Women in military?

[VeniVidiVici]

Had ANY women joined the army in history of Roman military?

I know *normal* women hadn't, but how about exceptionally strong and/or brave ones, or women with special skills so they can work as immunes?

Actually, I heard some Germanic tribes(I forgot the names, sorry) frequently deployed women as supporting units during mid/late Republic times.

 

So, anybody know any women that served in army?

[Lost_Warrior]

Well, the Celts had plenty of women amongst their ranks. The most famous I can think of is Queen Boadica.

 

I can't imagine that at some point, a woman didn't sneak into the legions disguised as a man. I'm sure it happened. I don't know if it's recorded as happening or not, but I'm sure the temptation was there and there must have been tomboys back then too.

[Ursus]

The Iron Age tribes surrounding Rome sometimes employed women as warriors (on a limited basis). I think last year there was an archaeology article stating they found evidence that a few women were serving as Sarmatian auxilliaries (or some other allied people).

[Ursus]

Here is the article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1411715,00.html

 

They were Danubian not Sarmatian, sorry.

[caldrail]

But not in the legions I'm afraid. That was a preserve for men, and only those with an acceptable background, temperament, and physique. Since women were traditionally the property of a father/guardian/husband, how could they properly fit in? In any case, a woman could well have been a distraction. The sort of concerns that modern armies have for women in the front line were even more true back then. However - women slaves of ordinary soldiers are a possibility although I've seen absolutely no evidence for that. The roman legions were an enviroment all of themselves, a world apart, in some ways above civilian law, with a regime for hard physical training and labour that doesn't suit the average female, particularly one brought up not to think or do as men.

[M. Demetrius]

But not in the legions I'm afraid. That was a preserve for men,

And the first trip to the latrina would have been a dead giveaway. Don't think for a minute that word of a female in a camp of a zillion men would not have gotten around....

 

Menstruation. Lowering the right shoulder of the tunic for harder labor, wearing a tunic with no modern female underwear, well, it just wouldn't be a secret for long.

Edited January 9, 2008 by M. Demetrius

[Lost_Warrior]

And the first trip to the latrina would have been a dead giveaway. Don't think for a minute that word of a female in a camp of a zillion men would not have gotten around....

 

I suppose it's possible but not likely. An industrious woman might well have slept with everyone who 'discovered' her...and kept them quiet with promises of more 'sleeping'.

 

Menstruation.

 

This is definitely a difficult thing to hide. Not entirely impossible...but very difficult...at least, by modern standards. Things very well have been different back then, in terms of the way they dealt with this (we really don't know how they dealt with the issue of menstruation...I'm pretty sure they didn't have Kotex back then...so I don't know what they did.)

 

It would also be worth noting that hard physical labor for any extended period of time can make women infertile...so this might not have been an issue for very long.

 

Lowering the right shoulder of the tunic for harder labor

 

What do you mean? Is this something that the legions commonly did? Or is it a habit that women supposedly have of bearing their shoulders when doing hard labor? (because I certainly don't, but I was always a tomboy anyhow. )

Edited January 9, 2008 by Lost_Warrior

[Gaius Octavius]

In training, would a woman be able to carry double weight equipment on a 20 mile march? No beard?

[Melvadius]

Here is the article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1411715,00.html

 

They were Danubian not Sarmatian, sorry.

 

I was interested in this suggestion and have been doing a bit of research on this topic and by burrowing into the website of the archaeological contractors concerned a few further details arose.

 

The site concerned was excavated in the 1960's literally under the blade of bulldozers at times and they recovered about 300 bodies not all of which were (or could be) fully recorded. The scholar who was trying to piece together the evidence into a coherent whole subsequently died in the 1980's and it was only relatively recently that the archaeological contractors 'Barbican Research Associates' took over the cataloging task.

 

As the director Hilary Cool while reiterating the possibility of their being warriors did slip in an admission in a letter to Archaeology magazine in 2005 [see link below] that there remains some abiguity about who precisely the remains of the two women actually were.

 

Numeri is one explanation but equally [or possibly more plausibly in my view] they were simply the spouses of some of the numeri or other soldiers serving at the site in the third century AD.

 

http://www.barbicanra.co.uk/projects.htm#Brougham - main 'facts' on Barbican Research Associates website

 

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba80/feat3.shtml - Original Jan/Feb 2005 'Archaeology' article containing much more details of find

 

http://www.archaeology.org/0505/abstracts/letter.html - subsequent May / June 2005 'Archaeology' article pointing out the ambiguity of the finds

Edited January 9, 2008 by Melvadius

[Lost_Warrior]

In training, would a woman be able to carry double weight equipment on a 20 mile march? No beard?

 

I wouldn't know. Some day I'll try it, and then I'll let ya'll know.

 

As for the beard, I thought Romans didn't wear beards, anyhow?

[Gaius Octavius]

In training, would a woman be able to carry double weight equipment on a 20 mile march? No beard?

 

I wouldn't know. Some day I'll try it, and then I'll let ya'll know.

 

As for the beard, I thought Romans didn't wear beards, anyhow?

 

My Good Woeman:

 

A 'beard' can be anything from a five o'clock shadow to an osama.

[Lost_Warrior]

A 'beard' can be anything from a five o'clock shadow to an osama.

 

I can think of a few women who would get along just fine, in that regard.

[G-Manicus]

A 'beard' can be anything from a five o'clock shadow to an osama.

 

I can think of a few women who would get along just fine, in that regard.

East German swimmers, circa 1970's / 1980's come to mind.

[Melvadius]

In training, would a woman be able to carry double weight equipment on a 20 mile march? No beard?

 

I wouldn't know. Some day I'll try it, and then I'll let ya'll know.

 

As for the beard, I thought Romans didn't wear beards, anyhow?

 

Until around the time of Hadrian it was generally frowned upon by Roman citizens (and possibly prospective citizens) although not necessarily unknown especially amongst auxilliaries as this detail from Trajan's Column seems to indicate:

 

http://www.stoa.org/trajan/images/hi/4.22.h.jpg

 

 

{Edit] I think this may be a better image on this point as it appears to actually show a legionary with a beard:

 

http://www.stoa.org/trajan/images/hi/4.47.h.jpg

Edited January 9, 2008 by Melvadius

[Kosmo]

Here is the article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1411715,00.html

 

They were Danubian not Sarmatian, sorry.

 

Sarmatian was much more correct as Danubian means nothing but a place of origin and not an ethnic/cultural identification. If those in the links provided by Melvadius are right they could be yaziges, a sarmatian tribe that lived on the open plains of Tisza valley, North of Middle Danube. This sarmatians fought Marcus Aurelius during the marcomanic wars and were forced to give many auxiliaries that were sent in Britain. Actually they fought the romans many times and were a dangerous and usually succesfull enemy. It is well known that sarmatians graves show female burried with weapons but details are unclear about them actually fighting (some say that women defended the herds while the man were gone to war) or having weapons as a show of status. Hence the amazons.