Did the ROmans ever proscribe women?

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
Was it never also to remove potential political rivals?
Yes. And get their property. Both times they were done the state was broke and the leader(s) were vengeful. They had lots of enemies and needed money big time. Proscription got rid of their enemy and got them their money.

Most women weren't involved in the slightest bit in politics. Most women had no wealth. The closest woman that did/had both, Fulvia, was wife to Antonius, so not about to get proscribed by him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dentatus
Oct 2015
932
Virginia
Yes only men.

"Proscription" occurred twice (82-81BC & 43-42BC) and was a method by which unappealable magistrates (dictators & triumvirs) eliminated personal and political opponents by declaring them legal "outlaws" and confiscating their land and property. Despite the propaganda and horror stories, there were about 520 senators and equestrians on Sulla's lists and about 300 under the triumvirs; and many of them escaped and later returned to political life and some portion of their property.

Roman women played no "official" role in politics, could not legally hold property, and had an almost "Victorian" place in Roman society, so no Roman aristocrat would involve them in "official" outlawry. Any problems with "unofficially" influential Roman matrons (like Servilia or Fulvia) would occur behind the scenes. Daughters and wives left without support due to the condemnation of fathers or husbands were taken into the household of other relatives (as Servilia was by Livius Drusus) as most aristocratic families were interrelated by blood or marriage across any possible political divisions.

There was, however, the trials and condemnation of three Vestal Virgins in 115-114BC. A Marcia, an Aemilia and a Licinia (all members of prominent families) were found guilty of breaking their vow (incestum). These were not "proscriptions", but there MAY have been a political aspect to these trials, or it may have simply been due to superstitious panic.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2015
932
Virginia
One thing's for sure, the Romans certainly gave more importance to women than the Greeks.
Undoubtedly true. Roman women were not isolated in "women's quarters" but took an active role in social relations, family affairs, running the household, and even management of the family estates and fortune while the men were overseas. Some aristocratic Roman women like Servilia Caepionis) took an active role in family political activity, albeit behind the scenes. Non-aristocratic Roman women are known to have controlled property and operated businesses, again thru the "legal fiction" of a male agent officially holding the property.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
One thing's for sure, the Romans certainly gave more importance to women than the Greeks.
Depends what type of Greeks. The Spartans, for instance, had lots of respect and gave many special privileges to Spartiate women, from young girls to older matrons, to the point that later philosophers blamed the good relations between the sexes on the weakness of the Spartan culture and society.
 
Sep 2015
397
The Eastern Hinterlands
Undoubtedly true. Roman women were not isolated in "women's quarters" but took an active role in social relations, family affairs, running the household, and even management of the family estates and fortune while the men were overseas. Some aristocratic Roman women like Servilia Caepionis) took an active role in family political activity, albeit behind the scenes. Non-aristocratic Roman women are known to have controlled property and operated businesses, again thru the "legal fiction" of a male agent officially holding the property.
Indeed, one wonders why the Romans were different concerning that matter considering how heavily influenced they were by the Greeks.