Play as a Female Warrior in War of the Vikings

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Sonichu:

Being another myth, one actually believed by Russians (with some really horrific consequences for real women).

The Soviets had hundreds of thousands (over 2 million in all, afair) of female soldiers and security troops, but almost all were in non-combat roles. The few Soviet female combatants were celebrated in propaganda (including sending some on a tour to the West), but the surviving ones became de-facto pariahs of Soviet society and often were most often unable to marry unless they hid their wartime past, and that was due to actual misogyny (a widespread fear of them and a belief they're no longer even women, as this was so abnormal), especially since there were so many more young women than young men after the war (because millions more men died, precisely). No happy end in this story. Oh, and you can guess what happened to a female sniper if captured by the enemy, and why. (By now it should be an easy guess.)

Anyway, a more modern example of "progressive" leftist propaganda regarding the subject matter, being confronted with reality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxniHLkMM0

What you say makes very little sense.

If it was so outrageous that women served in the army as combatants, why would they be used as propaganda? Especially sending them out on tour to West means they were proud of the feat, otherwise they would try to hide them, instead of parading them around.

And since you admitted that they very much existed, I think we can stop calling it a myth. It's real. There's hundreds of photos to prove it.

Also; Snipers do horrible things to people, so people do horrible things to them. Sounds like a fair trade to me.
Same goes for those lady guerillas in that video.
Captured soldiers never get treated well, especially snipers or saboteurs.
If you're going to shoot bullets at people, they're going to want your blood. Doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman.

SimpleThunda':

Sonichu:

Being another myth, one actually believed by Russians (with some really horrific consequences for real women).

The Soviets had hundreds of thousands (over 2 million in all, afair) of female soldiers and security troops, but almost all were in non-combat roles. The few Soviet female combatants were celebrated in propaganda (including sending some on a tour to the West), but the surviving ones became de-facto pariahs of Soviet society and often were most often unable to marry unless they hid their wartime past, and that was due to actual misogyny (a widespread fear of them and a belief they're no longer even women, as this was so abnormal), especially since there were so many more young women than young men after the war (because millions more men died, precisely). No happy end in this story. Oh, and you can guess what happened to a female sniper if captured by the enemy, and why. (By now it should be an easy guess.)

Anyway, a more modern example of "progressive" leftist propaganda regarding the subject matter, being confronted with reality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxniHLkMM0

What you say makes very little sense.

If it was so outrageous that women served in the army as combatants, why would they be used as propaganda? Especially sending them out on tour to West means they were proud of the feat, otherwise they would try to hide them, instead of parading them around.

And since you admitted that they very much existed, I think we can stop calling it a myth. It's real. There's hundreds of photos to prove it.

Also; Snipers do horrible things to people, so people do horrible things to them. Sounds like a fair trade to me.
Same goes for those lady guerillas in that video.
Captured soldiers never get treated well, especially snipers or saboteurs.
If you're going to shoot bullets at people, they're going to want your blood. Doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman.

Because Soviet society was supposed to be progressive. It's just like the propaganda celebrated the fabled female tractor drivers (of the kolkhozes), while in reality the women held no power in the state and society, and privately they were very often beaten by their alcohol abusing husbands and no one cared.

It was a myth in Chechnya.

Men usually don't rape men to death.

Which btw is the reason why IDF never, ever deploys women to combat. So they can't be captured by the especially misogynistic Arab enemy (like this happened in some 1948 incidents and traumatised Israelis forever).

I wouldn't recommend deploying any female soldiers against Russians too, of course, and for the same reason.

Sonichu:

Because Soviet society was supposed to be progressive. It's just like the propaganda celebrated the fabled female tractor drivers, while in reality the women held no real power in the state and society, and privately they were very often beaten by their husbands and no one cared.

It was a myth in Chechnya.

Men usually don't rape men to death.

My point was; It is not a myth, which is what you claimed. Go google "female soviet sniper" and tell me how many pages of photographs you find. Whatever the Soviet Union's motivations were behind it I do not care.

And I think you'll find that men are put to death in equally unpleasant ways, rape not being excluded at all.

BigTuk:
Meh, geee we have female models in our game...

When did that actually becomea selling point... no seriously Unreal 1 had female models in it and more that any player could mod in.. Heck Duke3d Had them...

Are games really that easy to impress these days. I mean even the games that didn't come with a female model usually had one spring up with in a month tops on the community forums. Honestly have gamer standards fallen so low that it's become *that* easy to appeal to?

I mean come on. I'd have been more impressed if they actually had the balls to include differing play mechanics but this is nothing worth even a news article.

You are totally right, having female character models in a multiplayer game should not be something worth an article. It should be the standard,something that about every game has, given that it makes a big difference for some but costs very little. We should not have to applaud games like this one, or Call of Duty, or Planetside 2 for that.

However, it is unfortunately not the norm, and in order to encourage change, it's probably good not only to condemn games that fail to deliver here, we should also applaud those who do. Even though it should be expected.

Sonichu:

CloudAtlas:
.... and it only took only five posts for some guy to claim that the possibility to play as your own gender is irrelevant, and I'm sure it won't be long before the next guy to complain that it is not historically accurate and therefore supposedly bad even though the game most certainly is not 100% historically accurate in many other ways as well.

What, not 100% (0%) accurate? Didn't you see how they're "basing the look on historical notions. Vikings traditionally made no distinction between men and women warriors, training whoever had an aptitude for warfare no matter their gender."

So? Do you just have a problem with the devs claiming something that you think is not true?
Or do you have a problem with the female character models being in the game itself as well?

SimpleThunda':

Sonichu:

Because Soviet society was supposed to be progressive. It's just like the propaganda celebrated the fabled female tractor drivers, while in reality the women held no real power in the state and society, and privately they were very often beaten by their husbands and no one cared.

It was a myth in Chechnya.

Men usually don't rape men to death.

My point was; It is not a myth, which is what you claimed. Go google "female soviet sniper" and tell me how many pages of photographs you find. Whatever the Soviet Union's motivations were behind it I do not care.

And I think you'll find that men are put to death in equally unpleasant ways, rape not being excluded at all.

No, there were no "female soviet sniper" in Chechnya neither.

I know Russians also raped many men (and boys) in Chechnya, but this was humilitation and not sexual assault, and involved tools like truncheons or spadehandles not their penises, and was random not "because snipers". While with things like the http://pipss.revues.org/3840 it was precisely the myth of "female snipers" that led to the rape-murder and/or is used as an excuse.

Also, see Israel (again).

Single Shot:
That'd be good if Vikings treated women as equals, but they didn't. In Viking society a woman's place was at home keeping the fires lit, the farm active, and the children alive. The closest women ever got to Viking battle was as they were raped and killed.

Not entirely accurate. Women were taken on the viking marauding missions, we've got remains of things like sewing spools to show it. So unless the men were doing all their own stitching they had women on those boats. Obviously its a bit of a leap from portable tailors to warrior women, but demonstrates they weren't being quite as left at home as you think

Single Shot:
And the Saxons? They went out of their way to order their society so that men did all the heavy lifting jobs like Ox herding/construction/war while women did the other things like midwife/entertainers(singing, acting, barmaid)/Baker. So why would they let women onto the field of battle when they didn't let women carry heavy stuff?
Again, it's noted that some Saxon women were buried with weapons, but the meaning of that ritual is still unknown. As the type of weapon you wielded was matched by your class it could be totally unrelated to actual war fighting.

Aethelflaed would like to disagree with your statement about Saxon women not having a place on the battlefield

Pallindromemordnillap:

Single Shot:
That'd be good if Vikings treated women as equals, but they didn't. In Viking society a woman's place was at home keeping the fires lit, the farm active, and the children alive. The closest women ever got to Viking battle was as they were raped and killed.

Not entirely accurate. Women were taken on the viking marauding missions, we've got remains of things like sewing spools to show it. So unless the men were doing all their own stitching they had women on those boats. Obviously its a bit of a leap from portable tailors to warrior women, but demonstrates they weren't being quite as left at home as you think

Single Shot:
And the Saxons? They went out of their way to order their society so that men did all the heavy lifting jobs like Ox herding/construction/war while women did the other things like midwife/entertainers(singing, acting, barmaid)/Baker. So why would they let women onto the field of battle when they didn't let women carry heavy stuff?
Again, it's noted that some Saxon women were buried with weapons, but the meaning of that ritual is still unknown. As the type of weapon you wielded was matched by your class it could be totally unrelated to actual war fighting.

Aethelflaed would like to disagree with your statement about Saxon women not having a place on the battlefield

Yeah, cool armor, Aethelflaed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%86thelfl%C3%A6d_as_depicted_in_the_cartulary_of_Abingdon_Abbey.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aethelfleda_Monument,_Tamworth_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1740828.jpg

CloudAtlas:
You are totally right, having female character models in a multiplayer game should not be something worth an article. It should be the standard,something that about every game has, given that it makes a big difference for some but costs very little. We should not have to applaud games like this one, or Call of Duty, or Planetside 2 for that.

I'm gong to be perfectly honest, playing as a female in CoD:Ghosts or PS2 means absolutely nothing. If the female models were removed I most likely wouldn't even notice, especially not in Planetside 2 where all the females have shaved heads (urgh). It's pretty obvious they were just thrown in there to tick some kind of "we have female models!" box. Dunno if that's a good or bad thing, but just pointing it out.

I consider it great to have females in an RPG or MMO where the character you are playing has an IDENTITY beyond "Player #9125", where you are actually playing as someone immersed into your character and being part of a story.

But in multipliayer/competitive scene where characters are nothing more than throw-way fodder, the issue of male vs female models gets blown way out of proportion. I guarantee you that feminists who aren't even interested in these games make 10x more uproar about it than the actual gamers themselves who couldn't give two shits.

Sonichu:
Yeah, cool armor, Aethelflaed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%86thelfl%C3%A6d_as_depicted_in_the_cartulary_of_Abingdon_Abbey.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aethelfleda_Monument,_Tamworth_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1740828.jpg

She was more of a military tactician and leader than anything else, ordering forts to be built with her authority...not someone who regularly went into actual battle in armor lol.
Anyway women taking part in actual battle were exceptionally rare on a global scale, even if one or two civilizations happened to harbor a few women in their ranks it really doesn't say much about the overall picture.
Dunno why people keep bringing up the odd famous female fighter, as if trying to prove something o_O

Sonichu:
Yeah, cool armor, Aethelflaed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%86thelfl%C3%A6d_as_depicted_in_the_cartulary_of_Abingdon_Abbey.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aethelfleda_Monument,_Tamworth_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1740828.jpg

Sorry, whats your point here? You seem to be saying that because you have depictions of Aethelflaed wearing a dress her entire military history should be ignored so the point about 'no Saxon women on the battlefield' can stand. Which would be very poor logic.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Single Shot:
That'd be good if Vikings treated women as equals, but they didn't. In Viking society a woman's place was at home keeping the fires lit, the farm active, and the children alive. The closest women ever got to Viking battle was as they were raped and killed.

Not entirely accurate. Women were taken on the viking marauding missions, we've got remains of things like sewing spools to show it. So unless the men were doing all their own stitching they had women on those boats. Obviously its a bit of a leap from portable tailors to warrior women, but demonstrates they weren't being quite as left at home as you think

Single Shot:
And the Saxons? They went out of their way to order their society so that men did all the heavy lifting jobs like Ox herding/construction/war while women did the other things like midwife/entertainers(singing, acting, barmaid)/Baker. So why would they let women onto the field of battle when they didn't let women carry heavy stuff?
Again, it's noted that some Saxon women were buried with weapons, but the meaning of that ritual is still unknown. As the type of weapon you wielded was matched by your class it could be totally unrelated to actual war fighting.

Aethelflaed would like to disagree with your statement about Saxon women not having a place on the battlefield

Okay, I may have oversimplified the Vikings (although the evidence suggests that very few women accompanied raids, and yes whole families sometimes joined longer expeditions), but my point stands that the Women were mostly just there to support them men during wars/raids so the men could devote more time to fighting.

As for Aethelflaed, she was a leader more than a fighter and was probably only a fighter because she was expected to be as a leader, and only a good fighter because all leaders on the frontline (who win) are remembered as heroes, strategic geniuses, or both (Early PR at it's best).

My point about this being historically inaccurate stands.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Sonichu:
Yeah, cool armor, Aethelflaed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%86thelfl%C3%A6d_as_depicted_in_the_cartulary_of_Abingdon_Abbey.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aethelfleda_Monument,_Tamworth_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1740828.jpg

Sorry, whats your point here? You seem to be saying that because you have depictions of Aethelflaed wearing a dress her entire military history should be ignored so the point about 'no Saxon women on the battlefield' can stand. Which would be very poor logic.

We're talking about this article:

"As for the female character models, I was excited to see that their armor didn't have nipples. "We want her to be dressed for battle," Van Dyke said, "Not for Comic Con." Van Dyke even described how much forethought went into the design of the different female models for each faction, basing the look on historical notions. Vikings traditionally made no distinction between men and women warriors, training whoever had an aptitude for warfare no matter their gender. Therefore, the armor and ornamentation on the female Vikings is very utilitarian. On the other hand, the Saxons were not so lenient about having their women fight among men, so any female warriors were likely rich daughters indulged by their noble fathers. "We based the look of the Saxon females on characters like Arya from Game of Thrones," Van Dyke said."

And according to someone on this forum, it is "sexism" to laugh at it.

As for nipple ornaments, it was not unusual in various cultures for armor to have it. Male armor, of course, because "female armor" is pretty much an oxymoron. Or at least until very recently: http://www.policemag.com/channel/women-in-law-enforcement/articles/2007/10/the-shape-of-womens-body-armor.aspx

GUYS! PLEASE!
I don't get all this ranting and raging... the bringing up of female snipers in all this... boy.
A game has made a point of bringing female models into it. This is a good thing.
As to why it merits an article, simple, it's the times.
CloudAtlas said it best:

CloudAtlas:
Having female character models in a multiplayer game should not be something worth an article. It should be the standard,something that about every game has, given that it makes a big difference for some but costs very little. We should not have to applaud games like this one, or Call of Duty, or Planetside 2 for that.

However, it is unfortunately not the norm, and in order to encourage change, it's probably good not only to condemn games that fail to deliver here, we should also applaud those who do. Even though it should be expected.

Hooho, this is pretty cool! And of course the tears of neckbeards whining about "historical accuracy" makes all the more sweet.

Yuuki:

CloudAtlas:
You are totally right, having female character models in a multiplayer game should not be something worth an article. It should be the standard,something that about every game has, given that it makes a big difference for some but costs very little. We should not have to applaud games like this one, or Call of Duty, or Planetside 2 for that.

I'm gong to be perfectly honest, playing as a female in CoD:Ghosts or PS2 means absolutely nothing. If the female models were removed I most likely wouldn't even notice, especially not in Planetside 2 where all the females have shaved heads (urgh). It's pretty obvious they were just thrown in there to tick some kind of "we have female models!" box. Dunno if that's a good or bad thing, but just pointing it out.

1. Are you a woman?

2. It is not about others noticing the gender of your character, it is about yourself knowing to play as a female character.

3. I am not a woman and even I felt a bit different when playing a female character in Planetside 2. Leading a full platoon as a "woman", with the platoon members (often) even following my orders, the orders of a "woman", when I thought about it that was kinda cool.

Trillovinum:
GUYS! PLEASE!
I don't get all this ranting and raging... the bringing up of female snipers in all this... boy.
A game has made a point of bringing female models into it. This is a good thing.
As to why it merits an article, simple, it's the times.
CloudAtlas said it best:

CloudAtlas:
(...)

Why thank you! There are many others who are generally far more eloquent than I am, so to read a statement like this is balm for my soul. :)

Not very historically accurate, but then accuracy was tossed out the window the moment they decided to include two handed axes, it just isn't a practical weapon and vikings would choose anything else really.

Trillovinum:
GUYS! PLEASE!
I don't get all this ranting and raging... the bringing up of female snipers in all this... boy.
A game has made a point of bringing female models into it. This is a good thing.
As to why it merits an article, simple, it's the times.
CloudAtlas said it best:

CloudAtlas:
Having female character models in a multiplayer game should not be something worth an article. It should be the standard,something that about every game has, given that it makes a big difference for some but costs very little. We should not have to applaud games like this one, or Call of Duty, or Planetside 2 for that.

However, it is unfortunately not the norm, and in order to encourage change, it's probably good not only to condemn games that fail to deliver here, we should also applaud those who do. Even though it should be expected.

As far as I can tell no-one in this thread has argued that bringing female models into the game is a bad thing, though several have basically said they don't care. The ranting and raging is about the way the developers have randomly stated something that is completely untrue. Every time someone reads this news post, they're going to see "Vikings traditionally made no distinction between men and women warriors, training whoever had an aptitude for warfare no matter their gender." and their knowledge of the past will get that much worse.

Surely you must agree that deliberately spreading misinformation in order to sell a game as historically accurate is a crappy thing to do? That's what seems to be happening here.

Jasper van Heycop:
Not very historically accurate, but then accuracy was tossed out the window the moment they decided to include two handed axes, it just isn't a practical weapon and vikings would choose anything else really.

A raging battlefield, with hundreds, maybe thousands dying all around you, the Chaos of War, but a big chopping axe? How unrealistic thus realism has been thrown out the window, ALL realism is gone.

Like my exaggerations?

Jasper van Heycop:
Not very historically accurate, but then accuracy was tossed out the window the moment they decided to include two handed axes, it just isn't a practical weapon and vikings would choose anything else really.

IIRC, two handed axes were used during that period, but (again, IIRC), not by your common or garden viking or saxon.

Aside from the obvious positive occurrence of the female character models, I really am happy to see the fact that players are rewarded with cosmetics based on time played, rather than through a predefined amount of gameplay skill. Now I wonder weather it will be a static "Play x amount get y items" or a system similar to a steady drip of random items in games like TF2.

Jasper van Heycop:
Not very historically accurate, but then accuracy was tossed out the window the moment they decided to include two handed axes, it just isn't a practical weapon and vikings would choose anything else really.

Like that?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v204/beowolv/katanas.jpg

I'm hoping for an introduction of a giant enemy crab, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g1fr5vk72M

Lotet:

Jasper van Heycop:
Not very historically accurate, but then accuracy was tossed out the window the moment they decided to include two handed axes, it just isn't a practical weapon and vikings would choose anything else really.

A raging battlefield, with hundreds, maybe thousands dying all around you, the Chaos of War, but a big chopping axe? How unrealistic thus realism has been thrown out the window, ALL realism is gone.

Like my exaggerations?

I don't see what you're getting at here really? I just tried to point out that the people claiming it's not historically accurate to include women don't have a point if the first screenshot already features an inaccurate portrayal of both armament and tactics used

Single Shot:
they are never recorded as being on front lines.

Untrue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shieldmaiden#cite_note-Harrison-2

Sonichu:
Oh, and you can guess what happened to a female sniper if captured by the enemy, and why. (By now it should be an easy guess.)

Male POWs are also frequently raped. And tortured. And killed. (More men are raped in the modern military than women are, in fact.) Why is it worse when it happens to women? If this is a reason women shouldn't be soldiers, then men shouldn't be soldiers either.

thaluikhain:

Jasper van Heycop:
Not very historically accurate, but then accuracy was tossed out the window the moment they decided to include two handed axes, it just isn't a practical weapon and vikings would choose anything else really.

IIRC, two handed axes were used during that period, but (again, IIRC), not by your common or garden viking or saxon.

Two handed axes were sometimes used, but mostly as improvised weapons (peasants lugging their wood clearing tools to war). However a well armed and armoured Huskarl (as we see in the screenshots) would use a big shield in combination with a sword, a sword was the a mark of a professional soldier, someone who could buy and maintain a tool that's largely useless except on the battlefield. Axes are, like the horned helmets (thankfully absent here), largely an invention by christian artists to make the "pagans" look more barbaric, when they were in fact armed with far more sophisticated weapons than their Saxon counterparts.

Ariseishirou:

Single Shot:
they are never recorded as being on front lines.

Untrue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shieldmaiden#cite_note-Harrison-2

To quote the relevant part of your own link

A shieldmaiden was a woman who had chosen to fight as a warrior in Scandinavian folklore and mythology.

And the two real examples in there are 1) a band of women attempting to break a siege when they were so low on supplies up to 20,000 are thought to have died of starvation, so that fits with what I said. and 2) a single woman attacking native Americans to protect her home, which again fits with what I said.

Jasper van Heycop:
Two handed axes were sometimes used, but mostly as improvised weapons (peasants lugging their wood clearing tools to war). However a well armed and armoured Huskarl (as we see in the screenshots) would use a big shield in combination with a sword, a sword was the a mark of a professional soldier, someone who could buy and maintain a tool that's largely useless except on the battlefield. Axes are, like the horned helmets (thankfully absent here), largely an invention by christian artists to make the "pagans" look more barbaric, when they were in fact armed with far more sophisticated weapons than their Saxon counterparts.

Hmmm...do you happen to know if they were used by the Saxons? Because when I was at uni, the dark ages group there mentioned double handed axes being used by wealthy individuals, but I can't remember exactly which.

Ariseishirou:

Sonichu:
Oh, and you can guess what happened to a female sniper if captured by the enemy, and why. (By now it should be an easy guess.)

Male POWs are also frequently raped. And tortured. And killed. (More men are raped in the modern military than women are, in fact.) Why is it worse when it happens to women? If this is a reason women shouldn't be soldiers, then men shouldn't be soldiers either.

OK, so she's going to get an extra treatment. Which means rape (with penises in addition to tools and bayonets), but also the Germans just weren't even taking Soviet female soldiers prisoner if they were captured with a weapon. There was even an official order to shoot them on spot. (Rape comes as an unofficial bonus, and was even oficially illegal, also due to racial reasons, but rarely prosecuted on the Eastern Front.)

What do you think is going to evoke more emotions and make people more uncomfortable, http://collections.yadvashem.org/photosarchive/s637-469/4438675197905789211.jpg or http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/206124-4/rusfem1 and that's for the same reason why Jessica Lynch became an instant celebrity in 2003, but not the guys who went missing with her. It was mostly men who were kiled in the "Rape of Nanking" (mostly just shot) but that hows the human brains are usually wired by the nature. You've gotta care for women more, and that's including war and other disasters. That's also one of reasons why the US female combatant initiative is controversial, because it's undermining the natural cohesion of a unit (the possibility that women are going to be instinctively protected by officers and fellow soldiers).

Now with IDF, in Israeli society chivalry is obviously still alive (you know, woman-and-children-first, all that), now add this to how much the public cares even for captured males (pressuring the government to exchange hundreds of convicted terrorists for the freedom of a single soldier). Also, Arab Muslims are unlikely to rape men due to their extreme stance on gayness.

Sonichu:
that hows the human brains are usually wired by the nature.

No, that's how society views men and women - that men are tough and can take it, that women need special protection. In reality, the rape and murder of a man is just as horrific as the rape and murder of a woman. It certainly is to me, and would be to any thinking person in the modern age.

Sonichu:
Also, Arab Muslims are unlikely to rape men due to their extreme stance on gayness.

This is so brilliantly naive I barely have the words to respond to it. Men who rape other men are often heterosexual.

Single Shot:

Ariseishirou:

Single Shot:
they are never recorded as being on front lines.

Untrue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shieldmaiden#cite_note-Harrison-2

To quote the relevant part of your own link:

Skylitzes records that women fought in battle when Sviatoslav I of Kiev attacked the Byzantines in Bulgaria in 971.

And the two real examples in there are

...Enough to prove your statement that "they are never recorded as being on front lines" was completely false.

thaluikhain:

Jasper van Heycop:
Two handed axes were sometimes used, but mostly as improvised weapons (peasants lugging their wood clearing tools to war). However a well armed and armoured Huskarl (as we see in the screenshots) would use a big shield in combination with a sword, a sword was the a mark of a professional soldier, someone who could buy and maintain a tool that's largely useless except on the battlefield. Axes are, like the horned helmets (thankfully absent here), largely an invention by christian artists to make the "pagans" look more barbaric, when they were in fact armed with far more sophisticated weapons than their Saxon counterparts.

Hmmm...do you happen to know if they were used by the Saxons? Because when I was at uni, the dark ages group there mentioned double handed axes being used by wealthy individuals, but I can't remember exactly which.

Maybe for ceremonial or dueling purposes but not likely on the battlefield. Both Vikings and Saxons (and most other Dark Age armies) fought in close formations called shieldwalls, a weapon that needs to be swung in wide arcs is highly impractical in such a situation. Two handed weapons only became widespread when armor evolved to the point where the shield wasn't as essential

BigTuk:
Meh, geee we have female models in our game...

When did that actually becomea selling point... no seriously Unreal 1 had female models in it and more that any player could mod in.. Heck Duke3d Had them...

I guess the more newsworthy topic is that they're planning for their characters to be reasonably designed and wearing practical battle armor. After a while, there's only so many times a game can do something like this...

...Before people start rolling their eyes and telling game developers to grow the hell up. So the reason this is newsworthy is because you now have some game developers starting to pull their heads out of their asses and realize "Hey, I think making female characters look like a peep-show attraction might be a bad thing."

And yeah, the gaming community can bitch and moan about "This isn't news!" or the usual shit that comes out of places like 4Chan, but it's still a mark that some devs are starting to move forward with character design.

Ariseishirou:

Single Shot:

Ariseishirou:

Untrue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shieldmaiden#cite_note-Harrison-2

To quote the relevant part of your own link:

Skylitzes records that women fought in battle when Sviatoslav I of Kiev attacked the Byzantines in Bulgaria in 971.

And the two real examples in there are

...Enough to prove your statement that "they are never recorded as being on front lines" was completely false.

Did you read all of my first Post?

Single Shot:
I should point out that there are a few sketchy reports of female Vikings taking up arms to defend their homes after other defences had fallen, but they are never recorded as being on front lines.

So you're claiming that "women taking up arms to defend their homes when all other defences have failed" isn't what happened at the Siege of Dorostolon when over 20,000 people are thought to have starved to death under the siege? It seems like that's the very definition of "taking up arms to defend their homes" Please read and comment on whole posts, or at least whole sentences, instead of cherry picking quotes.

Now for clarity, I do not count people who live directly in the battlefield in that because they did not choose to be there, and did not choose to fight. They only did so because any other option was curtain death.

Ariseishirou:

Sonichu:
that hows the human brains are usually wired by the nature.

No, that's how society views men and women - that men are tough and can take it, that women need special protection. In reality, the rape and murder of a man is just as horrific as the rape and murder of a woman. It certainly is to me, and would be to any thinking person in the modern age.

Sonichu:
Also, Arab Muslims are unlikely to rape men due to their extreme stance on gayness.

This is so brilliantly naive I barely have the words to respond to it. Men who rape other men are often heterosexual.

Feminists and white knights often talk about "rape culture", but this is not what and where they seek it. When the Serbs set up rape camps in Bosnia with their rape warfare, there was no Sweden like gender equality there. It was for women. In Nanking, Japs were shooting and sometimes bayoneting or beheading and sometimes burning or burying alive mostly captured or suspected Chinese soldiers, but also went on a much smaller rampage against women for sexual reasons and so we know it as the "Rape of Nanking". The gender gap in what happens to people in atrocities is usually huge: http://www.gendercide.org

Now Arab men do it only sometimes to other Arab men, like Egyptian police for example, and to humilate them for socioreligious reasons (again, like in Russia, and also using things like trucheons not their penises, or forcing prisoners to molest each other). It's basically one of many torture methods to choose from. While all captured Jewess combatants were raped to death because they were women, and this is why no IDF female soldier ever activey fought in any war of Israel after the war of independence, or was deployed to the bordeds or occupied territories. Where thousands of Israeli military men and only 1 known woman died. She was a technician who died when a transport helicopter she was in was shot down by the Hezbollah in Lebanon, and she wasn't supposed to be there.

Jasper van Heycop:
Maybe for ceremonial or dueling purposes but not likely on the battlefield. Both Vikings and Saxons (and most other Dark Age armies) fought in close formations called shieldwalls, a weapon that needs to be swung in wide arcs is highly impractical in such a situation.

I was led to believe that people armed this way would fight in their own units instead of shieldwalls. Hmmm...have to look this up...

From wiki, about the Battle of Hastings:

"The English army consisted entirely of infantry. It is possible that some of the higher class members of the army rode to battle, but when battle was joined they dismounted to fight on foot.[l] The core of the army was made up of housecarls, full-time professional soldiers. Their armour consisted of a conical helmet, a mail hauberk, and a shield, which might be either kite-shaped or round.[72] Most housecarls fought with the two-handed Danish battleaxe, but they could also carry a sword.[73] The rest of the army was made up of levies from the fyrd, also infantry but more lightly armoured and not professionals. Most of the infantry would have formed part of the shield wall, in which all the men in the front ranks locked their shields together. Behind them would have been axemen and men with javelins as well as archers."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here