Were there ANY actual female warriors?
Let's take a look at the most common feminist power fantasies
Joan of d'arc - armored cheerleader
celtic women - every time they led armies they got BTFO
shield maidens - it's true that they were mentioned in the sagas BUT women were fucking forbidden from owning weapons and going on raids in norse society they are on the same tier as amazons and speking of which
amazons - didn't exist
Boudica - another celt bitch who did fuck all
Other urls found in this thread:
dailymail.co.uk
tvtropes.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
I've been told teh Amazons were based on Scythian warrior women. Is it truth or was it a meme?
>Joan of d'arc - armored cheerleader
You know how I can tell your British?
Scythians.
The fact he spelt armoured like an American?
>You know how I can tell your British
You know how I can tell you're an idiot?
>You know how I can tell you're an idiot?
You know how I can tell you're a cuck?
Onna bushi.
Found the french cuck lmao
>held the banner
>that's it
women couldn't own weapons in France so the paintings with her bravely fighting in the front line are as real as the ones showing giants and dragons she was a bitch, cunt, whore and a delusional mentally ill slut
fuck you
I can't provide you with any examples, but if you're interested in that topic you might want to read up on David Adams' article "Why There Are So Few Women Warriors." You can find it online, here's the summary:
>Cross-cultural methodology suggests that women are excluded from warfare not so much because of sex differences in aggressiveness or strength, but instead because of a contradiction arising from marital residency systems that arose, in turn, as a function of warfare. Under conditions of internal warfare war against neighboring communities sharing the same language) many stateless cultures may have adopted patrilocal exogamous marital residency (the bride comes from a different community and comes to live with the family of the husband). Under these conditions the wife is faced with contradictory loyalties during warfare, because her husband may go to war against her brothers and father. It appears that women have been excluded historically from warfare in order to resolve this contradiction and protect the security of the warrior husbands. This explanation is supported by other findings that women do fight as warriors in certain cultures in which warfare or marital residency rules are structured in such a way that the contradiction does not arise.
So if you want to look for female warriors, you need to look up societies without patrilocal exogamous marital residency.
amazons do exist, but they're short squat ugly little hispanics who deliver their boy infants to neighboring tribes to raise
>Were there
There are now. Why so mad?
We have found scythian women buried with weapons. It doesn't prove anything, we also have also babies and children buried with weapons and they clearly did not fight. It's a symbol of status.
But people likes to believe greek memes.
>There are now.
They just happen to not serve in combat duty.
Not Scythians, Sarmatians. Herodotus and a few other greek historians describe their way of life and society with detail. Apparently women fought together with the men, and could only retire from fighting when they got married, which could only happen after they killed their third men.
Recent burial findings later proved the greek accounts to be atleast somewhat truthful, with atleast a few noblewomen being found with battle wounds/scars
Another occurence of historical warrior women are the Onna Bugeisha of japan, which we do have good documentation of since they happened to exist well into the 1800s
There are a few women who have pretended to be men and then were found out, but you're asking about female warrior societies or something?
Sure they do. Those Kurdish women are btfo ISIS, for example.
What is even the point of this question? Of course the answer to "were there any [in all human history]" is going to be yes.
But some do.
Thanks for clearing that up.
>This explanation is supported by other findings that women do fight as warriors in certain cultures in which warfare or marital residency rules are structured in such a way that the contradiction does not arise.
And man fight in those societies despite the conflicting loyalties?
>So if you want to look for female warriors, you need to look up societies without patrilocal exogamous marital residency.
Any example with both things? Genuine curiosity.
Amazonians are indian not hispanic.
>What happened to girl power? Australia's national women's soccer team the Matildas lose 7-0 to an under FIFTEENS boys' side
There never were female warriors because women are physically inferior to men.
Several greek authors consider the sarmatians to be part of the scythians.
Several greek authors were fucking little boys and thought there are gods living on the mountain. Greeks were a meme.
>women couldn't own weapons in France
Citation needed.
Lyudmila pavlinchenko
Not quite, they were related but had different languages and customs. The sarmatians in fact were the ones who displaced the earlier scythians.
Not common throughout history. Female bodies are just inconvenient for warfare, and i'm fairly sure that societies that used female warriors didn't use them because they were practical but for other reasons such as religion etc.
True but precisely because of this "scythians" was a meme term and vague enough to englobe the sarmatians.
Boudica lmfao,
Why oh why did the Celt men follow her
Yeah with the Sarmatians, it was really more of a cultural/religious custom than anything.
General/Leader =/= Soldier, warrior
>And man fight in those societies despite the conflicting loyalties?
Why would you care about your mother/father in law?
Lol, retard.
Celt ''men'' were cucks. Literal cucks.
You did read the list, right? It's made up of plenty of women who weren't leaders.
Why would the women?
Not really. I can't think of many religions that endorse females doing anything other than the norm. Most warrior women came from societies that could afford to have them.
This is true. The Aztecs for example only used a particular group of women who were companions to warriors. They were kind of prostitutes and participated in state ceremonies. And other than that they fought only in times of desperation during a siege. Theres a humorous story of the Aztec attack on Tlatelolco. The women of Tlatelolco defended themselves by getting naked and squirting breast milk at the Aztec warriors.
Seutonis only has two legions! We can take him!
Oh fugggg run
Yeah, but with several that were solely leaders of a country/generals.
I don't know from the top of my head, but it's in the article. It gives examples for sure. As far as I remember the problem doesn't arise for men in the same way as it does for women for structural reasons.
However it's important to note that women don't replace men as warriors in those societies.
Also the theory the article brings up is supported by current trends in western society. Patrilocality and internal warfare are not a thing here anymore and what happens? More and more female soldiers.
So that alone should blow OP out, but I'm assuming he was looking for reasons why there shouldn't be female warriors in the first place.
>there's a difference
>She declared that, on her departure from Vaucouleurs, she wore the habit of a man, and carried a sword which Robert de Baudricourt had given her, but no other arms; and accompanied by a knight, a squire, and four servants, she reached the town of Saint Urbain, where she slept in an abbey.
>She said she had a sword which she took to the town of Vaucouleurs. She added that when she was at Tours or Chinon she sent for a sword which was in the church of Ste. Catherine de Fierbois, behind the altar; and immediately it was found there all rusted over.
>Asked how she knew that this sword was there, she answered that the sword was in the ground, rusted over, and upon it were five crosses; and she knew it was there through her voices, and she had never seen the man who fetched it.
>Asked what blessing she said or asked over the sword, she answered that she neither blessed it herself, nor had it blessed; she would not have known how to do it. She loved the sword, she said, since it had been found in the church of St. Catherine, whom she loved.
>Asked if she had her sword when she was taken, she answered no; but she had one which had been taken from a Burgundian.
>Asked where this sword was, and in what town, she answered that she offered a sword and armor at St. Denis, but not this sword. She said she had this sword at Lagny; and from Lagny to Compiègne she had worn the Burgundian's sword, which was a good weapon for fighting, excellent for giving hard clouts and buffets (in French "de bonnes buffes et de bons torchons"). But she said that to say where she had lost it did not concern the case, and she would not answer now. She added that her brothers have her goods, her horses and swords, as far as she knows, and other things worth more than 12,000 crowns.
>women couldn't own weapons in France
>There never were female warriors because women are physically inferior to men.
>There were never female warriors
Your whole point falls apart there.
Uncommon as they were, this is false. Women in general have a different physicality from men, but that didn't stop dedicated women from soldiering where they were able to.
>implying Joan wasn't a brilliant leader and artillery specialist
>implying she didn't fuck half of europe with her cannons
/r9k/ pls go
Retarded fucking french propaganda written by a bunch of surrender monkeys
>we wuz female warriors and shiet
they wuz whores and sucked fat british cock on daily basis that's a fact
lol misogynists
>Joan of d'arc - armored cheerleader
butthurt frogs inbound
Wow a post that actually isn't full of shit. Well done.
Also
>hur they didn't do shit
Just because they got BTFO by powers greater than themselves doesn't mean they didn't exist. You can argue the extent of how much fighting Boudica actually did but she did exist and she did lead a rebellion.
hoped she fucked a lot of men as well. but she's a lesbian ain't she. most of the cool women in history are.
>transcripts of her trial
>French propaganda
Women naturally dislike risk and danger because of their reproductive role
Whatever odd historical exceptions there may be, a normal healthy minded female will seek to avoid combat
He said Joan of D'arc. Only a yanktard speaks like that, frogtard
Several people have already brought it up, but Female warriors were not uncommon in Kamakura japan. They became more infrequent as war spread into the warring states, and even more so as the Tokugawa imposed a Neo-Confucian social hierarchy.
>Joan of Arc - Armored Cheerleader
She led the troops into battle and suffered injuries. That is not a "cheerleader".
Gráinne O'Malley was a successful clan and pirate leader, she was able to meet to meet the queen and strike a deal.
Ching Shih was a successful Chinese pirate leader who managed to get full amnesty, retire with her treasure, and open a gambling house.
This is wrong.
Not him but it actually isn't.
Testosterone makes humans more brash, risk-taking traits that an "ambitious" person would have, valuing high risk-reward situations.
This is also the reason why when men become fathers their testosterone production lowers
Yeah it is. Sociobiology and biological determinism was BTFO over 40 years ago for exactly that reason. You can't explain social phenomena away with
>muh genetics.
Correlation doesn't equal causalization.
She was also a Zheng. A prominent Fujian-based Pirate Clan. She took over her Husband's operations when she croaked, hence her popular nickname (Ching Shih => Zheng I-Sao => "Widow of Zheng.")
Most famous family member being Zheng Cheng'gong, Alias "Koxinga." who fought the Manchus ferociously and BTFO the Dutch in Taiwan.
Eh. She was a good leader but you need to admit that she is propped up by the fact that she is a woman. I've had this discussion too many times on Veeky Forums but:
>Siege of Orleans
French victory, the French outnumbered the English 2:1
>Battle of Jargeau
3000 v 5000, French Victory
>Battle of Meung-sur-Loire
French victory, French had more soldiers than the English
>Battle of Beaugency
French victory
>Battle of Patay
French victory that has been credited to Joan of Arch even though she arrived late and did not play a part in the actual victory.
>Siege of Paris
French failure. French had 10 000, the English 3000
She won most of her battles, but none of her victories were particularly impressive. She almost always outnumbered or equaled to her enemies.
But it's not genetics, it's hormones. You're retarded if you think that hormones don't affect the way we think and act.
Wish I could find a book on the subject, Chinese pirates. It's hard enough to find anything that isn't romanticized to all hell, let alone piracy in the pacific.
Menstruation is not an injury.
>shield maidens
Yes they existed, but only for defensive purposes. When the men were off for years at a time raiding distant shores, the women would be left alone and needed to be able to defend their homes and children. They never went on raids and they weren't real warriors, just militia.
Comparing them to the Vikings is like comparing pic related to the Marines.
She sustained an arrow to the breast in the battle of Orleans, and continued fighting.
Later, in the unsuccessful attack on Paris, she suffered a serious arrow wound to the thigh.
I can go on google right now and find literally 100s of contemporary articles and studies on the psychological differences between men and women.
Whenever I read anything about Lyudmila Pavlichenko, I get this feeling of that Navy SEAL copypasta.
>I have over 300 confirmed kills kiddo
Same thing with the finnish guy.
>yes they existed
some source would be appreciated
Did she fought dragons as well?
No one denies that biology doesn't affect human behaviour you fucktard. But that doesn't mean it's sufficient as an explaination. Maybe take a dictationary and look up "determinism" sometime. But let me guess you would rather continue to call names.
>calls someone fucktard
>d-don't call me names
lmao
>amazons - didn't exist
They did, and its the only example of common place female combatants. It presumably happened because they were horse archers and avoided melee, they just shot and rode away.
They are two large related groups.
>american_attempts_history.jpg
Those Kurdish women work mostly doing logistics, medical work and communications.
...
Can you be an asshole somewhere else? OP opens his premise asking for information, but already evinces his bias. Now rather than changing this bias when confronted with evidence to the contrary like any sane person, he instead sticks his fingers in his ears, or like you, becomes a condescending prick. You are everything that is wrong with this board, so do slink back to the egotistical hugbox you came from, you shallow individual.
That's alot of unhealthy anger.
they are more of a deadweight if anything
A literal propaganda campaign to elicit sympathy. Women have straight up never been warriors. It is much less plausible the farther back you go: obviously there are no women who can fight with the average man hand-to-hand. (No, your Ronda Rousey can't beat up a six foot, 185 pound man, get over it.)
Hispanics are Spaniard and people in Spanish speaking countries with their cultural heritage. Indians are native to this continent and have a completely different culture. A lot of people in latin america fall somewhere in between this and identify as either or. Or they will claim their own culture like latino, mestizo, ladino etc.
Actually different people, but pretty funny.
>Women in general have a different physicality from men, but that didn't stop dedicated women from soldiering where they were able to.
Women aren't inferior to men, but they are definitely athletically—and intellectually, for that matter—inferior. Women aren't designed for conflict, although they obviously serve a very important role in society.
All of those are highly unsubstantiated. The Night Witches in particular are basically admitted Soviet propaganda.
>women have straight up never been warriors
This is objectively a false statement made from a stance of skepticism rather than fact.
The Dahomey Amazons are factually known to exist. The Onna bugeisha are well documented from as recently as the Boshin War and stretching back into legend. There are confirmed warrior women among the burials of steppe people like the Sarmatians.
You mean they DIDNT crawl along the wings of planes in flight, to manually rotate the propellers to get them working again?!?!
>There are confirmed warrior women among the burials of steppe people like the Sarmatians.
What do you mean by 'confirmed'? Please do remember that being buried with weapons =/= you were a soldier.
I don't know about warriors, but there were occasional female generals. IIRC for some reason Central and Inner Asian women sometimes had a lot of power or outright led armies in the field. There are some scattered stories of it happening in Chinese history too, such as Lady Hao of Shang and Liang Hongyu. Mulan is completely made up though.
Boudica just has to be the biggest failure in military history. If she was a man named Boudiceus she would be either be relegated to Santa Anna or Antiochus III level of laughingstock, or completely forgotten.
>No one denies that biology doesn't affect human behaviour you fucktard
That's not the point. The question is how much does it affect . But hormone etc do have an affect, and thus dismissing as being entirely wrong is unreasonable.
>But that doesn't mean it's sufficient as an explaination
It depends. On some areas it may very well serve as a reasonable answer, and especially on gendered issues when the opposing answer usually is "a sexists conspiracy spanning the entire western world is the reason why.."
>determinism
No one was being deterministic. People generalize when discussing things because adding "some" and "most of" in front of every sentence gets tedious and is inconvenient.
20% of the sarmatian warrior graves had female skeletons dressed for battle with weapons and the bones showed wounds consistent with weapon scarring.
>men are biologically stronger, faster, smarter, with higher stamina and pain threshold
>FUCK YO DETERMINISM !!!
Kek. Everyone accepts that a fat white manlet won't play basketball at the same level as LeBron James but suddenly when it's women vs men they're magically just as capable as men even though they're infinitely inferior biologically.
>The Dahomey Amazons are factually known to exist.
Look on Wikipedia: there are like three sources. Are you saying nobody has ever lied?
>This is objectively a false statement made from a stance of skepticism rather than fact.
You know why contact sports are separated by gender? With male hormones and other advantages that modernity grants women, you would assume we would have that super woman who can compete with the boys by now. We don't; we never will. There is no better time for it to happen than now, yet it doesn't... because it's asinine and based on an ignorance of both mental and physical biology and sexual dimorphism.
Women aren't inferior. Women are just less intelligent and less athletic. They still are great at facilitating social connections, providing support and companionship and nurturing children. Women hatred is even gayer than not realizing women are athletically and intellectually inferior.
>companionship
This is a blatant lie, hence why no man is ever interested in a woman if there's no sex involved. Even fully bisexual men will tell you that a boyfriend is much better thing to have than a girlfriend.
>women aren't inferior, they're just not as good as men
also known as being inferior dumbshit
Women as a whole, in statistics, arent as physically robust, and intelligence being a factor at all is debatable. Saying women only women are superior at social connections is pretty bullshit considering most diplomats were men.
Women as a whole are usually less athletic, an individual woman has the potential to be exceptionally athletic.