Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 03:40:00 PM
I just remembered that we have some real-life examples. One is Joan of Arc, one of the most misunderstood characters in history. She was a military genius and an intuitive strategist. The French generals agreed that they started to take her seriously after seeing how good she was in placing "siege artillery". When she arrived at Orleans she first chased away the prostitutes following the army (that she survived this is generally considered proof that God does exist).

Then she gave an order that, to this day, no one knows from where it came from: Joan ordered that every soldier in the French army had to bathe before and after every battle. The number of soldiers that she saved from "death by infected wound" is unknown, but... even the most enlightened "surgeons" of the time didn't know the relation between being clean and the risk of an infection. Was it an intuition? A lucky "ritual" about which Joan had no clue about it's real importance? No one knows.

Joan wore a custom made set of armor (and not always), but this to avoid to be killed by the first stray arrow or missile. She had the "Sword of St. Michael" because the leader had to have a superior sword - and she waved it around along with her banner just to give orders to the men around her.

Yet, we know that Joan was wounded two times: by an arrow on the shoulder at Orleans, and her helmet was split in two by a rock during the Loire River campaign - both times because she was the first on a siege ladder. So, she did something in actual battle but we don't know what.

A last note. When King Charles decided to listen to Joan, the women at court started to think that they, too could do more! Joan cut their knees immediately by saying that "The role of a woman is to obey her husband and raise the children". God sent HER, not "the women" in general! Shoo! Shoo!

So much for the "feminist icon".

Anyway, Joan of Arc is the prime example that "there is always one", but she becomes famous because she is a stunning exception. This is the basis for la Guerriera in the poems: an idealized (and, let's be honest, "inclusive"!) female character which, however, represents the exception (some think that Marfisa was created because it was a bit unjust that the Saracens could not have their own "Bradamante" - interestingly enough, we don't have a trace of the obvious end game: a duel between the two...)

Personally, I like the idea of Clorinda obliterating human beings and siege weapons like the Tasmanian Devil from Bugs Bunny. The idea of the paladinette who, enraged, destroys a city (including the area inhabited by her own allies) touches something deep in the human psyche. There are even modern examples of the same archetipe in a different form (just think of Bernadette in The Big Bang Theory, a small, squeaky girl that destroys every obstacle she meets, often with an unexpected evil streak). Yet, these very poems tell us how, soon or lather, either you grow up or you die (even metaphorically).

I never heard that part of the story where she stopped the other women lol.

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 03:40:00 PM
I just remembered that we have some real-life examples. One is Joan of Arc, one of the most misunderstood characters in history. She was a military genius and an intuitive strategist. The French generals agreed that they started to take her seriously after seeing how good she was in placing "siege artillery". When she arrived at Orleans she first chased away the prostitutes following the army (that she survived this is generally considered proof that God does exist).

Then she gave an order that, to this day, no one knows from where it came from: Joan ordered that every soldier in the French army had to bathe before and after every battle. The number of soldiers that she saved from "death by infected wound" is unknown, but... even the most enlightened "surgeons" of the time didn't know the relation between being clean and the risk of an infection. Was it an intuition? A lucky "ritual" about which Joan had no clue about it's real importance? No one knows.

Reading your biography of an ignorant farm girl, whose religious hysteria lead to her being a useful talisman to carry with the army; it's interesting to see a piece of straw spun in to a spool of gold thread.

"Some say she did this thing!" "She did another thing but we're not sure what!" "She theoretically could have done X, so maybe she did!"

It's like historical Bieber-Fever.



As to the female knight as a concept, it has the same poisoned barb as many other things we've seen injected into Western media. "Here's a rare example of a thing (if you squint hard enough,) so it should be an option!" We see this traditionally in D&D, the female knight/paladin is allowed as a rarity, with the understanding that they will be so rare that they will be somewhat of an oddity.

But then fast-forward a couple of decades, and tokenism is no longer enough, and suddenly the fantasy world is filled with female generals, knights, paladins, watch captains, etc; often to the point where MORE such roles are filled by women. Then you've got 5E, where your black female watch captain goes home to her brown, disabled wife, and tells her about the terrible transphobe she locked up for pointing out that the Princess has a penis.

Quote from: Naburimannu on August 12, 2023, 02:36:07 PM
Charlemagne and the paladins will accept them, but old-fashioned knights will view their deviance with scorn, contempt, and hostility, and to anybody else they'll need to prove themselves and not get too uppity.

They will challenge these old-fashioned knights to single duel. Everyone, out of curiosity, comes to watch - only to have blood, armor, bones, human flesh and entrails raining on the whole court four seconds into the duel. Remember: these female warriors (or sorcerers) are always among the absolute best. That's not the point: the point is their fate - which often is unavoidable doom.

This is why I think that they should be NPCs - which still poses the problem of how not to upstage the PCs.

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 12, 2023, 04:02:31 PM
Reading your biography of an ignorant farm girl, whose religious hysteria lead to her being a useful talisman to carry with the army; it's interesting to see a piece of straw spun in to a spool of gold thread.

Actually, no. We don't know anything about Joan before she arrived to Chignon, but afterwards we, literally, know what she did and said in any given day, from multiple sources. One of these sources is the French Church, who was against her and followed her around 24/7 to prove that she was an impostor.

She did chase away the prostitutes following the French army. She did order that the French soldiers had to bathe before and after every battle. It is worth mentioning how no one had a clue about why she ordered this, they simply obeyed. Why should her generals invent such a thing? Only modern scholars were able to say "wait a minute..." However, as I said, maybe she was just lucky.

Unknown thing about Joan are just that: open to speculation but unknown. When I wrote that she is one of the most misunderstood character in history is because people love to invent things about Joan - while rejecting as "myth" what she actually did.

One book detailing her military life is "Joan of Arc: a Military Leader". It is chock full of references to primary sources.

https://www.amazon.com/Joan-Arc-Military-Kelly-DeVries-ebook/dp/B0078XH9MO/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1HVNJFZ7BHSXM&keywords=joan+of+arc+a+military+leader&qid=1691871566&sprefix=joan+of+arc+military%2Caps%2C252&sr=8-1

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 04:04:41 PMRemember: these female warriors (or sorcerers) are always among the absolute best. That's not the point: the point is their fate - which often is unavoidable doom.

What on Earth are you basing this on?

Sorcery, maybe? I mean unless that particular magic source is more easily chaneled by females, I'm not sure why a woman that believes she's hot shit, means that she actually is. Seems related to the "women have to work twice as hard, and be twice as good to succeed!" cope.

When it comes to melee fighting? Pure fantasy. Unless a female warrior is blessed by the gods, or sporting magic gear, she'd get stomped. The men swing harder, take the blows better, have the stamina to last longer, and can genuinely throw the woman around/physically dominate her during a fight.

The usual counter to this is "I'm in a historical combat society, and there's this woman who beats all the men!" Like controlled combat using foam, that has rules against, say, knocking the woman on her back and bashing her skull in with your pommel/a rock are not allowed, is any gauge of actual combat. There are very real, sensible reasons as to why women warriors have never been more than support or last-ditch emergency troops.

At best, if you had a truly physically gifted, freakishly large and strong woman (by female standards) and she was trained very well, she could be a knight. But she'd be the one coming 200th of a class of 200, not the "she's held back because she's so great that the male ego can't handle her power" horseshit.

In our real world, with our real militaries, there has never been a female who has had fitness results good enough to pass the male MINIMUMS. Ever. Let that sink in. High School track and field boys regularly smash female OLYMPIC records, and 13 year old boys thrash the mighty U.S. Soccer squad by such high margins that they only play a partial match.

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 04:27:45 PM
Actually, no. We don't know anything about Joan before she arrived to Chignon, but afterwards we, literally, know what she did and said in any given day, from multiple sources. One of these sources is the French Church, who was against her and followed her around 24/7 to prove that she was an impostor.

She did chase away the prostitutes following the French army. She did order that the French soldiers had to bathe before and after every battle. It is worth mentioning how no one had a clue about why she ordered this, they simply obeyed. Why should her generals invent such a thing? Only modern scholars were able to say "wait a minute..." However, as I said, maybe she was just lucky.

Yeah, I don't think anyone is arguing that a female leader can't chase prostitutes, or tell smelly soldiers to be clean and thus more holy. It's the Xena Warrior Princess and untrained tactical genius stuff that fails the sniff test. Hell, if there are good sources for for being injured running around the battlefield, I don't even have a problem with that. Anyone can run and wave a sword before being injured and dragged away.

Why was she injured on siege ladders? Shouldn't she scamper up and start decimating the men-at-arms on the battlements, spinning around like Legolas?

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 12, 2023, 04:31:13 PM

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 04:04:41 PMRemember: these female warriors (or sorcerers) are always among the absolute best. That's not the point: the point is their fate - which often is unavoidable doom.

What on Earth are you basing this on?

TONS of tales from 1400 onward? Just saying.

Find a copy of the Orlando Furioso or La Gerusalemme Liberata in English, or even the Red Book by Andrew Lang (or the medieval pastiches by Italo Calvino). The first three are freely available on the internet (even if I have Lang's Fairy Books collection on Kindle).

Why these women were the absolute best? Because. In a way, no explanation is better than a stupid explanation.

Quote
When it comes to melee fighting? Pure fantasy.

You got the point. So, why the trouble?

Snip on "the real world is different!"

REALLY? The things you learn. True, we can say that Eowyn is, in her specific context, "realistic". Now, what about Galadriel? Should we ditch The Lord of the Rings because it has multi-millenary elves? Or ditch The Avengers because they have Black Widow? (AFAIK she hasn't super power, she is simply really good. I don't remember if in her past she had chemical enhancers, but it would still be para-scientific).

These were tales written to entertain. Even Tasso, who was the most anti-fun author of the bunch, knew that if you don't entertain your public you will lose him - something, it is worth mentioning, that the wokes failed to learn

Quote from: Reckall on August 11, 2023, 09:09:13 PM

The Jews love Lovecraft (the Italians too, BTW, and he dissed the Italians every other tale).

Lovecraft is quite popular here in Brazil, too. Not only his books, but also RPGs and board games based on his works.

Of course, as far as I know he never dissed Brazilians or other South American peoples, but he didn't like neither Portuguese nor Spaniards very much, either. 

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 05:02:57 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 12, 2023, 04:31:13 PM

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 04:04:41 PMRemember: these female warriors (or sorcerers) are always among the absolute best. That's not the point: the point is their fate - which often is unavoidable doom.

What on Earth are you basing this on?

TONS of tales from 1400 onward? Just saying.

Finds a copy of the Orlando Furioso or La Gerusalemme Liberata in English, or even the Red Book by Andrew Lang (or the medieval pastiches by Italo Calvino). The first three are freely available on the internet (even if I have Lang's Fairy Books collection on Kindle).

Why these women were the absolute best? Because. In a way, no explanation is better than a stupid explanation.

Quote
When it comes to melee fighting? Pure fantasy.

You got the point. So, why the trouble?

Snip on "the real world is different!"

REALLY? The things you learn. True, we can say that Eowyn is, in her specific context, "realistic". Now, what about Galadriel? Should we ditch The Lord of the Rings because it has multi-millenary elves? Or ditch The Avengers because they have Black Widow? (AFAIK she hasn't super power, she is simply really good. I don't remember if in her past she had chemical enhancers, but it would still be para-scientific).

These were tales written to entertain. Even Tasso, who was the most anti-fun author of the bunch, knew that if you don't entertain your public you will lose him - something, it is worth mentioning, that the wokes failed to learn

In the movies Black Widow has no powers, in the comics she has a russian super soldier serum but it hasn't been mentioned for a while.

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 05:02:57 PM
REALLY? The things you learn. True, we can say that Eowyn is, in her specific context, "realistic". Now, what about Galadriel? Should we ditch The Lord of the Rings because it has multi-millenary elves? Or ditch The Avengers because they have Black Widow? (AFAIK she hasn't super power, she is simply really good. I don't remember if in her past she had chemical enhancers, but it would still be para-scientific).

These were tales written to entertain. Even Tasso, who was the most anti-fun author of the bunch, knew that if you don't entertain your public you will lose him - something, it is worth mentioning, that the wokes failed to learn

Black Widow was the result of the Soviet attempt to replicate the Captain America serum.  But I think that's irrelevant to the point you're trying to make.

If you're trying to make a historically accurate setting and then throw in a few magical elements, the sexual dimorphism is something that needs to be addressed.  It is real and it is something that's shaped history.  Female warriors are extremely rare in history.  In the handful of times they were a real thing, they failed abysmally. 

Why do they fail?  Because in the words of a famous USMC commander "You put 100lbs of gear on a woman's back and she crumples like a crouton."  Need more convincing?  Watch the Alana Mclaughlinvs vs Celine Provost fight.  Celine was a way more skilled fighter and was fighting someone in the same weight class and still got wreck so badly she'll never fight again.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVOp5YdPLbg

Jeanne d'Arc was a teenage girl that filled the role of field commander and banner carrier.  I seriously doubt she ever did anything with any weapon other than wave her ceremonial sword.  She didn't have to and if she was in melee, she wasn't doing her job.

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 05:02:57 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 12, 2023, 04:31:13 PM

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 04:04:41 PMRemember: these female warriors (or sorcerers) are always among the absolute best. That's not the point: the point is their fate - which often is unavoidable doom.

What on Earth are you basing this on?

TONS of tales from 1400 onward? Just saying.

Find a copy of the Orlando Furioso or La Gerusalemme Liberata in English, or even the Red Book by Andrew Lang (or the medieval pastiches by Italo Calvino). The first three are freely available on the internet (even if I have Lang's Fairy Books collection on Kindle).

Why these women were the absolute best? Because. In a way, no explanation is better than a stupid explanation.

Quote
When it comes to melee fighting? Pure fantasy.

You got the point. So, why the trouble?

Snip on "the real world is different!"

REALLY? The things you learn. True, we can say that Eowyn is, in her specific context, "realistic". Now, what about Galadriel? Should we ditch The Lord of the Rings because it has multi-millenary elves? Or ditch The Avengers because they have Black Widow? (AFAIK she hasn't super power, she is simply really good. I don't remember if in her past she had chemical enhancers, but it would still be para-scientific).

These were tales written to entertain. Even Tasso, who was the most anti-fun author of the bunch, knew that if you don't entertain your public you will lose him - something, it is worth mentioning, that the wokes failed to learn

I realized, after posting, that in the instance I commented on, you were actually specifically referencing women in literature and myth. My confusion was due to you mixing historical and fantasy examples of woman warriors in your posts, and jumping back and forth.

I decided to leave it up because it serves as a good counter to when you switch back to squinting down your lens at historical women.

Quote from: BadApple on August 12, 2023, 05:57:02 PM
If you're trying to make a historically accurate setting and then throw in a few magical elements, the sexual dimorphism is something that needs to be addressed.

Which is not the genre of tales were are talking about here, so we can move on.

Quote
Jeanne d'Arc was a teenage girl that filled the role of field commander and banner carrier.  I seriously doubt she ever did anything with any weapon other than wave her ceremonial sword.  She didn't have to and if she was in melee, she wasn't doing her job.

Now, I know why you think that you know more about Joan of Arc than those who actually meet her plus centuries of scholarly studies. I really do. But any serious discourse about a historical character must consider the first two things, not what you do want to believe.

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 12, 2023, 04:37:20 PM
Yeah, I don't think anyone is arguing that a female leader can't chase prostitutes, or tell smelly soldiers to be clean and thus more holy. It's the Xena Warrior Princess and untrained tactical genius stuff that fails the sniff test.

You don't seem to even have read what I wrote. We know that the French generals obeyed her - something out of this world. But then they explained why. This whole "she knew better than anyone else how to place the siege artillery" thinghie is unusually specific. "The enemy armies wavered when she drew her sword!" would have been enough for the times. Why should her generals get together and made up from scratch "what about her being an artillery genius?" It makes no sense. More? The French Church is an independent source on this and the French priests had to admit that the generals were impressed while still trying to prove that Joan was an impostor. More? The battles were mapped, and after Joan arrived it is confirmed that the positions of the French artillery improved. (!)

We know that she was wounded two times, both times because she was the first on a siege ladder. Everything else is speculation.

You seem to say "I don't like that Joan of Arc did this and that!" You also say "This genre can't exist because it violates the rules of a totally different genre!"

I gave you all the primary sources you need, and some of them are free. You didn't even mention them - much less counter these primary sources. I now think that you are the kind of individual that first decides how the world is, and then just ditches anything that goes against his ideas - especially if it is factual.

Sadly, I seldom have time to waste about someone who says "Joan wasn't this!!!" when even the English admitted that, well, she was - and when I gave you my source you thrundled on without even bothering to address it. Same for the stories about female warriors in the Renaissance freely available to read on the internet. If you have some opinion based of facts I'm listening. If not, don't bother.

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 05:02:57 PMTrue, we can say that Eowyn is, in her specific context, "realistic". Now, what about Galadriel? Should we ditch The Lord of the Rings because it has multi-millenary elves? Or ditch The Avengers because they have Black Widow? (AFAIK she hasn't super power, she is simply really good. I don't remember if in her past she had chemical enhancers, but it would still be para-scientific).

Galadriel is an immortal queen of a race of divinely created supernatural creatures, not a human woman. In the novels she's respected for her magical ability, wisdom and beauty. It took 21st century Hollywood to make her a sword swinging girl boss.

Black Widow can kick ass because superhero universes have a conceit that people with no powers can fight gods. Many heroes take karate lessons, lift weights, put on a mask and bam, join a super team. I mean the Hulk and Iron Man are on the team with a man who uses a bow FFS.

Also, historically, super heroines were always a minority. The usual mix was something like 1 per hero team, unless the team is very large, and they are rarely more than a co-chair or squad leader. They are almost never the nemesis of any major villains either.

Quote from: Reckall on August 12, 2023, 06:56:30 PM
You don't seem to even have read what I wrote. We know that the French generals obeyed her - something out of this world. But then they explained why. This whole "she knew better than anyone else how to place the siege artillery" thinghie is unusually specific. "The enemy armies wavered when she drew her sword!" would have been enough for the times. Why should her generals get together and made up from scratch "what about her being an artillery genius?" It makes no sense. More? The French Church is an independent source on this and the French priests had to admit that the generals were impressed while trying to prove that Joan was an impostor. More? The battles were mapped, and that after Joan arrived it is confirmed that the positions of the French artillery improved. (!)

You talk about Joan Of Arc like a publisher writing a biography on IMDB. "Her next role was in the award winning Taxi Driver, where she shone alongside De Niro, in her role as a waitress. The Toronto Free Paper hailed her performance as Genius!"

Explain to me how the fuck a peasant girl knows how to place artillery well? She didn't even understand the physics behind how they worked, how the hell is she going to improve them? You're a great example of someone waving around historical anecdotes and not engaging your reason. This is the historical equivalent of "follow the Science!"

Quick question, do you believe she was divinely inspired?

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 12, 2023, 07:11:39 PM
You talk about Joan Of Arc like a publisher writing a biography on IMDB.

So? Even a publisher can't write "The Oscar Winning Actress...!" if she never won an Oscar.

Quote
Explain to me how the fuck a peasant girl knows how to place artillery well?

There is a theory going around. It is just a theory but many events in her life do seem to support it - i.e. that she could have had some form of ASD. She had eidetic memory (this comes from English sources and the transcript of her trial). She was single-minded but nowhere she shows that he had any kind of social skills (she was manipulative, which is not the same). She was illiterate but an astoundingly fast learner of even complex matters - if she met a good teacher.

Placing siege artillery is a matter of spatial geometry. "What this thing can throw, how far and how often?" is all you need. People are capable of creating mental maps and move things around in their minds - today, while playing videogames! Once you grasp the basic concepts, you can use this talent to simulate different artillery placements, until you find the optimal one. Honestly, I can see Joan tackling the problem this way - but this is me.

I don't even think that you know about the Campaign for the Loire River Valley, much less in how many battles Joan was involved - all documented.

Quote
You're a great example of someone waving around historical anecdotes

...Actually, "Sworn testimonies given in front of the King, the Church and God"...

Quote
and not engaging your reason. This is the historical equivalent of "follow the Science!"

I agree that yours is the historical equivalent of "I don't need to study because I was born learned!" Lucky you: I had to study and do research.

Quote
Quick question, do you believe she was divinely inspired?

No. But I do believe that she was inspired. Then, in her time, this could only come from God.

My question to you: did you read the Ariosto? Tasso? Lang? The book about Joan as a military leader I suggested? Or you actually fear to face the real world?

COMING ATTRACTIONS: We left with Grognard GM's face full of eggs. This is what will happen next.

- He will not desist (thus derailing what had become a very interesting thread). The fact that more I'm prone to listen to the Duke of Alençon and Ludovico Ariosto than to him will be irrelevant.

- He will accuse me AGAIN of being a myth-believer without bothering to even check the sources I gave to him (because he just knows the truth and I don't).

- If he checks the sources (I think that, again, they will not will even be mentioned but... who knows?) he will explain how they are not important facts of the matter - because even a cursory glance shows that they prove him wrong.

- He will still explain that a woman can't go around killing metric tons of things in a fantastic tale - because in the real world this just doesn't happen.

- The usual end game will be that I have to prove that the history of a specific genre of literature from 1400 up to recent times does actually exist. Not to mention that I will also have to prove that all the characters who met, wrote about, or were interrogated about Joan of Arc (sometimes during very serious trials), did exist and, for some inexplicable reason, concocted a tale where an upstart peasant girl was better than all of them.