Female Characters

Point being?

The implication of your post was that I purposely left out someone who shouldn't have when they wouldn't have been included anyway. :-p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius

I would love to think these ancient societies had equality, but the women you mention seem to have been an exception, like Livia, or the mother of Coriolanus (forgot her name) or Cloelia.

---

Very true

Didn't the Pythagoreans think that the very worst thing to be reincarnated as was a woman?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

Unless you want your army filled with hysteric women screaming behind your lines just like the Vanilla Sweboz.... I love to see how my Naked Fanatics treat them... :clown:

---

First rule of Gallic warfare, naked fanatics never, NEVER go behind another cohort, unless it's a mercenary amazon from the vanilla sweboz :wink3::devilish::tongue2::wink2::fainting:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

Please no.... because as far as I know, every woman who dress up as a general / warriors, won't have "sexy breast shaped" cuirass as their armour, but standard muscled armour, the same which men also worn. And their face will be completely covered in Thrakian / Montefortino / Anything else helmets, and we can bet their feminine traits will be mostly hidden. Not to count that at this era, no shampoo for their hairs, and men also grow long, coarse hair like them, so they are mostly indifferentiable from unbearded and unmoustached men when clad in heavy armour. You then could always pretend (if want to do it in roleplay), just like the trait of "secretly female" in catholic priest line at M2TW.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

I thought it was pretty funny.

Yep, in Hyperboria.


Of course not. I've seen examples which lack that curiass. On this very forum in fact.

---

mmm... so their, things, (you know what i mean :wink:) would be pressed tight on an armor that is more hot on the inside than a desert (IMHO) and jumping around with no support, either that or women with big... were abnormal in those times, IDTS (i don't think so) i think everyone has seen the Venus from Milo, and they're not cherries (but not watermelons either... yum watermelons... :smitten::mellow::rolleyes3::rolleyes4::smug::cool4::wiseguy::tongue2::tongue3::beam::clown:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jirisys

mmm... so their, things, (you know what i mean :wink:) would be pressed tight on an armor that is more hot on the inside than a desert (IMHO) and jumping around with no support, either that or women with big... were abnormal in those times, IDTS (i don't think so) i think everyone has seen the Venus from Milo, and they're not cherries (but not watermelons either... yum watermelons... :smitten::mellow::rolleyes3::rolleyes4::smug::cool4::wiseguy::tongue2::tongue3::beam::clown:)

---

That really depends on the armor type, and other variables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

Very true

---

Yes, although I did some study and a lot of these ancient societies at least granted women remarkable freedoms when compared to the world in the 18th and early 19th and in some ways even late 19th century.

Since you just did a paper on it what evidence does exist for the "Barbarians". Tacitus doesn't exactly paint a picture of female liberation in Germanic society.

You can find my old AAR, Of Mail and Men, which focused around a female character.

Someday I will replay that AAR, but not until AtB is released.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius

Since you just did a paper on it what evidence does exist for the "Barbarians". Tacitus doesn't exactly paint a picture of female liberation in Germanic society.

---

The paper was only on the status of women in the Celtic world from the Halstatt period to the Norman invasion. Thats true, but as with all written sources on "barbarian" cultures you need to offset information with archaeology to get a more complete picture. For example no classical author that I know of mentions female warriors in continental Celtic society (some describe how intimidating they are or how when the Cimbri and Teutons were retreating the women took up weapons to slay the deserters and persuing Romans, but these were not warriors as such) but the archaeological data does show some women were active in battle, but again as you point out these were in the minority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jirisys

mmm... so their, things, (you know what i mean :wink:) would be pressed tight on an armor that is more hot on the inside than a desert (IMHO) and jumping around with no support, either that or women with big... were abnormal in those times, IDTS (i don't think so) i think everyone has seen the Venus from Milo, and they're not cherries

---

:inquisitive:
And the Venus of Milo represents the typical female warrior rather than a beauty ideal? Women warriors were most likely though, sturdily-built women whose sexual characteristics had been suppressed by constant physical exercise. And I doubt the women mentioned in this thread used chest-plates: Boudicca and Tomyris because their cultures didn't know them, Cleopatra because she didn't fight, and Zenobia because she is described as an archer (and probably also didn't fight).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

:inquisitive:
And the Venus of Milo represents the typical female warrior rather than a beauty ideal? Women warriors were most likely though, sturdily-built women whose sexual characteristics had been suppressed by constant physical exercise. And I doubt the women mentioned in this thread used chest-plates: Boudicca and Tomyris because their cultures didn't know them, Cleopatra because she didn't fight, and Zenobia because she is described as an archer (and probably also didn't fight).

---

Well true that is, my point is wouldn't they be uncomfortable, either with big ones or small ones using a male unsupported armor, and even id they didn't use them i'm sure that they used clothes creating the "sexist armor plate" except that it is a piece of cloth, i was just saying that to contradict the point of the "sexist armor plate" for it's un-comfortability to use a male non-sexist armor plate, but big or small, they'd bound to be supported, protected and at least with a certain degree of comfort. Armors were designed for men because in those cultures, women fighters were almost impossible to find.

I see what you are getting at, but wouldn't a simpler answer be that they didn't bother with chestplates at all? Apart from Zenobia, the only female warriors I am aware of were either Celtic or nomadic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jirisys

mmm... so their, things, (you know what i mean :wink:) would be pressed tight on an armor that is more hot on the inside than a desert (IMHO) and jumping around with no support, either that or women with big... were abnormal in those times, IDTS (i don't think so) i think everyone has seen the Venus from Milo, and they're not cherries (but not watermelons either... yum watermelons...

---

No, I was subtly alluding to the fact that I have seen images on this forum of female hoplites lacking a curiass altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jirisys;

2419966]:smitten::mellow::rolleyes3::rolleyes4::smug::cool4::wiseguy::tongue2::tongue3::beam::clown:)

---

...That's a lot of emoticons.

The only females you will see are Princesses and traps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

No, I was subtly alluding to the fact that I have seen images on this forum of female hoplites lacking a curiass altogether.


...That's a lot of emoticons.

---

Yep they're

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

The paper was only on the status of women in the Celtic world from the Halstatt period to the Norman invasion. Thats true, but as with all written sources on "barbarian" cultures you need to offset information with archaeology to get a more complete picture. For example no classical author that I know of mentions female warriors in continental Celtic society (some describe how intimidating they are or how when the Cimbri and Teutons were retreating the women took up weapons to slay the deserters and persuing Romans, but these were not warriors as such) but the archaeological data does show some women were active in battle, but again as you point out these were in the minority.

---

Interesting, although unfortunately archaeological evidence is open to multiple interpretation when not backed up by literary evidence, still I do agree there were some gender bending extrodinary warrior women back in the ancient world, it is in some ways surprising the ancients went as far as they did regarding womens status, I'm just not entirely convinced that enough women would be fighting in any paritcular battle while the battles results where in some type of question to justify having them on the battlefield.

Perhaps making female family members merchant princesses could be justified though?

I'm getting a bit depressed by some of the rather immature posts that are cropping up in this thread, women have breasts get over it, you sound like 12 year olds.

As for the breastplate issue, women who were warriors would not have needed any adjustments as they would be very fit and so wouldn't normally have big breasts (being mostly made of fat), if the needed to they would probably bind them to flatten them too. This is beside the point, as Ludens stated the cultures that such warriors came from weren't really big on breastplates anyway.

Hmm... maybe they aren't wearing bronze/steel solid breastplate, but wearing lamellar breastplates that was more flexible....

But seriously, did you know how ridiculously Sarmatian virgin cavalry in BI fall quickly to arrow fire? that's why in real life, they need some kind of breastplate for protection...

Scale...

Why are you not mentioning the scale?!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

I'm getting a bit depressed by some of the rather immature posts that are cropping up in this thread, women have breasts get over it, you sound like 12 year olds.

---

I quite agree. I was only mentioning that I had seen it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

But seriously, did you know how ridiculously Sarmatian virgin cavalry in BI fall quickly to arrow fire? that's why in real life, they need some kind of breastplate for protection...

---

As far as I recall Scale was the armour of choice for steepe warriors, so if they were wealthy enough to afford armour female Sarmatian warriors would have worn Scale. Same goes for the Celts who would have worn chainmail instead of a breastplate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

As far as I recall Scale was the armour of choice for steepe warriors, so if they were wealthy enough to afford armour female Sarmatian warriors would have worn Scale. Same goes for the Celts who would have worn chainmail instead of a breastplate.

---

Yeah, they'll use scale... but I was mentioning Vanilla BI Virgin cavalry :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

As far as I recall Scale was the armour of choice for steepe warriors, so if they were wealthy enough to afford armour female Sarmatian warriors would have worn Scale. Same goes for the Celts who would have worn chainmail instead of a breastplate.

---

Thank you. :book: