Women's Roles

[Aloha6]

Historical views towards roles in women has often been obscured by the biases of both ancient male writers and male scholars, which were relatively recently rewritten by modern writers. The current scholars sought to more objectively assess women's status, rights, duties, representation in the arts, and daily lives; through the ambiguity of all male source material documented dealing with a male-dominated world such as ancient Greece and Rome. Therefore I couldn't sufficiently give an educated response towards whether if Celts women were given the same rights as the men were especially when one is deemed to inherit an estate or property, or even own a business that wasn't considered as "women's work". I would like to think that the Celts women were treated with more respect and reverence compared to the Romans.

[Kibet Hillary]

There has been a good demonstration about the impact of shared equality among both genders.
From the sample the Celt King really acknowledges his queen as being second in command. Also accords more respect and time in introducing his daughters as he does with his sons.
But the Roman's obviously stating their culture, were more interested in the well being of sons, since they were considered as rightful heirs.
It doesn't also fictionally portray women as saints, but highlights their frailty in the contrast of women characters in the book.

This is nice. It is a unique observation. Indeed, small acts such as this eventually show the level of gender discrimination that exists in the Roman Kingdom as compared to the Celtics.

[Kibet Hillary]

Historical views towards roles in women has often been obscured by the biases of both ancient male writers and male scholars, which were relatively recently rewritten by modern writers. The current scholars sought to more objectively assess women's status, rights, duties, representation in the arts, and daily lives; through the ambiguity of all male source material documented dealing with a male-dominated world such as ancient Greece and Rome. Therefore I couldn't sufficiently give an educated response towards whether if Celts women were given the same rights as the men were especially when one is deemed to inherit an estate or property, or even own a business that wasn't considered as "women's work". I would like to think that the Celts women were treated with more respect and reverence compared to the Romans.

Tru observation as well. The opinion has been backed up with some evidence that will still lean on the fact that the Celtic women were treated better than their counterparts in the Roman Kingdom.

[AliceofX]

in the Roman Kingdom.

The book takes place in 24 AD, which is long after the Roman Kingdom no longer existed.

[uyky]

Romans were bad, and even though Celts were much better, there was still a lot left to wish for.

[Bookcool123]

The author, I think, just showed that women can also make a change. It just so happens that most of our history was written mostly but not totally about men.

[Cristina Chifane]

One of the things I liked about Linnea Tanner's novel is the portrayal of strong women. What is more, there are both positive and negative female characters such as Catrin, Queen Rhiannon, Vala, Mor or Rhan.

What do you think of their roles in the novel?
Is there any difference between the way Celts and Romans saw women and their roles?
Was the Celtic system genuinely promoting gender equality or not?

I liked that too.

There was certainly difference between the way Celts and Romans' women. The Celt women had more freedom, were equal to the men, and could choose their own husbands (most times), while the Roman treated women as inferior. I am not sure the Celtic system genuinely promoted gender equality, as in some cases the women were forced to marry people of the other tribes in order to strength political connections.

I like to believe that women had a better position in the Celtic world too. Thinking of the way Catrin was expected to act as a pawn in political stratagems it is difficult to speak of genuine equality or freedom of choice, though.

[Cristina Chifane]

I loved how they showed strong women right from the beginning.

I think the Romans were more harsh towards women. Treating them as nothing except for sex and birthing. Celtics show more like it was equal, or treated them better then what the Romans did. I think the Celtic men looked towards the women as well for advice. I guess they knew women knew better.

Yeah, I was thinking of the way King Amren left Queen Rhiannon in charge when he left to negotiate with Cunobelin and the Romans and nobody seemed to question her decisions.

[Cristina Chifane]

I'm not sure if the Romans were actually that dismissive of women in history. I did a little reading, and I think it was exaggerated a bit for the novel...which is totally fine.

Linnea Tanner actually admits that although she did a lot of research to give the novel consistency and verisimilitude, she also gave free rein to her imagination. As you say, there's nothing wrong with that, on the contrary.

[Cristina Chifane]

I think there was more equality amongst the Celts than the was with the Romans but I certainly wouldn’t split it 50/50. Having said that, I don’t think we are any further ahead today than the Celts were all those years ago.

I love your honesty. I wish this weren't the case, but I lived long enough to realize you may be just right about that.

[Cristina Chifane]

One of the things I liked about Linnea Tanner's novel is the portrayal of strong women. What is more, there are both positive and negative female characters such as Catrin, Queen Rhiannon, Vala, Mor or Rhan.

What do you think of their roles in the novel?
Is there any difference between the way Celts and Romans saw women and their roles?
Was the Celtic system genuinely promoting gender equality or not?

I really like that the author had made this comparison between the women's role in two such major civilizations. What was the actual historical Celtic system is probably just a guessing game. Though as far as I have understood the Celtic background was nature religions (in AR's included through the female druids, ravens etc.) and there are plenty of examples in the nature of genders being equal or often female more in the leader position.

Yes, basically it is more of a guessing game considering the scarcity of historical evidence although there are some indirect written historical data and archeological findings.

[Cristina Chifane]

We are all made differently, whether male or female. There are women who are very brave and curious about their ambitions. So these women will try to do whatever it takes to achieve their goals.

I am not sure if you imply that it is not such a good thing to be brave, curious or ambitious.

[Amy+++]

From what I reasd the Celts seemed to value and appreciate this women. The Romans didn't come off that way to me.

[Cristina Chifane]

Is there any difference between the way Celts and Romans saw women and their roles?
Was the Celtic system genuinely promoting gender equality or not?

So I've been doing some reading and from what I understand there was no such thing as "Celts." Instead, it was various different tribes and people from the British Isles to Anatolia. There is no answer to that question because there was no such thing as a Celtic system.

Besides that, as a history lover, I have grown extremely skeptical about claims of ancient matriarchal or gender-equal societies. There's no solid evidence for them, just wishful thinking that doesn't align with reality. I'm just sick of certain feminists who think rewriting history is going to "inspire women" or something like that when all it does is delegitimize the movement and makes them appear like quacks.

Pretty radical here, right? The Celts did organize themselves in tribes with a king or queen as leader and intertribal wars were very common. Maybe they did not have what we might call a "system" nowdays, but these tribes definitely had some similar organization and they sometimes got together under the same ruler. You are right when you say we don't have enough historica evidence. However, even if there are no written records, we do have the archeological findings and the indirect references of Greek and Roman historians who inserted elements of Celtic mythology in their writings. Anyway, Linnea Tanner gives some more detailed explanations on her research in this respect and the way southeast Celtic tribes seemed to have evolved differently from those in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. I know there is evidence of the historical existence of King Cunobelin and his son, Caratacus. I was actually thinking of women's roles because I remember that there was Queen Boadicea who united all these tribes and led them against the large Roman army of King Claudius in 43 AD when the Romans managed to defeat them. It seems that she chose to drink poison rather than be taken prisoner. My guess is Linnea Tanner wants to weave a similar destiny for our Catrin in the novel, hence the series showing her transformation from a young princess used as a bargaining chip to probably a great leader for her people.
As for feminists trying to rewrite history and if this is actually beneficial or not, this is debatable too. To tell you the truth, I still can't say what's the best way to move forward. What I've learned in time is not to be too vehement one way or another because there are so many ways to look at the same issue that we need to be open to various interpretations.

[Abigail R]

I have loved reading this specific forum. The role of women in novels is so important to me and this sounds like a very interesting discussion of how different communities treated their women.