-
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?
bitbydeath
Member
They’d probably kill each other after a week or two, don’t even need a male army.
finowns
Member
The men would have a huge advantage in a melee obviously. A man can swing a sword harder and faster than a woman for longer. I’d say 20 to 1 in a fight between professional armies. But it could be way more.
The largest advantage would be logistics. A Men’s army would far more efficiently use calories than a woman’s army especially if women need 10 - 20 times the numbers to make up for physicality.
The largest advantage would be logistics. A Men’s army would far more efficiently use calories than a woman’s army especially if women need 10 - 20 times the numbers to make up for physicality.
I lile how you say "the only" like you have anything to base that on.
You don't. It is the kind of absolute statements that are foolish, and usually just wrong.
The facts are we know very little, and all we have to go on are stories written down much later, and remains. Warrior graves have been found. More than the Birka grave which I assume is the one you're referring to.
It's interesting to note that viking graves have just been assumed to be men, since there were weapons. No one really checked. But there is more and more research being done, and it is highly interesting.
Now, let us be clear. I'm not saying they were common. I can't do that. I have nothing to base that on. Im saying they existed. That is a very different thing.
Jon Neu
Banned
You can believe whatever you want, but there isn't any historical proof that supports your claims.
EverydayBeast
thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
No one is expecting an all woman army.
Ballthyrm
Member
I think a lot of you underestimate the deadliness of weapons, sword and stuff.
If both armies are equally trained and the discipline is the same, and neither has the ground advantage.
Ancient battles were mostly fought with spears, so the reach advantage for the men would count for nothing.
At a 2:1 advantage, the shield walls of the Women army would counteract any physical advantage the men would have.
Just look online on how effective shield walls are.
With a slight advantage of morale, or having the better ground, or better tactics, any of these in favor of the women would lower to 1:1
If both armies are equally trained and the discipline is the same, and neither has the ground advantage.
Ancient battles were mostly fought with spears, so the reach advantage for the men would count for nothing.
At a 2:1 advantage, the shield walls of the Women army would counteract any physical advantage the men would have.
Just look online on how effective shield walls are.
With a slight advantage of morale, or having the better ground, or better tactics, any of these in favor of the women would lower to 1:1
Oh please. There is more to support me than you. Several women have been found in what appears to be warrior graves, and that's just the graves found. There are also accounts of slavic warrior women, scythians and the onna-musha just to mention something
And then there are the sagas that speak of viking women. These are of course not hard evidence, but if we can rely on them to understand what happened to men, we can also use them to get an impression that women fought. Most likely not very common, but it happened.
All you have is denial. I base my claim on historical texts and archeological remains, that as with most finds will at times be disputed, point to warrior women being a real thing. Again, not common, men have far stronger physiques on average, and predominantly, women were in charge of the home.
I'm not gonna waste more time trying to educate you, but it really isn't hard to find substantial documentation of warrior women if you give just a tiny bit of time.
LisaMariaMartin
Banned
Who the fuck votes >20:1 lol
Think about the logistics of even 3:1
OP says no firearms so every man would have 3 women with knives, spears or swords to defend against. Have you ever been in a fight against multiple people? There is a reason even trained fighters recommend running if you face multiple attackers. While you focus on 1 or 2 attackers, the other one is gonna stick a fork into the back of your skull.
Anything over 3:1 is a stomp for the women.
Think about the logistics of even 3:1
OP says no firearms so every man would have 3 women with knives, spears or swords to defend against. Have you ever been in a fight against multiple people? There is a reason even trained fighters recommend running if you face multiple attackers. While you focus on 1 or 2 attackers, the other one is gonna stick a fork into the back of your skull.
Anything over 3:1 is a stomp for the women.
Physical advantage is still a massive force multiplier. The ability to move faster, leverage more force per man, endure longer, and rage harder is going to require significantly more women than can be trained and equipped in order to counteract.
The variances between the sexes are impossible for women to overcome and while you may be able to get rare one-on-one matchups that favour women be it some Gina Carano or Khutulun, an all-female force will struggle badly.
Overall, the idea is a first world conceit based on an abundance of resources that won't last long in peer-to-peer conflicts. While women can fight as auxiliaries, men are the necessary core of winning conflicts for a reason.
finowns
Member
If it was shield and spear warfare I’d favor the men even more. That type of warfare is based on a lot of drill beforehand. Men can train far harder and more intensely than women.
Ballthyrm
Member
OP explicitly said , same training, same everything. otherwise yes.
finowns
Member
It’s not possible to have the same training is my point.
llien
Member
Imperial Russia had female only combat units:
Women's Battalion - Wikipedia
i think somewhere in Ireland largely female army tried to fight against Romans, which ended up as fighting Romans normally did (can't find it now, google returns lots of "did you know, we had gazillion of female warriors" bazinga results)
llien
Member
nkarafo
Member
Well, this is from the same link you posted:Imperial Russia had female only combat units:
Women's Battalion - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
So, just something to inspire men to fight. I can see how this would work as a backup plan or "last ditch effort" like the article says. If you left with nothing, you are going to use something, whatever you got. Still, that doesn't mean it's optimal.
Last edited:
Zeroing
Banned
No, art history! You know tombs on Britain! Go look it up! Women buried with swords and romans write about them!
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
5-1 in favor of men. Anyone who thinks less is on drugs and not the fun kind.
Taxexemption
Member
Most men wouldn't kill a woman. Theoretically, if I want to conquer a people I will somehow find a way to make sure we have a large number of women of our culture and ethnic group and then send them over to the other country. Most dudes are simps. "Oh, if I keep these religious customs you'll have sex at least once a week? Okay, guess I'll go to your church now." If you have women in your society that are loyal to it, you have everything.
They say you are more likely to conceive a female if the woman is on top during sex. If a country legislates that women have to be on top during sex, and if that fact is actually true, the country that does that will dominate the world.
They say you are more likely to conceive a female if the woman is on top during sex. If a country legislates that women have to be on top during sex, and if that fact is actually true, the country that does that will dominate the world.
The Pleasure
Member
MaestroMike
Gold Member
you can't swing a sword hard/fast for very long. high speed/power is all fast-twitch muscle fibers, once those gas out u gotta rely on slow-twitch muscle fibers and speed/power is reduced, but endurance increases.
German Hops
GAF's Nicest Lunch Thief
Sakura
Member
Weapons would significantly reduce the biological differences. It doesn't matter how strong and fast the men are if the women have 5x the archers. Or if 5 women are attacking you with swords or spears, one of them is going to get you even if you are stronger individually.
Male advantage would likely come from outside the battle. Ability to travel faster and farther than a women army would allow them to just tire them out, for example.
Male advantage would likely come from outside the battle. Ability to travel faster and farther than a women army would allow them to just tire them out, for example.
llien
Member
So, Romans (some time 2000 years ago) somehow fought against Netflix' female Vikings (some time 1000 years ago) as seen on "you know tombs in Britain".
That being said, I'm talking about actual Vikings.
When the Netflix Viking happened, little clue I have.
A single mini-war with largely female army against Romans did indeed happen on one of the British islands and the fact they had to fight and slaughter women en mass have shocked Romans enough to remember it.
It was that common, chuckle.
Hoya Destroyer
Member
I voted for 10-1.
Strength, speed, endurance, less hesitation to be violent and (arguably) being more strategically minded would all be advantageous for the men.
Strength, speed, endurance, less hesitation to be violent and (arguably) being more strategically minded would all be advantageous for the men.
Amory
Member
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
RedVIper
Banned
This isn't a street fight.
Fighting 1 vs 3 is a lot different from fighting 10000 vs 30000.
There's several historical examples of outnumbered armies winning massive battles (Agincourt 6k vs 30k, battle of Alesia 50k vs 200k, battle of Muret, 1k vs 10k)
German Hops
GAF's Nicest Lunch Thief
Last edited:
LisaMariaMartin
Banned
Yes? Whats stopping women from devising battle plans and using tactics to win? Men have the advantage of individual strength, not brains.
The battle of Alesia was a last stand siege, not really a battle.
And this statement by the OP is bordering on the nonsensical
RedVIper
Banned
What you said was nonsensical.
"Have you ever been in a fight against multiple people? There is a reason even trained fighters recommend running if you face multiple attackers. While you focus on 1 or 2 attackers, the other one is gonna stick a fork into the back of your skull."
This is completely irrelevant for a large scale battle.
Strength is a huge advantage during this type of battle, they can take hours or even days, to say that it doesn't give men a huge advantage is ridiculous.
LisaMariaMartin
Banned
Really? This is the premise of the OP
This is basically biological advantage vs numbers. I'd bet on numbers any day of the week, especially if both sides are equal in anything but brute strength.
RedVIper
Banned
Biological differences aren't just about strength though.
nkarafo
Member
This isn't about strategy, it's about melee combat.
A single woman could theoretically kill a group of men if she was smart enough to lead them to a trap. Dunno, maybe poison their food or make them cross a river full of crocodiles or something.
As far as i understand, this topic is about putting a bunch of men VS a bunch of women in a melee battle.
Last edited:
LisaMariaMartin
Banned
He probably thinks this is the average male cutting down 50-100 (
) trained soldiers without breaking a sweat
Last edited:
RedVIper
Banned
Yes, and a bunch of men would beat a bunch of women in a melee battle.
nkarafo
Member
I agree, i quoted the wrong person.
This is what i meant to quote:
SirKicksalot
Member
Slings were deadly and easy to use. Slinger volleys using lead bullets were basically like being shot at by muskets.
In urban battles, women defenders were stationed on rooftops. The Carthaginians were BTFO multiple times by Sicilian Greek women throwing tiles and bricks during sieges. The battle of Selinus was won only because the women ran out of roof tiles and bricks after 9 days.
In urban battles, women defenders were stationed on rooftops. The Carthaginians were BTFO multiple times by Sicilian Greek women throwing tiles and bricks during sieges. The battle of Selinus was won only because the women ran out of roof tiles and bricks after 9 days.