Female Presence in the Army?

[Donnodona]

Just like Carthage and Rome being passionately favored by most people, Royal Scythian was, and still is, my favorite faction in Rome 2 because of their amazing Amazonian horse archers. I want to experience the game once more in a proper nomadic horde fashion.
I'm afraid to ask this in fear of possible repercussion; however, I feel someone will bring it up eventually, so I'm willing to sacrifice myself for this question: "How will this mod address female presence in the army?"
Since this project is officially announced that it's in cooperation with DeI. I would assume their presence will be removed completely, despite all the verified archaeological evidence across the continent, for the sake of "Historical Authenticity". Am I right?

[parthian shot]

I have this bad feeling this thread will lead to a fast closure.

[Willhelm123]

I think there's some solid evidence for female troops in the Steppe nomad factions. I haven't included any females in the Briton roster I'm currently putting together though, doesn't seem to be any evidence, i don't think Queens really count.

I have no political opinions about it, if there's evidence I'll do it if there isn't i wont.

[Petellius]

I think there's some solid evidence for female troops in the Steppe nomad factions. I haven't included any females in the Briton roster I'm currently putting together though, doesn't seem to be any evidence, i don't think Queens really count.

I have no political opinions about it, if there's evidence I'll do it if there isn't i wont.

Read Tacitus's account of the invasion of mona.

Also I hate that you should feel worried pose such a question, it's a historical discussion like other. If we get evidence of it we'll do it.

[Willhelm123]

Read Tacitus's account of the invasion of mona.

Also I hate that you should feel worried pose such a question, it's a historical discussion like other. If we get evidence of it we'll do it.

Thanks just read it. Very interesting, i think female priestesses may have fought, i also read a theory that Boudica may have been groomed by the druids into a priestess on Mona which is why so many followed her so quickly. I'm still struggling to be convinced that main Briton units would have females in them, for Germans it gets mentioned a lot but this seems to be something very unique to the Isle of Mona and the druids. Still as we're having a druid unit perhaps those ranks can have females in them. I just have to figure out how to make this unit look terrifying.

Will Ancient Empires be strictly historical, or will there be any hypothetical units? Also, if you do add female warriors, will it be an all female unit, or the odd female soldier in a regular unit? I think the latter makes more sense.

We're doing it more historical than most other mods, even more than EB i would say. However there will be some semi-hypothetical units, only for very late game units, and only on factions which would never have reached the size and strength the player might get them to, so if for example you take an Arab faction and conquer half the known world, it makes sense that your faction would develop beyond what they historically had. But all these units will be realistic and culturally appropriate to the faction, it won't be "Arab Legionaries".

Glad to see this being brought up for AE!

If you plan to implement this, will it be mixed units like we've done in DeI (example scythian horse archers have a mix of women and men in the unit) or will it be pure units consisting of just women?

It would be mixed units, evidence for female warriors is scarce enough let alone entire units of them. But the concept of a unit is part of the Total war engine whereas historically among less civilised factions it would be more likely just large blobs of troops divided on their particular clan or tribal groups. That's where we lose out on realism.

It's unfortunate that there (AFAIK) can't be mixes lower than about 1-in-4 from an "appeasing the traditionalists" standpoint, but I think the evidence is (in the appropriate regions, obviously, and ESPECIALLY for garrison units) more in favor of having them than not. Should there be women in Greek / Roman armies? Almost certainly not, as they were very... uptight about such things, culturally. But the odd female fighter in a Germanic tribal army? Absolutely.

You can have up to 5 variants for one unit, and each of the 5 can have a lot of variation themselves, but obviously when it comes to male/female you're stuck with the 5 choices. So in 1 in 5 female may be a good choice.

[Donnodona]

Thanks, that's all I need to know. Here is a serial Documentary of Scythian Ice Maiden as my token of gratitude: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDQgMCmnBNw

She is a Scythian noble woman buried between border of Mongolia and Russia, along with her war horses and weapons. The most badass part is the floral tattoo on her arms. The tattoo is so lavish and well preserved that the entire crew put down their tools and lined up to gaze upon its glory. She is certainly a better reference than Herodotus' written rumors.

[Donnodona]

Forgive me for my timid worries, I had unpleasant experience in other corners of the internet before. I'm glad this forum is not one of them. Also, I don't intend by any means to disrespect Herodotus. He is a great historian in his time. When I said the Ice Maiden is a better reference than his words, I spoke a common consensus in archaeology that the validity of excavated evidence is often stronger than that of second-handed account by outsiders. Seeing is better than believing. That's all.

[Petellius]

Forgive me for my timid worries, I had unpleasant experience in other corners of the internet before. I'm glad this forum is not one of them. Also, I don't intend by any means to disrespect Herodotus. He is a great historian in his time. When I said the Ice Maiden is a better reference than his words, I spoke a common consensus in archaeology that the validity of excavated evidence is often stronger than that of second-handed account by outsiders. Seeing is better than believing. That's all.

I completely agree, no historian whether ancient or not should be entirely believed. Every 'truth' presented in a history is only a single angle on a world we are trying to understand. Archaeology helps in refining these theories into something more complete as it is actual physical evidence or fact, instead of the biases of men from 2000 years past. Which is why we must use everything at our disposal to figure everything out to something that even resembles what the past was actually like or it is no more than a nice story.

[Bongfu]

This argument comes up from time to time and its hard to cut through the vitriol that flows from misogynistic comments that will form because of it.

Hopefully I can provide some guidance, but I am about to run out the door so I will keep things brief.

Our best answer is, "we don't know". We don't have a lot of solid evidence to say yes, but we equally don't have a lot of solid evidence to say no. Sure there is an obvious bias from historians, most of which are/were men, but that does not tell the whole story. A lot of history got rewritten during the Middle Ages and well into the Renaissance. This was largely due to the Catholic Church and their teachings of "women are inferior to men". Thus, it was not in the best interest of the church to allow any sort of female warrior evidence come to light.

We know from Hippocrates, as well as Herodotus, that the nomadic tribes of the steps had women warriors. We have seen archaeological evidence (I follow up with sources in another post) that the Germanic people also let women serve in combat. Now I am not implying it was some widespread phenomena, but there is precedence for women serving in combat in the ancient periods of history.

[LucasPiazon]

Will Ancient Empires be strictly historical, or will there be any hypothetical units? Also, if you do add female warriors, will it be an all female unit, or the odd female soldier in a regular unit? I think the latter makes more sense.

[Muntril]

I'm not sure about the historical accuracy of it, but Attila did have it so that lower tier barbarian units had a few women within it, especially for hordes. Maybe a similar thing can be done for AE.

[Ygraine]

Glad to see this being brought up for AE!

If you plan to implement this, will it be mixed units like we've done in DeI (example scythian horse archers have a mix of women and men in the unit) or will it be pure units consisting of just women?

[Draewn]

It's unfortunate that there (AFAIK) can't be mixes lower than about 1-in-4 from an "appeasing the traditionalists" standpoint, but I think the evidence is (in the appropriate regions, obviously, and ESPECIALLY for garrison units) more in favor of having them than not. Should there be women in Greek / Roman armies? Almost certainly not, as they were very... uptight about such things, culturally. But the odd female fighter in a Germanic tribal army? Absolutely.

[ABH2]

Well, CA's Rome 2 female units will not be present as they are kind of ridiculous. The other team members here have answered the question mostly as I see it. It really just boils down to the evidence. For the Scythians and Sarmatians, there is evidence for female horse riders. Exact percentages are hard to define. They should be intermixed as you are talking about nomadic warriors that organized themselves based on social units.

Then there's the question of Western barbarians like the Gauls and such. The long story short of my opinion on that is - women would have fought only if necessary. We do get accounts of women fighting in defense of their homes, and doing so in a manner to garner some respect from the Romans. In terms of field battles, however, they were on the sidelines when mentioned (typically a migrating group of Celts, wagons with women and families).

[ayylmango]

Females in the militaries of any melee era is wishful thinking. A myth, like the sword in the stone, to create legends. It's physically impossible for women to fight men in hand to hand combat. A single blow from a man to a woman's shield would likely shatter her wrist or even humerus.

[Draewn]

Females in the militaries of any melee era is wishful thinking. A myth, like the sword in the stone, to create legends. It's physically impossible for women to fight men in hand to hand combat. A single blow from a man to a woman's shield would likely shatter her wrist or even humerus.

You're, uh, aware that women in combat sports (let alone actual militaries - there were famously two women who succeeded in Ranger school recently, and I can guarantee you there were a lot of people wanting them to fail involved) are a thing, right? The difference between yon typical man and woman in physical strength is substantially smaller than the difference between an athlete and sedentary folks, of either gender. Are the people at the topmost end of each gender going to be equal? Quite possibly not, as seen in modern Olympic athletics (I don't have the background to speculate as to how much there is relative cultural emphasis and how much is biological in origin), but that's not actually a particularly relevant question.

[Petellius]

Guys can we not? Historical discussion only, any gender bias or such posts won't be tolerated. Thank you.

[Bongfu]

Females in the militaries of any melee era is wishful thinking. A myth, like the sword in the stone, to create legends. It's physically impossible for women to fight men in hand to hand combat. A single blow from a man to a woman's shield would likely shatter her wrist or even humerus.

Yeah, hate to get off topic...

This is absolutely garbage. Seriously, don't post this ignorant crap on a discussion like this. I knew women in the army that would absolutely wreck any man in any fight whether it was hand to hand or any other physical competition. You seriously have issues if you think women cannot do the same things men can do and you need to wake up from your misogynist's fantasy world.

[Garensterz]

Yeah, hate to get off topic...

This is absolutely garbage. Seriously, don't post this ignorant crap on a discussion like this. I knew women in the army that would absolutely wreck any man in any fight whether it was hand to hand or any other physical competition. You seriously have issues if you think women cannot do the same things men can do and you need to wake up from your misogynist's fantasy world.

No doubt some experienced women are capable of beating a man in a physical fight, but putting experienced women up against to another experienced man is different thing. Even Ronda Rousy wouldn't be able to defeat a male MMA fighter with the same weight as she is. She could get lucky though, or maybe prolong the fight. But chances of her winning is low. Even if you say they both have the same skills and mentality, one thing women lack is Testosterone levels.

Edit:
It's just one thing in life you need to accept, men and women are different in terms of how both hormones function. Man has power and endurance. It's one of our advantages

[ayylmango]

Yeah, hate to get off topic...

This is absolutely garbage. Seriously, don't post this ignorant crap on a discussion like this. I knew women in the army that would absolutely wreck any man in any fight whether it was hand to hand or any other physical competition. You seriously have issues if you think women cannot do the same things men can do and you need to wake up from your misogynist's fantasy world.

You're absolutely delusional if you think a woman can fight a man in hand to hand combat outside of friendly sparring. In a real kill or be killed situation, women are fodder to even the puniest man. Period. Anything else you might think is simply modernist nonsense that has no bearing on reality and it shows the pathetic intellectual state of men in the west today.