Women's role in the ROME II

[parthian shot]

Is there the same limit as in RTW I, in which women are not allow to be named characters?

And if women are allowed to be named characters, does ROME II allow spouses to be either male or female?

And what is more, can both spouses be the name characters (like Octavian and Livia)?

Can women be deployed as emissaries, spies, or assassins?

Is marriage going to be part of political intrigue? Like Caesar married his daughter Julia to Pompey thereby assured the alliance of the 1st Triumvirate.

[Border Patrol]

There are entire peoples being left unimplemented and your concern is the lack of representation of the few handfuls of incidents involving women showing up in game?

[parthian shot]

There are entire peoples being left unimplemented and your concern is the lack of representation of the few handfuls of incidents involving women showing up in game?

One of two genders are being ignored in RTW I, so why is it not a fair question to ask?

BTW, no matter how many factions/people CA adds, there will always be people out there crying foul that CA needs to add more.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

there will always be people out there crying foul that CA needs to add more.

yes there is...........

OKI close thread!!

[Dan113112]

There are entire peoples being left unimplemented and your concern is the lack of representation of the few handfuls of incidents involving women showing up in game?

What peoples are being ignored?

[Toho]

There are entire peoples being left unimplemented and your concern is the lack of representation of the few handfuls of incidents involving women showing up in game?

this so much this...
yet again another fail thread. gg OP.

I still have not heard much constructive recommendations to make the game engine more complete as far as women are concerned, other than...

because no one cares and because we are more concerned with entire factions not showing up than seeing one or two women so that the handful of feminists are happy.

[atila9000]

in RTW 1, womens werent ignored. when any women died, you received a message saying that that woman has died. in M2TW, you had princesses

[douglas]

I am not sure I understand the need for having named female characters. Historically the Roman (early anyway) social structure was not very favorable to the female part of the human race, especially among the nobility.

All that is to same though, what would your request have to do with game play? For me that is the battles.

[Evillemon325]

Women have always been a part of the tree, their will likely be a female agent given the trailer and precedence in S2 and MTW2, and in the past CA has put in hugely inaccurate units to allow women into the roster (e.g. wailing women).

Women are already very much a part of Total War and really always have been, often moreso than what is historically authentic. Applying 21st century standards won't change the realities of the past.

[parthian shot]

I am not sure I understand the need for having named female characters. Historically the Roman (early anyway) social structure was not very favorable to the female part of the human race, especially among the nobility.

All that is to same though, what would your request have to do with game play? For me that is the battles.

If you study the founding of the Roman Empire, the Empress Livia is actually the real boss. She is both the spy/espionage/intelligence master as well as the person who exercised great influence on which the candidates for what offices.

To have female named character as general is also important, IMO at the least there should be a provision for doing so, because the event like Baudica's Rebellion can never be enacted unless women are allowed to be named character and command an army.

Ancient history is his-story, because there are great many women leaders out there who are either being degraded, ignored, or trashed about by the his-torians because they can not stomach the fact that women are actually playing vital role in the politics and military leading to the establishment of the patriarchal society. And they want to make sure the following generations will not hear of it.

[Dan113112]

If you study the founding of the Roman Empire, the Empress Livia is actually the real boss. She is both the spy/espionage/intelligence master, as well as holding the vital religious office in the empire.

To have female named character as general is also important, IMO at the least there should be a provision for doing so, because the event like Baudica's Rebellion can never be enacted unless women are allowed to be named character and command an army.

Ancient history is his-story, because there are great many women leaders out there who are either being degraded, ignored, or trashed about by the his-torians because they can not stomach the fact that women are actually playing vital role in the politics and military leading to the establishment of the paternal society. And they want to make sure the following generations will not hear of it.

Okay, historically there were powerful women in politics. Livia and Cleopatra readily come to mind. Legally, however, women were not allowed to wield political power or own land in Roman times. Although, they did tend to have more autonomy then Greek women they were still considered property.

I do not agree with you saying that all male historians are woman-haters though many ancient, medieval, and even some early modern ones were.

[Roma_Victrix]

Okay, historically there were powerful women in politics. Livia and Cleopatra readily come to mind. Legally, however, women were not allowed to wield political power or own land in Roman times. Although, they did tend to have more autonomy then Greek women they were still considered property.

False. It is true women were not allowed to run for public office (instead sometimes wielding indirect power behind their husbands or sons). However, they were entirely able to own property. In fact it was their legal right to enjoy equal inheritance rights with their male siblings on the death of a father or mother who failed to leave a will. Roman history is littered with examples of rich and wealthy women donating their own money to fund building projects (the triumphal Arch of the Sergii comes to mind). Women were by law citizens, not "property" of their fathers or husbands as you falsely claim. As citizens they were able to run their own commercial enterprises and enter into business contracts. In fact, once a Roman woman's father died, she was completely legally emancipated and did not have to heed what her husband said. Your comparison with women of the Greek city-states (pre 146 BC of course) is a colossal understatement.

As for women in RTWII, they didn't play any role in the army (minus of course Scythian warrior women) so they don't belong on the battle map unless you're fighting Boudicca or something. As for women playing agents like spies, assassins, and diplomats, this also seems ahistorical. A spy perhaps, but a diplomat? You'd have to be serving in public office to handle such affairs of state and I've already stated women were barred from this. I'm not sure how prominent wives could be in a game where your military generals are pretty one-dimensional characters to begin with.

[TheNasoRomaLost]

Okay, historically there were powerful women in politics. Livia and Cleopatra readily come to mind. Legally, however, women were not allowed to wield political power or own land in Roman times. Although, they did tend to have more autonomy then Greek women they were still considered property.

I do not agree with you saying that all male historians are woman-haters though many ancient, medieval, and even some early modern ones were.

Women could and did have property and land in ancient rome.

Is there the same limit as in RTW I, in which women are not allow to be named characters?

And if women are allowed to be named characters, does ROME II allow spouses to be either male or female?

And what is more, can both spouses be the name characters (like Octavian and Livia)?

Can women be deployed as emissaries, spies, or assassins?

Is marriage going to be part of political intrigue? Like Caesar married his daughter Julia to Pompey thereby assured the alliance of the 1st Triumvirate.

1. The game as I am sure you are well aware of is Rome Total War and no ancient society allowed women into the army.

2. Women were actually over-represented in Rome Total War 1s battlefield. The accurate representation of them is unfortunately none. The game just doesn't care about politics, your protectorate will attack you within two turns, and your ally is reliable for attacking you. The screeching women and Scythian Noblewomen were put in as a stereotype.

3. Women had roles in ancient armies just not roles that could be portrayed in the game. Women would give morale support, some would be prostitutes, some would be unofficial wives etc but the game mechanics are unconcerned with those roles.

4. portraying women as assasins is unrealistic; the only important murdered figure where a woman was suspected in the games timeframe was Scipio Aemilianus who may have been killed by his wife; not an impressive showing for the idea that ancients would use women as hit women.

I thank the original poster for bringing up such an important topic. Unfortunately I will not give it the due it deserves here but will say just a bit.

To the those who dismiss the topic outright. Please attend a college course on the topic or read a few books on the history of any discriminated group from their own perspective, such as women. Only after putting in extended efforts to understand their views from their own perspectives, can you be informed enough to discuss such an important and relevant topic. There you will be educated on the people who did not make into some of your high school text books, who are minimized in value and who are still not involved in current public debates. Otherwise you risk spilling your ignorance all over the forum.

As to the original thought, I think it is incumbent on us, as educated individuals (and game makers), to include discriminated peoples in as many arenas as possible in relevant ways. This of course precludes forcing them into ahistorical positions such as overtly making them emperor. It means including them in the places that they were, and offering us as users, the oppotunity to consider their existence and make decisions accordingly. It is completely conceivable that a highly influential wife usurps power. That an influential mother guides public policy through her son. That a daughter changes the course of Roman history because of her decisions. All historical examples of course, which would not be known about unless they were included in various medias. In fact, to not give them their due is ahistorical. It should be a joke that such discussion is necessary, but the current thread also proves the need for it.

If you have any information at all about women in ancient roman society you know that the name Nasso=Ovid; I know significantly more then most about the position of women in ancient society because I HAVE taken college courses where translation of ancient texts like poetry and plays was the course. Women played no military roles. politically wives did not "usurp" power in ancient Rome they had their own property seperate from their husbands and had legal autonomy but could never vote, they could never run for office and they most certainly could not change the course of foreign policy. Even on domestic policy they only had influence when the policy was an attempt to make all women slaves on a permanent basis (Cato wanted to make a war tax of nearly 100% on women permanent). Behind the scenes anyone could give advice but ultimately the office holder makes the decision and the voter decides who that office holder is. A daughter could change the course of history by divorcing her husband and taking her wealth with her or as Clodia did by taking a powerful person who stole from them to court; but that could be represented by traits.

If you study the founding of the Roman Empire, the Empress Livia is actually the real boss. She is both the spy/espionage/intelligence master as well as the person who exercised great influence on which the candidates for what offices.

To have female named character as general is also important, IMO at the least there should be a provision for doing so, because the event like Baudica's Rebellion can never be enacted unless women are allowed to be named character and command an army.

Ancient history is his-story, because there are great many women leaders out there who are either being degraded, ignored, or trashed about by the his-torians because they can not stomach the fact that women are actually playing vital role in the politics and military leading to the establishment of the paternal society. And they want to make sure the following generations will not hear of it.

You are using stereotypes. The "Empress" Livia is outside of Rome Total War's time frame, she never held the title of empress, and her role was entirely what her husband wanted it to be. Baudica is outside of the timeframe, and without the romans there she wouldn't have been able to rise to a very rare situation.

[Destraex]

If you study the founding of the Roman Empire, the Empress Livia is actually the real boss. She is both the spy/espionage/intelligence master, as well as holding the vital religious office in the empire.

To have female named character as general is also important, IMO at the least there should be a provision for doing so, because the event like Baudica's Rebellion can never be enacted unless women are allowed to be named character and command an army.

Ancient history is his-story, because there are great many women leaders out there who are either being degraded, ignored, or trashed about by the his-torians because they can not stomach the fact that women are actually playing vital role in the politics and military leading to the establishment of the paternal society. And they want to make sure the following generations will not hear of it.

Do you also believe in aliens and religion? Monsters in the dark still?
What you are saying amounts to a conspiracy theory if you apply it across all know history. Because across all known history we are probably talking in the region of <1%

It makes sense that if there were so many great wemon that "controlled" history that they were in the background. No point showing what nobody can prove or what
people just make up out of a longing to believe things are more than they seem.

[parthian shot]

No offense, history really says diddly squat to many facets regarding a period in time, but perhaps anthropology and archaeology can tell different sides of stories.

BTW, ROME II is not about the Romans, it is the time period Rome existed, so as Romans are so male dominant as you claimed, what about the Scythians, the Sarmatians, the Massagetae, or the Tocharians. They all existed at the time of the Romans and some of them migrated to Europe centuries later. As far as anthropology research and archaeological evidence suggested, women have equal or higher power than men in their societies.

Whatever is said, I am very troubled with your posting.

First, I am some what perturbed by your patronizing words without substantiation. You made very arrogant statements without considering the possibilities that the person you are talking down to might know more about these matters than you.
Even if what you stated is a possibility, I would still suggest that you back up your statement regarding what is being discussed here amounts to, and I quote...

"...aliens and religion? Monsters in the dark still?
What you are saying amounts to a conspiracy theory if you apply it across all know history. Because across all known history we are probably talking in the region of <1% ..."

Some of your comments on their face value amounts to falsehood. As I stated in different threads before, "history" is only less than 5% of human existence. The rest are all shown, so far, by anthropology and archaeology, to be her-story, i.e., human existence is actually 95% matriarchal society, less than 5% of patriarchal society. Our current existence just did not include that 95% of the true story, thanks to 25 centuries of brainwashing, extermination of truth, falsification, and smear campaigning by the men-society.

Other questions...

What office did Empress Livia hold?
Given the fact that Claudian family had produced, at that time period, the most capable of generals in Rome's history. You think her alliance with Octavian through so-called marriage is more of "she needs him", or "he needs her"?

ask yourself this, even for Rome alone, what would the Claudio-Julian Rome's politics be, if you take away Agrippina the Younger, Julia (Caesar's daughter), Cleopatra, Livia, Antonia Minor, or Marcia - spouse of Cato the Younger. There is practically no intrigue left.

And we keep the perspective on Rome II, not just the narrow minded view on how oppressive the Greco-Roman laws are on women, other factions of the period might need to have women as named character or even generals.

Do you also believe in aliens and religion? Monsters in the dark still?
What you are saying amounts to a conspiracy theory if you apply it across all know history. Because across all known history we are probably talking in the region of <1%

It makes sense that if there were so many great wemon that "controlled" history that they were in the background. No point showing what nobody can prove or what
people just make up out of a longing to believe things are more than they seem.

[athanaric]

Ancient history is his-story, because there are great many women leaders out there who are either being degraded, ignored, or trashed about by the his-torians because they can not stomach the fact that women are actually playing vital role in the politics and military leading to the establishment of the paternal society. And they want to make sure the following generations will not hear of it.

OK, which ones? Give us some names.

In Amazon Total War 7.0, we have a faction called the Far East Celt (based on real archaeological data and very sound anthropological extrapolations about Celtic people, with blonde hair and blue eyes, aka Tocharians or Yuezhi people as they are known to the Chinese, living near East Central Asia). The mummies recovered in modern day Northwestern Chinese frontier of these people have men as tall as 6'6" (192cm), and women as tall as 6' (180cm). The mummies are 4,000 years old! They are also credited to be the first people known to have domesticated horses.

While I appreciate both those cultures equally, Tocharians are Tocharians and Celts are Celts. Let's not mix them up. Looking similar and speaking distantly related languages is not enough to warrant lumping them together.

Also keep in mind that, these are all matriarchal societies. Meaning, women ran the community.

Judging by that, every single community in human history is a matriarchal one. Well except for homosexual men clubs I guess.

Probably because women are more valuable as warriors than men,

Women are more valuable as civilians than men. They are generally crappier warriors than men because of biological facts.

not because men are less of soldiers but the ponies allows the women to be the scouts, i.e. eyes and ears of their army. And everyone commanded battle in the military would probably agree that the best place for the commanding general prior to the engagement with the enemy is to be with the scouts. And you simply can not have the scout company riding 12 hand tall ponies dragging a 6'6" tall general with them to reconnoiter the enemy position.

Sounds like conjecture. I haven't seen any native depiction of Tocharian or Iranian "warrior women". And the (only upper class, anyway) graves make for sketchy data, and are open for interpretation.

[parthian shot]

While I appreciate both those cultures equally, Tocharians are Tocharians and Celts are Celts. Let's not mix them up. Looking similar and speaking distantly related languages is not enough to warrant lumping them together.


Judging by that, every single community in human history is a matriarchal one. Well except for homosexual men clubs I guess.


Sounds like conjecture. I haven't seen any native depiction of Tocharian or Iranian "warrior women". And the (only upper class, anyway) graves make for sketchy data, and are open for interpretation.

1. recovered Tocharian fabrics have identical weaving pattern and method as any Celtic culture, unique only to the Celtic people. Surviving Tocharian grammar and linguistic records are also closely related to the Celtic language system. You are gainsaying stuff without any prior investigation.

2. I am sorry to offend your male sensibility, but there is no evidence that human started as Patriarchal society. And your other comments are simply garbage!

3. regarding conjectures, You are the one have not had any demonstrated study yet had the guts to demand a graduate school exam on me? I am not your hired tutor, so do your own homework and come back with comments containing some semblance of substance.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=560849

There was a similar thread about this a while back, it could provide some interesting points.

[Destraex]

IIRC wemon make up 50% of the soldiers in Rome2. Just like in modern times right now where wemon can make the choice freely and also make up the majority of fighters. Not sure about named characters though.
I sure hope Cleopatra makes it in and maybe boedicia

[Stavroforos]

I hope women have a greater role, especially when it comes to politics and political influence, and not just sexualized agents or wives.

I also hope we can have a female avatar in multiplayer.