How prevelant were female warriors in Scottish history?

Every dead soldier 1 for 1 with a dead woman is worth 450 dead enemies within 30 years.

No successful nation ever sent women to fight wars.

What about Russia?

Very limited propaganda, 99.99999999% were men, if is retarded on all accounts when women can breed more soldiers if I was enemy and wiped out enemies reproductive ability I will conquer eventually.

Have you seen Scottish women? You might mistake them for men.

Now if enemy had woman breed more soldiers and have 15x more soldiers in 18 years then I will accept no breakthrough.

This doesn't equate to sending women onto the battlefield because as has been said in this thread a woman has a lot more social value than a man does, but Irish literature seems to suggest that the Picts' martial arts teachers were women, or at least that the concept was accepted by them and that a martial artist of exceptional skill could be a woman.

But if I'm wiping out a non replenishable population I would be unrelentless in war eventually conpletely ending enemy.

>tfw got to date a tall thick Veeky Forums redhead for 6 months

Best time of my life

you'd fail because your tactics are likely as bad as your spelling. if this was such a brilliant idea other leaders would have tried it because its so simple. the idea is shit because your nation is vastly outnumbered by literally every other nation combined. you'll lose as no one is left at home to grow food or provide what is necessary to maintain your army. but lets say you as king of Scotland with your super army of everyone in the nation has defeated and wiped out the english entirely you have to contend with every other nation that would then want england. these nations all have fully functioning economies, the means to hold on to the land in england and non retarded military leaders.

The scotsman died a real human bean

And his daughters are THICC
You understand me senpai

>female
>Warrior
Choose one

Females can be warriors. But generally they aren't as good as men and it's stupid to send your human production capacity to fight.

Imagine a race of humans where their men were as short, weak, and have as poor spatial awareness as your people's women. They would still have warriors, they would simply be at a disadvantage.

...

We have no real evidence one way or the other.

Certainly, the number of female warriors amongst Norse burials seems to have significantly underestimated so, something similar is possible in Scotland.

Unfortunately, we just don't have many burials, the soil's too acidic.

>what is ancient persia

Wow, this is legit autism combined with borderline mental retardation.

>Bouddica
She was black african tho

>We have no real evidence one way

you know which way

>or the other

you can't provide evidence of something not having happened, only evidence of something having happened.

All you're saying is there is no evidence whatsoever that Scottish women ever took up war arms.

>the number of female warriors amongst Norse burials seems to have significantly underestimated

sauce

and you don't have her anymore

>All you're saying is there is no evidence whatsoever that Scottish women ever took up war arms

Yes, but as I've said the evidence is highly fragmentary. Most of this stuff is decided by grave goods. And whilst we do have a lot of weaponry occuring in Scotland in the Medieval and post Roman iron age, we do not have much weaponry occuring in association with human remains, as we simply have very few instances of substantial human remains from that far back in general.

Furthermore, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We simply have no clear archaeological evidence one way or the other.

>sauce

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0254.2011.00323.x/abstract

>evidence of absence

There is no such thing in the first place, so it would be an equally valid thing to say "Lettuce is not evidence of absence."

All you can really say is no evidence supporting the claim that Scottish women fought in war.

There are no scottish women, the men just sprout from moist holes in the ground...

There is no definitive evidence one way or another.

We can neither prove nor disprove, at this stage, that women did take part in armed conflict, or that they never took part in armed conflict.

However, we do have written records saying they did, and evidence for female warriors in a culture with which the Picts, Britons, and Gaels had extremely close contact with.

As such, saying that women NEVER fought seems to be the larger assumption to make. A better question is whether the presence of women in armed conflict was particularly prevalent.

>sex ratio of Norse migrants
>Most of the data gives the impression that Norse females were far outnumbered by males.
>SUGGESTS that female migration MAY have been as significant as male

lol so they reduced the sample size by cherry picked data to more equally match sex ratios in those with merely migrant status.

>using burials that are ""most" certainly"" Norse

At least they used osteological sex differentiation. As if you can be more or less certain about something.

No, they took a sample of graves with weaponry as grave goods and analysed the skeletons within. Of the 14, 7 were men, 6 were women and one was undetermined. In that kind of situation, the only real limiting factor is going to be funding for analysis.

This is still significant, as in the old days it would be assumed that any grave with a weapon in it was a male grave.

Also, is English your first language? The more I read your comments the less sense they make.

>There is no definitive evidence one way or another.

THERE CAN ONLY EVER BE EVIDENCE OF THE PRESENCE OF A PARTICULAR OBJECT

EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE IS IMPOSSIBLE BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF THOSE TERMS

>We can neither prove nor disprove

YOU CANNOT ""DISPROVE"" BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE LINE DIRECTION OF THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE

>we do have written records saying they did

Oh so you do have some evidence, it's just not archeological. Maybe you can provide sauce.

>THERE CAN ONLY EVER BE EVIDENCE OF THE PRESENCE OF A PARTICULAR OBJECT

>EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE IS IMPOSSIBLE BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF THOSE TERMS

I don't understand why you're getting so upset by this, it's very simple.

We have no evidence one way or the other.

We have not found a grave that has been identified as likely being female that has weapons as grave goods.

But just because we haven't found such a grave yet doesn't mean there were never any female warriors.

>YOU CANNOT ""DISPROVE"" BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE LINE DIRECTION OF THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE

The burden of proof runs both ways. You need proof to say there were no female warriors just as much as you need proof to say there was female warriors.

>Maybe you can provide sauce.

Tacitus' Agricola, probably, I'd have to look it up.

Even, I'd be wary of calling written records evidence. They're suggestive, but not definitive.

you're retarded
>14

They took a very small sample of graves using the filter "most certainly Norse" to parse the data. Beyond this, their conclusive statement contains the modifiers "suggests", and "may" concurrently.

This is a very weak statement strictly because it is as strong as it can be given the weight of the evidence backing it up.

>in the old days

Which year, and which organization?

>We have no evidence one way or the other.
>The burden of proof runs both ways.

You're like a broken record. Stop talking about things you don't understand.

>Tacitus recording the Norse invasions of England

user stop.

Okay, you evidently have very little understanding about how modern Archaeology works.

14 graves in by no means a small sample size. These aren't run like political polls. Isotopic analysis on even 14 skeletons is very, very expensive. The phrase "most certainly Norse" because all archaeological interpretation is just that: interpretive. Just because a person is buried in a Norse fashion, in former Norse territory, with Norse grave goods does not prove they are Norse. But it does suggest they are "most certainly Norse". The use of "suggests", "may" etc. is entirely in keeping with this post-processualist viewpoint, and is entirely normal for almost all archaeological scholarship, in Europe at least.

>Which year, and which organization?

Just about anything before the 80s.

>You're like a broken record. Stop talking about things you don't understand

Not an argument.

And we're still talking about female warriors in post-Roman iron age Scotland, user, the article on Norse burials was merely being used as a case study for the evidence of female warriors in temporally and geographically contemporary society.

It really is that simple user: we don't know.

We have no definitive proof one way or another.

As a Scot, I can vouch for this.

>14 graves in by no means a small sample size.
>anthroplebs believe this

>Post-processual archaeology
>a movement in archaeological theory that emphasizes the subjectivity of archaeological interpretations

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

They actively cherry picked those graves user.

>we found a grave of a child with weapons in it
>HE MUST HAVE BEEN A CHILD SOLDIER!!!!

Gets my brain get on a train

You mean the Chinese?

Boudicca is part of the iceni tribe which were in the east of England

Remember, Celts from Britannia and the Erie are the 'biggest we wuz'

user chariots

Yeah sure. They showed the UN what's what.

I'm sorry, im Galician so I can't stand those. Let me enjoy my bagpipes for memes and that's as Celtic as I get

Prove it.

Pretty much, yeah.

Direct evidence of warfare is very difficult to find in earlier eras, particularly in places where human remains don't survive long, like Scotland.

You have to understand.

Archaeology is a science. But the evidence is so laughably insufficient achieving an objective result is nearly impossible for even the most basic problems.

So we don't bother trying, and just stress that our interpretation of a site is merely our interpretation, and is inherently subjective. And it works pretty well.

>Archaeology
>is a
>science.

>the evidence is so laughably insufficient achieving an objective result is nearly impossible for even the most basic problems
>we don't bother trying
>just stress that our interpretation of a site is merely our interpretation

TELL ME ABOUT THEIR HAPLOTYPES user PLS

PLS

Even if they are genetically Norse, that does not prove they are culturally Norse.

A third generation slave in the US is going to be very different from a West African tribesman, for instance.

And even then, a Norse style grave does not prove the person inside considered themselves Norse. The dead don't bury themselves, user, the living do.

They're prevelant in not only Scottish, but Celtic mythology in general, but how much truth there is in there is unknown. Dunscaith Castle was said to have been owned by one those mythical female scottish warriors, but the date the castle was made and the time she was supposed to have existed don't match up.

All scottish warriors wore skirts so all of them