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

[verterdegete]

You didn't read what I wrote. Or you read it without trying to understand what I wrote. I didn't say that Norse (and not just Norse) women couldn't lead or take an active part in society. In some aspects of it they could, but not all of them (war, for example). As a matter of fact, I noted that women in warrior cultures have more freedoms than those in agrarian/merchant ones. And again. I wasn't talking only about the Norse, but about warrior cultures in general.

And I for sure didn't write that there were no powerful women in pre-Christian Europe. And I don't understand why the "pre Christian" part. In many parts of Europe, Christianity brought more rights to women then they before had. For example, the Christian institution of marriage significantly bettered the position of Germanic women, compared to what they had under the old tribal customs.




I went to law school. I studied ancient legal traditions of ancient European and Mediterranian societies. As a matter of fact, that was a mandatory class. I am not talking out my ass.

[verterdegete]

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?

Boudica had daughters. They were the heirs. Not Boudica.

[Fallenkezef]

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?

Boudica had daughters. They were the heirs. Not Boudica.

You need a refund on that education mate.

Women could and did lead the Norse in raids and war, uncovered burial evidence proved this.

Boudicca inherited full rulership, in her own right, upon the death of her husband.
This is why the Romans kicked off as Roman culture was extremely patriarchal and it would be an insult to share power with a woman.

Some ancient cultures where very patriarchal but not all. The Norse and Celts being notable examples.

[verterdegete]

You need a refund on that education mate.

Women could and did lead the Norse in raids and war, uncovered burial evidence proved this.

Boudicca inherited full rulership, in her own right, upon the death of her husband.
This is why the Romans kicked off as Roman culture was extremely patriarchal and it would be an insult to share power with a woman.

Some ancient cultures where very patriarchal but not all. The Norse and Celts being notable examples.

Boudica's husband left his throne to his daughters, while confirming his vassalship to the Roman emperor. Romans kicked off because they wanted direct control rule his lands, instead of sharing the power with the man who would marry Boudicas daughter. Prastaguses loyal warlords, wanting revenge and to preserve their ruling positions, rebelled against the Romans, putting Boudica in front of the rebellion, as a Joan of Arc type of figure to gain the widespread support of the population.

And please, not again with that shield maiden tomb.


The idea that Romans invaded someone because they were butthurt about woman coming to power is an immature, teenage level vision of history, spiced with modern liberalism. I don't see the point in discussing this with you any further. I guess the next thing I would hear is that Romans invaded Egypt, because they couldn't bear see it being ruled by brown people.

Lay of the History channel mate.

[Fallenkezef]

You need a refund on that education mate.

Women could and did lead the Norse in raids and war, uncovered burial evidence proved this.

Boudicca inherited full rulership, in her own right, upon the death of her husband.
This is why the Romans kicked off as Roman culture was extremely patriarchal and it would be an insult to share power with a woman.

Some ancient cultures where very patriarchal but not all. The Norse and Celts being notable examples.

Boudica's husband left his throne to his daughters, while confirming his vassalship to the Roman emperor. Romans kicked off because they wanted direct control rule over his lands, instead of sharing the power with the man who would marry Boudicas daughter. Prastaguses loyal warlords, wanting revenge and to preserve their ruling positions, rebelled against the Romans, putting Boudica in front of the rebellion, as a Joan of Arc type of figure to gain the widespread support of the population.

And please, not again with that shield maiden tomb.


The idea that Romans invaded someone because they were butthurt about woman coming to power is an immature, teenage level vision of history, spiced with modern liberalism. I don't see the point in discussing this with you any further. I guess the next thing I would hear is that Romans invaded Egypt, because they couldn't bear see it being ruled by brown people.

Lay of the History channel mate.

Now we see the strawman because you do not like being wrong. Nobody said Boudicca's inheriting leadership of the Iceni throne was the sole reason for events, there is never one reason for these things.

Just as the crusades where never entirely about fighting islam nor was the US civil war entirely about slavery.

However the treaty with Iceni made the Roman emperor and Iceni chieftain partners or co-rulers in the treaty terms and the concept of sharing power with a woman was an insult to Roman culture.

Other, pragmatic, reasons combined to cause the Romans to scrap the deal and seek to turn the Iceni into a conquered state rather than a client state.
Thid coincided with a general change in Roman policy towards all of Briton, including the destruction of the Druid's and actions against other British tribes.

It can be compared to the change in policy between the American colonists and native anericans after the revolutionary war

[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."

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.

I mean you obviously have never read the rest of the book then. It's from a time when workshop was less concerned with pc and more concerned with having a diverse and interesting world.

[Telen]

If you have been keeping up with 40k recently there was absolute fury recently when a female game blogger pointed out there wasnt many women represented. The neckbeards went absolutely nuts about it. Some of the furious youtube videos are funny to troll.
I suggested they retcon the emperor to be female to attract more female players. Not enough popcorn.

[GodlessCrom]

WFRP 2nd ed had the best version of Warhammer lore ever IMO. Warhammer is already more egalitarian than real life medieval/Renaissance societies anyways. Could chalk it up to the influence of several well known and loved female deities with widespread, powerful cults.

Vast majority of Norse characters are male anyways. They seem fairly patriarchal. Female warriors tend to be exceptions, such as Valkia.

[Toldavf]

If you have been keeping up with 40k recently there was absolute fury recently when a female game blogger pointed out there wasnt many women represented. The neckbeards went absolutely nuts about it. Some of the furious youtube videos are funny to troll.
I suggested they retcon the emperor to be female to attract more female players. Not enough popcorn.

Well i haven't but that sounds hilarious XD.

Also as you probably know 40k has always had good female representation the guard, sisters, eldar/dark eldar, Inquisitors, sisters of silence, Culexus assassins to name but a few.

[Fallenkezef]

If you have been keeping up with 40k recently there was absolute fury recently when a female game blogger pointed out there wasnt many women represented. The neckbeards went absolutely nuts about it. Some of the furious youtube videos are funny to troll.
I suggested they retcon the emperor to be female to attract more female players. Not enough popcorn.

Thing is that was never entirely true. Females are well represented in all the various Elf/Eldar ranges, mordheim had sisters of sigmar and Necromunda had Escher.
You have the Adepta Sorroritas in 40k and p
women are well represented in the fiction (including divrse sexuality, check out the Commissar Caine novels).

Women in 40k and warhammer fantady tend to be strong characters equal to their male countetparts.