Was there ever a real Amazonian like society in history...

No.

There were however the scythians, who were tall and powerfully built aryans, who had females participate in raids on poor little brown guys all across the mediterranean.

Not even tripping, there are quite a few instances of contemporary matriarchal societies.

Unrelated but pretty sure the amazonian myth comes from some Alexander the great marriage arrangement. Interesting anyway.

sauce

There's never even been an unambiguously matriarchal society.

ever*

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo

Yeah that's a fair call but.

>The Mosuo are often referred to as China's "last matrilineal society."[3] The Mosuo themselves may also often use the description matriarchal, which they believe increases interest in their culture and thus attracts tourism.[4] However, the terms matrilineal and matriarchal do not reflect the full complexity of their social organization. In fact, it is not easy to categorize Mosuo culture within traditional Western definitions. They have aspects of a matriarchal culture: women are often the head of the house, inheritance is through the female line, and women make business decisions. However, unlike a matriarchy, the political power tends to be in the hands of males.[4]

Matrilineality =/= Matriarchy

> women are often the head of the house, inheritance is through the female line, and women make business decisions.
Pretty much cuz.

>However, unlike a matriarchy, the political power tends to be in the hands of males

Making it ambiguous.

Literally all Slavic ones. Amazon woman comes from Slavic woman. Us Slavs were the only or at least one of the few with a matriarchal society.

I mean, maybe there were some big Matriarchal societies at somepoint some where, but I doubt women ever made up the bulk of any army at any point in time.

It's just much more practical to use men as fighters

If you're a matriarch, wouldn't you just send off the disposable betas to war and fuck the alphas that return alive?

>One that had this bad ass female warrior class
Wouldn't last longer than like a generation since you need to keep the women safe for future generation.
Lose half of your men and you can still get the same numbers the next generation, but if you lose half of your women you can't.

I think I read about some matriarchal society though in southeast asia.

Its odd that humans are one of the few animals where the female isn't stronger or just as strong as the males. I mean, look at the other mammals, there's no much difference in strength between the sexes. Human women lost the genetic lottery.

closest we got to it in Europe were Sarmatians, who fielded female warriors

huma child rearing is incredibly lengthy and humans are organized into tribes or flocks, so it's better to devote strength-building resources to the gender that doesn't carry children because they can do all the dangerous work anyway

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonhwa

This is all I can think of.

Amazons are based of Sarmatians and Scythians, who were Iranian not Slavic. Also, they weren't matriarchal

males are almost always much stronger in large mammals

>im literally retarded what is sexual dimorphism

Oh yeah i forget gender studies class completely ignores any aspects of basic biology

The Scythians conscripted up to 1/3 of their female population in times of abject desperation, such as when being btfo by the Sarmatians

Since women are sub-par warriors at best, and have a scarcity-dependant role in reproduction (one man can impregnate many women) this just exacerbated their btfoings

Also a society of steppe nomad hunters buried women with bows.

From these two facts comes the meme of matriarchal Scythian Amazons

Have you actually looked at other large mammals? Not only they are bigger, they sometimes have additional natural weapons like antlers.

You must be thinking of bugs, fish, frogs, etc.

Are you retarded?

Wouldn't said betas be prepared to fight for war, thus making them alpha?

I reckon it'd be a bit like Sparta, where open relationships for the sake of offspring were encouraged.

Sauce?

Pretty much only birds are sexually dimorphic so that females are stronger, most large mammals follow the stronger male pattern of dimorphism, and some just aren't very dimorphic

Its quite obvious why women are weaker than men

a) Men would anyway be doing more of the work since women were raising children, so it became advantageous for men to be stronger
b)Men are naturally inclined to want to provide for and help women, therefore its even likely that weaker more dependant women were selected for since they either better stimulated men's desires to protect and provide, or because the increased specialisation allowed them to outbreed others

Female T-rex were much bigger then males

gragarious animals are usually lead by larger alpha males. Females are only larger in solitary animals

Elephants are lead by elder matriarch

That's actually a misconception.

Except for all eusocial insects and several sorts of fish.

human females are perfectly capable of fightimg and there must have been some cultures where women had the role of warriors as there have certainly been and still are cultures where women fight alongside men even if in fewer numbers, but these cultures must have been endemic exceptions, more frequent were things like all female bodiguard troops, or some other kind of organised religious or ideological deal like the kurdish female fighters today

but all thats besides the point, since you have to give me sauce and name on that jpg.

wut? If anything humans are some of least sexually dimorphic mammals

Also mole rats, the only eusocial mammal.

Also orcas. But in both cases the males are still usually larger.

yeah the amazonians where real

>Not that I usually respect the accuracy behind all his videos
Elaborate

Who cares I just want to fuq muscle girls.

this, compared to most other primate species humans are practicaly androginous in apperance

no obviously

that image makes me wonder about a different thing

could it be that much of how early civilised culture arise stems from variations of personality cults and worship of idol figures living in the social group itself

this would explain how early monarchies worked in the begining for example, could it be that the notion the king and queen are a sort of holy, godgiven breeding couple comes not only from inherent alpha status withing the group which allows for such notions to be imposed trough monopoly of force and colaboration with existing religious figures, but also from the simple need and tendency of the rest of the population to accept and idolise such figures as almost manifestations of divine principles and models to be followed and emulated?

considering the low technological level and the ammount of violence that would othervise be constantly necesary to maintain control and consent, it kinda makes sense

also this seems to go along how humans function, theres numerous histrical examples of such persnality cult setups even in modern societies and a general tendency to reproduce variations of dom-sub relations with dominant individuals being revered and worshiped is obvious from examples ranging from ancient history to contemporary fetish scenes, its like a way humans are calibrated, a part of the organism and how its programed to live

Really, Homo sapiens is the most out of all humans. Homo erectus varied from 4 feet as adults to 6 feet as children.

Birds are some of the least sexually dimorphic of all the tetrapods and when they are dimorphic the males are larger and flashier (peacocks, roosters etc). To the point where parrot owners have to go through genetic testing to figure out the sexes of their creature.

You do realize that societies lambasted as "extremely sexist muh soggy knees" such as the Greeks shared all those qualities except for inheritance through the female line?

Women were in charge of domestic household matters, men in charge of political matters.

Amazon myth came from Scythian people since their women were fighting too.

It's kind of that.

From my impression a lot of early kingship was generally a priest-king, someone who claimed to have a special connection with the gods.

If you paired this with having slightly more knowledge about certain things like astronomy, the weather, literacy, etc you could really play it up.

>lions

This is actually a misconception. In most large gregarious mammals like elephants, whales and horses, it's the oldest females who call the shots.

The males are physically larger, but they largely cloister themselves to the periphery of their society and mostly focus on keeping other males away while the females do all the "thinking".

Yes, the largest male leads the vanguard, but he is ultimately going in the direction that the females are telling him to go, and just as often gets left behind scratching his head wondering where all the females went.

>I haven't taken a biology class in 5 years

t. homeschooled

>the kings sex slave guards that got slaughtered by the French

Inspiring

Male lions are stronger than female lions

There are mammals with stronger females but lions aren't one of them

me on the bottom

I think most of his videos are more opinion than fact. The amazon one I'm talking about included. However, he did make a compelling case in it, which I just cited.

they put up a good fight, frenchie had to haul in howitzers to finish them off

Homo sapiens males are actually more feminized than their ancestors or other branches like Neandertalensis. They produce less testosterone and are more encline to social cooperation. Future feminization of mankind is also a big theory about the evolution of sapiens

>put up a good fight

They didn't put a central in the enemy though

>many of the French soldiers fighting in Dahomey hesitated before shooting or bayoneting the N'Nonmiton. The resulting delay led to many of the French casualties.

The only reason they found any success is because the French are stupid

*dent not central

I their renown has more to their uniqueness, and effectiveness in their native setting. The French being able to outgun a regiment of musket and cutlass wielding women is no surprise. Still the fact that they fought, and took "advantage" of the Frenchman's arguably patronising view of women is noteworthy.

>noteworthy

Not very impressive though, attempting something is fine but being proud when its a failure is not

Who said anything about pride? It's a last stand, that as you mention, ended in failure. Whether it's impressive or not is up to one's opinion.