Women in the Roman Army

[madoc]

Given the place of women in Roman Society, it's doubtful that any woman would make it into the army.

However, I always wondered about the more specialist auxilia, and numeri units where recruits AND replacements were from specific places (to retain those specialisms). Given the tradition of female warriors in some societies then it's conceivable that a few units may have contained women.

I guess everyone now quotes the find at Brougham as the main example for women in a later, numeri, context. I could not find one from an earlier period .....

What do others think ?

[Tita Iuventia Martia]

Hi,
I am afraid, that there is no evidence, that women could service in the Roman army. I do not know, how was it in Auxiliary units, but in the citizens unit it was not able. I only know about case, when Germanicus wife organized defence of the area infront the bridge over the Rhine, when Germanicus was on campaign, but she was lady and a wife of general Germanicus ;-) ) So, not only ordinary women... I can ask my friends from our Auxiliary unit, whether they have ever seen something about women in the Auxiliary units. I thing expecialy some literary evidence from late republican or principate period.

Excuse me my horrible English, I am begginer...

[Epictetus]

I think it must have been extremely unusual. For instance, take Plutarch’s Life of Marius, where the normal role of women is discussed.

… indignant speeches of his soldiers reached the ears of Marius. "What cowardice, pray, has Marius discovered in us that he keeps out of battle like women under lock and key? Come, let us act like freemen…

Plutarch. Marius, 16.3-4

Contrast this with the remarkable (to Plutarch) barbarian women:

Most of the Ambrones were cut down there in the stream where they were all crowded together, and the river was filled with their blood and their dead bodies; the rest, after the Romans had crossed, did not dare to face about, and the Romans kept slaying them until they came in their flight to their camp and wagons. Here the women met them, swords and axes in their hands, and with hideous shrieks of rage tried to drive back fugitives and pursuers alike, the fugitives as traitors, and the pursuers as foes; they mixed themselves up with the combatants, with bare hands tore away the shields of the Romans or grasped their swords, and endured wounds and mutilations, their fierce spirits unvanquished to the end.

Plutarch. Marius 19.6-7

[Robert Vermaat]

Maybe as barbarian federates.

[Medusa Gladiatrix]

I read some time ago a very interesting article about this topic in the magazin "Antike Welt" Issue 3/2006 which mentioned of course wives of high ranking officers at Vindolanda as the Vindolanda tablets prove. They could also work at the camps as washerwomen, cooks, innkeepers, sewer or sutler.

[Tita Iuventia Martia]

Yes, I also read some article about Vindolanda tablets, about two letters which wrote two matrons to each other. The article about women working as "camp followers" for the roman army is really interesting. Still, we have no evidence that a woman could have served as a soldier in auxiliary units - I think that it was really unusual, but among barbarians it was possible (see Plutarchos).

[Mithras]

Knowing the Roman view of women: no chance!

[Nihonius Legio]

It would have been completely against Roman tradition and culture. Fighting just isnt a role women fill in history. I personally dont think they should be soldiers even today. In Roman times, women were supposed to be weak and subservient to men. They did chores if they were poor, and made babies. Rich women just entertained friends and such, and made babies. Women didnt even usually have the right to chose whether she could keep her child. A man could just throw it in the garbage heap.
Men just fill the role of soldier much better, and tend to be drawn to a soldiers life more than women. If you wanted to be a warrior woman, live in the celtic lands like Brittania and talk with Boudicca

[Tarbicus]

Jared, it's my understanding that it wasn't the father's right to put a sick child out to die, but the Pater Familias'. But, he not only enjoyed many privileges, he could also be punished for the transgressions of his family, and although he may have had legal dominion, social pressure expected him to be fair and just. You should also distinguish between Republican practices and Imperial ones, where women seem to have enjoyed much more freedom during the latter (run businesses, make wills, own land, take up a profession, inherit as heirs, free slaves, etc).

[Nihonius Legio]

Wow, I'd think the rights of women would have decreased in a totalitarian government. Cool, thanks.