We can start with Eleanor of Aquitaine progenitor of dynasties and and mother to three kings and two queens. She went on crusade, was regent for her son Richard and raised his ransom. Women absolute and We’ve had many Princesses and Queens that fought and won Coronet. Victorian shitty subjugation was leading to ideas of women should be seen and not heard.>Females were numbered among them, riding horseback in the manner of men, not on coverlets sidesaddle but unashamedly astride, and bearing lances and weapons and men do; dressed in masculine garb, they conveyed a wholly martial appearance, more mannish than the Amazons. One stood out from the rest as another Penthesilea, and from the embroidered gold with ran around the hem and fringes of her garment was called Goldfoot.” (Choniates, p35.)She's always been masculine and even played soccer when she was younger, and it seems like there's nothing wrong with that. Fuck domestic life 3;
>>18413518>She's always been masculine and even played soccer when she was younger, and it seems like there's nothing wrong with that. Fuck domestic life 3I meant me. Football didn't even exist, and there's another example I didn't mention. >muh muscle mass I already beat 12-year-old boys when I was 10, and if you read Grandes Crónicas Catalanas, a Spanish woman of athletic build donned armor to go and gather herbs outside the walls of Perelada, when the city was under Frankish rule during the years of the Spanish March. She was attacked by a French knight on horseback. With a lance, she knocked him off his horse and forced him to surrender.inBy the Emperors Hand, provides a brief description of women being involved in the defense of the Byzantine Empire in the 12th Century, including a female spy, as written by Theofanes, and archers and stonethrowers who garbed themselves as men, as written by Bishop Evstathios
>>18413524>>18413518You don't need to be so alarmed, young lady. You can be as masculine as you want, but the only thing we ask is that issues like treating men as protectors and providers are dismissed as delusions, because as you supposedly proved, since the Middle Ages you guys were independent and warriors, right?
>>18413518there is nothing wrong with strong women or belligerent women existing, my problem is that making that a cultural propensity is not only dysgenic but also not sustainable, since women are just on average virtually always weaker than men. Women can't monopolize force in society, ever.
>>18413528What does this have to do with the thread itself? And I'm not making "assumptions," these are primary sources. I'm saying that women always fighting and being "feminine, submissive," and spending all day talking about problems instead of acting is a modern innovation made by bards, not historical.Have you read about the Order of the Axe? Literally a female chivalric order from the city of Tortosa, in Catalonia, dating back to 114. Ordinary women of the city wore men's armor and weapons, including axes, and fought against the Moorish occupiers. The Count of Barcelona was so impressed that he created the Order for the women who fought.>>18413532saying that women always fighting and being "feminine, submissive," and spending all day talking about problems instead of acting is a modern innovation made by bards, not historical. I was only heard in this life when I became more masculine, like those thousands. I knew that staying quiet in my place wouldn't be useful for anything. I was never taken seriously, never, only when I became masculine
>>18413536I m saying*
I find it curious that an "effeminate" man is always considered wrong and profane, while a masculine woman is always treated like a star and fawned over, especially in history.
>itt stinky pajeeta thinks she is stronger than average man because she fought off 5 out of 10 rape attempts by RanjeetYawn
>>18413543Because, as I said, what you consider to be "feminine" is a very modern invention; not even Abrahamism went that far. I haven't even touched on the Renaissance yet, with Elizabeth I, Veronica Franco, Sofonisba Anguissola, etc.>>18413544Argumentum ad hominem
>>18413547Well, I don't have time to check your sources, but I'll say right now that citing the Amazon might seem a bit suspicious to me the Amazon was a myth
>>18413551These are primary sources; feel free to discuss them 3:
>>18413518No woman ever has been (or ever will be) a “soldier” or “warrior.” To suggest otherwise is a farce worse than anything demanded by Soviet commissars or dystopian secret poli
>>18413581See here>>18413536
>>18413518We are dealing with exaggerated, fabricated, or even mythical cases.
>>18413594Why do you say that? You haven't presented any sources. But if they were sporadic cases... Then why did the Sarmatians, various populations of the steppes, the Indo-Iranian peoples, and the Goths have female warriors, according to the Historia Augusta, and the Sasanian Empire, according to Zonoras? Isn't that enough? Okay.The Parthians had female warriors, possibly the Huns, according to Procopius of Caesarea, *Wars of Justinian*, Book 3. Cassius Dio mentions the female warriors of the Iazyges people, and Plutarch mentions women fighting among the Cimbri, Teutons, and Ambros. Majority of the people who argue against the historicity of female warriors are NOT familiar with even half of the sources I mentioned
>>18413598>>18413586You're biased, and the only reason for that is that you knew nobody would check the sources. This distinction is made with the fallacious and quite modern "girlboss" argument. Leonor never went on a crusade, she didn't even wear armor, she only accompanied the army.
>>18413603>This distinction is made with the fallacious and quite modern "girlboss" argumentGrandes Crónicas Catalanas, Bishop Evstathios, kiketas choriates, Zonoras, Cassius Dio, Plutarch etc. Yes, all biased isn't?
>>18413518You have a retarded fantasy in your brain of how the world operates. Women are not warriors. Physically they are not built for repeated impacts. They lack the mass, durability, and mindset to fight effectively. Small frames, lower bone density, lower muscle density, fearful
>>18413621Are you the same guy above? I almost told you to have the courage to read the sources I cited and answer me: Were they all lying or were they "feminists"? I await your reply
>>18413623>Are you the same guy above?Meds now >sources I citedYes, yes, sometimes women dressed up as warriors, just like transvestites dress up as women; there are no examples of them fighting. As God wills. You literally quoted figures like Plutarch who at one point said the Celts were subhuman while at another they talked about how advanced they were in certain things. Women should only fight when something is directly harming their families. Any other situation is backward. Even the pagans knew this.
>>18413631>Yes, yes, sometimes women dressed up as warriors, just like transvestites dress up as women>there are no examples of them fighting. As God wills.Elizabeth I, Veronica Franco, Sofonisba Anguissola, etc They were all just playing around, right? What about the Order of the Axe? Literally a female chivalric order from the city of Tortosa, in Catalonia, dating back to 114.just playing isn't? Or maybe Spanish woman of athletic build donned armor to go and gather herbs outside the walls of Perelada... >You literally quoted figures like Plutarch who at one point said the Celts were subhuman while at another they talked about how advanced they were in certain things. I cited various authors, from the ancient world and the Middle Ages. You do not cite sources that prove the falsity of these authors i.e. ad hoc>Women should only fight when something is directly harming their families. Any other situation is backward. Even the pagans knew this.What pagans? These pagans>>18413598
Women were better, men were worse.Who was that princess who rode a donkey to a Battlefield?
Moids BTFo
>>18413641You think I'm being ad hoc, but you're the one here who responds to any criticism of your extremely visible bias with "the sources tell me so." You must keep in mind that "sources" don't have value or truth in themselves. it's NECESSARY to have some critical sense. Or would you believe that the Scythians broke the joints of boys en masse to prevent a rebellion in a utopian matriarchy, or that giant ants roamed the Eurasian steppes? I think not. And there's also the point that propaganda is AS OLD as writing. It was super common to lie and make fallacious claims about your opponents in your writings. The Romans said that the Celts offered their backsides to visitors, and refusing would be seen as disrespectful. Of course, we should accept these sources simply because they are sources, right? And there's a question you can't explain: where is the archaeological evidence of these women's armies? We have several mausoleums, tombs, and sites with many male warriors, but where are these women? Or were they so good that they returned home alive? And you know what's even cooler? That contemporary sources of these authors, for some reason, didn't mention these empowered and free women who, as you said, "fuck domestic life."
>>18413664A female mind wouldn't be able to understand these pronouncements. OP is clearly feminist and biased; this is clear when she says she became "masculine." People lie and exaggerate since always
>>18413664I've been saying this for years. The Romans described the Celts as looking like cavemen, but archaeology paints a very different picture. They were not only civilized but had settlements, some kind of political organization, planned architecture, and high levels of commercial contact. And these sources contradict each other quite a bit.
>>18413667>>18413664So now we have to discuss the veracity of the sources? You didn't explain how to do that besides citing archaeology, but did you know that most medieval battles didn't leave "archaeological" traces behind? According to your logic, we must deny everything that doesn't have tangible evidence because it must necessarily be false, and you cite the pronouncements of Roman and Greek sources like Plutarch, but if they all say the same thing, it can't be a coincidence. And since we're talking about primary sources, Nicetas Choniates lived through the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, witnessing the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204. So we're dealing with primary sources. The same goes for authors who wrote about Eleanor. Nice try, but you failed.
>>18413678You completely missed the point I don't have time for this. You can masturbate as much as you want For women who paraded around in men's clothing, as much as you want. I give up.
>>18413680>Argumentum ad hominemI already accepted your concession, dear ;^)
Is anyone going to check these sources or not?
>>18413518Thank you for this. The knowledge is it there, but it’s great to be able to point people at a single page
>>18413692nah the subject is women I can't be bothered
>>18413697>Let me see a source>yea sure bro>links a fucking 4chan post by some schizophrenic foidI would rather you just make shit up at that point
>>18413701So does that mean nobody was able to respond to the arguments? Only one anonymous person made an effort to try and argue.
>>18413524I could easily overpower and rape you.
>>18413715Disgusting take
>>18413518I bet all those women warriors were raped as hell whenever they lost a battle and became POWs
>>18413518>>18413524No wonder they got their asses kicked by Turks and Mamluks.
Why have Asiatics always been so comically misogynistic compared to Europeans, and why is the opposite always implied by modern Historiography with muh sexist Greeks and Romans and muh sexist Christianity that somehow took rights away from women previously subjugated by Greeks and Romans?
>>18414093Eleanor of Aquitaine, “Grandmother of Europe,” turned her court at Poitiers into a hub of troubadours and poets while marrying her descendants into royal houses across Europe, leaving a legacy of art, culture, and dynastic power.
>>18414537So, europeans are matrilineal
>>18414093Because there's no point in calling non Westerners misogynistic, they'll own up to it with pride. But a Westerner will be ashamed that someone can even claim that he disrespects women and try to clear his name with concessions.In other words, political incentives lead to an inverse relationship between the likelihood of being a misogynist and being called a misogynist.
>>18414093euros have that gullible golden retriever personality that takes everything at face value and always get taken advantage of, asiatics are unscrupulousness realists who understand that life is about power
>>18414628unscrupulous*
Moids bros? Our answer?
Have we ever found female remains on a battlefied, with injuries from actual battle?I know about tombs with female warriors, but I doubt they have any injuries or overdeveloped dominant hand side.I just don't believe it. Female don't work as soldies, because they cannot move the distances men are expected to.But im willing to believe the moor fight thing in a city.
>>18414093>100+ hadiths about the temptations of 'beardless youths'too busy fucking boys to worry about foids, as they say
>>18415317>they cannot move the distances men are expected to.But im willing to believe the moor fight thing in a cityWhich there's no evidence at all. Besides some tales. >tombs with female warriorsFor example?
>>18413524>Football didn't even existDo some research on “mob football” and other origins of modern football games. It’s been around forever and was insanely brutal, something I can’t imagine women playing, though girls kicking a ball around sounds reasonable.
>>18415271>youtubeNo
>>18415335There's a few people post around as proof of women warriors. But it's probably a rich lady who had a husband warrior and that's why she was buried with weapons. I mean. I have yet to see any injuries common for soldiers or people who trained with weapons for life.
>>18415576Weren't warriors
>>18415323Pagan Tartars were even worse.
>>18413715Simple but effective trvke
