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.

[Maeran]

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.

[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.

[antisocialmunky]

If you're only way of telling a girl apart is boobs, well. I can't blame you but there are other anatomical cues that your eyes catch if you see them.

[AlexanderSextus]

If you're only way of telling a girl apart is boobs, well. I can't blame you but there are other anatomical cues that your eyes catch if you see them.

Something about the length of one finger compared to the other or something.

[Tanit]

The difference is generally in the proportions of the skull. The chin, and brows being the most visible indicators. But when you are wearing a big hat and furs and armour the features are definitely distorted. Besides, most active, athletic women do not get large breasted except during periods of pregnancy and recent birth.

[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!?!?!?

[mountaingoat]

just one set??

[Tellos Athenaios]

What? You have more than one set?

Seriously though: obviously as far as their is merit to the story of Diodoros it is exceedingly unlikely for a girl to grow a set of men's genitalia based on the fact that in humans the female is the default, the womb is located in the female (consequentially a baby is exposed to female hormones which may in fact inhibit/prevent male genitalia in/from developing), and the male is not. It is far more likely the man/woman was a hermaphrodite by birth -- and when he/she was dressed you would be unable to tell him/her from a woman at first.

[Macilrille]

I can tell you, however, that it is easy to discern our male and female fighters in Viking fighting kit.

Though of course living in the modern world they mey have altered their gear slightly to emphasise femininity, I dunno, much and many looks similar in both genders.

We have no steppe peoples.


BTW, in a woman's grave on Gotland (I think it was), two swords was found. Does that mean she fought? Maybe, maybe it was merely regalia of a station she held. Does it mean a large proportion of Viking fighters were women? Probably not...

See; archeological clues are tricky to interpret and make evidence...

[MeinPanzer]

It's pretty clear that Diodorus just heard the story and was relaying it as he heard it. Thinking about it, she was probably a hermaphrodite her whole life, as Tellos says, and when she got married, her secret was revealed. So, of course, the most logical explanation is that she grew a pair overnight...

BTW, in a woman's grave on Gotland (I think it was), two swords was found. Does that mean she fought? Maybe, maybe it was merely regalia of a station she held. Does it mean a large proportion of Viking fighters were women? Probably not...

See; archeological clues are tricky to interpret and make evidence...

In the case of steppe archaeology, the evidence is much easier to interpret since weaponry is very widespread, some literary sources attest to women fighting among steppe tribes (this is more historical information, mind you, not just amazon myths...), and several female skeletons have been found buried with arms which also exhibit signs of trauma suffered in combat.

[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.

[mountaingoat]

not to get into a debate , but IMO (from information gathered) people would of been much healthier in general, except possibly those living in large towns or cities. (unless you were wealthy).

i'll leave it at that .. like i was saying , do not want to get this into a debate and side track the topic.

[Brennus]

Meinpanzer, give me your bibliography, I have an essay due in a month on detecting social makeup in Scythians and Sarmatians and you seem to know your stuff. I will bribe you with a baloon if neccessary.

[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

[MeinPanzer]

Meinpanzer, give me your bibliography, I have an essay due in a month on detecting social makeup in Scythians and Sarmatians and you seem to know your stuff. I will bribe you with a baloon if neccessary.

What are you writing on specifically, what time period are you concerned with (the entire sweep from the 8th c. BC to the first centuries AD, or just one period?), what languages are you able to read, and what sources have you already consulted?

[Cute Wolf]

I've heard that those woman warriors of Steppe Nomads cut their breasts, so they won't interfere with firing arrows.... Because of that, we just simply couldn't differentiate them with their male counterparts except for their face....

So, who feed their babies? Slave womans?

[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