Female warriors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.

What is they were Dwarves? :inquisitive:
.

---

Who knows about dwarves? Female dwarfs do have beards it is true, but in Discworld, they are also referred to as 'he' unless they have joined the recent feminine movement. As far as I know, only Tolkien talks about dwarves and he never refers to the female gender (unless he does it in the Silmarillion).

And if you saw either outside of FA:TW you'd be asking some serious questions about the mod teams' research.

.

Quote:

---

And if you saw either outside of FA:TW you'd be asking some serious questions about the mod teams' research.

---

:clown:

IIRC, the mention of female dwarves with beards was in the appendices to the LotR.
.

Gaesatae women could be the best unit to counter Gaesatae men, would make the game more ballanced.

Gaesatae women should also have the ability "inspires
nearby infantry" :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarian

Gaesatae women could be the best unit to counter Gaesatae men, would make the game more ballanced.

Gaesatae women should also have the ability "inspires
nearby infantry" :beam:

---

Yeah, they would be effective, and since they are all drugged up they would feel fatigue as well. ahem...

i think they would "distract" nearby infantry however :clown:
don't think it would be any good to your army... but enemies would be distracted as well

(warning: thread is getting out of control)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.

:clown:

IIRC, the mention of female dwarves with beards was in the appendices to the LotR.
.

---

Yes. According to Tolkien, only one-third of the Dwarvish population is female, and they are almost never seen outside of their homes, giving rise to the myth that dwarves spring fully grown from the ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack

Well that's a bit of a blow to our little feminist movement. Does it necessarily rule them out though? The burials fizzle out but they didnt find a sign saying "NO WOMEN AFTER THIS".
I think Im fighting a loosing battle here but anyway :beam:

---

The disappearance of such burials is indicative of a cultural shift that occured when the 'Royal Scythians' disappeared and the Sauromatians moved into the eastern Crimea in the end of the fourth or beginning of the third century BC. Since the phenomenon of women warriors seems to have been unique to a small group of nomads (in the main the Sauromatians), it appears that this practice changed along with other practices after coming into contact with other peoples.

Quote:

---

Lots of EB units dont have weighty archaeological evidence to back them up.

---

That doesn't mean that a unit can just be added in anyway. EB has their reasons for including even those units that 'don't have weight archaeological evidence to back them up.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

I vote for Gaesatae women only if they get "scares nearby infantry".

---

No, how about -1 scares infantry, and a message: "Impetuous. Excited by nearby enemy" :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charge

I think in that case team should make new animation for them :2thumbsup:

:laugh4:

---

:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

Hmm... I post an explination to the question asked in the post, yet no one seems to mind. Ah well.

And I would argue that enough Iranian people (Scythian, Sarmatian, Sassanian) had women that would fight to argue that it was not an isolated incident. It may have become less common, but not totally disapeared.

Mat have been a bit of time-use thing really. I've read a bit on Mongol society and mutatis mutandis the basics of the socioeconomics ought to apply equally to other steppe nomads. Apparently, the main occupation of their menfolk was to fight, guard the herds from rustles, hunt etc. - the essential "gruntwork" of the nomadic life being such that the women and children could take care of it without problems. Travelers observed that in peacetime the men seemed to have little to do in general (presumably they occupied themselves by fletching arrows, hunting etc.).

Now, the aristocracy in general of course didn't do much in the way of "a honest day's work" - it's pretty much the defining trait of aristocracy anywhere that they don't have to direclty labour to feed themselves. Given the general pugnaciousness of the nomads, and their usual admiration of martial virtue, the aristocrats naturally then spent much of their considerable free time training for war. The noblewomen naturally didn't really engage in everyday menial labour either (that's what servants are for), and had to do something with their time...
It seems like a rather logical step actually that the female half of the aristocracy would have, at least in part, been trained for war, really. I doubt the nomads ever had an overabundance of actually well trained combatants - the way the common tribesmen learned their primary skills was somewhat informal, and the range of competences produced somewhat narrow if formidable. The upper class on the other hand had the means and resources to purposefully train in more specialised skills, with equipement and tactics and fighting methods that were beyond the means of the common nomad. Now, there were only so many of this upper class available to begin with, but they were highly useful in battle, so it would rather seem to make sense to expand the recruitement pool to the female part too since they could put in the necessary practice hours to become effective combatants...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Hmm... I post an explination to the question asked in the post, yet no one seems to mind. Ah well.

---

They got a bit carried away by the prospect of Gaesatae women...

It does make you wonder a bit about the folks who frequent these forums, doesn't it ? :eyebrows:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

I am convinced that females would have fought occasionally for the Sauromatae, I believe enough evidence has been put foward (primarily archaelogical) to support the notion that some females would have occasionally fought. Certaintly they would have been able to ride and shoot a bow. However, they would not have fought in seperate units, so we decided to have only males, instead of having inaccurate female only units.

---

I have seen very little in support of this subject, most of that is from Kimball. From what I recall the female skeletons had no battle wounds on them, while the male contemporaries did.
It has been a long time since I have seen/read anything on this subject so more information could have come up. If so would you or anyone have any suggested reading on it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

It does make you wonder a bit about the folks who frequent these forums, doesn't it ? :eyebrows:

---

How so? What's wrong with dreaming of naked Xena warrior princess Gaesatae women in a subforum about a historically accurate mod? :idea2: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

I have seen very little in support of this subject, most of that is from Kimball. From what I recall the female skeletons had no battle wounds on them, while the male contemporaries did.
It has been a long time since I have seen/read anything on this subject so more information could have come up. If so would you or anyone have any suggested reading on it?

---

The female warrior burials from the 4th-3rd C. BC certainly did have some battle wounds. One skeleton had an arrowhead embedded in its knee, for instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

That doesn't mean that a unit can just be added in anyway. EB has their reasons for including even those units that 'don't have weight archaeological evidence to back them up.'

---

Im aware. I was suggesting there are similar reasons to justify a female Sarmatian unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

...It is interesting to note that almost all the female warrior burials found included only arrowheads and spearheads.

---

If I may speculate from the evidence of these warrior burials, it would seem that there had been spearwomen and bow-women, and no swordswomen (at least no evidence for them) because most women were physically not capable of holding the sword (or axe or whatever) against men--no matter what the feminists might say about this opinion. There would be a few exceptions, I'm sure, but no gravesite of a female melee warrior has yet been uncovered IMO.
Now about horsewomen, I don't think evidence could be found in gravesites regarding this--I could not imagine folks who survive her would bury her horse together with the demised (!). But if I were the general (or chieftain or whatever) and I had some horsewomen at my disposal, I would have them fight beside the men. There's no special reason for a separate female unit that functions the same as a male one.
And, if I may speculate even further, I suppose there wouldn't be many warrior women who'd be buried as such. When on the field of campaign, the army so far from home and on the go, I think some of the men would develop attraction to some of the females (HAH!), no matter how ugly or otherwise unattractive they would be in town. And they become wives or concubines. And they would be buried not anymore with their weapons after years of keeping house--with their pots and spoons, maybe.
Just speculating. You may or may not accept my theory.
Hawooh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wumpus

If I may speculate from the evidence of these warrior burials, it would seem that there had been spearwomen and bow-women, and no swordswomen (at least no evidence for them) because most women were physically not capable of holding the sword (or axe or whatever) against men--no matter what the feminists might say about this opinion. There would be a few exceptions, I'm sure, but no gravesite of a female melee warrior has yet been uncovered IMO.

---

Perhaps it was a matter of innate strength, but wielding a spear is not exactly an easy action to perform, and to wield (or throw, as in the case of javelins) it properly, some significant endurance and muscle is required. A few graves with swords and axes in them have been found, but they are only a handful when compared to the 120 or so other burials found until now.

Quote:

---

Now about horsewomen, I don't think evidence could be found in gravesites regarding this--I could not imagine folks who survive her would bury her horse together with the demised (!).

---

Well, horses were not buried with females, but they weren't, in this region and time period, with men either. However, all the sacrificial offerings- parts of horses, sheep, and cows- were present, just as in the male graves.

Quote:

---

But if I were the general (or chieftain or whatever) and I had some horsewomen at my disposal, I would have them fight beside the men. There's no special reason for a separate female unit that functions the same as a male one.
And, if I may speculate even further, I suppose there wouldn't be many warrior women who'd be buried as such. When on the field of campaign, the army so far from home and on the go, I think some of the men would develop attraction to some of the females (HAH!), no matter how ugly or otherwise unattractive they would be in town. And they become wives or concubines. And they would be buried not anymore with their weapons after years of keeping house--with their pots and spoons, maybe.
Just speculating. You may or may not accept my theory.
Hawooh.

---

Herodotus indeed says that among the Sauromatians, maidens were not allowed to marry until they had killed an opponent in battle, and that some women who failed to do so remained unmarried until their deaths. However, in a kurgan, found near the city Ordzhonikidzea, a burial containing, among other female items, several bronze arrowheads and an iron spearhead was that of a woman who was also buried with two young children (an infant and a boy of around 7-10 years of age), which indicates that older, married women also fought.


Your overall concerns on this matter obviously weren't shared by the Sauromatians, as you can find by consulting Herodotus (III-IV.116-117), according to whom Sauromatian women hunted with or without the men, were active in warfare, and dressed as the men did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wumpus

If I may speculate from the evidence of these warrior burials, it would seem that there had been spearwomen and bow-women, and no swordswomen (at least no evidence for them) because most women were physically not capable of holding the sword (or axe or whatever) against men--no matter what the feminists might say about this opinion.

---

Err... yeah. I kinda wonder about how much you actually know of swordfighting... You do realize swords on the average were lighter and more agile weapons than spears ?

For the sake of comparision, the women of the Japanese bushi class were long more or less expected to be trained to wield the naginata staff-sword for home defense if need be, and that thing wasn't exactly the lightest piece of work in the contemporary arsenal. Plus until recently the Japanese were kinda small people anyway owing to gross lack of animal protein in their diet - whereas the steppe nomads subsisted mainly on animal products...

Of course, anyone with the physique to draw a battle-strenght bow should have little trouble with the usual run of hand-to-hand weaponry in any case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

The female warrior burials from the 4th-3rd C. BC certainly did have some battle wounds. One skeleton had an arrowhead embedded in its knee, for instance.

---

Thank you for the information, do you have any suggestions on what to read on these discoveries?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostwulf

Thank you for the information, do you have any suggestions on what to read on these discoveries?

---

The main article published in english is 'Amazons in the Scythia: New Finds at the Middle Don, Southern Russia' by Valeri I. Guliaev in World Archaeology, Vol. 35, No. 1, The Social Commemoration of Warfare. (Jun., 2003), pp. 112-125. You can find many other citations in that article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeinPanzer

The main article published in english is 'Amazons in the Scythia: New Finds at the Middle Don, Southern Russia' by Valeri I. Guliaev in World Archaeology, Vol. 35, No. 1, The Social Commemoration of Warfare. (Jun., 2003), pp. 112-125. You can find many other citations in that article.

---

Excellent, thank you for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Err... yeah. I kinda wonder about how much you actually know of swordfighting... You do realize swords on the average were lighter and more agile weapons than spears ?

For the sake of comparision, the women of the Japanese bushi class were long more or less expected to be trained to wield the naginata staff-sword for home defense if need be, and that thing wasn't exactly the lightest piece of work in the contemporary arsenal. Plus until recently the Japanese were kinda small people anyway owing to gross lack of animal protein in their diet - whereas the steppe nomads subsisted mainly on animal products...

Of course, anyone with the physique to draw a battle-strenght bow should have little trouble with the usual run of hand-to-hand weaponry in any case.

---

Polearms are heavier, but they also use force differently (and generally require different muscles). In the case of the Naginata, I think the reasoning was that, being so heavy and long (i.e. loads of leverage), the wielders need not strike with very great strength, so you only need to be able to wave the thing around; whereas with a sword you need to put alot more strength into your cut to achieve the same effect. Of course, samurai-class or not, the women did tend to be less muscular than the men, especially during the heyday of the samurai (since the gender roles tended to become more defined over time, hardly a phenomenon exclusive to Japan).

Similarly, the Sarmatian spear, especially if you're going to use it as a lance, will require less strength to pierce a man through, than a sword would to inflict a major cut (using the sword to pierce requires less force than cutting, but you also use less muscles to pierce with the sword than with the spear--unless we're talking about huge Renaissance two-handers, which is rather off-topic).