Roman female fighter

[SAJID]

Hello to all,
Did any Roman female involve in battle field or not ?
some of my friends are very interest to know the answer
of this question, please explain if possible any image of fight or link.

with best regards-sajid

[richsc]

I don't believe any ever did, except for some speculation about Sarmatian horse archers or such. I think the medical inspection would eliminate women.

However, there is no reason why (we fought over this question years ago) that women can't portray legionaries in our events. Particularly when many of the guys are too old and overweight to look like young soldiers anyway. As long as they keep in mind that there weren;t any women Roman soldiers when talking to the public why not? And if you want cavalry, how many guys know how to ride anyway?

[Youngster]

There is some evidence that women fought as gladiators ( female name would be gladiatrices). This means they would fight in arenas as entertainment, but not on the field of battle as soldiers. They likely would have been armed in a manner similar to their male counterparts. However, I doubt that gladiatrices were very common.

I have attached an example from the British Museum: a relief of two female gladiators apparently named Amazon and Achillia. The women appear to be armed in the manner of provocatores, though without helmets.

[Alanus]

Interesting, but a gladiatrix never went into battle. It would appear the women soldiers/warriors came from "barbarian" ranks, a few recorded Celts, and a slew of archaeologically confirmed Massagetae, Scythians, Saka, Sarmats, Sarmatians, and Alans. Unlike women in Roman society, they held equal status within their respective tribes.

Most were archers, but at least one woman (supposedly a Sarmatian) was buried with all the hallmarks of cataphract. The catacomb grave was found at Akermen on the Molochna, "a young woman, equipped with a bronze mirror, a necklace of glass beads, silver, bronze and glass bracelets, a few wooden vessels and a Greek amphora. Beside her were two iron spear-heads and two lance-heads, a quiver with twenty arrows, and a suit of scale armor." (Sulimirski, Praeger, N.Y., 1970, pp 105-06) Evidently, she meant serious business. mile:

[MagnusStultus]

Interesting, but a gladiatrix never went into battle. It would appear the women soldiers/warriors came from "barbarian" ranks, a few recorded Celts, and a slew of archaeologically confirmed Massagetae, Scythians, Saka, Sarmats, Sarmatians, and Alans. Unlike women in Roman society, they held equal status within their respective tribes.

Most were archers, but at least one woman (supposedly a Sarmatian) was buried with all the hallmarks of cataphract. The catacomb grave was found at Akermen on the Molochna, "a young woman, equipped with a bronze mirror, a necklace of glass beads, silver, bronze and glass bracelets, a few wooden vessels and a Greek amphora. Beside her were two iron spear-heads and two lance-heads, a quiver with twenty arrows, and a suit of scale armor." (Sulimirski, Praeger, N.Y., 1970, pp 105-06) Evidently, she meant serious business. mile:

Having status symbols in your grave that had very real and very strong cultural meaning means you are a valued member of the community not a warrior.

If women had fought in any of those societies we know enough about them to know they would have been equals which we know is without doubt untrue; and through absolute omission we know they did not employ female warriors.

There is nothing that would have shocked Greek or Roman authors more or that they would have obsessed more about if it was true.

To find women in armies study the feminist movement; none of these ancient cultures had it as a practice; nor despite notable exceptions such as Joan of Arc did medieval societies.

Unless you are telling me women were so equal; so common in combat that men such as Julius Caesar didn't think it noteworthy to commit to paper you really have to ask yourself; will you take objects that you could easily explain another way; or the complete lack of literary evidence?

Greeks and later Romans were in constant contact with the cultures you cited. It strains belief that they could have missed it; it strains belief that Arrian would have missed the opportunity to get a lot more publicity from his fight with the barbarians if there had been women in the army he faced.

About "most being archers" the archer if anything has to be stronger than the rest because they have to be capable with the bow which takes a lot of strength, the they have to engage in melee like everyone else; having females be archers is more of a video game way to put them in combat without any disadvantage than one that a woman would chose because even if archery didn't take a great deal of strength (it does) the archers engage in melee combat like everyone else. The bow had a great deal of symbolic and cultural significance in steppe cultures that it didn't in medieval cultures (again objects found in graves have multiple explanations).

Added-What I said doesn't mean there were no Joan of Arcs; but if you claimed women fought in the French Army of the middle ages you would simply be directed to the historical record. A couple of women overcoming societies expectations and engaging in battle doesn't mean that the society was open to women as warriors; it is notable that it was the feminist movement not Joan of Arc that led to women being allowed to join the French Army and that even Charles de Gaulle with not an inch of France to recruit from could not come up with a single position for women who made the extremely tough trek sneaking into Britain illegally to join his free French besides secretary and nurse.

[Renatus]

. . . at least one woman (supposedly a Sarmatian) was buried with all the hallmarks of cataphract. The catacomb grave was found at Akermen on the Molochna, "a young woman, equipped with a bronze mirror, a necklace of glass beads, silver, bronze and glass bracelets, a few wooden vessels and a Greek amphora. Beside her were two iron spear-heads and two lance-heads, a quiver with twenty arrows, and a suit of scale armor." (Sulimirski, Praeger, N.Y., 1970, pp 105-06)

Is there an illustration of this armour?