Is Attila the least historical game since Medieval II (or even Rome I vanilla?)

[Humble Warrior]

From wikipedia:

You do realise that wikipedia is heavily feminised, don`t you? And feminism does not deal in facts. Even clear male\female facts are twisted upside the head to look politically correct by it. You can`t rely on that for the truth any more. Look in a book, a proper book or do proper research for facts, not what wishful thinking is now put up and reinterpreted as fact. In fact that`s what i`m doing right now.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

You do realise that wikipedia is heavily feminised, don`t you? And feminism does not deal in facts. Even clear male\female facts are twisted upside the head to look politically correct by it. You can`t rely on that for the truth any more. Look in a book, a proper book or do proper research for facts, not what wishful thinking is now put up and reinterpreted as fact. In fact that`s what i`m doing right now.

Yes. Feminist Conspiracy. We'll go with that.

[Geronimo2006]

You do realise that wikipedia is heavily feminised, don`t you? And feminism does not deal in facts. Even clear male\female facts are twisted upside the head to look politically correct by it. You can`t rely on that for the truth any more. Look in a book, a proper book or do proper research for facts, not what wishful thinking is now put up and reinterpreted as fact. In fact that`s what i`m doing right now.

It cites Gibbon as one of the sources.

[RGA]

You do realise that wikipedia is heavily feminised, don`t you? And feminism does not deal in facts. Even clear male\female facts are twisted upside the head to look politically correct by it. You can`t rely on that for the truth any more. Look in a book, a proper book or do proper research for facts, not what wishful thinking is now put up and reinterpreted as fact. In fact that`s what i`m doing right now.

Well, then, the Ambrones became separated by the stream; for they did not all succeed in getting across and forming an array, but upon the foremost of them the Ligurians at once fell with a rush, and the fighting was hand-to‑hand. Then the Romans came to the aid of the Ligurians, and charging down from the heights upon the Barbarians overwhelmed and turned them back. 6 Most of the Ambrones were cut down there in the stream where they were all crowded together, and the river was filled with their blood and their dead bodies; the rest, after the Romans had crossed, did not dare to face about, and the Romans kept slaying them until they came in their flight to their camp and waggons. 7 Here the women met them, swords and axes in their hands, and with hideous shrieks of rage tried to drive back fugitives and pursuers alike, the fugitives as traitors, and the pursuers as foes; they mixed themselves up with the combatants, with bare hands tore away the shields of the Romans or grasped their swords, and endured wounds and mutilations, their fierce spirits unvanquished to the end. So, then, as we are told, the battle at the river was brought on by accident rather than by the intention of the commander.

From Plutarch, Life of Marius

But you know, Plutarch was perhaps a closet feminist, so nevermind

[Butan]

You do realise that wikipedia is heavily feminised, don`t you? And feminism does not deal in facts. Even clear male\female facts are twisted upside the head to look politically correct by it. You can`t rely on that for the truth any more. Look in a book, a proper book or do proper research for facts, not what wishful thinking is now put up and reinterpreted as fact. In fact that`s what i`m doing right now.

I see no problem with the source... CA cant hold a candle to what is written there: mostly rare occurence of women fighting in battles (and buried with arms), even rarer occurence of women managing to get in a important position, and some common situations where women were involved in fights (like we repeated a lot, mostly hordes/barbarians and situations where women did a Mulan or defended their homes).
In Attila its a bit more unrealistic than that.

[z3n]

Wot?

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...4377/Sarmatian
http://archive.archaeology.org/9701/...armatians.html
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...culus/2B*.html
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Scythians.html
http://www.imh.org/exhibits/online/scythians-800-bce

Scytho-Samartian tribes were in the huns. In Google Chrome control + f, search women... The horses link is there due to the fact that wealth/status among steppe tribes were generally counted in horses the better of which were quite often obtained through raids/battles.

Certain people here quite probably have seen me post that before... yet studiously insist on insisting about feminists insisting things. If you insistently notice what I'm insisting.


Move on, unless you want to assert that the experts are wrong and insist you're more of an expert than the experts insisting that they did in fact fight.

/Discussion about women fighting

[Aussie-tosser]

I'm not exactly the biggest history buff like most of their audience, and I really don't see the big deal in having a few low level women warriors.

And if it REALLY bothers you, mod them out, case closed
since when were ca games historical anyway?

[RedGuard]

Wot?



Certain people here quite probably have seen me post that before... yet studiously insist on insisting about feminists insisting things. If you insistently notice what I'm insisting.


Move on, unless you want to assert that the experts are wrong and insist you're more of an expert than the experts insisting that they did in fact fight.

/Discussion about women fighting

so because women were buried with armor and weapons that means they fought in war regularly? way to jump to conclusions. just about every ancient religion believed that what you had in life you took with you to the afterlife. and only two of those links even talk about women warriors.

feminist sympathizer confirmed.

[z3n]

Read first link it's encyclopedia britinnaca which has leading experts in the fields and is peer reviewed. That is their conclusion that they fought not mine.

And yes redguard, any who likes history knows that by the first year of reading about it. With Scythian/Samartian wealth and status revolved around horses which were rarely willingly parted with... The archaeology link also refers to women having actual war wounds, not just buried with weapons/armour etc. So now a total of 3, but the final link speaks of their authority which was equal to men. They would be able to make their own choices and as we know not every man is a warrior, but neither is every woman not a warrior... If you've ever been in a real fight, you know what it's like. The final link, about horses also relates to women, although indirectly. I mentioned reason I put it there in first sentence.

So not jumping to conclusions at all, just read about encyclopedia britannica saying it and in primary sources stating they fought and then from that connected these other things/actual evidence of their war wounds + status & armour along with other facts about their culture. It is irrefutable with your qualifications/credentials. A twcenter forumer vs encylopedia britannica experts will lose, sorry man

[Charerg]

Regarding the Cimbrians, you do realize that Plutarch, describing the Battle of Aquae Sextiae, depicts how the Ambrones were driven to their camp, and the women attempted to rally the men and defend their "wagon fort". Note that the women here are hardly what you would call "warriors", they would have been without military training and armed with some spare weapons (they are described as fighting with bare hands, and trying to drive the enemy back with shrieks). This kind of fighting falls well into the pattern described by Tacitus in Germania, who describes how the Germanic women would try to rally the men if they lost courage.

As for the Cimbri, Plutarch writes the following (from) concerning the Battle of Vercellae:

"The greatest number and the best fighters of the enemy were cut to pieces on the spot; for to prevent their ranks from being broken, those who fought in front were bound fast to one another with long chains which were passed through their belts. The fugitives, however, were driven back to their entrenchments, where the Romans beheld a most tragic spectacle. The women, in black garments, stood at the waggons and slew the fugitives — their husbands or brothers or fathers, then strangled their little children and cast them beneath the wheels of the waggons or the feet of the cattle, and then cut their own throats. It is said that one woman hung dangling from the tip of a waggon-pole, with her children tied to either ankle; while the men, for lack of trees, fastened themselves by the neck to the horns of the cattle, or to their legs, then plied the goad, and were dragged or trampled to death as the cattle dashed away. Nevertheless, in spite of such self-destruction, more than sixty thousand were taken prisoners; and those who fell were said to have been twice that number."

Frankly, I find the idea of the Germans chaining their best men together extremely doubtful (likely a mistake by the translator). Even the mass suicide accounts sound somewhat embellished, to be frank, not that this wouldn't have happened. However, again it's clear that the women of the Cimbri are not what you'd consider warriors, they are defending the wagon fort in a similar fashion to the Ambrones at Aquae Sextiae. And note that according to Plutarch 60k were taken as prisoner, so the mass suicide was not all-encomppasing, even if we are to take Plutarch's account as fact (likely there's some ebellishment by the author).

[InferiorBeing]

Certainly better then Shogun and Rome II.

Aaaand - there the OP completely disqualified himself from being taken seriously on any discussion on the matter.

so because women were buried with armor and weapons that means they fought in war regularly? way to jump to conclusions. just about every ancient religion believed that what you had in life you took with you to the afterlife. and only two of those links even talk about women warriors.

feminist sympathizer confirmed.

Very, very well said. +Rep.

Read first link it's encyclopedia britinnaca which has leading experts in the fields and is peer reviewed. That is their conclusion that they fought not mine.

And yes redguard, any who likes history knows that by the first year of reading about it. With Scythian/Samartian wealth and status revolved around horses which were rarely willingly parted with... The archaeology link also refers to women having actual war wounds, not just buried with weapons/armour etc. So now a total of 3, but the final link speaks of their authority which was equal to men. They would be able to make their own choices and as we know not every man is a warrior, but neither is every woman not a warrior... If you've ever been in a real fight, you know what it's like. The final link, about horses also relates to women, although indirectly. I mentioned reason I put it there in first sentence.

So not jumping to conclusions at all, just read about encyclopedia britannica saying it and in primary sources stating they fought and then from that connected these other things/actual evidence of their war wounds + status & armour along with other facts about their culture. It is irrefutable with your qualifications/credentials. A twcenter forumer vs encylopedia britannica experts will lose, sorry man

Certain people here quite probably have seen me post that before... yet studiously insist on insisting about feminists insisting things. If you insistently notice what I'm insisting.


Move on, unless you want to assert that the experts are wrong and insist you're more of an expert than the experts insisting that they did in fact fight.

/Discussion about women fighting

Christ. Your kind needs to watch these.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9vcRzerT2EI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-nLz-2OHbI

[Butan]

so because women were buried with armor and weapons that means they fought in war regularly?

Probs not, but they were at least linked to said armor and weapons. Could also have been a smith's daughter, a merchant, a woman related to other warriors who honoured her, or simply an important woman, or an exceptional case of a female warrior/hunter/chief.

[Marvzilla]

Regarding the Cimbrians, you do realize that Plutarch, describing the Battle of Aquae Sextiae, depicts how the Ambrones were driven to their camp, and the women attempted to rally the men and defend their "wagon fort". Note that the women here are hardly what you would call "warriors", they would have been without military training and armed with some spare weapons (they are described as fighting with bare hands, and trying to drive the enemy back with shrieks). This kind of fighting falls well into the pattern described by Tacitus in Germania, who describes how the Germanic women would try to rally the men if they lost courage.

As for the Cimbri, Plutarch writes the following (from) concerning the Battle of Vercellae:

"The greatest number and the best fighters of the enemy were cut to pieces on the spot; for to prevent their ranks from being broken, those who fought in front were bound fast to one another with long chains which were passed through their belts. The fugitives, however, were driven back to their entrenchments, where the Romans beheld a most tragic spectacle. The women, in black garments, stood at the waggons and slew the fugitives — their husbands or brothers or fathers, then strangled their little children and cast them beneath the wheels of the waggons or the feet of the cattle, and then cut their own throats. It is said that one woman hung dangling from the tip of a waggon-pole, with her children tied to either ankle; while the men, for lack of trees, fastened themselves by the neck to the horns of the cattle, or to their legs, then plied the goad, and were dragged or trampled to death as the cattle dashed away. Nevertheless, in spite of such self-destruction, more than sixty thousand were taken prisoners; and those who fell were said to have been twice that number."

Frankly, I find the idea of the Germans chaining their best men together extremely doubtful (likely a mistake by the translator). Even the mass suicide accounts sound somewhat embellished, to be frank, not that this wouldn't have happened. However, again it's clear that the women of the Cimbri are not what you'd consider warriors, they are defending the wagon fort in a similar fashion to the Ambrones at Aquae Sextiae. And note that according to Plutarch 60k were taken as prisoner, so the mass suicide was not all-encomppasing, even if we are to take Plutarch's account as fact (likely there's some ebellishment by the author).

This rallying and even harrassing their own men in face of retreat also happened (if I am not fully mistaken) at Yarmouk.

[Aenima]

From Plutarch, Life of Marius

But you know, Plutarch was perhaps a closet feminist, so nevermind

Women fighting when the Romans are attacking their camp =/= women fighting in major battles

[Linke]

Aaaand - there the OP completely disqualified himself from being taken seriously on any discussion on the matter.

I, the op have changed my mind after playing and I do think Shogun II is ultimately better then attila atm. Yet I still think it is ahistorical

[Aeratus]

Regarding the Cimbrians, you do realize that Plutarch, describing the Battle of Aquae Sextiae, depicts how the Ambrones were driven to their camp, and the women attempted to rally the men and defend their "wagon fort". Note that the women here are hardly what you would call "warriors", they would have been without military training and armed with some spare weapons (they are described as fighting with bare hands, and trying to drive the enemy back with shrieks). This kind of fighting falls well into the pattern described by Tacitus in Germania, who describes how the Germanic women would try to rally the men if they lost courage.

Just like the low level barbarian units are not what you would call warriors, either. So there's no problem with women in these units, although their numbers should still be reduced a little IMO.

[Charerg]

Just like the low level barbarian units are not what you would call warriors, either. So there's no problem with women in these units, although their numbers should still be reduced a little IMO.

Low level barbarian units are still military units. The women in the aforementioned battles fall into the category "desperate civilians forming a last line of defence", instead of "military unit equipped with basic weaponry, trained to a limited extent and fighting in formation" which is what a levy is. Unless you're speaking of units like "Bagaudae" which are essentially armed "civilians" (ie. slaves and peasants, people outside the regular military organisation).

Remember that "the levy" formed the bulk of the Germanic forces in this era, and even it was selective, only those who had the means to arm themselves (and thereby claim the status of "free man") were under military obligation to serve. Note that military equipment was expensive (and included more than just weapons: supplies, tools and so forth) and to form an effective force, the social and economic structure needed to be in place to support the military force. If one were to seek a historically correct portrayal, women should be in some garrison units and very low level "desperate locals" style units. Typically they were not part of the military organisation itself (aside from perhaps some noblewomen in specific cultures, where they would be present in high tier "noble retinue" style units in very limited numbers).

[z3n]

Aaaand - there the OP completely disqualified himself from being taken seriously on any discussion on the matter.



Very, very well said. +Rep.






Christ. Your kind needs to watch these.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9vcRzerT2EI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-nLz-2OHbI

Not even going to watch those 20 min videos unless the guy has actual qualifications which he doesn't.. Not going to believe otherwise until Encyclopedia Britannica says otherwise. Not some random youtuber who probably lacks even a phd let alone experience in the historical field. Really the only twcenters/youtubers I would believe if they said 'No, that definitely didn't happen in this era' are from the Invasio Barbaroum mod teams.

Those guys know their stuff for Atilla period beyond a doubt. My own focus was on classical age which is several centuries before, and I can assure you the samartian woman according to the REAL Encyclopedia experts most certainly did fight and probably other nomadic tribes too. If you've never heard of that encyclopedia then I'm surprised, if you have, then you know you can't really argue with it. Universities accept them as one of the most preferred sources... I am sure "Sargon of Akkad" knows a bit of history although he lacks any job even as a history prof let alone being a leading expert in whether samartian woman were shield maidens or horse archers "My channel is my job at the moment"

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Let's get General Mulan in here

And if you want to discuss all this gender divide stuff (which is the last thing I would expect to see in a game forum) this should be debated in the political mudpit or therma or whatever. You guys would make great debates.

On a serious note, please stop talking about this gender stuff because it was discussed to death in Rome 2.

Maybe we need to start a thread which examines Attila's historical base. Not this gender divide stuff.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

Christ. Your kind needs to watch these.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9vcRzerT2EI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-nLz-2OHbI

And can we please never link to him again? thanks.....