I finished reading Robin Hobbs first assassin trilogy. In it, there are a lot of female soldiers...

Women did fight, just not professionally most of the time. The less desperate your war situation was, the more restrictive you could be about recruitment. At its most extreme you'd limit arms and warfare to only the aristocratic class, and on the opposite end you'd have to call on every man, woman, and even child to pitch in on the front lines. When it happened it was usually a matter of survival, such as a siege or a last stand of a baggage train.

You did however have certain women who fought before things got that desperate. Usually these were the Mulan types, the cross dressers, but every so often you had steppe nomad women or female royal guardswomen.

>Even the weakest of male soldiers would run circles around the strongest woman soldier.

Why do you have to overstate the case like that? That's obviously false and just makes you sound retarded. Why not just say 90% of men would be better than 90% of women?

>No longer talk after she got a BF
Betamale orbiter that was only friends with her because he was too much of a pussy to ask her out confirmed

Also where does this meme of archery being le agility rogue female character's thing come from? Archery requires serious strength. When people talk about the poundage of the bow, think of it as every second you have the bow drawn, that's a second holding that many pounds off of the ground. With one hand.

But yeah nowadays women are much more useful as soldiers but still severely behind in endurance.

I can't think of a time women were sent off to war. War coming to women is a different matter, though usually they'd submit to the invading force together with the children and the elderly.

>but inspired by history.
no it isn't

THICC
H
I
C
C

>Even the weakest of male soldiers would run circles around the strongest woman soldier.

B E L L
E
L
L

C U R V E
U
R
V
E

>Boudica
>literally a queen
>starting as a soldier and working her way up to commander

This revisionism is getting out of hand

There are jack fuck all historical cases in which women have been in proper battles. Those that have had large number usually have had them out of necessity or a unique circumstance.

Some exceptions have existed but God damn are they rare. I've heard one compelling example of a field promoted female leader as opposed to a sit-at-home one.

If they don't then why don't you have reams of examples for us all?

Because even 90% isn't right. It's likely more than 99%.

>inspired by history
It isn't? Unless you think making flying statues alive is a thing. And isn't only about the rape. Woman are a logistical nightmare. They get wounded/lame a lot easier, they get pregnant, they are weaker specially upper body so they are capable of less work when doing trenches and that stuff. Also in mixed units they make men a lot less efective, primal shit like protecting your females get in the way. Also they are a lot weaker/shorter, specially in melee or using bows they get a huge disavantage in the shield wall or in range .At least they eat less so for defending cities they could do.

>talking about natural distributions without understanding the nature of populations and demographics.
While he's wrong, he's not THAT wrong. Male soldiers would be chosen for physical capability and drilled hard in most circumstances.

By that note we can only assume that to get the point of military service a woman would have to have a particular personality. That personality MAY be accompanied by physical capability, and certainly those traits would couple up more often than not but not all strong women would have it, in fact most would shirk service. What you have then, is heady women recruiting. Of those there must have been a max physique among them. She invariably would have been able to beat down a low male.

In terms of experience and training rather than 'best', the chances would be even lower.

Naturally this occurs for two reasons.
a) the cultural barrier ensuring even the capable are disinterested.
b) the lack of physical capability in women.

>Maybe as archers women in ancient times would be bearable
Are you kidding? Archery needs more raw strength than front-lining, albeit with potentially less skill.
As for today. You still need to able to heft packs and fucking haul. Carry the wounded and other such physical things. Have you not seen the massive drama with the addition of women to more front line forces. Most can't handle the battery of tests before the battle field. Lord knows how they would handle the field itself.

Quite a horrifying proposal if you subscribe to genetics carrying attitudes (which is pretty much fact at this stage). All the loyalists got slaughtered.

She was not born in the 17th century though. Kings and Queens needed to prove they are worthy.

>Woman are a logistical nightmare.
Women were around in every single pre-modern war. They didn't always fight in the army but attended the wounded, prepared the meals and well, soldiers like to have whores around. And although you are technically right about physical strength women's lack of it is not the point. You didn't enlist strong people only.
To further strengthen my point: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Crusades
library.flawlesslogic.com/tacitus.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Khorramdin

Problem is for most of human history stuff like war and hunting was considered men's work. War, especially in the West, tends to be rationalized though and at some point it made simply more sense to let women fight in your army or help the men doing it. When you consult the sources though the role of women is diminished. The same is true for slaves, archers (in Rome/Greece) and other groups not conforming with the male warrior ideal.

I read tacitus before,and woman ralling men for battle isn't uncommon in a lot of cultures (The Almogavers even had they childrens and elders apart of they women in the back for not breaking ranks) but woman were camp followers or last resource levies defending camp/castle (an entire city got for her womanfolk the equivalent of minor Knighthood in the Kingdom of aragon for defending they city while the men were raiding muslims for example). Some women were part of armies as fighting woman? Probably, sweethearts of warriors or runaways, how they fared no one knows for sure. They were closer to 1% of the fighting forces? Very unlikely. Camp followers (than were a nuisance for a lot of generals like Scipio) and last resource fighting in defense, where even children and elderly fought. And leading woman as flag-bearers are another typical thing, amasing your feudal levies isn't the same as leading them too.

The only army of Woman I can think are the Dahomey, than had gunpowder and muskets from Europe in echange of slaves, palm oil, ivory or gold. They fought mostly petty kingdoms or tribals, were they savagery, sacred status and specially guns made them the most effective force of they zone (not that hard because Africa was never very good at organized warfare and Vodun/Black magic did a lot for morale), but the French wrecked them hard. They also were Concubines of the King legally, tough they were banned from anything than a married women should do (sex specially), and they were considered sacred.
They started as Elephant hunters too, and with time they role in the military was incresed until they even had political power. They were also nearly all captives from the Fon, tough some dahomey woman ended there. So with guns, strict training and mind washing you can make an effective army of woman, but doing the same with males gets you better results unless Woman have a distinct effect in the contrary, like the Peshmerga.

We don't really disagree do we?

Probably only in gradients. I don't advocate for woman soldiers, specially first line because it will be a nightmare for everyone, but other roles? Yeah, specially in medical staff were they help soldiers a lot more than males. The Dahomey were the excpetion because they had the Tech and Morale of they part (and probably were the only permanent warriors of the zone in large numbers).

Some user on here posted a quote from a book written by a Russian sniper during ww2. He said they were trash compared to the male shooters.

1. Boudicca a shit
2. Queen, not warrior

It tends to be overlooked in fantasy because it's fantasy. People trying to link fantasy stories to historical actuality are being silly.

>Even the weakest of male soldiers would run circles around the strongest woman soldier

no

>If they don't then why don't you have reams of examples for us all?
Sorry? If historians don't 'overemphasise the little fighting women did to appease modern sensibilities' I should have reams of examples of historians doing what, not 'overemphasise the little fighting women did to appease modern sensibilities'?

The person making the claim should prove it you sped.

He's(mostly) right though. Despite what gender studies tell you, Women are generally weaker than men.

>being this fucking stupid

DAM hillary looks like that?

It's shopped. She has a flat albino ass.

>go to gym with girlfriend
>she can't bench the 20kg bar
even for one rep
>she's one of the bigger girls too 5'11" 145 lbs

sorry lads the memes are real women are comically useless in the event of war

P
O
T H I C C
U
S

It's a shoop

Any fantasy worth reading was in someway inspired by history. And the cop out of, "they be dragons and shit so it don't count" is horeshit. I haven't read hobb In a while but I remember her going into detail about the effects of real life plants. She did her research for that aspect to be realistic as possible, but made her portrayal of women in a society clearly inspired by the Middle Ages totally unbelievable? Shit, at least GRRM does women somewhat believable.

Sauce on pic?

have you never seen the titty slap?

oh boy

still not bad desu

She was attractiven back during her college days. Lord only knows how much civil rights black dick she got.

Something tells me hillary is a hardcore old school wasp racist she'd never burn coal take that back you asshole

Queens did not do it on the battlefield, we would run out of Queens

this, she is a pure angel

>Female soldiers in the Middle Ages (or any period really) would've been a no go right?

I think this as with many things in history requires a yes and no answer.

It probably happened at some place and time. Was it common? Probably not. There's a reason men do all the fighting and warring, and that's because of both biology and social circumstances.

If it was any other era I'd believe it but a young blonde woman during the civil rights movement and feminism running rampant? Nah man, she was getting dick from all over the place. Shit, she got married to a Chad. I'm sure Bill have her a good dicking before it became a business marriage.

How?

I've read this post three times and I sill don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Are you a woman that was triggered?

Yeah, isn't like it doesn't happense every time when people inserts his worldview/politics in they writing (pretty much everyone). Ringo for example, you can see he has done his reserch in his sci-fi (how the humans make hyper lasers of mirrors to both mine and make mega-weapons is genius) but you can clearly see his bias all the time.

"Historians" do no such thing.

I hate it when people say "historians" and they actually mean two bit bloggers

Especially when they think some fuck on the history channel is a historian.