Quote from: Nexus;789956The topic of gender in ancient armies and fighting classes seems to come up a great deal. The idea that the majority of fighters in a low tech, pre firearms societies are probably male has been labeled everything from a mistake to a practical conspiracy to promote a sexist view of women's role in history. This site for example:

http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/

What is the deal on this? Have I been mislead/mistaken? I'm not a major history buff.

The deal is that we all have been mislead/mistaken.
The question is only how much.
Like the Viking Shieldmaidens example that assumed were male warriors, but were proven to be female warriors ... or rather migrants that had moved elsewhere.

However, as the case is with the "shieidmaidens", this is just the beginning, as there are several more cases of where archaeologists has just assumed that people buried with weapons was males.
There has even been cases of findings of obvious women buried with weapons, where it was claimed that it was a pair that was buried, but that the male parts had been destroyed, and the female bones had not.

As can be seen in this thread, people comes crawling out of the woodwork to confirm that only males existed as warriors and soldiers, when it is obvious that that was not the case.

However, some instead say that they "always" accepted that there were women warriors, just that they were a minority.
They just don't want to accept that they used to be wrong, or perhaps that they do some "damage control".

Thing is, damage control is good when it serves the truth.
The current truth as we know it is that we do not know how many has been misidentified, including how many males that has been believed to be women.

There is even the situation that proof has been destroyed when the archaeological findings has been "wrong".
Yes, destruction of evidence.
From scientists.
But they probably thought they were doing the right thing ....

Quote from: Catelf;790022As can be seen in this thread, people comes crawling out of the woodwork to confirm that only males existed as warriors and soldiers, when it is obvious that that was not the case.

Who has claimed that?

Quote from: Catelf;790022Thing is, damage control is good when it serves the truth.
The current truth as we know it is that we do not know how many has been misidentified, including how many males that has been believed to be women.

By that line of reasoning (if we can call it that), maybe half of Rome's legionnaires were 10 to 14 year olds. I mean, we don't have any proof they weren't, do we?

Quote from: Catelf;790022There is even the situation that proof has been destroyed when the archaeological findings has been "wrong".
Yes, destruction of evidence.
From scientists.
But they probably thought they were doing the right thing ....

Ah, it's a conspiracy. Got it... [backs out of room slowly].

Quote from: Warboss Squee;790016Regardless of historical fact, a RPG means you can have whomever and whatever the fuck you want take up arms for any reason.

Yep. But don't expect the whole world to represent modern ideals (unless everyone at the table is keen for that).

Quote from: Haffrung;790026Yep. But don't expect the whole world to represent modern ideals (unless everyone at the table is keen for that).

My point, you have found it. Although, I suppose I could have been more clear.  Fitional settings, do whatever revs your engine, historical? Warriors were predominately men, but there were exceptions.  Feel free to be that exception, but don't try to rewrite history to fit your narrative.

A lot of the supposed "evidence" showing female fighters in history is misleading.

http://www.missedinhistory.com/blog/raining-on-your-parade-about-those-women-viking-warriors/

Generally speaking, it can't be a common occurrence. Not if you want your civilization/culture/country to survive in the long run.

You need women to have babies. You can't afford to use them as soldiers. Men's role in the reproductive process isn't nearly as important or as involved.

Beyond that, what happens when your army needs to go on maternity leave? Thanks to birth control we can have mixed armies today, but what would it be like before that?

That said, some of these things go away in fantasy. I would imagine there would be an easy magical form of birth control.

I would imagine there would be a lot of half-orc women in armies, since they probably don't have a lot of marriage prospects and they would be big/strong enough to fight well.

The recent "Viking warriors were 1/2 women!" articles that went around were an astounding case of ideologically motivated illiteracy.

Quote from: Nexus;789956The topic of gender in ancient armies and fighting classes seems to come up a great deal. The idea that the majority of fighters in a low tech, pre firearms societies are probably male has been labeled everything from a mistake to a practical conspiracy to promote a sexist view of women's role in history.

Quote from: Haffrung;789997No more absolute than 'adults did the fighting*.' I don't see the point in qualifying every statement that doesn't cover 100 per cent of the cases.

* Actually, I'd be willing to wager a lot more boys younger than 14 have fought in battle than women.

The point is that I think the OP is attacking a straw man.  Nexus is arguing against the claim that the idea of majority-male fighters is a mistake or conspiracy. As far as I have seen, everyone (including the linked article) agrees that:

1) The vast majority of fighters historically have been male.
2) There have been many exceptional circumstances throughout history where women (and children) fought, which are worth note.

Quote from: jhkim;790057The point is that I think the OP is attacking a straw man.  Nexus is arguing against the claim that the idea of majority-male fighters is a mistake or conspiracy. As far as I have seen, everyone (including the linked article) agrees that:

1) The vast majority of fighters historically have been male.
2) There have been many exceptional circumstances throughout history where women (and children) fought, which are worth note.

I was asking about what the facts were from people that know something about history (more than me). I've seen it claimed that idea that majority of fighters were male called a fantasy, a lie and fabrication. That women even large groups of women acting as warriors is so common that its nothing special only their "erasure" from history makes it special.

You can go TBP and check the Exalted-Ask the Developers thread right damn now and seen allot it in the last few pages. And that sure as Hell not the first time its come up.

Quote from: jhkim;789993As I read it, the article linked from the OP isn't claiming that women were generally as common in fighting as men. It's saying that women fighters have often been a significant minority, like the example of 20% of the ANC resistance fighters.

That's a modern organization. You took something different from the article than I did. I read it as claiming the woman fighters were so historically common that, without the manipulation of the facts and their "erasure" from history it would be considered a common place and not noteworthy. . What do you consider a significant minority?

Quote from: jhkim;789994I've seen numerous references to significant women in the Persian armies. Here's one example reference (found by spontaneous web search - I don't have a primary source handy):

http://www.throneworld.com/oathofempire/en/sassanids.htm

The presence of a large number of women fighters is noted as being "remarkable" not business as usua which is what I've seen put fourth in the past. Specifically the its only revisionist and sexist history that makes the presence of woman warriors even noteworthy. That doesn't require they be present in equal numbers but close enough and common enough that wouldn't make an impression when it happens, it wouldn't remarkable, certainly.

Quote from: Haffrung;790025Who has claimed that?



By that line of reasoning (if we can call it that), maybe half of Rome's legionnaires were 10 to 14 year olds. I mean, we don't have any proof they weren't, do we?



Ah, it's a conspiracy. Got it... [backs out of room slowly].

Read back, yes, all replies, I might Edit this to show the reply or replies in particular.
EDIT:
Like this

Quote from: Haffrung;789980Women making up a significant proportion of any army was unusual enough that it was remarked upon by observers as bizarre, titillating, or monstrous. There certainly weren't any female soldiers in the armies of antiquity that we know a lot about - the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and Persians. Nor in China, that I know of.

You really mean there were no females at all in Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian armies back then?

I was looking for other quotes too, but they had actually formulated themselves more carefully to begin with, even if it only was other variants of "as far as I know".
So, am I guilty of a little hyperbole?
Perhaps, perhaps not.



Age is not the same as sex, but I assume you propose that roman children grew fast at that time?
Otherwise your comparison do not make sense.

conspiracy?
Actually, no.
Conspiracy is a bunch of people getting together to decide for others.
This was decisions made by people independent of each other, because it fit the expectations.

Quote from: Catelf;790074You really mean there were no females at all in Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian armies back then?

Do you have any idea how chauvinistic and conservative Greek and to an even greater degree Roman mores of the time were? "Proper" Greek and Roman women were expected to be sequestered away from the world, engaged in worthy crafts and outside of the sight of men not of their immediate family.

While there would certainly have been camp followers in a Greek, Hellenistic or Roman army who were women (usually poor women and foreign women), actual Greek or Roman female warriors would have been vanishingly rare. There was no tradition for it, unlike amongst other people like the Illyrians, Scythians and others.

The only settled society that actually allowed women to train the athletic pursuits (a pretty necessary precursor for the skills a warrior needed), the Spartans, didn't let them fight.

Swear to heaven, there are so many people heavily invested in turning this into "OMG lying feminazi revisionists!!!"  No wonder countries with a large number of women in the service in wartime -- the Soviet Union in WWII being the best documented example -- are likewise so heavily invested in pretending it never happened fifteen minutes after the battlefield's quiet: we can't bring ourselves to admit that dames can fight, can we?

But that's nothing new.  For those of you who aren't history buffs, it may (or may not) surprise you that we've likewise been heavily invested in declaring other groups besides women incapable of being soldiers.  Blacks were marginalized as not having what it took for much of United States history: I'm minded of a quote from a Confederate Senator towards the end of the Civil War, when in desperation the Confederacy was debating whether or not to allow blacks into the CSA Army: "The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end.  If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong."  For over half a century the Philippines were United States soil, and for almost all of that time, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we deemed Filipinos too small and weak to serve in the US military as anything other than stewards and cooks.

Is your average woman as physically capable as your average man?  Nope.  But hell, look at me.  I'm in my mid-50s, overweight, diabetic, asthmatic and with fibromyalgia, a bad back and worsening eyesight, and I had to give up swordfighting a dozen years ago because my wrists and knees were shot.  I know a whole lot of women fitter than I am.

Beyond that, what really makes me laugh is the number of antis out there whose names are found in many a thread pissing all over "realism" arguments.  Seriously?  You think it's okay for flying dragons, for 3'8" halflings to be nearly as strong as 6' humans, for physics-warping magic, but the notion that there are women who could compete athletically with men (despite, oh, the overwhelming evidence that this is in fact so), that's what ruptures your suspension of disbelief?

Aha.

Quote from: Kiero;790081Do you have any idea how chauvinistic and conservative Greek and to an even greater degree Roman mores of the time were? "Proper" Greek and Roman women were expected to be sequestered away from the world, engaged in worthy crafts and outside of the sight of men not of their immediate family.

While there would certainly have been camp followers in a Greek, Hellenistic or Roman army who were women (usually poor women and foreign women), actual Greek or Roman female warriors would have been vanishingly rare. There was no tradition for it, unlike amongst other people like the Illyrians, Scythians and others.

The only settled society that actually allowed women to train the athletic pursuits (a pretty necessary precursor for the skills a warrior needed), the Spartans, didn't let them fight.

I have an idea, yes, but it is still a difference between "none whatsoever" and "very rare".

And that is currently the running point here:
We Do Not Know, and We Thought we Knew, but Were Wrong.
The question is How Much.

Edit:
Perhaps we even were wrong about the Spartans ... or perhaps that just is a futile wish.

I've rarely seen such a self-righteous strawman as Ravenswing's.

As to the topic, who gives a shit? Unless you're playing 'medieval flea-pits: the misery sim' do what you like.