Rulers who forbade rape??
August 16, 2009 6:03 PM Subscribe
I should preface by saying this has morphed more into a rant than a question.
I was wondering if any history buffs out there could name any rulers who were opposed to rape or general unnecessary violence towards women? It seems as though a reoccurring theme in war is to use rape as a weapon....and raping and pillaging seem to be considered as spoils of war to soldiers, a kind of reward offered to the men. Well, I find this idea grotesque and was curious to know if their were any leaders out there who forbade the practice. I recently stumbled upon Piye, who seemed to be against it but I can find no other rulers who share the same point of view.
I am currently reading a fictional book based on Alexander the Great and though he seemed to prefer men and therefore did not take part in raping any of the women whose cities he conquered, he obviously had no problem with letting his men do as they wished. He apparently thought his men "deserved" to do as they wished after they demonstrated their loyalty and bravery etc. I don't understand this mentality at all. Is it a mob type of mentality where men become so overwhelmed with being savage and brutal that they desire to conquer life in every facet? Surely there were some men who simply did not partake in such acts but why did so many seem to find enjoyment in it. Obviously as warfare has changed so too has behavior during it, but if it were still as intimate as hand to hand combat would rape still be a byproduct? I wonder about society today and what fine line we tread between such primal acts and decency. Rape is so rampant today as are violent crimes against women and children, what would it take to make everyday men want to rape women? Just considering the pornography that's out there it doesn't seem too far fetched to think that maybe it wouldn't take much......
I am currently reading a fictional book based on Alexander the Great and though he seemed to prefer men and therefore did not take part in raping any of the women whose cities he conquered, he obviously had no problem with letting his men do as they wished. He apparently thought his men "deserved" to do as they wished after they demonstrated their loyalty and bravery etc. I don't understand this mentality at all. Is it a mob type of mentality where men become so overwhelmed with being savage and brutal that they desire to conquer life in every facet? Surely there were some men who simply did not partake in such acts but why did so many seem to find enjoyment in it. Obviously as warfare has changed so too has behavior during it, but if it were still as intimate as hand to hand combat would rape still be a byproduct? I wonder about society today and what fine line we tread between such primal acts and decency. Rape is so rampant today as are violent crimes against women and children, what would it take to make everyday men want to rape women? Just considering the pornography that's out there it doesn't seem too far fetched to think that maybe it wouldn't take much......
This post was deleted for the following reason: If you realize your question has turned into a rant, please hold off on asking it; that sort of thing is pretty much against the rules. -- cortex
The Byzantine emperor Justinian I didn't forbid rape, but he did enact a pretty progressive anti-sex slavery campaign, recognizing that women don't usually go into prostitution out of a love of sex. He outlawed prostitution, but targeted legal punishments at pimps rather than prostitutes. He also built a few nunneries meant to house ex-prostitutes.
He also passed a law allowing women of ill repute (actresses and other performers) to marry senators, something that had previously been forbidden. He did this so that he could marry the sex performer Theodora, but a side effect was that women born into poverty could improve their lot in life and prevent their children from being forced into degrading performances at a young age.
posted by oinopaponton at 6:20 PM on August 16, 2009 [3 favorites]
He also passed a law allowing women of ill repute (actresses and other performers) to marry senators, something that had previously been forbidden. He did this so that he could marry the sex performer Theodora, but a side effect was that women born into poverty could improve their lot in life and prevent their children from being forced into degrading performances at a young age.
posted by oinopaponton at 6:20 PM on August 16, 2009 [3 favorites]
You're basing what you think Alexander the Great thought on a fictional book you are reading?
And seconding that most modern leaders, are going to oppose that behavior.
posted by C17H19NO3 at 6:21 PM on August 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
And seconding that most modern leaders, are going to oppose that behavior.
posted by C17H19NO3 at 6:21 PM on August 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
I am currently reading a fictional book
I don't understand this mentality at all
why did so many seem to find enjoyment in it.
Evidence of this?
Rape no doubt occurs in time of war, but it is usually down to the individual rather than policy - like theft, smuggling, desertion, forbidden communication, mutiny and a whole host of other activities that are carried out outwith official guidelines and orders during the chaos of war.
posted by fire&wings at 6:23 PM on August 16, 2009
I don't understand this mentality at all
why did so many seem to find enjoyment in it.
Evidence of this?
Rape no doubt occurs in time of war, but it is usually down to the individual rather than policy - like theft, smuggling, desertion, forbidden communication, mutiny and a whole host of other activities that are carried out outwith official guidelines and orders during the chaos of war.
posted by fire&wings at 6:23 PM on August 16, 2009
Well, it isn't so much a reward as a way to immediately seeding the area with descendants of the conquered (historically, that is). Two hundred and seventy days down the road, you have a female who is tied to her own child and therefore to those in power. I'm specifically thinking of the Sabine Women here (although they were also kidnapped).
posted by variella at 6:29 PM on August 16, 2009
posted by variella at 6:29 PM on August 16, 2009
If you're interested in learning more about the subject, here's a wikipedia article on war rape with answers to some of your questions.
Also, very few fragments of Alexander the Great's actual words exist in any form, and I'm pretty sure none of them have to do with rape. Also, he brought about the deaths of hundreds of thousands in a war of naked aggression. So I wouldn't let this be the issue on which you base your judgment of the man.
posted by Bookhouse at 6:30 PM on August 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Also, very few fragments of Alexander the Great's actual words exist in any form, and I'm pretty sure none of them have to do with rape. Also, he brought about the deaths of hundreds of thousands in a war of naked aggression. So I wouldn't let this be the issue on which you base your judgment of the man.
posted by Bookhouse at 6:30 PM on August 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, by the way, nthing that there's no way you can understand Alexander from a fictional work. Even the biographies of Alexander written by people who actually knew him are notoriously slippery things.
posted by oinopaponton at 6:33 PM on August 16, 2009
posted by oinopaponton at 6:33 PM on August 16, 2009
In Europe, at least, the general idea that civilians ought not to be abused during war began during the 30 Years War. See Grotius.
The 30 Years War was terribly destructive, and significant parts of Germany were completely depopulated. Afterwards the various monarchs in Europe began to take seriously the idea that there really ought to be rules about what you could and could not do during a war, especially regarding civilians.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:45 PM on August 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
The 30 Years War was terribly destructive, and significant parts of Germany were completely depopulated. Afterwards the various monarchs in Europe began to take seriously the idea that there really ought to be rules about what you could and could not do during a war, especially regarding civilians.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:45 PM on August 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
It seems as though a reoccurring theme in war is to use rape as a weapon....and raping and pillaging seem to be considered as spoils of war to soldiers, a kind of reward offered to the men.
Looking at this coldly, it probably doesn't hurt an invading general or ruler to say "do what you want, just defeat the enemy," especially if it means the ruler doesn't have to pay them very much. The army would be empowered to be "little kings" i.e. they can do whatever the hell they want with no recriminations. To put it more simply, the soldiers will be granted something better than money or sex: power. Power to do what they want, to whoever they want, making them view with the header ruler favorably.
As to history, check out the orders given for Sherman's March to Sea, which seem to implicitly state that harassing civilians is not allowed, let alone rape. The orders read as genteel invasion, but I'm sure Sherman knew some bad stuff would occur, but that were not in his orders.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:48 PM on August 16, 2009
Looking at this coldly, it probably doesn't hurt an invading general or ruler to say "do what you want, just defeat the enemy," especially if it means the ruler doesn't have to pay them very much. The army would be empowered to be "little kings" i.e. they can do whatever the hell they want with no recriminations. To put it more simply, the soldiers will be granted something better than money or sex: power. Power to do what they want, to whoever they want, making them view with the header ruler favorably.
As to history, check out the orders given for Sherman's March to Sea, which seem to implicitly state that harassing civilians is not allowed, let alone rape. The orders read as genteel invasion, but I'm sure Sherman knew some bad stuff would occur, but that were not in his orders.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:48 PM on August 16, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
I'm sure most modern leaders would say they were strongly against it.
(For example, rape of Iraqi women is a big issue today, but every US leader would strongly proclaim that they were opposed to it, of course.)
I suspect that has been true for a very, very long time.
"Opposed to" doesn't mean much.
posted by rokusan at 6:08 PM on August 16, 2009