Females of Bannerlord

[hruza]

Sex power - why women were different and men were expendable

 

[elcapo29]

I think the game is perfectly set up to potentially make everybody happy when it comes to any of the concerns regarding women and their role in the game's society.

There exists a law system that should be able to perfectly handle all sorts of possibilities.

The entire empire that broke into three distinct factions is itself related to disputed inheritance. It can literally be presented in raw gameplay terms. In the Southern Empire, women should be able to lead and to inherit. But then perhaps in the North and the West they cannot.
Same with perhaps Battania allowing and Vlandia disallowing, for example.
And if it ties in with the other system of laws then you've complete modularity. A female player character can maybe gain enough influence to **** with the laws restricting women and use that to manipulate herself into a position of power where she originally wouldn't be allowed to. Or alternatively if one feels so inclined they can perhaps boot women out of power in the Southern Empire. If a player only has daughters instead of sons then that's a compelling reason to endeavor to change laws in your heir's favor. Or that could be too hard so maybe you desperately want a son instead.

If the kingdom laws system doesn't end up including this sort of stuff I very much hope that mods are able to step up to the challenge.
It makes the world feel more interesting and diverse and most importantly, malleable in the player's hands. And I think it best represents the one universal historical truth on the subject. As with all history, there were exceptions and there were exceptions for reasons.
Regardless of whether a woman was allowed to lead or not, some did end up leading. This was sometimes positive and sometimes negative. Sometimes they had to fight cultural prejudice and sometimes they didn't. For all of these options to have the possibility to naturally occur within the game would really be a great addition.

Well said, I think we all want Bannerlord to have more depth than Warband. Tension between sexes has always exsisted to some degree, and to make all the AI lords male would leave out some potential drama, intrigue, etc.. that I think could make for some interesting scenarios.

The OP is bothered by progressive politics but these politics have always exsisted in one form or another.

Sexism has always existed too so it would make sense that some Lords would be sexist while others would not.

Eg. Notable female npc that feels she is capable of becoming a Lord and asks for the players help.
Female lord asks female player to join retinue because she sees potential/ wants to help her overcome obstacles.

Vlandian Lord asks you to assasinate female lord because he feels threatened or annoyed by her.

In warband female companions would encourage female players to take a fief by force if the male monarchs refused to offer her vassalage.

Some of the claimants in Warband are females as well. So we already had some examples in the previous game.

I'll leave the male to female ratio up to the devs. As a modder Ill be able to change it but I doubt I'll have to. I believe we will see an 80-20 or a 90-10 doesnt much matter though.

 

[VVyrd]

Personally I just want to be treated realistically when playing female.

So I can cut the head of the bastard who had just mocked me for being a woman before battle.

Those who don't like female leaders cause muh realism, I won't even bother posting the extensive list of historical famous figures. Just learn C# and mod the game to your wicked desires, leave the rest in peace.

 

[hruza]

Those who don't like female leaders cause muh realism, I won't even bother posting the extensive list of historical famous figures. Just learn C# and mod the game to your wicked desires, leave the rest in peace.

There's the difference between "famous figure" and two handed axe wielding anorectic model hacking spec ops soldiers left and right nonsense as been increasingly pushed in to popular culture, including historical inspired films and games.

People who don't want modern post-feminist agenda in the MB have valid point.

 

[julesthespoonhand]

We definitely need a coffee time mod for Bannerlord

I'm going to be very sad if we don't get dickplomacy for bannerlord

 

[VVyrd]

There's the difference between "famous figure" and two handed axe wielding anorectic model hacking spec ops soldiers left and right nonsense as been increasingly pushed in to popular culture, including historical inspired films and games.

People who don't want modern post-feminist agenda in the MB have valid point.

Except the only female leader in the game we know of is, precisely, very much alike the historical figures; a widow leading the faction until the rightful heir is old enough to inherit. Nothing like what you described.

 

[hruza]

Except the only female leader in the game we know of is, precisely, very much alike the historical figures; a widow leading the faction until the rightful heir is old enough to inherit. Nothing like what you described.

There are several female lords and female NPCs, that all can take part in battles as combatants and there is rumor of female troops.

Did female leaders exist in history? Yes. Were they common? No. Moreover when they existed they usually did so on behalf of males or in the absence of legitimate male leader. And most importantly they seldom, took active role in combat. Even in rare cases that women led armies, they usually did not actually fought on the battlefield. Evidence about women taking active role in battles is sketchy at best.

We have been discussing this issue on the old forum before and all the examples people brought were either semi-legendary, that is there is no evidence that those events, and sometimes women themselves were real or examples cited were not from battles ...like women participating in a bar fights or throwing roof tiles on enemies from windows in sieges.

There are very good reasons for women not to take part in fighting as a soldiers. Some of them are physiological -women been much weaker physically on average compared to men, which makes them ineffective soldiers and socio-economical -women were strategic object of protection in war, because they can produce the most important war resource: soldiers. It makes no sense to protect women using women. It's much more effective to protect women using soldiers they produce: men. As said in the video I have posted before -men are expendable, women are not. Using women in battle makes sense only when everything else have failed and you are facing extermination, like when enemy is basically attacking your home and there are few or no men left to defend it.

And then there is division of labor of course. You are better off as a society if individual members specialize in their tasks, rather then everybody doing everything. And since men are better soldiers on average, it makes sense to specialize them for combat and let women do the cooking.

 

[elcapo29]

There are several female lords and female NPCs, that all can take part in battles as combatants and there is rumor of female troops.

Did female leaders exist in history? Yes. Were they common? No. Moreover when they existed they usually did so on behalf of males or in the absence of legitimate male leader. And most importantly they seldom, took active role in combat. Even in rare cases that women led armies, they usually did not actually fought on the battlefield. Evidence about women taking active role in battles is sketchy at best.

We have been discussing this issue on the old forum before and all the examples people brought were either semi-legendary, that is there is no evidence that those events, and sometimes women themselves were real or examples cited were not from battles ...like women participating in a bar fights or throwing roof tiles on enemies from windows in sieges.

There are very good reasons for women not to take part in fighting as a soldiers. Some of them are physiological -women been much weaker physically on average compared to men, which makes them ineffective soldiers and socio-economical -women were strategic object of protection in war, because they can produce the most important war resource: soldiers. It makes no sense to protect women using women. It's much more effective to protect women using soldiers they produce: men. As said in the video I have posted before -men are expendable, women are not. Using women in battle makes sense only when everything else have failed and you are facing extermination, like when enemy is basically attacking your home and there are few or no men left to defend it.

The women warriors would not have been average women. Look at female track stars/athletes. Their times may not beat their male counterparts but they sure beat 99% of the population including males. The female elite are built like men. Broad shoulders, long legs, they would have been just fine in combat, but yes not near as common.

Resources particularly food was a large population limiting factor. Also fatalities in war were not like Warband. Men were not dropping left and right in constant warfare, compromise was much much more common than battle, and most battles had few casualties.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

post-feminist

"This isn't even my final form"
- Judith Butler

two handed axe wielding anorectic model hacking spec ops soldiers left and right nonsense

Most male protagonists in video games are the same thing, and they are accepted as normal. The player character in warband for example is a deathless genocidal terminator. The archetypical vidya game protag is a guy called "Mason" who is so over-the-top ultramasculine that it's like something out of a gay porno mixed with anime. In a game with characters as insane as this I really can't understand why replacing them with a woman is so offensive.

The female elite are built like men Atheletes. Broad shoulders, long legs, they would have been just fine in combat, but yes not near as common.

Fixed. Most men, even ones who would have fought in medieval battles, are not built like that. A guy on an agrarian diet in the age before the gym craze is not going to have big muscles.

 

[Younes]

No one is asking for a 50/50 split. Women can be present in the game, even if its a very small amount of commanders. As long as they're there its fine

 

[hruza]

The women warriors would not have been average women. Look at female track stars/athletes. Their times may not beat their male counterparts but they sure beat 99% of the population including males. The female elite are built like men. Broad shoulders, long legs, they would have been just fine in combat, but yes not near as common.

That's irrelevant point, because those female athletes make 0.0000001% of the female population. They still are nothing more then exception. And they still are weaker at the end then male athletes that make 0.0000001% of the male population.

Imagine that men and women soccer leagues are merged. How many female players would you see in the Champions League? Probably not that many ...if any at all.

 

[Kernowek]

Did female leaders exist in history? Yes. Were they common? No. Moreover when they existed they usually did so on behalf of males or in the absence of legitimate male leader. And most importantly they seldom, took active role in combat. Even in rare cases that women led armies, they usually did not actually fought on the battlefield. Evidence about women taking active role in battles is sketchy at best.

Most leaders didn't fight in the frontline chief regardless of their tackle, as much as their own ballads and stories of bravery (often written by people who weren't present) may tell you directing the flow of troops into a fight is more important than personally hitting things with your sword. Most leaders who died in battle were leading the reserves not the vanguard.

As for never taking part Joan d'arc is a prime example to the contrary - she wasn't a trained general (obviously) but she'd carry the banner which would rally and inspire the French army to/around her. Meaning it and she must be as visible as possible, there's very little recorded stories of her battering some poor English levy with a mace but she must've seeing as she was captured fighting a rear-guard action.

 

[elcapo29]

"This isn't even my final form"
- Judith Butler



Most male protagonists in video games are the same thing, and they are accepted as normal. The player character in warband for example is a deathless genocidal terminator. The archetypical vidya game protag is a guy called "Mason" who is so over-the-top ultramasculine that it's like something out of a gay porno mixed with anime. In a game with characters as insane as this I really can't understand why replacing them with a woman is so offensive.



Fixed. Most men, even ones who would have fought in medieval battles, are not built like that. A guy on an agrarian diet in the age before the gym craze is not going to have big muscles.

I'm not refering to big ol muscles just speed/strength sufficient to fight well enough to be in the ranks. Which they would have had even without modern training.

 

[elcapo29]

That's irrelevant point, because those female athletes make 0.0000001% of the female population. They still are nothing more then exception. And they still are weaker at the end then male athletes that make 0.0000001% of the male population.

Imagine that men and women soccer leagues are merged. How many female players would you see in the Champions League? Probably not that many ...if any at all.

I'm not refering to big ol muscles just speed/strength sufficient to fight well enough to be in the ranks. Which they would have had even without modern training.

It is a valid point because they exsist. Im not talking about a 50/50 not even a 90/10. Just inclusion for variety, RP and drama.

 

[hruza]

Most male protagonists in video games are the same thing, and they are accepted as normal.

Not true. Male protagonists that throw spec ops soldiers around are portrayed as exceptionally strong and or fit, not as thin ass metrosexuals. There's clear cognitive resonance in the way post-modern feminism portraits women -they have to be handsome, which requires subtle body features, which is contrary to strength requirement to throw spec ops soldiers around ...resulting picture is exceptionally lame. Yet it's been relentlessly hammered in to the heads of children growing on this stuff. What that will do with the society is yet to be determined, but it won't be something nice.

The player character in warband for example is a deathless genocidal terminator. The archetypical vidya game protag is a guy called "Mason" who is so over-the-top ultramasculine that it's like something out of a gay porno mixed with anime. In a game with characters as insane as this I really can't understand why replacing them with a woman is so offensive.

Because woman he is been replaced with is 40kg teenage model and not 120kg mama with the face of jungle gorilla and hands size of a bucket from carrying beer glasses in the downtown Irish pub. That's why it's offensive.

 

[elcapo29]

Not true. Male protagonists that throw spec ops soldiers around are portrayed as exceptionally strong and or fit, not as thin ass metrosexuals. There's clear cognitive resonance in the way post-modern feminism portraits women -they have to be handsome, which requires subtle body features, which is contrary to strength requirement to throw spec ops soldiers around ...resulting picture is exceptionally lame. Yet it's been relentlessly hammered in to the heads of children growing on this stuff. What that will do with the society is yet to be determined, but it won't be something nice.



Because woman he is been replaced with is 40kg teenage model and not 120kg mama with the face of jungle gorilla and hands size of a bucket from carrying beer glasses in the downtown Irish pub. That's why it's offensive.

Lol I have to agree with the whole 40kg chic slaughtering 20 'highly trained men' as over the top. But Hollywood and the masses love that crap.

I personally like shows where the protaginist struggles and needs help from others to accomplish their goals, and when they fight they sometimes actually lose/almost lose. Sadly these types of movies don't really exsist in the blockbuster genre.

 

[vota dc]

I'm not refering to big ol muscles just speed/strength sufficient to fight well enough to be in the ranks. Which they would have had even without modern training.

They need to put some minimum height for both men and women in infantry ranks. Archers and cavalry can be short.

 

[Androme1]

There are several female lords and female NPCs, that all can take part in battles as combatants and there is rumor of female troops.

Did female leaders exist in history? Yes. Were they common? No. Moreover when they existed they usually did so on behalf of males or in the absence of legitimate male leader. And most importantly they seldom, took active role in combat. Even in rare cases that women led armies, they usually did not actually fought on the battlefield. Evidence about women taking active role in battles is sketchy at best.

We have been discussing this issue on the old forum before and all the examples people brought were either semi-legendary, that is there is no evidence that those events, and sometimes women themselves were real or examples cited were not from battles ...like women participating in a bar fights or throwing roof tiles on enemies from windows in sieges.

There are very good reasons for women not to take part in fighting as a soldiers. Some of them are physiological -women been much weaker physically on average compared to men, which makes them ineffective soldiers and socio-economical -women were strategic object of protection in war, because they can produce the most important war resource: soldiers. It makes no sense to protect women using women. It's much more effective to protect women using soldiers they produce: men. As said in the video I have posted before -men are expendable, women are not. Using women in battle makes sense only when everything else have failed and you are facing extermination, like when enemy is basically attacking your home and there are few or no men left to defend it.

And then there is division of labor of course. You are better off as a society if individual members specialize in their tasks, rather then everybody doing everything. And since men are better soldiers on average, it makes sense to specialize them for combat and let women do the cooking.

This is a very good post that in excruciating detail explains the topic at hand.

I'm not sure at what point I figured out not to argue with people on the internet, I guess that was when the realization sunk in that most people are simply too uninterested to deep dive into some amateur research such as what you've clearly done as can be seen in your post. This gives us insight into things we later take for granted, but which for 99% of the population are facts that are completely alien to them.

What I'm trying to say is; good post, but don't waste your breath, I highly doubt you'll get praise for it around the internet.

 

[Timmortal]

You dont need to be overly strong in a fight with spears, thats what the weapons are for, they are force multipliers, you dont need to be that strong to wield them. A sword is light, not heavy at all, but it was still not the most used weapon on the field, spears were, you dont need strengt to use one. Yes less women fought in wars back in the day, but it did happen, among Vikings (the most badass warriors of the time) Scythians and others. There are even documented trial combats of women against men, though the women were often given advantages in those. Back in the day, not every man could actually fight either, it was a very very small percentage, Warband is not very realistic when it has a minor warband running about with 10-30 men in plate armor and 50 fully stocked archers, stuff like that was WILDLY expensive, only landed lords or sponsored knights could afford such things. When wars where big or needed to be big, peasent milita was often called in, these men were not trained fighers on the level of knigts/regulars. Standing armies in general were not that big. When you complain about the realism om women in combat and then say its not sexism, it seems like sexism because Theres so much other realism that you dont complain about. Like the hundreds upon hundreds of troops whose first or second weapon is the sword, when it most certainly would not have been, the sword was an expensive side weapon. The percentage of armored horses in the field is also not realistic. Theres so many other realism issues you could complain about, but when you go straigt at the female one and say words like post modern feminism ect. it does not make your case better.

 

[Oxtocoatl]

Oh God, not this again. This conversation has been had too many times.
1. Noble women in the middle ages sometimes achieved tangible political power, often initially by being widowed and becoming a regent, kind of like the ruling empress of the southern empire in the game. Sometimes they inherited power by the wish of their parents, like empress Matilda, who was chosen to be the heir to England after her younger brother drowned.
2. Since political and military power were intimately linked in the middle ages, these women sometimes also led armies. There is little evidence that they actively hacked people into bits, but that's not the commander's job, regardless of gender. Hacking people into bits is a job best left for professionals and poor people. Commanders are there to command.
3. People keep strawmanning conversations about female commanders and claiming that someone is demanding a 50/50 gender split among the rank and file or something similar, when I've never seen anyone demand that on the forums. We have no confirmation of female units at all in the game.
4. People keep bringing up stuff that is completely irrelevant to the topic of women historically leading armies sometimes, like theories of why men evolved to be stronger on average, or how Hollywood wants to cynically make some money with bad*** women but is unable to let go of it's own, unhealthy beauty standard for lead actresses, which does lead to comical results sometimes. I'll just reiterate here that it's not feminists who insist on casting Victoria's Secret models as warrior women, it's cynical Hollywood business people. Feminists tend to support body diversity where they see it and cheer characters like Brienne of Tarth.

Also neither of those things disproofs the existence of women in positions of power and military leadership in the high middle ages in any way at all. It and the high tension between what is thought ideal behavior for the genders and the more complex reality are real facets of medieval life that would make the game more enjoyable for more people. If you want your absolute sausage fest, it can't be hard for you to mod, but I can't help but think and hope that most of this paranoia about female commanders will dissipate once the game releases with it's fair share of manly men with big axes and people will see that some female NPC:s sprinkled on top doesn't actually ruin a game after all.