded in war
in literary sources. Indeed, Roman sources mention more soldiers dis-
playing their scars, but there is at least also one known Greek example. 59 Moreover, the absence of glorified soldiers showing off their scars in
Rome’s visual art contradicts her argument. The ambiguity towards im-
pairments and disfigurements might explain this absence.60
As Salazar argues, there are similarities between the representation
of wounded soldiers in Roman literature and visual art. But one import-
ant difference is the (quasi-) absence of war wounds in the latter. 61 Tra-
jan’s column (scene XL) depicts two wounded Roman soldiers. One, a
praetorian legionary, is supported by two soldiers and the other, an aux-
iliary, receives medical treatment. Wounds are not visible on the relief.
This scene tells its audience that both Roman and non-Roman soldiers
made sacrifices for the empire and that soldiers received the medical
care they required. 62 The mural from Casa di Sirico in Pompeii depicts
Iapyx, who treats Aeneas’ thigh wound. Here the wound is depicted but
not overly emphasized. The wound cannot cause any confusion because
Aeneas’ reputation as hero is uncontested. 63 Descendants of Sergius
Silus, however, deliberately chose not to depict his severed right hand on
coins. There is only an indirect reference to his impairment as he holds
both a sword and severed head in his left hand. 64 While there seems to
be some reserve in the visualization of Roman soldiers and their war
wounds, Greek art often shows injured warriors. The interpretation of
the latter is debated. Some think the wounded fallen hero symbolizes
a beautiful death while others assume the opposite and focus on the
physical disfigurement and the deprivation of his armor and personal
belongings. Notably, both themes are present in Greek literature. 65 Lit-
erary topoi, however, do not always correspond with topoi on visual art.
Saunders points out that the dichotomy of honorable and dishonorable
wounds in relation to their position on the body which we find in Greek
literature is not present on red-figure vases of the sixth and fi fth century
BC because back wounds are not ascribed a negative meaning.66
Against Samama, Evans argues that the display of scars became so-
cially unacceptable in ancient Rome from the Hannibalic War (218–201
BC) and states that the Romans did not like this kind of exhibition.67
On the wounded corpse of Sarpedon on the Sarpedon Krater (515 BC), see J. Neils,
“The ‘Unheroic’ Corpse: Re-reading the Sarpedon Krater,” in J. H. Oakley and O. Palagia,
eds., Athenian Potters and Painters. Volume II (Oxford 2009) 212–19; more generally, see
C. Marconi, “Images for a Warrior. On a Group of Athenian Vases and their Public,” in C.
Marconi, ed., Greek Vases: Images, Contexts and Controversies. Proceedings of the Con-
ference Sponsored by the Center for the Ancient Mediterranean at Columbia University,
23–24 March 2002 (Leiden 2004) esp. 35–36
Perhaps this was true for the Roman aristocracy, but his conclusion is a
bit too strongly formulated; as we have seen, men like Marius, Sertorius
(both first century BC ), and Flavus (first century AD) were not ashamed
of their disfigurements and became popular (the latter is unknown for
Flavus). Sertorius did not bother to cover his facial disfigurement and
went to public events like the theater, where the people applauded him. 68
Also Plautus’ plays Curculio and Miles Gloriosus, as I have argued, must
have reflected a reality (at least during the aftermath of the Hannibalic
War in the second century BC ) of boasting soldiers who displayed their
war wounds. In accordance with Leigh’s argument, 69 we agree that the
display of scars, or at least the mentioning of them, was a powerful
means of self-promotion, especially for men with no other credentials
than their military exploits. In the context of political elections, war
injuries may have served as valuable identifiers. The display of scars
and other physical anomalies were important distinguishing features of
individuals in the administration, as papyri show. 70 I do not, however,
dismiss Evans’s argument that the display of scars was not in all circum-
stances a guarantee of success. The ideal of an intact body played a sig-
nifi cant role as opponents (socially, politically, or ideologically) used the
negativity of the mutilated body against veterans. This produced various
outcomes for injured veterans. Thanks to their war wounds, some (like
Marius) knew how to accumulate prestige and capitalize on their status
as battle-scarred veterans. Others (like Sertorius) were less tactful in
making use of their status as war heroes, which caused great resistance.
Finally, there were impaired veterans (like Spurius Carvilius) who were
ashamed and who did not want to run the risk of being humiliated.
The sources we have analyzed so far in this article relate to Roman
attitudes during the late Republic until the early imperial era. During the
subsequent centuries the reputation of impaired and disfigured veterans
remained subject to discussion. For instance, in the third century AD
emperors repeatedly confirmed in response to questions from citizens
that the recipients of a medical discharge maintained their good repu-
tation (integra fama). This type of discharge was introduced during the
early Imperial period for soldiers no longer fit to serve due to a physical or mental defect. 71 We suggest further research should focus on source
material from late antiquity (third century and later). Then we can inves-
tigate whether there was an evolution in the perception of impaired and
disfi gured soldiers and what infl uence the introduction of Christianity
may possibly have had.
II. Chances of Upward Social Mobility
The second part of this paper examines the career prospects that
impaired and disfigured veterans had in society. For men of both the
lower and the higher classes, a successful military career could be a
springboard to a successful career as a civilian. 72 One who received a
promotion in the army had a considerably greater chance of holding
a local political or religious office after his resignation. For people of
the lower classes, the army was often the only way to move up the so-
cial ladder. Also for men from the highest social strata, the army was
an important part of their career. To access the senate and finally the
highest political office of consul, one had to complete an obligatory
track of offices and functions better known as the cursus honorum.
One of its early stages was to serve as military tribune in the army. In
passing through the course’s stadia, politicians became familiar with
several disciplines: the army, finance, administration and organiza-
tional functions, and jurisdiction. In that way, they were prepared to
eventually hold the highest office of consul. But the question presents
itself: did impaired and disfigured soldiers have the same career op-
portunities? In other words, did legal restrictions against practicing
certain political or religious functions exist for people with a dis-
ability? Or, put more theoretically, when was impairment or even a
disfigurement considered as debarring one from practicing a political
or religious office?
This question is not easily answered because the Romans did not
have a definition of “disabled” or “handicapped.” Instead of starting
from a general framework and general rules, the Roman legal texts al-
ways deal with concrete examples of physical defects. This is why it is not possible to make statements about “impaired and disfigured vet-
erans” as one group. 73 Based on juristic comments and the career of
some impaired and disfigured Romans, we can draw several general
conclusions. First we deal with the career opportunities in politics and
afterwards we discuss the possible restrictions preventing impaired and
disfi gured veterans from holding religious office.
IIa. Political Offices
As is done in the juristic commentaries, we subdivide according to hand-
icap. The fi rst is blindness. On this matter, the jurist Ulpian is very clear.
He writes:
The better opinion is for us to say that he can hold the office of magis-
trate which he has already obtained, but should be forbidden to aspire
to a new one; and this rule has been established by many examples.
(Dig. 3.1.1.5) 74
Magistrates who became blind during their term of office were al-
lowed to continue their function, possibly because they were already
settled into that position and had earned a reputation. 75 The term “mag-
istrate” includes many political offices, including the whole cursus hon-
orum.76 Thus to soldiers who lost their sight no political career was
granted.77 Ulpian also states that they were even not allowed to sue in
court, a considerable civil disability, because they cannot revere the in-
signia of the magistrate.78
Ulpian also mentions explicitly people who became blind in both
eyes.79 Visually impaired soldiers or soldiers who were blind in one eye
could still make a career for themselves. Sertorius, for example, lost one
eye in battle and yet put himself forward for plebeian tribune and lost
the election in 89/88 BC , but was later appointed praetor in 83 BC. Lucius Minucius Basilus, former officer in Caesar’s army, lost his eye in battle as
well and held the office of praetor in 45 BC .80
People who limped due to a paralysis or rheumatic pains could also
hold many offices, among which the highest office of senator and even
princeps senatus.81 The career of Marcus Aemilius Scaurus confirms
that the senate was accessible for persons with a mobility handicap. He
was promoted princeps senatus though he could barely keep himself on
his feet (tarditas pedum).82 During his term of office, princeps senatus
was not merely an honorary position, as Rome was engaged in war with
Mithridates VI of Pontus. In addition, Marcus Aemilius Scaurus was
closely involved in the War of the Allies (91–88 BC) and supported the
Italians in their demand for Roman citizenship. 83
The praetorship was also accessible, as is proven by Sergius Silus’
career. He lost his right hand during the Second Punic War against Han-
nibal. Afterwards, he still participated in various other wars. Pliny notes
that this was possible because Silus wore an iron prosthesis that was
attached to his shield. This passage is very interesting because it serves
as a rare reference to prostheses being used in ancient times. 84 During
the battles Silus suffered several more injuries, which caused his feet
and left hand to be paralyzed. Eventually, after the war, he was elected
praetor of Rome (197 BC) despite the various physical defects (debilis
miles). 85
As De Libero suggests, offices with a military jurisdiction (cum im-
perio), like consul, were more difficult to access for people with an im-
pairment. The ability to ride a horse and wield a sword were important
criteria.86 To support her argument, De Libero refers to stories in Dionysius
of Halicarnassus (5.25) and Servius (ad A. 8.646) about Horatius Cocles, who became paralyzed (διὰ τὴν πήρωσιν τῆς βάσεως) and was expelled from
serving as consul or in any other military function. Remarkably, the loss of
his eye is not mentioned as an objection to holding offices cum imperio.
In addition to De Libero’s argument, it seems the required physical
fitness for an office cum imperio was not strictly defined but indeed nego-
tiable. A few case studies support this assertion. First, the least convincing
passus situated in a semi-mythical era is found in Livy. Titus Quinctius
(fourth century BC) had a successful military career, but he decided to
resign due to lameness (pes alter ex volnere claudus) and return to his
estates.87 So far this story confirms the former hypothesis. Later on he was
declared commander (imperator) of a cohort.88 The story of Titus Quinc-
tius, however, is not convincing, as he is forced by mutinous soldiers to be
their commander. A passage in Tacitus (Ann. 13.14.4) about Sextus Afra-
nius Burrus is more conclusive. As head of the Praetorian Guard (prae-
fectus praetorio), Burrus was responsible for the emperor’s safety, since
he exercised the highest military power in Rome. Nevertheless, Tacitus
characterizes him as debilis Burrus (“handicapped Burrus”) and having a
trunca manus (“mutilated or severed hand”). This passage suggests that
someone with a physical impairment was not necessarily denied access to
a function cum imperio. Finally, there is Hordeonius Flaccus, who was in
command of the army in Upper Germany despite being disabled by age
and lameness (senecta ac debilitate pedum invalidum).89
Contrary to Salazar, who argues that the consulship was inaccessible
for people with a handicap,90 an explicit ban on practicing an office cum
imperio for people with a specific impairment is not to be found in any
source. There is, however, talk of the consul Marcus Fabius (and possibly
the consul Spurius Carvilius Maximus Riga), who voluntarily resigned in
time of war. 91 Thus, whether or not a disability constituted disqualifica-
tion for the consulship seems to have been primarily a practical consid-
eration. As long as somebody could fulfill his offi ce unhindered, there was no need to resign. But, of course, when Rome was at war, a consul
had to be able to discharge his military tasks properly.
Generally speaking, we can suppose the Romans had a pragmatic
attitude when it came to accessing political offices. Ducos convincingly
argued that the negative symbolism of mutilated bodies did not count.
On the contrary, Roman jurists seemed to be favorable towards impaired
(and disfi gured) veterans who wished to start a political career.92
IIb. Religious Offices
Was Roman law equally flexible in regard to the holding of religious of-
fices? This was not the case according to an influential study by Wissowa
in 1902.93 He states that priests and other people who were associated
with religious acts could not show physical defects, because an impure
body was considered a bad portent (malum omen). 94 A mutilated body,
which was often vaguely referred to as non integrum corpus (Sen., Con.
4.2) or corporis labe insignitus (Gel. 1.12.3), was regarded as a defiled
body, according to Wissowa. The statement that bodily impurities were
systematically excluded from the sacred field is still reiterated by histo-
rians today.95 This is not strange considering that similar regulations are
found in other ancient cultures. The Greeks, for example, were very cau-
tious about defi lement (in Greek μίασμα) because of physical defects.96
Also the J tradition gives evidence of the same objections to bodily
impurities in a religious context,97 as in the following example:
The Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come
none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the
food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man
who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye
defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles . . . ’”
(Leviticus, 21.16–24; New International Version)98
According to the sources, such restrictions did not appear to hold among
the Romans.99 This is proven by an overwhelming number of reports
of Romans who, despite a physical anomaly, still held a priestly office.
There are examples of priests with bodies full of scars. Marius, for exam-
ple, used his scars as proof of bravery in order to move as homo novus
in the highest circles of Rome and hold the office of augur. 100 Marcus
Aemilius Scaurus suffered from serious mobility difficulties, but it did
not exclude him from priesthood.101 Certain health conditions, however,
did apply to the priestly office.
Cicero writes about Quintus Mucius Scaevola, who was an ordained
augur (129 BC). He remained augur until his death notwithstanding his
bad health: “Consumed by old age, wasted by disease, crippled, stricken
in arm and leg, and disabled.” 102 But Cicero adds: “[He] displayed the
strength of his mind.” 103 Good mental health thus appears to be im-
portant for the priesthood. Also the sense of hearing and the power of
speech had to be flawless. There is an example of L. Caecilius Metellus
Delmaticus, a pontifex maximus, the highest priestly offi ce, who suf-
fered many months of anguish because he experienced speech problems while rehearsing the formula for the dedication of the temple to Ops
Opifera.104 In the same order, Aulus Gellius writes the following about
the Vestal Virgins: “She must be free too from any impediment in her
speech, must not have impaired hearing, or be marked by any other
bodily defect” (Gel. 1.12.3).
Also here we see the emphasis on the importance of a good sense of
hearing and powers of speech. Both were, of course, important condi-
tions for letting the ceremony pass off flawlessly, since presiding meant
to pronounce the prayers correctly and at the right moment. 105 This ex-
plains also why priests had to have good mental health.106
Lastly, there is the famous passage in Pliny about Sergius Silus, who
suffered from various impairments (the loss of his right hand, his feet
and left hand paralyzed). 107 As praetor, he was also responsible for the
offerings at the Ara Maxima Herculis and he presided over the games for
Apollo. According to Morgan and Baroin, his colleagues demanded that
he should be debarred from sacrificing. 108 Pliny, however, mentions that
they wished to keep him away from the sacred rite (sacris arceretur), 109
both as active participant and as passive spectator. This broader inter-
pretation indicates his colleagues politically attacked Silus and used the
complaints concerning the pollution of the cult under false pretences.
First, Silus was elected praetor, which included the priestly duties, after
he already had lost his right hand and was paralyzed in his feet and left
hand. Second, we know he was not forced to step down as praetor, as he
carried out his duties without a problem. 110 Third, it also seems highly
unlikely that disfigured people were not allowed to be present at sacrifi-
cial ceremonies, especially in 197 BC, immediately after the Second Punic
War, when many other Romans would have borne physical marks.111 We must also recall the one-eyed Sertorius and Lucius Minucius Basilius,
who became praetor, seemingly without any obstacle. The sources avail-
able do not mention any controversies about their religious tasks despite
their facial disfigurement and impairment.
How should we evaluate the statement made by Wissowa? The gen-
eral sayings of ancient authors, on which Wissowa based his writings, in-
dicate one’s physical integrity played a more important part in religious
offi ces than in political ones. But the concrete examples just referred to
refute the existence of a general interdiction of physical defects for the
priesthood. The Romans possibly had a preference for priests with an
intact body, but that did not always correspond with reality, especially
since many priests had a military career behind them. In addition, be-
cause of the Romans’ living conditions, there was a high incidence of
disease and mutilation. It is therefore no coincidence that many Romans
bore a cognomen referring to a physical defect.112
III. General Conclusion
Generally we can conclude that a great difference existed between, on
the one hand, the official or juridical view on impaired and disfigured
veterans and, on the other hand, the general sociocultural attitude to-
wards impaired and disfi gured veterans. The Roman jurists’ opinion was
relatively favorable towards impaired soldiers. Many impaired soldiers
had various opportunities to aspire to a civilian career. The Roman ju-
rists tended to reason pragmatically and come to ad hoc conclusions.
According to the community model of disability, 113 we may conclude
that a physical impairment was rarely judged as disabling.114 Only when
a physical defect hindered a veteran fundamentally in his fulfillment of a
political or religious office was access not permitted From a sociocultural point of view, the future offered but few cer-
tainties for impaired and disfigured soldiers. They could live their lives as
heroes, but they could just as well be ridiculed, pitied, and marginalized,
and thus live their lives on the fringes of society. War injuries contrib-
uted to both positive and negative perceptions. Various factors played a
part, but veterans did not always have a hand in this matter. Few legal
restrictions prevented impaired and disfigured veterans from holding
a political or religious offi ce. Personal rivalry, however, drove some to
seize on their opponent’s physical defect as an excuse to discredit his
reputation and sabotage his professional career. The right network and
one’s personal attitude and resilience were necessary to survive in the
competitive and severe Roman society.
My analysis has been based on individual case studies, and its main
focus is on offi ces held in Rome, as ancient historians tend to give less
attention to ordinary people’s lives. Its conclusions, however, are also
extend to veterans aspiring to political and religious offices at a lower
level. In regard to politics, successful military service facilitated career
prospects, which for most veterans would be on a municipal level. 115 It
is reasonable to assume that a similar lack of restrictions applied to the
holding of local offices. As for religious offices, veterans were keen on
the office of fl amen, for which probably similar rules applied regarding
one’s physical condition as did for the priesthood in Rome. 116 This paper
has restricted itself to Roman religion. Obviously, many other religions
were practiced in the Empire for which further research is required both
diachronically and geographically. 117
"
Added in 3 minutes 49 seconds:
Also the guy's name:
"
In September 249 the army of Decius declared him emperor, in opposition to Philip the Arab. He defeated and killed Philip in a battle near Verona, after which the Roman Senate confirmed Decius's appointment and honoured him with the name Traianus, a reference to Emperor Trajan.[2][3][4]
In or around September 250,[5][6] Decius appointed both his sons caesars[7] and in May 251 Herennius Etruscus was elevated to the rank of augustus, which made Decius and Etruscus co-emperors, with Hostilian as the heir of either or both of them.[2][7][8] In June 251, Decius and Herennius Etruscus were killed by the Goths at the Battle of Abritus, and Trebonianus Gallus was declared emperor. To placate the public after this abrupt change of rulers, Gallus elevated Hostilian to augustus.[9][2][10] After a short period as co-emperor, Hostilian died in circumstances which are still disputed.[10] His death is sometimes dated to November,[2] but contemporary sources indicate that he died in or before August, probably in July.[5][6] Aurelius Victor and the author of the Epitome de Caesaribus say that Hostilian died of a plague. Zosimus claims that he was killed by Trebonianus Gallus.[11] Gallus's son Volusianus became the new co-emperor.[2]
Some historians identify Hostilian as the Roman general depicted in the Ludovisi Battle sarcophagus, but this is unlikely given that all of his coins depict him as a beardless young boy.[12] It's possible that both Hostilian and Herennius Etruscus were still children or teenagers at the time of their death.[12]
"
"
Records in Italian courts of an investigation indicate that the krater was looted from an Etruscan tomb in the Greppe Sant'Angelo near Cerveteri in December 1971. The krater was sold to the Metropolitan Museum of Art by Robert E. Hecht, an American antiquities dealer living in Rome, for US$1.2 million on November 10, 1972.[5] Hecht, who was accused of trafficking in illicit antiquities, claimed to have acquired the krater from Dikran Sarrafian, a Lebanese dealer, whose family had been in possession of the piece since 1920. Evidence suggests that Hecht may have purchased the krater in 1972 from Giacomo Medici, an Italian dealer who was convicted of selling stolen art in 2005.[6] Hecht denied the charges.[7]
Thomas Hoving, director of the Met and the primary negotiator in the purchase, later said in his memoirs, Making the Mummies Dance, "An intact red-figured Greek vase of the early sixth century B.C. could only have been found in Etruscan territory in Italy, by illegal excavators".[8] To allay concerns, some six months after the krater was bought he prompted the Metropolitan Museum to send a private detective to Zurich in an endeavor to reinforce the cited Sarrafian provenance.[9]
In 2006, following the trial of Giacomo Medici and related disclosures about antiquities smuggling, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Italian government signed an agreement under which ownership of the Euphronios Krater and several other pieces of art was returned to Italy in exchange for long-term loans of other comparable objects owned by Italy. The krater remained on display at the Metropolitan Museum until January 2008, when it returned to Italy. It was unveiled in Rome on 18 January.[7] The krater was displayed at the Villa Giulia National Etruscan Museum in Rome from 2008–14 until it was moved as part of a temporary display in the Cerveteri Museum celebrating the UNESCO World Heritage Site affiliation for the necropolis at Banditaccia. Following the increase of attendance at the museum, the Cultural Heritage Minister, Dario Franceschini, has announced that the krater will remain at the Archaeological Museum of Cerveteri as part of a strategy of returning works of art to their place of origin.[3]
Details from the krater's obverse have been used as a book cover illustration. The Penguin Classics deluxe edition of Robert Fagles' English translation of the Iliad employs a close-up of Thanatos for its front cover, and a close-up of Sarpedon for its back cover.[10]
"
"
The sale of a Euphronios Krater to the Metropolitan Museum of Art for $1 million in 1972 catapulted Hecht into instant fame and international problems. The Italian authorities claimed that the vase was excavated illegally in Cerveteri, north of Rome. An American Grand Jury, investigating the Euphronios Krater at the request of the Italian authorities — whose evidence came from a tomb robber — found the provenance unproven. In 2000, the Italian authorities found Hecht’s handwritten memoir in his house in Paris and those were used as evidence against him at his Italian criminal trial. In 2006, continuing pressure from Italy led Philippe de Montebello, director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, to negotiate a deal that gave the Italian Republic ownership of the vase.
Hecht had wrangles with both the Italian and Turkish authorities but was acquitted in the only lawsuit to reach Italy's Supreme Court of Cassation (Suprema Corte di Cassazione).
After his death in 2012, a stolen Roman stone coffin (Sarcofago delle Quadriglie) returned from his private collection in London to the town of Aquino, Italy.[3] The coffin was stolen from the “Madonna della Libera” church in Aquino in September 1991. After 21 years of investigations, the artifact came back to the collection of the municipal museum of Aquino.
Items smuggled from Turkey into Switzerland passed through the hands of Robert Hecht. Investigators have been able to recover stolen artifacts by making inquiries into Hecht’s past dealings.[4]
J. Paul Getty Museum controversy
edit
In 2005 Hecht was indicted by the Italian government, together with Marion True, the former curator of antiquities at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles, for conspiracy to traffic in illegal antiquities. The primary evidence in the case came from the 1995 raid of a Geneva, Switzerland warehouse which had contained a fortune in stolen artifacts.
Italian art dealer Giacomo Medici was eventually arrested in 1997; his operation was thought to be "one of the largest and most sophisticated antiquities networks in the world, responsible for illegally digging up and spiriting away thousands of top-drawer pieces and passing them on to the most elite end of the international art market".[5] Medici was sentenced in 2004 by a Rome court to ten years in prison and a fine of 10 million euros, "the largest penalty ever meted out for antiquities crime in Italy".[5]
The court hearings of the case against Hecht and True ended in 2012 and 2010, respectively, as the statute of limitations, under Italian law, for their alleged crimes had expired.[6]
"
"
Mould described some of the basic concepts for art discoveries, in an article published in the Guardian;
Although [Mould] acknowledged that auctioneers do not have the benefit of cleaning and restoring works, which help to reveal true quality, he added: "As art dealers, we scour daily the world's auction catalogues for paintings that are … wrongly identified … In any week, our finds might range from a misidentified Tudor icon to a misattributed 18th-century landscape … but by a strange chance we seem to have hit a seam of Van Dycks."[3]
"
