Female Warriors

>>50551228
>How would you do female fighters in low fantasy?
By just making a character.

>What weapons are best
Whichever weapon fits my character concept.

File: 1455239061076.jpg (99KB, 685x600px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 685x600px

>>50551228
I would give them -4 str

>>50551228
I wouldn't do them at all because it would be stupid.

>>50551228
>What weapons are best for females
throwing anus

File: 1428946741108.jpg (642KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 1600x1066px

A brave attempt, OP, but it still will end in a maelstrom of shitposting.

Still, good luck.

>>50551500
>A brave attempt,
Stupidity isn't bravery though.

File: FSr932I.jpg (355KB, 1549x2000px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1549x2000px

This thread needs more muscles.

>>50551228
if i was a female, a regular sized one, not a man-sized amazon thing, i would pick a weapong with more reach, some polearm and a crossbow, bows require a lot of strenght to use

>>50551228
>How would you do female fighters in low fantasy?
I generally wouldn't. Females are needed to be back at home producing the next generation of turnip farmers/nobility/soldiers. That's assuming they're human, of course. Other races might have a different birth process. That said, I wouldn't disallow my players from playing a female if they wanted to, it's just not something I really feel the urge to do.

>What weapons are best for females
Ones that can kill people. You retard.

>>50551600
>not a man-sized amazon thing

...Have you ever seen a woman? do you know how big they are

>>50551228
Very few real-life cultures had female warriors, and even those that did were typically in ceremonial roles more than anything else.
When I do them it is typically made very clear that they are the exception not the rule. For instance, when I made a Viking culture the "Shieldmaidens" were basically glorified bodyguards for rich or important people. Outside of those ceremonial roles female warriors in my settings are gladiatrix types who are more about looking good and putting on an interesting show than fighting ability, or they are mercenaries, in which case they are women so masculine that they are indistinguishable from men without looking really hard.
The only time I really have female fighters who are not ceremonial, not gladiatrices, and not so masculine they are basically men is when said character is either going to be important to the story, or they are an elf.

>>5055160>bows require a lot of strength
Crossbows usually do too. Unless you have one with a winch. Which has its own drawbacks of being slow to load, on the plus side they are wicked efficent. He'll the Pope banned them for some time because of it.
>Pole arm
The ones with the longer reach were more for fighting in formation. Shorter ones like poleaxes for one on one combat. Anyways I think you slightly underestimate how much strength it takes to use a weapon that's really a long leaver with the heavy bit on the far end.

>>50551817
Yes, not very big at all, especially in a low fantasy medevial(?) setting.

>>50551228
Something with reach, leverage or low user impact: a flail, meteor hammer, etc. Other things you could use: bolas, blowguns, throwing knives. We all suspend our disbelief in fantasy settings, but sex differences are so ingrained that they're hard to overlook unless a woman is using magic. Which works perfectly in some settings, if you want to say that an order of all-female holy knights are latently strengthened by god.

>>50551736
>Females are needed to be back at home producing the next generation of turnip farmers
And vast majority of males need to stay at home growing said turnips. Adventurers are statistical outliers by definition.

>>50552106
>meteor hammer,
>he fell for the "shalolin showmanship weapons are actually effective" meme

As always, real life is the best inspiration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey_Amazons

>>50552011
>the Pope banned them for some time because of it.
Myth. There was a condemning of ALL non-thrown missile weapons used by Christians against Christians (which, obviously, meant literally nothing to anyone), specifically archers and slingers but later extended to crossbows, but there was never any such BAN at any point in history.

It's a myth as stupid as samurai hating guns and needs to be laid to rest.

>>50552202
I'm not saying it's necessarily effective, just that a woman could wield it. Do you think she'd honestly be better off with a gladius?

It's probably a little too magical for low fantasy, but I really like the Pegasus Knights of Fire Emblem. In most of the games, they're entirely female (With different explanations, ranging from needing to be light to stay flying, to pegasus only accepting female riders, to just tradition) and a lot of time, they're portrayed as the most accepted choice for female fighters in the country(ies) that heavily utilize them.
Very light skirmishers and scouts. No staying power, but very high mobility for obvious reasons, and a serious contender for best unit type in the game when Canto is a game mechanic.

File: Lady Eboshi.gif (82KB, 427x466px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 427x466px

>>50551228
>What weapons are best for females
Arquebus.

>>50552368
Best weapon for best girl.

>>50552368
I really want to make a Not-Eboshi backup character for my current campaign.

In general apart from the women who were warlords, or queens and led troops like Artemisia or Hypsicratea there were cases such as:


The myth of the Amazons comes from the Scytho-Sarmatian nomadic peoples who due to the necessity of their lifestyle had to have women learning how to ride a horse,hunt and shoot a bow on horseback.

There are of course also the female bushi retainers, who historically saw some actions.

Viking shield maidens though rare, were also recorded in doing some fighting especially in Vinland.

Then in the early modern period there were multiple female fencers like the infamous Julie D'Aubigny.

For older time periods you can just use wikipedia OP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_warriors_in_folklore#Duchy_of_Brittany

>>50552286
The Roman legionary style with a gladius would actually be very efficient.

It's basically just march forward, stab, block, march forward, stab, repeat.
It's not very physically intensive when done properly. They just use formations, strategy, and weight of numbers.

File: 1468551509307.jpg (335KB, 1680x1017px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1680x1017px

>>50551228
Like pic related, or as noblewomen commanding household troops in their male relative's absence.

There are no real life female warrior cultures. Female warriors have always been the exception. Obviously any women who weren't famous nobles never even get mentioned in history in the same way male warriors who weren't kings, dukes or princes don't. As such the only real accounts are of noblewomen, and they generally only started fighting out of neccesity after the death of a husband i.e. Joan of Flanders.

As for weapons, crossbows and polearms. Weapon can use swords and shit just as well as men from a technique standpoint but anything that involves getting with grappling range is going to put the fighter at risk of being overpowered by an opponent with significantly more upper body strength than her.

Despite popular media, military archery actually requires significant upper body strength and stamina to do well, compared to fighting hand-to-hand with something like a spear, so it actually makes more sense for a female fighter to be a spear(wo)man or similar formation fighter, rather than an archer. Crossbows being an exception since mechanical aids exist so even a child can cock and loose a bolt that could kill a man-at-arms.

About the only accounts I know of non-noble women engaging in combat during the medieval period are of townswomen using crossbows from their settlement's walls.

File: 1457549636139.jpg (345KB, 1920x905px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1920x905px

>>50552418
Scutum are a very heavy shield design, and you can't overlap them to form a shieldwall to absorb impacts like you can with viking era shields, so you'd need to be pretty strong and well conditioned to use early imperial legionary tactics.

The short reach of the gladius compared to other swords could also be an exaggerated issue for women, since they're generally shorter than men.

From what I gather, using a gladius was a high-risk, high-reward, very aggressive method of fighting, maybe why they switched to the longer spatha and rounded shields that could be used in a shieldwall during the later empire, when the Roman Army's tactics became more defensive to preserve manpower.

>>50552533
The later empire's tactics were not improvements. They lost a ton of their strategic leadership from inner cultural strife.

During the height, they did not run significant risk, as they employed a 'slow and steady steamroller' style. Testudo as well granted a great cooperative advantage against missile fire.
I believe Wikipedia has a pretty big section on Roman infantry warfare.

Main thing for them was the professional and rigorous training. It's similar to how even modern soldiers train, including females.

Like Otoyomegatari

>>50551817
around 70% of women i know are smaller than me, and probably 99% are much weaker and i'm no weight lifter

>>50553121
>around 70% of women i know are smaller than me,
Are you a manlet?

>>50551228
I'd point out that no amount of muscle keeps a blade from sliding through your organs and armor protects equally.

>>50552236
>Achieve nothing of any military note
>Only remarkable due to their gender
>Slaughtered by the Foreign Legion during their first proper war

Sounds about as expected.

>>50553184
>no amount of muscle keeps a blade from sliding through your organs
>armor protects equally

Pretty sure a 1.7m, 85kg male can bear the weight of more/thicker armor than a 1.4m, 50kg female can, thus rendering his organs better protected from any blade-sliding.

>>50553184
>strength doesn't matter in a fight
>my armor will protect me from the blows of a sixteen stone male warrior, as well as his armor protects him from the blows of a nine stone sopping wet female warrior
I really hope you weren't being serious.

They would be the outliers, for cultural, rather than statistical differences. Adventurers however are always the outliers, so I have no problem with my players being female warriors.

>>50551228
In any realistic setting, women will not be a major component of the military.

Female warriors tend to be desperate outlaws and insurgents, or bored/cruel aristocrats who have enough money and power to openly violate social norms, like Artemisia I.

>>50553343
>that long skirt
Oh shit nigga what are you doing?

File: hws_women_warriors_gangnam_style___hey_sexy_lady__by_gambargin-d7rkscq.png (921KB, 1024x666px) Image search: [Google]

921KB, 1024x666px

>>50553436
I'm glad I found out about that artist the other day. They have some great stuff.

>>50553432

Right? It's not even fucking slitted at the sides.

>>50553233

In fairness, no other tribesmen accomplished much worthy of note against the Foreign Legion in that war, and the Amazons were noted among the tribal warriors for their formidable morale.

Honestly, women have historically been seen as being more in touch with magic (midwives witches, crazy faerie beauties, ect) and so you might be better having the domain of magic be female, even if there's only some magic in your setting. I understand that in 99% of situations, a man will overpower a woman...but if the woman can curse his legs to become feeble before he reaches her, then she wins. Otherwise, stealthy assassin type weapons maybe?

>>50551878
There were ample cultures with female warriors, Anon. I mean, disregarding obvious ones like the Persians (who had them so far as Naval Commanders in a time when "Naval commander" meant "Someone who is going to wreck some serious face in hand-to-hand boarding actions") and the Egyptians (who had even more explicit female commanders leading from the front in mass combat), there's also the Scythians and Sarmatians. Chinese history is full of various female soldiers and officers and commanders, along with neighboring / nearby countries such as Korea and Japan. And this is examples we have indisputable archeological evidence / records that has survived over the ages, versus ones that are probable but have very little surviving / intact mounds to work from (such as various Helenistic Greek battles which, traditionally, mentioned female soldiers being present in some manner or another).

It always floors me how many people seem to think that archeology and "biotruths" and whatnot support an argument that women could never have been soldiers before the age of firearms / modern firearms. Women were present in all levels of military life (from support staff and camp followers to outright commanders leading from the fore) for thousands of years. They rarely had the same prevalence as men, but that just means they were less prevalent. Eunuch soldiers weren't as common as non-castrated ones, but they quite obviously existed. Yet for some reason you bring up the same with women and "SJW REVISIONISM", "IT COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN CEREMONIAL", "HOW CAN YOU PROVE THEY WEREN'T GUYS WITH WAIFISH HIPS?" Get over it: Women can and have fought historically.

>>50553594
Do you have a single fact to back any of that up?

>>50551228
>How would you do female fighters in low fantasy?

I wouldn't impose any disparities between character gender, if that's what you mean. Females might be physiologically smaller than males by average, but that isn't to say women are never born with Amazon-like genes, or that men are never destined to be scrawny manlets.

Characters generated in a role-playing game can consist of as many exceptions as you want. Even if you're running a low-fantasy setting, I don't necessarily see any reason to say any given party can't consist entirely of six-foot-five barbarian babes.

>What are some good examples of real life female warriors/cultures that had female warriors.

The Persian military. If I'm not mistaken, women commonly held positions in the military and politics in pre-Islam Middle East.

To a lesser extent, I think there were occasionally female soldiers serving in the front lines during early Chinese feudalism.

>What weapons are best for females etc

Uh, the same ones males use? What kind of question is that.

>>50553662
Well, to start: Anthropologist David Anthony (M.A. and PhD in Anthropology / Archeology, focusing on Eurasia Steppe Grasslands) has commented on how ~20% of the Scythian-Samaritan warrior graves in the lower Don and Volga region were composed of women in battle dress. Dr. Elena Fialko (Ukranian Archeologist) corroborates as much with reports of - in some cases - up to 25% of warrior graves for said culture involving all the regular signs and procedures except with a female in the grave as opposed to a male (with these examples also excluding graves that had male and female occupants wherein whose possessions the military kit was might have been confused).

More incoming...

>>50553174
i'm a photographer, work with models and most of them (at least here) are tall as fuck, and im 1,80 cm tall (don't know how much that is for the imperials) so most models i work with are at least as tall as me. Actually i should have said shorter instead of smaller

>>50553594
Except that the argument wasn't about the existence of females in combat roles but the effectiveness, something you have yet to prove. If you cannot prove it your whole argument is as empty as me trying to play a child paladin because of the children's crusade or other accounts of young warriors.

>>50553829
>photographer
>work with models
>1,80 cm tall
We totally believe you.

>>50553594
the thing is, nobody is saying it was IMPOSSIBLE to see women in battle, but they where an incredibly rare sight. When we see women warriors in archeological findings they are an oddity, not the norm, they where so rare, than every time one pops up its something worthy of being remembered

>>50553915
honestly don't care, besides the banner of this site says "authistic works of fiction"

>>50553719
>Females might be physiologically smaller than males by average,
And with less muscle mass, even pound for pound all else being equal. That's kind of really important we aren't just talking a difference of stature which might be compensated for within reason.

File: Fight Like A Girl.jpg (386KB, 760x596px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 760x596px

>>50551228

>What weapons are best for females

Is that even a question?

>>50553812
Also, before I forget to mention as much: The Saka are mentioned in ARCHAOLOGY - Volume I (ISBN 9781848260023, page 383) as having their women fight alongside their men when they fought against Cyrus the Great.

But to move on to other sources, with the Egyptians we start with records going as far back as Ahhotep I (who, admittedly, does not have explicit mention in battle so much as of "guarding" both her soldiers and her nation as well as been responsible for pacification of Upper Egypt and its rebels, but as a national leader in Ancient Egypt the norm there IS fighting alongside the troops so you'd need to propose evidence saying otherwise besides "SHE'S A GURL"), Ahhotep II was buried with regalia normally reserved for military valor rewards (but is iffy insofar as very few tombs from Ancient Egypt remained undisturbed until the great Archeological Rush in recent centuries), and Hatshepsut may-or-may-not (the debate predominantly over whether to believe the records stating her to have led Egypt in peace or other records which mention Egyptian aggression during the times of her reign).

Yet more incoming, still.

>>50551228
>How would you do female fighters in low fantasy?

If they're player characters, I don't need to do shit. If I'm trying to create a world where woman have the same physical capabilities as men, then I just say "Women have the same physical capabilities as men."

Is it true in real life? No. Do I care? Also no.

>>50553915
Why wouldn't you? I mean besides my personal distance of the chosen profession of photographing people, there's nothing noticeably wrong about his post. Including the fact that many professional female models tend to be fairly tall because of some bullshit about preportions for dresses or something.

>>50553979
>And with less muscle mass

Women can manage pretty good gains just by working out, even without the use of supplements. Presumably, a female character serving in the front lines does tend to her physical strength. It's not an issue.

>>50553992
>the throwing anus
kek

>>50553979
Not really. I know we've got this whole "rar strength is my prime requisite!" thing going, but it doesn't take a lot of strength to stab someone to death with a long sharp piece of metal. Soldiers weren't bodybuilders. Hell, if you've ever seen ancient armor a lot of 'em were pretty tiny.

>>50554063
it's because the agencies chose them tall, a more uh... "stylized" figure looks better in all clothes and tall girls are easier to see (also easier to photograph) btw being a model, at least where i live is quite a shitty job, it doens't even pays good enough

>>50553979
If it's a player character, then it's irrelevant, as outliers exist.

If you're making a setting where men and women are physically equal, well, Low Fantasy is still FANTASY.

If you're making a culture that predominantly features female warriors, then there's a genetic quirk that allows this to work.

All of this is irrelevant though. Only the painfully autistic get hung up on this shit.

>>50553845
>>50553921

And yet this thread is full of examples of people going "I wouldn't do them at all because it (female soldiers) would be stupid", "I generally wouldn't as females are needed at home to raise the next generation of soldiers", "Very few real-life cultures had female warriors and even less female warriors that weren't ceremonial and nothing more", etcetera.

Anyways, back to the earlier stuff
>>50554035
There's Lady Fu Hao, consort of Emperor Wu Ding credited with leading at her peak up to 13,000 soldiers and recorded - in the very least - as having lead ~3,000 soldiers personally in battle during at least one engagement ( ISBN 0-7656-0504-X, p. 13) and slightly more ambiguously lead campaigns into the neighboring Yi, Qiang, and Ba regions. Yuenü is another obvious historic example from China (ISBN 978-0-7656-1750-7, p.91), who depending on the additional sources you follow ranges from either a common soldier to a trainer of officers in the Zhejiang military / one of the earliest expositions on the art of the sword.

We also have a historic document (The Book of Lord Shang) which makes strong suggestion for use of "strong women" to form one of the three branches of the military (specifically, secondary fortification and defenses such as military traps and the sort).

Shall I go on, or would people like some more examples from pre-CE?

>>50554112
>it doesn't take a lot of strength to stab someone to death
People don't just let you stab them.

>if you've ever seen ancient armor a lot of 'em were pretty tiny
Because they didn't have Big Macs. People in the modern developed world are a lot taller simply because of food.

Stop being such a fucking muh realism autismo and just let people play what they want.

I guarantee you 90% of women you run across are capable of summoning up the strength to stab your fat neckbeard self to death

File: ANIME-PICTURES.NET_-_170932-3137x4684-tiger1313-long+hair-tall+image-highres-black+hair-absurdres.jpg (8MB, 3137x4684px) Image search: [Google]

8MB, 3137x4684px

>>50554208
>Shall I go on
Do you really think people want to hear your disingenuous cherry-picked grad thesis about outliers. Here's a simpler solution: put Orcs in the game.

>>50554208
Please do, I'll screencap it for future threads once you are done.

>>50554208
please go on, i find the topic quite interesting. Still i keep saying, women warriors where very uncommon

>>50554076
They always lag far behind their male cohort though, that is an issue in a setting where you are going to presumably face opponents that do just as much or more work than you in terms of training

>>50554112
>it's doesn't take much strength to stab people
Great, except we aren't talking about slipping a knife in some fat shopkeepers vack, and instead talking about armed and likely armored combat which does require strength and stamina in spades.

>small armor small people
Yes people tended to be malnourished, that doesn't mean strength was not critical to winning battles.

>>50554305
>"Female soldiers is a stupid idea" "Women soldiers are almost non-existent and even more so when you don't count ceremonial fops" "lol in no realistic setting would women ever be a major component of the military"
>"Yo dawg we have some historic examples of ranking officials writing documents about the use of female regiments for preparing and manning fortifications, officers and military commanders from assorted cultures including females who lead from the front, and at least one culture wherein consistently ~20% of the military graves were occupied by female bodies."
>"… Outliers. They're outliers and totally don't matter"

A+ rebuttal. I am slain, my argument in ruins.

>>50554168
>make a game and choose to have it be low fantasy (as in semi realistic)
>handwave unrealistic shit because "it's fantasy only autists care lol"
Anon pls

>>50554305
>Do you have any facts to back that up ?
>Except theses ones, they don't count. Or theses ones.
anon plz

>>50554421
>we have some historic examples of ranking officials writing documents about the use of female regiments
In China, where sexual dimorphism is markedly lower.

File: Female Samurai.jpg (104KB, 870x396px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 870x396px

Not >>50554208, but thought I would add my own two cents:
In a medieval-ish setting, there would be two most probable motivators for female warriors.

1. Necessity- There are simply not enough men- either because the majority of males are dead or absent, or because the society is too small to put enough warm bodies into the field.

For example, female samurai were a thing in the most turbulent times of Japan because the vast majority of males were either out fighting or already dead. With the warring states politics, a neighboring province could become hostile overnight without warning, so they needed someone, ANYONE capable of holding a spear to (wo)man the castle defenses and prevent a rival from just waltzing in unopposed. Some of them took to this position well and fought some impressive battles, but the end of the wars saw such women put "back in the kitchen" so to speak.

For thousands of years, both men and women in Mongolia practiced horse archery because they needed to hunt and protect herds from predators. When your survival depends on using a particular skill very well every day, you get pretty good at it, as many unfortunate Chinese, Turks and eastern Europeans discovered.

>>50554301
>thread about a low fucking fantasy campaign
>REEEEEE stop caring about realism

Are you mentally infirm?

>>50554208
>Shall I go on, or would people like some more examples from pre-CE?
Yes and yes. If you can bring up any desert culture fighting women, I'd appreciate it.

>>50554508
I know of a desert culture that fights women today.

>>50551228
Well if you watch History Channel's the Vikings Lagertha is a great example. Viking Shield Maidens were a thing. It freaked out the christians to see women warriors. It devastated them even more to LOSE to women. And viking women wrecked shit just like viking men.

Female samurai warriors were also a thing. While trained in the use of the sword, and some even carried the Waka...er...I'm not going to try to spell that, Side arm sword, the Naginata was considered the principal weapon of the female on the battlefield as it allowed them to fight from a distance and with greater leverage.

Other warrior woman cultures in history favored weapons based around precision over brute force. Hence why viking shield maidens favored the sword over the axe.

>>50554495
I'm not the "durr how does I female warriors guise!?!1?"

You have a woman

She probably wears similar armor and weapons to her male counterparts

When combat starts she either gets fucked up or she doesn't

She is probably a statistical outlier to other women in the setting

It's not that fucking hard.

>>50554450
Can we talk about which races make the best soldiers?

File: Lagertha.jpg (15KB, 300x348px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x348px

>>50554601
Forgot my pic.

>>50554621
Mediterraneans. That's not even a question.

>>50554616
But females are physically weaker than males

>>50554651
Fantastic. They can take an arrow to the face like their male counterparts just as well.

>>50554651
Males are physically weaker than other males, too.

>>50552183
OP didn't say adventurers, he said fighters.

>>50554651
>But females are physically weaker than males
Lower upper body strength yes.
So don't have women make up your center or front lines.

Place a woman where you would place a weak man, with a long spear, behind a line of big burly dudes with shields.

>>50554621
Vikings!

>>50552011
>He'll the Pope banned them for some time because of it.
Bullshit. That's a myth.

File: b06386e4e1cb4d4be4832c5637e8fc18.jpg (26KB, 564x311px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 564x311px

>>50554651
A child's strength can crank a windlass

>>50553812
So to sum it all up
1/5 woman in a steppe nomad warrior culture that by necessiry had most of it's able bodied tribesmen trained to fight were buried with warrior garb.
>>50554035
An Egyptian leader who was idicated as being in battle with the troops

>>50554208
Another political and military leader.
A famous martial artist who may be semi mythic.

And a book written by a statesmen that suggests using able bodied women to help with wars in a noncombative roke

Sorry mate, but I don't see any of this as proving the efficacy or commonality female soldiers in a the large scale or beyond times of necessity.

Thanks for backing up your claims though, that's more than what most on here do.

>>50554703
Kind of. The pope made a ban on using them against other christians which everyone promptly ignored.

File: primarch Arans legion.jpg (294KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 800x800px

>>50554486
2. Ideology- The culture mandates, for one reason or another, that women MUST participate in battle.

The Sarmatians may have inadvertently created the myth of the amazon with their rule that a woman could not marry/have sex (accounts vary) until she had killed an enemy in battle.

Communist Russia in WWII is a more modern example- Communism preached extremist equality of the sexes, and were perfectly willing to throw women into the most broken down biplanes they had and point them at the german lines. Roles like Sniper battalions and support units were also popular. The benefits of this were many-fold. In addition to doubling the pool of potential recruits, it helped in psychological warfare, as German units both did not want to fight women and were humiliated by losing to them.
In this case, the "killing all potential children she may have borne" was a plus for the Soviets- nothing helps a food shortage like large chunks of your population and potential future population dying.

>>50554208
>And yet this thread is full of examples of people going "I wouldn't do them at all because it (female soldiers) would be stupid",
They are
>"I generally wouldn't as females are needed at home to raise the next generation of soldiers"
They are
>"Very few real-life cultures had female warriors and even less female warriors that weren't ceremonial and nothing more", etcetera.
They were

File: stalin.jpg (33KB, 300x360px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 300x360px

>>50554651
Sometimes its not about how good the warriors are, sometimes its just about having more warm bodies to throw at your enemy.

Quantity has a quality all of its own.

>>50554601
>Viking Shield Maidens were a thing

In mythical sagas. Along with world-serpents and giants. So dedicated warrior-maidens needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

>It freaked out the christians to see women warriors.

The only account I'm aware of that has Christians encountering female Norse fighters was after the Romans wiped out an army of Varangians. All they registered was surprise that there were women amongst the dead, but that hardly constitutes 'freaked out'.

Also worth adding that it's not clear whether these women were actually fighting, or were simply a support element, like camp followers of Napoléonic armies. Either would have been equally unusual to the Romans.

>It devastated them even more to LOSE to women

No instance of Christian forces losing to a Norse pagan force of women. See above.

>And viking women wrecked shit just like viking men.

As above, the only account I'm aware of potential 'shield maidens' outside of the sagas is of a raiding force of Varangians being wiped out by eastern Roman troops. No mention of their martial ability relative to their menfolk.

History channel's 'Vikings' with it's Norse raiding parties arriving in England with a roughly 50/40 gender ratio of males and females is so inaccurate as to be basically fanatasy, much like their LARP armor and having (again, semi-mythical saga character) Ragnar Lothbrok lead the Lindisfarne raid.

>>50554486
>but the end of the wars saw such women put "back in the kitchen" so to speak.
Interesting point
At the end of wars are men "put back in the factory"?
I think it was less being "put back into the kitchen" and more along the lines of "returned to a peaceful home life"

>>50554680
And the signicantly weaker male would likely lose in a fight, unless they fight dirty, or have technology to aid them.

>>50554486
>female samurai were a thing
No they weren't. Technically.

Most people don't know this so I can't blame them but "Samurai" is actually a gender specific title, women warriors were called "Onna-bugeisha" most commonly though you could find a number of other titles scattered here and there. But "samurai" was not one of those titles.

>>50554076
In reality it is an issue, an enormous one. In a fantasy game who cares, we can do whatever.

>>50551577
What the FUCK happened to that horse's legs

Did they just not have real horses yet for Bob Giadrosich to look at pictures of when he drew that?

For real, what in the doubleshit

File: Beryl.png (64KB, 197x181px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 197x181px

>>50554747
3. Fantasy- the fact that this is a tabletop, even a low magic setting, opens up other options.
There might be a goddess who commands her female followers to fight, perhaps even altering them to be able to match a man's strength. They might also alter birth rates so that there is a massive surplus of women not needed for the perpetuation of society.

>>50554337
I'll do my best, then!

>>50554349
Oh, without question. They were definitely not something prevalent in every or even most cultures. That said, there's a difference between "Uncommon" and "A stupid idea even when just being done to fulfill some military officer's fetish" / "Female soldiers are entirely unrealistic", and my beef is with the people arguing the later (and I say arguing instead of debating for a reason).

>>50554508

I was going to skip to a more modern example in the form of the Dahomey Amazons, but fortunately I remembered to fact-check first and their region / territory was actually more temperate (or at the very least less desert more plains). That said they're still a fairly decent example of a more modern (18th-19th century) regiment of female soldiers, at one point accounting for up to a third of the entire Dahomey army (as well as being instrumental in a couple of their military victories).

I'm coming up short just this moment on thinking of an ancient desert culture with fighting women, but if steppes will do for you one example that quickly springs to mind is the Massagetae (who, in the very least, were lead by a female commander and eventually lead to Cyrus the Great's death in battle).

Or to break away from that region, we have Cynane, Audata, and Caeria as examples of Illyrian royalty (and for the first two, family - to degrees - of Alexander the Great) who were both trained in military technique as a matter of tradition, the former most of which went on to challenge the lattermost in martial combat and kill her in such.

Mania, satrap of the city Dardanus, was frequently described as having rode into battle alongside her troops (Persian) and been an able commander that was never bested on the field and - ironically - assassinated by her daughter's husband in her apartments (a female general who lead from the front and was never defeated in battle slain by her daughter's spouse as she slept: Ain't that a twist!).

>>50554601
>Viking Shield Maidens were a thing
Citation needed on that.
History channel may be a fine source of inspiration but it's a garbage source of accurate history.
>Female samurai warriors were also a thing. While trained in the use of the sword, and some even carried the Waka...er...I'm not going to try to spell that, Side arm sword, the Naginata was considered the principal weapon of the female on the battlefield as it allowed them to fight from a distance and with greater leverage.
Seems your other source for history are Total War games
>Other warrior woman cultures in history favored weapons based around precision over brute force. Hence why viking shield maidens favored the sword over the axe.
This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It sounds like something I would've believed when I was 16.

>>50554744
>ban
No. That's bullshit. Stop repeating it.

>>50554856
>And the signicantly weaker male would likely lose in a fight, unless they fight dirty, or have technology to aid them.
True, but armies are not always made up of just the beefiest burliest men you can find, 300 is not a historical documentary.

So you put women where you would put weaker men, areas where physical strength isn't top priority and you need someone to fulfill a simple function like stand in a line and hold a spear, poke anyone who gets too close.
Shoot this crossbow, crank it up, etc.

>>50555004
>, areas where physical strength isn't top priority and you need someone to fulfill a simple function like stand in a line and hold a spear,

>stand in line and hold a spear
>physical strength somehow not a top priority in this case
What the fuck are you smoking?

>>50554847
>>50554869
Whatever the specifics of their title, Japan worked on a strict caste system. In fact there were many problems in peacetime stemming from the fact that so many many hereditary warriors were not allowed to own land or businesses to support themselves. Yet there was no problem with putting women back into traditional roles.

>>50555032
You hold a spear in two hands and its not that heavy.

If anything fighting with a sword and shield is a much more physically demanding activity. I'd have my strongest guys with sword and board, everyone else stands in a line and pokes people.

>>50554962
Actually my source on the favoritism of the weapons is a martial arts book on Bushido culture that was printed in the 1990's that I read in '02. Samurai women were not typically combatants, but instead were instructed in sword play to teach their son's swordsmanship. As teaching was considered a role appropriate for a woman.

The side arm was considered a symbol of status as a member of the warrior caste and doubled as a tool for protecting her chastity which was deemed a reason for a woman to kill for.

File: boobplate 1.jpg (68KB, 469x750px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 469x750px

>>50555032
see
>>50554800

>>50555004
Maybe, but unless it's a hastily formed malitia, they are probably going to be stronger than average on average

>>50554729
Note that my argument is not that they've ever been anywhere near a 1:1 ratio or even 1:2 or 1:3 outside special circumstances (aforementioned N'Nonmiton, steppes cultures, etcetera). It's, effectively, debating posters like >>50554794 who seem to think the very idea of women fighting in ancient combat is unrealistic make-pretend / fap-fuel.

Also, as a note, the fortification use was a combative role. Not the foremost ("strong men", as opposed to men overall, were to be the ones fighting defensively in the field versus manning walls and handling siege equipment and whatnot), but still combative.

BACK TO S'MORE EXAMPLES

The Romans have various records relating to fighting female "barbarians", from the Goths (whom the Romans paraded around in the streets in mockery whenever they were amongst the prisoners of war) to the Teutonic Ambrones (who they recorded as "no less fierce with the women than with the men themselves" and a tendency to "charge(d) with swords and axes and fell upon their opponents uttering a hideous outcry") and the Teutonic Cimbrians (who formed lines in battle with the army's wagons from which they fought behind using assorted pole arms and the odd sword).

There's also reference to Boudica's uprising potentially consisting of more female soldiers than males but without definitive sourcing one way or the other (though evidence enough that she was not the only woman amongst her combat forces).

>>50555136
A physically trained woman can have decent enough strength. While I wouldn't actively recruit them if I was trying to put together a primitive army, I wouldn't actively turn them away.

>>50555043
You're mixing up a lot of different time periods here, but your sentiment is mostly right.

>>50555192
>celtic women are insane
Well, that goes without saying.

>>50555192
>Note that my argument is not that they've ever been anywhere near a 1:1 ratio or even 1:2 or 1:3 outside special circumstances (aforementioned N'Nonmiton, steppes cultures, etcetera). It's, effectively, debating posters like >>50554794 # who seem to think the very idea of women fighting in ancient combat is unrealistic make-pretend / fap-fuel.
Okay then, I guess. Still seems to me that it is a bit silly to try to prove something that only a few people catagorically deny (that there have been times in history women have been in combat roles)

File: 1453639595.png (69KB, 326x532px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 326x532px

>>50555192
>Boudica's uprising potentially consisting of more female soldiers than males

That'd explain the extreme cruelty combined with the embarrassing curbstomp the first time they encountered actual soldiers.

>>50554837
Romans fighting vikings? wot

File: 1471254686256.jpg (227KB, 677x782px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 677x782px

>>50555279
>tfw you have to kill 200 roasties

>>50553432
>celtic paint
>even having clothes
>not charging into the fight stark naked

>>50555323
>>50554837
forget it, i see what you mean

>>50555192
To drop some sources on the Boudica thing, BTW, there's Prof Richard Hingley (Ph.D) who specialized in British Archeology from the Roman to Early Medieval Period (and wrote a book specifically on Boudica) along with John Hazel's 2001 book on significant figures throughout Roman history as a whole ( ISBN 0-415-22410-1).

>>50555276
It's a belief that crops up relatively often in these threads, alas. There's a reason the first response to my post was someone arguing I made up every single one of these examples and points (that women have served in combat roles historically as far back as several millennia ago), and a few threads back there were even people arguing that just because someone was a military commander who lead from the front in Ancient / Helenistic Warfare that doesn't necessarily mean that they, like, ever actually fought (or that the tactics were really theirs and not just attributed to them because of 500 BCE political correctness or some bullshit).

>>50555279
You post this, but they are recorded as having absolutely butchered the Legio IX Hispana's infantry early in their uprising (with the cavalry surviving due to their taking flight). Much of the casualties suffered in the battle that cost Boudica her life were also due to a mixture of (overall) lack of organization of the British forces and the fact that they unintentionally pinned themselves between the roman lines and their families (who had followed far too close behind the active battle lines).

>>50552340
While a cool concept, pegasi aren't exactly low fantasy.

>>50552411
A genuinely helpful and on-topic reply

>>50555547
Yes, this is the kind of stuff I was looking for.

>>50555502
>just because someone was a military commander who lead from the front in Ancient / Helenistic Warfare that doesn't necessarily mean that they, like, ever actually fought
Well there's something to that, most established military commanders were getting up there in years, I was always under the impression that many of them were more there for their troops morale rather than their combat effectivemess. And since losing your commander mid combat was not a good thing either, they were often insulated to some degree.

>>50553316
>>strength doesn't matter in a fight
Nice strawman.

>>50555502
>There's a reason the first response to my post was someone arguing I made up every single one of these examples and points
Yo that was me. I wasn't arguing anything, you had just only mentioned general cultures some of which spanned thousands of years through different dynasties and I wanted you to be more specific with your examples so I didn't have to bother searching to see what you were talking about.

>>50553316
Minor note: Strength would matter in melee combat, but not in the manner you seem to think. It was important less because of going through armor (something you'd rarely attempt, despite what Hollywood and video game cutscenes might argue), more preventing someone from successfully grappling you. There's a reason that a lot of treatises relating to fighting someone in proper Plate basically boil down to "Armpits, Crotch, and Visor stabs after successfully manhandling your opponent", and while people were less walking tanks before then the same overall principles applied (go for where the armor isn't / is at its least).

>>50555719
Well then, now I feel like an ass for thinking you meant that in a sarcastic "Do you have a single fact" sense and not a "Oh! Tell me more" one.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (141KB, 686x960px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 686x960px

What about guns?

>>50555742
No i should be the one apologizing. I should have phrased it better, I guess I just like quoting JC Denton a little too much even when it doesn't really fit. What a shame.

Multiple women went and fought in the early Crusades, most in/famously Ida of Austria, who was killed fighting in the Crusade of 1101AD.

According to his biographers, Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani (who was an eye witness) and Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad, after a significant victory over the Christians and after Saladin's men had striped the corpses of their armour, they were revolted to discover some of the European warriors had been women in disguise.

>>50555733
>not getting your opponent on the ground and using bodyweight and strength to compromise his armor
>Not using the hand guard of your sword as a pick while swinging your sword by the blade to compromise your opponents armor
>not using a poleaxe or a hand pick
But anon what about all that?

>>50553915
>we

>>50552183
Samefag here

A man can produce sperm every day until he reaches a point where his penis no longer works. Even then it's still possible it just takes more work. A woman, meanwhile, has a chance to produce one child a month and it's not even a guaranteed thing at that. Furthermore, there's a decent chance that the woman will die during child birth. These things combine to make woman a more valuable resource then men, one that you wouldn't want to risk in a fight. This is the logic that has dictated gender roles in most every culture in recent history.

>>50555944
>not having multiple personalities
Hey guys, get a load of this fag.

>>50555944
Women may be anonymous, but their language isn't. It's kind of funny.

I enjoyed this thread. I thought it was just going to be more of the same, but I actually learned a lot about history.

>>50553992
>Engulfing weapons
How about you just say "curvy weapons" which opens up the wide world of bows, scimitars, etc.

There's probably no national or national-sized private army on earth that has never had at least one woman in it, somewhere. Some women hate being at home and would rather go to war and fight and kill and die than stay at home. All culture makes the difference is whether or not they have to pretend to be dudes.

Most recruiters would never have taken women, but by the time you figure out Young Tom's actually Just Alice, if she's got her training and didn't break in her first engagement and isn't slowing down the march, you'll somehow have never noticed it.

Women are weaker than really fit men. So are many men. Doesn't matter - as long as they meet the minimum standard to not actively fail they'll serve. Wars come down to ability to mobilise troops as often as they do quality of troops. If your thousand super-fit guys turn down anyone below the optimal male strength you'll be dicked by the ten-thousand strong army of guys who can hold a spear, walk forward, and not run away - whether or not there's ten or twenty women in that line too.

You don't have to establish that women are optimal soldiers to justify them being adventurers, since those people are by definition exceptional. It just has to be possible. The historical record is clear that sometimes women fought, even illegally, and not all of them died.

On the anecdotal side, my late grandfather told me once that when he was a company commander he was pretty damned sure a couple of his men... weren't. None of the officers ever asked because it was WW2 and nobody gave a shit as long as you shot your rifle and stayed in order.

>>50555984
This assumes functionally unlimited resources available for population growth, which was rarely the case. When resources are limited women are actually less valuable than men because having too many kids running around puts a strain on your food supply. This makes too many women a liability more than an asset. Additionally female labour is usually less productive than male labour, which also tends to make women less valuable. There's obviously an equilibrium point, if women become too scarce their relative value increases, but that point can be very low. For example the mean sex ratio found in 6th to 9th century Italian cemeteries is 171 males per 100 women, because men were just that much more valuable.

So circumstances can exist in which a woman is actually less valuable than a man. Now most cultures in said circumstances simply had less women by way of sex selective infanticide, but it's possible that at times said infanticide does not happen, which can have other effects on society. As an example, it wasn't uncommon in Medieval Western Europe it was common for 10-20% of the female population to never marry (depending on the region and time period). The lesser cultural pressure for all women to marry suggests that wombs were not the limiting factor on population growth, but rather food and space. In those circumstances it's not as imperative to keep women out of danger.

The rarity of female warriors has really more to do with the fact that women are smaller and less aggressive. Also relatively few of them want to fight in the first place. Even in the modern day, relatively few women want to join the military, and those who do usually wind up in the same types of support roles that would have been done by camp followers back in the olden days, and are now performed by the likes of supply officers. That's not to say there weren't women who fought in the thick of battle with sword in hand, there absolutely were, but they've always been relatively few.

>>50556724
Now i'm picturing an army after it has set-up camp at the end of a long march, and the men from two different phalanxes are sitting around a campfire just chatting and hanging out. A man from one phalanx excuses himself to go take a leak, and walks a ways away before vanishing behind some bushes. After watching him go, one of the men from the other phalanx turns to the absent one's comrades, "Um, not to make things awkward or anything, but I'm pretty sure your friend 'Demetrios' is actually a woman."

"Shhhh!" Demetrios' companions whisper back, "Not so loud, she thinks we don't know!"

>>50556912
I think that's the plot of a Discworld book.

>>50554434
>Low Fantasy=Semi-Realistic
And who the fuck came up with that definition?
Not wanting every population center to have a robed bearded asshole who can blow people up by twitching his eyebrows does not necessarily mean that the GM in question is worried about 'realism'.

>>50555509
That depends. People keep calling Game of Thrones 'Low Fantasy', and it features an army of zombie fae and giant fire-breathing dragons.

>>50553921
Except more often than not it wasn't rare. I wish I had my "minus four strength" folder on me so I could cite myself, but in one Japanese battle, 25% of the dead were women. You could argue "well all the women died", but that's really a ridiculous argument, and we're talking a lot of lady Samurai.

Also, I like this essay: http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/

Also, just pointing out, but female gladiators were such a thing that it needed to be banned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiatrix

>>50555276
>only a few people catagorically deny
But it comes up all the fucking time. People act like women have never been fighters, and that no army would ever allow it, and that women shouldn't be adventurers.
These same people also tend to argue there should be no black people in fantasy settings, and that queer people would be put to death.

File: 1478869748050.png (321KB, 371x470px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 371x470px

>>50551228

>Female Warriors

File: 1470779950086.jpg (36KB, 400x330px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 400x330px

>>50557320
>Male Magicians

File: maya picking cherries.jpg (394KB, 1600x1063px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 1600x1063px

>>50557286

File: 1460240162985.png (407KB, 557x605px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 557x605px

>>50557359

>not knowing mana comes from semen build up

>>50554366
You do know that knights wore less armour than modern soldiers (and that not everyone was a knight) and that the whole point was to keep equipment as light as possible, right? Haven't you seen Youtube videos of guys in armour doing cartwheels and jumping jacks?

File: Throwing_anus.jpg (23KB, 128x219px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 128x219px

>>50551426
Underrated post

>>50557422
They didn't wear less armor (Their armor objectively covers a wider amount of the body), they just weren't lugging around tons of extra gear. A modern soldier carries a ton of shit with them. It's not just a rifle and a plate carrier. That backpack they all have is absolutely full.

>>50554621
Anyone the British Empire labelled as a Martial Race.

Especially Gurkhas.

>>50557319
>These same people also tend to argue there should be no black people in fantasy settings, and that queer people would be put to death.
How do you know that? Maybe they just like historical accuracy :)

>>50554621
Considering we're all speaking English on this Mongolian speed-knitting emporium, how about the white race?

>>50555890
>Ida of Austria
>Consort of Leopold II
>Led an army.

Rich noblewoman engages in activities common to people of her class. How many women were in her army?

>>50553979
Just give them a crossbow or a gun, use them defensively.

>>50554847
In modern wars at least, yes. And women are taken out of the factories and back into the kitchens.

>>50557547
I meant total load, not armour specifically, yes.

>>50557622
>(You)
But for real I seriously hate people who a) think that's historically accurate, but also b) think historical accuracy really matters when there are also fucking wizards and elves around.

Historical accuracy simply means "conforms to my preconcieved notions of an anachronistic medieval European hodgepodge"

>>50554847
>>50557816
It was actually mostly "get these women out of those jobs so that men can have them". That's why the war sparked the modern women's rights movement.

File: 1480320527451.jpg (28KB, 500x490px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x490px

Reputation, diplomacy, and good generals.

It's a fact that women are weaker on average, so I would have them resort to being night terrors that make people afraid to fight them. They only pick battles they can win, and they do so in such a savage way that others are convinced their half-demons. Scary masks, mutilations of bodies, anything that gives you a psychological edge.

>>50558222
A woman's scream is more prone to activate an intense psychological response, isn't it?

What would a warrior-nun war howl, at the top of their lungs, in the dead of night sound like?

Or you could maximize their work as psychological skirmishers. They're lighter so the horses can go farther and carry more arrows/pilum and other gear. You could have an entire corps focused on moving around the enemy as fast as possible firing whistling arrows while the men formed the bulk of the battle line.

>>50558222
So, make the assyrian?

Cool.

>>50557639
First of all, "white" isn't a race, unless you're implying prussians are the same shit as Occitans or some other nonsense. Second, they mainly won because they had FUCKING GUNS and modern military tactics. Hell the British conquest of india is primarily based around training a shit load of indian soldiers and equipping them with great weapons.

>>50558305
As a semi-related aside, how much of our conception of the Assyrians is based on fact rather than propaganda? I've heard people say that the stuff they engaged in post-battles wasn't much different then what everyone else did, the only difference being that they played up the atrocity angle on their victory stelas while everyone else toned it down. Any truth to that?

>>50557688
> look at me ma shifting the goal posts!

>>50557286
>Also, I like this essay:

>long drawn out assanine analogy
>my professor said something once
>i wont post it her, but check thid link for evidence (which is just another shifty Web article referencing yet another blog article)
>more blog shit
>more bleeding heart shit
>cosplay and generic fantasy art breaking the paragraphs
>final pic is an advertisement of a book called "geeky femanism"

You have atrocious taste.

>>50558346
I dunno not much of a history buff myself. But when I tried reading about it a few sources claimed they actually did go out of their way to be dicks to make sure potential rebellion in the loosely associated city states would be too costly to even think about. And the fear of retrebution was one of the few things keeping their fragmented empire together.

Don't know how true that really is mind you, so take it with a teaspoon of salt.

File: sj8RLmt.jpg (77KB, 736x414px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 736x414px

massed pikes or skirmishers
a big wall of spikes is scary, no matter who's in control of them
women are smaller targets, better at hiding

>>50558222
It's so weird that people try to come up with justifications and weird things when... this is a thing that really existed and didn't require weird shit like scary masks and self-mutilation. (Although Celts did run into battle naked and covered in blue paint and blood, but they were crazy fuckers)

>>50558321
Guns... and Germs and Steel :^)
(But seriously for all the historian rage, I have liked GGS ever since I saw it on the PBS)

>>50558406
So do you.

>>50558487
The thing about GGS is that it isn't "wrong" but he is WAY too reductionist. Otherwise he's pretty correct and it agrees with most modern scholarships. People see the big HISTORIANS HATE THIS and think it's because he's out and out wrong but it's not really the case.

>>50558487
>So do you.

Perhaps, but I am content in the knowledge in could never sink to your level even if I tried.

>>50558499
More accurate to say 'Historians hate any idea that gets applied too broadly with little regard for nuance', which isn't necessarily on Diamond.

>>50558499
He is wrong though there are entire chapters in his book where all of his arguments stem from environmental determinism, citing evidence which more often than not can be said to be factually wrong this is on top of how his arguements are generally flawed in so far as they are backwards facing arguments that try to justify their conclusions instead of building testable models that can be said to be close to accurate.

>>50558499
>>50558529
Yeah. I know. I've just also seen a lot of people who are historians or at least history buffs who bring that out every time Guns, Germs, & Steel is mentioned.

>>50558556
How do you test history?
I've also never understood the hate for "environmental determinism". Any Civ player can tell you that location is important.

>>50558567
>How do you test history?
Look for anything that adheres to your model in the modern day or through comparing to other historical finds with parameters in common.
Use computer models when possible to establish feasibility.
Highly unethical social experiments.

You know, the standard ways.

>I've also never understood the hate for "environmental determinism"
>He says shortly before comparing the development of societies and history as a whole to a video game
Gee anon, I don't know. Maybe it's because of stuff like that.

>>50558634
>Highly unethical social experiments.
Is there any other kind?

>>50558634
>Gee anon, I don't know. Maybe it's because of stuff like that.

>Metaphors aren't in any way useful at all
"Location, location, location" is important to more than just video games. It's important to the success of *most* endeavours.

>>50558321
>Second, they mainly won because they had FUCKING GUNS and modern military tactics.

The tipping point was only truly reached when we had smokeless powder and our enemies did not.

>>50554601

>History channel

Wee woo wow they must be true cus they are called the history channel!

>>50558681
Fine anon, I will restate.

It's stupid because it's not useful.

First there is an event, and for that event there is a truth. The truth is all information about that event that is needed to understand it. However the truth is not recorded in full, only a small shadow of the truth is left behind for us to use to reconstruct a negative image of the truth. Now from that shadow of the truth the environmental determinist throws out even more and chooses to try to explain everything else by connecting what few things we know in general, with what we know about the environment (Which again is not much). It's completely backwards looking, which is more than a problem of trying to justify preconceived notions since almost anything can be justified (incorrectly) through backwards looking reasoning and rarely results in something more truthful than we already had.

The problem is not that ones surroundings don't matter, the problem is the utter hubris that these people have to think that they are doing a service with their wild and mostly baseless speculation.

>>50554646

You mean the same Mediterraneans who got raped by European spear chuckers?

>>50558222

Why is there always one person who makes an autistic post like this?

>>50558803
I don't know anon, why don't you tell me why you just made that post.

>>50552445
Its not like a warrior woman couln't use those weapons. We are not weaker by any means. It's not like a female warrior is untrained or hasn't put in the hours at the gym.

>>50558789
ROMANS ARE A CIVLIZED PEOPLE, NOT BARBARIANS AND IF I CATCH YOU CLAIMING ANY DIFFERENT I WILL SEE YOU BEING RIPPED APPART BY ANIMALS FOR OUR PEOPLE'S ENTERTAINMENT

File: Agustina_Zaragoza_(cropped).jpg (394KB, 470x662px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 470x662px

>>50551228
Agustina de Aragón, maybe? Girl from a Spanish town, Napoleon troops attacked her town and crushed the defense. As everyone was escaping, she grabbed a cannon and fucked up a good chunk of Frenchmen at point blank range, inspiring the rest to come back.

Loses were brutal, but they did manage to retake the gates keep the French outside long enough for reinforcements to arrive. Afterwards it seems she led a gang of resistance fighters on the mountains.

>>50558962
>put in the hours at the gym.
Gyms are a modern invention though, the greek ones (which fell out as a tradition when they stopped being a powerhouse) didn't have the same connotation, it was a place for naked dudes to hang out, discuss, compete, and get oiled up by slaves as well as doing stuff like gymnastics. For most of history human physiology and all that stuff was not that well understood and the intensive training that you see in modern gyms didn't really take place. Instead you would see training like that in dojos or other fighting schools. Doing the movements of fights over and over, sparing, if you had a bow shooting a quiver of arrows into a target every day. if you had a sling or a javelin you practiced with it. But it wasn't like you went out and did specific compound movements using weights and then went for a protein shake or anything like that so unless someone specifically was being drilled or trained as a warrior it is doubtful they would have any more strength then their profession had granted them.

>[females] are not weaker by any means
Females are though, not to mention much shorter on average reach puts females at further disadvantage when facing enemies with short/medium range weapons. Strength and length are more important than nearly anything else when deciding physical contests. Though I will concede that some fighters have tried, sometimes successfully, to turn the weakness of a shorter wingspan and stature from a bug into a feature, these are mostly in controlled arenas where the competitors are otherwise equal (weight classes and such) and should not be seen as indicative of a uncontrolled fight.

>>50554450
>Sexual Dimorphism is lower in some parts of the world than others IRL.
Accepting this to be true is it not reasonable to allow that in a fantasy world sexual dimorphis might also be lower?

>>50551228
Very simply - those fighting women just don't give a fuck, don't abide by the law and don't care about what society thinks of them.

Historically, look up any female pirate having existed. Cheng I Sao, "The Pirate Empress", for exemple.

>>50551228
I wouldn't, because I don't believe revisionist history.

>>50559236
>I don't know anything about history and did not read the thread.

>>50552445
But almost everything you said other than "Female warriors were never the majority" is wrong (and I'm being generous wording it that way).

>About the only accounts I know of non-noble women engaging in combat during the medieval period are of townswomen using crossbows from their settlement's walls.
Crossbows and also hatchets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Hatchet

Really, you sound like you didn't even Google this subject.
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/wom-kn.htm

I mean, hell...
>As such the only real accounts are of noblewomen, and they generally only started fighting out of neccesity after the death of a husband i.e. Joan of Flanders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_warfare
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/07/invasion-of-the-viking-women-unearthed/1
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141029-amazons-scythians-hunger-games-herodotus-ice-princess-tattoo-cannabis/
I love that clusterfuck of an address on the last one.

>>50559236
>(You)

>>50552445
>after the death of a husband i.e. Joan of Flanders
Joan of Flanders started fighting before her husband died. She started fighting after he was captured (and the French thought his capture meant she would surrender, they were very wrong), and she continued fighting after he was returned to her, and kept fighting after his death from illness.

You should research a person before throwing their name around.

>A bunch of skinnyfat manlets discussing combat.

It always bothers me so much when /tg/ discusses realism, when they probably don't even know what is realistically feasible by a human being whose lifestyle isn't 100% sedentary.

>>50559116
Hitting the gym isn't very good warrior training anyways

File: 1471531611354.jpg (77KB, 600x608px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 600x608px

>spamming statistical anomalies because the concept of sexual dimorphism is too triggering

>>50560435
>(you)

>>50551228
>What are some good examples of real life female warriors/cultures that had female warriors
Have you tried Malabar? The south-western part of modern day India?
Matriarchal as fuck. Martial as fuck. Piracy so infamous people preferred to take the long way around the region.

File: alia_by_rodmendez-daqhycg.jpg (308KB, 826x1300px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 826x1300px

>>50551228
Central Asia steppe mixed with Rus is always fun. Or at least pleasing to the eye.

So obviously the weapon of choice would be some sort of sabre, no matter what.

>>50560816
>Central Asia
>Contaminated with Rus
Pleb taste

Try Mongolian and similar. This kinda works in favour of a female, since you have a (nominally) smaller rider (and in case of riding, even a single centimerer makes a huge difference). And the smaler the size of the rider, the fucking better, since you can chase your enemies like a fucking cattle or - even worse for them - effortlessly herd them like one.
Probably the only situation outside firearms when being small is not an issue and could be in fact worked as an advantage.

Unless we count early aviation too.

File: 1467897195963.jpg (335KB, 1350x1560px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1350x1560px

>>50560845
Fuck, forgot to pic

>>50560463
He's right, you know?
Women make shitty warriors, period.

File: stormnigger are furfags.jpg (174KB, 1306x354px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1306x354px

>>50560863
Not him, but [Citation needed]

Also, preemptively pic related for you, before you even start making an idiot out of yourself

>>50560845
This anon knows what's up
>t. a guy riding and having a lot of problems due to being almost 2m tall

>>50560845
Don't Russian tanks have an actual heigh requirement, so you need to be below 175 cm or you won't even fit in?

>>50560435
I'm not sure you fully understand what sexual dimorphism is. Or how marginal it's for our species, all things considered.

>>50551228
Horse culture shitters.

Compound bows like the mongols used and spears/glaives.

>>50551600
Depends on the bow. Selfbows? Yeah. Bows like steppe warriors used? Light draw, the trick is accuracy.

File: ad0a9e0203ea0a021ccf037318ef4d85.jpg (61KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 540x720px

>>50551228
>How would you do female fighters in low fantasy?
The situation is such a clusterfuck that we need women on the frontlines, not enough men.
The realm creates a light cav female knight class, using bows and lances combined with lighter horses/ponies and lighter riders. Although not a game changer, it improves skirmishing, scouting and catching routing units, and may create a guerrilla warfare for a situation in which open battles became unsustentable. This female knight class acquires substancial wealth because they catch more prisioners to sell and ransom. This will result on some heavy cav females and friction with the established knights that are left.

>What are some good examples of real life female warriors/cultures that had female warriors.
The Dahomey amazons and the scythian bowwoman riders are the best I can think of.

>What weapons are best for females etc
Your pic is a good example. If we go by averages, a spear with longer reach and more dexterous techniques, disfavouring brute-force approach the average man would employ. On an individual basis, it depends.

>>50560017
Next you'll tell me that bodybuilders aren't actually strong and that functional fitness works, right?

>>50561020
Anon, everyone knows bodybuilders aren't actually strong, but just toned as fuck, because that's the entire point - to be toned. Compare them with, say, weight-lifters, that look like overweight, but are all about muscle power and don't give a single fuck about how they look while lifting 250 kilos as if nothing

>>50553594
Persians don't had "women as naval commanders" you're probably talking about Artemisa who was not persian and was not a "naval commander". She was carian and she was a queen, so obviously she could do whatever she fucking wanted with her troops including leading them. Everything that we know about her is in relation to how she was a rara avis.

The only persian warrior woman that comes to my mind is Boran, who again was a queen (one of the few persians had) so she could do whatever she wanted. And it's debatable if she was an actual warrior or that's just an add-on by epic poets.

People often compare persians and greeks in matters of gender issues, saying that the former were better. And it's not false. But that's because most classic greeks were extremely patriarchal, taliban-tier in the case of Athens.

>>50554729
>None of this counts
>Because I say so
I love this kind of non-rebuttal

>>50561057
https://youtu.be/ua8oObEPptQ

Do I need to post the stats of various others too? Bodybuilders are fucking strong, anyone on tren is going to be fucking strong you absolute retard.

Of course there's a power to mass ratio that a powerlifter or olympic weightlifter is going to have an edge in. But you don't actually lose any potential by being shredded. The only difference between a heavyweight bodybuilder and a strongman is technique and FFMI.

TL;DR you are fucking wrong.

>>50551228
Obviously steppe. Either pre-islamic Turkic tribes or Mongolians and similar ilk. When mounted, you don't need to be strong and you actively don't want to be large.
Given how average tribe either defended themselves or got slaughtered when the men were missing and had in general only this number of hand to do shit around, it wouldn't even look out of place to have females among them.

Just remember tha average nomadic tribe was nothing more than bunch of cattle herders who just happen to spend most of their life on horseback, so all their "tactics" and "combat prowress" came from herding cows and shooting predators. Or other tribe to steal/defend the cattle.

Any culture that had prolonged period of warfare going, thus conscripting as many men as possible, developed "home guards" in form of armed females, because there was literally nobody else to do this job. But that still just means a stop-gap measure and an armed person with some basic training rather than your imaginative super-soldier and as soon as peace returned, usually women were put back in the kitchen. Best case of study - Japan between Onin Wars till around reforms of Tokugawa Iemitsu.

>>50561159
Why are you still going for 'bodybuilders are stronger than average person'? Especially since nobody denied that?
The point is:
Here are the normies
Here are the bodybuilders
Here are the professional sportsmen honing their musscles for actual strain.

So stay the fuck out.

File: 6d771318b96bb1519df109d88a8dfb32.jpg (77KB, 564x803px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 564x803px

>>50557622
I have never seen one of those know enough history to be legitimate in their "accuracy" excuse.

I'll be impressed when laws gainst the transmutaion into gold and widespread belief that women must cum to get pregnant appear.

>>50561193
What I am saying is, there really isn't that much difference. Only fucktards like you think so.

Take someone like Arnold. Who literally held powerlifting records before actually starting bodybuilding.

I am saying. Muscle is muscle. Fucking kill yourself.

>>50557622
>OP asks about outright fantasy game
>Muh historical accuracy
I never understood people like you.

But let's bring it a step further, shall we?
Accurate to WHAT exactly? What period, what country, under what set of laws?
Because either you have specific cases and examples, or your "accuracy" argument is just a justification for your own stereotyped bias toward how you imagine things worked out rather than how they actually worked.

>>50561204
>Muscle is muscle
How to know you are an overweight manchild that last time had to do excercises in the Elementry.

You've just made a claim it literally doesn't matter if you are doing lifting, springting, swimming, acrobatics, fucking skiing or whatever else, because hey, muscle is muscle!

Fucking kill yourself already, you fucking faggot that gets sweaty by just thinking about going upstairs.

>>50561248
>Make an argument related to strength athletes
>The other guy suddenly suddenly brings in mostly technique based athletes to shift the goalpost

Nice. I'm out.

>>50561274
>I'm out.
You fucking should be long ago, you piece of shit. Jesus, this is what I hate about /tg/ the most. A bunch of people that have absolutely no relation to physical activities trying to talk about how physical stuff works out of their imagination.
And it gets the worst when then not just ignore reality, but it becomes apparent they probably didn't even finish their school education, as they know jack shit about basic, entry-tier Biology or Physics

>>50561315
>A bunch of people that have absolutely no relation to physical activities trying to talk about how physical stuff works out of their imagination.
This really gets on my nerves too. I still remember some moron throwing just a gigantic bitchfit about riding, only with each post proving that he not only has no clue about riding or any experience in that field, but he also apparently never saw a living horse up close. Or the constant "I've learned navigation and sailing from watching PotC" bullshit.
Why people are doing it? I mean I can understand armchair generals, everyone here read a military treaty or seven. But why outright lying on an anonymous imageboard you have a personal experience in a field when you don't even know the basic lingo, not to mention practicing it even once.

If you're going low fantasy, being of noble birth should be plenty to carry you to plausibility.

>>50561427
Still greatly depends on culture and time period you are basing this on

>>50554747
>The Sarmatians may have inadvertently created the myth of the amazon with their rule that a woman could not marry/have sex (accounts vary) until she had killed an enemy in battle.

That's itself another myth, just like the complementary meme of sarmatian women removing their breasts for better use of the bow (which is total bullshit). NEVER trust greeks and romans when they talk about women, for them a fighting women was a bogeymanesque idea and they adorned it with all kinds of made up stuff to make the tale even more impressive.

Sarmatian woman warriors were just that, women with bows killing people. No virgins out of some greek guy's wet nightmares.

100% cool if you want to make the myth real in a fantasy world tho

>>50561460
>NEVER trust greeks and romans when they talk about women, for them a fighting women was a bogeymanesque idea
At least some people get it

>>50561427
And being of low-born, especially rural birth gives even more, all things considered.

>>50557282
That's because it started as low fantasy and that's what actually made it unique. Also those things are mostly only in the worst sub-plots that are often highly unrelated to the political drama that attracted most people.

>>50558346
When you base your propaganda on cruelty, you have to be more cruel than the one who doesn't. There's no TV or photos, everyone needs to see the exemplary cruelty and not everyone is gonna see the stellae and reliefs.

>>50559035
Women taking part in defensive sieges is almost a meme (in the sense that it happened a lot, not that it's a joke). It makes a lot of sense actually, they're.already in the attacked city so they should defend it.

Another common thing is women in rebellions, in those cultures where the wife was the one who went to buy food. Women were the knowledgeable ones in matters of food prices, which were often the cause of rage and rebellion.

>>50558346
Given how their religion worked and how propaganda back in the day had to be created to actually leave a lasting mark - they've pulled some truly nasty shit on conquered people

>>50554450
Only because their men are weak. Not because their women are strong. So the -4str meme still applys. Just men get -2str

File: 891.png (42KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 625x626px

>>50562369

>>50561909
It literally starts with a ranger team being attacked by zombies and unseelie fairies.

>>50562381
A fractuted diet and poor living conditions do that. They live malnurished.

File: c26.png (17KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 625x626px

>>50562439

>>50551228
Female warriors are a fantasy by definition
>Inb4 this one woman in 4th century Spain who threw a frying pan in the general direction of a Visgothic horde

>What weapons are best for females etc
Her vagina, which is simultaneously the most powerful and the oldest weapon in history.

>>50562632
Only when you are French prostitute spreading diseases among Spanish troops.

>>50551228
How is the following for an uncontroversial and qualified statement?

Men represent the overwhelming majority of active combatants throughout history. However there were many roles women have played. Female commanders, usually royalty or nobility but not exclusively, leading troops on and off the battlefield are not especially unusual although this did not usually extend to personally engaging in close combat.

Women would defend themselves and their communities if attacked, including with weapons if available and frankly it would be more unsual if women did not take any active part in a city's defense when under siege (for example).

There are many individual examples of exceptional women taking part in combat or paramilitary activity in cultures where women are not usually combatants. This includes those disguising themselves as men but sometimes openly if circumstances allow. While not indicative of a general trend, they should not be discounted when discussing women and warfare. More broadly weapon and other military skills were taught to women not expected to fight on the battlefield (hunting for example, or naginata-jitsu for samurai women).

Finally, while uncommon globally there are some cultures which included trained female combatants, such as Dahomey and some Eurasian nomadic groups which could provide ample inspiration for fantasy settings.

How about that?

>>50562410
And then it's forgotten for hundreds and hundreds of pages.

>>50563345
It's awful since you make it about how "it wasn't uncommon" (a pointless token) instead of focusing on how it was supposed to be uncommon in most societies yet several women went against what society imposed on them.

It's not about what you tell, but how you tell it.

>>50562545
>chinese people aren't starved
You must be a government official.

test

File: 1437396866387.jpg (110KB, 735x900px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 735x900px

>>50563345
>How is the following for an uncontroversial and qualified statement?
It's just pain wrong. Women WERE uncommon in military. They only appeared EXCEPTIONALLY. The RULE, the actual normative, across all cultures, was that women did not actually participate in military.

Every rule has exceptions. That should not be surprising to anyone. Localized deviations appeared: for various reasons: desperation situations (like defenses of sieges), revolts (which inherently come with push for challenging and disregarding existing order), rare cases of personality quirks (like the female military regiments in China), immediate ideological needs (like female battalions in WW1 Russia) etc... But all of them were EXCEPTIONS, by definition UNCOMMON.

Look, here is the problem. You folks can scream about pol all you want, but the reality is: there is an actual ideological push from the left wing that is trying to impose that there never was a rule against women in military. And that is the claim that is pissing anyone sane off so fucking hard. Because it's just fucking false, it's an idiological construct trying to force a narrative that traditional genre roles are relatively modern, unnatural constructs. It's trying to deny the relevance of the normatives, the common rules in the first place. And that is actually really fucked up, for many reasons, the biggest of which is that it's just a LIE.

The truth is: the normatives existed, the rules existed, they are universal to humanity. It's just that - like literally every other aspect of human culture, they always offered SOME degree of leeway: they weren't imposed absolutely. They are guidelines, ideal models. And no model will always fit the nearly infinitely complex nature of reality perfectly. We humans know that, and our culture is constructed to have certain degree of flexibility in this matter.

But the models are and were relevant too. And denying them, by denying the factual history is just a terrible idea.

>>50563345
>are not especially unusual
Wrong, they were highly unusual. Just because you can list hundreds among hundreds of thousands doesn't mean they weren't unusual. Because we're listing them right now without paying attention of all the male ones, especially those never written down by history, creates confirmation bias.

>Women would defend themselves and their communities if attacked
Some women would defend themselves and their communities if there weren't enough men to do it, ie. under highly exceptional circumstances.

>There are many individual examples
Some individual examples

Other than that it sounds okay I guess.

>>50563829
And then there are guys like this bozo who acknowledge the differences between men and women but probably believe that in spite of that they deserve equal treatment before the law.

>>50563585
I've spend over 2 years in China, coincidently doing turns as rural English teacher to keep myself afloat.

Apparently you should update your intel, Steve. Are you at least aware Mao is dead for 40 years now?

>>50564067
>And then there are guys like this bozo who acknowledge the differences between men and women but probably believe that in spite of that they deserve equal treatment before the law.
That is a completely weird accusation that comes out of the blue...

>>50563585
If you really want to see tiny yellow Asian starved, how about Laos then?
I mean at least get your facts right, for fucks sake.

>>50563526
Because both audience and author are idiots.
Dude should have just written historical fiction. The story would make more sense, and we'd have a lot less idiots stumbling around fantasy forums muttering about muh realism.

>>50564171
>If you really want to see tiny yellow Asian starved
That is the weirdest fetish I've heard all day. Can we air drop Big Macs?

>>50564552
Last times Americans dropped there anything was Agent Orange

>>50562148
Talking about food prices and rebellion, I'll have to go off topic here and state there's a fun fact: During the early stages of the French Revolution (even before the Siege of Bastille), the food shortage and the resulting winter meant that a horde of wives actually raided a bakery, took the bread and paid the breadmaker a lower price than it was selling for.

>>50565151
Kek

File: 1455828853248.jpg (14KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x250px

>>50560942
Compare strength records of women to men and get back to me.

>>50563829
>You folks can scream about pol all you want, but the reality is: there is an actual ideological push from the left wing that is trying to impose that there never was a rule against women in military.
No there isn't. Why would anyone on the left want that?
Your argument about exceptions to the rule is stupid because it implies there have been rules that were consistent all across history.

Yes, men have been the majority of fighting forces throughout history. But there have been innumerable instances where women fighting was not uncommon. We're not talking one or two women fighters, but full quarters of the fighting force. And in almost every war there seems to have been at least some female participation, no matter how prohibited.

You--and many of the people in this thread against the notion of female warriors--seem to be of the mistaken opinion that something happening less often means that it's rare. It wasn't uncommon for women to be warriors, it was just not as common as men. In many cultures, you wouldn't see a woman warrior and think that she was rare and one of a kind any more than you'd see someone of an ethnic minority and think they were one of a kind. I mean, fuck, I imagine that you guys don't freak out when you see a black person or Asian, thinking that this is the only time you'll ever see one of them. For many cultures, that's how female warriors were. Less common, but not an amazing rule breaking taboo.

No, it wasn't all cultures. No one is really denying that men are generally more physically fit (though some people on both sides are exaggerating how physically fit people would have been), and women were always going to have been less common as fighters than men. But that doesn't mean that every culture across the board--or even many cultures we associate with these fantasy games--would never ever ever have female soldiers or warriors.

>>50558962

>we are not weaker by any means.

Assuming by we you mean women yes, yes you kind of are. I'm not meming. It's just honest basic scientific fact. We are a sexually dimorpheus species. Women and men have different musculatures. Women have a less developed upper musculature for one. You cannot put on the same amount of muscle mass as a male. You cannot put on muscle as quickly as a male. And you get less bang for your buck. Pound for pound a man is stringer than a women. I'm sorry, female power fantasy lied to you, you can't compete physically. There is a reason we dI video sports along gender lines. Go look at male and female Olympic records. Men are faster, and stronger, and it shows. You are still our equals. You are no less intilligent or important than us. But no, you can't compete physically. In that way, we are not equal.

>>50564067
>People don't deserve equal treatment under the law
uh...

Also, you have a very weird definition of "unusual". We're also talking about individual examples of ENTIRE CULTURES here.

>>50565472
Unusual cultures.

You know, I think that all of these threads and the general "women were never warriors, any evidence you show me otherwise is just an outlier" miss the point that something being an "outlier" doesn't really mean anything. It's just a way to dismiss data that you don't agree with, particularly in this case. I'm curious just how common something has to be for you to no longer consider it "uncommon".

>>50565492
Please define for me the Usual culture.

>>50565472
To paraphrase Aristotle, the greatest injustice is in treating the unequal as if they were equal. This is why the original 'equal treatment for the law' (that is to say the law ignores race, religion, social class and family ties) was just but the current 'equal treatment before the law' (everyone deserves the exact same treatment regardless of virtue, talent and circumstance) is not. Or do you really think French and American revolutionairies were full of cognitive dissonance when they didn't allow women to vote? Women were not (active) citizens, they were not expected to fight nor expected to vote.

>Also, you have a very weird definition of "unusual". We're also talking about individual examples of ENTIRE CULTURES here.
These cultures are unusual, even when comparing them to other cultures in the region. Dahomey amazons were so special because nobody else had them. And when only one language/culture/region bothers doing something and most of the rest of the planet does not, there's usually a very good reason for that. That reason being that often a female warrior is no better than no warrior at all.

>>50565549
>2016
>Bringing Aristotle to the discussion
Anon, I don't want to shatter anything for you, but a world changed "a bit" since times of Macedonian conquest.

>>50565257
It's so fucking marginal a lot of measurements outright treat them as statistical error, since they quel under the 3% margain.

But hey, nothing like trying to shock anyone on /tg/ with being reactionary or sexist, we are so fucking shocked (in case you are neve to this thread - >>50560885 )

>>50565672
>How dare you bring up Aristotelian logic in THE CURRENT YEAR?
Some things don't become obsolete as quickly as your iPhone. Now, could you be bothered bringing up actual arguments as for why we should treat the unequal equally, especially in the modern (CURRENT YEAR) meaning of equal treatment?

>>50565426
>No there isn't. Why would anyone on the left want that?
Are you fucking serious? Look, if you don't know anything about the modern philosophical and sociological movements of the 20th century, that is fine: it's actually really nasty business and I would not recommend people to get too deep into it, but Jesus fucking Christ, if you don't have basic education then DON'T FUCKING TALK about the subject.
Are you actually denying the movement that started with Kristeva and De Beauvoir? Are you denying existence or relevance of such authors as Hanish, Keller, Zetkin, Luxenburg, Pateman, Oakenfield, Fausto-Sterling.
For fuck sake dude. This is pathetic. Be Beavoir's Second Sex is ENTIRELY A MARXIST EXPLANATION OF GENDER IDENTITIES AND DICHOTOMY you god damn idiot. You literally never bothered to open a single primary source on feminism and modern left movement in your life.

>Your argument about exceptions to the rule is stupid because it implies there have been rules that were consistent all across history.
Because they were. Still are, actually. Statistically speaking. A LOT of cultural models are universal: kin recognition system (not individual models, but functional kin systems), marriage, religion, certain types of legal and normative systems. Most of them are tied to our basic survival strategies.

>We're not talking one or two women fighters, but full quarters of the fighting force.
Sources on that bullshit? In relative comparison to frequency of all male fighting forces? Do you have ANY fucking data to work with?

>seem to be of the mistaken opinion that something happening less often means that it's rare.
That is quite literally the meaning of the word.

>would never ever ever have female soldiers or warriors.
At this point I wonder if you are a troll or a literally mentally retarded. Go back and re-read my fucking post YOU GOD. DAMN. CRETIN. If you can't READ, you should not try to argue with others in a written discussion.

File: Every Kickstarter thread ever.png (57KB, 1128x844px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1128x844px

>>50565531
>Expecting reason from thinly-veiled /pol/
Anon, we both know this is not gonna work.

And about dismissing data - there is this eternal classic from /v/, this I guess should be just reworked into standard templade (if wasn't already)

>>50565531
>"outlier" doesn't really mean anything.
Uh... You people really are just complete idiots, aren't you?

>>50565747
Are you? Whether or not something was an outlier is irrelevant to the point of whether it has historical basis.

File: plowing.jpg (24KB, 320x252px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 320x252px

>>50565698
>Current year
>Still unaware Aristotelian logic was proven wrong 300 years ago.
That's how I wonder how "dare" you.

And I don't even own a smartphone. But nice knowing you read one book in your life, rather than just regularly visiting library. Would quote on here that great scene from Good Will Hunting about being pompous over very limited knowledge you have while plagiarising the entire internet summary I've managed to find just by googling your post, but hey, that would be bringing pop-culture reference against someone who red a summary of a very, very important and complex book, assuming the reader is an edgy manchild that takes infromation for granted rather than a thing to further dwell upon and continue further search.

In short - we have nothing to discuss about, since we operate on completely different levels, patterns and waves. As you read summary (pretty good one) of Aristotle's believes and thesis, you are most likely familiar with his critique of Socratean method, thus you are even more aware how pointless it is for us to argue at all.

In short - fuck you, but have a nice day.

>>50565691
>acknowledging that men and women aren't physically equal is sexist and reactionary

Jesus fucking Christ.

File: 1279696118.jpg (69KB, 358x392px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 358x392px

>>50565747
Nice non-rebuttal of yours. Even better poorly veiled ad hom.

File: ;3.jpg (85KB, 511x676px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 511x676px

>>50565801
>Pretending shitload of research proving time and again the differences are barely there is not being ignorant.
>Moving goalposts from "strenght records" to "generalised sex differences" is not cheap and sloppy eristics
Jebos H Cristos

>>50565792
All those words, and not a single one dedicated to the issue at hand. That should be considered an artform.

>>50555004
well, as the devil's advocate, spartans at this time period really followed martial training and were at least fit
if i remenber right, women also might have recieved military training, just in case to defend their home

>>50565844
Show me this ''shitload'' of research, brah.

>>50565859
Funny. I was rather expecting attack on grammar. That's what people usually do. Guess you were quick enough to figure out this might not work properly, but then still step in your own trap.
How am I suppose to make a point, when the discussion is already declared over and you are making nothing else than a desperate bid to have the final word?

And all of it on an anonymous internet imageboard, in a thread this close from simply disappearing, but yet your own hubris won't allow you to stop, even if the other side simply spit on your face and you now try to play it out as a rain.

Congratulations - you didn't even gave that summary of Aristotle a proper read. And most of summaries cover his tricks and theories for holding a conversation so nobody would be able to derail them and then further humiliate you.

Don't be coy. You replied. It means your pride sting you strongly enough to react, rather than use your anonymity to disappear in the thin air

>>50565867
I've got a better case for you - show me just about ANY research, that proves women are weaker in a statistically measurable way. Remember - it was all originally about strenght.
Oh, and as a bonus - made that research being conducted AFTER WW2.

After all, it was you making a claim, why should I then prove you counter-situation, when you didn't even bothered to prove your initial bid?

>>50565913
I'm going to repeat my question once more: what is a good reason to assume the unequal should be treated equally?

>>50565862
>Might
They kinda did. The entire point was to always have someone at home capable of keeping slaves in line with something more than just being a wife of the house-owner.

>>50565939
The -str is a meme. The important dimension in raw physical strength is the physical training.

A girl who lifts will almost certainly tend to be stronger than a boy who doesn't.

>>50565939

Not that anon. Just watch the damn Olympics. Fucks sake.

>>50565787
>>50565827
If you have a pattern, with solid statistical regularity, and then you come a cross few small isolated outliers, are you going to say that the pattern does not exist anymore? Are you going to treat the outliers with exactly the same relevance as the absolute majority of the data that fits the pattern?

This is actually just... surreal. This is so stupid it's actually beyond words. Human knowledge and the entirety of our cognition is predicated on the capacity for pattern seeking. It's what literally keeps us alive, because it gives us ability to understand regularities in the environment that surrounds us, and that objectively statistically increases our ability to survive. That is epistéme: that is KNOWLEDGE. There is nothing else to it, actually. Our ability to understand the relevance and statistical significance or regularities of phenomena that surrounds us.

You are actually denying that. You are saying: "it does not matter that things keep happening in a predictable fashion over and over again with high statistic reliability. Let's disregard that, because... postmodernism, I guess? Wishful thinking that magically if we hope enough, the world will suddenly change and become different and more fitting for our desires?"

Outliers are outliers. A result of chaos, of the fact that the world isn't perfectly regular: just mostly regular. You actually defend ignoring majority of the data for few things that confuse you, or perhaps give you hope that the world will change, instead of you yourself having to get used to it.

That is not a smart strategy. That is in fact, incredibly fucking stupid. Literally the definition of stupid.

>>50565956
And I will simply reverse it (you didn't ask that question to me, by the way) - why should we assume that equals should be treated unequally? Or why should we assume that we are in fact unequal in the face of law?

It makes just as much sense as "your" question.
And as a bonus round - are you aware the entire modern law system is based on the assumption EVERYONE is equal in front of it?

>>50565967
Oh, so now suddenly the charge is dropped when you have to provide evidence.
I would go as far as calling that magic, if not the fact we are (supposedly) have here an argument based solely on reason.

>>50565844
>25 pounds lighter
>6" shorter
>thinner, less dense bones

>"the differences are barely there"
fucking wew lad. there's a reason they don't let male and female athletes compete.

>>50565985
I'm not sure you understand what "outliner" means in the first place, but given we are so close to bump limit - I hardly care anymore.

>>50565964
Spartan helots were treated decently, except for when cultural minorities within them rebelled.

Spartan females were expected to stay fit, to raise strong children, and often played sports with men.

Both Sparta and Ephesus at the time had very egalitarian policies, Ephesus especially where the great Temple of Artemis, one of the seven wonders was.
This was contrasted against Athens, which had extreme restrictions on women, i.e. can't go in public without an escort, confined to "women's quarters" of the house.
A lot of modern philosophy is based on middle ages revival of Athenian traditions, rather than Spartan or Stoic, which may further have resulted in female suppression.

>>50566006
And you take that data from...
aside your ass, that is?

Also, do world a favour and use international units, rather than randomly appointed rollercoaster you somehow ended up stuck with. It's not helping your argument at all.

>>50565978
The patriarchy has just brainwashed all those professional athletes who've devoted their entire life to their sport into believing that they can't out preform their male counterparts, thus ruining any potential they have to surpass them.

>>50565985
You're missing the point on purpose, aren't you. The only thing majority of people here argue is that yes, female warriors did occur in some cultures in reality, therefore having basis for existence in fantasy.

And then the 'outlier' crowd comes along and says that just because it was an exception, there is no actual basis. Despite literal facts.

Who's denying things, here?

>>50565995
>why should we assume that equals should be treated unequally?
We shouldn't?
>Or why should we assume that we are in fact unequal in the face of law?
Because some of us are able to fulfill certain civic obligations/duties and others are not?

>And as a bonus round - are you aware the entire modern law system is based on the assumption EVERYONE is equal in front of it?
I presume that by "modern" you mean around 1917-1950 depending on what country we're dealing with? Yeah... it's fucked.

>>50565956
>I'm going to repeat my question once more: what is a good reason to assume the unequal should be treated equally?
Not him, but this is not a philosophical problem: this is a pragmatic problem. We have learned that mostly (not always, but mostly), certain degree of equality actually stabilizes the society. It's very likely related to the fact that humans are more universal and more uniform that we like to admit these days. Partially it is because our strongest evolutionary tool is cooperation, which is predicated by primitive concept of fairness (something literally hardwired into our brains), and unequality often makes cooperation more difficult as it can contradict the primitive and fundamental notions of fairness as evolutionary conditioned.

But that does not really matter. What matters is pragmatic experience. Equality is good at some times and some points, and can be actually harmful at others. It's a matter of testing and certain degree of flexibility: you just try different models and see what they do.

The real problem has ALWAYS been when people did not understand that equality is not a matter of metaphysical principles and broad sweeping statements, but mundane pragmatical and functional analysis and careful, never-ending optimization process.

Because really, that is what it always has been about: consistent, long term process of optimizing our own behavioral strategies for survival in big groups. Not metaphorical or philosophical search of ultimate truth.
That is the reality of discussion about equality. It's not a matter of principles. Never has been. Principles are tools, not goals.

>>50566027
Maybe because not only Athenians, but Greeks in general has a very, very serious problem with the concept of equality, which is ironic, given how they are considered fathers of democracy, a system entirely based on equality.

>>50566003
I'm not the person you were arguing with kiddo.

>>50565956
That's an error of absoluteness. Everything is 'unequal' because it is not 'absolutely identical'. But for a lot of combat-related things, there is a high degree of parity and evenness between men and women. Again, actual combat training quality perhaps always trumps gender.

>>50565978
Nice non-argument.
Especially since it can be easily hurled back.

Just watch Olympics from pre-70s.
Then compare "top men" from then with women barely scrapping to the Olympic qualification today.
Then tell me something about gender-related performance and not amount of training.

Oh, right, but that doesn't count, because you say so.

>>50566041
Dude what comic book universe do you live in where women aren't smaller than men?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_weight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide

Isn't it be obvious just from living with a bunch of other humans that the ones vaginas are smaller and weaker?

>>50566047
Nobody is denying anything you mongoloid, it's just that you did not understand that to most people, it's the patterns that matter. People don't talk about female warriors in fantasy because they might occur (just like rarely, they did occur in real world). People talk about the PATTERN under which they are supposed to occur. OP is literally asking about female warrior cultures you fucking moron.
And that is the whole fucking debate. And people who argue that female warriors don't have historical basis argue that the were no PATTERNS for female warriors in history. That it's not something that happened with regularity enough to be considered a phenomena on which you can really say anything with certainity - it lacks regularity, it's an isolated, uncommon anomaly.
That is the fucking point me and most other people were trying to make here.

>>50566107
I think he's just baiting at this point or is literally a caricature of tumblr.

>>50565703
Well, for the explicit 25%+, two examples already shared in this thread are the aforementioned Dahomey Amazons / N'Nonmiton (who made up ~33% of the fighting force of a firearm using 18th-19th century nation) and the Scythian-Samaritans (who admittedly range from 20-25% depending on the grave sites used and how picky you are, but splitting hairs over such an amount seems inane). There's then a third example, but without an exact number given, in the form of China wherein The Book of Lord Shang suggests "Strong Women" to form the predominant defensive force for laying down and holding fortifications whilst "Strong Men" engage in defensive engagements / counter-offensives in the field (with "Non-Strong Men & Women" filling a third role of "Holy shit uh can you hold a spear?").

Sources for these being, uh, respectively: Foreign Legion records and assorted accounts including Richard Burton's "A Mission to Gelele, King of Dahome" and "Women Warlords: An Illustrated Military History of Female Warriors" ( ISBN 0-7137-1965-6) by Tim Newark and Angus McBride, David Anthony (MA + PhD in Archeology / Anthropology focusing on Eurasia Steppe Grasslands) and Dr. Elena Fialko (Ukranian Archeologist who casual Google search turns up few English lists of credentials), and the fucking Book of Lord Shang.

For less than quarter but "significant in number" we have at least three significant examples from the Romans fighting Goth / Teutonic "Barbarians" (With sources there ranging from Plutarch's "Life of Marius" to "Famous Women" Giovanni Boccaccio to "Sketches: Historical, Literary, Biographical, Economic, Etc" By Thomas Edward Watson and Batya Weinbaum's "Islands of Women and Amazons: Representations and Realities") and various other steppe cultures (some attributed, some otherwise)...

>>50566076
It's because the middle ages theology favored Platonism and it's emphasis of 'divine absoluteness' that Athenian philosophy became more well known and discussed.

The real developers of the Republic and civil rights were Roman Stoics and the Egyptian Code of Ma'at.
The stoics championed rationalism, non-deception, fair treatment of slaves, etc.
Ma'at promoted equitable wages, access to medial care, a Vizir's responsibility to address the grievances of the people under penalty of labor strike, etc.

Stoicism and Egyptian Medical Empiricism were by far the most popular philosophies of ancient times, over Athenian. Only their purgation as 'pagan heresy' changed that by modern times.

>>50566082
>But for a lot of combat-related things, there is a high degree of parity and evenness between men and women.
It's kinda hillarious how most of you are still hung up on the most immediate physical properties. That is how far broad public understanding of culture has gone: physical body. Trust me, there are far more complex reasons why women and men do not perform the same tasks in statistically speaking near-all societies across near-all of history than just their muscles and weight. In fact, the fact that there is a difference between those is really a side-effect of a far more complex process of basic survival strategies and social organization, not vice versa.

>>50566048
So in short - a circular logic. We should do something, because you assume we should. Meanwhile I assume we shouldn't, because I assume we shouldn't.
Are you at least aware how this solves absolutely nothing, proving even less?

And I'm still not sure you are aware how non-shocked we are by your reactionary believes, still going for the shock value.
What for? I mean we are on a imageboard one step away from stuff so bizzare I'm betting a fiver you would be surprised even after spending past 14 years around here.
It's not shocking. It's just boring. Oh my god, he doesn't think people should be equal in the face of law! What a tweest! And he thinks that, because that's his opinion! Another tweest!

See how ineffective it is without providing any arguments at all, but just sprouting opinions and using a summary of Politeia, not even as an actual argument, but just to sound more in charge, because a book is backing your words?

You can't even follow tips in that book, but expect to win this, apparently also blind to the reality and the content of the book, explaining how impossible and futile it is.
But let's shock us, because law shouldn't be the same for all! I've almost had a heart attack due to it!

>>50566070
Even practically speaking, enforcing total equality on the unequal is a horrible idea, which is why it's always on the "my specific version has never been tried" ideas list. Ideally everyone is treated according to their nature and achievements, leading to meritocracy (a system that may not be possible in its absolute sense, but has always been exercised to a limited degree in the most succesful civilizations). This is precisely because rewarding people based on their talents encourages the talented to step forward, while in an egalitarian system the hammer that sticks out gets hammered down. In its most extreme forms (socially speaking, not politically) this results in the Laws of Jante, which could as well be considered society dragging down those who are "too" succesful.

>>50566082
>That's an error of absoluteness. Everything is 'unequal' because it is not 'absolutely identical'.
Guess so. This is why military promotions don't take into consideration that Major Butthurt is better at origami than General Retardation.

>But for a lot of combat-related things, there is a high degree of parity and evenness between men and women
Explain why MMA is still separated by gender, and why female athletes across all disciplines get butthurt when a MtF transgender competes among biological women.

>>50566082
>But for a lot of combat-related things, there is a high degree of parity and evenness between men and women.
[Citation needed]
>Again, actual combat training quality perhaps always trumps gender.
What's your point.
No, really, what's your point. You are perfectly aware you are sprouting gibberish, hell,. you yourself provide counter-arguments to your own point. So what the hell are you trying to achieve here?

>>50566197
>Explain why MMA is still separated by gender
Men, or specifically high testosterone individuals, DO have a higher 'upper end' potential for muscle mass.

But a female MMA fighter for example will outclass most men on the planet, since most men are not combat trained.

Which was the point.

>>50566164
What societies are you talking about? I ask this because Agrarian societies really don't have much of a work load difference between men and women barring when women are either in the later stages of pregnancy or recovering from their recent pregnancy. Agrarian societies generally shat upon both sexes in equal measures and power came less from what was between your legs and more who died last in a relationship and who was capable of doing the work to sustain your farm (and in most cases this was "both, until someone falls sick is crippled or killed").

This is a VERY abstracted summarization, but a lot of people seem to have a misconception that the responsibilities of younger daughters (milking any lactating livestock, collecting chicken eggs, etcetera) were the standard for women regardless of age in a household whereas in actuality after a certain age everyone typically worked directly in the field in some manner or another and would have the knowledge to fill in for family should an accident or poor health befall them.

>>50566236
Anon, don't want to break anything for you, but you didn't ask about anything related to agrarian societies or any societies at all. You were talking about the classic spherical cow, only when it becane handy for you to move your point.
A classic manouvre known as "moving goalposts".
Don't do that. It instantly loses the argument for you.

>>50566172
>So in short - a circular logic.
I think you're making a misstep in logic. You asked me why we should assume that the equal should be treated unequally. I disagree, because I believe the equal should be treated equal and the unequal unequally. Disagreeing with something that goes against my proposition is not 'circular logic'.

Nonetheless, I don't see the problem here. The equal are equal simply because they are equal: we can compare them in a certain field and judge that their skills are virtually the same to the point of being almost interchangeable [we could of course delve into the minutiae and judge that because someone was 0.002% more efficient than his co-worker he deserves 0.01cts more annual pay, but that's simply unviable outside of an utopia]. You could either take a moral approach and state that they "deserve" the same honor or good, or take a practical approach and say that equally desirable behavior should be equally encouraged through equal rewards.

>>50566274
I'm a different anon (ISBN bomber) than the one talking about outliers and whatnot. I was just pointing this out for the same reason I pointed out the grappling thing re: Armor last night (that if you're using brute strength to attack directly against armored parts something has gone terribly wrong), that it's a minor gaffe but one that gets me to no end.

>>50566197
>Even practically speaking, enforcing total equality
After reading what I wrote, you should stop right there and fucking realize that the problem is EXLUSIVELY in the notion "TOTAL", and in the notion of "EQUALITY". It's just the stupidity of thinking there is a total solution. Protip: there never is.

>Ideally everyone is treated according to their nature and achievements
No, that is not even remotely ideal. For multiple reasons. Ideal is a society that can function stable for prolonged times and has flexibility to adapt to sudden changes in environment without significant loss of it's viability. That is literally the only ideal worth ever talking about. You yourself correctly identified that there is actually MAJOR flaw in the idea of egalitrianism, showing how worthless all of these ideals are in the end.

>>50566236
>really don't have much of a work load difference between men and women barring when women are either in the later stages of pregnancy or recovering from their recent pregnancy.
And nursing. And child rearing. And domestic work. The fact that women also worked on fields did not actually change the fact that they also exclusively tended to house works, cooking and looking after children, which actually is a demanding job that takes several years, even in more laid back societies. Women worked when it was a matter of survival necessity (like during harvests) and when they had time away from domestic works. But their workload was ENTIRELY different from male: they still spend majority of their time in food preparation and child-rearing: hugely disproportionately more than men had.

>>50566236
>everyone typically worked directly in the field
No, women only worked in fields during harvests and in some societies, like the rice-based ones, during planting. Rest of the time, the work was loaded onto men. And I think you have NO FUCKING CLUE how massive portion of their workload was food preparation alone. People completely forget about that.

>>50565549
Uh... no?
Are you baiting? There's so much wrong with what you've said.

>>50565698
Could you bring up a reason why we should treat people unequally? Give examples. Both of how we treat the unequal equally, and how things should be done.

>>50565703
I think your understanding of what people do is coloured by the opinions of the people you've learned these things from.
Also there's no such thing as a universal model. I mean, your whole argument is that these were going against universal models.
>That is quite literally the meaning of the word.
This might surprise you but not all words have equal connotation or context. "Less" "uncommon" "infrequent" and "rare" all have very different meanings, even though you could use them in the same sentence.

>>50565710
I like this image.

>>50565985
My point is that "statistical irregularities" are still things that existed. You can't just dismiss them. You can't say "it never happened" without a FUCKING HUGE asterisk. You're the same kind of person who says that sex is only male and female, but when the myriad of intersex variations are pointed out goes "those don't *count*".
Who decides what counts? Outliers are part of the data set, you can't dismiss them. They are things that exist. You can't ignore something's existence just because it's not "common" or it's "unusual".