No Shield Maids ?

[Kaneda]

When you play as Blörn in Uppland, your Faith is Asatru, wich is dominated by Man, so Womens cant be Champions. But as far as i remember the Vikings and The last Kingdom Series, there was Shieldmaids in the Armys, so why is it different in CK3 ?

Yes i know you could change the Faith, but it should be normal Status to let the Womens fight, or not ?

[-=Prepper_Jack=-]

Well, there's evidence in numerous cultures that point to the rare woman being on the battlefield, though they were usually daughters or wives of a ruler, or managed to become rulers themselves. Would they be armed and armored? More than likely. Trained to use a sword and shield? I've personally trained women to use firearms, and many fathers do that in the US with their girls. No reason a chieftan would not train a daughter to defend themselves.

Were they generally effective fighters in the medieval times? Most likely not. Women have inferior upper body strength to men, which is needed to puncture armor, whether it's with a spear or a bow. The Birka burial indicates the buried female "warrior" was more of a general or tactician than someone who got involved in the fighting themselves.

More commonly you do see historical accounts of women aiding in defense of a town when it's under siege or something. Even then, those accounts point out how spectacularly unusual it was. At the battle of Stamford bridge, which was documented well on both sides, nobody mentioned any female warriors, though they both do mention a single Norseman holding a bridge against the entire English army and killing 40 men in the process. I would imagine they would have mentioned something about any female warriors on the field.

[-=Prepper_Jack=-]

Originally posted by Palaiologos:

We also allow women into the military as official soldiers. That doesn't have any relevance to the past.

And we don't usually let them see the front lines. Again, they lack the upper body strength and stamina for warfare, albeit for different reasons. They can't carry a hundred pounds of equipment and then carry off a wounded soldier. Same story, different day.

[Crim]

Society A doesn't mention something because its so rare that its insignificant
Society B doesn't mention something because its so common it doesn't need special mention
Society C assumes Society A&B had the same reasons and imposes Society's C world views

[-=Prepper_Jack=-]

Originally posted by Talamare:

Society A doesn't mention something because its so rare that its insignificant
Society B doesn't mention something because its so common it doesn't need special mention
Society C assumes Society A&B had the same reasons and imposes Society's C world views

Again, I mention the battle of Stamford bridge. Both sides documented it. Nobody mentioned female warriors. The English would have found that fairly peculiar. Indeed, later on everyone marveled at Joan of Arc being a woman on the battlefield, even if she just rode around the field on her horse doing absolutely nothing but boosting morale.

[PIT_DEFENDER]

When I first conquered scotland there was some other faith and there was women as knights so maybe some faiths can do that by default if look for it ?

[-=Prepper_Jack=-]

Originally posted by PIT_DEFENDER:

When I first conquered scotland there was some other faith and there was women as knights so maybe some faiths can do that by default if look for it ?

You can reform your faith and make gender laws equal. This gives females in the realm a chance to be knights/champions, though it does make females inherit titles as well.

[Nellvan]

Naaah can't have anything even remotely ahistorical in my sandbox game while I'm recreating the extinction of catholicism during the slawish conquest of Europe.

Berlin-Havelland-Lausitz forever!

/S

There are already multiple mods, guess some more people DO want to see this ingame...

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2227440627
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2221639894
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2225452775

[AlexMBrennan]

Originally posted by -=Malovane=-:

Originally posted by Palaiologos:

We also allow women into the military as official soldiers. That doesn't have any relevance to the past.

And we don't usually let them see the front lines. Again, they lack the upper body strength and stamina for warfare, albeit for different reasons. They can't carry a hundred pounds of equipment and then carry off a wounded soldier. Same story, different day.

You seem to be living in the past[www.nytimes.com]

[JC]

Originally posted by -=Malovane=-:

Originally posted by Talamare:

Society A doesn't mention something because its so rare that its insignificant
Society B doesn't mention something because its so common it doesn't need special mention
Society C assumes Society A&B had the same reasons and imposes Society's C world views

Again, I mention the battle of Stamford bridge. Both sides documented it. Nobody mentioned female warriors. The English would have found that fairly peculiar. Indeed, later on everyone marveled at Joan of Arc being a woman on the battlefield, even if she just rode around the field on her horse doing absolutely nothing but boosting morale.

just because they are not mentioned at one battle does not mean they did not exist. And if we think for a moment that they did exist, they would of been rarer than the typical male viking.

A monk from i think france that wrote many historical books and was living in that time, so he was writing of events there were happening around him, not from history. The book was discovered in a church that dates back to around 800. One of the books gave full accounts of shield maidens. Much of what he writes about in other aspects of history has been verified by multiple sources as very accurate. Someone like that write historical chronicals isn't going to plop a fairy tale in the middle of a verified historical document. (aka Book)

There is a lot that has been uncovered in even the last few years that has many scholars changing their stance on this whole subject.

There have been warrior women all over the world. And sure when you take the best man vrs women in say a sport, the men do take the top slot, but when you start moving down just a little bit top women are ahead of many men. Heck just watch American ninja warrior, a girl might not have one it, but many made it through the phases that men couldn't and these are top athletes, not some wimp.

[Bozz 💀]

Originally posted by CrUsHeR:

Originally posted by Misha:

But as far as i remember the Vikings and The last Kingdom Series, there was Shieldmaids in the Armys

1. None of these TV shows have anything to do with reality.

2. The Norse did not record their history, despite having a rune alphabet. So most of the things you'll hear - even in "sincere" documentaries - is something they cannot possibly know for certain. Thus anything that isn't veritable through archaeology, is not a fact, but interpretation or imagination.

3. The entire stories about "Ragnarr Lodbrok" and such are coming from the so-called Sagas, which were written many hundreds of years later by christians. I would put anything from these sources into the same fantasy realm like the "Nibelungenlied" or "Lord of the Rings".

You know nothing of history xD

[Harris]

Originally posted by AlexMBrennan:

You seem to be living in the past[www.nytimes.com]

Soviets were even more progressive about it half a century ago (or rather, they used all the resources they had at their disposal at the time) - women drove tanks, piloted planes, were snipers. Sure, there weren't THAT many of them and sure, they tended to have mystery and also propaganda around them, exaggerrating their achievements, but they were still a thing.

Myself a Masters in history graduate I can confirm the thought of female warriors being a thing is ridiculed in a "learned" enviroinment.

And yet, I personally beleive that they - at least - existed. And they "existed" even more in warrior societies with "we do not sow" mentality that relied on conquest. Vikings, mongols and to an extent spartans are an example of what I'm talking about.

However, even among those societies female warriors were an exception rather than a rule, that much we can agree upon.

Now, CK3 is history simplified, there's no shades of gray to it, either white or black. So, literally, in a choice whether to allow EVERY woman to bear arms and arm bears in Scandinavia or not allow any woman at all to do that, PDX's choice was obvious I suppose.

[sammwich]

Originally posted by Harris:

And yet, I personally beleive that they - at least - existed. And they "existed" even more in warrior societies with "we do not sow" mentality that relied on conquest.

Which ones were those?

[Harris]

Originally posted by sammwich:

Which ones were those?

I beleive I provided the examples in a very next sentence, no? :) But please bear in mind that when I say "existed" I mean some warchief could have a daughter who did not fancy a life of a court lady and could afford training and decent gear to become what would be later called a shieldmaiden.

After all, oral tradition means that on every subsequent generation these stories were more and more glorified and the boundaries between the truth and the myth became more and more distorted.

So yeah, going absurd telling there was no women who'd bear arms is wrong. But same time there's not enough proof to argue they were a common thing.

I think it would be apt to compare those valkyries and shieldmaidens to Soviet Lyudmila Pavlichenko and Marina Raskova. One was a "legendary" sniper and another was a "legendary" aviator. And yet modern research shows their achievements were largely exaggerrated and they were used as propaganda both foreign and domestic.

[sammwich]

Well, you named two agrarian societies and one pastoralist. The Mongols and Norse each had a fairly brief period of rapid expansion. I'm not aware of any Spartan or Mongol warrior woman stories. There were supposedly some Norse women who fought, but as others have said that appears to have been in the broader Germanic tradition of reserve forces. Given that women were ubiquitous as "camp followers" it's likely similar "warrior women" were common across the world when the camp was attacked. Hardly surprising that soldiers had an unseemly history of behavior towards women following battle. I think any woman who couldn't escape and wasn't hopelessly outmatched would likely try to defend herself given the likely alternative.

[Natius]

Originally posted by Talamare:

Originally posted by Natius:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield-maiden
https://allthatsinteresting.com/viking-shieldmaidens

No there is no shield maiden in history, just mythology or just exist but everyone dont f*cking care about your gender at that time, or women just dress like man?
Still there is no fact, since every historian would disagree with that, like roman woman legionary and more

Changing Supremacy law could allow woman to fight, i play as Daura and most of time my queen fight with her soldiers side by side
but it cost so much faith

That wikipedia article is hilarious

"There were no warrior women"
"Women buried in warriors mass graves were probably just the warriors wives"
"Women holding weapons in those graves ... were probably just holding the man's weapons"
"Women who were 100% confirmed to be in historical battles... were just 1 offs"
"Women who were 100% confirmed to be in several battles... weren't specifically called shield maidens"

historians stretching harder than contortionists

they still debate about is it real Shield maiden, for me i think they are not real because so far i know woman fight in the front line just become medic not front line warrior

If they are real, probably dress like a boy and pretend to be boy all time till her last breath

Wikipedia can be edit sometimes