Women in Bannerlord

[Cale]

I don't see why, mongols and turks nomads considered women like merchandise to be sold or traded. I don't see the KK beeing very woman friendly.

Mongols, and I assume the culturally similar Turks, treated people in general like merchandise because they were slavers. But they didn't do that **** to their own women. Mongol women had a fairly prominent role when it came to politics -- a smart political marriage wasn't just about her inheritance or strengthening relations between men, it was also supposed to place a mature woman close to a youngish male ruler to keep him from doing dumb ****. They explicitly credit Ghengis Khan's first wife, Borte for giving wise counsel in both intra-Mongol politics and their early conflicts with other steppe confederations. There was also the aspect of the entire society being mobile and acting as a logistics hub when on campaign, with seemingly fewer (pre-Islamization, at leat; I'm not so sure afterwards) prohibitions on women fighting.

^ This, same as I said before. Societies that we consider having more equality between their genders still would do awful things to both men and women of other societies in/after warfare.

As for the mongols, I don't know a lot about them but I read this not long ago and seems relevant:

http://www.rejectedprincesses.com/princesses/khutulun

 

[KhergitLancer80]

Tomris Khatun was probably one of the most important female commanders in history and she was a Scythian and Scythians were the first known steppe empire.

The famous Amazon women in Heredots documents were the women of Eurasia probably the Scythians.

Roman ambassadors say that before meeting Attila they had to take permission of his wife.

Also this might be bull**** but in Xiongnu and Gokturks wife of the king was leading the country while the king was on campaign.

Not to mention Genghis Khan always consulted to his mother and then his wife when taking decisions.

隐藏

''Many of the nomad tribes had sexually egalitarian societies. Some of these tribes had women who rode, hunted, and fought in war as equals of their men. It seems certain that these real-life women gave rise to the ancient Greek legends of the Amazons as recorded by Herodotus and other authors living at that time. Modern archeologists have dug up numerous graves across Eurasia in which a female skeleton had bowed leg bones, attesting to a life on horseback. Archaeologists working in the Ukraine have excavated the graves of large numbers of horse nomad warriors dating to the 4th and 5th Centuries BC. As of this writing, archaeologists have dug up well over a hundred such graves in which a woman was buried with weapons of various kinds and horse riding gear at her side. This number of female graves containing weapons and horse gear works out to be about twenty percent of all graves containing weapons and horse gear. Another statistic from a recent archaeological campaign is that about fifteen percent of all female graves examined contained weapons and horse gear. Scientific analysis of these women's remains shows that a number of them died as young adults, that is, at the appropriate age for military service. To complete the picture, several skeletons of apparent women warriors show obvious evidence of combat wounds such as arrowheads embedded in bones or blows to the skull. It made sense that select women would become warriors in the nomad tribes. The nomads' favorite style of fighting was shooting arrows from the back of a galloping horse—and a healthy, athletic, well-trained woman can shoot a swift arrow from a swift horse every bit as well as a man. No Greek, Roman, or Chinese woman could serve as an equal in an army that preferred to fight on foot, hacking away with a heavy sword or spear and pure brawn. The modern-day remnants of the ancient horse nomad cultures have a few women who ride and bear arms in their local militias.
It would be intellectually responsible to add the caveat that we should not claim too much from the apparent female warrior graves dug up by archaeologists. Interested readers of today are apt to want to conclude that women rode and fought as equals with their men in exotic, easily romanticized cultures of centuries ago. In our era of the wildly successful pop culture icon Xena the Warrior Princess, there is a strong popular need to find the "real" Xena in an ancient Ukrainian tomb mound. Confirmation bias is a problem in an issue such as this. Still—when peer-reviewed archaeologists dig up the graves of women who were buried with horse gear and weapons in precisely that region of the world where the ancient Greek author Herodotus claimed the Amazons lived, a certain amount of credulity is justified. The fact that women in the modern "stan" countries have low social status may perhaps be due to the pernicious influence of Islam, which was a late-arriving outside influence in central Asia.''

 

[Apocal]

The nomads' favorite style of fighting was shooting arrows from the back of a galloping horse—and a healthy, athletic, well-trained woman can shoot a swift arrow from a swift horse every bit as well as a man. No Greek, Roman, or Chinese woman could serve as an equal in an army that preferred to fight on foot, hacking away with a heavy sword or spear and pure brawn. The modern-day remnants of the ancient horse nomad cultures have a few women who ride and bear arms in their local militias.

I don't disagree with you in general, but the bold parts in specific are backwards. It requires more strength (particularly upper-body strength) to draw a bow than to swing a sword well or thrust a spear hard enough to pierce decent armor. I'm not saying archery is all strength -- I know experienced archers, with their understanding of technique, can draw bows with much higher draw weights than nominally stronger individuals -- but you definitely don't go wrong with lots of muscle when it comes to bending sticks.

In comparison, wielding something like a dori (between 1-2 kg) or gladius (0.7-1kg) competently requires far less in terms of raw physical strength. What fighting with melee weapons does highlight is sheer physical size. A five kilogram difference can put someone in a different weight class for wrestling. A ten centimeter difference in reach between otherwise similar weapons is readily noticeable. Something like the difference in height, weight and wingspan between a typical guy and a typical girl would absolutely tilt the scales in the favor of the larger person. There is a relatively modern cultural trend to downplay their impact on performance, but being taller and bulkier than your opponent (obviously paired with basic competence at arms) is hugely advantageous on the battlefield: they can't get close and even if they do, you just throw them around.

 

[KarlXII]

The key difference is that if a woman practices enough, she will be able to use a bow effectively and possibly better than most men (especially with the light bows used by horse archers); whereas in a melee the woman would need to compete directly with men who also spend their time training and at that point strength wins out.

 

[Apocal]

The key difference is that if a woman practices enough, she will be able to use a bow effectively and possibly better than most men (especially with the light bows used by horse archers); whereas in a melee the woman would need to compete directly with men who also spend their time training and at that point strength wins out.

1. The Mongol composite bows weren't that much lighter in terms of draw weight than an English longbow. And they had to be used from horseback, whereas English longbows were used afoot, with the advantages that gives. It may be that Ghulami or Mamlukes used lighter draw weight bows, given that crusaders faced them on one occasion without much more than gambesons (they had been injured in a previous and were unable to put on mail before sallying to fight) and felt adequately protected, but I don't know.

2. I don't disagree with you about the melee portion except to say that size (both height and weight, to be clear) is a bigger deal than strength when you're fighting, assuming a certain basic level of strength of course. I only brought up the relative strengths required in reply to KL's quoted bit about "heavy" melee weapons requiring "pure brawn." Even mauls of the sort used on the battlefield probably didn't weigh much more than 8-10lbs. Spears and swords could be on the long/large side and only make half that much weight, obviously well within the ability of anyone healthy to grab and manipulate.

 

[Innocent Flower]

The key difference is that if a woman practices enough, she will be able to use a bow effectively and possibly better than most men (especially with the light bows used by horse archers); whereas in a melee the woman would need to compete directly with men who also spend their time training and at that point strength wins out.

No you're just being hopeful. More strength and armspan= better range and power, more luxury to aim since you won't be wobbling over the stress so much, a better firerate and stamina in keeping that up.  Now women can go above and beyond the average man in physique, I personally know and have trained with women that are terrifying. one had a bronze medal I'm told. The problem is that men who do the same amount of work will be better. It's easier for them. testosterone's great for muscle development and the general structure of a man just simply has the advantage. 

Shadiversity does a good thing on what weapons women should use. Two handed weapons compensate for the lack of strength, Crossbows are equal opertunity, polarms are for everybody.

Don't get me wrong, peak women are formidable, and I don't think there should be any significant game mechanic that bars a player character or companion from being a murder machine, at high realism the worst you could do is cap power strike/draw at 8 or 9, or maybe create some ugly muscle. But women warriors were very rare. There were few shieldmaidens and Onnabushi were almost entirely defensive. A lot of significant women like Joan of Arc were figureheads that probably didn't actually fight. 

 

[KarlXII]

The key difference is that if a woman practices enough, she will be able to use a bow effectively and possibly better than most men (especially with the light bows used by horse archers); whereas in a melee the woman would need to compete directly with men who also spend their time training and at that point strength wins out.

1. The Mongol composite bows weren't that much lighter in terms of draw weight than an English longbow. And they had to be used from horseback, whereas English longbows were used afoot, with the advantages that gives. It may be that Ghulami or Mamlukes used lighter draw weight bows, given that crusaders faced them on one occasion without much more than gambesons (they had been injured in a previous and were unable to put on mail before sallying to fight) and felt adequately protected, but I don't know.

2. I don't disagree with you about the melee portion except to say that size (both height and weight, to be clear) is a bigger deal than strength when you're fighting, assuming a certain basic level of strength of course. I only brought up the relative strengths required in reply to KL's quoted bit about "heavy" melee weapons requiring "pure brawn." Even mauls of the sort used on the battlefield probably didn't weigh much more than 8-10lbs. Spears and swords could be on the long/large side and only make half that much weight, obviously well within the ability of anyone healthy to grab and manipulate.

I'm pretty sure we already agree. When I said "strength" I was also thinking about relative sizes. A strong man will be considerably larger than a woman. All I am saying is that using a bow has a fixed strength requirement, if you get to it you can use the bow pretty well. In a melee though, the strongest and therefore biggest will always have the advantage, and women can't really keep up in this regard. The weight of the weapons is irrelevant, since they are usually light.

Also, horse archers tried to avoid pitched battles where possible and relied on ambushes and harassment tactics. Which means they would be shooting at unarmored opponents more often than not, which makes it easier for a small fighter to make an impact.

With the crusades, the archers were secondary to the main force and were used to provoke a response (as with most archers in history) Remember, most battles would end in a rout/retreat before even a quarter of the troops had been killed; and archers can be the ones to ensure this happens, through constant harassment.

The key difference is that if a woman practices enough, she will be able to use a bow effectively and possibly better than most men (especially with the light bows used by horse archers); whereas in a melee the woman would need to compete directly with men who also spend their time training and at that point strength wins out.

No you're just being hopeful. More strength and armspan= better range and power, more luxury to aim since you won't be wobbling over the stress so much, a better firerate and stamina in keeping that up.  Now women can go above and beyond the average man in physique, I personally know and have trained with women that are terrifying. one had a bronze medal I'm told. The problem is that men who do the same amount of work will be better. It's easier for them. testosterone's great for muscle development and the general structure of a man just simply has the advantage. 

Shadiversity does a good thing on what weapons women should use. Two handed weapons compensate for the lack of strength, Crossbows are equal opertunity, polarms are for everybody.

Don't get me wrong, peak women are formidable, and I don't think there should be any significant game mechanic that bars a player character or companion from being a murder machine, at high realism the worst you could do is cap power strike/draw at 8 or 9, or maybe create some ugly muscle. But women warriors were very rare. There were few shieldmaidens and Onnabushi were almost entirely defensive. A lot of significant women like Joan of Arc were figureheads that probably didn't actually fight. 

I'm not arguing that. I am saying that women have difficulty in melee because they are in direct competition with men. With a bow, you just need to meet the draw weight and practice your aim. Sure a man with the same level of practice will likely be better (for reasons you stated), but at that point the difference is considerably lesser than if the woman were to try and grapple with a man. In a melee it's win or lose, in archery it's hit or miss. Since horse archers had the luxury of being fast, they could attack unprepared troops and not have to worry about penetrating armor as much.

Also, I disagree about two handed weapons. Longswords for example are longer *gasp* which means the fighter would have more reach. In addition using a weapon with two hands allows more room for maneuvering and grappling (no shield). Such weapons were not used much until plate armor compensated for the lack of shield. (unless you were just really poor and all you had was an axe)

 

[NicoleUK]

I think they should be able to have an option for mixed gendered units Being able to have a few women scattered about the ranks of a celtic-like war party would be so cool!!! 

(just something to consider, would be different from our standard male or female unit!)

 

[Dusk Voyager]

I think they should be able to have an option for mixed gendered units Being able to have a few women scattered about the ranks of a celtic-like war party would be so cool!!! 

(just something to consider, would be different from our standard male or female unit!)

Even if it's not going to be implemented in the vanilla BL (can be a good idea only in very small doses anyway), I guess it will be easy to mod in considering it can already be done ATM. 

 

[NicoleUK]

well heres hoping they will implement it! 

 

[Honved]

Actually, few cultures had women in the fighting ranks.  Women are the bottleneck in expanding the population of your tribe/city/country, so losing a few men would have far less impact on the future of your society.  Most societies protect their women, and risk their men to do so, even if they place women lower on their social ladder.  That's not to say that women didn't fight, but it was the exception, not the norm.

Rome varied widely in its attitudes toward women, ranging from near-equality to practically forgotten and abused, but they were never placed in an equal position.  During times of war when the men were away on campaign, many households were run by women, and women participated in practically all non-military and non-political roles of society at some points.  In other situations, such as when Germanic slaves were in such abundant supply that it was considered almost cheaper to buy new ones than to feed them (Julius Caesar's massive influx of slaves nearly collapsed the economy), Roman women were practically forgotten, and had almost no social or economic impact at all.

Hopefully, the different factions in Bannerlord will exhibit varying degrees of sexism, not cartoon caricature extremes.

 

[NicoleUK]

I think they should be able to have an option for mixed gendered units Being able to have a few women scattered about the ranks of a celtic-like war party would be so cool!!! 

(just something to consider, would be different from our standard male or female unit!)

Even if it's not going to be implemented in the vanilla BL (can be a good idea only in very small doses anyway), I guess it will be easy to mod in considering it can already be done ATM. 

Wish i knew how to understand that link you sent me but if it cant be done with morghs editor i really struggle doing it myself....

 

[NicoleUK]

Actually, few cultures had women in the fighting ranks.  Women are the bottleneck in expanding the population of your tribe/city/country, so losing a few men would have far less impact on the future of your society.  Most societies protect their women, and risk their men to do so, even if they place women lower on their social ladder.  That's not to say that women didn't fight, but it was the exception, not the norm.

Rome varied widely in its attitudes toward women, ranging from near-equality to practically forgotten and abused, but they were never placed in an equal position.  During times of war when the men were away on campaign, many households were run by women, and women participated in practically all non-military and non-political roles of society at some points.  In other situations, such as when Germanic slaves were in such abundant supply that it was considered almost cheaper to buy new ones than to feed them (Julius Caesar's massive influx of slaves nearly collapsed the economy), Roman women were practically forgotten, and had almost no social or economic impact at all.

Hopefully, the different factions in Bannerlord will exhibit varying degrees of sexism, not cartoon caricature extremes.

Well of course it depends on the culture...

but the amount of times roman paraded foreign women warriors through its streets as a show of their victory over them (like they did with gaul women they fought against) shows us that women were involved in battle as warriors. The romans were really shocked when they came to the germanc lands and britain and saw the difference between their roman women and these warrior women. celtic women were taller and bigger than roman women (and from roman accounts there wasnt that much of a difference between the celtic men and women compared to the roman men and women as the roman women were kept hidden away to be 'dainty playthings' for their husbands while celtic women were more equal and were able to ride, hunt, farm the land and lead warbands...).

Even Suetonius said Boudica's army had more women than men among its ranks...

Lets not forget though that the romans DID have female gladiators (yes it was an 'exotic treat' and not a normal spectacle in the arena but there has been quite a few accounts from the time of them).

Again its all about the culture, some cultures (especially the war orientated ones) didnt find it strange for a woman to be a warrior and even expected their women to fight alongside the men in battle (for instance scythian and sarmatian 'amazon' women, who even had to kill a man in battle before they were allowed to marry...)

 

[KarlXII]

It seems to me that the more settled a society becomes, the less it relies on female fighters. Greater prosperity and security would ensure that there are plenty of men to fight without risking the women.

On the other hand, small tribes would often call upon all members to help out in a crisis. Take for example the many Germanic migrations that Rome defeated. These consisted of the entire tribe on the move, and as such there would have been many women involved in the fighting. Boudicca is another take on the same phenomenon.

If we take the Scythians though, we can see that women regularly accompanied the men on raids, albeit as a minority. This could be due to harsh living conditions on the steppe, where all available members would be required in order to guarantee success of a task. Also, I imagine they could have had a fairly lawless society and as such the women were actually safer when accompanying their husbands/family than if they were left in a camp.

It is interesting to note that women today are less inclined to join the army than men. Which leads me to conclude that only a minority of women would have wanted to join a warband/army in the past anyway. In fact, when the US was deciding to give women the right to vote, most women refused it because it meant being open to be drafted. It was only when the draft was removed as part of that "package" that women supported suffrage.

 

[NicoleUK]

so your saying because it didnt happen often it shouldnt be represented in video games?

funny how historical accuracy is one of the main reasons people say they dont want more women in warband but they have no problem with a peasant being able to upgrade to a knight in a month 

anyways like youv just admitted they did exist so....

 

[Cale]

It seems to me that the more settled a society becomes, the less it relies on female fighters. Greater prosperity and security would ensure that there are plenty of men to fight without risking the women.

...

It is interesting to note that women today are less inclined to join the army than men. Which leads me to conclude that only a minority of women would have wanted to join a warband/army in the past anyway. In fact, when the US was deciding to give women the right to vote, most women refused it because it meant being open to be drafted. It was only when the draft was removed as part of that "package" that women supported suffrage.

I think your first point is probably valid, in so far as larger civilisations all seem to have gone this route when they go beyond tribal structures. On the other hand, your later point is basically a false equivalency as women today have a whole range of factors (societal pressure, toxic environment and lack of opportunity for promotion) discouraging enlistment. Many western countries are seeing a steady growth in female soldiers and are actively recruiting for more.

 

[Honved]

Modern warfare is becoming increasingly reliant on technology and machinery to do what used to be done with muscle power and a heavy piece of iron.  That means, the forces which made men superior in melee combat are far less applicable.  In an age where overpopulation is a thing, protecting women in order to insure enough children for the next generation is also less important for a society.  Basically, the forces which acted in the past to keep women from combat in most developed cultures no longer apply, or at least have been minimized.

The bottom line is, women DID participate in battle in many, if not most cultures, but they were VERY rarely numerous.  They probably SHOULD be represented in the game, but not in equal numbers in all but possibly one culture, and perhaps not at all in one of the others.

 

[Sir Mordred]

In fact, when the US was deciding to give women the right to vote, most women refused it because it meant being open to be drafted. It was only when the draft was removed as part of that "package" that women supported suffrage.

I realize we are moving into off-topic land, but do you have sources for that?

 

[Do not look here]

The debate aside, the newest blogthread shed some light on the topic of women in Bannerlord:

One player asked if there will be more female troops than in Warband. We aren't adding new regular troop types. There were a few pre-modern societies in which women were part of the regularly fielded armies, but these aren't the ones on which the Bannerlord factions are modeled. Rather, we treat women warriors as exceptional individuals. So. in Bannerlord you will find more female rulers, nobles, merchants, gang leaders, preachers, outlaws and adventurers. There are ample historical examples of women playing all of these roles, in many different cultures and times. We're writing the dialogs under the assumption that basically anyone in a leadership or NPC role in the game can be either male or female.

 

[NicoleUK]

The debate aside, the newest blogthread shed some light on the topic of women in Bannerlord:

One player asked if there will be more female troops than in Warband. We aren't adding new regular troop types. There were a few pre-modern societies in which women were part of the regularly fielded armies, but these aren't the ones on which the Bannerlord factions are modeled. Rather, we treat women warriors as exceptional individuals. So. in Bannerlord you will find more female rulers, nobles, merchants, gang leaders, preachers, outlaws and adventurers. There are ample historical examples of women playing all of these roles, in many different cultures and times. We're writing the dialogs under the assumption that basically anyone in a leadership or NPC role in the game can be either male or female.

This sounds really cool! Cant wait to see what they are doing with it...