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

[antisocialmunky]

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.

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.

[Azathoth]

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.

2) A noble and soldier would have access to a better diet.

Both are correct.

[mountaingoat]

2) A noble and soldier would have access to a better diet.

i wouldn't say a better diet ... maybe a more decadent diet.(and excess)

[antisocialmunky]

@Azaroth, response was to this:

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

I also wouldn't say that the 'brink of famine' thing wasn't as much of an issue for the higher classes especially in a nomadic context where you rely on mobile herds rather than purely sitting in one spot and taking whatever comes.

@goat, better = regular filling portions, protein, and other nutrients that most people would have been deficient in that would have prevented certain disorders and diseases as in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutriti...nt_consumption

[mountaingoat]

@goat, better = regular filling portions, protein, and other nutrients that most people would have been deficient in that would have prevented certain disorders and diseases as in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutriti...nt_consumption

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.

edit:you need to look at the staple foods of each peoples and the region they lived in.

edit2: you would only guess people living in large cities that were dependent on food shipments would be affected the most by any shortages or "lack of coin". (much like today)

edit3: enough of this i think