After playing Total War, Something I think is cool about this game...

[bimugen]

The female chaos characters are really cool! It's kinda sad that GW and CA aren't giving the warriors of chaos some cool evil ladies running around in their armies. I'm told the lack of female chaos units is because men are usually the ones who go out and prove themselves to be favored by the gods by doing something that would just kill anyone else, like surviving a beastman attack or killing them. Still I never got that all too much, and I get that WH online was not really canon, but it still gave us some great designs for some evil ladies of chaos.

[NoRKaLKiLLa]

Feminism never took root in the neck beard world that is warhammer.

[Toldavf]

To quote the tome of corruption "Though Norse society is patriarchal, women have a stronger place in the land than many might suspect a women can own property and can become jarl if her husband dies and has no male offspring. It is up to the women to decide who she weds and if she divorces. While women are expected to stay behind during raids and wars, it falls to them to protect the home, so most are competent, if not out right skilled warriors."

While over the years there have been several female champions of chaos, starting on the path to becoming a champion is less about proving yourself initially and simply more about hearing the gods call.

I've no doubt there where several notable female jarls and a good number of mutants over the years the just never get given much time..

[Fallenkezef]

Valkia would like a word.....

[Toldavf]

Valkia would like a word.....

I'l take Dechala thanks

[GodlessCrom]

Nah m8, pretty sure it's Dechala that takes you :p

[Fallenkezef]

Nah m8, pretty sure it's Dechala that takes you :p

Bah she's a pointy ear who got fed to Slaanesh, who decided to play with his food.

Valkia is a proper badass human who made her name the hard way.

[verterdegete]

To quote the tome of corruption "Though Norse society is patriarchal, women have a stronger place in the land than many might suspect a women can own property and can become jarl if her husband dies and has no male offspring. It is up to the women to decide who she weds and if she divorces. While women are expected to stay behind during raids and wars, it falls to them to protect the home, so most are competent, if not out right skilled warriors."

I hate things like this. That is, when authors of fiction want to be edgy by taking inspiration from real life history and cultures, but avoid the ugly, messy parts that don't fit with their political agenda. Yet without those ugly, messy parts, the whole thing doesn't make any sense. In this particular case, you can't have a warrior society, without a strong, strict patriarchal culture behind it. To sum the quoted part:



"Uhm, the Norse are, like, patriarchal (yuck!), but don't worry! Women can still do whatever they like! Fight like men, and even become, like, the bosses! "




That's bullshit. No they can't. It might be shoved in Warhammer universe, but it is nonsensical. This can never happen, in any tribal warrior society.

Those kinds of societies are very utilitarian and meritocratic. They have to be, because they live from raiding and mercenary work. An incompetent/weakling in the warband could cost them their lives. So there is no place for women, old, disabled etc. As is authentically depicted here:


Click here to watch on YouTube

As a matter of fact. It's a quite common thing for a warlord to be killed by his own warband, once he starts showing signs of age and declining strength/judgement. You are a warlord (a "Jarl") because you are a leader, and not the other way around. You can inherit it, but you can't keep it for long if you aren't able to justify it on the battlefield. And you definitely can't become a warlord by weighing 60kg and staying home, making sandwiches for the boys.

This is a universal thing, common to any similar culture that ever existed in human history. Mongols, Turks, Vikings, Cossacks, Bedouins, Tatars etc.



Another important note. In a patriarchal society, if a husband dies and there is no male offspring, there are always mechanisms designed to keep the estate in husband's family/tribe.

- Wife, or daughter, if there is one, could be married to husbands closest available relative.
- In ancient Greece, if there is only a daughter available, she wasn't allowed to marry. Instead, she had to have sex with fathers closest relative, until a boy is concieved. If the father's closest relative was unable to make her a boy, she would be given to the second closest relative so he could try, and then onward until the family gets a male heir.
- Daughter could be married to a guy outside of the family, but he has to accept daughters family name, and his children would belong to his wife's family tree.
- Husband's closest male relative would inherit the title and the estate, with the obligation to take care of the husbands wife and daughters.
- If there are no husband's male relatives alive, his property belongs to the tribe.

In patriarchal societies, husband's estate and titles NEVER become wife's own property, and thus ultimately the property of wife's family/tribe.



That being said. Women in warrior (semi) nomadic cultures usually had more freedoms, than those in static, defensive cultures with merchant and/or agrarian economies. But by freedoms I don't mean being a stronk womyn. I mean, being able to walk outside the house without a male chaperone, being able to sit at the same table with men, being able to attend public events etc.







/Neckbeard rant over.

[Fallenkezef]

Women in Norse cultures could and did lead and take an active part in all aspects of Nordic culture.

Recent evidence has proven this.

I could write an essay on strong women, equal to men in pre-christian European cultures but this is not the forum for that.

[Arbich]

In patriarchal societies, husband's estate and titles NEVER become wife's own property, and thus ultimately the property of wife's family/tribe.

ähm....



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica


Or do you say that britons are more than mere savages?