I think the thread title is already stupid enough, so that's the maximum amount of stupidity I expect from participants.
The topic of women in M&B seems to trigger all sorts of people so I would welcome it if we could refrain from calling people sexist or misogynist. This also includes posts which could be interpreted as such, so if you think your post could be interpreted as sexist or misogynist try to find different words for it.
To the mods, I understand that you hate these topics because they tend to go south. But not allowing such a discussion when everyone manages to behave themselves (fingers crossed) would be even worse, it's a universal topic that deserves its place in all parts of our global society.
Now my personal opinion is that women are kind of overrepresented as leaders on the battlefield in historical terms. Historically there probably weren't as many 'Warladies'. But we don't have a problem that we have lots of 'Warlords', which seems to be anachronistic as well because the vast majority of lords and kings would've preferred to rule from their throne rather than being in a bloodbath.
Historically there are most definitely more ruling men who fought in battle than women, but the amount of lords and kings who fight in Bannerlord is just as overrepresented as the amount of women in the ruling class in Bannerlord. So if your aim is historical correctness, you should only allow participation of lords and kings in 1/10th of the battles taking place in Bannerlord. I guess we can all agree that this would be bad for the game, which leads the argument as absurdum. Assuming that every lord would rush into the frontline is just as wrong as assuming that half the armies were led by women.
Regarding ruling women, there are countless examples in history, both as direct rulers and as the strong woman next to a king.
The topic of women in M&B seems to trigger all sorts of people so I would welcome it if we could refrain from calling people sexist or misogynist. This also includes posts which could be interpreted as such, so if you think your post could be interpreted as sexist or misogynist try to find different words for it.
To the mods, I understand that you hate these topics because they tend to go south. But not allowing such a discussion when everyone manages to behave themselves (fingers crossed) would be even worse, it's a universal topic that deserves its place in all parts of our global society.
Now my personal opinion is that women are kind of overrepresented as leaders on the battlefield in historical terms. Historically there probably weren't as many 'Warladies'. But we don't have a problem that we have lots of 'Warlords', which seems to be anachronistic as well because the vast majority of lords and kings would've preferred to rule from their throne rather than being in a bloodbath.
Historically there are most definitely more ruling men who fought in battle than women, but the amount of lords and kings who fight in Bannerlord is just as overrepresented as the amount of women in the ruling class in Bannerlord. So if your aim is historical correctness, you should only allow participation of lords and kings in 1/10th of the battles taking place in Bannerlord. I guess we can all agree that this would be bad for the game, which leads the argument as absurdum. Assuming that every lord would rush into the frontline is just as wrong as assuming that half the armies were led by women.
Regarding ruling women, there are countless examples in history, both as direct rulers and as the strong woman next to a king.