Celtic Women Warriors?

>we wuz cimbri and teutons
Boiorix, Gaesorix, Lugus sure sound Germanic...

Women fought all through history, not as much as men but none of you are men really so they got one up on all of you. instead of imagining what hostory is like then asking other people on a really bad history forum about what they think, read a book lad. Available from shops and online, that way you have kowledge not a few unproven facts from other kids.

>Plutarch and Caesar are “other kids”
>Provides no examples for his statement and just chooses to insult people
Yeah, I better listen to you.

Boudicca herself is a meme, she was a Queen through inheritance from her husband who had no sons, she gathered a bunch of tribes and together they attacked undefended cities full of civilians and killed tens of thousands before losing the only major battle they fought against trained opponents. Accounts of the battle of Wattling Street indicate that the women and children watched the battle from the rear. If anything them being there is part of the reason it was a huge a massacre as it was for the Britons, as the Britons retreated they got caught up in the baggage train where their families sat and watched the battle.

Records of Celts through history never mention their warriors being comprised of women, they served as mercenaries all over the ancient world, if the Celtic women fought as often as people today claim we'd have sources from Persia to Carthage talking about it. A great example of Celtic women not being warriors is during Caesars conquest of Gaul. During the Battle of Alesia the Celts forced their women, children and elderly out of the fortress, if they were warriors it would make sense to use them in an assault instead of expelling them.

People try and deflect from this by saying shit like "British Celts are special, their women fought." Don't fall for the memes.

13th post best post
/thread

Extra lol the difference in strength is like 20% and you’re telling me they never fought?

Hard to believe, a well trained woman would crush you puny Veeky Forums virgins

Not an argument
You still have failed to provide examples
All you do is throw ad hominems
Definitely a woman
Or a falseflagger

Scythian women fought and were buried with weapon hence the “Amazons” myth

>Boudicca - Warrior Queen of the Iceni

People are still shilling for that failure?
>outnumber romans 20:1
>still lose

So what you’re saying is you have no examples of Celtic female warriors, which was the entire discussion to begin with, and are currently moving the goalposts
Got it

>Definitely a woman
>Or a falseflagger

He's just a brit

I'm not sure Granuiale was a warrior, per se, but contributing her story nonetheless: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_O'Malley

The upper body strength of men is twice that of a woman on average. You should know that by looking at the size difference alone.

Nobody said women "never" fought in all circumstances. They're at least expected to defend their homes and children when men go outside for wars in most cultures.

Men become the major force of wars in human society is not merely due to strength and other physical differences. If everyone all go to war, then who stay to protect their families, corpse, live stocks...etc back in homes? When women, elders and children all are asked to fight is usually in very desperate time, that's almost common sense.

Well put.

Similarly if my countrymen and I are fighting a war and our women are standing on the front lines along side us men than what the fuck are we even fighting for? Our families back home? Nope! They're here dieing alongside me on the battle field.

The whole idea of women in a combat role it retarded.

It's certainly not true they fought as a matter of course. But there are many legends from Celtic sources of warrior women, and they were remarkably egalitarian in terms of sex relations so it's not impossible to imagine. But Bouddica didn't fight, she merely lead warriors, like Joan of Arc.

The average, sure. There are around 2% of women who can match average male strength, they could certainly have become fighters had they so wished.

I can't imagine any society wanting their women to fight in any large numbers on a regular basis.

Troopers go out and fight, than a lot of them die. Than you need to have new troopers. Women can give birth. If you send the women out and they die the countrire's ability to produce new troopers goes down. After a few decades of this you'd become easy prey for any attacker because you have so few troops to actually wage any sort of defensive war with.

too much rome total war huh

So the lesbians...

Most of them were probably lesbians, yes. This probably helped them ingratiate themselves as "one of the boys". But there are butch women who aren't gay, albeit I don't think they'd be as likely to be interested in fighting even tho they could physically do it.

>How true is that statement?
Marcellinus talks about how fierce Gaul women were in melee, and female Celtic military leaders like Boudica (who destroyed three garrisons and a Legion and burned down some cities, before being put down) are a matter of historical record. So it is at least partly true.
>Almost all Gauls are tall and fair-skinned, with reddish hair. Their savage eyes make them fearful objects; they are eager to quarrel and excessively truculent. When, in the course of a dispute, any of them calls in his wife, a creature with gleaming eyes much stronger than her husband, they are more than a match for a whole group of foreigners; especially when the woman, with swollen neck and gnashing teeth, swings her great white arms and begins to deliver a rain of punches mixed with kicks, like missiles launched by the twisted strings of a catapult.

>they attacked undefended cities full of civilians and killed tens of thousands before losing the only major battle they fought against trained opponents.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Camulodunum

>believing this kind of shit
I can tell you've never advanced beyond high school in your education.

A complex question. There does not seem to have been a large number of women warriors. That does not mean that it did not exist. Just that it was relatively minor.
It seems, however, that Celts were less strict than Romans and Greeks on gender issues. Does that mean that there were more women warriors in this culture than in the other two? The question remains open.
As for Boadicea, she is more of a politician and a strategist than a warrior. Her portrayal as a fighting woman is more of a romantic than a historical image.

20%
Have you ever went to a gym?

He gaves the same description for the Alans and the Goths, and his main point was that Gauls didn't lose their warelikeness unlike the Romans :

>All ages are most fit for military service, and the old man marches out on a campaign with a courage equal to that of the man in the prime of life; since his limbs are toughened by cold and constant toil, and he will make light of many formidable dangers. Nor does anyone of them, for dread of the service of Mars, cut off his thumb, as in Italy

I saw women squat 2 plates

>tfw no Gaul gf to kick the shit out of foreigners with

Palaephatus, who was trying to rationalize the Greek myths in his work On Unbelievable Tales or On Incredible Tales (Greek: Περὶ ἀπίστων ἱστοριῶν), stated that the Amazons most probably were men mistaken for women by their enemies because they wore clothing which reached their feet, tied up their hair in headbands and shaved their beards, and also, since they did not exist during his time, most probably they did nοt exist in the past either.