Female Lords mod

[Remmik]

Hi Remmik, I made the mod so you shouldn't have to be sad and/or mad anymore!

Removing women from the game is obviously not what I'm looking for. Like I said in the OP, I want a mod that makes there be fewer women party leaders.

 

[Arconious]

Your op post asks for one that removes or reduces them. My mod does not flat out remove them from the game!

 

[Nodice83]

The last time I tried to discuss some proofs of women leading armies in the antic/medieval Europe (against the thesis this never happened) I was caught in the crossfire of all who opposed that. Guys this leads nowhere. It was eventually closed by the touchy moderators, who didn't care which 'side' who was on. Examples of women leading armies are there in the literature not that much compared to male generals but anyways I'd say a considerable amount of examples. Anybody can judge by himself.

Women in ancient warfare - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Awaiting the ****storm on the horizon...

 

[Gandamula]

Boudicca, Artemisia, Cynane, Zenobia, a ton of Roman women, a ton of Chinese women, in fact it's relatively common to see female military leaders in the ancient world. This game is supposedly early medieval so it's closer than you might think (or might like) to an era where it was relatively common to see women in command of armies, and (more rarely) on the battlefield itself.



And you don't have to respond when people point out your obvious sexism either, you can just take it like a man since traditional masculinity is clearly important to you.

A bunch of BS, Roman women never played the slightest role in politics and even less in the army, Boudicca managed to be defeated by an army three or four times smaller, there is no foundation in what you say, nor any historical knowledge, you are just giving voice to a revisionist tendency that wants to give merit to those who didn't have them.As much as it hurts, history was made by men.

 

[BlackRainZ]

The last time I tried to discuss some proofs of women leading armies in the antic/medieval Europe (against the thesis this never happened) I was caught in the crossfire of all who opposed that. Guys this leads nowhere. It was eventually closed by the touchy moderators, who didn't care which 'side' who was on. Examples of women leading armies are there in the literature not that much compared to male generals but anyways I'd say a considerable amount of examples. Anybody can judge by himself.

Women in ancient warfare - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Awaiting the ****storm on the horizon...

I think the issue is that people who make your argument like to point out the outliers as if that proves your overall claim. I think most of us know that there are some women in history which fought in wars and some which may have led battles. Even the evidence you show here shows how few there were. Having a couple dozen examples over a few thousand years doesn't exactly make your argument very convincing. Not to mention, many of these examples were women who "Led" battles and that means they may have been present but not done much else. I doubt you can find many who actually fought. I really don't get why this is such a difficult thing to accept nor do I see how it demeans women in any way. Women and men are different and have different strengths and weaknesses. The fact that women are not as physically strong as men generally (not in every case of course) is just how we evolved as a species. Especially when we are talking about the type of physical strength required to fight in a battle with melee weapons. There are some good examples of effective units of women archers in some parts of the world though. Most places definitely did not allow women to fight and this goes for every part of the world and I would argue that Asia was even more so than Europe in this regards. Now in the modern world, we use guns and such, and anyone can fire a gun with some training.

 

[Nodice83]

A bunch of BS, Roman women never played the slightest role in politics and even less in the army, Boudicca managed to be defeated by an army three or four times smaller, there is no foundation in what you say, nor any historical knowledge, you are just giving voice to a revisionist tendency that wants to give merit to those who didn't have them.As much as it hurts, history was made by men.

• 60–61 – Boudica, a Celtic queen of the Iceni in Britannia, led a massive uprising against the occupying Roman forces.[163] According to Suetonius, her enemy Gaius Suetonius Paulinus encouraged his soldiers by joking that her army contained more women than men, implying the presence of warrior women.[164]

Does '164. Boudica: Iron Age Warrior Queen, By Richard Hingley, p.60' stands for a proof of her leading armies?

Nobody said how good/bad their leadership was.

I think the issue is that people who make your argument like to point out the outliers as if that proves your overall claim. I think most of us know that there are some women in history which fought in wars and some which may have led battles. Even the evidence you show here shows how few there were. Having a couple dozen examples over a few thousand years doesn't exactly make your argument very convincing. Not to mention, many of these examples were women who "Led" battles and that means they may have been present but not done much else. I doubt you can find many who actually fought. I really don't get why this is such a difficult thing to accept nor do I see how it demeans women in any way. Women and men are different and have different strengths and weaknesses. The fact that women are not as physically strong as men generally (not in every case of course) is just how we evolved as a species. Especially when we are talking about the type of physical strength required to fight in a battle with melee weapons. There are some good examples of effective units of women archers in some parts of the world though. Most places definitely did not allow women to fight and this goes for every part of the world and I would argue that Asia was even more so than Europe in this regards. Now in the modern world, we use guns and such, and anyone can fire a gun with some training.

The real question here is 'does it really so much immersion breaking to put women on the helm of the armies'? Who in the god's name said this game has to be historically accurate? Westeros isn't historical, women can lead armies there, same with Witcher lore. It usually starts from 'It's meh, coz wemen don't fight' - ends up with 'your proofs are week, they weren't effective at all...' History is shaped by man' - that is the largest BS of an oversimplification I have ever heard in my life. So to wrap up it is not about the numbers and it is obvious (and i repeat myself here) this is not about proportions.

 

[Gandamula]

• 60–61 – Boudica, a Celtic queen of the Iceni in Britannia, led a massive uprising against the occupying Roman forces.[163] According to Suetonius, her enemy Gaius Suetonius Paulinus encouraged his soldiers by joking that her army contained more women than men, implying the presence of warrior women.[164]

Does '164. Boudica: Iron Age Warrior Queen, By Richard Hingley, p.60' stands for a proof of her leading armies?

Nobody said how good/bad their leadership was.

The real question here is 'does it really so much immersion breaking to put women on the helm of the armies'? Who in the god's name said this game has to be historically accurate? Westeros isn't historical, women can lead armies there, same with Witcher lore. It usually starts from 'It's meh, coz wemen don't fight' - ends up with 'your proofs are week, they weren't effective at all...' History is shaped by man' - that is the largest BS of an oversimplification I have ever heard in my life. So to wrap up it is not about the numbers and it is obvious (and i repeat myself here) this is not about proportions.

Surely no one will use Battle of Watling Street to promote women as competent military commanders.

 

[Nodice83]

Surely no one will use Battle of Watling Street to promote women as competent military commanders.

Hey armchair historian, have you ever thought about why she led their people and they followed? She lost, that is fine but one may think 'you need to have really huge balls to stay your ground against Romans especially in the 1st Century when they steamrolled Europe. Would you like me to find examples of men beheaded by the Romans in the same period? I am sure there will be more of them...

 

[Arconious]

Not to mention, many of these examples were women who "Led" battles and that means they may have been present but not done much else. I doubt you can find many who actually fought.

You're the third person in this thread to bring up this trite argument. Tell me, was Napoleon just "leading" battles while he sat on his ship, away from front lines?

Plenty of kings and generals have sat in the back, commanding their forces -- because that's what you do. It's very funny to see people trying to insist it a negative thing, of course, when woman did it.

 

[BlackRainZ]

You're the third person in this thread to bring up this trite argument. Tell me, was Napoleon just "leading" battles while he sat on his ship, away from front lines?

Plenty of kings and generals have sat in the back, commanding their forces -- because that's what you do. It's very funny to see people trying to insist it a negative thing, of course, when woman did it.

I already know that many battle commanders lead in the back. You pointing this out is only stating the obvious. The point is that the number of men compared to the number of women involved in leading and fighting is not something you can even come close to comparing. Just because you can find a few examples of this is just idiocy. What are you trying to prove? That there are examples of women leading in battles? Okay, yeah I think we all know that. It doesn't make it any less jarring when you see the number of female warriors/lords in the game rampaging around.

Also, I doubt many of those women were even involved in the strategy involved in battle. I am not saying none were, I am saying the amount is trivial. When I put "led" in quotes that is because it isn't leading just sitting there as a figurehead, sorry to say. That goes for any man doing the same too. Most of the so called female commanders were nothing more than just a symbol. The same would be for a man in a similar situation by the way because obviously some of the male leaders were also symbolic/figureheads

So when playing the game and seeing that at times there are more female commanders than male commanders can be immersion breaking. Not to mention watching thin and tiny looking female lords charging into battle with heavy armor and weapons.

 

[Arconious]

You're responding in a thread where the OP asked for the removal of all female lords, or reducing them -- who was supported by a person blithely saying "history is made by men", and that the goal of the mod should be to give them a proper "female role", maybe demonstrate the "healthy 'sexist' attitudes" from the time. Don't pretend that everyone here is acknowledging women's impact and contributions to history fairly.

This game isn't supposed to be an accurate representation of history, hence why it's using its own world and cultures. It seems plenty reasonable, knowing that women did in fact lead battles in history, that this world could have them doing the same (and more!)

I'm sorry you find it jarring, but I don't think that mentality is shared by everyone. Luckily, you and others offended by women in a fantasy game can mod them out. For every person like you insisting the issue is just about historical accuracy and immersion, there's three others using it as nothing more than a veneer to praise and propagate their own "anti-woke" agenda.

 

[BlackRainZ]

You're responding in a thread where the OP asked for the removal of all female lords, or reducing them -- who was supported by a person blithely saying "history is made by men", and that the goal of the mod should be to give them a proper "female role", maybe demonstrate the "healthy 'sexist' attitudes" from the time. Don't pretend that everyone here is acknowledging women's impact and contributions to history fairly.

This game isn't supposed to be an accurate representation of history, hence why it's using its own world and cultures. It seems plenty reasonable, knowing that women did in fact lead battles in history, that this world could have them doing the same (and more!)

I'm sorry you find it jarring, but I don't think that mentality is shared by everyone. Luckily, you and others offended by women in a fantasy game can mod them out. For every person like you insisting the issue is just about historical accuracy and immersion, there's three others using it as nothing more than a veneer to praise and propagate their own "anti-woke" agenda.

The original poster was asking for a mod which does that and people piled on him to attack him. He was not asking for taleworlds to remove all women from the game. Did you stick up for him at that point in an objective way? No, instead he was attacked. I am fine with you and others having a different opinion, how about you give others the same courtesy? As for people making negative comments about women, I don't agree with any of that. I also don't think it is disrespectful to women because there are those who want there to be less women lords/warriors in the game and are asking for a mod that does it. I am not commenting on any other comments with different agendas or intentions.

 

[Calabanar]

Here is a pointless comment for a pointless thread.

Seriously though, if it bothers you that bad, go in the modding section, ask for guidance and make this mod yourself.

I for one do not really care about the amount of leading women because there is so much more in need of attention that is immersion breaking.

 

[Mad Vader]

The original poster was asking for a mod which does that and people piled on him to attack him. He was not asking for taleworlds to remove all women from the game. Did you stick up for him at that point in an objective way? No, instead he was attacked.

The OP is baiting. Instead of searching and finding a mod (which he did several days after starting the thread - it's the Gender Inequality mod), he chose to start a thread complaining about women. He really wanted to stir up **** and was not genuinely looking for a mod.
The evidence for this is that he started an IDENTICAL thread in December which quickly descended into culture wars and was locked. So what did he expect this time? Exactly.
It took me 5 minutes to find Gender Inequality on my own and I didn't start any threads to bait people. Five minutes.
(The OP also left a sarcastic message in the Feminism thread, so that's another hint at his motivation.)

 

[Remmik]

The OP is baiting.

Again, no one cares what you think. This is silly and I find it immersion-breaking. No one cares how this makes you feel. No one cares if this makes you sad and mad. You are perfectly welcome to stop responding.

the Gender Inequality mod

... is for an older version.

Tell me, was Napoleon just "leading" battles while he sat on his ship

No, because Napoleon actually lead his troops on the battlefield. He was quite active.

 

[BlackRainZ]

The OP is baiting. Instead of searching and finding a mod (which he did several days after starting the thread - it's the Gender Inequality mod), he chose to start a thread complaining about women. He really wanted to stir up **** and was not genuinely looking for a mod.
The evidence for this is that he started an IDENTICAL thread in December which quickly descended into culture wars and was locked. So what did he expect this time? Exactly.
It took me 5 minutes to find Gender Inequality on my own and I didn't start any threads to bait people. Five minutes.
(The OP also left a sarcastic message in the Feminism thread, so that's another hint at his motivation.)

I don't spend that much time on the forum to know all of these things, but I feel like ignoring him might be better if it bothers you that much?

 

[Gandamula]

Hey armchair historian, have you ever thought about why she led their people and they followed? She lost, that is fine but one may think 'you need to have really huge balls to stay your ground against Romans especially in the 1st Century when they steamrolled Europe. Would you like me to find examples of men beheaded by the Romans in the same period? I am sure there will be more of them...

Herman or Arminius

Hey armchair historian, have you ever thought about why she led their people and they followed? She lost, that is fine but one may think 'you need to have really huge balls to stay your ground against Romans especially in the 1st Century when they steamrolled Europe. Would you like me to find examples of men beheaded by the Romans in the same period? I am sure there will be more of them...

Arminius? Varo. Varo. Rendimi le mie legioni.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

alright, that's enough of this derailed nonsense.