Realistically how much loyalty and support could female leaders

>>3123386
not enough to not get BTFO by numerically inferior force

Boudicca not a lot, Joan tied herself into the Christian faith and when she showed up they tended to win so was popular, still not enough support for them to stop her getting BBQ'd though

>>3123386
Why does /his/ hate women so much? There so many posts about suffrage, gender roles and rape that are just anti-woman.

Is it because nobody here can get laid or what?

/his/ needs to learn how have better respects for wamen

>>3123396
Boudicca didn't have a "force", she had a bunch of angry civilians

>>3123412
angry ARMED civilians, which incidentally means combatants
poor "angry civilians" razed three huge cities and slaughtered 100,000 people in them before legions got their shit together and remembered they can fight off 10 times their number when they use their heads

>>3123420

That's how rebellions against Roman authority in the provinces normally worked out. The rebels would start off with the element of surprise and cause a lot of property damaged while the Legions are busy mobilizing, and then when the Legions make to the relevant combat area, the rebels quickly get slaughtered.

>>3123399
Go away jew

>>3123399
Come on, Anon. You know this one.

>>3123386
Boudica's soldiers unironically believed they would go straight to the afterlife if they died for her. Joan of Arc likely had a few with similar beliefs.

Those from different tribes had different motivations. By raping her daughters, Rome had demonstrated their desire to murder or enslave Iceni and it was only a matter of time before they turned on the other tribes. Their motives were political and also in part posturing, if they didn't join the fight they would look weak and cowardly.

Boudica and Joan weren't all powerful, they had to keep up morale and negotiate with and convince their allies. Joan of Arc was dealing with unaligned magnates, many who probably secretly doubted her divine inspiration, and so didn't have as much influence.

>>3123399
Even in the current year many people are sceptical on women leaders. I can only imagine things were not better 1000 or 2000 years ago.

>>3123399

Because modern women are contributing to the demise of Western nations.

>>3123399
/his/ wants to be like their big brother /pol/

File: 1432678409898.jpg (42KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x640px

>>3123399
oh no

>>3123399
>Is it because nobody here can get laid or what?
yes

>>3123399
High western society is in a state where feminist virtues are rising and usurping territory among the higher cultures. Naturally, this is going to generate a reactionary movement of people speaking in favor of not just reviving masculine virtues that are being lost in the process but introducing HYPERmasculine virtues into the mix. That includes rape culture. 4chan has always been dominantly counter-culture so obviously you're going to see a strong presence of the reactionary movements that currently exist.

>>3125857
Tl:Dr autism
Good reply annon

>>3123399
>why dont girls lke me :(
>oh well time to refute women on 4chan as revenge

>>3123399
Seems like op had a reasonable question, and you applied your own boss to it.
>also, tits or gtfo roastie

>>3127064
Bias*

>>3123691
who is saruman

>>3123386
To say that something is the "ultimate redpill" is probably the best indicator of ideology at its best.

contemporary support? probably loads because they are le strong female warriors, although Joan's religious zeal and patriotism would be seen as negative traits, so maybe she would be shunned, especially in her native france

>>3123386
Joan of Arc would be made into a /pol/-tan and she would get shit on by mainstream media. Boudicca was just another dumb anglo nigger leading a band of chimps.

>>3123386
Joan of Arc was a mascot not a leader and never fought in battle.

Stop shitposting about her.

>>3127335
>Native Briton
>Anglo