Org Mobile Site
I have come here with a question, are the Sarmatian Virgin Foor Archers and Cavalry accurate?
I don't know of any Roman writing about them, but I do know that many Sarmatian Tribes both as friend and foe were in constant contact with Rome, and that one Sarmatian grouping formed a substantial basis for what became known as the Vandals.
I don't know of any Roman writing about them, but I do know that many Sarmatian Tribes both as friend and foe were in constant contact with Rome, and that one Sarmatian grouping formed a substantial basis for what became known as the Vandals.
Take a wild guess.
There's actually a discussion going along on the EB forums about female warriors. The consensus seems to be that they probably existed, but were never grouped into separate units or given any special status for their gender.
I think it was likely that they were virgins though. Pregnancy and it's effects are not very beneficial for a horse archer.
There's actually a discussion going along on the EB forums about female warriors. The consensus seems to be that they probably existed, but were never grouped into separate units or given any special status for their gender.
I think it was likely that they were virgins though. Pregnancy and it's effects are not very beneficial for a horse archer.
I wouldn't be suprised if Herodotus mentioned them.
Wergilius into "Eneida" mention about Virgin warrior (horse archer), who fought against Eneas.
If they were fighting alongside men, they weren't virgins for long.
Sounds more like folklore.
Sounds more like folklore.
The title makes this thread more exciting than it seems.
Originally Posted by :
Take a wild guess.
There's actually a discussion going along on the EB forums about female warriors. The consensus seems to be that they probably existed, but were never grouped into separate units or given any special status for their gender.
I think it was likely that they were virgins though. Pregnancy and it's effects are not very beneficial for a horse archer.
Take a wild guess.
There's actually a discussion going along on the EB forums about female warriors. The consensus seems to be that they probably existed, but were never grouped into separate units or given any special status for their gender.
I think it was likely that they were virgins though. Pregnancy and it's effects are not very beneficial for a horse archer.
Originally Posted by :
If they were fighting alongside men, they weren't virgins for long.
Sounds more like folklore.
They either carried their weight like men, or carried the other mens' weight like women!If they were fighting alongside men, they weren't virgins for long.
Sounds more like folklore.
HAW HAW HAW
Well, female warriors are feasible because an African nation (Dahomey maybe - I can't remember it) had an entire army of female warriors. But that is in Africa, I'm not sure about the Sarmatians and how they felt about women warriors.
Originally Posted by :
If they were fighting alongside men, they weren't virgins for long.
Or there were something into them that made potential raper impotent.If they were fighting alongside men, they weren't virgins for long.
A Hun general give speech before fight a band of Sarmatian army....
"Lads... these women are virgins... treat them sofltly... oh yes... we'll equip our hun lancers with nets instead of lances... as we didn't want victory today.... we want VIRGINS!!!!!"
Now Seriously:
In the Nomadic culture, that women warriors fought alongside men, but maybe they are got accustomed to sleep aside each other without doing anything naughty. Afterall, it was most likely they had military discipline to forbid them to become not a virgin... as if they become pregnant, they'll have no use as warriors....
*) some "jobs" maybe occur though....
"Lads... these women are virgins... treat them sofltly... oh yes... we'll equip our hun lancers with nets instead of lances... as we didn't want victory today.... we want VIRGINS!!!!!"
Now Seriously:
In the Nomadic culture, that women warriors fought alongside men, but maybe they are got accustomed to sleep aside each other without doing anything naughty. Afterall, it was most likely they had military discipline to forbid them to become not a virgin... as if they become pregnant, they'll have no use as warriors....
*) some "jobs" maybe occur though....
Originally Posted by :
I wouldn't be suprised if Herodotus mentioned them.
Herodotos also mentioned huge gold-eating ants. I'm not too sure.I wouldn't be suprised if Herodotus mentioned them.
Originally Posted by Hax:
Herodotos also mentioned huge gold-eating ants. I'm not too sure.
Om nom nom nom.Herodotos also mentioned huge gold-eating ants. I'm not too sure.
That's why it's so good. It mixes the fantastical and reality into something which is entertaining, with an element of truth.
Unlike for giant gold-eating ants, there is archeological evidence for female Sarmatian warriors.
http://www.csen.org/WomenWarriors/St..._Warriors.html
http://www.csen.org/WomenWarriors/St..._Warriors.html
Interesting, I still however wonder about the variable in why there was so little contact between the female warriors and Romans?
They only like their own Vestals. At least they were clean in this aspect...
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO