Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 59 of 59

Thread: Women and war

  1. #41

    Default Re: Women and war

    Quote Originally Posted by Haddon View Post
    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.
    UH... no, it is true.

    And the first post proposes adding female units to rosters, you need to read the post over. Protecting your children from being slaughtered by a no quarter foe is not the same as recruitment into an army. Moreover, the definitions of the words "warrior" or "soldier" are completely irrelevant here. Germanic cultures never recruited women into armies, it simply didn't happen. "Fairly physically capable?" From child bearing and gathering? Right....... do you know how much women sleep when they are pregnant? I suggest you pick up some books on anthropology.

    "Warriors who rode until their testicles were damaged and sex drive dissapeared and started doing their hair in the mirror in the morning possibly. May have been common, with no stigma, to be a woman or somewhere inbetween, and ride and fight."
    Seriously, do you believe this statement above? This is perhaps the most ignorant historical statement I have ever seen in these forums. This is a gender identity comment, a trend developed in the popular Occident media in only the last 10 years or so. You can tell someone who doesn't know how to think by the inclusion of a statement like this.
    Last edited by stevehoos; July 02, 2017 at 12:30 PM.
    Shogun 2, no thanks I will stick with Kingdoms SS.

  2. #42

    Default Re: Women and war

    And the first post proposes adding female units to rosters, you need to read the post over. Protecting your children from being slaughtered by a no quarter foe is not the same as recruitment into an army. Moreover, the definitions of the words "warrior" or "soldier" are completely irrelevant here. Germanic cultures never recruited women into armies, it simply didn't happen. "Fairly physically capable?" From child bearing and gathering? Right....... do you know how much women sleep when they are pregnant? I suggest you pick up some books on anthropology.
    No, Germanic people didn't recruit women into their army. I don't think anyone has said that here. They probably showed up here and there as last resorts, as happens elsewhere, but not as soldiers in an army. As to "fairly physically capable", you know, from like farming. Keeping a house. Raising children. Killing a chicken and cleaning and cooking it, or hauling in the barley and wheat after it has been harvested by the men, and all of the other things that go along with living an agricultural life...do you really think Germanic peoples were hunter-gatherers, and all women did was wander around gathering berries and watching their kids? Do you think the average agrarian woman in central Europe in antiquity was just pregnant constantly, so much so she was just always sleeping and gestating? You are talking about historical ignorance and anthropology, and clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Though, I will agree the quote is absolutely absurd.

  3. #43

    Default Re: Women and war

    Quote Originally Posted by Haddon View Post
    No, Germanic people didn't recruit women into their army. I don't think anyone has said that here. They probably showed up here and there as last resorts, as happens elsewhere, but not as soldiers in an army. As to "fairly physically capable", you know, from like farming. Keeping a house. Raising children. Killing a chicken and cleaning and cooking it, or hauling in the barley and wheat after it has been harvested by the men, and all of the other things that go along with living an agricultural life...do you really think Germanic peoples were hunter-gatherers, and all women did was wander around gathering berries and watching their kids? Do you think the average agrarian woman in central Europe in antiquity was just pregnant constantly, so much so she was just always sleeping and gestating? You are talking about historical ignorance and anthropology, and clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Though, I will agree the quote is absolutely absurd.
    Go back and read the original post. It's absurdity, be my guest, go on and support it.

    Women didn't join the ranks of levied soldiers in village defense in Germanic culture, that would make them part of the conscripted army. Do you know what the word "levy" means? There's 0.001 evidence for this during any period of antiquity from any culture. "Fairly physically capable," that's absolute nonsense, 99 % of women simply would get crushed in a battle of brute strength; no amount of physical conditioning (as if village farming would prepare you physically to fight the Romans) is going to offset this, it's DNA. Anthropology is relevant here because no culture in human history has a tradition of their child bearers fighting, none! People in the early middle ages didn't care about equality, it's amazing how many of you jump to apply modern standards to periods of the past.

    It's astounding that a topic like this even comes up on this forum.
    Last edited by stevehoos; July 02, 2017 at 06:29 PM.
    Shogun 2, no thanks I will stick with Kingdoms SS.

  4. #44

    Default Re: Women and war

    Quote Originally Posted by stevehoos View Post
    Go back and read the original post. It's absurdity, be my guest, go on and support it.

    Women didn't join the ranks of levied soldiers in village defense in Germanic culture, that would make them part of the conscripted army. Do you know what the word "levy" means? There's 0.001 evidence for this during any period of antiquity from any culture. "Fairly physically capable," that's absolute nonsense, 99 % of women simply would get crushed in a battle of brute strength; no amount of physical conditioning (as if village farming would prepare you physically to fight the Romans) is going to offset this, it's DNA. Anthropology is relevant here because no culture in human history has a tradition of their child bearers fighting, none! People in the early middle ages didn't care about equality, it's amazing how many of you jump to apply modern standards to periods of the past.

    It's astounding that a topic like this even comes up on this forum.
    I don't support it. Which I have said multiple times. The first post is asking for women within units, within some cultures. I don't think that is in any way needed, and would be a waste of time, but they did exist in small numbers within certain cultures. OP blows this out of proportion, but you have gone the opposite way, WAY to the opposite side, rather than anywhere near a center position (which I am taking...women were an extreme rarity in battle, and pretty much didn't exist as soldiers).

    Apparently YOU do not know what "levy" means. See, "levy" does not mean "quickly gathered troops to be the cheap, front lines of armies". Levy as a verb means to enact a kind of stop-gap, usually emergency, measure; this can be levying troops (who are then levies, the noun), levying taxes, levying grain, levying materials, levying navies from the local fishermen. A person who is an absolute last line of defense against invading barbarians is still a levy; an immediate measure. The levy may stay in action, like economic levies or levied troops that fight for an entire campaign season, but are almost always enacted as something of an immediate band-aid.
    Next, do you have any idea how physically strenuous agricultural life is? No, it isn't going to put you anywhere near the level of a Roman legionary, but you chose the pinnacle unit on purpose to try to make a point. A woman who has worked her entire life in the field, spends her days caring around a child and hauling in the chopped wood and all of the other things that go along with farm life, absolutely WILL have the physical strength required to stab with a spear. That does not mean they will be as strong as a man, nobody has said that, stop bringing it up. Such a life will not make her an expert, by any means, but the majority of soldiers on battlefields throughout history have not been experts, or professional, particularly in this period of history.

    early middle ages didn't care about equality
    Where have I said anything about equality? Stop making strawman arguments. Men and women aren't physically equal, and disagreeing with you on one point does not mean I disagree on that point. Stop arguing things I am not saying, read what people write.

  5. #45

    Default Re: Women and war

    The best way for women to be described in Germanic culture (or any culture) in this mod's combat system, is done by the villagers that run and disperse before the battles. That's it. Garrisons, levies, or anything else is 99% historical inaccurate. The makers of this mod study history and know this, that's why they will not be including women in "levy" armies. It's as simple as that. This is not Game Of Thrones.
    Last edited by stevehoos; July 06, 2017 at 03:27 PM.
    Shogun 2, no thanks I will stick with Kingdoms SS.

  6. #46
    Willhelm123's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    York, UK
    Posts
    534

    Default Re: Women and war

    I don't know why this thread is still going.

    Currently we have two instances in the mod of female fighters.

    Steppe factions in the lowest units, the mounted and dismounted tribes people, and for the Britons in the Druid unit.

    Not anywhere else, there are female civilians, some of them may attack instead of fleeing, it's random but fulfills the idea of women immediately defending their homes.
    AE Dev, mainly units

  7. #47

    Default Re: Women and war

    Quote Originally Posted by Willhelm123 View Post
    I don't know why this thread is still going.

    Currently we have two instances in the mod of female fighters.

    Steppe factions in the lowest units, the mounted and dismounted tribes people, and for the Britons in the Druid unit.

    Not anywhere else, there are female civilians, some of them may attack instead of fleeing, it's random but fulfills the idea of women immediately defending their homes.
    I guess because it's an interesting debate, and the topic of equality ( which becomes applied historical egalitarianism) is very prevalent in the mainstream media.

    The Steppe factions have the only mildly credible source to include women fighters in their rosters. As far as the Britons and Druid units are concerned, I know where the sources are for some of this (island of Mona, Bandrui females) and disagree entirely with AE's interpretation.
    Last edited by stevehoos; July 08, 2017 at 12:22 PM.
    Shogun 2, no thanks I will stick with Kingdoms SS.

  8. #48

    Default Re: Women and war

    Quote Originally Posted by stevehoos View Post
    I guess because it's an interesting debate, and the topic of equality ( which bleeds into historical egalitarianism) is very prevalent in the mainstream media.

    The Steppe factions have the only mildly credible source to include women fighters in their rosters. As far as the Britons and Druid units are concerned, I know where the sources are for this and disagree entirely with AE's interpretation. People claim that viking female royalty buried with swords indicate participation in the shield wall etc. Or this gem from the book "War, Women, and Druids" that says "female strength matched that of the men." That's complete genetic nonsense.
    Well the inclusion of female druids comes mostly from Tacitus's explicit inclusion of them within the druids at Mona.
    Vespasian's own: Up the Augusta! For Cato!

    AE: Battle Balancing and BAI.

  9. #49

    Default Re: Women and war

    Quote Originally Posted by Petellius View Post
    Well the inclusion of female druids comes mostly from Tacitus's explicit inclusion of them within the druids at Mona.
    I hate this site when it logs you out!


    Yes I know, Tacitus is perhaps the most hyperbolic of all historians. I view this account to be cult ritualistic suicide, and not a battle confrontation. If it was a battle confrontation, it was certainly an anomaly. I have never viewed this or other similar accounts as credible enough for the inclusion of women in garrisons or standing armies. But it's not my mod.
    Last edited by stevehoos; July 08, 2017 at 01:07 PM.
    Shogun 2, no thanks I will stick with Kingdoms SS.

  10. #50

    Default Re: Women and war

    Quote Originally Posted by stevehoos View Post
    I hate this site when it logs you out!


    Yes I know, Tacitus is perhaps the most hyperbolic of all historians. I view this account to be cult ritualistic suicide, and not a battle confrontation. If it was a battle confrontation, it was certainly an anomaly. I have never viewed this or other similar accounts as credible enough for the inclusion of women in garrisons or standing armies. But it's not my mod.
    So, basically "I don't like Tacitus or what he says, so I completely discount it as something it pretty clearly isn't".

    How the hell do you get "cult ritualistic suicide" from "On the shore stood the opposing army with its dense array of armed warriors, while between the ranks dashed women, in black attire like the Furies, with hair dishevelled, waving brands. All around, the Druids, lifting up their hands to heaven, and pouring forth dreadful imprecations, scared our soldiers by the unfamiliar sight, so that, as if their limbs were paralysed, they stood motionless, and exposed to wounds. Then urged by their general's appeals and mutual encouragements not to quail before a troop of frenzied women, they bore the standards onwards, smote down all resistance,"?! Tacitus being overblown, we could agree on. But just discounting this entirely?

  11. #51
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: Women and war

    Quote Originally Posted by Haddon View Post
    So, basically "I don't like Tacitus or what he says, so I completely discount it as something it pretty clearly isn't".

    How the hell do you get "cult ritualistic suicide" from "On the shore stood the opposing army with its dense array of armed warriors, while between the ranks dashed women, in black attire like the Furies, with hair dishevelled, waving brands. All around, the Druids, lifting up their hands to heaven, and pouring forth dreadful imprecations, scared our soldiers by the unfamiliar sight, so that, as if their limbs were paralysed, they stood motionless, and exposed to wounds. Then urged by their general's appeals and mutual encouragements not to quail before a troop of frenzied women, they bore the standards onwards, smote down all resistance,"?! Tacitus being overblown, we could agree on. But just discounting this entirely?
    Because ancient people were not wikipedia. Many authors exaggerated, increased numbers of enemies even majority of historians were probably altering things....Itīs up to debate if it was propaganda, unintentional or whatever. But probably better altitude is to be sceptic and try to get more sources. Because people are lying as Dr. House is saying all the time. Because people are people the whole history of humankind. This whole debate is pointless. Women, children, elders hell even part of male population are consider civilians....because they are by default non-combatant. That is the very same for the whole human history. Because having pointy stick in your hand doesnīt equal to training,experience and being capable soldier. Especially in ancient warfare. Donīt get me wrong. Women are very much capable as men especially if you select the top 5% which probably will beat average males easily. Just to illustrate women capabilities ....Dahomey Amazons. But only men were dumb enough to spent enough time and resources through history to get training and experience with pointy sticks. And never ever in human history 100% of male population was trained to be soldier. Because you need farmers, smiths, bureaucrats, priests,... Because being soldier usually means many years of training (non neccessary continual, but at least from time to time) and swinging pointy sticks and getting killed...

    So conclusion is simple. Units with majority of women were rare through history so except of these special ones it make no sense to artificially increase number of women on battlefield. This game is not about civilian massacres but about wars and battles. And situation in which you were forced to field armed civilians means pretty much a massacre...And the last argument. This game is simplification of real life. It cannot be 1:1 simulation. You also donīt expect every human model to be unique and random generated...
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  12. #52

    Default Re: Women and war

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    Because ancient people were not wikipedia. Many authors exaggerated, increased numbers of enemies even majority of historians were probably altering things....Itīs up to debate if it was propaganda, unintentional or whatever. But probably better altitude is to be sceptic and try to get more sources. Because people are lying as Dr. House is saying all the time. Because people are people the whole history of humankind. This whole debate is pointless. Women, children, elders hell even part of male population are consider civilians....because they are by default non-combatant. That is the very same for the whole human history. Because having pointy stick in your hand doesnīt equal to training,experience and being capable soldier. Especially in ancient warfare. Donīt get me wrong. Women are very much capable as men especially if you select the top 5% which probably will beat average males easily. Just to illustrate women capabilities ....Dahomey Amazons. But only men were dumb enough to spent enough time and resources through history to get training and experience with pointy sticks. And never ever in human history 100% of male population was trained to be soldier. Because you need farmers, smiths, bureaucrats, priests,... Because being soldier usually means many years of training (non neccessary continual, but at least from time to time) and swinging pointy sticks and getting killed...

    So conclusion is simple. Units with majority of women were rare through history so except of these special ones it make no sense to artificially increase number of women on battlefield. This game is not about civilian massacres but about wars and battles. And situation in which you were forced to field armed civilians means pretty much a massacre...And the last argument. This game is simplification of real life. It cannot be 1:1 simulation. You also donīt expect every human model to be unique and random generated...
    Being skeptical of an ancient source is pretty standard fare, and I think we would all agree there. If Tactitus wrote about 200,000 Celts at Mona, we could definitely discount that number (or assume it is including all people living on the island, and then inflated some rather than counting fighting men). Taking any writing, but some particularly historians including Tacitus, at face value without additional sources in agreement would be stupid. But taking an event like a battle, or perhaps large skirmish, described in some small detail and saying "no, that was probably a ritualistic suicide" is absurd! That is like "well, we don't know exactly what year Queen Zenobia tried to take Alexandria, so it probably never happened".

  13. #53

    Default Re: Women and war

    Third wave cancerous feminism is pushing hard for this "women are men, and men are women" bullcrap. Only an idiot who knows nothing about biology - or someone with a political agenda - would make such an absurd claim.

    Can you imagine the Roman army lowering its standards and training level to accommodate women? Me neither.
    It's amazing that people who lived 2000 years ago seem to be wiser and know more about the sexes and their biological conditions than a lot of people do today.

  14. #54

    Default Re: Women and war

    Life expectancy was not long in this period, we all know this. This isn't a political discussion, it comes down to anthropological principles. You have women in your levy or standing army, you have no more fecundity in the tribe, you die out. Germanic tribes were not interested in equal rights, this is a modern principle. Moreover, as a comparison, there's not a single North American tribe that has a culture of women warriors. None. Point being that this is a static cultural norm. The Romans new that when tribes had women with them they were there to settle, that is factual. I guess the Romans were sexists? Who watches the children when war starts, the goats?

    -60 melee for maternity leave

    Some of you are so immersed in the myopic tide of the common age it's astounding. Next people will fighting to prove gender neutrality was recognized.
    Last edited by stevehoos; July 15, 2017 at 08:22 PM.
    Shogun 2, no thanks I will stick with Kingdoms SS.

  15. #55
    Libertus
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    88

    Default Re: Women and war

    Please let this thread die. This subject has been beaten to death everywhere on this forum over and over and over and over again. Please just let it die.

  16. #56

    Default Re: Women and war

    Life expectancy was not long in this period, we all know this.
    Life expectancy was low because of infant mortality. A life expectancy of ~35 doesn't mean people are dying off in their 30's. The longevity of people prior to the industrial revolution was ~10-15 years less than it is now without high quality modern medicine (industrialized nations that aren't "first world), and like ~20-25 years with quality modern medicine (first world). Life expectancy is not the same thing as longevity or span. If someone lived past the age of 2, their life expectancy would go up by something like 10 years. If they survived childhood, it went up to ~50-60.

  17. #57

    Default Re: Women and war

    Quote Originally Posted by stevehoos View Post
    Some of you are so immersed in the myopic tide of the common age it's astounding. Next people will fighting to prove gender neutrality was recognized.
    I think it's pretty clear on the differences between biological sex, but yknow today's definition of someone of a certain gender could be drastically different from that of the past.

    Nobody's fighting over that currently, as far as I know.

    unrelated: hermaphrodites, ambiguity, bisexuality and homosexuality propegate myth and history.

    Hermaphroditus, son? of aphrodite and hermes

    Ishtar, the goddess of love fertility and war was rescued from the underworld by a hand-crafted androgynous cutiepie made by Ea called Asu-shu-namir.

    And steppe nomads like I said, rode horses until their balls fell off, and ended up being quite in touch with their feminine side.

    And egyptians male and female both wore similar wigs and makeup.

    And eunuchs were common courtly presences

    And the ancient greeks bummed the guy next to them in the shield wall to make them more invested in protecting them.

    And many ancient people had a thing for catamites

    More recently, you see, bumming other males being frowned upon and viewed as irregular or "un-manly." whereas in ancient greece it was very manly. In fact having sex with girls was for sissies!

    Either way this discussion has gotten waaay out of hand.
    Last edited by JPrice94; July 17, 2017 at 07:53 AM.

  18. #58

    Default Re: Women and war

    Quote Originally Posted by JPrice94 View Post
    I think it's pretty clear on the differences between biological sex, but yknow today's definition of someone of a certain gender could be drastically different from that of the past.

    Nobody's fighting over that currently, as far as I know.

    unrelated: hermaphrodites, ambiguity, bisexuality and homosexuality propegate myth and history.

    Hermaphroditus, son? of aphrodite and hermes

    Ishtar, the goddess of love fertility and war was rescued from the underworld by a hand-crafted androgynous cutiepie made by Ea called Asu-shu-namir.

    And steppe nomads like I said, rode horses until their balls fell off, and ended up being quite in touch with their feminine side.

    And egyptians male and female both wore similar wigs and makeup.

    And eunuchs were common courtly presences

    And the ancient greeks bummed the guy next to them in the shield wall to make them more invested in protecting them.

    And many ancient people had a thing for catamites

    More recently, you see, bumming other males being frowned upon and viewed as irregular or "un-manly." whereas in ancient greece it was very manly. In fact having sex with girls was for sissies!

    Either way this discussion has gotten waaay out of hand.
    Holy , what?

    What does Hermaphroditos have to do with battle?

    "Rode until their balls fell off"? What? Where in the hell are you getting this? Yes, riding bareback does tend to do damage to the testicles over a really long period of time, but mostly this just reduced fertility. Their balls don't "fall off", and they don't lose testosterone. At least, there is no evidence of this anywhere in the historical record, nor does it make any sense as LOTS of ancient people rode without saddles (including the Macedonian Companions, who were most definitely not feminine).

    Wearing wigs and stygium have nothing to do with masculinity or femininity until pretty recently in history. Certain cultures saw it as effeminate (like the Romans), while others saw it as a status of class and prestige; wearing stygium every day wasn't cheap.

    Eunuchs were almost universally looked down upon as weak and effeminate. They were allowed in courts pretty much specifically for this reason; they weren't considered a threat to the status quo, and they weren't a problem to have around queens and princess and wives of officials and whatnot.

    Homosexuality has nothing to do with women in war. And at no point did the Greeks see it as "sex with girls was for sissies". Where in the hell are you getting this? The Greeks had no issue with homosexual play (at least between men), but they definitely had an issue with homosexual romantic relationships; men having sex with men was fine, men being with men was not. Gay marriage would not have passed a vote. Men were supposed to marry women, put babies in them, and then focus on having relationships with other men; sometimes those relationships were sexual, but far from universally.

  19. #59
    Gigantus's Avatar I am not special - I am a limited edition.
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Goa - India
    Posts
    53,095
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default Re: Women and war

    Locked before this reaches the bottom of the off topic abyss.










Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •