Was Theodora a rotten slut as alleged by Procopius? Was Justinian

Well she was a literal whore. As in she had sex with strangers for money.

>>283932
Yeah a lot of that stuff was true

But who didn't rape little boys back then

>>283932
All royals ever have been absolute sluts and manwhores.

File: elizabeth_i.jpg (55KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x360px

>>283983

>>283942
Do we really know that for sure?

And if that was the case why would Justinian even marry her

>>283932
>Was Theodora a rotten slut as alleged by Procopius?

Procopius also alleged that Justinian's head was floating around the palace during nights.

Literally, the guy was just writing shit about his boss and his family. Just like today millions of office slaves are writing shit about their bosses on Facebook.

>>284033
Yes we do, nobody ever disputed that, the emperor literally had to change the law for him because it was illegal for an imperial heir to marry a prostitute.

>And if that was the case why would Justinian even marry her
Fell in love with her. And possibly was a kekold fetishist.

>>284008
There was no way she was a virgin her entire life, I refuse to believe it.

>>284033
Most historians now think she was an actress. Actresses were basically equated with whores at the time, which led to the historical conflation.

>>284202
Actresses were whores, it was the exact same thing.

>>283932
>Was Theodora a rotten slut
She was an actress, a profession associated with promiscuity, decadence and even prostitution at the time. And a lot of other times, to be honest.

>as alleged by Procopius?
Probably not as alledged by Procopius. If you have read him, he is clearly exaggerating and some of his anecdotes have to be fantasy.

>Was Justinian really a kek?
We don't know. Maybe. They apparently had a good relationship, but a lot of powerful monarchs have been cheaters. Considering Theodora was playing the I'm like a male monarch game, and Justinian consented, maybe she cheated on him. I'll see it more probable if it was a mutual thing, though.

>>284202

Actresses were literal whores. It was part of the job.

Tbh Justinian probably had bitches on the side like every other ruler.

>>286348

Did Christianity even actually forbid concubinage?

File: tmp_29102-charlemagne_by_byzantinum449554919.jpg (220KB, 900x1195px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 900x1195px

>>286374
I don't know, but I sure wouldn't want to go up to the king and say so.

>>286374
Isn't that considered adultery since you're not sleeping with your wife? Like, even sexually thinking about anybody other than your wife, even if she was going to be your wife eventually but wasn't yet, was supposed to be adultery, wasn't it? I was under the impression that was why we saw a steep decline in concubinage and publicly-accepted promiscuity after the Roman Empire Christianized.

>>286699

I think Christianity still let you fuck your slaves.

>>286789
The Papacy outlawed slavery of Christians several times though. Of course that means it was still prevalent despite their laws, as evidenced by the massive enslavement of pagans by the Italians, Greeks, and Muslims, and the fact that it wasn't until decades after the Norman conquest that slavery was actually banned in England. Slavery mostly died out in Christendom though, since just converting to Christianity suddenly made you legally free, and the institution really wasn't economically preferable anymore, what with serfdom being all the rage. That said, the aforementioned pagan slaves were very popular in the east, and we have records of slaves being bought and sold in Venice well into the late middle ages.

My guess is that concept of monogamy in Christianity just kind of made concubinage less socially acceptable. Slavery and concubinage weren't particularly conflated at the time though, since a concubine was higher than a slave in many respects.

I might have had a point at first, but I think I'm just rambling now.

>>286826
>The Papacy outlawed slavery of Christians several times though

Yes, but enslaving unbelievers and heretics was considered just.

>Slavery mostly died out in Christendom though, since just converting to Christianity suddenly made you legally free,

Muslims had a similar system, didn't really stop slavery on either side. Christians arguably enslaved more than anyone elsein history and Christian slave masters in the Americas later on definitely justified their fucking the Indian and black slaves they had by appeal to scripture. Slavery in almost all parts of the world was somewhat lower than it had been during the classical period since pagans enslaved more than the Muslims and Christians did before 1600-1700. When slaves became a cheap source of human agricultural labor, that's when we see enslavement, particularly of black Africans exponentially increase and neither religion saw anything wrong with this in principle at first

>>286862
The problem here is conflating slavery with concubinage though. Agricultural and domestic slavery is not necessarily distinct from sexual slavery as the people involved would have similar origins, but concubinage were not really considered the same thing. I think we're digressing by putting the two together. Slavery certainly existed, but was concubinage prevalent within Christendom? This isn't an area I'm very well-versed in, so I can't answer that, but I do know that the primary destination for pagan slaves sold by the Italians in the middle ages was "the east." Does that mean concubinage was more prevalent in the ERE than western Christendom? I'd imagine so considering what I know, but I'll have to admit that I don't know. I do know it was, and still is in some places, a significant institution in Islam even after it faded into obscurity in the west.

File: 561.jpg (237KB, 777x1024px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 777x1024px

>>283932
>Was Justinian really a kek?

No but his friend Belisarius is perhaps the biggest CUckold in world history

>>286904

Concubinage=/=sex slavery

File: Dan Schneider.png (270KB, 548x634px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 548x634px

>>284202
>>284235
>>285896
>implying anything has changed

>>286374
Yes. You can only have sex with your wife according to Christian doctrine.

>>286945
>The Council of Toledo, held in 400, in its seventeenth canon legislates as follows for laymen (for ecclesiastical regulations on this head with regard to clerics see CELIBACY): after pronouncing sentence of excommunication against any who in addition to a wife keep a concubine, it says: "But if a man has no wife, but a concubine instead of a wife, let him not be refused communion; only let him be content to be united with one woman, whether wife or concubine" (Can. "Is qui", dist. xxxiv; Mansi, III, col. 1001).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04207a.htm

>>287185
Thanks, I was really wondering about that.

There are currently more slaves in Africa than any other time period.

>>283932
Don't slutshame.

>>283942
Nothing wrong with that. If more women did it, prices would plummet.

>>287185
Wait, am I reading that wrong or does it say a concubine is Ok as long as your not married?

>>283932
i wish i was a lowborn courtier in a minor noble's court and fucked all the royal whores

>>283932
some of the shit she supposedly did comes straight out of my chinese smut comics.

>>287460

yes, that's correct. I guess the Church was less concerned with whether or not you were married and more concerned with just how many people you were having sex with.

Unmarried men could have a concubine as long as that was the only woman they were ever with for the rest of their lives, married or not.

Also, I don't think if a priest or monk had a concubine it resulted in excommunication, though he was encouraged to put her off.

>>283932
Theodora was best waifu