Are there any mods that remove female lords?

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here since Wiki and Britannica don't do it for you




 
I just love how the source material is Wikipedia. Seriously, do you all ever read at all?
Presumably because you love following the blue footnotes to the other sources wikipedia cites, going to your local library during lockdown, checking them out, scanning and uploading pictures of the specific pages in half an hour to argue on the internet.
 
You may be shocked to find that the medieval period had less than stellar record keeping, and very much likes exaggerated tales. That page cites a book by an author who, with a cursory google search, holds a PhD and specialized in the history of the crusades. If you're trying to make the point 'boy history sure is hard sometimes' I'm entirely with you, but I'd say it's on you to find your own source opposing rather than just going 'lol sounds fake'

That's not how logic works or history or anything coherent for that matter.
 
Here since Wiki and Britannica don't do it for you





Viking graves with ceremonial wares/weapons are not evidence of female warriors. No source material ever sites viking women in battles. The rest of this is just nonsense.
 
The source material is not that hard to find.
Plenty of Source material has been found for you. National Geographic, BBC, Britanica, Montana History, ancient eu.
Yet it's against what you think ??
I expect you'll want it in MLA next?








 
How about you cite.... anything? C'mon, give me that magic ratio that you think is the exact historical gender balance and back it up with something.

How about Tactitus, or The Anglo Saxon Chronicle, Cassisu Dio, William of Tyre? How about a good book on the history of the crusades? How about a study on the customs of North American Indians. You want to take a guess at how many plains Indians or Eastern Woodland Indians had a tradition of allowing females in war parties? You ready.... 0% none.....

Ah yes we must only refer to the sources of the good ol victorian days where the diameter of ones skull determined intelligence.

That logic is wrong. Just making up history sounds great. I you can't decipher why then this is a pointless affair.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Plenty of Source material has been found for you. National Geographic, BBC, Britanica, Montana History, ancient eu.
Yet it's against what you think ??
I expect you'll want it in MLA next?









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.
 
How about Tactitus, or The Anglo Saxon Chronicle, Cassisu Dio, William of Tyre? How about a good book on the history of the crusades? How about a study on the customs of North American Indians. You want to take a guess at how many plains Indians or Eastern Woodland Indians had a tradition of allowing females in war parties? You ready.... 0% none.....

This generation is fully indoctrinated with egalitarian propaganda it is almost useless to debate you all. 99% of fighters were male in recorded history in 99% of all cultures.
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.
 
That logic is wrong. Just making up history sounds great. I you can't decipher why then this is a pointless affair.

If you have studied history you would know that all these written "primary" (most were written decades if not centuries after the events they describe) sources must be critically examined. Many were not written with an "objective" history in mind and hardly represent an authoritative source of life back then.

I don't suggest that they're to be ignored or dismissed, rather we need to account for other non-literary sources such as archaeology which do provide corroborating evidence of female participation in war.

What I don't understand, is your dead-set belief that women had no role unless mentioned in a written source??? You do also realize that written sources are highly spotty, fragmentary, and greatly subject to re-recording broken telephone.

My comment on brain diameter was on secondary sources since you mentioned you disliked "modern revisionists", I was not implying that historical primary sources be analyzed according to modern norms/beliefs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom