WI Rome were not a misogynistic society?

I would like to make myself very clear at the beginning: This is not to decide how they'd stop being one, it's what would be different if they were. Do not speculate as to how, that's not what I'm asking. I suppose maybe put the POD from the founding of the Republic onwards, wherein women are citizens but I suppose, at least at the beginning, that the society is still male dominated- what exactly changes or can change?
 
Roman religion would (have to) change. Private religion had a tremendously important role for the pater familias. This did eventually change in Roman society anyway, but it`d have to come much earlier.

The self-concept of the Roman Republic would have to change, from "the common affairs of the citizens under arms" to, well, something less martial. Which might butterfly Rome taking over the rest of the Mediterranean, or even Italy. OR, which would be the more outlandish thing, women would have to be a part of the armed forces, e.g. as archers. That would make a totally different Roman military.

Just two things off the top of my head.
 
Roman religion would (have to) change. Private religion had a tremendously important role for the pater familias. This did eventually change in Roman society anyway, but it`d have to come much earlier.

The self-concept of the Roman Republic would have to change, from "the common affairs of the citizens under arms" to, well, something less martial. Which might butterfly Rome taking over the rest of the Mediterranean, or even Italy. OR, which would be the more outlandish thing, women would have to be a part of the armed forces, e.g. as archers. That would make a totally different Roman military.

Just two things off the top of my head.

I think this would be better in my opinion- that would essentially make them the settled equivalent of a steppe horde.
 
I think this would be better in my opinion- that would essentially make them the settled equivalent of a steppe horde.
On the other hand, it's not a particularly effective military approach (women, even with modern health/nutrition generally lack the upper body strength to be as successful with iron age weaponry, as even archery takes pretty hefty arm strength to be useful on a military level; you might be able to get by with women as slingers instead, but that's a much more limited role). There's a reason that large scale female armies (as opposed to occasional exceptional women or generals) are almost unheard of until the modern era (where changing technology/military roles make sheer body strength less important).

So it probably does mean a Rome that isn't conquering nearly as much, as their particularly effective military doctrine was one of the reasons they were so successful.
 
On the other hand, it's not a particularly effective military approach (women, even with modern health/nutrition generally lack the upper body strength to be as successful with iron age weaponry, as even archery takes pretty hefty arm strength to be useful on a military level; you might be able to get by with women as slingers instead, but that's a much more limited role). There's a reason that large scale female armies (as opposed to occasional exceptional women or generals) are almost unheard of until the modern era (where changing technology/military roles make sheer body strength less important).

So it probably does mean a Rome that isn't conquering nearly as much, as their particularly effective military doctrine was one of the reasons they were so successful.


They could have women be crossbowers, scouts, and athletes. Also, I feel that, if society remains male dominated, or if the Romans catch onto the strength thing, or if they try to invent to get around it- in fact, it'd likely be a combination of all of these things given Roman determination- that they'd turn out pretty okay.

It's not like having a physical culture for women has to affect their military doctrine.
 

Sulemain

Banned
Maybe more Etruscan influence mean women have more infuence?

Or maybe men dominate foreign and military affairs while women control internal ones?
 
Maybe more Etruscan influence mean women have more infuence?

Or maybe men dominate foreign and military affairs while women control internal ones?

Perfect society:p:D, no but I think that'd be a good middle ground to draw.

Or, one can preserve the gender roles of Rome but divorce it with the moralism? Also, do commanders have to fight all that often?
 
A huge part of the Roman political / cultural mindset was that a Citizen of Rome must be able to serve in the army to prove that they were qualified to serve the Roman state as political leaders. The difficulty in integrating women into the active Roman citizenship body is that you got figure out the political / cultural cover to allow them to serve in the army. The best time for such a PoD would be during the Monarchy shortly after the founding of the city. The latest you might've able to pull it off would be during the early Republic during the struggles with the Etruscans and the other city-states of Latium. After that, the cultural norms won't allow it.
Assuming you decide to have them serve in the army, you could have them be archers, scouts, and perhaps be light cavalry at the start. As Roman women demonstrate their ability to prove their military worth to the Republic (yes the Monarchy would be abolished as in OTL), you might start to see them serving as infantry (with bonus of reducing the chances of desertion as Roman men don't want to seen as having less courage than their women).
In the political sphere, you could still have the Senate be somewhat misogynistic as Roman women will have fewer avenues for a political career (the few female senators and officials would've had a military background). This can be a potential source of instability within the Republic later on (like say after the Punic Wars in which perhaps the alt female versions of Marius and Sulla rise to power).
Lastly the role and powers of the pater familias would to be evolved to take into account the rising political and military power of Roman women. If someone could do a Roman TL with women somewhat more integrated into the Roman political body while at the same time maintaining Rome's historical martial spirit.
 
Latin/Roman civilization arose in an era where complete equality of the sexes, due to various factors, was almost impossible to obtain, especially in a society based on agriculture and centered on cities such as Rome's. However, it is possible for a pre-industrial society that is not nomadic or semi-nomadic to be characterized by a relatively high level of gender equality, dependence on iron age weaponry, high mortality and lack of modern medicine notwithstanding, and Rome was under the influence of one of them early on in its history.

What you're looking for here, is for Rome to become influenced by its northern neighbours, the Etruscans, even more so than in OTL. But, given the huge influence the Rasenna had on Rome, such a scenario would probably lead to Rome's absorption into the Etruscan civilization, and not the other way around.
 
A huge part of the Roman political / cultural mindset was that a Citizen of Rome must be able to serve in the army to prove that they were qualified to serve the Roman state as political leaders.

This is correct for a patriarchal society. In a more emancipated or even slightly matriarchal society (mater familias instead of pater familias) the roman rule, that the comitia are more or less representing the army would not develop. The matriarchs would prevent such a constitution from the beginning.

Men would still focus on war, and there would perhaps be one assembly of male only for recruiting, preparing war, electing officers and generals and such. Probably still summoned and led by a female high-magistrate. But this would not be the highest and really important assembly.

Also in such a society, the magistrate would look fully different. You would see women as quaestors at least for the city, as praetors and aediles. And if you organize the consuls a bit different the one consul who stays in Rome and leads the sessions of the senate could be a women. The "imperium" as almost royal power always including military power, as the one and only foundation of government, would also not develop as it did. So you could end with a lot of women, if not a majority in the senate.

Very theoretical and fully ASB for ancient times. But the assumption, mentioned above more than once, that women have to participate in warfare by all means in order to rule the state is not mandatory. Not in the OPs theoretical and fully unroman construct.

I also doubt, that it is mandatory, that Rome never makes it beyond Latium with such a matriarchal system. Women in politics seem to be more rational and relaxed, but not less ambitious and cruel. Well, if the rest of the world is patriarchal, the resistance and hate against roman rule would be enormous. And this is why this little experiment would most probably fail in ancient times. If these matriarchs don't invent something even more clever than the roman socii-system.
 
Last edited:
A huge part of the Roman political / cultural mindset was that a Citizen of Rome must be able to serve in the army to prove that they were qualified to serve the Roman state as political leaders. The difficulty in integrating women into the active Roman citizenship body is that you got figure out the political / cultural cover to allow them to serve in the army.

What if they go the Spartan route and 1: see producing children for the state as a sort of "battle" equal in importance to fighting in the military, and 2: put emphasis on women's martial activities in the theory that skilled martial women make for skilled martial children.
 
What if they go the Spartan route and 1: see producing children for the state as a sort of "battle" equal in importance to fighting in the military, and 2: put emphasis on women's martial activities in the theory that skilled martial women make for skilled martial children.

At the end of the day though, the mindset of the Greco-Roman city-state is that for a citizen to have their voice officially heard (i.e. full voting rights), one must be able to fight in defense of their city, and that's very difficult to shake off. My ideas in my last post takes into account that reality. Rome can still evolve and expand outside of Italy as in OTL and Roman women would certainly accept the concept of the citizen-soldier if they're allowed to serve in the army.

The difference is that in OTL the Roman state had to deal with issues brought on post Punic Wars by too rapid expansion, and the inability of the conservative Senate to deal with both the decline of the small landowning class and the demands of non-Roman Italians for full political rights.

In TTL the Roman state in addition to the above, will potentially have to deal with Roman women veterans demanding full access to the political offices. The key here is the role and powers of the pater familias. If the pater familias evolves to deal with and comes to terms with female civil and military officials, then Rome will have a easier time full integrating Roman women fully into the political system. On the other hand, if the pater familias stays as in OTL, the major players of the later civil wars of the 1st century BC could be different. Instead of dealing with generals named Marius, Julius, Antony, and Octavian, the Senate could potentially have to deal with generals named Maria, Julia, Antonia, and Octavia.
 
You cannot have a sedentary society with regular military service for women in the pre-industrial era. That is simple a recipe for military disasters to turn into demographic disasters.

So, if Rome did this, then the first really bad war of attrition they they fight turns into a Roman collapse. They could win the second Punic War, and then watch their society simply end.
 
You cannot have a sedentary society with regular military service for women in the pre-industrial era. That is simple a recipe for military disasters to turn into demographic disasters.

So, if Rome did this, then the first really bad war of attrition they they fight turns into a Roman collapse. They could win the second Punic War, and then watch their society simply end.

It's not impossible although difficult for a sedentary society to have women in regular military service, it just depends on the cultural norms of the society in question. If it's a more gender blind society, then said society would have fail safes in place (more professional military, accepting foreign immigrants as citizens, being more careful in foreign policy, allow women in official civil positions). If the society in question however is highly traditional (OTL Rome) without the needed fail safes in place (not making adjustments to your political system to allow for official female participation even though you allow said females to serve in the army. Not giving your non-Roman Italian allies full rights of citizenship.) then said society will fall apart severely via civil strife at the first major signs of stress (say after the OTL Punic Wars).
 

Sulemain

Banned
I think the best you could possibly go for in terms of political power is for certain offices to be reserved for women.

Social and economic rights are easier to come by, in terms of property ownership and so forth.

And by the Late Republic, Roman women had considerable rights compared to their fellows in other civilisations.

But in a world dominated by militarisation, the best you could probably go for is for certain domestic affairs to be dominated/allocated to woman.

But the limited and small scale of Roman government makes this rather difficult.

Political office was tied up with military service, and the number of political offices was comparatively small for a state like the Late Republic/Early Principate.
 
Top