Are there any mods that remove female lords?

[stevehoos]

Honestly after all the factual sources (DNA proof isnt enough now?) From reliable sources that have PHDs and do that for a living that hes gotten from us its not worth arguing with the troglobite

DNA proves what exactly? Expound on this? That Viking Noble women were buried with expensive weapons and other items? An insult, that's nice, that's what people do when they are losing a debate.

Ah, you finally give the magic number of 99%! But fail to explain how any of your sources support it, or even reference what's in them beyond listing names. I'm in fact not a historian - and you have shown no indication you are either. That means, for me at least, I don't have the expertise to properly take in primary sources. Imagine a random person from the future trying to read Harry Potter and the conclusions you could draw, even knowing it's fiction or unreliable, with only uncertain and incomplete knowledge of the society that produced it.

You're placing your own ability over that of actual historians, who dedicate immeasurable time and effort to sorting this out, and I have no reason to find your - or my own - uniformed opinion to be more credible.

The sources imply men fought almost exclusively across history, that is a fact.

 

[Duchess Rosé of Suno]

This Viking grave stuff again. Give me a 8th 9th century source of a Viking army with women in it. You can't, I go on historical evidence not conjecture on grave findings. None of the Heathen armies in Britain had women.

So DNA testing of Warriors remains isn't enough for you?
You want actual text? From that Time?
Let me get that right? The sources that are usually wrong since they where written usually long after the events?
Why are things always showing up proving past historical documents wrong?
Have you heard "The Victors write the history" ??

Recent Discoveries That Proved We Got History All Wrong - Grunge

These recent discoveries prove that we got history all wrong. Nothing is written in stone.

www.grunge.com

Distorting History - civicintelligence

wikis.evergreen.edu

 

[stevehoos]

So DNA testing of Warriors remains isn't enough for you?
You want actual text? From that Time?
Let me get that right? The sources that are usually wrong since they where written hundreds of years after the events?
Why are things always showing up proving past historical documents wrong?

how wrong are historical documents - Google Search

Distorting History - civicintelligence

wikis.evergreen.edu

Good heavens, DNA doesn't prove anything about Viking women fighting in battles? Do you understand that? Saying that sources are "wrong" is the only way the revisionist can logically make claims. If sources are wrong, then why believe anything at all about history? What you are doing is denying the sources that you don't like, that's a mockery of history. That is exactly the type logic being pursed here.

 

[IronWill]

The sources imply men fought almost exclusively across history, that is a fact. None of this above paragraph has any coherence in it.

Okay, so when you say, "almost exclusively men"- you realize that also means "some of them weren't men", how is it this hard to grasp the difference between "some" and "none"?

 

[Duchess Rosé of Suno]

Oh what ever happened to the earth is flat and that's the way it is?
What about the Earth is the center of the universe?
Troy?
The War of Athens vs Sparta?
Cesear And Pompey?
The Burning of Alexandria?
Mongol bows where only 100 pound Draw?
The 300 of Sparta? (Spoiler it really wasn't 300 fighting of millions.)
Or any other hundred discrepancies in history that have been proved wrong that hundreds if not millions believed?

Good heavens, DNA doesn't prove anything about Viking women fighting in battles? Do you understand that? Saying that sources are "wrong" is the only way the revisionist can logically make claims. If sources are wrong, then why believe anything at all about history? What you are doing is denying the sources that you don't like, that's a mockery of history. That is exactly the type logic being pursed here.

When said women (Proved by DNA that they are) have weapons and injuries in their bones usually related to war and Warriors what do you think?

 

[stevehoos]

Okay, so when you say, "almost exclusively men"- you realize that also means "some of them weren't men", how is it this hard to grasp the difference between "some" and "none"?

There were no women leading armies in battle 11th century Europe. None. Which is what Bannerlord is imitating.

 

[Duchess Rosé of Suno]

sources are "wrong"

You're the only one saying sources are wrong ?
I'm saying Ancient Sources are flawed 8/10 times. It's been proven hundreds of times that historical manuscripts and sources have been found to be wrong If not out right lies

There were no women leading armies in battle 11th century Europe. None. Which is what Bannerlord is imitating.

None at all? 0?

 

[stevehoos]

Vikings on the History Channel has really done no favors to the historian. The majority of lay people get their ideas of history from shows like this whether they are aware of it or not. Yes medieval Norse really were progressive just like us. If you read the articles on the Viking woman warrior grave they tell you it doesn't prove the female was a warrior.

 

[Duchess Rosé of Suno]

There were no women leading armies in battle 11th century Europe. None. Which is what Bannerlord is imitating.

Also it isn't 11th century fyi
A mix, you have Imperial Rome, Senate Rome/Republic Rome and Dictatorship Rome all with a Byzantine aesthetic (All these span hundreds and hundreds of years) some of the Architecture in towns is Greek as well for the North.
Vlandia Normandy, Battania The Celts/Gauls, Sturgia the Vikings and Rus, Asarai pretty much Persians and Khuzuaits the Huns/Mongols. Not to mention The Jawall (Bedouins), Ghillman (Arabic Sulatantes without Lands atm), The Legion guys actual Roman looking troops.

Vikings on the History Channel has really done no favors to the historian. The majority of lay people get their ideas of history from shows like this whether they are aware of it or not. Yes medieval Norse really were progressive just like us. If you read the articles on the Viking woman warrior grave they tell you it doesn't prove the female was a warrior.

History evolves. New evidence comes to light as science and testing get better. Is this hard to understand? Or is it hard for you to have history have new points proven?
Which is it

 

[Gambles]

When said women (Proved by DNA that they are) have weapons and injuries in their bones usually related to war and Warriors what do you think?

I have no dog in this fight but I was interested in some of your sources and went through actually reading the articles and they don't point to any certainties at all. Many of them list fictional warriors or deities. Your best source is probably the Viking shield maidens seeing as how there have been bones unearthed that reveal a woman buried with war-like trophies and equipment but it's impossible to tell if that was indeed common, or if she even was warrior and not a somewhat of a leader in wartime. Even Wikipedia itself states historians are unsure of whether they really did exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield-maiden

The trick with history is that you can't just google up a source and say "see look!". A lot of historians propose different ideas on history based on findings but these often come under scrutiny from other historians. Think of how the general sciences works with peer review. You can have findings and make assumptions on those findings but other findings may directly contradict that, or there just may not be enough evidence to support your claim wholly. This is why a lot of articles say "could" or something to the effect, as anyone can make claims based on anything and propose their ideas that doesn't make them true. History is often debated but there is a lot of it that is generally pretty well understood.

I'm pretty sure at some points the odd woman who went to battle was a thing, but to insinuate that women were commonly warriors throughout most cultures just wouldn't hold any merit among most historians. Not to mention that such prevalence would most definitely go mentioned by someone during those periods, if not by the men in charge surely by their enemies who would have recorded their foes sending women into battle.

Regardless though, I have no problem with them being in game. It's yours to do with as you wish, whether that be making everyone female or male or what have you.

Edit: Oh and the scythians of course, they seemed to have everyone go to battle from children of the age of 10 to women with bow on horse.

 

[SimplyStupendous]

Vikings on the History Channel has really done no favors to the historian. The majority of lay people get their ideas of history from shows like this whether they are aware of it or not. Yes medieval Norse really were progressive just like us.

Everyone here was referring to primary literary or archaeological sources. Again, I am not suggest women were prevalent in combat across history, but there exists enough literary and archaeological evidence to suggest they did in fact exist. Therefore including some (there aren't that many) women as commanders and soldiers is not the great afront to history you seem to suggest.

There doesn't appear to be a single historical inspiration for the game, it seems to be taking parts of a wider scope of history, not just the 11th century. The calradian empire in lore and visual design appears more like late antiquity than medieval while the khuzaits take inspiration from mongolian and hunnic history (which span a long period of history).

The main point however is that I don't see why Taleworlds needs to be constrained by such a strict interpretation of history especially when they never claim to simulate history "authentically". Furthermore, there is not a single game or television show that does not take some liberties to make history more palpitable and enjoyable for modern audiences, hence inspiration not replication.

 

[stevehoos]

You're the only one saying sources are wrong ?
I'm saying Ancient Sources are flawed 8/10 times. It's been proven hundreds of times that historical manuscripts and sources have been found to be wrong If not out right lies

Also it isn't 11th century fyi
A mix, you have Imperial Rome, Senate Rome/Republic Rome and Dictatorship Rome all with a Byzantine aesthetic (All these span hundreds and hundreds of years) some of the Architecture in towns is Greek as well for the North.
Vlandia Normandy, Battania The Celts/Gauls, Sturgia the Vikings and Rus, Asarai pretty much Persians and Khuzuaits the Huns/Mongols. Not to mention The Jawall (Bedouins), Ghillman (Arabic Sulatantes without Lands atm), The Legion guys actual Roman looking troops.



History evolves. New evidence comes to light as science and testing get better. Is this hard to understand? Or is it hard for you to have history have new points proven?
Which is it

Vikings on History Channel

Also it isn't 11th century fyi
A mix, you have Imperial Rome, Senate Rome/Republic Rome and Dictatorship Rome all with a Byzantine aesthetic (All these span hundreds and hundreds of years) some of the Architecture in towns is Greek as well for the North.
Vlandia Normandy, Battania The Celts/Gauls, Sturgia the Vikings and Rus, Asarai pretty much Persians and Khuzuaits the Huns/Mongols. Not to mention The Jawall (Bedouins), Ghillman (Arabic Sulatantes without Lands atm), The Legion guys actual Roman looking troops.



History evolves. New evidence comes to light as science and testing get better. Is this hard to understand? Or is it hard for you to have history have new points proven?
Which is it

The only fact the Viking graves prove is that some women traveled in the first wave of settlers. It can’t prove that any of them were warriors. None of those cultures you mention above -Especially Romans- ever had female generals or a tradition of women in armies hundreds of years back or not.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

question answered, thread devolved into ****flinging, locked.