The Defeated!

In AD62, two Roman legions, the XII Fulminata and the IV Scythica, led by the Roman Legate of Cappadocia, Lucius Caesennius Paetus suffered a devastating and humiliating defeat at Rhandeia by an Armenian-Parthian army led by Tiridates 1, king of Armenia and aided by his brother, Vologases 1, king of Parthia. Twenty-four-year-old Centurion Marcus Fabius is a survivor of that battle.

The Defeated!
by Chrisus

Through the capriciousness of the goddess of misfortune, Mala Fortuna and the ineptitude of the Cappadocia legatus, Lucius Caesennius Paetus, I, Marcus Fabius, centurion of the XII Fulminata Legion, now find myself a slave of the Persians.

Captured by the victorious Parthian army, I, together with the other survivors of our defeat, was subjected to the ultimate humiliation of “sub iugum” or passing under the Persian yoke.

Stripped naked and with our wrists bound in front of us we were made to pass between two long rows of jeering Persian soldiers, who whipped us mercilessly until we came to the yoke where we sullenly bent our backs in submission and passed under. No longer were we free Romans; from that moment we became Persian slaves.

Waiting on the far side of the yoke were the blacksmiths’ anvils and branding irons. After we were ignominiously branded, we were fitted with the accoutrements of slavery - the heavy iron collars and manacles which restricted our movements - and then sent to a slave market in the Parthian capital.

Now, I stand naked and shackled on a display podium as I am examined by potential buyers. What is bewildering is the difference between the professional Parthian soldiers – members of the only barbarian army to inflict such devastating defeats on our invincible Roman army - and the men who are now looking to buy me.

Without exception, these men are effeminate with their perfume-reeking bodies, carefully coiffed wigs of tight, black curls, their kohl blackened eyes, rouged cheeks and red stained lips. These “men” appear more like the painted whores of Rome’s Suburra district rather than the manly soldiers who defeated us at Rhandeia.

I fear Persian men are sodomites who use the asses of their male slaves for their vile and abominable practices.

By the gods! My worst fears are confirmed as I am commanded by an elderly, painted pervert to bend at the waist and to part my buttocks as he fingers my anus.

Oh! Bona Fortuna, goddess of good fortune, why have you abandoned me?

4 Comments

  1. 31118azti - April 23, 2019, 10:39 pm

    Interesting short story…thanks.

  2. Drum - April 24, 2019, 7:40 am

    A very interesting nd promising start to what could be a highly erotic tale. Nicely illustrated, too.

  3. gworley - July 26, 2020, 8:34 pm

    Not sure a Roman Centurion would have used a Hebrew term for male to male sex as the Romans had male to male sex all the time and didn’t come into being as meaning homosexuality in the late 1400’s to the early 1500’s. A Jew would not have used the word to mean homosexuality as for one, to them the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah was not defined in the text of the Torah and as for two, the modern day conception of homosexuality did not exist — To Romans of the time marriage was to provide a first born male so that the man would have an heir to his wealth. Same sex activity happened the Roman baths. In the ruins of Pompeii was found pornography constituting of male/female, female/female, and male/male sex acts. It was also so common for a Roman male citizen to take on a 14 to 18 years old boy and teach him how to have sex with male to male sex acts. The term sodomy was a mistranslation of a Hebrew word. Most of us gay people want the term changed to some less derogatory term.

    Factual Error: The Battle of Rhandeia took place in 58 CE not 64 CE.

  4. Chrisus - September 25, 2020, 5:04 pm

    Thank you for your comments and I am sorry for the delay in replying but I have just noticed them. Of course you are correct; the ancient Romans didn’t have words for either heterosexual or homosexual acts and did practise all forms of sexual activity. However, the Roman virtue of “Virilis” or manliness was practised and while a free Roman could indulge in male on male sex there were restrictions placed on him. There was a law, the “Lex Scantina”, still open to interpretation – which forbade a free Roman man from adopting a passive role – in other words he couldn’t be penetrated. A free Roman adopting a submissive role became “infamia” and he and his family lost legal and social standing. The Romans had a highly derogatory and insulting word for such free men – “scultimidonus” which meant “arsehole bestower” – and it was a course of great shame.

    Slaves in Roman society weren’t men; they were object viewed as “talking tools” and as such, they could be penetrated by a free Roman man and so sex between a Roman Master and his slave was acceptable as long as the Master maintained the dominate role. As you rightly mention, such activities are shown in murals, etc at Pompeii and elsewhere. However, human nature being what it is, no doubt, there were free Roman men who did accept the passive role but I think given the attitudes and mores of Roman society this would have been done in secrecy.

    Again you are correct. Free, Roman men often “adopted” a young boy as a favourite. But for the most part, these were slaves and usually they were identified as such by the special name given to them by their master. For example, a Roman named Lucius would call such a slave “Lucipor” a contraction of the term “Lucius puer” or literally “Lucius’ boy.”

    Most historical accounts record the Battle of Rhandeia took place on the 15 November 62 AD thus bringing an end to the Roman-Parthian War of 58-63 AD. I based my story on those dates.

    Re my use of the word “sodomy”. I wrote my story for a present day readership and used the word to convey an image. It was never meant to be offensive and I apologise if it offended my readers. I hate words and names “manufactured” in the warped minds of bigots, racists and homophobes that deliberately set out to cause pain and hurt and, as a rule I won’t use them. However, I don’t believe in changing words or eliminating language simply because some minorities take offence at them. For me, the offence isn’t the legitimate word; rather it is a reflection of the state of mind of the reader or a sign of his own uncertainty. And I say that as a gay man.

    Thank you for you comments. I genuinely enjoy hearing from a reader and engaging with them as we have done here. This is what makes writing so worthwhile. So, once again, thank you!

Leave a Reply