Was it common for women to fight alongside men in levy units?

It wasn't

Does it matter if it's accurate? Total War is more arcadey than anything else in the first place, and I think it adds to the apocalyptic feel of Attila, where groups of people are driven so far to the edge by the Scourge of God that the women-folk must join the men in securing a future for their people.

>>2165492
To a point, no. But I think Total War at least tries to be taken seriously and steep itself in historical accuracy to a point. Really the only reason you see shit as mentioned in OP, as well as ridiculous things like Celtic royal female warrior units in Rome 2 or that women of Sparta dlc pack is generic left shilling.

Seriously the actual time of Atilla was horribly depressing enough, you don't have to resort to muh diverse cast of female and minority warriors to evoke that in a video game.

>>2165508
They tried that with rome 2.
Then realized that mitch and Lusty jack were no match for the combined autism of TWCenter.
So they returned to making fun games and left stuff to modders.

>generic left shilling
epic.

>>2165471
It's total bullshit. Whenever archaeologists find some remains of a woman together with a sword or a shield, leftists start shouting "SEE EVIDENCE WOMEN WERE WARRIORS I TOLD YOU THERE'S NO PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN"

>>2165514

That's exactly what it is though. You really mean to tell me that a dlc pack titled Daughters of Mars and marketed as being more inclusive of women isn't shilling?

Total War confuses me a lot. For every step towards historical accuracy they take two steps back. For example the add roman saddles to the cavalry units which is historical but then they also add female gladiators as units. Why? There weren't any units of gladiators and more importantly there weren't any female gladiators, so why the hell add that?

>>2165508
Dude, I'm not talking about Rome 2. That game had a host of issues in and of itself, and not everything is a "leftist conspiracy." Do you think Amazonians are some "SJW" way to subvert fantasy games as well? While I agree the daughters of Sparta and the female guard were very innacurate, that isn't the question at hand. There are no 100% female units and Attila, and it is the lower-end peasant levy units that are the only units with women. The higher up, more heavily equipped units of rich men or nobles have no women, and therefore adding women just adds to the atmosphere that absolutely everyone must fight for the survival of their people.

>>2165518
no, its just reusing assets wherever possible.
Rome1 had germanic cheerleaders.

For germans there is a core of truth. Tacitus reports:

It stands on record that armies already wavering and on the point of collapse have been rallied by the women, pleading heroically with their men, thrusting forward their bared bosoms, and making them realize the imminent prospect of enslavement

Women would have been very close at hand and would have probably fought on rare occasions because of their proximity to the fighting. Tacitus also reports that german women often would lead revolts against the romans. Especially seeresses and other priestly women.

Assuming you are talking specifically about Europe in this time period: nah, it wasn't common. We just have to examine things like mass graves after battles, or tombs of warriors to realise it.

However the barbarian invading armies took their family with them, it was a migration. You have stories of men fleeing only to be turned back by their women encamped right behind the battlefield. And we can speculate that during desperate times, sieges, last stands, women had to fight as well. But again, as far as I know, there is simply no evidences of women simply fighting alongside men all the time.

>>2165515
Fuck, I really hate when the media takes an interesting find and tries to use for their own agenda. There's what you mentioned which happens every so often, but you have recent examples like those north african skeletons found in England dating back to Roman times. Any archeologist would tell you they are very probably soldiers who died on duty, but some media turns it into "There has always been North Africans in Britain!"

>>2165471
no, they were seen as too valuable to throw away in wars.

>>2165530
You don't have to be a genius to realize the distinction between fantasy and history. Calling the inclusion of women warriors in disregard of actual history leftist shilling is exactly that. There's no other reason for them to exist in the game. How I feel about the representation of women in whatever shitty installment of Dragon Age Bioware is still churning out is irrelevant, because it isn't history.

Furthermore bringing up Rome 2 isn't even a reach, at a glance the game looks interchangeable with Atilla and they came out within the same two years if memory serves me correct. This discussion began concerning the series as a whole.

>>2165580
But total war isn't completely historical in the first place, and they added Amazonians for the Scyths in Rome II.

The man said he was playing this game, and the titled picture was of Attila, so that's what I was arguing for.

>>2165580
Atilla is a standalone expansion of Rome 2, thats why they look so much alike.

>>2165591

Honestly the series has been pretty unabashed about shit like that. They had stereotypical ninjas in black pajamas fighting as units in Shogun.

Nothing wrong with opening up the discussion to the series.

>>2165591
>But total war isn't completely historical in the first place, and they added Amazonians for the Scyths in Rome II.
there was a secret area of Amazonians on the northern edge of the map in Rome 1

>>2165610
I really dont have a problem with amazonians because they were an actual story of the times. They are fun to include.

Many women were camp followers and helped during sieges, however during the battle/assault a general would want their best troops at the front and because weapons at the time were muscle powered that would mean almost entirely adult men under the age of 45 even if their culture had no bias against women warriors. In many cases logistics was an issue and there would be no nonessential camp followers.

Considering the disregard for historical accuracy by this game in general I don't think it is a big deal.

If I were designing it I would do everything on a much larger scale even if it is at the cost of visuals of individual soldiers fighting. I would make supply all important and make the fact that Hunnic all-cavalry armies don't need supply lines but have to loot along the way part of the game and the advantage they have rather than overpowering their units and army size. I would make politics important, if you want direct control over a unit they must be loyal to you and disciplined otherwise an AI will control them. So you have a choice between raising a standing army that is well paid or raising many levies quickly who you can only give simple orders to and might withdraw if things aren't going well or charge recklessly if they are undisciplined.

I think historical accuracy would be creative and improve the game. The player will take their core units and lead the AI units forward and focus on the pivot of a battle rather than have to micromanage everything. They would need to take into account the temperaments of each civilization and each playthrough will be unique.

File: Male_Privileg_is_Fucking_Amazing[1].jpg (40KB, 500x304px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x304px

>>2165558
This. Dying in war always has been a Male Privilege.

>>2165528
People like fielding gladiators. People love spartacus.

It's a cheap, easy DLC to make that they're guaranteed a profit on.

>>2165471
Dan Carlin talks about this in his Fall of the Roman Empire series. He claims that when the Celtic and Gallic armies started to route, the women who were camp followers would attack the routing army (their husbands, sons and brothers) and also they would attack the harrying Romans. Doesn't mention any females en linea though. IDK.

File: 1442818671924.gif (589KB, 175x170px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 175x170px

>>2165528
>more importantly there weren't any female gladiators
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiatrix

>>2167080
Ancient women's MMA or sexy fights to the death?

>>2167080
>Gladiator
>Gladiatrix
TECHNICALLY he's correct lmao

File: IMG_2207.jpg (197KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 720x1280px

>MFW britcucks make games full of women (Still with 7 inch arms though) able to kill male warriors in order to try to get some low quality pussy.

>>2167106
Just like normal gladiators a bit of both

>>2168548

Why do you keep posting your face everywhere I saw you on pol

>>2168548
>implying the average 4chan bloke gets the pussy Darren gets.
Ayy

File: 2015-08-23_00008_2.jpg (863KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

863KB, 1920x1080px

Woah, are the Rome: Total War tiddies a mod, or is this actual DLC?

>>2165528

It would have been okay if gladiators were only available as garrison units in cities that had amphitheatres, it makes more sense than random mobs named "PLEBS"

>>2169739
Mod.

>>2167020
It's death throes of the republic, and it's the fall of the Roman republic not empire. You're about 500 years off

All male armies is a myth. The romans was known for using woman as light cavalry and also for skirmishes. The belgae were said to use woman in black face to scare their enemies. The huns used woman on the front lines because their screams were louder so they could scare the enemie

Thread's dead, but you should only play Total War for the mods. I remember sinking a huge amount of time into Europa Barbarorum and Roma Surrectum II

>>2165471
Why the hell would you want physically weak people who can bear children to go into battle? It's dumb. There may be isolated incidents of it happening as a last resort, but it's not common.

>>2165591
>they added Amazonians for the Scyths in Rome II.
They had them in Rome 1 already

>>2165471
When /his/ was new a helpful anon posted a pdf of a paper having to do with the raising of levies during the (I think) War of the Roses. Something like 3% of the names of people called up for local defense were female, probably because their family was wealthy enough to have horses and weapons/armor but didn't have a healthy male of fighting age available at the time. There was no hint of surprise or special attention given to them. Their names and what equipment they had were listed right along with the men.

I don't have the pdf anymore, but it's annoying that people always insist on pushing either muh stronk womyn who are just as physically capable as men meme or the equally ridiculous opposite position that because women are not the optimal choice for a soldier that they couldn't possibly lift a weapon and literally never fought. Women in combat are relatively rare but far from unheard of, especially in situations where the men are already off fighting elsewhere and someone is needed to protect the homes on short notice.