Women in ancient warfare

[J.Alco]

Just thought I'd bring this topic up, since historical debates here about ancient warfare are fairly popular and I haven't seen any other post here which discusses it.

I know that EB is a realism mod and its creators have said, very plainly, that the units present in the mod are based, and styled, on real, historical units for which there is archeological, and writtenl, evidence proving their existence. That's why I wasn't surprised at all when, in playing this mod, I saw that the 'all-girl' units present in RTW (The Scythian noblewomen, those screeching German women, etc) were gone. They'd always struck me as more fantasy than fact anyway, so I'm not too bothered.

However, I am curious: Isn't there ANY evidence, AT ALL, which points to all-female military units in ancient times? Even if they were just ceremonial units, made to pretty-up a palace or parades. Aren't there any sources, any evidence, supporting at least the possibility of women warriors being present and being used in ancient battlefields? Hell, Boudicca may not have done much in battle except stay behind her army on her chariot and cheer the boys on, but at least she was there.

I mention this mainly out of curiousity, but also I'll admit I've a small desire to see women in EB gaining a bit of sexual equality the old B.C way: by sinking axes into other people's faces.

Anyway, just thought I'd bring it up. Don't get me wrong, this post isn't a complaint, believe me. It's just curiousity. And no, I'm not pushing for Xena ripoffs in EB, and I don't expect to see warrior-women units in the near future either. I'm just bringing this up as an honest question.

(Although I AM a little bugged by the fact that all the cities in EB seem to have solely male citizens, which raises the uncomfortable question of HOW exactly populations in the cities rise when there do not seem to be any wives in sight?)

[Tiberius Nero]

I vaguely remember reading testimonies about Sarmatian women, I think, fighting alongside men. That is, a few Sarmatian women, and certainly no girl-only warbands. With the MTW2 engine, where unit members don't have to look alike, one cound probably make some female skins for some units of some factions.

As for the "all-male population" in cities, it helps to think that this number represents only the recruitable population, not counting old men, women, children etc.

[russia almighty]

Probably where never hot . It was all the girls who when you saw them you said



"Are you sure thats a women ?"

[Watchman]

Odds are any such "amazons" were warrior nobility; unless there was a specific reason for them to emphasize their sex in their appereance, chances are they just looked like any other well-armed cavalry warrior. The way the articles of clothing most universally common among the nomads (eg. trousers, kaftan...) were and are AFAIK rather "unisex" in appereance wouldn't really help matters.

On the side of pure conjuncture, references to female warriors (and the occasional noblewoman's grave with weapons) are AFAIK common enough in different contexts that such an institution presumably existed among the Iranian-speaking steppe peoples in one form or another. Logically speaking it probably had some religious or magical significance; whether this would result in the "amazons" being squadroned together or dispersed among the mundane formations, for any number of murky mystical and symbolic reasons (as perhaps a sort of living standard or icon), is anyone's guess.

As it goes, I'd say the EB approach does the job well enough; you can freely assume a random smattering of fighting women among the aristocratic cavalry if you wish, rendered indistinguishable by the war gear and the limits of the game engine.

[Geoffrey S]

However, I am curious: Isn't there ANY evidence, AT ALL, which points to all-female military units in ancient times? Even if they were just ceremonial units, made to pretty-up a palace or parades. Aren't there any sources, any evidence, supporting at least the possibility of women warriors being present and being used in ancient battlefields? Hell, Boudicca may not have done much in battle except stay behind her army on her chariot and cheer the boys on, but at least she was there.

Not really. As has been said, for Sarmatian noblewomen they possibly fought alongside men, but not in distinct detachments. And in other cases where women were on the battlefield it was very rarely in a combat role, almost always as onlookers.

(Although I AM a little bugged by the fact that all the cities in EB seem to have solely male citizens, which raises the uncomfortable question of HOW exactly populations in the cities rise when there do not seem to be any wives in sight?)

Limit of the engine. The male and female civilian models take up a space which is needed for units in EB. Besides, I thought the game crashed when viewing settlements?

[Tellos Athenaios]

It does not crash. However your settlements might just look a bit empty, because EB tends to have building levels tied to settlements that do not have enough allocated space in the settlement map.

[pseudocaesar]

I think they played a more inspirational role, if the woman you loved was in the front line you would fight a hell of a lot harder wouldnt you. Same could be said for jealousy, the males would want to outperform the females. I read in Tacitus' The Germania an interesting thing, the women went to the battle and rallied the men by flashing their breasts and behinds at the warriors while shouting encouragement.

[Watchman]

Heh - IIRC what I've read of the Battle of Yarmuk, at one point the formidable Hind and the other women 'persuaded' their retreating menfolk to return to the fray with a not-very-subtle threat of murdering cowardly husbands in their sleep...

That apparently did the job, too.

[Foot]

I think they played a more inspirational role, if the woman you loved was in the front line you would fight a hell of a lot harder wouldnt you. Same could be said for jealousy, the males would want to outperform the females. I read in Tacitus' The Germania an interesting thing, the women went to the battle and rallied the men by flashing their breasts and behinds at the warriors while shouting encouragement.

Um, actually the exact opposite argument was used to not allow women into the front line in modern armies. If women are standing next to men then the men will suffer from a slight sense of over-protectivness and their battle ability will be hindered. Personally I think that can be solved with uni-sex training, but I imagine that was often an argument in our era as well.

Anyway, thats neither here nor there as social mobility was nothing like it is today, both in the sense of class and gender. Women were expected to stay at home at look after the bairns, but when your home is on the back of a horse I imagine that this often turned into a moot point.

As to women appearing at the battlefield in auxillary roles (such as encouragement), well that is quite obvious once its understood that an army must have had a large supply train, which would by necessity have included large numbers of women. Obviously a society that placed a lot of merit on individual martial prowess would look to encourage that in anyway, including women acting as "cheerleaders".

Foot

[Ludens]

A similar thread at the EB TWC forum mentioned the existence of an all female Guard unit in west Africa, whose effective drill quite impressed the French. However, in their only combat action they were trashed by the Legion Etrangere. The Israeli army also experimented with mixed and all-female units, but both performed worse than all-male counterparts in terms of both casualties and terrain covered.

[Krusader]

A similar thread at the EB TWC forum mentioned the existence of an all female Guard unit in west Africa, whose effective drill quite impressed the French. However, in their only combat action they were trashed by the Legion Etrangere. The Israeli army also experimented with mixed and all-female units, but both performed worse than all-male counterparts in terms of both casualties and terrain covered.

Can't cite sources atm, but think all-female units in the Red Army of WW2 had much higher casualty rates than other units.

As for female warriors, the only ones that spring to mind are Sarmatian and possibly Scythian noblewomen who fought alongside the men, however in few numbers and in mixed units. Otherwise they would be camp followers.

Toughest female warrior though personally is perhaps Empress Maria Theresa of Austria. Got to admire a woman who commands troops while pregnant.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

There was once an ancient Vietnamese army trying to repulse the Chinese led by a pregnant woman. She gave birth on the battlefield, straped the baby to her back, and continued leading her men. I wish I could remember her name...

[Cybvep]

Well, we must decide whether we want to discuss a woman's role on the battlefield in ancient warfare or more modern times. Nowadays women have many rights and in many countries they serve in the army. In times of Antiquity women had few rights and they certainly didn't serve in the Roman or Greek army (ironically, they had the fewest rights in the most "cultured" nations...). Anyway, with modern technology women can be as effective soldiers as men can - a bullet is a bullet, a man, child or woman, it doesn't matter. Moreover, every doctor will tell you that the women can be very tough, sometimes even tougher than the men. In fact, their constitution makes them quite hardy - I mean, it must require great patience and power of will to restore former build of a body after pregnancy...

[Andronikos]

Spartan women were trained to fight but they were not involved in battles.
Celts had some female warriors but mostly in a role of teachers for young warriors. In battles they had the same role as druids.

[Watchman]

On the whole it wouldn't have been exactly very sensible from a "division of labour" perspective for premodern societies to keep killing off both sexes in war, doubly so as due to assorted annoying evolutionary details men are both physically better suited for it and more biologically expendable. Not that the women often wouldn't still learn at least some of the relevant skills for one reason or another (eg. skill with bow and sling helps keep the family fed), home defense included (eg. samurai women and naginatas).

That said, killing someone in battle primarily requires a suitable mindset, (preferably) suitable training and (again preferably) suitable equipement. I'd say that steppe-nomad warrior aristocracy would be unusually well suited for providing them all to at least some of their women, doubly so if murky supernatural considerations were involved (as I'm willing to bet was the case).

[Olaf The Great]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

druids.

OOOLOLOOLLOO
Innervate
INNERVATE

"Dude"
"I'm feral"

[Kampfkrebs]

OOOLOLOOLLOO
Innervate
INNERVATE

"Dude"
"I'm feral"

World of Warcraft victims should be burned by some witchhunters.

[Strategy]

However, I am curious: Isn't there ANY evidence, AT ALL, which points to all-female military units in ancient times? Even if they were just ceremonial units, made to pretty-up a palace or parades. Aren't there any sources, any evidence, supporting at least the possibility of women warriors being present and being used in ancient battlefields?

The answer is yes.

Many Indian Kings in the period had all-female bodyguard units. Quoting from Duncan Head:

The Seleucid envoy Megasthenes records Chandragupta Maurya attended by armed women, some Tamil kings had similar female guards, and 2nd-Century AD sculptures from Amaravati show several armed women... Megasthenes describes his [Chandragupta's] guardswomen escorting him on the hunt, riding horses, elephants, and chariots.

Latter Indian dramatists assign women guards to many Indian kings (including legendary ones), referring to them as "Greeks"; Duncan Head speculates that Greek women may have been hired along with Greek mercenaries as the Indo-Greek empire fragmented during the 1st Century BC.

IMO, it seems unlikely such units would be used on the battlefield, but one could probably argue for their presence on it. The (usually) exhaustively researched DBM army lists permits the player to field one element of "Maiden Guards" if the player wishes.

[J.Alco]

First, thanks to everybody who ever posted here. Your contributions were always interesting, and I enjoyed them. I wasn't expecting much in the line of women-warriors in the game anyway, but as was rightly said, in EB2, female skins for Sarmatian cavalry units aren't out of the question...

To those who posted talking about women in more recent conflicts, including the eighteenth and nineteenth century, I would have preferred that you stick to the topic at hand. Mainly, only ancient times.

To the fella who wrote the 'Innervate' quote. I have NO idea just what you were talking about. I don't know if it was a WoW reference, or what. But I would have appreciated it if you stuck to the topic at hand. And if it WAS a WoW reference, then I didn't get it, 'cause I've never played that game in my life and I don't intend to in the near future.

Thank you, Strategy, for your information regarding all-women military units in India and the Diadochoi. After the strange last posts, it was refreshing to read your information.

EDIT
Just to clarify, I'm not closing the topic. I'm genuinely thanking everyone who's contributed to it

[Megas Methuselah]

are you trying to close the topic?

[Power2the1]

I am not 100% sure, but the Celts, specifically the Britons, had women that went into battle with their sons and husbands. I do not think they were in large numbers though. I think maybe Caesar reported this?

[konny]

Toughest female warrior though personally is perhaps Empress Maria Theresa of Austria. Got to admire a woman who commands troops while pregnant.

Maria Thersia did not command troops by herself. She had a lot of military understanding and knowledge but left the command in field to professionals who knew their job, like Daun. She is nevertheless said to would have commanded her army if she would not had been female (and pregnant all the time).

[carthage_supreme]

hopefully in the mtw:II where the engine supports multiple faces , they could squeeze in a couple of female models alongside men for the sarmatians.

[Ozymandias]

Of course there is Boudica who led the British revolt against Rome in the mid 1st century AD.

[blank]

hopefully in the mtw:II where the engine supports multiple faces , they could squeeze in a couple of female models alongside men for the sarmatians.

IIRC in the same unit you can only have different skins, not different models. So the the women would have the same body as the men.

Now think carefully if you want that kind of... things in your game

Seriously though, i don't, because "warrior women" looked more like Sylvester Stallone than the slender cuties that romantic artists like to depict...

[antisocialmunky]

Unless you want every Sarmation to look like an anorexic emo kid.

[blank]

Unless you want every Sarmation to look like an anorexic emo kid.

what? Are you saying all women are anorectic emos?

[Urnamma]

To get up on my soap box for a moment... think outside the modern world, folks. Physically speaking, on average, women are inferior to men. Men have larger bone mass, more muscle per pound of body weight, and many other things.

Don't believe me? Why aren't there mixed sports teams in a professional sense. Why don't female boxers compete against male? Umm, because there's a different physical standard. We can speculate all we want, the biology and physiology of the matter is quite sound.

In the modern world, where most jobs are based on the quality of the mind as opposed to the quality of brawn, women compete on an equal playing field (and quite rightly). When one has to plow a field with a wooden plow and some oxen, one usually goes to find the nearest male.

I doubt there were ever non-ceremonial all-female units. Female guard units may have been used as 'show' sometimes, but only as such. Steppe peoples did use female warriors, since riding on horseback and shooting a bow is a bit different from the strains of the usual warfare of the period (though, insofar as archery goes, men are still better on average, due to the strength required). This was largely a function of high mortality (more females as heads of household) and lower poplation (need to pad out armies with more bodies) than any form of gender equality.

Celts also used women in levies, but their actual battle role was very circumscribed (they could not participate in ambushes, for example. Dogs can smell women much more easily than men), nor were they represented in professional units. By and large, the celts just gave their women spears and had them bolster the line when a village was attacked.

Oh, and the DBM army list is rubbish. About as exhaustively researched as vanilla RTW sometimes.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

To get up on my soap box for a moment... think outside the modern world, folks. Physically speaking, on average, women are inferior to men. Men have larger bone mass, more muscle per pound of body weight, and many other things.

Don't believe me? Why aren't there mixed sports teams in a professional sense. Why don't female boxers compete against male? Umm, because there's a different physical standard. We can speculate all we want, the biology and physiology of the matter is quite sound.

In the modern world, where most jobs are based on the quality of the mind as opposed to the quality of brawn, women compete on an equal playing field (and quite rightly). When one has to plow a field with a wooden plow and some oxen, one usually goes to find the nearest male.

I doubt there were ever non-ceremonial all-female units. Female guard units may have been used as 'show' sometimes, but only as such. Steppe peoples did use female warriors, since riding on horseback and shooting a bow is a bit different from the strains of the usual warfare of the period (though, insofar as archery goes, men are still better on average, due to the strength required). This was largely a function of high mortality (more females as heads of household) and lower poplation (need to pad out armies with more bodies) than any form of gender equality.

Celts also used women in levies, but their actual battle role was very circumscribed (they could not participate in ambushes, for example. Dogs can smell women much more easily than men), nor were they represented in professional units. By and large, the celts just gave their women spears and had them bolster the line when a village was attacked.

Oh, and the DBM army list is rubbish. About as exhaustively researched as vanilla RTW sometimes.

You'd better not say that in front of any women. I've seen people nearly break out in riots for less. I have been told many times that men and women are physically equal, whether or not it is true...

[Watchman]

Probably not of that great consequence compared to training and equipement, anyway. As in, the well-trained and -equipped fighter will butcher the one that isn't.

Which is why I assumed the phenomenom to have been a warrior-nobility thing, since those ought to easily enough be able to get enough of both to make up for any shortcomings the individual might have by accident of birth - after all, not all men are built big and strong either...

Matters even less if the fighting is primarily done at a distance of course.