Women and war

[JPrice94]

I feel like I might trigger someone on here, and I don't know if this has been mentioned, but any plans to add more females to units in ancient empires?

Suetonis stated that Boudicca's Iceni army "contained more women than men."

Sextus Junius Brutus said of the Lusitanian women: they were "fighting and perishing in company with the men with such bravery that they uttered no cry even in the midst of slaughter"

And we all know the Sycthian/Sarmatian riders and marksmen, who likely gave rise to the legend of the Amazons. I don't think they were just burried with weapons as accessories, as there was much evidence in each grave of wounds sustained in battle, wear on the fingers from the longterm use of the bow, and bow-legged skeletons suggesting life in the saddle. 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?)

A side note here:Some historians have interpreted evidence and graves, which contained both mirrors and makeup and weapons and think that many are not strictly female, but male. Some impotent men were imitating or doing typically women things to some degree. And there were lots of impotent sycthians because they all rode horses too much. It's therefor proposed that there was gender-fluidity in this society and people who styled themselves as somewhere inbetween. 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.

Arguably females getting stuck in might have been a lot more common outside of the "civilized roman/greek" world. Our knowlege of history is flaky at best and there have been many who would have sought to white-wash it. Women warriors afterall wasn't a romantic idea they wanted spreading in their male dominated society. You'll note that women became much more prevailent in one-off accounts in recent times, despite the strong grip of christianity and patriarchal control, suggesting thatm, in more lenient cultures that pre-date roman influence, such as the celts, women would be free to fight if they so chose, and may have chose to do so more often, naturally of their own accord or through nessecity.

But what do I know...

For the most part it would be baggage defense, no doubt, with sturdier males forming the battle lines, but there's no reason why women could not fight with missile, skirmish and hastily join the ranks of levied villagers in britonic, germanic and some iberian factions

[Franco_Nico]

My humble opinion. Boudicca´s "army" was barely an army, it was more an angry mob. In Sextus Junius Brutus writings, they described how Romans began to assault towns and in doing so avoid a huge more organized army, so again, there weren't really woman warriors (in an army) but citizens in defense. In the case of Scythian/Sarmatian cultures, I don't have idea haha.
With that in mind I think females may be included in the pleb warriors in some cultures, or in the rebellion army that appears when public order goes down.
I don't want to upset someone with my reasoning, women's have bravely fought in many instances in history, my favorite battle involving women being the siege of sparta, where a small garrison and some reinforcements fend off Pyrrhus. But again, it wasn't really warriors but defenders.
angry mobangry mob

[UMCenturion]

Triggered! kidding aside. Right now we have women peasants and farmers that will fight. Not sure about actual women units or generals. Ill leave that up to Will, as he is our main unit creator

[Willhelm123]

We have women in the tribes people units of the Steppe factions, we have women in the druid unit, and there's a special Boudica unit. The peasant civilians are often women, they mostly flee but some stop and fight .

That's all we have, those are the only ones with a credible historical basis.

but there's no reason why women could not fight with missile, skirmish and hastily join the ranks of levied villagers in britonic, germanic and some iberian factions

There are lots of reasons. People don't want their women folk in battle, that isn't their role and if they die then there is nothing left for most of the men. Women don't want to fight either. The few times we get mentions of women at battles they are not taking part, they are at the rear cheering and it usually proved disastrous, i think it was in the Cimbri invasion, the Romans just targeted the women on the sidelines causing the Germans to freak out and break up.

[JPrice94]

So for town garrison troops of barbarian factions, when the men are a way, you may include armed women mixed among them? PS I think barbarian settlements should have garrisons with higher morale and added ferocity. They are defending their homes and families afterall and are a rugged warrior people, one would not break and run if all that they love is at risk, unlike pansy civilians in their perfumed marble cities.

[KAM 2150]

unlike pansy civilians in their perfumed marble cities.

Carthage and most of City States would disagree

[Willhelm123]

So for town garrison troops of barbarian factions, when the men are a way, you may include armed women mixed among them? PS I think barbarian settlements should have garrisons with higher morale and added ferocity. They are defending their homes and families afterall and are a rugged warrior people, one would not break and run if all that they love is at risk, unlike pansy civilians in their perfumed marble cities.

The units i mentioned are the only ones with women. Barbarian garrisons will be a mixture of levied troops and noble warriors.

[Haddon]

Women show up quite often in war throughout history, but almost never as SOLDIERS. And that is a big difference; they mostly show up in cultures where there is a lot of tribal in-fighting, raids and skirmishes almost without armies fighting armies in battles (like the Celts, Germans, early Nords, Sarmatians, Scythians, Mongols, most American Indian tribes). Women would fight in defense, and some VERY few women would fight offensively, but we have almost no evidence of more than like .1% of armies consisting of female soldiers...really anywhere, that I know of. There are a few remarkable exceptions within history, but they are exceptions.

There are several reasons women, prior to modern warfare, just really don't make a good choice. Firstly, they are generally smaller and weaker, with less stamina and (though many of them will argue this point) lower pain tolerance. Additionally, they are more susceptible to frostbite and foot problems from marching, as female bodies retain more heat in their abdomen (as opposed to extremities). They also can become dramatically less effective in combat due to all sorts of lady problems men don't have to deal with; menstruation being a part of this, but infections and pregnancy being the much larger problem. And most importantly to societies, women are the birthers. Every loss of a man just means there are more potential mates for the surviving men, and only an almost insignificant decrease in population growth (unless there are a series of disastrous defeats, like Rome against Hannibal. Or Rome against the Cimbri). Every loss of a woman is an almost guaranteed loss of population growth, a loss which cannot be recouped.

[JPrice94]

lower pain tolerance.

I'd have thought that someone who has to force a baby's melon head through a tiny opening would have a higher pain tolerance.

[Haddon]

I'd have thought that someone who has to force a baby's melon head through a tiny opening would have a higher pain tolerance.

That is the argument they make. Thing is, no woman would survive childbirth without their bodies creating and saving up endorphins throughout the pregnancy. A woman at war, or just farming, or generally doing anything while not pregnant does not have the pain tolerance of a woman giving birth.

The opening also isn't tiny, as the whole thing is meant to stretch; just with a lot of pain.

And perhaps most important for this argument; women don't really "tolerate" childbirth (without meds). They scream, and themselves, and curse obscenities at anyone around, and pass out, and almost completely lose rationality. Their body might be able to handle the pain, but they aren't tolerating it. My body can handle it being 25 degrees outside while I go for a short walk, but I don't really tolerate it, so I wear a coat.

[Franco_Nico]

I have a sister and can tell she have much lower pain tolerance than me. Just from joking around it always surprise how little amount of force it takes to hurt her. She goes always to the gym since many years and I'm physically much stronger even though I never did any sport or gym never in my life. I can run faster, longer and physical jobs make me less tired than her.
I read the other day a history of a woman who was physically abused by his partner, it's in Spanish btw:

"No sabía que los hombres tenían tanta fuerza. Estoy segura de que ninguna mujer lo sabe hasta que no tiene un manojo de dedos frios en la cara, hasta que no siente que si él cierra el puño un poco más te mata en serio"

I never knew men had that much strength. I'm sure no woman knows it till she have a bunch of cold fingers on her face until she feels that if his fist was closed that could really kill you

Yeah, it's sad as . But it backs up what I feel.

[JPrice94]

Biology is cruel and indifferent. Evolution don't care as long as you can sustain your population and live long enough to breed.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Im not one who cares much about historical accuracy. I love the idea of women soldiers, because for me, it's full of RP potential.

But as much as it would be awesome, it simply didn't happen very often throughout history. Women getting caught up in fighting between tribes, or defending their homes, definitely. But entire units composed of women or mixed sexes marching to war just seems far-fetched.

That said, if I recall correctly, Attila has female agents for barbarians, like the warmaiden, right? That's a great method of representing women in war.

[Daruwind]

Im not one who cares much about historical accuracy.

well sir, you are in thread for quite historically accurate mod.....sry

[stevehoos]

Oh God, one of these threads. No forum is safe. Can we add some Amazonian units? Anyone have a historical cleansing rag to imbue the new age agenda? Maybe we can add "mandatory maternity leave" for disgruntled armies instead of "decimate the legion."

[Haddon]

Oh God, one of these threads. No forum is safe. Can we add some Amazonian units? Anyone have a historical cleansing rag to imbue the new age agenda? Maybe we can add "mandatory maternity leave" for disgruntled armies instead of "decimate the legion."

Wow. OP is asking about historically accurate female warriors. You didn't even bother to read the post, did you? You just read "women and war" and turned into a triggered MGTOW.

[stevehoos]

Wow. OP is asking about historically accurate female warriors. You didn't even bother to read the post, did you? You just read "women and war" and turned into a triggered MGTOW.

There are no historically accurate female warriors in any culture in world history save maybe Sycthcian and a few sparse accounts of others. Not one single plains tribe in North American ( horse-less Woodland Indians included) history ever had a female warrior culture despite their introduction to horses in the 18th century via the Spanish.

The post and its arguments are historically absurd modern projections by someone who doesn't read.

[Haddon]

There are no historically accurate female warriors in any culture in world history save maybe Sycthcian and a few sparse accounts of others. Not one single plains tribe in North American (woodland Indians too) history ever had a female warrior culture despite their introduction to horses in the 18th century via the Spanish.

The post and its arguments are historically absurd modern projections by someone who doesn't read.

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.

[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.

[stevehoos]

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.