SP - General Fewer Female Lords in Battles

[Teutonic_Tirade]

So I think that the number of female lords running around in battle is too high at the moment. It seems like 75% of the time I run into a battle it is a 20 something or even a teenager and it isn't very immersive. I know that Bannerlord isn't historically based on anything, this isn't coming from a place of sexism but of immersion and realism. This experience was noticed most of all in latest playthrough where I was playing as the Aserai and faced the southern Empire. In one massive battle which was most of our lords, the SE had about 6-7 female lords, three of which all died.

I kind of felt bad because basically SE was forced into making their daughters and wives face an immense opposing force and even on the Aserai side there were a few female lords who died in the war. Historically and realistically, it is a tragedy when we force our wives, sisters and daughters to fight and risk their lives.

There really isn't an issue with there being female lords fighting, there's just far too many of them. It makes more sense for a single female to maybe lead an army but once they are married it doesn't make sense, who's raising the children?

It could be trait based who goes into battle and who doesn't. Naturally, you would want yourself if you're playing a female lord to have this trait and it makes sense for ruler's such as Rhaegea and her daughter Ira to have. This trait should be far less common among married women and perhaps only obtained by chance when forced into battle.

Just a thought I had about it. I think this really needs discussed further as it makes sense to me. What do you think?

 

[svelok]

this isn't coming from a place of sexism but

realistically, it is a tragedy when we force our wives, sisters and daughters to fight

?

 

[Mad Vader]

Another thread dedicated to women. You have problems people.

 

[Lusitani 5th Empire]

Another thread dedicated to women. You have problems people.

But it's true, there should be less woman as lords and as fighters. It would be cool to have a specialized troop consisting of only human though.
Woman were not fited for war and still aren't, only fine woman specimens are good enough for the job.

 

[Emax]

Another thread dedicated to women. You have problems people.

This is a kneejerk SJW response.

Yea, lets just INSULT people instead of considering... "hey, you know what, perhaps there is some validity to their argument."

Its simple really. This isn't a high fantasy game with wizards and orcs and fire dragons and bikini armor. Mount and blade prides itself on being based in a certain degree of reality, and the reality of the environment being portrayed is that women would be kept off of the battlefield so that they could produce and raise heirs instead of getting slaughtered by dudes twice their size.

Not sure how much actual combat you have experienced in your lifetime but there are a couple of objective truths when it comes to women and physical conflict:
1 - They are at a severe disadvantage in physical combat compared to men. Testosterone, muscle mass, bone density, aggressiveness... all very real things. Contrary to what you see on TV, women cannot compete with men pound for pound in just about anything physical where bodies are pitted against each other... and keep that in mind when you consider that most men are going to have a weight advantage on top of that. Thats why you dont see mixed gender MMA fights... it would be a slaughter.

I'm reminded of a video I saw where they took this top tier female bodybuilder.... looked all ripped and buffed... then just grabbed some random dudes off the street, some of whom looked like beanpoles, to arm wrestle her.

She lost to every single one.

2 - Their biology causes them to go through a monthly process which, lets just say, is going to incapacitate them for a couple of days. It would be impossible to maintain an army working around these individual schedules.

3 - Their biology also makes them extremely valuable when it comes to the baby making equation. In hard times of war and struggle, the ability to produce offspring is paramount. You're not going to risk that by letting your baby-bearers wander off onto a battlefield.

4 - Their biology also makes them a very desirable object to capture. Indeed, read old historical or religious texts and you will understand that armies would literally invade peoples JUST to have at their women. Wars were (and still are in some places) fought by conquering the wombs of your enemies. You don't even have to go very far back in history to see this. Why would you want them out on the battlefield to be more easily captured... and suffer a fate worse than death?

Also, war sucks. Getting stabbed/bludgeoned/shot/exploded sucks. People arguing for a womans right to fight in an army have probably never seen any combat or consulted with a woman on the matter. I bet if given the CHOICE, the majority will say "hmmmm stay in the castle and cook, or die in a hail of arrows....... show me to the kitchen please!" (and given the choice, most men would agree as well!)

Sheltering women from war is not some sort of patriarchal oppression.... it is a gift and a privilege to be spared from combat, which men used to understand the value of, to the point of laying down their own lives so that their women would be spared.

I hate living in a world where people have to try to explain this to other people......

 

[Mad Vader]

It's you that have a problem when you get all worked up over a non-issue, not your imaginary SJWs that somehow ruined your life.

 

[Emax]

It's you that have a problem when you get all worked up over a non-issue, not your imaginary SJWs that somehow ruined your life.

Don't gaslight me bro. If you have nothing of value to say just move along and let the grown ups talk it out.

 

[Mad Vader]

Don't gaslight me bro. If you have nothing of value to say just move along and let the grown ups talk it out.

The grown ups are not bothered by non-issues like these. Get over it.

 

[Tryvenyal]

I love having female fighters on the battlefield.

Though ANY lord or lady fighting on field should have somewhat proper gear and combat-knowledge.

Also, war sucks. Getting stabbed/bludgeoned/shot/exploded sucks. People arguing for a womans right to fight in an army have probably never seen any combat or consulted with a woman on the matter. I bet if given the CHOICE, the majority will say "hmmmm stay in the castle and cook, or die in a hail of arrows....... show me to the kitchen please!" (and given the choice, most men would agree as well!)

War sucks. Protect the women from that.
Politics sucks. Protect the women from that.
Own choice sucks. Protect the women from that.
Any other way to opres... ehm.. protect them?

It's really a gift for women to never be where decisions regarding their lifes are taken - so be it battlefields or voting-urns. Protecting them from beeing involved is a real gift. Really...

Or?

 

[Poddicus]

Can we just have a faction of amazon female characters that hadouken one shot perma-kill everyone they come into contact with
Make sure to give them anime armour

 

[Grank]

War sucks. Protect the women from that.
Politics sucks. Protect the women from that.
Own choice sucks. Protect the women from that.
Any other way to opres... ehm.. protect them?

It's really a gift for women to never be where decisions regarding their lifes are taken - so be it battlefields or voting-urns. Protecting them from beeing involved is a real gift. Really...

Or?

Have you considered that maybe, out of billions men who have lived and fought throughout history, some of them fought to keep the women they loved safe? That maybe, out of billions of women who have lived and been protected from having to do the fighting, some of them appreciated and preferred it? Are men who fought to protect their loved ones sexist? Are women who like being protected by a gentlemen stupid sheeples?

"Well then they should've let women march with their husbands to war!"
Then who would take care of the house and the children?
"Then have the couple talk it out on who to send!"
They didn't have to. It's not practical for women to go to war. Do you want an army to be slowed down just because 30% of the female division are menstruating?

You people always go to the logical extremes when it comes to these things. It's ridiculous. There's no such thing as unrestrained freedom. People need to draw the line somewhere. Oftentimes, people have to make decisions for other people. Even right now people are making decisions that affect your lives without consulting you, and you're happy to not having to waste time voting for every single damn thing in your country.

You have a baby yet? Then don't feed it. It hasn't asked for it. Bloody blind hypocrites...

 

[Tryvenyal]

Even right now people are making decisions that affect your lives without consulting you, and you're happy to not having to waste time voting for every single damn thing in your country.

Thats why most democratic countries has reprecentative democracy, where we vote once every x(3-5 normally) year for who to rule us. Of course we can't vote in every single question. Nobody has asked for that. But deciding who to rule is goodamn far much better than having a king or dictator rule you, isn't it....

In my country we work hard with gender equality. Our armed forces are prioritating recuiting women. I have familly, I have 2 children. A daughter, 6 years old. I delight in the thought that she will grow up as a free individual with the same options as her brother. Her school teaches her to be equal and stand up to it. There are no "boy-corner" with supermen action figures and "girl-corner" with barbiedolls but they are taught to play together with the same tools.
She will never become anybody´s property. She will never be opressed or told what to think and like.

Tell me I´m a hypocrat.

Do you want an army to be slowed down just because 30% of the female division are menstruating?

To the subject... I defend having female LEADERS in Bannerlord. I don't want less of them.

 

[vota dc]

There are too many female leaders compared to female soldier! Where real men would put spoiled mothers in law, daughters that refuse to wed, werewives with period? In the front line as common soldier of course!
They should add female soldiers for immersion sake rather than removing female leaders!

 

[Grank]

To the subject... Who has asked for female soldiers in Bannerlord? I thought we talked about female LEADERS!

You were replying (sarcastically if I may point out) to a post which said that women wouldn't want to go to war because it's dangerous, and that they were sheltered from being conscripted as soldiers, which is right. It's not all oppression. Women were lucky on that part. I know the freedom narrative roots deeply in western history, particularly the US, but holy crap dude take that hat off for a minute. Humanity in the past was not all tyranny, stupidity and evil.

And fine let's talk about women leaders. Why did noble women rarely leader armies? Again, biology. Menstruation and pregnancy played a big part. People didn't want to take the risk in something as dangerous as war. Another thing that extends from biology is a woman's nature as the motherly figure for children. Children tend to be more attached to the human being who nursed them. Breast milk and all those motherly instincts. That's why they mostly stayed home. Is this oppression? Hell no. Noble women had power. They managed their noble household, and that's a huge deal. Women have destroyed dynasties with that power plenty of times throughout history. Power is not only about fighting.

Sure your country is prioritizing recruiting women (so much for gender equality, prioritizing one over the other), but it's only because it has the luxury to. Most modern military bodies have the luxury to hire recruits instead of having to conscript them. We people of the modern era have the luxury to think about all these moral high grounds, and honestly I agree with lots of those modern values, but you should know about historical context. People back then lived in different situations and limitations, and we shouldn't press our values onto them.

Women didn't fight in battles and led armies because of reasons. Some people will find this lack of historical authenticity jarring, and it's fair for them to think so.

Just as a side note, if in the future my son wants to participate in a fight of life and death, I'll stop him. Beat him up if I have to. Not all decisions should be allowed, especially stupid ones.

 

[Tryvenyal]

You were replying (sarcastically if I may point out) to a post which said that women wouldn't want to go to war because it's dangerous, and that they were sheltered from being conscripted as soldiers, which is right. It's not all oppression.

I was highlighting the term "protect" and comparing it to "opress". And I was highlighting female absence from halls(and fields) of power in the history. Saying one is opression and not others does not make sense.

This is a sidestep from topic. The thin line between protecting and opressing.

I´m not from US so I prefer not commenting on them.

(so much for gender equality, prioritizing one over the other)

How to equalize A and B without adding more of what is lacking?

Just as a side note, if in the future my son wants to participate in a fight of life and death, I'll stop him. Beat him up if I have to. Not all decisions should be allowed, especially stupid ones.

Yes, sure. Your children is your responsibility. Even if they are grown-ups, they are forever your children. Its your duty to lead, guide and oppress then(intentially switching from "protect"). But the same is NOT true for your father, brother, neightbour or wife. They are adult, they are equal, they are free.

 

[Grank]

I was highlighting the term "protect" and comparing it to "opress". And I was highlighting female absence from halls(and fields) of power in the history. Saying one is opression and not others does not make sense.

This is a sidestep from topic. The thin line between protecting and opressing.

Women weren't absent from positions of power. I've explained a form of power noble women had in the past, which also extended to women of lower classes in lower households. Power is not just about fighting.

The word oppression, by definition, has a really negative connotation. It's usually done deliberately due to an evil intention. For example, bad treatments of colonialized native people. I wouldn't throw such word around so lightly. The reason I've been debating this, is because the decision to exclude women from fighting is not a definitive case of oppression. There are many legitimate reasons, and mostly natural (biology). That's why the pattern emerged in various societies even before they had the contact to spread any idea of oppressing women. I'm not saying women were never oppressed from wanting to fight. It definitely happened, but it was not the default state of affair.

Yes, sure. Your children is your responsibility. Even if they are grown-ups, they are forever your children. Its your duty to lead, guide and oppress then(intentially switching from "protect"). But the same is NOT true for your father, brother, neightbour or wife. They are adult, they are equal, they are free.

The same principle applies to leadership. Hierarchy is needed for authority to work, and hierarchy is also something that evolved naturally. It can even be observed in animals. Without "being above" those you lead, you won't be able to inspire respect. Without respect, you will need the help of violence to exercise authority, and that's not ideal. I've personally seen enough leaders fail to know this by heart.

You're not an evil oppressor if you forbid your children from eating glue. Relax, and protect your children. You know it's just love.

 

[Mad Vader]

The word oppression, by definition, has a really negative connotation. It's usually done deliberately due to an evil intention.

No, oppression doesn't need to be deliberately planned to exist. It's a pretty natural way to control someone by force or threat of force. Even animals do it and they are not evil!

The same principle applies to leadership. Hierarchy is needed for authority to work, and hierarchy is also something that evolved naturally. It can even be observed in animals. Without "being above" those you lead, you won't be able to inspire respect. Without respect, you will need the help of violence to exercise authority, and that's not ideal. I've personally seen enough leaders fail to know this by heart.

I'm also always forced to use violence when people don't respect me enough to listen to me. Wait, wrong century.
Leadership (in civilized settings that are not like your experience at all) is accomplished by leading by example and communicating a convincing vision. Not by threats or superior genes or gender or whatever.

 

[murtega]

...and 200 hundred years later Harlaus won't give me a fief because he never heard women leading war parties. Keep them on the field!

 

[Grank]

No, oppression doesn't need to be deliberately planned to exist. It's a pretty natural way to control someone by force or threat of force. Even animals do it and they are not evil!

I said usually, didn't I? Notice how I don't talk and think in absolutes like you do. The world is vast. Making extreme all-covering statements would be irresponsible.

I'm also always forced to use violence when people don't respect me enough to listen to me. Wait, wrong century.
Leadership (in civilized settings that are not like your experience at all) is accomplished by leading by example and communicating a convincing vision. Not by threats or superior genes or gender or whatever.

Yes, leadership is accomplished by inspiring something to those who follow you. That's why a leader needs to be above their followers. A leader needs to be smarter, stronger, more dedicated, kinder, richer, or anything similar. It can be a singular trait or a combination of some. A leader who's "equals" with his followers won't be respected. A leader needs something more. Otherwise people won't obey the leader. Why would they obey someone they think inferior than they are? "Who the hell is this guy?" they would ask themselves. Why do you think leaders tend to be senior employees in professional settings?

And again, what I said is that if a leader fails to inspire respect in such a way, they will use violence to exert authority. They will scream to intimidate. They will insult to break spirits. They will commit evil to be feared. You know, just like what you often do. Insulting people to make yourself look clever.

 

[Tryvenyal]

I said usually, didn't I? Notice how I don't talk and think in absolutes like you do. The world is vast. Making extreme all-covering statements would be irresponsible.

And this is exactly what I am after. The type of oppression we seem to inherit and exersice without beeing aware of it. The type of oppression we exersice because we believe we are superior to someone else because of gender, etnicity, age or basically anything you can think of. We think in terms of "protection" in some of the cases but the outcome is the same. It´s racism, sexism, discimination or outright oppression.