The Roman, Barbarian, and some other princesses

[Horatius]

I remember reading here about wishing to keep the princess, but it was mentioned that the Romans just didn't use that type of diplomacy so have a new idea (well someone probably has suggested it), and one that should be really obvious to all of us nerds.

Instead of being an extra diplomat, why not make her majesty an extra merchant?

When the men of the ancient world were away, or occupied by the Cursus Honorum their wives generally looked after their estate/ordered their slaves around, and they would also have to look after their share of the inheritance from their paternal family.

This seems to fit very well with being merchants, in addition to their inherited lands and their husbands lands, most men would leave instructions to their wives on how much of their money to use in risks/expansions.

To me this also fits a lot better then putting them on the battlefield, which I don't think happened in a majority of the factions involved.

This is of course unless the princess character is hard coded to be a diplomat instead of merchant.

[Brennus]

Sounds like a very sensible idea to me (although I would like to see some sources discussing the role of women in business during this period) my only objection is that the merchant until in MTW2 was a terribly boring unit which had limited playability.

[antisocialmunky]

This is of course unless the princess character is hard coded to be a diplomat instead of merchant.

This s probably the case.

[Terentia100]

Sounds like a very sensible idea to me (although I would like to see some sources discussing the role of women in business during this period) my only objection is that the merchant until in MTW2 was a terribly boring unit which had limited playability.

I have never gotten anything out of merchants, I'm not sure if I use them right but they are useless to me. If you find the merchant boring it's a good idea since this was a very boring time to be female.

The original poster should have backed up his idea, luckily I have some sources, although I don't remember all the sources off the top of my head, but a few include A Sourcebook on Pompeii (includes a lot of examples), the wikipedia website doesn't have the best article but does list a number of sources, and my namesake Terentia wife of Cicero managed her property and that of Cicero while he was at the real work of politics.

[stratigos vasilios]

I think the merchants were most effective as the Moors. Just send them down to Timbuktu or Arguin and let them trade gold/ivory/slaves freely. Because its so isolated no nearby faction would send a rival merchant to acquire those assets, so its your own personal treasury.

[ziegenpeter]

To have useful merchants, you have to use a mod.Iin MTWII vanilla, they were useless.

[Cyclops]

Its hard to find a consistent role for women in the EB timeframe across the widely varying cultures represented.

Roman women were represented either as stern matrons or wilful slatterns. Eiother way they did not interact with non-Romans in a way that affects the game.

Non-Roman women are sometimes represented as a seductive threat. Kleopatra and Sophonisba both set back Roman aims by sexual wiles. That fits with the "marry nearby prince" button in M2TW vanilla, but its a very rare occurence and maybe doesn't represent what really happened (Egyptian monarch allying with Roman Triumvir).

Persian women rarely appear in anything more than an utterly passive role. Keltic women appear rarely (Boudicca is outside our period), do we ever see Iberian/Lussotannan women other than as slaves or victims of war? Unless princesses can be adapted to a sort of "wailing woman" ancillary...


To have useful merchants, you have to use a mod.Iin MTWII vanilla, they were useless.

I find merchants useful in M2TW, they bring in cash and open up the Merchants Guild tree (a must for my gaming style). If the enemy starts out-competing I use assassins and armystomps to even the score.

[Macilrille]

Agree, merchants combined with Assassins (and guilds for both) is quite nice on your income. There are some treasure troves around to be exploited by your wily merchants.

As for Roman wmen being married off to foreign princes and potentates. It did happen, or rather; it did not happen, but they definately wanted to, Cornelia.

[Temistokles]

Hi all,
Horatius, I agree with you that for women the role of merchants is more suitable than the one of diplomats, for the reasons you exsposed.
But I think that, at least for the Romans, it would be completely ahistorical.
Women had no official role at all: by roman law they were considered "res mancipi". Like slaves, sons and goods women were part of the "mancipium" (a sort of estate of the pater familias).
The man, father before and husband then, had the right to choose life or death for her daughter / wife.
Obviously there were exceptions, Cornelia, Agrippina, and many others, but still exceptions.
(sorry for my English)

[B-Wing]

To the OP, I'm fairly certain that Princesses in M2TW can only be diplomatic agents. Their functions are hard-coded, as are Merchants'. One could simply modify the Merchant's model and voice to be female, but then they would be recruited instead of coming of age, which may be unfavorable.

As for the value of merchants, they can most certainly be worthwhile, though I agree that they probably don't provide a very interesting layer of depth to the game in most cases. Typically I just send a freshly recruited Merchants to the most valuable resource I can find (you can see resource values through the shadowed fog of war), and if a more skilled merchant is already sitting on it, keep moving to the next most valuable vacant resource. A merchant with a few points of skill could easily bring in 800 or so Florins every turn. With no upkeep and an initial cost of 500, that's a pretty big profit over time. Think of them as mines.

[oudysseos]

There is very little that can be done to mod agents. Their basic functions cannot be changed.

[Horatius]

Hi all,
Horatius, I agree with you that for women the role of merchants is more suitable than the one of diplomats, for the reasons you exsposed.
But I think that, at least for the Romans, it would be completely ahistorical.
Women had no official role at all: by roman law they were considered "res mancipi". Like slaves, sons and goods women were part of the "mancipium" (a sort of estate of the pater familias).
The man, father before and husband then, had the right to choose life or death for her daughter / wife.
Obviously there were exceptions, Cornelia, Agrippina, and many others, but still exceptions.
(sorry for my English)

Glad we agree partly, but I took some significant study on Roman Law and that simply isn't true, I really don't know where you got it from but you really must be careful of what you see on the internet.

Res Mancipi was Land in Italy, Buildings in Italy, Slaves, and Cattle, not women. As the Roman Empire expanded past Italy Res Mancipi actually started becoming an obsolete term, Res Nec Mancipi which was everthing else actually became much more valuable then Res Mancipi as Italian Land declined.

You are right that women were under the Potestas of their Pater Familias, but so were men, there was no age of independence in Ancient Rome, even a Consul would be subject to Patria Potestas as long as his father was alive.

The chief legal difference between men and women aside suffrage and admission to the army was Potestas, women lacked potestas over others while a male would become a Pater Familias, but don't be fooled by it, when a Pater Familias died all children under his power became independent women included.

Cornelia was not an exception, she was actually the ideal, and the same is true of Agrippina, I also as I already mentioned would like to see what your source for women as Res Mancipi is because it seems to have little to no understanding of Roman Law, and absoloutly none about Patria Potestas which is almost always in our sources applied against sons.

Early on Manus Marriage placed women under the authority of husbands, but during most of the RTW time frame Manus Marriage had ended in favor of Sine Manu Marriage, women could actually divorce their husbands at will.

edit-I know this is after our time period but these inscriptions does help show Roman Law while it was alive

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/pompeii-inscriptions.html

[Temistokles]

Uh ... Horatius, forgive my apodiptic assertions of my first post but I thought you were not so prepared:sweatdrop:.

By what you wrote my memories of institutions of roman could be wrong. I had that exam in 93 or 94, so they are wrong for sure.

My source is what I remember of Gai institutionum. About mancipium I remember an interesting concept regarding the cattle - only the animal that could sustain a weight on its back could be claimed as a res or something like that. I don't remember which time Gaius lived but surely after Christ and before Justinian and his corpus iuris civilis, so probably is too late for EB2. I don't have knowledge about complete texts of roman law of the arcaic time. I mean that when i think about roman law the first complete text to read that comes to my mind is Gaius work.

I don't remember exactly, but it seems to me that a woman could do nothing without the ratification of a male of her family. My English is not good enough to well express law concepts, but I mean that she needed a male tutor to make any act perfect by law (the woman had not right to start an actio alone to claim property of a res or yes ?). Probably there's a difference between ordinary and extraordinary acts.

My point is: if it's correct that a woman could not conclude a relevant contract alone, how she could be able to have the role of a merchant ?

What I remember exactly is that after the lectures we always joked with girls saying that for the ancient romans they were like things (sexual objects ... ) and so on (permit this rude phrase:smile:).

[Horatius]

Well you are without doubt right that Gaius is too late for EB, although he is widely used in studying what Roman Law was because his work is closest to it's original form. Your english is top of the line compared to many English to, I actually thought you were a native speaker at first.

Gaius is a good source, but the translations I have read, and done myself of him doesn't support you. Here is a good translation of him, the institutes could be found at the Latin Library if you have a different translation. I personally would also point to David Johnston's Roman Law in context, since the translation of Tutor as Guardian isn't accepted by everyone. Anyway I believe this is the section you are reffering to if you are reffering to the Institutes of Gaius.


(190) There does not seem to be any good reason, however, why women of full age should be under guardianship, for the common opinion that because of their levity of disposition they are easily deceived, and it is only just that they should be subject to the authority of guardians, seems to be more specious than true; for women of full age transact their own affairs, but in certain cases, as a mere form, the guardian interposes his authority, and he is often compelled to give it by the Prætor, though he may be unwilling to do so.

(191) Therefore, a woman has no right of action under the guardianship against her guardian, but where guardians transact the business of their male and female wards, they must render an account of their guardianship in court, after their wards arrive at the age of puberty.

My point is also that she could, even on alienating Res Mancipi according to Julian the case of land being sold by women would be settled as sold provided the buyer paid for it, Julian was early 2nd century ad though, so questionable if he applies to our time period.

My point is women were able to conduct business and own property for themselves, and it wouldn't be uncommon for their husbands to be off at work in the provinces or on politics and for women to run the estate.

[Brennus]

Just while we are talking about the female characters in MTWII has anyone given any thought to the role witches are going to play? Or do people think they will just be removed?

I loved the witches, really sinister characters.

[Caulaincourt]

Sorry for you, but for the moment if the princesses'situation is still discuted in the team, on the contrary the witches have been removed for the moment (and certainly for long).

[Brennus]

Darn, loved their cackling voices.

[Cyclops]

...My point is women were able to conduct business and own property for themselves, and it wouldn't be uncommon for their husbands to be off at work in the provinces or on politics and for women to run the estate.

Lovely to see such insightful discussion.

My very superficial acquaintance with Roman law led me to think women were considered always under the guardianship of some man: either their father, their husband or their son (or some toher male relative). Theoretically a women could in some cases divorce but she then returned to her father or other male relative's care. Could republican women really own property? I thought that was a no-no.

However in theoretically misogynist spcieties strong minded women often overcome subordinate legal status through force of will, and many Roman women were probably quite independent because they had their husbands (or brothers or whoever) were cooperative or intimidated. Also among the "lower classes" i believe women conducted business regularly, out of economic necessity and ability ( a bit like Victorian era women: women in general had quite restricted rights and "ladies" were not supposed to do anything much, but sometimes did, and the working class women ran big pubs, farms and other businesses all the time).

If we are talking about a small group of upper class women regularly conducting trade in the Roman Empire, I'd guess no is the answer. I can't think of an EB-period culture where women travelled widely and conducted trade (although I am quite ignorant would love to stand corrected).

[Horatius]

Lovely to see such insightful discussion.

My very superficial acquaintance with Roman law led me to think women were considered always under the guardianship of some man: either their father, their husband or their son (or some toher male relative). Theoretically a women could in some cases divorce but she then returned to her father or other male relative's care. Could republican women really own property? I thought that was a no-no.



Well I'm glad your interested, since knowledge of Roman Law isn't usually useful in discussions, I will go over it point by point.

1. There is no such thing as Guardianship of a father. It is called Patria Potestas, and it was completely gender blind. Patria Potestas was for as long as the Father lived, and as I pointed out earlier applied no matter what, a Pater Familias had as much rights over his sons as his daughters. Marriage, Political Office, Army Enlistment, and any other thing you could think of made no difference, Gauis who is a source you brought up actually stated that even a Consul remained under Patria Potestas. It could very easily be translated as ownership, and one French Author actually does translate Patria Potestas as ownership of the father (although that isn't the mainstream translation). It had nothing at all to do with gender, the Romans placed very high emphasis on a fathers rights over his children.

2. Husbands had no authority at all over their wives in the EB time period. In the earlier time periods they may have, but there really was no authority in this one. Marriage did not change Patria Potestas, a husband or wife kept whatever their status was before marriage during it. So lets say in a theoretical a Consul who's father is alive married a woman who's father was dead, the woman would be able to own property while the husband could not. If it sounds wierd to you it should, Patria Potestas was unique to Rome and no other culture has anything close to it.

3. The only male authority the woman would know would be her father for most of the Europa Barbarorum time period. The quote I brought in the last post was a direct translation of the Institutes of Gauis.

4. Divorce was informal and could be done at any point by either party, it didn't even require informing your spouse. The divorcing woman did not "return" to her fathers authority, she never left his authority, Patria Potestas was for life.


Lovely to see such insightful discussion.

However in theoretically misogynist spcieties strong minded women often overcome subordinate legal status through force of will, and many Roman women were probably quite independent because they had their husbands (or brothers or whoever) were cooperative or intimidated. Also among the "lower classes" i believe women conducted business regularly, out of economic necessity and ability ( a bit like Victorian era women: women in general had quite restricted rights and "ladies" were not supposed to do anything much, but sometimes did, and the working class women ran big pubs, farms and other businesses all the time).

That simply is non applicable to Roman society. Husbands had no legal authority, the Pater Familias did, and he could not be intimidated a woman who tried would find that any court was going to rule in favor of the Pater Familias, and the same for males actually who also stayed under paternal power. The upper class conducted their own business, a husband had no claim over his wifes property, under intestate succession a spouse came last, so a husband couldn't even inherit from his wife. You really seem to be reading other law then the Romans, I could bring more of Gauis for you if you would like to see more proof, I could also just link you David Johnston's work Roman Law in Context if you would like. There really is no comparison to Victorian Law, under the 19th century Married Women could own nothing, Roman Women owned and controlled their estates, with the exception of course for women who's fathers were alive, those women could legally own nothing, and legally speaking there is very little they could do without the consent of their fathers.

[GenosseGeneral]

To have useful merchants, you have to use a mod.Iin MTWII vanilla, they were useless.

in v. 1.0. from 1.2 on, the merchant income is increased steeply ( iremeber getting up to 1200 per round by a lvl 10 merchant trading spices). however, merchants will cost a lot of micro, but therefore generate a decent amount of income.