Did Roman marriage collapse in 18 BC, and could no-fault divorce do the same today?

[RavVid]

Roman guys decided that Roman women weren't worth their dowry and took up with foreign chicks instead.

Part of the problem was that a new form of marriage allowed women to divorce. Sounds a bit like today

It contributed to the fall of Rome. Do you think no fault divorce will cause the west to fall?

Updates

1 mo

Roman marriage did collapse as did birth of Roman citizens as a consequence. It started before 18 BC which was when Augustus tried to force Roman bachelors to marry and knock their wives up.

If GAG is keen on AI rewriting the question why don't they have AI do everything and write the answers as well. We could all take a break then.

[Stevepro68]

Stop reading what ever webpage that came from and learn some real history about Roman empire. The fall and it's causes are very interesting but divorce is not one of those reasons. The empire technically didn't end until the ottoman turks conquest of Constantinople.

[strateguy632]

He said "contributed". @Stevepro68

[RavVid]

Well Augustus disagreed and I have taken the above from his legislation. The boys really bitched and moaned about it and started betrothing girls that were far too young to marry. You can google this.

No marriages, no kiddies. No Roman admin class and no Roman soldiers eventually.

Completely concur the Roman empire fell in 1453 but it had kinda become a Greek empire by then. They still called themselves Romans and that is good enough for me.

[RavVid]

@strateguy632 Yes there were lots of things. But not producing enough Roman babies was a prob and fundamental.

It is startingly parallel with today though. Back then returning the dowry was the issue. Now it is divorce settlements. Both put an extreme financial burden on men.

Don't know if there are any stats on Roman divorce. You had to watch out for your father-in-law because he could order your wife to divorce you.

[Sevenpointfive]

i remember 18 BC like yesterday... the west is all about suing people to better their situations. it's sick unless it's a corporation that pays.

[RavVid]

Shrewd observation.

The father could marry his daughter to this guy because he was advantageous at that moment to be his son in law but if he was forging a new alliance he could make his daughter divorce and marry the new guy.

[FreyaRed]

Ancient Rome broke apart because of many reason. I don't this one you suggest was some significant one. It's always, nepotism, corruption and arrogance that brings Imperiums to fall.

[RavVid]

Oh yes there were many factors. One was that silver and gold limited the money supply because they couldn't print more like our gov'ts can with fiat currencies.

But the classes that actually ran Rome weren't producing offspring to take over from them. So that part got outsourced to slave and freedmen to a degree.

The stout Roman farmer/soldiers couldn't afford wives, so didn't produce farmer/soldiers to replace themselves. Against Hannibal, Rome lost legion after legion but raised legion after legion of farmer/soldiers. After Carthage many of those farmer soldiers came home to find their farm had been lost. Eventually Rome had to outsource manning their army to the defeated ethnics - like Germans - to fill the ranks. It seems like a kinda dumb move to teach your enemies how your army works.

Rome found that out at Teutonburg where Augustus lost three legions because they had trained up the German commander Arminius.

But you are right because the real cause of that was Julius was so successful in arms he took many captives in Gaul and sold them into slavery. Which meant Roman farmers became too expensive cw slaves and there were a lot of blonde haired foreign chicks in Roma looking for rich men.

Yeah there were many causes but there enough farmer/soldiers for the legions and the Roman governing classes weren't producing the next generation of administrators. The foundation of Rome was lost.

The odd thing was that Roman Ladies came with dowries which would seem to be a good thing... you'd think. All I can work out is that when they divorced their husbands, returning the dowries caused a cash flow problem for the divorced husband.

Upper class men seem to have decided the whole dowry thing was bait and switch and something to stay away from.

Lets be honest too, the blonde haired foreign chicks were most likely very nice to Roman men if only because they had to be :)

[RachyRach]

You should watch the docuseries called Roman Empire.

[RavVid]

I think of Rome several times a week. And periodically binge watch anything new on Rome on youtube. I will look out for that for that series. Thanks.

[strateguy632]

In general yes but maybe christian lady will work out the arguments?

[strateguy632]

About update. Yes they change questions and yes bots also answer most subjects.
Soon a bot spouting d. s. a. views will be added here in politics subject. Paid by china.

[RavVid]

We can but hope

[RavVid]

It is getting such that there is no point on humans being here.

[goaded]

If so, it took a century or two longer than the US has been in existence.

[RavVid]

Quite a reasonable point but you do have to have more immigration to make up for lack of babies.

[NathanDavis]

yeah... it was Andrew Tate...

[RavVid]

Andrew Tate thinks no fault will cause collapse?

[canamlusciouslad73]

Were Roman women fugly and b****y like many American broads?

[RavVid]

Gaul chicks were often blonde and described as striking. There must have been a cute factor and maybe Roman women weren't fugly but just not as cute.

It seems mostly dowries were a problem. They sound liked a really good thing but on divorce the dowry had to be returned. It could be you came home and your wife gives you a hug and says "Hello darling, I'm divorcing you and leaving tonight. I want to take my dowry with me. Where is it?"

Instead of being an asset, doweries became a temporary loan of an indefinite period. An ex husband had three years to return the dowry UNLESS the divorce was his fault in which case it had to be returned immediately.

It was possible for a man to be ruined by divorce/dowery return

Maybe your wife could say you had beaten her too many times?

I am still trying to understand it.

[canamlusciouslad73]

Perhaps Gaual gals would have liked an HOBC !!!

[RavVid]

Very likely they would love it but I don't know what HOBC is. High Octane BC with BC being BC?

Distressingly, over history, women have shown a strong liking for conquerors. In Europe there has been a complete replacement of the Y chromosome a couple of times. They were probably calling out "Pick me. Pick me" to the Roman lads.

[Anonymous]

Slavery probably

[RavVid]

I was trying brush that under the carpet.

Concubines weren't always slaves but could be more like Only Fans. Nor did they always lack status.

There was a famous Greek prostitute who was prosecuted for impiety which carried the death sentence. She was defended by a noted orator Hypereides. Fortunately for the poor girl, Hypereides had the wit to tear her gown and argue her perfect breasts proved divine favor and the jury shouldn't intervene with the gods decision.

I am not saying that concubinage was like this, but the concubine was often in a monogamous relationship with a Roman man. A Roman man could only marry a Roman woman. So no matter how nice the foreign chick was he couldn't marry her nor would his children by her be Roman citizens.

It was a kind of morganatic marriage.

[Opinion Owner]

Your talking about concubines. Im talking about a man of reasonable means going down to the slave market and picking out Sydney Sweeny to share his bed, slave girl sweeny isn't going to have a headache tonight

[RavVid]

Romans recognized wives, concubines where woman was free or slave who shared his bed. Legally a slave could not be a concubine and a concubine could not be a slave.

In practice? Doubt it made much difference between the sheets.

[Opinion Owner]

a Roman citizen man could and frequently did father children with his enslaved women, but under Roman law, he could not legally marry a slave, and any child born from the union inherited the mother's status as a slave.
A Roman master could choose to legally free his enslaved children and their mother. Once freed, they gained Roman citizenship (becoming freedmen/freedwomen), and the father could formally acknowledge or even adopt them.

[RavVid]

Rome was remarkably liberal in many ways. I guess slaves were sort of the master's children so when freed they inherited his citizen status. I didn't know about that so thank you.

[Opinion Owner]

They probably werent all freed, like if a roman citizen had z legitimate son through marraige an older son freed and recognised might have a claim for the inheritance.
But if you were a slave owners you'd be taking the hottest slave girls to your bed

[RavVid]

It would certainly drive my purchasing decisions.

[Anonymous]

That’s a long time ago how can you tell

[RavVid]

Well Augustus was the #1 best emperor ever and his life is very well documented. The penalties he imposed on bachelors and incentives he gave to married guys is pretty well documented.

Here is a list. I guess it is like executive orders in the US system.

faculty.washington.edu/.../Legislation.html