This is a man's world..... but it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or a girl

[Brennus]

I have a question for discussion, specifically concerning the Sarmatians and Saka. Excavations conducted on Kurgans in Russia and the Ukraine have found multiple female burials which contain weapons, armour and quivers. These burials belong to both the Sarmatian and Scythian cultures and further literary evidence (the Amazon myth concerning the Sarmatian origin) points to the evidence of female warriors in nomadic steppe culture.

My question is: Will the nomadic steppe factions employ female warriors?

[Moros]

I'm not one of these factions historians, so I could be wrong. But I believe they agreed not to make a female unit but potentially have a rare female within a unit.

[Ludens]

The problem is that there is no way to tell the engine to combine a female head with a female torso... although with the steppe-dwellers clothes you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

[Ca Putt]

ugh I'm just imagining one of those Vanilla female scythians a bold head with a enormous moustache :DDDD

[Maeran]

I doubt you could tell their gender from their figure when a horsewoman is kitted out for battle. So you could simple put some female faces in there.

And since they are most likely not wearing makeup, you probably can't really tell a woman from a beardless man, on a horse, wrapped up in furs and armour anyway.

[A Very Super Market]

Well, generally, women have different facial features from men. Unless they're horribly scarred from battle, in which case they would be nomad TARPS.

[antisocialmunky]

The problem is that there is no way to tell the engine to combine a female head with a female torso... although with the steppe-dwellers clothes you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Just make the standard bearer on the noble HA a chick.

[Brennus]

The problem is that there is no way to tell the engine to combine a female head with a female torso... although with the steppe-dwellers clothes you probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

That is true, excavations of very well preserved bodies like the Sarmatians of Pazyryk in Siberia show that men and women were buried with (and hence wore) the same clothes. As people have mentioned you would only need to alter the faces. The only thing that concerns me is the voice, no matter how fearsome the Sarmatian women folk were I dare say that if you struck one with an arrow she would be unlikely to utter a mannish growl of pain (with the greatest respect to female EB players... if you even exist).

[seienchin]

I dont know, but if the people in ancient times had woman with big breast, i guess you would see that even under an armour. Not to mention the proportions of the body and the face.

[A Very Super Market]

Armour is generally quite rigid in structure, and breasts are just fat. There would be no discernable difference if they wore armour. Or thick steppe outfits.

[Ludens]

Just make the standard bearer on the noble HA a chick.

I dont know, but if the people in ancient times had woman with big breast, i guess you would see that even under an armour. Not to mention the proportions of the body and the face.

The one thing they definitely won't be is a "chick". It's hard to realize from a modern perspective, but the Classical world was always on the brink of famine, and disease and disfigurement were rampant. Women from that period would not look like models, nor would most of their men be particularly handsome. So woman fighters were not slim-waisted figures with prominent breasts, but sturdily-built and well-muscled females whose secondary characteristics are hard to spot under their clothes. Frankly, I suspect that even when EB does add female horse archers most people will not notice anything, other than that some of their Sarmatians do not have moustaches.

[MeinPanzer]

That is true, excavations of very well preserved bodies like the Sarmatians of Pazyryk in Siberia show that men and women were buried with (and hence wore) the same clothes. As people have mentioned you would only need to alter the faces. The only thing that concerns me is the voice, no matter how fearsome the Sarmatian women folk were I dare say that if you struck one with an arrow she would be unlikely to utter a mannish growl of pain (with the greatest respect to female EB players... if you even exist).

Firstly, the peoples of the Pazyryk culture were not Sarmatians. The Sarmatians did not extend farther than the Aral Sea. Instead, they seem to have been well within the Saka cultural orbit, if not actually Saka. Secondly, numerous burials and iconographic representations show that Pazyryk women actually did wear separate clothing from the men (notable, long dresses), with the exception of one burial excavated in the early 90's (Ak-Alakha 2) which included an older man and a young woman, both likely nobles, who were wearing almost exactly the same costume. However, if they were going into combat, they would likely have worn the same if not similar clothing to men.

But there are reportedly several more modern occurrences of women passing themselves of as men in the army. Perhaps it is a case of not seeing the visual clues you do not expect to see in a young army officer because you aren't looking for them in the first place.

We have Diodorus' story (32.10) of how in 145 BC, a certain Diophantos, a Macedonian who was living in Syria with his Arab wife, had a daughter who, after becoming old enough to marry and doing so, grew a full set of genitalia, changed her name to a man's, wore men's clothing, and was then conscripted into the cavalry of Alexander Balas!

[satalexton]

...grew a full set of genitalia!?!?!?

[Ludens]

1) Chick = Female.
2) A noble and soldier would have access to a better diet.
3) Physical build still doesn't completely change proportions especially those of the face especially if no one is trying to hide their gender.

1) I thought you were using the more narrow definition of chick, so I felt I had to respond to your and seienchin's posts.
2) True.
3) True, but the differences may well be too subtle to spot on the M2:TW engine.

I've heard that those woman warriors of Steppe Nomads cut their breasts, so they won't interfere with firing arrows....

That's from Herodotus' description of the Amazons, is not? Given that the Amazons were fiction, I am not putting much faith in his account of them.

soils back then were extremely rich and food was a lot more nutrient dense than today (not as much over farming and pouring chemicals into the ground).

also i would have to say that there was a vast knowledge in food availability ,from the land (you don't need to own a large farm , hunt animals all day or line up at the markets). much of this kind of info is almost non existent today.

It's true that people in antiquity would be fitter, have a stronger immune system and a better diet than us (although food quality would be poorer without refrigerators, sterilization methods, insecticides and stringent food quality control). However, famine was a constant threat to the less well-off, and the nomads' lifestyle was though even by the standards of the day.

Also, you underestimating the effects of modern medicine on health. Not two centuries ago Rousseau wrote that it was a natural law for one child in two to die before reaching maturity, so why attempt to do anything about it? It's a testament to the effectiveness of antibiotics and, to a lesser extent, vaccination that we now consider good health as a right rather than a blessing.

So it would be possible to have Nomadic female warriors appearing aswell in EB2? (unless it is rejected because of lack of evidence)

...

I'm not one of these factions historians, so I could be wrong. But I believe they agreed not to make a female unit but potentially have a rare female within a unit.

[Azathoth]

soils back then were extremely rich and food was a lot more nutrient dense than today (not as much over farming and pouring chemicals into the ground).

It's true that people in antiquity would be fitter, have a stronger immune system and a better diet than us (although food quality would be poorer without refrigerators, sterilization methods, insecticides and stringent food quality control). However, famine was a constant threat to the less well-off, and the nomads' lifestyle was though even by the standards of the day.

The crops we use today are simply far more nutritious. We are talking about 2000 years of selective breeding, and recently genetic modification, here.

[artavazd]

The crops we use today are simply far more nutritious. We are talking about 2000 years of selective breeding, and recently genetic modification, here.

Can you prove that? I saw a program on television which had a doctor state that oranges in the 1940's had considerably more vitamin c in them than they do today. The reasonings (as she gave them) was soil exhaustion and use of chemicals.

[Azathoth]

I can't prove anything, and neither can you. We don't actually have samples ancient plants to study.

My reasoning is that after thousands of years of breeding crops to be more nutritious and give higher yields, they are going to show some improvement in those areas.

[Ludens]

I can't prove anything, and neither can you. We don't actually have samples ancient plants to study.

My reasoning is that after thousands of years of breeding crops to be more nutritious and give higher yields, they are going to show some improvement in those areas.

Higher yield means more pounds per acre, but not necessarily more vitamins per fruit, so it depends on how you define nutritious. Modern food is certainly richer in energy, although given the rise in obesity this is probably a downside.

On women fighting on the steppes: my impression is a few female heads on horse archers would be OK, and I hope they make it in. There are female warrior traditions around the world but they tend to range from extremely rare to plain mythical IIRC.

Its generally bad demographics to put your baby-makers in the battle line (although in a desperate last-ditch-struggle or street battle they'd sometimes pitch in, then as now). Maybe it was a social mechanism to thin out available noblewomen who might otherrwise marry below their station? Like nuns in medieval society.

There's a couple of other reasons why women are generally not warriors: check out this old TWC thread.

[mountaingoat]

gah , i hate getting into these type of arguing points across things .. i keep saying ill leave it at one thing because the scope for this argument is beyond what some might think and i do suck at getting my point across sometimes .. but i am passionate about this , so maybe this can be my last point? haha , i will not go into hugeeee detail ,so if anyone disagrees compeltly with me after this than we can consider my non reply to accepting that we have different point of views in the topic. (fine with me).

well this goes to anyone else out there watching.


will give you some points to think on.

"modern" storage devices such as refrigeration , sterilization and storage ( plastics , metals , pesticides ). have produced many harmful affects , and some good.

nearly all "food grade" plastics are leaking phytoestrogens (as well as other goodies) into whatever is stored in them. and we get a nice dose of things like aluminum and other heavy metals in our water and metal cooking devices/ containers. ceramic and clay are best suited or wood .. steel , copper would be ok IMO. though some say that steel is not good.

refrigeration replaced the storage pits and storage houses , while a fridge is useful for a person you might want to consider that all food should be eaten fresh . with refrigeration, companies can afford to keep old produce out for even longer .. meanwhile once the produce has been picked it begins to decrease in nutritional value over time. So by the time you get that nice (gassed and chemically sprayed) spinach ( so it still holds its colour) from your local supermarket (or green grocer) . It most likely has been sitting on a shelf for a long time(depending on the demographic of your town) and is very depleted in minerals. AND THEN you store it in the fridge for longer.

before refrigeration , people used to naturally preserve foods for the winter , they would eat sprouted and fermented foods which are activated and thus increasing their nutrient content significantly.

pasteurization kills off all beneficial properties of dairy .. and most dairy products come from unhealthy hormone fed (or GM soy fed) livestock. (unhealthy livestock create unhealthy meat). Just look it up if you want.

plants have a natural defense system ( when they are in a healthy environment ) and do not need to be sprayed with harmful chemicals that we in turn must ingest.

it may be difficult sometimes to think that with our "innovative" technology , the standards handed down to us by those in the higher up can end up being harmful to us.


now for the selective breeding.

you can take a plant growing in the wild and compare nutritional values to your average farm , the one growing in nature will beat it hands down , majority(if not all) of the time. so a wild plant might be in its original state for thousands of years untouched .. i have not come across any findings that says that they lack anything at all!

as stated previously , with modern farming methods our soils are depleted of key nutrients(not going into detail with this just google it) , so our food is no longer getting much of what it needs. The nutritional quality of our plants are not the "best in 3000 years" just because they are still around today. (many excellent foods are almost non existent , but read on)

Food does not change it's DNA structure (unless we alter it) so each type of food typically has x amount nutrients / calories etc at its healthiest .We can always add an exception in a rare case, but in general, would you not agree with that?

Also we have to consider that when selectively breeding with modern farming methods , we would use many nutrients in the soil . so if i were to selectively breed some fine watermelons the soil is going to be depleted quite quick . i might have some fine looking watermelons , but this has nothing to do with their nutrient density for the most part. Their weight , water content does not= nutrient density.

there are some seed savers use heirloom seeds , some of them dating back a long time , and if you encounter any you will find that most of our food is manipulated onto our shelves and that many "super healthy" foods no longer exist , to name a few ... blue lettuce , purple carrots , blue potatoes , red and blue corn (colour shows rich iron , copper and other nutrient content).


i am not going to get into GM , but will state that i am against it.

i will end with saying that the opportunity for good health and physical condition would of been presented to people (pretty much shoved in their faces) with little work back in times gone by(actually not even that far back) , if you understood food availability / had access to a steady supply of balanced food.(though this does not mean everyone choose to do so). Where as now we have to fight just to get to good health , which is IMO our birthright.

phew


edit: ahh yes ,ludens good point on your previous post

[Cyclops]

On women fighting on the steppes: my impression is a few female heads on horse archers would be OK, and I hope they make it in. There are female warrior traditions around the world but they tend to range from extremely rare to plain mythical IIRC.

Its generally bad demographics to put your baby-makers in the battle line (although in a desperate last-ditch-struggle or street battle they'd sometimes pitch in, then as now). Maybe it was a social mechanism to thin out available noblewomen who might otherrwise marry below their station? Like nuns in medieval society.

On old tucker being better...well hmmm. Its a bit of a generalisation. Maybe there were some ancient oranges that were better than some modern oranges? There, thats a nice bland counter-generalisation.