Women and war

[Rejenorst]

Posted part of this in another thread. Decided to check a few sources in regards to female warriors by searching for keywords through Appian of Alexandria's Roman history.

There's a Greek to English translations starting with the early days of Rome:
https://archive.org/stream/romanhist...iuoft_djvu.txt


The majority of references to women pertained to enslavement/massacres or diplomatic acts. There where 3-4 war references to them but mostly to do with them picking up arms as a last resort in defense of home towns/cities rather than being armed units (with prior training or for use outside of defensive roles) with the exception of the amazons. Not sure about the Bracari but they where fighting in defense of their town according to other sources:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

88 APPIAN'S HISTORY [Bk. VI, Ch. XII B.C.

614 renewal of open hostilities against Viriathus. When war 140
was publicly declared Caepio took the town of Arsa, which
Viriathus abandoned, and followed Viriathus himself (who
fled and destroyed everything in his path) as far as Car-
petania, the Roman forces being much stronger than his.
Viriathus deeming it unwise to engage in battle, on account
of the smallness of his army, ordered the greater part of
it to retreat through a hidden defile, while he drew up the
remainder on a hill as though he intended to fight. When
he judged that those who had been sent before had reached
a place of safety, he darted after them with such disregard
of the enemy and such swiftness that his pursuers did not
know whither he had gone. Caepio turned against the
Vettones and the Callaici and wasted their fields.

616 71. Emulating the example of Viriathus many other gue- 138
rilla bands made incursions into Lusitania and ravaged it.
Sextus Junius Brutus, who was sent against them, despaired
of following them through the extensive country bounded
by the navigable rivers Tagus, Lethe, Durius, and Bsetis,
because he considered it extremely difficult to overtake
them while flying from place to place after the manner of
robbers, and yet disgraceful not to do so, and a task not
very glorious even if he should conquer them. He there-
fore turned against their towns, thinking that thus he should
take vengeance on them, and at the same time secure a
quantity of plunder for his army, and that the robbers would
scatter, each to his own place, when their homes were
threatened. With this design he began destroying every-
thing that came in his way. Here he found the women
fighting and perishing in company with the men with such
bravery that they uttered no cry even in the midst of
slaughter. Some of the inhabitants fled to the mountains
with what they could carry, and to these, when they asked
pardon, Brutus granted it, taking their goods as a fine.

617 72. He then crossed the river Durius, carrying war far ,37
and wide and taking hostages from those who surrendered,
until he came to the river Lethe, being the first of the
Romans to think of crossing that stream. Passing over this
he advanced to another river called the Nimis, where he
attacked the Bracari because they had plundered his pro-
vision train. They were a very warlike people, the women

THE WARS IN SPAIN 89

V.R. B.C.

617 bearing arms with the men, who fought never turning, never 137
showing their backs, or uttering a cry. Of the women who
were captured some killed themselves, others slew their
children with their own hands, considering death preferable
to captivity. There were some towns that surrendered to
Brutus and soon afterwards revolted. These he reduced to
subjection again.

Another reference in regards to the siege of
Petilia by Hannibal:

THE HANNIBALIC WAR 1 25



R. '*-'^-

18 of the Roman allies and, having devastated it, laid siege 216
to Petilia. The inhabitants, although few in number, made
courageous sallies against him (their women joining in the
fight) and performing many noble deeds of daring. They
burned his siege engines unceasingly, and in these enter-
prises the women were in no wise inferior to the men.
But their numbers were reduced by each assault, and they
began to suffer the pangs of hunger. When Hannibal per-
ceived this he drew a line of circumvallation around them
and left Hanno to finish the siege. As their sufferings in-
creased they first thrust outside the walls all those who were
incapable of fighting and looked on without grieving while
Hanno slew them, considering the dead better off than the
living, for which reason the remainder, when reduced to
the last extremity, made a sally against the enemy, and
after performing many splendid acts of bravery, being
nearly starved and completely exhausted, they were unable
to return and were all slain by the Africans. Thus Hanno
possessed himself of the town. But yet a few escaped, who
had sufficient strength to run. These wanderers the Romans
carefully collected, to the number of about 800, and re-
placed them in their own country after the war, being
moved by kind feeling toward them and admiration for
their exceptional fidelity.

Reference to amazons in Pompey's conquest across anatolia towards Caspain sea (Ibera here is a reference to Georgia I believe as Artoces of Iberia was king of the area around Georgia) the sheepskin into the streams shouldbe a clue given that the golden fleece tale is likely to have originated from the area:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artoces_of_Iberia

398 APPIAN'S HISTORY [Bk. XII, Ch. XV

Y.R.

688 was fastened to Mount Caucasus. Many streams issue from 66 '
Caucasus bearing gold-dust so fine as to be invisible. The
inhabitants put sheepskins with shaggy fleece into the
stream and thus collect the floating particles. Perhaps
the golden fleece of ^tes was of this kind. All the neigh-
boring tribes accompanied Pompey on his exploring expe-
dition. Only Orceses, king of the Albanians, and Artoces,
king of the Iberians, placed 70,000 men in ambush for him
at the river Cyrtus, which empties into the Caspian sea by
twelve navigable mouths, receiving the waters of several
large streams, the greatest of which is the Araxes. Pom-
pey, gaining knowledge of the ambush, bridged the river
and drove the barbarians into a dense forest. These people
are terrible forest fighters, hiding in the woods and darting
out unexpectedly. Pompey surrounded this forest with his
army, set it on fire, and pursued the fugitives when they
ran out, until they all surrendered and brought him hos-
tages and presents. Pompey was afterward awarded one of
his triumphs at Rome for these exploits. Among the hos-
tages and prisoners many women were found, who had suf-
fered wounds no less than the men. These were supposed
to be Amazons, but whether the Amazons are a neighbor-
ing nation, who were called to their aid at that time, or
whether certain warlike women are called Amazons by the
barbarians there, is not known.

[WhatAnArtist]

[QUOTE=Locus_Devium;15260608]women are just more peaceful and non-warlike in comparison to men.
To qoute some unknown wise men:
"If women would rule the world we would not have any wars but a few countries which do not talk to each other."

That seems to be at best a massive generalization and at worst sexist. This is a Total War forum, you don't need to pander and virtue signal here.

[Arabian]

That simply isn't true. They make up a tiny minority, and they are exceptions. You even agreed "a few sparse accounts of others". That is all he asked for. "and hastily join the ranks of levied villagers in britonic, germanic and some iberian factions". He didn't ask for units of Amazons, or units of Greek female soldiers. You clearly did NOT read the post. He isn't making any claims beyond "we know females fought in very small numbers. Will those small numbers show up in game?". The answer is "yes, in very small numbers". Because that is all we have in history; very small numbers of women fighting in war, and almost never as professional soldiers or in sustained campaigns. If they were fighting, it was because they didn't have much choice.

Perhaps the problem you are having with this is a misunderstanding of "warrior". Warrior does not mean "soldier", it just means someone who fights in war ("Warrior" is a very loose term, unlike soldier). Even if that war is just skirmishes between tribes, or small forces attacking villages. Women soldiers are almost non-existent until modern history. But a woman who has worked in the fields most of her life, and is thus fairly physically capable, might very well pick up farming tools to fend off invaders. That is enough to be a warrior.

Look, you're wrong. You're trying to argue a point that's better suited for Hollywood than historical discussion. Your examples are hypothetical, miniscule, and the very definition of exception to a rule. You've got to understand the differences between then and now. Women were not allowed to fight, had no opportunity to fight, had little capability to fight, and were not expected to fight. I mean, if you have to split hairs so much to make your point, your point is probably not representative of the majority of cases.

Even those very small you're talking about much smaller than you think. I mean, how soldiers do we have at any given time in a campaign? A full stack might, say, 2000 troops. If you have six full stacks, you've got 12,000 soldiers. Counting garrisons, we could up it to 50,000 without any exaggeration. That's just one army in many historical accounts. And guess how many historical accounts mention a woman or even 100 women in a battle? And with those women, what's their ratio to the number of men in the battle? If all of the soldiers in a campaign were to be counted for all the factions, you might have somewhere around 2 million (just a guess) soldiers in the world at one time. That's much, much fewer than in all of history, and the number of women for every man in history might not even be high enough to justify a single woman on the field. What I'm saying is that your interpretation of "very small numbers" is even larger than what the number really was.

Most of the accounts of female warriors are mythical, yes, or exaggerations because it was so unbelievable. Yes, we all know (or should know) that females have fought in wars before the rise of gunpowder in Europe and elsewhere. We also know that women and children were considered off limits to a well behaved warrior because they were noncombatants. When the son of Achilles slaughtered the family of King Priam, the Gods cursed him and his house. The chivalric code is (of course a bit later, but we know where it is based), despite modern romantic interpretations, incredibly sexist and treats women more like cattle than like valued members of society. This type of behavior does not arise in a society where women have the power to enforce decisions. That type of warfare is not suited for women, and they did not actively participate in it even to the degree that you are suggesting.

We also have to consider that most of our sources on this matter are Greek or Roman, both cultures with authors who are known to blend entertainment with history. Not all of them of course, but for instance, Herodotus is our foremost source on the origin of the Amazons. Herodotus also said that Babylon had 100 gates, walls 100 meters high, and was surrounded by giant furry ants that dug up gold dust from the sand for the locals to collect. He also thought that Cyclopes lived in Germany, stole gold from Griffons that hoarded it, and his source is the Scythians. Pausanias, Livy, the Viking sagas? The problem with many of these references, particularly the Greek and early Roman ones, is that they are based on second-hand stories heard by the author. Like Herodotus, many had no problem writing about a story they heard that sounded other-worldly because it would catch attention. In other words, these stories are so famous BECAUSE they were so unbelievable.

If women were to be represented historically in warfare, it would be as individual characters-a female ruler here or there, as nearly 100% of historical examples of females in warfare were queens of some sort or the relatives of rulers. Other than the Scythians (and their mythical interpretation in the more "civilized" cultures), you don't find reliable accounts of female warriors being common. And most of the Scythian accounts are based on Herodotus in some way. This is NOT to say that females did not fight in Scythia, this is to say that the commonality is highly exaggerated. We know that Scythian horse archers were feared in later times, and that is a method of warfare most easy for women to participate in, which lends credence to that idea. And there have been graves excavated with female corpses buried with war materials. So I do agree that this sort of thing happened occasionally, and much more commonly in Scythia than elsewhere. However, the Scythians, nomadic people as they were, are not well represented by their own historical record, so the extent that this type of burial was common, or that the deceased were actually warriors, is not 100% guaranteed as fact. The Egyptians had a number of female Pharaohs who, as rulers of their peoples, led the country to war or in some cases, even led the armies themselves. They were buried with weapons and war materials as well. However, the expectation that they actually did any fighting, or that any woman other than the Pharaoh would have done so is pretty inaccurate.

Going back to the Amazons, we also know that no actual first hand accounts of fighting with the Scythians were made by ancient authors until much after the rise of the Amazon myth. Herodotus, again, is our main source and the source for most later writers here (he also talks about how they sacrificed people in drug fueled rituals, which we know was not as commonplace as he described). Herodotus, again, describes them as a savages and barbaric. What better way to make them seem more barbaric than to have their women fight as men, cutting off their breasts and sacrificing their sons to the gods? Jeremiah, the biblical Jeremiah, warns the israelites of the Scythians in several accounts, and makes no mention of their sacrificial practices...and specifically refers to them as male warriors, with no mention of the female warriors that they are now so famous for. If that were true, a prophet of the Jews would certainly have mentioned it.

There are several accounts of women assisting with the defense of cities, but the main point in each is how desperate the situation was. Sparta is an example, and we all know the reputation Sparta had. But would that have happened anywhere else? No, it did not. Sparta and our other handful of examples have the women mentioned, but the zillions of other examples in history do not. Why? Because it was unusual. It was unexpected. And it did not happen enough for there to be women included in any garrison scripts for every city or every siege. The whole point of even mentioning it is to describe how unthought of it was. If you were doing a picture of American soldiers in 1800, how many black men would you have in there? Yeah, there had been a handful, Washington even recruited many in the Revolutionary War, but did you expect a black soldier to be included as commonplace?

You see, the main point here is that you want to see these women included because there are a handful of examples in history, even though every piece of evidence indicates that this was not a common occurrence. These incidents were famous BECAUSE they were either strange or shocking. Many were exaggerations or based on sagas or myth. The female warrior is a literary archetype that has bled into history because of Hollywood's interpretation of ancient events. I mean, it's a nice story, but to throw them into the mod moreso than they already even are is not an accurate representation of history, and unfortunately, that's not the setting. We're all used to seeing female warriors and going "Yeah, why not?" but you've got to understand that this was a VERY different world they lived in. Female soldiers are a recent phenomenon, but not a recent fascination. The ancients were just as enthralled by the idea as we are, but it's not like women were suddenly phased out of warfare in the Middle Ages. They haven't had the means to participate until recently, when our methods of warfare dramatically changed, as well as our nutrition, views on gender, and medical practices. All of these are relevant to a society when it decides who is most valuable doing what job, concerns that we don't have anymore.

Also, your definition of warrior is off. The origins of where the word warrior comes from are not the same thing as what the word means. Anyone who fights is not a warrior. A warrior who is defined by making war. It's their job. It's what they do. Picking up a rake and fighting off a raider doesn't make you a warrior. If you fighting is unusual, you're not a fighter. It's a nice hypothetical, but it doesn't make any sense.

Basically, my point is this: the few occurrences of female warriors in history does not justify the representation you are asking for. It's much fewer than you think, and the role you are suggesting is not even appropriate for those we have actual historical accounts of, which were usually nobles.

[Haddon]

"Your examples are hypothetical, miniscule, and the very definition of exception to a rule."
Which I stated immediately. They are a minority, an extreme minority, and exception to the norm.
"Women were not allowed to fight, had no opportunity to fight, had little capability to fight"
Also simply not true. Women didn't fight in battles (unless something really crazy happened), but they absolutely DID fight. Gladiatrices and Onnabugeisha fought; not in battle. While yes, women fighting in Greece or Rome (aside from the arena) would have been absurd, a Scythian woman joining men on a raid of a village is not at all. Again, women weren't SOLDIERS.
"Yes, we all know (or should know) that females have fought in wars before the rise of gunpowder in Europe and elsewhere."
And with this, you contradict yourself, and agree with my point. They existed, in small numbers. Almost never in battle. As a last defense in a siege? As one unit of 50 in a small Celtic clans raid? As one Scythian scout that wasn't expected to fight in the battle? Yeah.
"When the son of Achilles slaughtered the family of King Priam, the Gods cursed him and his house."
Did you just use myth as history?
"you don't find reliable accounts of female warriors being common."
Nope. Incredibly uncommon. You are arguing with yourself. I am not claiming they are common at all. As I have said repeatedly.
"You see, the main point here is that you want to see these women included because there are a handful of examples in history, even though every piece of evidence indicates that this was a common occurrence."
Actually no, I don't. I don't think it is necessary, would be a waste of time and effort, and would be extremely unlikely to see on a battlefield (unless you are attacking a settlement, then a woman being within the leves would not be far-fetched).
"Also, your definition of warrior is off. The origins of where the word warrior comes from are not the same thing as what the word means. Anyone who fights is not a warrior. A warrior who is defined by making war..."
According to Miriam Webster "a person engaged or experienced in warfare;" https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/warrior here are several more. "(especially in former times) a brave or experienced soldier or fighter." according to Oxford. "A warrior is a person specializing in combat or warfare, especially within the context of a tribal or clan-based warrior culture society that recognizes a separate warrior class or caste." Wikipedia. "c. 1300, from Old North French werreier (Old French guerroieor) "a warrior, soldier, combatant, one who wages war," from werreier "wage war," from werre" from Etymonline.com. I could probably get you more, but hopefully that will be sufficient.
"...It's their job."
That is a SOLDIER.

It seems like you didn't even bother reading my post. I am not the one suggesting female units, I just called out someone for making nonsense assumptions based on his perception of the OPs request.

[Arabian]

"Your examples are hypothetical, miniscule, and the very definition of exception to a rule."
Which I stated immediately. They are a minority, an extreme minority, and exception to the norm.
"Women were not allowed to fight, had no opportunity to fight, had little capability to fight"
Also simply not true. Women didn't fight in battles (unless something really crazy happened), but they absolutely DID fight. Gladiatrices and Onnabugeisha fought; not in battle. While yes, women fighting in Greece or Rome (aside from the arena) would have been absurd, a Scythian woman joining men on a raid of a village is not at all. Again, women weren't SOLDIERS.
"Yes, we all know (or should know) that females have fought in wars before the rise of gunpowder in Europe and elsewhere."
And with this, you contradict yourself, and agree with my point. They existed, in small numbers. Almost never in battle. As a last defense in a siege? As one unit of 50 in a small Celtic clans raid? As one Scythian scout that wasn't expected to fight in the battle? Yeah.
"When the son of Achilles slaughtered the family of King Priam, the Gods cursed him and his house."
Did you just use myth as history?
"you don't find reliable accounts of female warriors being common."
Nope. Incredibly uncommon. You are arguing with yourself. I am not claiming they are common at all. As I have said repeatedly.
"You see, the main point here is that you want to see these women included because there are a handful of examples in history, even though every piece of evidence indicates that this was a common occurrence."
Actually no, I don't. I don't think it is necessary, would be a waste of time and effort, and would be extremely unlikely to see on a battlefield (unless you are attacking a settlement, then a woman being within the leves would not be far-fetched).
"Also, your definition of warrior is off. The origins of where the word warrior comes from are not the same thing as what the word means. Anyone who fights is not a warrior. A warrior who is defined by making war..."
According to Miriam Webster "a person engaged or experienced in warfare;" https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/warrior here are several more. "(especially in former times) a brave or experienced soldier or fighter." according to Oxford. "A warrior is a person specializing in combat or warfare, especially within the context of a tribal or clan-based warrior culture society that recognizes a separate warrior class or caste." Wikipedia. "c. 1300, from Old North French werreier (Old French guerroieor) "a warrior, soldier, combatant, one who wages war," from werreier "wage war," from werre" from Etymonline.com. I could probably get you more, but hopefully that will be sufficient.
"...It's their job."
That is a SOLDIER.

It seems like you didn't even bother reading my post. I am not the one suggesting female units, I just called out someone for making nonsense assumptions based on his perception of the OPs request.

I did read your post, and I did make an error in that I assumed that your post was from the OP, at whom much of the argument was directed. For that I apologize.

However, I do want to clear up a couple of things. Not necessarily directed at you, as I made the mistake of assuming that the OP posted what you in fact posted, but just to make sure what I said is not misconstrued. Firstly, I was not using "myth as history". In fact, if it was not clear, my purpose for using that bit of mythology was to point out how ingraciously Neoptolemus was treated for slaughtering Priam's wives and daughters. It was to demonstrate the mindset of killing women and children, who were considered noncombatants. The last sentence of that paragraph, beginning with "This type of behavior", demonstrates the purpose of that example in the argument.

The second thing is that when I said that there "no opportunity" and so on for women to fight, I do not mean absolutely. I do mean that as a trend, as an institution, and an expected occurrence. Exceptions to the rule are not considered the norm, as we know. Although you do say a woman within the leves would not be far-fetched; I assure you that it would. Not impossible, but certainly far-fetched.

The last is that your definition of warrior is in fact off, even according to that definition. Experienced in warfare does not a peasant with a rake make. Your statement was that someone working in the fields might very well pick up farming tools to defend their home, and that was enough to be a warrior. And the definition you posted does not support that argument, and neither does my understanding of the term. This is veering off topic of the main argument, so I will digress on that point.

You did call out someone for a joke he made at the fact that these threads seem to pop up in every single ancient warfare mod. He might have been exaggerating, but he's not wrong about that. That's why I made the mistake of assuming the OP was theo ne who made the post that you actually did. The last two points of this post are the only disagreements I have with you wrote, and I again apologize for mixing you up with the guy above you. I stand by what I said, but it should have been directed at him, as your original argument is closer to mine than his. With the exception of some minor issues, only one of which seems relevant to the central argument (how low the occurrence of female fighters actually was), I think we do mostly agree. Again, my apologies.

[Haddon]

Nice cherry-picking of the definitions. Note the "engaged in or experienced" part. By your definition, drone pilots would be warriors, but the Japanese National Defense Force has zero warriors, because none of them have ever been to war. You also just disregarded the other parts of the definitions, namely "a person specializing in combat", and the etymology of the word.

We do mostly agree, having female units would be ridiculous (except a few exceptions, like Boudicca who is already planned for the game), though I think you are underestimating the number of women who would join a last line of defense against an invading force. Probably still only something like >1%, but occurring regularly. The sheer numbers of women fighting would have been exceedingly low, but the numbers of small raids on villages and things women fought in would have made seeing women fighting not unheard of, just an oddity.

[Willhelm123]

We're not add more or less women than whats in the mod now so this thread can end.

[JPrice94]

*eats popcorn*

[madking321]

I think having women in more poorly trained units like low tier levy is a great idea. I also agree the scythia should have a smattering of women in their units.

At any rate *crunch* i will be enjoying popcorn while i read these hilariously over the top rants.

[z3n]

Wow, some people got triggered however, both sides have points. Long story short, yes there were probably a few exceptions to the 'rule' among certain societies.

[dahooscarl]

With the exception of Scythians and the Massagetae according to Herodotus, there were no ancient people who fielded women warriors to any significant degree. Any mentions about women warriors should be seen as the exception, not the rule. I personally effing love ba warriors of the female persuasion. (Lagertha rules my dreams) however in the context of ancient warfare, outside of militias, they don't really have a place and would break the immersion.

On the flipside, with history being written mostly by men even if there were entire armies of sexy time Amazon goddesses dispensing carnage and snu snu throughout the ancient world, it would have been covered up and never mentioned. What male historian wants to write about how the women out fought the men? They would also serve as a distraction for the same reason they are considered distractions in combat now. Men can ignore the suffering of their fellow man in combat, but usually not so for women.

[stevehoos]

I think it reasonable to infer through common sense that having women in regular armies would jeopardize the future fecundity of the tribe or empire. You didn't send your child bearers into war. It's pertinent to basic anthropology.

Having studied North American Indians extensively throughout my life, I have never come across a culture that deviated from the male warrior tradition. Nobody blurred the calligraphy of their history, it's still prevalent today. The sentiment that men -or western influence- rewrote female warriors out of history is a modern fad that has shaped the lens of the historically quixotic; it has more to do with emotional affinity and less to do with logical consistency or reality. Were there exceptions? Sure, but those are very scant.

[zsajak]

Most history nerds or other people seriously discussing women on the front lines in ancient armies have no experience of actually competing physically against other humans. If they did they would experience how much stronger males actually are which makes this whole discussion ridiculous. Also males are much better at throwing things, hands eye coordination, spatial awareness among other things. Add to that the genetic suicide it would be to sacrifice your egg carriers instead of cheap males and this discussion can only happen complete absent logic.

[JPrice94]

I'm satisfied with what's been decided anyway. I just wanted to feel like a bastard for conquering a city when it forces the womenfolk to take up arms against me or see a few girlish looking sycthians. Its enough that they exist and their models are used, to make the game less of a sausage fest.

[Haddon]

Also males are much better at throwing things, hands eye coordination, spatial awareness among other things.

I don't think women are so much worse at it that they can't throw weapons effectively enough, it just takes them more training than men. I mean, women do just fine shooting bows and throwing knives and whatnot, it just comes less naturally to (most) of them. The lack of physical strength in most cases would be much more a detriment than their hand-eye coordination or spatial awareness, I think. This is particularly evidences by female snipers and gunners; when strength is pretty much a non-factor, females can do just fine, and even excel far beyond what most males can in some cases.

This brings a question to mind; how effective would women be with slings? Slings are much more about precision and proper technique than sheer strength. Females can do just fine with lower draw strength bows...I gotta imagine women, if trained, would do just fine with slings. And wouldn't surprise me if quite a few women could excel at the use of slings. I wonder if women did use slings much at all historically, as an absolute last choice of course, not as slingers out in the field.

[zsajak]

I don't think women are so much worse at it that they can't throw weapons effectively enough, it just takes them more training than men. I mean, women do just fine shooting bows and throwing knives and whatnot, it just comes less naturally to (most) of them. The lack of physical strength in most cases would be much more a detriment than their hand-eye coordination or spatial awareness, I think. This is particularly evidences by female snipers and gunners; when strength is pretty much a non-factor, females can do just fine, and even excel far beyond what most males can in some cases.

This brings a question to mind; how effective would women be with slings? Slings are much more about precision and proper technique than sheer strength. Females can do just fine with lower draw strength bows...I gotta imagine women, if trained, would do just fine with slings. And wouldn't surprise me if quite a few women could excel at the use of slings. I wonder if women did use slings much at all historically, as an absolute last choice of course, not as slingers out in the field.

There are numerous studies that females have worse hand eye coordination than males even from an early age, but this is all besides the main point. Males evolved to be better at warfare for a reason, the main reason is the difference in value between the egg and the semen for the survival of a tribe. Even with the majority of the male population wiped out in a war, they are still able to impregnate every fertile women in a tribe. Now imagine it would be the other way around, death of a tribe is certain given that at times death during childbirth was near 50%.


It's against every human instinct to send females to the front in not absolut desperate times for precisely that reason and it has nothing to do with sexism or whatever.

[Haddon]

There are numerous studies that females have worse hand eye coordination than males even from an early age, but this is all besides the main point. Males evolved to be better at warfare for a reason, the main reason is the difference in value between the egg and the semen for the survival of a tribe. Even with the majority of the male population wiped out in a war, they are still able to impregnate every fertile women in a tribe. Now imagine it would be the other way around, death of a tribe is certain given that at times death during childbirth was near 50%.


It's against every human instinct to send females to the front in not absolut desperate times for precisely that reason and it has nothing to do with sexism or whatever.

Did you even bother to read my post? Or did you just read me disagreeing with you and discount everything else?

Yes, women have worse hand-eye coordination, though not by NEARLY enough to make them unable to effectively throw with accuracy, as I said, just gonna take them more effort. It doesn't take expertise to shoot a bow or throw a jav or use a sling in battle, just adequate level of efficiency. Yes, you would prefer to have better troops, but that doesn't mean women are unable to use missile weapons effectively. Or, honestly, melee weapons effectively, just not really in a battlefield setting. I am not arguing women were fighting in battles. I am arguing that the difference in hand-eye coordination is pretty much a non-factor. The difference between males and females in this is less than the difference between many males; a woman who uses her hand-eye coordination daily almost certainly is going to be better at it than an accountant who does no physical activity.

Also, death during childbirth being near 50% is EXTREMELY high. I don't know of a single instance where that is the case, in any sustained way. Only in crazy cases of disease outbreaks will you get rates anywhere NEAR 50%. Rates of more like 10%, ranging upwards to 20% on the very high end is much more realistic. Anything over 1% is considered extremely high by modern standards (even for third-world nations with zero healthcare) something is seriously wrong there, and not up to even 18th century standards. 50% is absurd, and I think you don't know a damn thing about anthropology.

Moreover, the idea of men's lives being worth so little compared to females that they are just thrown away in massive % in war is erroneous and nonsense. What % of men do you think die in war within a society? Even in the WORST of times, it puts a dent of like 20% into the breeding population. The damage done to the genetic lines of a tribe from the deaths of too many of their men (and thus, dramatically reduced genetic variance and thereby reduced survival rates) would be disastrous long before the active problems of reproduction came up...which leads me to believe you don't know a damn thing about biology, either, and are just arguing for the sake of arguing...even when we agree women weren't soldiers, and weren't on battlefields except extremely rare cases.

[zsajak]

Did you even bother to read my post? Or did you just read me disagreeing with you and discount everything else?

Yes, women have worse hand-eye coordination, though not by NEARLY enough to make them unable to effectively throw with accuracy, as I said, just gonna take them more effort. It doesn't take expertise to shoot a bow or throw a jav or use a sling in battle, just adequate level of efficiency. Yes, you would prefer to have better troops, but that doesn't mean women are unable to use missile weapons effectively. Or, honestly, melee weapons effectively, just not really in a battlefield setting. I am not arguing women were fighting in battles. I am arguing that the difference in hand-eye coordination is pretty much a non-factor. The difference between males and females in this is less than the difference between many males; a woman who uses her hand-eye coordination daily almost certainly is going to be better at it than an accountant who does no physical activity.

Also, death during childbirth being near 50% is EXTREMELY high. I don't know of a single instance where that is the case, in any sustained way. Only in crazy cases of disease outbreaks will you get rates anywhere NEAR 50%. Rates of more like 10%, ranging upwards to 20% on the very high end is much more realistic. Anything over 1% is considered extremely high by modern standards (even for third-world nations with zero healthcare) something is seriously wrong there, and not up to even 18th century standards. 50% is absurd, and I think you don't know a damn thing about anthropology.

Moreover, the idea of men's lives being worth so little compared to females that they are just thrown away in massive % in war is erroneous and nonsense. What % of men do you think die in war within a society? Even in the WORST of times, it puts a dent of like 20% into the breeding population. The damage done to the genetic lines of a tribe from the deaths of too many of their men (and thus, dramatically reduced genetic variance and thereby reduced survival rates) would be disastrous long before the active problems of reproduction came up...which leads me to believe you don't know a damn thing about biology, either, and are just arguing for the sake of arguing...even when we agree women weren't soldiers, and weren't on battlefields except extremely rare cases.

Genetic variance is much less relevant when the ability to reproduce is threatened at the base level.



Yes women are much worse at throwing things and I guarantee you the accountant would be be able to pick up a rock and throw it further and more accurate than than most women even if he never threw something in their lives.

Males are better at throwing things, females habe better fine motor skills

https://www.google.at/url?sa=t&sourc...3zItcZvj85v4DAHere is one of the numerous studies I mentioned



Even if we dismissed coordinator, the difference in strength is so significant that if does not matter, what is the most precise thrower worth if he can't throw far enough? Or is not able to effectively draw a bow

[Haddon]

Genetic variance is much less relevant when the ability to reproduce is threatened at the base level.



Yes women are much worse at throwing things and I guarantee you the accountant would be be able to pick up a rock and throw it further and more accurate than than most women even if he never threw something in their lives.

Males are better at throwing things, females habe better fine motor skills

https://www.google.at/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/Thorley%2520%26%2520McDaniel(2013,%2520SIOP).%2520sex%2520differences%2520in%2520psychomotor.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi_567X_unUAhULaVAKHRReDYkQFgg4MAk&usg=AFQjCNGgF3ku2MTa4QPR3zItcZvj85v4DAHere is one of the numerous studies I mentioned



Even if we dismissed coordinator, the difference in strength is so significant that if does not matter, what is the most precise thrower worth if he can't throw far enough? Or is not able to effectively draw a bow

Ok, so as I suspected, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. Yes, men are naturally better at throwing things, but not by enormous amounts. A female jav thrower in track and field, or a female archer, or a female pitcher can all do just fine. They won't be able to throw as far or with as much precision as a male who is trained, but they will do WAY better than a male who is not trained. You seriously think the sexual dimorphism between us is so significant that women can't become at least efficient with throwing? Now THAT is sexism, ignorance, or outright stupidity. Or a mix thereof.

You didn't even READ the study you linked, did you?! Most of those areas show minor (much less than a standard deviation) differences between males and females, and several areas have females above males. Several more have too small a sample size, as the meta-analyses itself states within their writing in several places, to be of any more use than as basically case studies! And with much less than a standard deviation within most of those, it is pretty clear women can overcome those differences enough to at least be adept (if not expert) at aiming with work. Just like men, with work, can become absolutely afept at the sort of psycho-social warfare women excel at.

"Or is not able to effectively draw a bow"...have you ever shot a bow? Or used a sling? Now, high draw weight war bows like the English Longbow would be well beyond what most women could fire, but a 45lb bow is not at all beyond a woman's ability to fire (if trained, that is). A sling requires almost no strength to use, though it does take a lot of stamina to use effectively. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, women are naturally worse at aiming and throwing. That doesn't mean they are unable to DO those things. It takes them more effort than men, and most of them have a limit to their abilities that is lower than males.

[stevehoos]

I'll say in closing that it's remarkable how many trends in Western thinking in the last 20 years or so have found themselves applied in history. Universal egalitarianism for every sentient being is right at the forefront. Being pregnant is not conducive to battle. It's a simple anthropological deduction, no pregnancies, no future for the tribe. Women never fought in wars in antiquity or the middle ages unless the circumstances were extremely dire like a village sack/cleansing.

This gem of a comment is likened to someone who spends time reading magazines not history books:

"Their culture arguably stationed them as warriors just below men, and probably equal or without rigid gender-roles. In some tribes it could have possibly been matriarchal. (Female generals anyone?)"