Jump to content

Women


Argalius
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

women and men have different bonusses or something

Hehe, I think it would be an insult or atleast an easy break if we make women villagers gather 10% faster or male villagers carry 10% more or something like that, no the difference between them isn't in their statistics but in their role in the game. I'll let you speculate on what that means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

There will not be any standard female warriors in the game. The only people that might apply to would be the Sarmatians and even in that case females would have made up only a VERY small part of their army. And that was early on, since by the time the Sarmats were fighting the Romans there is no mention of female soldiers, something the conservative Roman historians would definately mention :)

Remember that when you do your Google searches that many of the women mentioned as warriors were leaders and their armies would have been men. Anything you've heard about Celtic women fighting along with their husbands in organized battles is false. Again, its something the Roman historians would have mentioned....and didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that the historians mentioned her you would be right. That alone shows how unusual women warriors were in ancient times. Although obviously female units have existed, such as one African king who had a female bodyguard famous for their brutality. Or as in our times, Mohamar Gadaffi (sp?) of Libya who has a female bodyguard.....20 somthing female bodyguards watching a 60+ man :) Sad really....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least the man's living the good life? Either way, I believe the role of women in 0 A.D. will be/is minimized by today's standards, because historical accuracy is important to the members of this project (Apparently. If I actually had some useful skills, I'd try to join. Otherwise, I can only go by the statements of those within.) Besides. Making female warriors would require a lot more work, I'm hypothesizing, and that would only slow progress down. There's no need to slow down the project for something that isn't at all historically accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speed isn't the problem, its historical reality which is this: there were no true female warriors. They may have occasionally fought in abnormal conditions i.e. last stand, or fight raiders when their husbands were gone, but this was extremely unusual. Even at Boudicca's defeat there is no great evidence that women fought. Sure Taciticus quotes Suetonius saying something to the effect of "Look...they're more women than men." But this is because the Celts brought their families to watch the battle, and considering that a part of the male population would now be dead from fighting the Romans and the naturally larger numbers of women in the world it make it understandable. Plus more than likely he was referring to the entire group, which would be what they could see, not just the warriors.

Short answer: If there were female warriors in history we would have put them in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...