Was it common for women to fight alongside men in levy units...

For germans there is a core of truth. Tacitus reports:

It stands on record that armies already wavering and on the point of collapse have been rallied by the women, pleading heroically with their men, thrusting forward their bared bosoms, and making them realize the imminent prospect of enslavement

Women would have been very close at hand and would have probably fought on rare occasions because of their proximity to the fighting. Tacitus also reports that german women often would lead revolts against the romans. Especially seeresses and other priestly women.

Assuming you are talking specifically about Europe in this time period: nah, it wasn't common. We just have to examine things like mass graves after battles, or tombs of warriors to realise it.

However the barbarian invading armies took their family with them, it was a migration. You have stories of men fleeing only to be turned back by their women encamped right behind the battlefield. And we can speculate that during desperate times, sieges, last stands, women had to fight as well. But again, as far as I know, there is simply no evidences of women simply fighting alongside men all the time.

Fuck, I really hate when the media takes an interesting find and tries to use for their own agenda. There's what you mentioned which happens every so often, but you have recent examples like those north african skeletons found in England dating back to Roman times. Any archeologist would tell you they are very probably soldiers who died on duty, but some media turns it into "There has always been North Africans in Britain!"

no, they were seen as too valuable to throw away in wars.

You don't have to be a genius to realize the distinction between fantasy and history. Calling the inclusion of women warriors in disregard of actual history leftist shilling is exactly that. There's no other reason for them to exist in the game. How I feel about the representation of women in whatever shitty installment of Dragon Age Bioware is still churning out is irrelevant, because it isn't history.

Furthermore bringing up Rome 2 isn't even a reach, at a glance the game looks interchangeable with Atilla and they came out within the same two years if memory serves me correct. This discussion began concerning the series as a whole.

But total war isn't completely historical in the first place, and they added Amazonians for the Scyths in Rome II.

The man said he was playing this game, and the titled picture was of Attila, so that's what I was arguing for.

Atilla is a standalone expansion of Rome 2, thats why they look so much alike.

Honestly the series has been pretty unabashed about shit like that. They had stereotypical ninjas in black pajamas fighting as units in Shogun.

Nothing wrong with opening up the discussion to the series.

>But total war isn't completely historical in the first place, and they added Amazonians for the Scyths in Rome II.
there was a secret area of Amazonians on the northern edge of the map in Rome 1

I really dont have a problem with amazonians because they were an actual story of the times. They are fun to include.

Many women were camp followers and helped during sieges, however during the battle/assault a general would want their best troops at the front and because weapons at the time were muscle powered that would mean almost entirely adult men under the age of 45 even if their culture had no bias against women warriors. In many cases logistics was an issue and there would be no nonessential camp followers.

Considering the disregard for historical accuracy by this game in general I don't think it is a big deal.

If I were designing it I would do everything on a much larger scale even if it is at the cost of visuals of individual soldiers fighting. I would make supply all important and make the fact that Hunnic all-cavalry armies don't need supply lines but have to loot along the way part of the game and the advantage they have rather than overpowering their units and army size. I would make politics important, if you want direct control over a unit they must be loyal to you and disciplined otherwise an AI will control them. So you have a choice between raising a standing army that is well paid or raising many levies quickly who you can only give simple orders to and might withdraw if things aren't going well or charge recklessly if they are undisciplined.

I think historical accuracy would be creative and improve the game. The player will take their core units and lead the AI units forward and focus on the pivot of a battle rather than have to micromanage everything. They would need to take into account the temperaments of each civilization and each playthrough will be unique.

This. Dying in war always has been a Male Privilege.

People like fielding gladiators. People love spartacus.

It's a cheap, easy DLC to make that they're guaranteed a profit on.

Dan Carlin talks about this in his Fall of the Roman Empire series. He claims that when the Celtic and Gallic armies started to route, the women who were camp followers would attack the routing army (their husbands, sons and brothers) and also they would attack the harrying Romans. Doesn't mention any females en linea though. IDK.

>more importantly there weren't any female gladiators
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiatrix

Ancient women's MMA or sexy fights to the death?

>Gladiator
>Gladiatrix
TECHNICALLY he's correct lmao

>MFW britcucks make games full of women (Still with 7 inch arms though) able to kill male warriors in order to try to get some low quality pussy.

Just like normal gladiators a bit of both

Why do you keep posting your face everywhere I saw you on pol

>implying the average Veeky Forums bloke gets the pussy Darren gets.
Ayy

Woah, are the Rome: Total War tiddies a mod, or is this actual DLC?

It would have been okay if gladiators were only available as garrison units in cities that had amphitheatres, it makes more sense than random mobs named "PLEBS"

Mod.

It's death throes of the republic, and it's the fall of the Roman republic not empire. You're about 500 years off

All male armies is a myth. The romans was known for using woman as light cavalry and also for skirmishes. The belgae were said to use woman in black face to scare their enemies. The huns used woman on the front lines because their screams were louder so they could scare the enemie

Thread's dead, but you should only play Total War for the mods. I remember sinking a huge amount of time into Europa Barbarorum and Roma Surrectum II

>female gladiators

Why the hell would you want physically weak people who can bear children to go into battle? It's dumb. There may be isolated incidents of it happening as a last resort, but it's not common.

>they added Amazonians for the Scyths in Rome II.
They had them in Rome 1 already