• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

How many women per man would it take for an all-female army to defeat an all-male army in ancient battle?

How many women per man would it take for a female army to defeat a male army in ancient battle?

  • 1-1

    Votes: 10 6.3%
  • 5-1

    Votes: 83 52.2%
  • 10-1

    Votes: 30 18.9%
  • 20-1

    Votes: 5 3.1%
  • >20-1

    Votes: 31 19.5%

  • Total voters
    159

VAL0R

Banned
This battle of the sexes is fought with ancient technology - swords, shields, spears, etc., no firearms. Assume that both armies are well fed, healthy and highly trained. The geography of the conflict is unknown. You are a general in command of the female troops. You are facing 10,000 men. Your king asks you how many women are required to defeat the male army. What is your answer?

I tell the king, "With 10,000 women we will be slaughtered before the battle has started. With 20,000 we will be crushed. With 50,000 we will lose bitterly. With 100,000 we will lose, but they will suffer. With 200,000 we have hope of victory but not a guarantee. If they can channel the women to a narrow fight of waves and we fail to surround and overwhelm them with numbers, they will butcher us all day long. One skilled man could possibly take 50 or 100 women."

Men are far larger, stronger, faster and more aggressive. The power difference between men and women is massive. Many people in modern society don't understand the degree to which men are physically dominant. The average man is something like six inches taller and 30 pounds heavier. Female upper body strength is a mere fraction of a man's. The physical advantages in combat for men are legion, from muscle mass to skeletal structure.

The taller men with longer arms have significantly greater striking range. Men wield longer spears and swords, can endure thicker armor and heavier shields which they can hold high for longer. Their elevated and downward strikes are much faster and viciously harder, dealing out grievously wounding blows on the slower, softer, weaker female warriors. The men withstand blows that might otherwise knock a woman unconscious or remove her from battle. The men absorb much more punishment and continue to fight and kill. It would all be psychologically shocking, terrifying and demoralizing for the women to see their front lines utterly decimated. Body parts flying everywhere, women lifted into the air like children onto spears. The roar of the men and their withering onslaught would induce panic and fear.

I say 20-1 for a real chance, but not a guarantee. If that seems outrageous to you, consider that men have in fact conquered other men in actual historical battles with similarly stacked odds.
 

Daneel Elijah

Gold Member
If you consider the women to be civilians VS 10 000 hoplites, roman legionnaires or whatever elite army of the past you are probably right. If the women have the same level of training than the men + superior technology like chinese repeating crossbow and gunpowder even with 1 -1 they can easily win.
Hope the thread do not close too soon the answers are pretty hilarious .
 

McCheese

Member
Is this un-armed or with weapons? I feel like with any sort of physical weapon it would be 2-1 as they could just attack from two-sides, if it's unarmed then maybe 3-1. Not sure what you are smoking to think 20-1 is a valid number; christ just the amount of hair left in the shower from 20 women would be enough to strangle you with.
 

Drake

Member
How much training do these female fighters have? I'd say you'd realistically need a 2-1 advantage, maybe 3-1 advantage. Once the bloodlust kicks in on the male side it's tough to stop.

I'm also assuming this fight is fought on a flat surface with no real terrain advantage on either side.
 

*Nightwing

Member
Paraphrasing Sun Tsu: if you do not account for terrain and your opponents, you will surely loose.

No military strategist would ever battle not knowing the terrain, and in not knowing so discounts the ability to use tactics like guerilla warfare which is precisely designed for a physically weaker force to overwhelm a stronger force. The hypothetical is biased to not allow strategic victory and thus flawed from the start. Wooded area I can use guerilla warfare high a hopefull choke point? I could be happy with a 1-10 ratio in the opposing sides favor.

Eons of history show recognition of your sides shortcomings can be mitigated and overcome to achieve victory via intelligence over physical strength.
 

Batiman

Banned
Depends on the culture really. Evolution could’ve made woman beast in some parts of the world. Depending on what age we’re talking about. But with our history men were bread to be warriors. That’s why we have the genetic advantage.

My mother is a small woman but would probably take some soft men the world produces now when she was younger
 
Last edited:

HoodWinked

Member
It would have to be an incredible amount like 20 to 1.

What would happen is they'd fight in formation this forces 1 on 1 engagement in the front line of battle. This would be completely dominant on the men's side they'd have very very minimal losses. However once the numbers get crazy like a 20 to 1 they'd have enough to completely surround the men's army in that situation they could force more lopsided engagements like 5 to 1.
 

bronk

Banned
Lol. Fantastic. Seriously though, depending on if they play to their strengths they could win 1 to 1 even. A tiny man can kill a huge one, provided he uses the right tactics. Being man or woman is rather irrelevant. If they all go at each other with clubs and no brain, then yea, men slaughter them ladies.
LMFAO
 

Kimahri

Banned
I just think of some old berserker guy against women. Both have swords. Id say they take out 10 women easily. The ratio would have to be 10-1 at the minimum. Im not talking about any strategies. Just men against women.
Okay, let me put it a different way. So you have a 2 m tall mountain of a man with a club. A berserker as you say. And then you have a 1.5 m tall man with katanas.

Is it a given that the berserker will win just because he's larger and stronger?

No. Of course not.

It's rather pitiful how some of you guys view women. Did you know there were women among viking warriors? Sure, they were probably a minority, but you've kinda gotta assume they wouldn't be allowed to join if they weren't able to kill a man 1 on 1.
 

Goro Majima

Kitty Genovese Member
During the Cimbrian War, the Romans were substantially smaller in stature and generally weaker physically than the Germans and Celts. Early on, the Romans suffered devastating losses because they were unable to deal with the human wave advances of the barbarians.

The Romans eventually won the war through endurance conditioning, better weaponry, and tactics that were put into place by Marius and his reformation of the army. These would all be things that women would be able to accomplish as well.

So I'm not all that convinced that physical strength is the end all be all determination in ancient warfare when tactics and logistics were (and continue to be) the determining factor in war.
 
Last edited:

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Assuming everthing else is constant I would think 2 or 3 to 1 would do it. The only thing that might change that is ranged weapons like longbows where the men would have a sizeable range advantage.
 
If the women are tidy and wear traditional sword and sorcery lady warrior armour then that'll give them an edge, it's really hard to fight with a raging boner. Probably.
 

MDSLKTR

Member
Get with the times

main-qimg-6f626611203ac7a64b37f49b68cca6e7
 

Biff

Member
The only way a number as crazy as 20:1 would be needed for two highly trained armies would be if ranged weapons, i.e. archery, is allowed.

Okay, in that instance draw strength is a huge factor that will dictate range. Male army can fire volleys of arrows before the female army could get in range. That would be a devastating advantage.

But hand-to-hand combat? I don't see how it's anymore than 3:1. All you need is someone to attack from behind while 1-2 distract the front. This isn't like the movies where Dude is going to perform a tornado move and block 3 simultaneous attacks lol. Only one of the strikes need to land.
 

Valonquar

Member
It's the highly trained part I have the most problem with. So many concessions are made during training female soldiers it isn't funny.
 

nkarafo

Member
Unfortunately there don't appear to have been any all-female armies in history. That is a shame, and makes this exercise pure conjecture. Otherwise we could compare.
There were no female armies because in a battle against the enemy, you want to be stronger and the enemy wants to be stronger than you. So you use the best stuff you can have. And men are significantly better than women in such battles. Like, it's not even close.
 

VAL0R

Banned
I was probably stronger than my mother at 12 or 13. My father could have lifted me off my feet, batted me around, and thrown me through a window at that age.
 
Men are far larger, stronger, faster and more aggressive. The power difference between men and women is massive. Many people in modern society don't understand the degree to which men are physically dominant. The average man is something like six inches taller and 30 pounds heavier. Female upper body strength is a mere fraction of a man's. The physical advantages in combat for men are legion, from muscle mass to skeletal structure.
Battles are not won on mere strength alone, it's strategy and intelligence that matter.
Also many seem to be wholly unaware of how tough most post-war women really were. My badass grandmother probably would have folded OP in half.
 

Pejo

Member
Probably 10 to 1 was my guess. At that point sheer numbers overwhelm and no strength difference amount matters. Probably 5 to 1 if all of the women have spears.

I'm basing my assumptions entirely off of this video I did for research.
 
The closest thing I can find is the all female Dehomey Amazons. Royal bodyguards to one of the last African kingdoms that fell to French colonialism.


COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_Groepsportret_van_de_zogenaamde_%27Amazones_uit_Dahomey%27_tijdens_hun_verblijf_in_Parijs_TMnr_60038362.jpg


Membership among the Mino was supposed to hone any aggressive character traits for the purpose of war. During their membership they were not allowed to have children or be part of married life (though they were legally married to the king). Many of them were virgins. The regiment had a semi-sacred status, which was intertwined with the Fon belief in Vodun.

The Mino trained with intense physical exercise. They learnt survival skills and indifference to pain and death, storming acacia-thorn defenses in military exercises and executing prisoners.[6] Discipline was emphasised.

Dahomey_amazon1.jpg


Some official French propaganda from the period may be seen in prints depicting these so-called Amazons. One source [citation needed] claims that in one of the battles an Amazon killed a French officer by ripping out his throat with her sharpened teeth. Parallel accounts of the event handed down in Benin describe the Amazon as a trusted wife of Béhanzin who had sworn to avenge members of the royal family who had been executed by Béhanzin for treachery after divulging battle plans in return for bribes from French agents. The French officer she is said to have killed was allegedly the head of French military intelligence who committed the 'savage' act of corrupting family members to betray their own; the Amazon was reduced to using her teeth after her ammunition ran out at the battle's peak.

 
Last edited:

Atrus

Gold Member
These differences between the sexes won't be overcome by training and equipment.

Where your smaller army may be picking from the best of men, the much larger army will be pressing incapable women to fill in the quota. Men are also seen as more disposable and inflict less war weariness on a society while women also double as a tradeable commodity for the enemy.

Any encounter with a population large enough to levy highly trained and equipped women to oppose you is an indicator that the women will be the least of your problems in the ensuing conflict.
 
Last edited:

MrMephistoX

Member
All the women would have to do is have the most attractive ones get naked and hold up a sign saying free sex and then have archers pop out of hiding and slaughter the men with arrows as soon as they got in range.
 
Last edited:

Jon Neu

Banned
Did you know there were women among viking warriors?

The only women alongside viking warriors were their spouses.

And please, refrain yourself from posting that one and only alleged female viking who's authenticity is heavily disputed, at best.

Also many seem to be wholly unaware of how tough most post-war women really were.

Tough as in how mentally tough they were to overcome all the previous rape and abuse?

Women, in a conflict in which there are no rules, are simply at the mercy of men.
 

MastAndo

Member
These aren't just some random damsels in distress cowering in fear, so 5:1 should be enough to overcome their physical disadvantages. You don't have to match someone's physical strength to bury a sword in him from behind while he's distracted fighting two or three others, if they've been trained how to do so. Then again, I know it takes strength to wield a sword. I suppose a lot of it boils down to the weaponry of choice and armor.

Admittedly, I can't at all account for the psychological side of things, as that would require me to have a clue how women think.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom