Women warriors

[Salvus]

Is there any way to turn off the women warriors that are speckled throughout the ranks? Are the women only in the ranks of the low class troops, or are there women among a unit of elite german noble warriors for example?

It is pretty stupid and hollywood to have so many women integrated into the ranks. There is no way that is historically accurate. It is just modern society trying to impress it's ideals of feminism on all of history, as if women equality existed throughout the ages. It is an annoying and historically innaccurate nod to woman power. It has no place in a historical strategy game.

How do you turn it off?

[Lord of War]

The only way is to make a simple reskin mod with the female varients removed.

[Moose_knuckle]

You cant turn it off, its only in the low level troops anyway so you really dont see it too often especially once you stop using basic units. Cant see why its much of a problem though i mean we really dont know to what extent women were used in warefare in those times. It obviously was probably mostly men but there is some evidence to say women were a part of some fighting forces especially in the more barbarian places.

[Farinata]

Originally posted by Moose_knuckle:

You cant turn it off, its only in the low level troops anyway so you really dont see it too often especially once you stop using basic units. Cant see why its much of a problem though i mean we really dont know to what extent women were used in warefare in those times. It obviously was probably mostly men but there is some evidence to say women were a part of some fighting forces especially in the more barbarian places.

Women usually only fought alongside the elderly and children, in otherwords whenever the situation got really desperate. If they are going to put women in these mitlitia units it would be more accurate if they included old men in there too.

[Straybow]

https://steamcommunity.com/app/325610/discussions/0/617328415069158869/

[Swimming Samurai]

Well in real life there was not much of women fighters. But Germanic people did have more than average women warriors compair to other cultures. The reason they are in low teir unit section is because these are common people who fight for there homes and family.

Pretty logical to me if they are garrison. Also logical if they are migrating to a better home for there family.

[Salvus]

Thanks for the replies. Like Antiochus said...women were usually fighting as a very last resort, and usually as a defense of settlements, along with old men. Sometimes even children were given a weapon and helmet (more to trick enemies into thinking the defending force was bigger than it actually was, than for any practical reason).

When ever a certain tribe deployed women among it's menfolk, it was almost always mentioned by ancient historians as it was viewed as a curiosity and a novelty, and it is not mentioned very often at all, lending proof to the fact that women did not play a major part in ancient combat. The pattern also usually follows that any tribe who did deploy women with it's men, had little to no power and the fact that it was desperate enough to put women into the ranks was indicative of it's weakness.

The average Germanic warrior was a levy spearman, and it was very much an all man operation which is made evident through many historical accounts. It is many times sited in history where a germanic or celtic army would place it's women folk in the rear, behind the army in the laager of wagons, drawn up as a make shift camp, where they would shout encouragement to their men as they advanced, and would chastise them when they retreated. This had the psychological advantage of motivating the men not to fail in front of their women, because of the shame involved. Also it meant defeat would bring disaster as their families would be killed or captured next. This was how a barbarian army fought while migrating, it did NOT place it's women folk in amongst it's men. As an example, take the Battle of Adrianople, or Boudica's final battle with the Romans (Can't recall the name right now) where the women folk were placed in the rear with the children and elderly so as to drive home to the tribesmen, that defeat would expose their families to the enemy.

Boudica was a women, but her strength was more in her ability to rally and inspire her troops, and to lead them. She wasn't the one going out there and slaying Romans by the bundle (Though if hollywood made a movie about her, she would be). It is also many times stated in history how the Germanic warrior was motivated in battle by his wish to honour the women folk at home. Some celtic tribes were known to deploy women, but it was not considered a terribly affective tactic. When the vikings went to the new world, there is an account where they battled with a larger horde of native americans... After losing the fight and routing...some of their women observed this and took up arms themselves while insulting their husbands...This brought great shame upon the men and caused them to rejoin the fight. It highlights how shameful it was that women actually had to take to the battle, and how rare such a thing really was as well. This account is considered to be a rare and uncommon occurance. During the germanic heroic age there is not a single story of women soldiers or warriors.

A shield wall or phalanx was as strong as it's weakest man. These formations would collide with an enemy and push them back through brute force...When one man tripped and fell, a very serious weakness would be exposed. So to place women into this type of formation(especially at the ratio portrayed in this game) would be fatal, if the opposing formation was men only.

While their are exceptions, women are usually of smaller stature than men and with smaller muscles and bone structure. All of these things would take their toll in battle, from having hands big enough and strong enough to maintain a strong grip on your weapon and not drop them when clashing with other weapons, to having the shoulder strength and stamina to keep your sheild out in front of you. All these things require great strength, and I'm very sorry but women would be first to let their shields droop to low or drop their weapons when in melee. Have you ever watched a tug of war match where one side was men, and the other side was women? And I bet I can guess who won.

Some people, like the Sarmations, were known to deploy companies of women warriors (usually archers). Again, this was not considered a winning factor for them and most opposing nations saw it as a weakness. However, if you were going to deploy women, it made far more sense to deploy them in an all women unit, since the same weaknesses and strengths could be expected in ALL of the soldiers within it. By sprinkling a few women throughout the ranks, you could not expect the same performance from all soldiers, and you couldn't exploit the full potential of the men, or the women in the ranks either. The Cambodian kings kept a retinue of women warriors, but this was novelty more than anything else, to demonstrate the power of the Cambodians to their enemies. Their women warriors were backed up by thousands of men who provided the real sense of security for the royalty.

Lastly, I spent some time in the army....I've seen how women perform. Yes, some women made excellent soldiers, but these were very few and far between. For the very vast majority of my experience, a woman in a section was almost always the weakest link. They were always the first to fall out of a march, or require the others to carry her kit or even her weapon! Always the first to start complaining when things got hard, and the first to shut down mentally. They basically provided a ball and chain for any section they belonged to. While the army has to be as politically correct as everyone else, whenever I found myself in a section of men only...we all quietly agreed that it was MUCH better that way, and we could always accomplish our tasks easier.

History and reality are merciless in the face of political correctness, yet somehow people still seem to manage to ignore that fact. They pick up on the slightest and weakest bit of evidence for women warriors and then claim it as proof. The existing evidence actually leans in the opposite direction. Yet people suddenly have the audacity and ignorance to believe that our current climate of equality and PC has always been the way of things, that cultural patterns have not changed and evolved dramatically throughout our history. These people are not historians, they probably dont even like history....But now they are sticking their noses in the subject and insulting real history enthusiasts by attempting to warp the truth so that women can feel better about themselves. It's as bad as Hitler burning books, it is just in another form...It is an afront on history and doesn't do our past justice because it is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ lie, it is propoganda.

By the way, I'm not sexist, I just believe in reality. I love history and I know it well. I do not appreciate, nor do I tolerate people who are more interested in creating a lie to satiate modern society's need for an illusion of equality, and who will dismiss the truth because it is not in lign with today's way of thinking. Stuff like that jeapordizes the truth of our history and threatens to destroy our knowledge of it. It should be curtailed at ALL costs.

[Vice]

Well said!

[Massive Talent]

"By the way, I'm not sexist, I just believe in reality."

Lastly, I spent some time in the army....I've seen how women perform. Yes, some women made excellent soldiers, but these were very few and far between.

>not sexist<

[Dere]

You know there are mods that remove them. Why not go subscribe to them instead of flaunting your sexist ways.

[Dere]

"It's as bad as Hitler burning books, it is just in another form...It is an afront on history and doesn't do our past justice because it is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ lie, it is propoganda." You are absolutely right, having women in a total war game is as bad as hitler, if not worse. So awful.

[Salvus]

Originally posted by Juba:

"It's as bad as Hitler burning books, it is just in another form...It is an afront on history and doesn't do our past justice because it is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ lie, it is propoganda." You are absolutely right, having women in a total war game is as bad as hitler, if not worse. So awful. :AngrySword:

By this I mean, the act of smoothing over history to suit our modern needs for equality is like how Hitler tried to reinvent German history by having books burnt - not that it matches all of his atrocities. He tried to erase the truth of the past, just as the modern movement is.

This is the comparison I was making.

[Salvus]

Originally posted by Gwent:

"By the way, I'm not sexist, I just believe in reality."

Lastly, I spent some time in the army....I've seen how women perform. Yes, some women made excellent soldiers, but these were very few and far between.

>not sexist<

:redseedling:

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

[Doctor G]

women were too valuble to war with, their baby cannon is the most powerful weapon in the world.

any culture that has majority of it's force as women have died off. That is including our counties dying off by low birth rates and being replaced by alien cultures.

[Panda Khan]

in scythia sarmatian amazon archer women crushing defeats you!

[SuperGorp]

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever sharing a foxhole with a woman soldier. I might even prefer it. :)