Login

08-20-2004, 02:52 AM

Silly question, I'm sure it's been brought up before. I do know I'm not the only female reinactor on the site and I'm wondering how this is "handled". I belive it was not until 200 AD that famales were barred from fighting in the Arenas, and it was not till 590 AD they were barred from fighting all together. However I also know that Romens had a very specific idea of "the women's place is in the home". Females fought with and even led the celts, there were also the Amazons, and female gladiators were not unheard of. Does anyone know of any females fighting with the Romans on the battlefields?? As Auxilliary they would normally receive citizenship after 25 years, but women were not permited to recieve citezenship, so I can see why becoming an Auxilliary had little benifit for them.

08-20-2004, 10:59 AM

Quote:<hr>Lysadra: 
Females fought with and even led the celts<hr> 
 
who says that actually? Any sources? --------------- 
 
<img src="http://home.nexgo.de/berzelmayr/hadrian.gif"/> Est vita misero longa, felici brevis.

08-20-2004, 03:22 PM

Hmm, you are right, found that info at a link. Seeemed reliable. here it is: www.lothene.demon.co.uk/o...women.html 
 
more specificaly here: www.lothene.demon.co.uk/o...enrom.html

08-20-2004, 04:44 PM

I just wanted to point out that the site you posted seems to have an agenda. It apparently takes individual instances of women in combat and uses it to support the idea of women as soldiers through history. 
 
While I believe that in many cultures women could and would fight along side the men, I have no evidence to support it. As such, I have to say evidence shows the instances that site lists as exceptions rather than the rule. 
 
Tom

08-21-2004, 01:47 PM

Lysadra, 
You may find the following site of use: 
www.gladiatrix.info 
It is voluminous and contains a lot of fantasy and movie stuff, but also provides links to many historical articles about women in combat.

Matthew Amt · 08-21-2004, 03:58 PM

Avete! 
 
Isn't it generally assumed that only men were admitted to the Roman army? I don't know if there is a known law to quote about that, or any reference to custom, etc. If so, there certainly wouldn't be any women sneaking in disguised as men, since recruiting started with a physical examination, and even back then most doctors could tell the difference. And any woman who bribed her way past that would stand out in the crowd at the fort's bathhouse. (Even more so if she never went to the bathhouse!) 
 
Be careful about things like Boudica's leadership being used as evidence for women fighting on a regular basis. She was definitely a strong leader, but I don't think it is said that she actually entered combat. There is a line in Tacitus' description of the Germans, that the women were "just as fierce as the men" or something like that. But again, I don't remember that it stated clearly that they fought in battle. If Tacitus had seen a legionary get chased out of a hut by the enraged, cleaver-wielding mother of a local girl, he might make just such a comment. (And I may be mis-remembering the quote!) 
 
Now, from what I've seen there IS at least some evidence for women fighting as warriors in a few times and places. I remember browsing briefly through the Osprey book on the Picts and being quite startled by a few of the very unambiguous references it had. But some of that was from much later than the Roman period. 
 
Overall, I'll admit that it's not a topic I've researched! But it does look like it would be quite rare to see women in combat in most or all of the cultures that Rome had regular contact with. 
 
Valete, 
 
Matthew/Quintus

08-21-2004, 05:49 PM

in the annals by Tactitus 
 
although he mentions women at Anglesy and Boudiccas last battle in both [in the penguin edition] the wording suggests taht the women were not warriors 
 
and may not even have had a combat role I <img src="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.martin/forum/mark.gif
" width="100" height="100" align="right">

08-21-2004, 10:50 PM

I realise that Women could not be Legionairs, and that most cultures the Romans would have come into contact with would not allow women to fight, and of course most women would not want to fight. however, when it comes to Hireing Auxilliary's they were chosen for skill. If (for whatever reason) a women had much skill as a rider, scout, archer whatever, and the Roman army had need of her, is it not reasonable to say they would hire her?? 
 
At least that is the assumption my legion is working on

08-22-2004, 09:01 AM

i cannot recall seeing any evidence for women in auxiliary units. 
 
whether an allied unit could have females would perhaps be another matter- but once again which societies are known to have women warriors- and what were their status? <img src="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.martin/forum/mark.gif
" width="100" height="100" align="right">

Matthew Amt · 08-22-2004, 05:32 PM

Avete! 
 
Well, the auxiliaries were considered a regular part of the army, just like the legions. My assumption would be that the same rules applied, unless there was a solid reference to the contrary. There were times when troops from allied states or tribes fought alongside the Romans, so those would be subject to their own laws and customs and not to Roman law. But they were not part of the Roman army! 
 
If the goal here is to rationalize a woman's presence among other Roman reenactors, I'd go one of two ways. One is to portray a MAN in the Roman army, NOT a woman in a man's army or a woman disguised as a man. Some groups forbid this, of course, and much will depend on how convincingly the lady in question can portray a man. (Heck, some of us guys aren't too convincing, these days...) I have no inherent objection to the concept, since it's a hobby and I think we should be allowed to portray what we like as long as we do a good job of it, generally speaking. But it's not a question my unit has had to answer, yet. 
 
The other option is to dig up some good documentation for one of those cultures in which women DID fight in battle, and portray one of those. You could be an ally of Rome or an opponent, or vacillate as needed, however that works out best for your group. You could even pick something like one of those Scythian "warrior" women whose graves have been excavated and recreate one of them. If there is still debate about whether those women were actual warriors or not, no problem, tell that to the public, then for the battle demo take the position that they were! I think that would be really neat, if done well. 
 
I certainly want to encourage everyone to participate in some way if they can! 
 
Valete, 
 
Matthew/Quintus

**richsc** · 08-22-2004, 11:57 PM

I keep thinking in an age of overpopulation that the value on child bearing and rearing is completely overlooked. When infant mortality, not to mention that the average life span, and taking into account war, disease, famine, etc, was so short, that it is more valuable to a society trying to survive to have as many children as possible, and rear them to adult hood, than to have women as soldiers. The idea that children are less valuable than archers is, I think, a modern concept. Legio XX 
Caupona Asellinae

08-23-2004, 03:03 AM

I must admit I agree with all of you. Women warriors in our history make little sense. And sadly this makes reinacting for the "tom boys" of the Legions difficult. I think I shall look into portraying a young man, and if any one argues, thats their problem. 
 
Wioth so much armour on, it should mask me enough that only close up My gender will be revealed. I'll speak to my officers about this. We are concerned that the out door play we are involved in does not like to use men in women roles, or Women in men roles, but I have earned my position by assisting the legion for several years now.

aitor iriarte · 08-23-2004, 05:53 AM

Lysadra, 
We have two women re-enacting as men in our unit, the late Roman Coh.I.Gallica. They fill the ranks perfectly but they have refused to wear armour, due to the weight. Therefore, we employ one of them as vexillarius and, the other one, as a second row soldier. 
I think that it is clear that there were no women-soldiers in Roman army but, as Matt has stated, this is a hobby, we're in it for fun and everybody should be allowed to portrait what she/he wants, given that the overall scheme of the group is not ruined! 
 
How is it going with our women-soldiers now? Well, this is not intended to be doctrinal or the like (about preaching from a soap box ) but they've found out the women's clothes of the period are far more attractive than those of men and they only dress as men for 'mass' maneouvres and then quickly change into women's clothes. That's been their choice and they take a hard work changing clothes twice in every festival, which the rest of us admire! 
 
Aitor

08-23-2004, 08:37 PM

I must say, I'm, a little different then your women Aitor Iriarte. Not only do I make some of the Maille for our group, I am perfectly capable and willing to wear it (lol). It's a bit of an ongoing joke with every one that I'm more "manly" then my brother who's also in the legion ("We need a real man for this job... Jake, go get your sister"). I've been working on building up my strength so My draw wieght will be higher, and I can go for extended periods of time with my armour on.

08-23-2004, 09:05 PM

Wow, I'm impressed Lysadra, go you! 
 
I recently went to a Military time-line event at Old Sturbridge Village in Sturbridge, Massachusetts and they had people representing soldiers from King Phillip's War all the way to Amercian Civil War. They had a rather large group of the Confederate "Liberty Grays" and they had not one, but two (as best as I could see) women in thier ranks. ACW reenactor friends of mine tell me it's not really a big deal in many groups to have women in the ranks - and from what I remember them saying there had been even a few instances of actual women figthing in the civil war. Also, in the Higgins Armory Sword Guild, we have about half a dozen or so women who are learning longsword, rapier, sword and buckler...You name it, and even doing public demos. 
 
The best deal is that according to Royal Armouries Manuscript I.33 "Walpurgis Fechtbuch", recently translated to English by the museum's curator Dr. Jeffrey Forgeng (and available from Chivalry Bookshelf) It shows a woman (possibly Walpurgis) fencing/fighting with the Master...And that is the earliest known fencing manual (late 1200-mid 1300). 
 
But for the Romans, I doubt women would have gotten far trying to get into the Legions. I'm sure some tried. Besides, if it was just one woman with 5,499 men...I think it'd get a little...um...interesting 
 
Anyways, to make a long story short - I say go for it! I figure as well as most people here - the more the merrier! Find an impression which suits you best (pun intended) and have fun! 
 
BTW - the abomination known as "Xena" - wasn't that "based" on an actual "Warrior Princess"? I thought I saw a refrence to it somewhere but I don't remember now. -ANDY ~ Your Friendly Neighborhood Roman Dude. 
 
Svaviter in Modo, Fortiter in Re (Soft in Manner, Strong in Deed) 
 
www.higgins.org

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me