Gender Roles - Female Warriors/Defenders

[louis.mervoyer]

Hi @NeanderthalMan and @lotus253
It been a long time since I came to the AC forum (too much work in the past few months). And I notice that this topics is still hot…
I am happy to see pationnate people but I have the feeling that this debate is going nowhere…

We can agree that archeology is a tough subject with very few certitudes. Hence neither of you will be able to disprove the other.

Now on the topic :
Do I think female warriors have existed ? Yes, but less numerous than men
Did they form combat unit ? Not all but some could have (like : Dahomey Amazons - Wikipedia, a colonial example but it prove that it is possible)
Did some societies only use female warriors ? I doubt it, pregency is a heavy burden and was important for early socities.
Did none warriors female fight against raid ? Very likely but only against small raid, if facing a large army all no warriors flee (men and women alike)

These are my opinions, feel free to comment.

[lotus253]

Hello!

I cannot find fault in any of your statments.
The original point of this thread was to ensure the inclusion of women as active members of the game, not just in warfare, but in other aspects as well. I believe I have shown sufficient evidence that women have been warriors, hunters and just about every other member of a society you can name, though it is totally accurate that women played a greater and lesser role, depending on the specific job function.

While we know that some societies had significant inclusion of women in warfare, such as the Sarmatian or Scythian people, I think it is fair to conclude that the evidence shows women have only played a minor role in combat throughout history (speaking of the sheer numbers of combatants, not their individual acts).

I find that the argument only occurs every few weeks when somebody finds this thread and then replies stating that there is no evidence, or little evidence, for women in warfare (which seems to be the only topic people wish to debate, ignoring the others) They typically also make statements about women attempting to force some feminist viewpoint on archaeology, when the reality is that Archaeology is only finally beginning to catch up with discoveries of the role of women.

Throughout history, women have been largely forgotten in archaeology, and they’re only now finally getting a minor representation. This minor representation it seems is too much for some to handle.

An example would be an inhumation where the subject was declared male, and then subsequently discovered to be female using modern scientific analysis. (e.g. the Ice Princess) It is inaccurate to claim that this is some feminist agenda if the science used to come to this conclusion is the same used throughout the archaeological community and fully vetted in a peer reviewed Journal.

I literally have books full of this stuff that I have posted, and yet the scientific evidence is ignored and deemed to be some kind of feminist plot. I don’t see how people who believe such a thing can be convinced otherwise as their conclusion is already arrived at in an illogical manner.

Anyhow, science is already moving ahead and these kinds of archaic viewpoints will slowly fade away as new generations use advanced science to better understand the world.

[MastermindSenpai]

But this is 2018 and women should be able to do anything they want right? And its not like it would end the world if they added female warriors to the game. At least we get to enjoy this beauty of a game!

[lotus253]

I agree with you, though I also understand people wishing for realism. Luckily, there is no realistic reason women could not have been lawyers, so we can have both at the same time.

\o/

[SirStart]

well not to critize, but i can understand why some say its an feminist agenda and all tha as the whole topic is pretty infected.

i meself do absolutely think women had more to do in society before the more controlling religions made a walk into everyones daily life, im fairly well versed in the viking society as i worked as an blacksmith at a living museum about the vikings in Sweden and got lots o information and theories from both researchers and cunning people. (we have a community with around 300 members from all over Scandinavia)
there is even an saga about an female who fought against some native americans and even if its just a story most stories carries some truth to it.
and to summarize: i dont think the northmen as an example just woke up one day saying, “today the women shall have more place in our society” and i think they actually had this mindset to having women doing lots o “man dominated” work from long before as the nordic countries had only around 300k people spread out in Scandinavia at tha time (8th century), every hand was a usefull hand more or less. and i can theorize they used tha kind o mindset far back in history.

[lotus253]

What it boils down to is that different societies have different levels of inclusion and even these changed over time. There’s simply no such thing as a static model.

For my perspective, I think we should stick with evidence-based analysis which shows, at least for the Neolithic, a fair bit of inclusion from the point of pragmatism. Neolithic evidence doesn’t really give us much understanding of social interaction, but it does give us some idea of task specialization.

[Elfryc]

@SirStart

there is even an saga about an female who fought against some native americans and even if its just a story most stories carries some truth to it.

@lotus253

What it boils down to is that different societies have different levels of inclusion and even these changed over time. There’s simply no such thing as a static model.

For my perspective, I think we should stick with evidence-based analysis which shows, at least for the Neolithic, a fair bit of inclusion from the point of pragmatism. Neolithic evidence doesn’t really give us much understanding of social interaction, but it does give us some idea of task specialization.

I feel totally in line with both of you. Whenever this is possible, the game should rely on historical accuracy at game start. Meaning, if you’re in a “scenario” where you’re playing a new Roman colony near Timgad, a new Egyptian town along the Nile ordered by the Pharaoh or a Viking settlement in Iceland/Vineland, you should begin with a fairly decent description of those societies – or at least what we know of them.

However, this Viking case reported @SirStart is also pretty interesting in the sense those colonies were quite isolated from their native areas, meaning they could evolve somewhat differently due to the local context, either because of a probable lack of communication, because of the different challenges met there, and because they could welcome alien people.

So I’d be against having an Althing made up of women in the Vineland case, for instance. But I also think as a player I should be able to adopt a part of traditions met in America, like e.g. the needed approval of women before waging war, as this seems to have been the case at least in a few native tribes.

That’s why I think decisions and traditions should be in game, as soon as the release: you start with traditions being set, but progressively may have them evolve if e.g. you welcome aliens being more inclusive or having a different social/political structure, or if you want to imitate them because you feel you should be nearer to those neighbors – or even if some of your citizens just leave your own settlement if they think their way of life is better than the one you propose them and want to stick to.

That’s for historical periods though, when we have some knowledge on societies (and after a few DLCs have been released).

For Neolithic, with the base game, the challenge is the sources are lacking and debatable/debated, and we’re creating a new society with only a few starting citizens. So, I think this should be the perfect occasion for the devs to try this decisions/traditions system, with the possibility to create your own evolving system depending on the conditions met during the game. If you’ve got some Mesolithic people allowing women to hold political power, why should you refrain having them settle down in your settlement if that’s more people? If they’re a fair part of the population, their own system could be adopted or enforced. If they’re just nice neighbors, this could be a good incentive for the player to copy them and have reliable allies/trade partners. But when time comes when those pesky Indo-European settle nearby, with their patriarchal structures, you should also be able to switch the same.

[Elfseeker]

It’s been a steady theme in most stories I’ve read with such a setting, that little ones are ‘raised by the tribe’. children are the future of the people. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks a child would be dependent on the one mother that birth it. that’s another ‘modern luxury’. and probably less healthy, overall.

[ferranbrooks]

Really the only thing that is for sure, is that no one from this ages live in the Neolithic.

Thats it, simply as that.

The basics tell us that maybe in each tribe will be a diferent World, rules, knowledge, etc.

Also the begining of the history told us that it was a change from the matriarcal World into the patriarcal way.

I think that AC is free of do what they think with the genre roles, but common sense tell us that in a small comunity, each individual matters, and the most developed the skills and merits will mark a diference.

If you got a tribe of 40 that the half are the “warriors” and they are the only ones that hunt and defend, you have a great posibility that your tribe will be erased.

If you got a tribe of 40 in wich everyone develops his/her best skills, your tribe will survive.
Simply as that.

Waiting for the BETA!!!
Best

[lotus253]

The evidence also agrees largely with this. Many of the Western European Neolithic tribes appear to have had a lot of infighting among males, accounting for the Infamous y-DNA Bottleneck event where the ratio of women to men may have been as bad as 17 to 1. Current modeling suggest that this was likely the result of fighting between Clans, apparently patriarchal.

But when we look at societies that did not show much evidence of such activity, such as Catalhoyuk in Neolithic Anatolia, the ratio of men to women is pretty even, as our egalitarians indicators, such as bone density, tooth decay and artistic representation.

So we see that societies that are more egalitarian tend to fare better then those who are gender polarized. Of course, the fact that one Society does better than the other does not mean the Lesser Society does not exist. Societies which show high evidence for patriarchal clan warfare and massacres did a rather okay job of surviving, such as the Linear Pottery Culture.

[Grigor]

I’ve tried to read through most, if not all of the huge discussion, with many elucidating points brought up by engaged fans, and I’m sure the developers have done the same, and will implement, or have implemented them, in the game.

Now, apart from the debate back and forth whether something was unheard of, rare, uncommon, common, or everyday… where does the game stand on all this? The developers seem (and forgive me if I’ve misunderstood) to have established that:

• women in the game will generally, and on average, be about 10-20 % physically weaker than men,
• they will be able (I guess depending on age and a random individual factor?) to be pregnant, which will restrict their available tasks somewhat,
• they will also breastfeed the young, up to a certain age, which might also restrict their available time?,
• there will otherwise not be any general rules or norms or regulations or similar, restricting females from performing certain tasks, or taking on any role, from the onset of the game,
• already in the first release version of the game, the player will be able to “push” the societal development of the tribe, by making choices in triggered events (“the gods clearly do not mean for X, what shall we do?”), that in time might make our tribes more or less like something @lotus253 or @Orlanth or someone else would bring up in an example. Our tribe might become unique, or very standard, we’ll just have to see next year

Did I miss anything?

I guess these practical concerns are made easier by the fact that the earlier hunter-gatherer societies of the early neolithicum, seem (I believe this is the consensus?) to have been generally more equal in regards to sex, or at least devoid of the later strict, rigid differentiation between men and women, that would come in the later ages. Thus, the release version of the games doesn’t have to delve so deep into these matters. The coming expansions however… Maybe we should start a new thread on gender roles in the chalcolithicum?

[Elfryc]

That’s a very good sum up @Grigor
(that kind of thing I seem unable to do myself ).

However, I think that as soon as the Neolithic (i.e. base game) we should have great opportunities to shape our own society, without waiting for any Chalcolithic DLC. The basis for this is that given the span in time and space, it is highly probable that very different societies appeared in Atlantic Europe in Neolithic. Probably there were matriarchies as well as patriarchies, egalitarian as well as highly stratified societies, or peaceful and warmongering cultures. Introducing Mesolithic people in the equation still makes the thing more obvious.

Gameplay wise, this means that if, for instance, you begin the game with your own society still to be shaped, and every surrounding settlements are “utopian” societies (egalitarian, peaceful gender-equality, basically the “noble savage” for Rousseau), the player should be proposed various options:

• either he feels that’s sufficient to have good relations with surrounding settlements, and may engage in trade, diplomacy, intermarriages, etc. and try to achieve cultural achievements (grander enclosure, more people and resources, becoming a regional cultic/economic center…) and be perfectly fine with that;
• or he finds more fun to become a warmongering society, able to impose his authority on surrounding settlements and establish something like a regional chiefdom, able to collect tributes as people, slaves, prisoners, resources, labor, etc.

In the following centuries though, whatever the path chosen in early game, the player should also be presented with situations where he may change his stance. What if he’s a pacifist but he’s facing a wave of militaristic and highly stratified migrants or invaders? As migrants, will this new culture create instability in his own settlement, obliging to adopt a more stratified society to keep peace? Will he stick to older traditions? If this is an invasion, wouldn’t it be easier to have nascent social and economical elites, able to defend the settlement more efficiently with more militaristic values?

I really liked @lotus253 last post, just above yours. But I’d go further and think that more than trying to define if there were egalitarian vs. inegalitarian societies, the key to survival is adaptation: whatever the first steps of you nascent society, you should have mechanism making you able to change or to refuse change. The fact for example we see constant changes in graves during Neolithic, with personal graves for leaders, then communal graves, then back to individual graves, etc. shows such adaptations were probably felt as necessary, or (more probably) those slow-pacing, unconscious evolutions were needed to be survive.

Also, such a flexible society would allow a great flexibility and more fun in game probably. Lotus’ post drove me to think about a question similar to “chicken or egg: what came first?”
I mean: if we have a perfect egalitarian society being just a juxtaposition of family heads or elders taking decisions together based on greater good, probably it would be difficult to reach the hierarchy level needed to major achievements (Carnac, Stonehenge, massive graves or enclosures, etc.). This means there would be far less leadership. But as soon as you need to raise even a smaller standing stone, you need someone to lead the operations (which may be done quite naturally, depending on charisma, sense of organization, higher prestige…), but all in all that’s the first step towards an increasing inner leadership in your society, that you may either try to limit to keep to an egalitarian society, or set yellow lines to this increasing tendency to avoid to much instability from non-leading groups, or just embrace and follow a natural tendency achievement > increasing inequalities > higher achievements > greater inequalities, etc. until most people refuse this, leave your settlement, make a “revolution” and get rid of any leader felt as tyrannical, etc.

I may be biased towards the social and political aspects in this game, but I really feel this should be still far more interesting than just what’s available in most city builders: reaching such tech level to be able to level up your buildings then get higher modifiers and better troops, etc.
If A.C. does well (and I think that’s very probable), we should not just strive for higher levels, but just ask ourselves if we really want them and face the necessary outcomes going along with them

[lotus253]

Wonderful thoughts! Also, @Grigor 's post could be used as a summary for the whole thread, really.

One point of clarity though: when I speak of egalitarianism, I don’t refer to any sort of harmony or peaceful coexistence, merely a reasonably similar accommodation between genders. You can have, for example, a matriarchy wear leadership is past down the female line and elder women cold significant leadership power, yet the men can be War like, in control for the most part and dominating. Look no further then some Native American tribes to see this system and work, such as, I believe, the Iroquois.

(their story is seen here)

It is also believed that during the Neolithic, Clan Warfare among males resulted in a y DNA chromosomal drop so significant that apparently the ratio of males to females may have been 1 to 17 at some points. We also know that we had Mass Graves where younger women were not found can high percentage, inferring slavery. So the picture wasn’t necessarily nice, even if there were matriarchal and egalitarians societies.

That being said, of course we’ll never know if a woman was among the warriors. The only thing we will know is that it’s physically possible and that we have examples of it in history, but that’s about all we can tell unless we ever find direct examples, which I doubt we will

[Grigor]

In other words, we come back to the same conclusion: the game should be built in such a way that everything that was (reasonably) possible in history, regardless of whether it was rare or not, should be possible in the game. All levels of gender equality or inequality, all levels of egalitarianism or tyranny, all levels of whatever.

To make it doable, the developers will need to simplify it into a certain set of variables, with a couple of levels to each variable. These variables dynamically interact with the realities of the game, reinforcing or weakening one another.

For example, let’s say a the “culture” or “society” sliders of a specific tribe are set in such a way that it is what could simplistically be called a patriarchy, let’s even make it a militant patriarchy. The men of the tribe constantly being victorious against other tribes probably reinforces the legitimacy of the militant patriarchy. If however almost all the adult males are killed in a raid, maybe the legitimacy is lost? In the absence of men, maybe the society automatically moves towards a matriarchy? All the sliders might not change completely, and certainly not over night, so that we suddenly have a peaceful matriarchy… but maybe, after a while, it becomes a militant matriarchy instead of patriarchy? New generations are raised to obey their mothers in all, especially the tribal matriarch? A ridiculously simplified example:
[IF proportion of males in tribe UNDER 10 % = MOVE 1 step TOWARDS matriarchy]

I must stress that my suggestion does not only apply to the gender issue, but also other aspects. Let’s say the fish in the lake next to our village suddenly disappear, and the animals we most often hunt migrate away for some reason. At the same time our esteemed shaman suddenly drops dead in the middle of a nightly ceremony. Soon, the lower members of our stratified (sliders!) tribe might start to blame the current elite for the events, leading to a series of escalations, and finally a bloody resolution, through which the former elite is sacrificed, and the tribe becomes much more of a fundamentalist, theocratic even, tribe. Or… the old elite is replaced with a new one, with more legitimacy? If all the necessary requirements are filled, and randomness of the game wills it… why not? Up to the player, the invisible hand of fate!

As always, I propose these changes be made through generous use of triggered events with choices for the player. Go with the flow… or no. With consequences to either.

As an example: one of the realm law screens from Crusader Kings II, and the policies screen from Europa Universalis III. Notate bene that the CKII one contains a slider for women’s’ rights. It take a lot of hard work, but one make, say, the Holy Roman Empire, accept female generals, in 1245 Surely then, an amazon tribe must be possible in 8000 BC, eh @lotus253?

Of course, most of what is expressed in the sliders won’t be applicable to the neolithic era… though mind you, even the tribe chieftains of Poland in the 8th century AD could change the slider so that his vassals sent him more warriors when the time came to send out a great raiding party. Should not chieftain Ugga-Bugga be able to do the same with the neighbouring village that sends us tribute every autumn, @Elfryc?

[lotus253]

_“G3230.jpg,” Stanford Figurines Project , accessed September 19, 2018, https://web.stanford.edu/group/figurines/cgi-bin/omeka/items/show/6833._

Yes, this is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. We often refer to Neolithic people of a particular group, such as the corded Ware culture, as being of a homogeneous societal culture, like we see in later time periods. In reality, we only know that they shared some technological similarities, and perhaps some artistic cultural similarities, but we don’t know much more than that. There could have been wide-ranging expressions of their cultures covering many different types of society. The model you propose, I believe, best allows for this.

@Grigor

Let’s say the fish in the lake next to our village suddenly disappear, and the animals we most often hunt migrate away for some reason. At the same time our esteemed shaman suddenly drops dead in the middle of a nightly ceremony. Soon, the lower members of our stratified (sliders!) tribe might start to blame the current elite for the events, leading to a series of escalations, and finally a bloody resolution, through which the former elite is sacrificed,

So that is nearly the main plot of my third novel LOL

[PaleWolf12]

Hmmm, Dear Uncasual games.

I do believe that there were some women who took up the spear and the bow; however, that may have been a very rare occurrence.

If If you are looking for realism, I suggest that you guys read up on the history of the ancient world and note human nature and biology before you make your decision.

Your contributor: Eric Johnson.

[Molly_zero]

Going for realism doesn’t mean we can’t explore alternatives.The world isn’t perfect but this is a game. Let us choose how to play.

[lotus253]

The only real issue I had was ensuring women could be warriors/hunters, not ensuring they would. We really have no evidence either way on the subject. I totally agree that the player, who controls the culture, should control how that happens.

Of course, I will personally be egalitarian, but that’s just me.

[arfa]

So i’m not really fussed about whether females will be able to fight. But I think a practical and logical work around would be enough to make people happy.

Women being able to bear children were much more valuable than a man who could easily be replaced. It would make sense to limit their activities so as to always have a viable mate. However, once the number of women reaches a certain level (maybe % of population or a set number) there should be an option to allow women to train for fighting. But should there be a war in which a lot of women die then they would be restricted again.

[lotus253]

The issue we were origionally discussing was not really about women warriors. It was more about women being able to help defend, hunting, and (maybe on rare conditions) becoming warriors. We know all of these occured in later periods, but we have little evidence either way for the Neolithic