So CA has completely succumbed to SJWs and included women as members of regular infantry in their upcoming game TW: Attila. Pic very related.
I know CA is shilling hard these days, and they've more than likely fallen on hard times. But, they at least tried to have some semblance of historical accuracy within these games. Sure there are some tongue-in-cheek units, like flaming pigs, and onagars launching bees. But this is another matter.
I'm sure everyone knows that women did fight in the wars of antiquity. In dire circumstances that are extremely rare. They fought as irregulars, usually defensively and on the losing side - A testament to how dire the circumstances had been to allow them onto a battle field. Including them in a regular standing army as normal combatants is historically inaccurate.
This is revisionist as fuck and it is annoying as fuck.
Why wont it stop?
>literally none of the female models wear helmets
People who like Total War games don't cry about something as innocuous and unrelated to the gameplay as the gender of models
More than likely, you're a faGGot trying to stir up shit.
They're not going create a special algorhythm just to make sure the female model doesn't appear in non city defense versions of the militia type troops.
I've only seen the female models in militia type troops, which are supposed to represent irregulars.
Killroy, pls. Haven't you had enough of shilling to the pyramid confederate by now? gb to >/m/asonorder
Most women didn't fight. Understandable, since most men did not give two shits about courtesy or privacy. Therefore women didn't WANT to fight.
They followed armies as camp followers, yes. But never participated in battle.
Haven't got the game yet, but aren't the women only in the Germanic/Frankish levy units? If that's the case, I couldn't care less. Sure, they're probably overrepresented, but it did occur at the time. It's not like Total War hasn't been guilty of worse historical inaccuracies in the past.
>If you care about history that much, historical accuracy mods will fix it.
Historical accuracy for Atilla's period is pretty much entirely conjecture at points. When people complain about historical accuracy in the more recent Total War games at least half of the time they're just upset because CA isn't going with their own personal take on the period where Bulgarians aren't 9 foot tall super soldiers who all look like fabio.
What the fuck is CA and why do you weaboo faggets always do that shit? Assume that we all know what the fuck you're talking about. And you always type long ass paragraphs, so it's not like you're doing it to save time.
now what the fuck is CA?
One, Vikings had female warriors, Seriously what the fuck? Some of the most famous viking warriors are female, like Hladgerd Lodbrok.
>So CA has completely succumbed to SJWs and included women as members of regular infantry in their upcoming game TW: Attila. Pic very related.
historical accounts mention female warriors, In fact, Scythian and Sarmatian women warriors is often cited as the myth of "Amazons" originated from. So no, it's not historically inaccurate.
>mfw i modded mount and blade warband to have my faction made up entirely of women
> they are elite foot soldiers and archers, all loyal to me
> a massive harem/army
If you faggots did five minutes of research you'd find that the general consensus is that women definitely fought for the the nomadic hordes, though in some tribes more than others and in fairly unknown numbers.
>Some of the most famous vikings are female
No anon, what you meant to say is that some vikings that are renowned are female
just like sometimes my shits are work of art.
I wouldn't call my shits renowned art though.
Famouse vikings, regardless of gender are the ones that have an impact on history. The guy that was carried around on his shield is a famous viking because there are written accounts of his character in spades.
Well they did have that all lady units dlc for Total War 2
first of all stop believing the Vikings tv show is 100% accurate tale and not fantastical bullshit elaborated on to make a good show. Shield maidens are/were purely a myth. Second of all, these Scythian women warriors you speak of had no choice but to band together to defend themselves from invaders because their husbands were nomadic warriors who would leave home for months at a time. They never went on the offensive, nor were they particularly good fighters.
>mfw the captive women and the corpses of women fighters will get raped mercilessly
they were in tribal levies, but only in defense particularly and were in the early stages of human developement like the early Gauls.
As societies develope, the Man became the instrument of war because their natural aptitude in terms of genetics and womens alternative functions. That they can have babies and collect food.
Women would be purely defensive roles in these tribal societies. In cases of mass migration, they would only appear in auxillary type functions like massed levies after the men went forward and engaged in their ceremonies.
Nomadic culture places very little emphasis on gender roles until after marriage. In nomadic cultures, women are taught to hunt, they are taught to fight and they were used in combat.
Women have largely been "written out" of history of combat and war and it's largely a Greek then Renaissance phenomenon. The Greeks were so full of shit that they claimed that "Women warriors cut off their breasts to fight because fighting as a female is unfeminine" and the renaissance is just filled with historical revisionism, subjugation of women (it should be noted that the cause of this is often linked to the Black Plague, where population imbalanced made women much more numerous than men and thus towards the mid-late middle ages, women were taking up more and more powerful offices and positions which the church was threatened by)
Ancient burial excavations show that in ancient societies, generally women made up roughly around 20% of armed forces. (though this changes depending on time and specific cultures of course)
>implying women didn't play a role in barbarian armies. It's almost like if your whole clan is travelling together with no fixed settlement they need all the manpower they need.
Do any of you even into history or anthropology?
I can't find the viking you speak of with a google search, but I could find a nameless frank that stopped a catapult from firing on a village near manzikert during the battle.
People have to do things of significance for history to record the details. Women, frankly, did not. There was no massive cover up of the achievements of women in history, there just wasn't that many heroic women figures, most women were complacent at local politics and family rearing.
You're retarded. A hastily constructed militia during the 5th Century AD would almost certainly have a few women around. Contrary to what SJWs will tell you, it's not a fucking sliding scale of "THE OLDER IT IS, THE MORE OPPRESSED THE WOMYN ARE".
Remember, they're scared villagers defending their home, not a fucking army of men raping and pillaging other countries.
If there are lots of women in the regular army though, then that's bullshit.
>not knowing about the archaeological evidence for shield maidens
You know anon it's ok to just admit you don't know anything about history and you're mad girls are in your games.
>4th century Hun/Goth/Viking wars
>Doesn't know Hervarar saga ok Heioreks
Literally one of the most famous stories from that era is about a female warrior. This story was also the main inspiration for Tolkien.
Figureheads and leaders being female is no big deal. What's stupid is that there is to be a large legion of female footsoldiers. It doesn't make sense to not use male soldiers exclusively as they are expendable in society.
Just because history doesn't match your preconceived notions doesn't mean it's wrong.
I bet you think everyone in the dark ages were idiots like those renaissance cucks would have you believe.
Releasing Scandinavian tribes as "Viking Forefathers" DLC in a game set in the 400's AD would be like releasing "1st Guards Tank Army" DLC for a game wit Peter the Great's Russian Empire.
You want to talk about archeology?
There's sites all around gaellic world where weapons and other objects were buried. This is assumed to be for religious purposes, but hey if I just look at weapons being buried it could just as well be the adoption of passive resistance and a lay down of arms.
Now when you can collaborate archeological evidence with primary sources that are reliable which makes your hypothesis on the archeological evidence valid then you can say shit.
There is no point for women in offensive armies other then as auxiliary units.
Yeah and this time the limited female soldiers are mixed in with lowly units instead of ahistorical fully female battalions. What's ahistorical is you using them to conquer ridiculous amounts of land.
Humanity sciences are complete dominated by progressive retards and are literally a joke.
Women are simply inferior to men in most combat situations and are too important to society (simply because they are usually the limiting resource for breeding) to be used in combat in normal situations in ANY SOCIETY, no matter what your SJW marxist homossexual professor told you.
Well it's not like it's based completely on him since Tolkien borrowed all lores and mixed them but yes Väinämöinen is the biggest influence.
After all elven language was based on finnish too.
Finnish and Estonian mythology lores are distinctly similar more with German's lore compared to other nations.
As someone who is generally very interested in women's roles in history, you should take a lot of stories of female warriors with a grain of salt.
Speaking from a purely physiological perspective, I've tried a few different martial arts and even got a chance to do some ARMA. Even against the few men who were about my size, I struggled a huge amount even just sparring with them, and I usually have no problem and have to slow down for other girls.
However, someone like Ronda Rousey or Cat Zingano back in the Viking days? I could totally see them being capable warriors.
You can't argue that facts are liberal you retard.
Also women are extremely important in defensive combat situations since if they lose the women are forfeit anyways. During the great migration many of these armies are composed of the entire migratory group not just the warriors.
They wont be using them first but saying they would never be used is downright retarded.
>Anyone who hates my insane feminist ideology is a faGGot
I'm pretty sure throwing "viking" in at all is just to get the casual interested.
I'm guessing they're just going for pre-viking era Scandinavians/North Germans. If they make actual fucking 7-800 era vikings that'll be silly.
I get that barbarians did not have the most organized or disciplined militarys and that women may have joined. But a third of all footsoldiers being women is just stupid. Hopefully Atilla gets its own version of Divide Et Imperia to fix some of the more glaring historical flaws.
So you're going to stand by this hilariously vague statement?
>Ancient burial excavations show that in ancient societies, generally women made up roughly around 20% of armed forces.
Because goddamn, that's a weak kind of piss.
It would only make sense in a defensive war of survival. That is when women are pressed into service. The game has bigger problems than that though, the performance is pretty damn bad considering how it looks.
>sacrificing historical accuracy in order to please feminists
They're not even doing it for the female audience, because it's kind of non existent. It's for internet feminists. Glad I got bored with this series
>implying Eastern Germanics didn't have women in their ranks during migratory periods
Not him, but
>I know you spent years studying this shit in an environment that encourages looking at facts, comparing primary sources and coming to your own conclusions, then proving it in a well cited and thoroughly explained thesis, but lol SJW opinion invalid
How does it feel using your worthless political agenda to dismiss all opposition to your shitty opinion? Does it sound familiar?
>He's going to reply to this seriously
>/v/ loses its mind when feminists bitch about unrealistic portrayals of women
>/v/ starts bitching about unrealistic portrayals of women
You faggots are pathetic. Stop with this SJW witch hunt already and just try and enjoy your fucking hobby.
Actually, ancient and medieval armies did have women in them.
They took care of the camp while the men were away and tended to the wounded.
Also, lots of prostitutes would tend to follow the armies around.
History is fun, kiddies.
I'm pretty sure if it did happen it would be an extremely rare occurrence, and not like this game where a good percentage of the army is women.
Give a few examples of women fighting in the period this game takes place in.Records, paintings, anything
>still not an SJW
Even most of /v/ is in on it at this point. How edgy and stupid can you be?
Fucking DISGUSTING DIRTY SJWS went and RUINED Rome Total War 1. Dropped forever.
You guys are fucking ridiculous. If you're going to bitch about SJWs not giving a shit about videogames and just shoving their political agenda everywhere, follow your own advice.
"With the Viking Forefathers at their command, players can marshal the forces of The Geats, The Jutes and The Danes as they launch southwards from their icy homelands on campaigns of looting, raiding and conquest."
"Unique Cultural traits
All Norse factions share the Viking Raiders trait, making them expert profiteers from raiding, looting and sacking. "
"The Danes: Seaborn
Immune to both high-seas attrition and seasickness, The Danes are able to weather the worst maritime conditions and make full use of their land units in naval conflict. "
They are literal 8th/9th century Vikings. In the 400's.
Personally they should've had them in their own seperate unit, to give you the option like in Shogun 2 and Rome 2's Daughter's of Mars DLC. The Grand Campaigns are just a big sandbox of alternate history, so it's fair enough that you might take the mantle of a ruler who decides he wants to raise a Legion comprised entirely of crazy bitches.
If you mean weapons buried in female graves or something, that's not really evidence. Speculative at best, like all interpretations of grave goods. Vikings had a strong gender separation between public and domestic spheres, like all European cultures at that period. Raiding and soldiering were men's jobs.
Women could rise to officer ranks in the Sassanid army.
A lot of tribal societies of Europe were notable for how much women ran things.
Ancient Ireland was particularly notable for the fact that women owned everything, controlled education, and were generally the ones that ran society.
Did someone actually waste their time combing through that picture to find all the women? Holy fuck GGers are pathetic.
"History revisionism" you act like these aren't just games and its super serious or something. Just don't buy their games instead of bitching about some feminist conspiracy (its called culture by the way)
You're a fucking twat, back in the day women commonly fought along side men hell even later ever hear about Joan of fucking Arc or fucking Boudica?
Also what faction is that in your pic?
Yeah. As far as I know very few if any fought. Ancient and medieval societies were pretty restrictive for women. I've heard of the rare clan or group here and there where the women would fight with the men (the Scythians maybe?), but those were not the norm.
Because they were the most likely to be around to administrate such things, and they had thralls to help them.
Free men were still lawmakers, laborers and warriors. This was a thousand years ago, modern morals and ways of thinking don't really apply. They weren't "oppressed", nor were they "liberated"; they were simply women, and men were simply men, living according to how they thought things worked best.
All three of those peoples existed by the late 5th century. Jutes were one of the big settling peoples in Britain in that period
Geats were mentioned in the 2nd century, and did some raiding in Frisia in the 500s.
Dunno about the Danes, and I know it isn't a strong historical source, but I'm pretty sure Beowulf is set around the late 5th century and mentions all three of those peoples.
looks like somebody linked the thread somewhere
Women in defensive positions or in special units might make sense. As footsoldiers, it's fucking ridiculous.
Also, the history of shieldmaidens or there being large bone evidence is false:
It literally is SJW revisionism.
Also don't forget the side effects of a generally promiscuous society, which are really interesting in many ways.
Matrilineal lines of inheritance and all that, since there's no telling for sure 100% who the father was, and the most important biological relationships are mother (obviously) and uncle (closest male who can say he's 100% sure he's blood related to you).
Also we tend to be a bit rosey about it, but a lot of tribal societies were brutal to men -- when we live according to our baser nature we tend to go eugenics mode. if a new leader took over in the tribe, and he didn't like your family, all the men in the family were either killed or exiled to become brigands.