I don't think that story about women not being suited for combat is true, in physical terms? Yeah But women do possess the fighting spirit when necessary. I read about the Battle of Yarmouk, where Arab women participated in the defense of Khalid's troops' camps, and there's also the example of the Battle of Uhud, where there were literally women soldiers in the Quraysh troops... not to mention the Sarmatians and Scythians or even Germanics and those turkish tribes.
LAS MUJERES NO SON APTAS PARA LAS MARCIALES ARTES; LA VARONA VALE POR CIEN GUERREROS.
>>18491480It was common for women to defend city during a siege. Women also followed armies as cantineer, laundress, whore, nurses... They were present on the battlefield the often had to give the soldiers water, booze, cartridge or to help the wounded. They often had to take arms to defend themselves in dire situation. A lot of women also cheated on their identity in order to enlist : it was easier at the time, as there were no medical inspection. They did so by genuine will to make a living as a soldier or to follow a lover. There are dozen of accounts about women who get caught so there mist have been even more that were'nt.
>>18491540Anon is right, armies probably had a significant population of women as camp followers, maybe a few helped when the camp was in danger.
You guys have to stop.While it's true that in the ordinary material World men and women will do the same tasks at varying levels of efficiency and a man is not unskilled to wash dishes and a woman isn't unskilled to change tiresBut you guys are trying to prop up the idea of a higher elevated female being as a deity that never should have beenI will remind you that Joan of Arc was actually more in contact with Margaret and Catherine two women who are more akin to spies trying to emulate things of men to take for themselvesThat's why ultimately I agree with what happened with Joan of Arc and I never liked that character because I don't feel anything for her so to me she is an artificially created entity and a falsely propped up personWhile sometimes we may know of male gods being manifested as female, I can tell you that not all women are the male gods in disguise And Joan of Arc is not one of those enlightened beings
>>18491480>those turkish tribes.Which ones? Most Turkish "warfare" (Not Ottomans) consisted of opportunistic raiding of defenseless peasants in surprise attacks, taking cattle and slaves in great quantities rather than seeking glory on the open battlefield which were much carefully avoided.
>>18491480What if male anon isekai as amazoness warrior?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjnUPbg7BHYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWzs_sCKB-Mhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66k-lpHr9lw
>>18491680>I never liked that character because I don't feel anything for her so to me she is an artificially created entity and a falsely propped up personNo, you never liked her because you're a greasy bong.
>>18491540>It was common for women to defend city during a siege.No. It Wasn't
>>18491540>A lot
>>18491480The fact that weak men are sent to battle without batting an eye proves that idea of women not being "suited for combat" is almost entirely sentimental and aesthetic. Also practical from the ruling class side, soldiers seeing dead women on a battlefield that you could have fucked is would be so bad for soldier morale it would probably lead to uncontrollable mutinies.
>>18491480it's not that they're not physically or mentally suited for war, in fact they do it if they have to. But, unlike men, they don't enjoy it. Women participating in warfare or any kind of combat is in most cases ritualistic, and in the modern era out of obligation (like women in partisan and guerrilla movements in modern history, the soviet female snipers, etc). And according to some studies, women are more productive than men in some fields, like snipping and piloting
>>18491838>it's not that they're not physically or mentally suited for warThis. The rest of your post is kind irrelevant
>>18491775it actually was, but it became more common with the boom of nationalism and national pride
>>18491842The monkey is lying.
>>18491843How do you even measure that? Women don't magically change because of nationalism. Stop lying.
>>18491845I know
>>18491845>Women don't magically change because of nationalismthey do, nationalism changes the people as a whole. Volunteering becomes more common, they're more irregulars fighting against a perceived enemy, women and children too. The Siege of Zaragoza was part of a broad insurgency against the french in a national scale because of a perceived injury against the national pride, religion and the king
>>18491854meant for >>18491848
>>18491854See here>>18491848I challenge you to measure that properly. How did you arrive at this conclusion? No nationalism, or even our modern world where there are cucks like you who believe that women can be warriors, can override biological and behavioral issues that are beyond arbitrary cultures and often relative ideas.
>>18491480These Greek "accounts" are lies or fan fiction to fit the "Amazon" narrative there's no archaeological evidence for this. A contingent of women is useless and unthinkable. As for the battles you mentioned, I see dishonesty, like another idiot doing here: you're clinging to accounts that were only vaguely and quickly mentioned to construct a narrative. They weren't "warriors" nor did they "fight." The camp was under invasion, and they cried and fled like any woman. Admit that some of them took camels to delay the Byzantines. Did you know that they were even screaming hysterically for their men not to lose to the Byzantines and even throwing stones at them?? The Battle of Uhud is more interesting: these "warrior" women are only mentioned as marching with the army but never on the battlefield, and when the Muslims defeated the Quraysh, these women fled and the men even shouted for them to return as spoils of war.... hahaha what a good example you picked, huh?
>>18491857https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Spanish_Civil_Warhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_World_War_IIhttps://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-02185-3.htmlhttps://revolutionsnewsstand.com/2025/02/26/the-womens-part-in-the-chinese-revolution-by-tineva-from-international-press-correspondence-vol-7-no-19-march-11-1927/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_French_Resistance
>>18491863Also, *some* (and that's what your sources say, a few) grabbed whatever they could find only to be kidnapped later, doesn't really say much, considering it's a reaction even a child would have. But the overwhelming majority, including those who try to defend themselves, submit to the conquerors. And you guys saying that "many women" accompanied the exiles in the camps is also not true, The risks were many, and in these battles the Muslims wanted to settle in the region, which is why they brought women.
>>18491866Many of the links you pulled out of thin air don't even specifically address women and war, and judging by the level of your Wikipedia citations: And to make matters worse, why didn't you answer me? How do you measure this quantitatively besides citing sporadic examples (when your own citations don't even offer... citations?) The point still stands and you haven't answered: How do you measure this?
>>18491863>>18491871Those who are foolish forget that these accounts are not always accurate and can be misinterpreted. Ask any serious historian about the discrepancies in accounts, for example, regarding the size of armies and how they vary in different sources.
>>18491480Even the women in our armies today will tell you that the average woman cannot physically handle it. March 20 miles at a fast pace wearing heavy armor. March 10 miles with that same heavy armor while carrying a fully grown man with his own combat on who is injured.It doesn't matter what the 'spirit' is if they physically can't do it. "Home defense" is an exception because you don't need to travel very far and you have every single advantage possible while the enemy has every single disadvantage.
>>18491885Cope
>>18491776Relatively speaking, yes. Their is dozen and dozen of known examples because they got caught. But how many more have never been discovered. Still a huge minority amongst the men in the army but still.
>>18491775It was. Do you think women would stay still knowing they would be raped and killed if the walls fall while it's so easy to just toss rocks above the parapet ? Also when a noble lord is away it's his wife's duty to defend his castle. So it was socially accepted for noble women to lead troops to battle if it was to defend during a siege.
>>18491775Eh, Simon de Montfort got killed by rocks launched by a mangonel. Women were operating it.When it's a city defense and your enemy has a known tradition for slaughtering inhabitants, they'll help out in support roles.
>>18491945It wasn't see>>18491877
>>18491933>Their is dozen and dozen of known examples because they got caught.Show examples that are not sporadic and false cases like the ones that this primate cited.>>18491877Do you know the definition of "very"? Do you have the analytical mental capacity to separate a sporadic case or a set of sporadic cases to form a narrative?
>>18491480It rare. Feminists just retards.
>>18491540And that's a bad thing!
>>18493027When their is a bunch of sporadic cases stacking over each other, you can start seeing a phenomenon.>Show examples that are not sporadic.I said precisely it was sporadic : I'm not talking about entire females units or full women mobilization but single individuals whom disguised themselves and joigned the army for various reasons. And we kow just the ones that get caught.And not to speak about the women in support role of various armies accross history or the ones that took arms occasionnaly as self defence purpose.I'm not talking about feminist fantasies of women viking wariors or what else but well documented cases from late middle-age to napoleonic wars
