Catelf, History moves very slowly when it comes to revising what we know in light of new evidence. I haven't been following the shield maiden issue, so no idea if this is evidence that changes what we know or not (based on what I've seen it could have any number of explanations and historians are probably join go to continue debating the relevance of the find for some time). I studied history and the way I was taught to do it was leave the conclusions you want to see at the door (so in this case, both any modern desire you might have for warrior women but also any assumptions you might have about women not being able to fight in battle) and let the evidence guide your analysis. But that is a slow process. It is one of ongoing debate within the field and one where new evidence or reexaminations of existing evidence take time to evaluate.

All that said, I don't personally care what a person does in an RPG in this respect. When it comes to a fantasy setting, I am not terribly worried about real world history. When it comes to historical settings, there are different approaches that are entirely valid. I see history more as a venue in an RPG but I don't think playing in a historical period requires a masters degree in the region and time. So I am not going to get bent out of shape if there are anachronisms in a historical campaign I am playing in. There are many genres where that is standard because the goal is to use history as canvass to have fun, not as a tool of education. There is nothing wrong with taking a light and easy approach to history in an RPG if that is what you want to do.

When I did Servants of Gaius we did try to stay faithful to the historical role of women and men. Part of this was because I didn't want to gloss over how women were treated in ancient Rome. That is also why we didn't take out slavery (that and the Roman economy and culture was built upon it). But we also said in the book that people can ignore that stuff if they wish. I see this as a decision groups need to make on their own. And I do think heeding how it makes some of your players feel isn't a bad idea (but I think GMs who ask may get surprising responses from both directions). Personally I don't want to exclude or offend anyone in my group just to prove I grasp some aspects of world history. And I am not there to teach real world history either. I just want folks to have a good time. So if players in the group are troubled because they can't play female Roman senators or generals, I will happily run Servants of Gaius where that is possible. What I have found though is many women, don't want me to gloss that aspect because doing so minimizes it (that isn't the universal response but it is one I've seen a lot of). Some issues are also still actively debated and in those instances, I think it is fair to make a decision that suits your needs.

Quote from: Ravenswing;790088Swear 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.

I'm not a history buff but I'm fairly sure the Soviet Union wasn't a pre industrial, pre firearms society.  Which was the topic. No one that I've seen has made any claims about modern militaries or warfare. Nor has anyone made any claims that "Girls Can't Fight!" but that historically, female fighters were more rare than some would have you believe.

I could be wrong.

I'm also pretty sure that many posters have said its fine to change or ignore gender issues in fantasy since they're, well, fantasy. I was asking about and interested in history.

But don't let little things like what the topic actually was and what the people involve actually that knock you off the high horse you've climbed on.

Quote from: One Horse Town;790090I'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.

Ravenswing isn't the strawman here.
He points out the strawmen that other ones uses.

Quote from: Catelf;790093Ravenswing isn't the strawman here.
He points out the strawmen that other ones uses.

His whole post was attacking a premise that people on this thread weren't presenting. You work it out.

Quote from: One Horse Town;790090I've rarely seen such a self-righteous strawman as Ravenswing's.

As to the topic, who gives a shit?

Obviously I do in part due to curiosity, partly if I ever do what want to run a historical setting or history based event in another genre or a setting with higher degree of verisimilitude than I normally strive for. I figured this was a place I could ask the question with being pilloried for daring to even ask and get viewpoints from more than one side. Rough as this place is, its pretty open to discussions and its a general RPG forum. The others I'm on more specialized.

Quote from: Catelf;790089I have an idea, yes, but it is still a difference between "none whatsoever" and "very rare".

Do you understand how social institutions work? How powerfully conformist most ancient societies were?

Women were not even allowed into a gymnasium in ancient Greece. Period. They could not vote. Period. So for all practical purposes, they were not genuine citizens. How would a female warrior even train? Where would she get her armour and weapons from?

And another angle: Why in god's name would a woman want to join the citizen army? In ancient Greece, an unmarried woman out in public at the market was half-way to being a whore. A married woman was the property of her husband. Do you have any notion of what it would mean to defy those norms in a society where family and clan meant everything? Where a husband or father could beat his wife or daughter with the righteous sanction of all civil and religious authorities?

As has been pointed out, Sparta had by far the more liberal attitude towards women among Greek polities. And yet even in Sparta, which was forever desperately short of soldiers to carry out its wars and guard against helot uprising, women were not armed to fight.

Furthermore, almost all pre-modern armies were roving rape gangs. 'Camp-followers' is a euphemism for women who prostituted themselves to soldiers in return for food. After battle, these armies raped anything that moved. Old women, girls, boys. Why would a woman voluntarily put herself in such an environment? How could she protect herself?

The whole notion of pre-industrial women becoming soldiers in any kind of numbers is rattle-brained, and only betrays the lack of understanding of human history and nature on the part of the fools making the claim. The sad thing is most people today are so profoundly ignorant of history that these claims find traction among the naive and ideologically-blinkered.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;790091-snip-

This might surprise you, but I agree with you entirely from what I understand, and I seem to understand it all(at least this time).

All one really can do when one aims to make a historical game is to follow the knowledge that one knows, and assume that it is at least correct enough.

And knowledge within the sciences, including archaeology, goes slow indeed, but occasionally they do seem to take leaps, and this thing with sorting out misidentifications might prove to be a leap, or not.
It is at least clear that it is a small step.

And indeed, rpgs in fictive worlds is indeed in itself fiction/fantasy that do not have to be realistic at all.

Quote from: Haffrung;790096Do you understand how social institutions work? How powerfully conformist most ancient societies were?

And you say that you do?
Did you live at that time?
You know what history and archaeology tells you to, and some of that has been outright lying.
It may not be by much, but the point still stands:
Your information is partially wrong.

Quote from: One Horse Town;790094His whole post was attacking a premise that people on this thread weren't presenting. You work it out.

You seem to have a point.

But even though the particular strawman that Ravenswing put up hasn't shown up here, it do look like one that could have.

His main mistake was using a historically modern example, and thinking that would work.
One could say that he has a good point anyway, despite the seeming bad example:
The point is that he shows that there has been warring women in modern times, and the following conclusion that it is very possible that warring women has existed in all cultures, one way or another, despite how "allowed" they were.

I think you may be arguing against an extreme no one is putting fourth. That at some point(s) in the hundreds of years of Greek and Roman history that some women did fight is pretty certain. Weren't their female gladiators at some point?

But these women were probably not a regular part of the army or a standard of military forces. That seems to be very rare.

Quote from: Ravenswing;790088Swear 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?

The modern era is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Flying planes, crewing ships, driving tanks, firing guns are all gender-neutral activities that don't require any of the same physical attributes than wearing harness and carrying your weapons around to fight someone else up close does.

Quote from: Ravenswing;790088Is 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.

I'm in my mid-30s, athletic, fit, with no health conditions whatsoever; I still run, go to the gym and train full contact martial arts. I'm invariably the fittest person in the room almost regardless of context. There's a whole lot of men who aren't as fit as I am, never mind women.

Quote from: Ravenswing;790088Beyond 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.

Not everyone is playing fantasy. And as I've already said, there are plenty of means to get female combatant characters in a strictly historical game, you just don't have a free reign to declare your origin. Not all the different from the low likelihood that you could be a trained warrior if you were poor.

Quote from: Catelf;790089I 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.

There is no functional difference between them. As I said, I've run a historical game (no magic, monsters or dungeons), and it wasn't all that difficult to have female combatant PCs and NPCs. They just couldn't be Greek (or Roman/Latin), because that strained credulity too far.

Sure you could probably come up with an explanation for a single character who was a Greek woman trained in the gymnasium somehow (or more likely trained at home, in secret), but we're talking about an extremely rare exception to the general rule. You wouldn't have an entire unit of female hoplites.

As to the Spartans, along with the Athenians they are the Greek society we know most about. I'd suggest you do some additional reading into how abhorrent their society and mores were before you get any ideas about how liberal they might be with regards to women under arms. There's only one reason they were keen on women exercising: because it made them healthier receptacles for bearing children.

Quote from: Haffrung;790096Do you understand how social institutions work? How powerfully conformist most ancient societies were?

Women were not even allowed into a gymnasium in ancient Greece. Period. They could not vote. Period. So for all practical purposes, they were not genuine citizens. How would a female warrior even train? Where would she get her armour and weapons from?

And another angle: Why in god's name would a woman want to join the citizen army? In ancient Greece, an unmarried woman out in public at the market was half-way to being a whore. A married woman was the property of her husband. Do you have any notion of what it would mean to defy those norms in a society where family and clan meant everything? Where a husband or father could beat his wife or daughter with the righteous sanction of all civil and religious authorities?

As has been pointed out, Sparta had by far the more liberal attitude towards women among Greek polities. And yet even in Sparta, which was forever desperately short of soldiers to carry out its wars and guard against helot uprising, women were not armed to fight.

Furthermore, almost all pre-modern armies were roving rape gangs. 'Camp-followers' is a euphemism for women who prostituted themselves to soldiers in return for food. After battle, these armies raped anything that moved. Old women, girls, boys. Why would a woman voluntarily put herself in such an environment? How could she protect herself?

The whole notion of pre-industrial women becoming soldiers in any kind of numbers is rattle-brained, and only betrays the lack of understanding of human history and nature on the part of the fools making the claim. The sad thing is most people today are so profoundly ignorant of history that these claims find traction among the naive and ideologically-blinkered.

Precisely. I can only assume anyone who starts making claims about what "might have been possible" in Greek and Roman society is pretty ignorant about what they were like. To the best of our knowledge - bearing in mind the alternative to our "best knowledge" is knowing nothing at all about them.

Quote from: Kiero;790107There is no functional difference between them. As I said, I've run a historical game (no magic, monsters or dungeons), and it wasn't all that difficult to have female combatant PCs and NPCs. They just couldn't be Greek (or Roman/Latin), because that strained credulity too far.

Yes, there is a notable difference.

One allows up to 1%, and another do not even allow up to 0.1 %
Roughly.

Yes, this number is "pulled out of my ass" in a manner of speaking, but yet again, you go on assumptions you think was 100% correct, and even as it is pointed out that they weren't, you still refer to them as if they were.

Quote from: Nexus;790106I think you may be arguing against an extreme no one is putting fourth. That at some point(s) in the hundreds of years of Greek and Roman history that some women did fight is pretty certain. Weren't their female gladiators at some point?

But these women were probably not a regular part of the army or a standard of military forces. That seems to be very rare.

I don't know who you were referring to with this, but i'll respond anyway.

I'm arguing against things you call extremes now, but even 20 years ago people "knew" there were no female gladiators.
They were wrong, and were proven wrong.
Then, they admitted they were wrong, but instead said that female gladiators were like one in a thousand or less.
Then it was pointed out that female gladiators may have been at least a bit more common, and there were a conversation like this again.

Well, perhaps it is wrong to fight a fight that one has already won, but to some not even the original fight was fought.
...And some may even take the whole fight again just out of habit.
(See Ravenwing's strawman-examples.)

Quote from: Catelf;790113Yes, there is a notable difference.

One allows up to 1%, and another do not even allow up to 0.1 %
Roughly.

Yes, this number is "pulled out of my ass" in a manner of speaking, but yet again, you go on assumptions you think was 100% correct, and even as it is pointed out that they weren't, you still refer to them as if they were.

So what? As a GM I am under no obligation to allow absolutely any character concept a player might come up with. If we're playing a game set in and around the Mediterranean in 300BC, you can play a female combatant or a Greek, not both.

Congratulations, this thread made me into an American teenage girl, because after the Red Army drop in this thread, I don't even.