Prominent Italian historian claims fall of Rome due to homosexuality

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on April 11, 2011 at 8:21am

So ... dear Roberto still eats oysters, but has sworn off escargot?

:-P~~~~~~~~~~~~

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott Bidstrup on April 11, 2011 at 8:38am

That the head of such a prestigious scholarly institution would say something like this can only indicate that he got where he is as a result of his association with one of the most corrupt prime ministers in recent Italian history (and that's saying something!).

 

This guy is clearly pursuing a private agenda (read: bigotry) on the basis of erroneous understandings of both Roman history and the nature of homosexuality.

 

Rome fell because of the greed and corruption of its ruling elite, and homosexuality had nothing to do with it.  That this guy wants to blame it on homosexuality says more about him than it does about ancient Rome.  What it says, of course, is that he isn't a very honest or scholarly historian.

 

And, of course, it takes the typically unscrupulous Murdoch rag like the Daily Mail to give this guy a forum for his patently obnoxious historical revisionism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jameer Logan on May 20, 2011 at 11:40am

Im assuming this man would also say that the fall of the British, German, French, Spanish, Aztec, Egyptian, Babylonian Empire's all fell because of homosexuality. This is ridiculous, why do people use homosexuals as scapegoats for every bad thing that occurs in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if the professor himself ends up being a closet homosexual. If we have learned anything from Ted Haggard is that the most vocal opponents to homosexuality end up closeted.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brian Wood on April 11, 2011 at 10:20am

Well, the Emperor Justinian DID pronounce that "it is well known that buggery causes earthquakes."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott Bidstrup on April 11, 2011 at 11:57am

Justinian may have thought that, but the reality is that earthquakes are caused by geologic forces, not "buggery."  And it is also well understood by historians that it was the greed and avarice of the ruling class that caused the failure of the Roman economy, ultimately bringing down the empire, in precisely the same manner that the greed and avarice of the ruling class is currently bringing down the American empire. 

Even though Pat Buchanan, David Wildmon, John McCain, Sarah Palin and their ilk may think that it is "buggery" that is causing it. 

Which demonstrates that they don't know more about how the world works than Justinian did.  Some things just never seem to change.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gecko, Seth...brother of Richie! on May 20, 2011 at 12:31pm

Uh Scott...I believe Brian was using sarcasim....I could be wrong.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on April 11, 2011 at 10:29am

Homosexuality was present throughout the course of the Roman empire, beginning, middle, and end.  Great roman emperors had sexuality that was at least other-than pure straight, although definitions of straight and gay may not have been the same then as now.  From WIkipedia, ": Edward Gibbon famously observed that "of the first fifteen emperors Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct"

 

also

 

The term homosexuality is anachronistic for the ancient world, since there is no single word in either Latin or ancient Greek with the same meaning as the modern concept of homosexuality, nor was there any sense that a man was defined by his gender choices in love-making; "in the ancient world so few people cared to categorize their contemporaries on the basis of the gender to which they were erotically attracted that no dichotomy to express this distinction was in common use", James Boswell has noted.

 

I doubt that any one concept or behavior was responsible for the fall of Rome, but rather like all cultures, an all creatures, there is a time to die and Rome had outlived it's life span.  I am not a historian however.  Wikipedia writeup here.  It appears that comdemnation of homosexuality was present in the decline of the Roman empire, so maybe it's not homosexuality but the rise of people who condemn it, that we need to worry about.

 

I always thought that CHristianity was responsible for the fall of Rome, or at least a symptom of its decline.  After all, there was no christianity at the start of Rome, and it was a Christian empire at its end.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grace Fitzpatrick on May 20, 2011 at 11:52am

I've heard that, too.  Supposedly, it had a lot to do with the downfall of the vikings as well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott Bidstrup on May 20, 2011 at 1:10pm

Oh, now that's a truly priceless image - a bunch of limp-wristed queens wearing horned helmets, swishing their swords through medieval Britain and sacking the monasteries of Ireland and Scotland, sniffing the underwear as they go.  "Got any more where that came from, big boy?" 

 

That's an image straight out of a Monty Python movie!  I honestly can't figure how these Christians come up with some of this stuff!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by paul babcock on April 11, 2011 at 3:57pm

I may be getting Greek and Roman mixed up, but I thought that guys banging other guys was so common throut the entire Roman era that it was not even considered gay or odd in anyway. And no distinction was even made btwn banging a male or a female.

As I understand it, the distinction that mattered was if a guy was the banger or the bangie, the pitcher or the catcher, a top or bottom man.

I agree with the other posters that it is appalling that someone with these views can manage to be head or spokesmen for any group with enuf stature that what they think is newsworthy at all.

I suppose it isn't really. Murdoch simply has no limits to the depths he will sink in his race to be supreme demagag

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott Bidstrup on April 11, 2011 at 5:52pm

It was Greek AND Roman.  In fact, it was common throughout the ancient world.  Among the ancient Spartans, it was the standard training practice for the army that a new recruit would become the... ahem... "apprentice" to an older soldier who would, more often than not, have his "way" with him as part of the training.  Among the Athenians, it wasn't required, but was a common practice, and that practice continued into Roman times among the Roman legions.  The original language of the story of Jesus healing the "Centurion's servant" did not use that language - it translated accurately as "favorite boy."  Meaning... well, you know what. It was translators, embarrassed that Jesus would heal a queer, on behalf of another queer, who changed the wording.  Homosexual behavior never bore much of a stigma until St. Augustine, with his prudery as a reaction to his own previous nihilism, started preaching a rather austere asceticism.  See my essay on the history of homophobia at http://www.bidstrup.com/phobiahistory.htm

 

The hyperChristian Africans are surprised to learn that prior to the arrival of the bearers of the cross, Africans didn't have any problem with gay people at all, and in fact, many cultures celebrated it.  There is one famous panel in an Egyptian tomb showing a gay couple getting it on, and several others showing two men or two women embracing.  Needless to say, the Egyptians don't show those to the tourists.  See "Boy Wives and Female Husbands: A Survey Of African Homosexualities" by Roscoe and Murray.

 

In the Americas, very few native American tribes had any problem with it either, and among most, it was celebrated, even positively venerated.  See "Spirit And The Flesh: Sexual Diversity In American Indian Culture," by Walter Williams.

 

Culturally institutionalized homophobia is, unfortunately, largely a Christian invention.  Prior to Augustine, nobody thought much about it, not even the Christians, and among them, it didn't make much headway until the 12th Century.  And that is why there are usually no words in ancient languages to describe homosexuality as a sexual orientation.  It was just a part of every day human diversity, and was no big deal.

 

Then the missionaries showed up.  And everything changed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh Kramer on April 12, 2011 at 12:12am

Thanks for the historical background. History is one onf my hobbies but some of this was new to me.

 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page