In Ancient Rome what was the role of women?

Answer 1

Basically, there were 3 divisions, but they were not hard-and-fast, (as in a Caste System), people could move between them, but also belong to more than one simultaneously; it was also dependent to a great deal on your social class, wealth, whether you lived in rural or urban society or circles, and especially whether you were a Christian or not: this introduced big changes:-

-prostitutes/concubines,

-slaves, and

-"cow" (a.k.a. mothers / provider of children [sons preferred] )

This last area will doubtless get some angry, but it is true - you must be realistic: it was exactly the same then as it was with the aristocracy in England , where it was common for men to marry someone of their own class (for their money, property, status, position, or whatever) but to have someone else to be the actual mother of your children. This did not stop a couple of centuries ago because it is still going on today, with children born 'the other side of the blanket' being full heirs . In case you think it is not going on today, you just have to look at Prince Charles' and Diana's sons Harry and William; they don't look anything alike. (My [English] wife is quite good at picking paternity.) This same treatment and attitude to women is found in many other cultures. The subservience of women is not restricted , either globally or by time era: it is both widespread and all-pervasive.

Answer 2

Basically, there were 3 divisions, but they were not hard-and-fast, (as in a Caste System), people could move between them, but also belong to more than one simultaneously; it was also dependent to a great deal on your social class, wealth, whether you lived in rural or urban society or circles, and especially whether you were a Christian or not: this introduced big changes:-

-prostitutes/concubines,

-slaves, and

-"cow" (a.k.a. mothers / provider of children [sons preferred] )

This last area will doubtless get some angry, but it is true - you must be realistic: it was exactly the same then as it was with the aristocracy in England , where it was common for men to marry someone of their own class (for their money, property, status, position, or whatever) but to have someone else to be the actual mother of your children. This did not stop a couple of centuries ago because it is still going on today, with children born 'the other side of the blanket' being full heirs . In case you think it is not going on today, you just have to look at Prince Charles' and Diana's sons Harry and William; they don't look anything alike. (My [English] wife is quite good at picking paternity.) This same treatment and attitude to women is found in many other cultures. The subservience of women is not restricted , either globally or by time era: it is both widespread and all-pervasive.