Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

English Assassin wrote:If there is anything resembling an academic consensus on their historical origin it is that they may have been a mythologised remnant of bronze age Minoan culture's female deities and priesthood.

Really now? A man's body gets found with weapons he must have been a warrior, a woman's remains are found in the same way she must have been cosplaying ... And 20% of these Scythian graves being civilian priestesses, somehow buried right next to the "real" male warriors? And Diodorus Siculus just made it all up even though it would fit to the findings in the graves? :I

What doesn't add up with that theory about a "priesthood" is that several of these skeletons were analyzed and revealed to have been killed in battle (bent arrowheads found in body cavity or traces of weapon impact). From my understanding priests don't usually get slain in battle (and if they do, what are they doing there?). After some further reading on what you suggested, I have to say that the whole thing could well be connected to ancient Minoan culture - but perhaps moreso because artifacts of that time suggest that men and women were of equal status, thus opening up a possibility for female warriors?

English Assassin wrote:Now I can't speak for classical-era northern Europe outside of Roman rule, it's not my area, though I can state with confidence that Julius Caesar is regarded by historians as having cheerfully embellished his account of the Gallic Wars with a good quantity of unsubstantiated hearsay.

Probably. And would he alone have stated such things I might understand a "certain hesitation" to believe it. Just that he was by far not the first Roman and not the last to have given such records, and that they fit nicely to the folklore of several of the tribes they encountered. Whilst folklore is certainly exaggerated as well, it is also common that they do contain an element of truth - and furthermore, why should a society supposedly forbidding women to battle "advertise" this concept in their sagas?
And then we have more historical accounts of other nations that had dealings with other tribes in western Europe, such as the Byzantine wondering at the bodies of female warriors discovered amongst the slain Norsemen who had attacked Bulgaria. This is a case where we have both invaders and invaded giving testament to the existence of female warriors. Why should we ignore this just because we are so used to the current condition, one that came to be largely due to the workings of a religious institution which used the suppression of women as one of its chief aspects?

As said, given the millennia that our culture has spent cementing this image with religious scripture and edicts suppressing women, it is very understandable that the aftereffects will not be shaken off so easily; I expect that even after the advances that were made in the past century it will take another dozen generations at least. But the evidence is starting to look quite compelling, so perhaps instead of questioning it we should rather question what we grew up to believe - for the list is only getting longer the more we uncover, and once we used to believe the Earth was flat, too.

English Assassin wrote:Papal Bulls aren't my era either; when were thy written and by which pope?

Various - the issue came up again and again, it seems...
590 - Synod of Druim Ceat - forbids British women from going into battle alongside the men
1189 - Pope Clement III - expressly forbids women to take up arms in the Third Crusade (apparently some in the army of William of Poitiers still did regardless)
1558 - Pope Sixtus V - disbands the Order of the Glorious Saint Mary which admitted female knights militant
Now, those are just three examples I could dig up on short notice. I'd think there are more, but this stuff is hard to find! The Church actually has an online archive of papal bulls, but sadly it doesn't go back that far. Regardless, I'm sure you are aware of the portrayal of women in religious texts during those eras (not to mention the witch hunts), so it shouldn't be too hard to see what effect this would have on the general populace, at least over the course of several generations growing up with and deferring to it.

English Assassin wrote:As for the rest of the list, certainly there are some notable (and very interesting - I've spent the evening looking them up in the OCD) exceptions there, but that's just what they are - exceptions.

Oh yeah, I'm not argueing that! I just felt a need to react as a previous post hinted at no women at all participating in ancient warfare, when they seemed somewhat common in some societies such as Celtic and Germanic tribes, the Hittite or the Mongols. At least for a time, that is.

English Assassin wrote:What there certainly are not, are any examples supported by literary or archaeological evidence of predominantly female armies in the ancient world.

Maybe this was a misunderstanding, I certainly wasn't advocating the existence of "Amazons" like in the myths. Whilst I do believe there is a certain possibility these legends are not unfounded, I too think that there need to be more evidence for it to become a viable thesis. Perhaps some day, after some other discovery.
No, what I was "defending" here is the existence of female warriors as equals or semi-equals within their respective tribal society. Most likely still in a minority wherever they existed, and in many cases only in a limited role (defending the home when the men are away), but still substantial enough not to remain unmentioned and forgotten just because education and media are still influenced by the "patriarchal perspective" that has dominated our culture for millennia.

That said, I'm not a professional historian, this is just stuff I stumbled upon on the internets and deemed interesting enough to follow up on it, so who knows for sure!

Lynata wrote:]Really now? A man's body gets found with weapons he must have been a warrior, a woman's remains are found in the same way she must have been cosplaying ... And 20% of these Scythian graves being civilian priestesses, somehow buried right next to the "real" male warriors? And Diodorus Siculus just made it all up even though it would fit to the findings in the graves? :I

What doesn't add up with that theory about a "priesthood" is that several of these skeletons were analyzed and revealed to have been killed in battle (bent arrowheads found in body cavity or traces of weapon impact). From my understanding priests don't usually get slain in battle (and if they do, what are they doing there?). After some further reading on what you suggested, I have to say that the whole thing could well be connected to ancient Minoan culture - but perhaps moreso because artifacts of that time suggest that men and women were of equal status, thus opening up a possibility for female warriors?

Oh, I'm quite happy to accept the implications of those finds, but - and also bear in mind that we know very, very little about what we term 'the Scythians' (not least how valid that monolithic term is), since they didn't have the forethought to leave us much written down - they remain an exception. As for their being the 'truth' behind the Amazons, though I'm fond of Euhemerist interpretations, it's doomed to remain no more than an interesting speculation - inversions of societal tropes are a common enough mytheme, after all, that it's not necessary to explain the Amazon myth by other means.

Lynata wrote:And then we have more historical accounts of other nations that had dealings with other tribes in western Europe, such as the Byzantine wondering at the bodies of female warriors discovered amongst the slain Norsemen who had attacked Bulgaria. This is a case where we have both invaders and invaded giving testament to the existence of female warriors. Why should we ignore this just because we are so used to the current condition, one that came to be largely due to the workings of a religious institution which used the suppression of women as one of its chief aspects?

Again, these are all exceptions, and remarked upon as such. More significantly, even if taken at face value, they are all accounts of, as you say, tribal cultures warring with civilised (in its literal sense) ones. I am (in common with most classicists) slightly reluctant even to take such accounts at face value where unsupported by archaeological evidence: classical historians have the irritating habit of producing redactions of folk tales and retojections of recent events to fill gaps in the records available to them. But as I said, whether or not they are presumed to be historically true, women warriors are a motif of barbarian cultures, not civilised ones, and the literary/historical sources of the armies of the Imperium are those of civilised military empires: Greece, Rome, high mediaeval Europe and 19th century England, not the barbarians on their frontiers.

Lynata wrote:As said, given the millennia that our culture has spent cementing this image with religious scripture and edicts suppressing women, it is very understandable that the aftereffects will not be shaken off so easily; I expect that even after the advances that were made in the past century it will take another dozen generations at least. But the evidence is starting to look quite compelling, so perhaps instead of questioning it we should rather question what we grew up to believe - for the list is only getting longer the more we uncover, and once we used to believe the Earth was flat, too.

590 - Synod of Druim Ceat - forbids British women from going into battle alongside the men
1189 - Pope Clement III - expressly forbids women to take up arms in the Third Crusade (apparently some in the army of William of Poitiers still did regardless)
1558 - Pope Sixtus V - disbands the Order of the Glorious Saint Mary which admitted female knights militant
Now, those are just three examples I could dig up on short notice. I'd think there are more, but this stuff is hard to find! The Church actually has an online archive of papal bulls, but sadly it doesn't go back that far. Regardless, I'm sure you are aware of the portrayal of women in religious texts during those eras (not to mention the witch hunts), so it shouldn't be too hard to see what effect this would have on the general populace, at least over the course of several generations growing up with and deferring to it.

You are putting in the boot a little overmuch to the mediaeval era there; it's a condescending Victorian myth that mediaeval science or theology believed in a flat earth. As for the papal bulls, since history quite definitively records that there were ordinarily no female soldiers in that era, the latter two can be explained away as relating respectively to the surge of popular religious feeling provoked by the early crusades, and to the general tidying-up of the Catholic church's institutions (including a number of other mediaeval knightly orders and minor orders) during the counter-reformation - by which point knights had, in any case, become militarily irrelevant in the face of pike and shot. The first, belonging in post-Roman dark age Britain (about which I otherwise know very little) just returns to my earlier point about civilised tropes versus barbarian.

Nonetheless, quibble as I might about some of the specifics, I accept your broad point that there are more examples than one might expect once one looks for them. What I would however stress is that these is less of a connection between patriarchy and Christianity that you seem to wish to imply; male inheritance and exclusivity of citizenship to men - both very relevant to classical citizen armies whose soldiers were obliged to supply their own equipment - antedate Christianity by more than a millennium. As to your broader historiographical point, I would agree that we need to be aware of the misogynistic assumptions imposed by past historical traditions, but I would balance that with the equal obligation not to overemphasise exceptions to serve present-day notions of equality.

And I would note we shouldn't use present day or past day notions of equality for 40k.

In 40k, basic body armor that covers almost the entire body weighs almost half as much as a mere tactical vest in modern body armor. Lasguns can be made of lighter and stronger materials. Even the UNIFORMS can be armor due to flak weave (this is why flak cloaks and flak greatcoats work), even if it provides less protection than the plate variety. Guard equipment is more space and weight efficient than modern equipment. They also have had far longer to understand the female body and how it interacts with equipment, as well as the nutritive values of rations for both genders (even if its taste leaves much to be desired).

So biologically speaking the differences between males and females in an Imperial Guard regiment, or indeed for all but the most close-combat oriented units, is pretty much a non-issue.

No, the main reason there's few females in 40k is because of a combination of GW itself being almost exclusively male and somewhat lazy. In truth, in many ways the Imperium in general (with specific exceptions) is more gender-egalitarian than many modern societies.

Female IG wouldnt be so different from their male counterpart. In regiments that wear masks you probably would even be able to tell them apart. 2nd Lt. Mira would look almost identical to every other Cadian if she was wearing the Cadian respirator mask.

There are plenty of female soldiers in Gaunt's Ghosts.

It is mentioned in the Ice Warriors book that the main job of women is to reproduce, to make up for all the men killed fighting for the Imperium, and the women who do join the Guard do it because they want to, or in the case of the one of the main characters in Ice Warriors, because they are unable to reproduce. And because you HAVE to do the most that you can for the Imperium, she was forced to join it. If you do not, there is a possibility that you will be killed.

Entire planets where peoples' entire lives are assigned to them like that are pretty rare from what I can tell. Certainly there doesn't seem to be many references to it in Dark Heresy or indeed in the greater 40k lore.

forruner_mercy wrote:It is mentioned in the Ice Warriors book that the main job of women is to reproduce, to make up for all the men killed fighting for the Imperium, and the women who do join the Guard do it because they want to, or in the case of the one of the main characters in Ice Warriors, because they are unable to reproduce. And because you HAVE to do the most that you can for the Imperium, she was forced to join it. If you do not, there is a possibility that you will be killed.

It's also mentionned in several other books that women usually have the same rights as men...
In fact in the Cain series (Though it may be a touch unreliable on certain parts) the regiment is half female and some allusion is made to them still being able to have children.

Imperial guard regiments differ with the gender issue

Cadia have both genders conscripted as do Armageddon, Tanith first & only and other regiments i can't remember lol

Catachan, Vostroya, Tallarn and Atillia don't have women as they follow a strict code of honor that only allow men (fathers and sons) to fight e.g. Vostroyan firstblood only have the first born sons of each family. On Atilla when a man joins the guard his wife is allowed to remarry because her husband is counted as dead.

Valhalla, Krieg, Mordia and others never have women fight in the guard as they're used on their planet for breeding the next line. In the novel dead man walking the commissar visited krieg and he discribed pregnant women lined up wearing rebreathers.

Ofcourse if i remember correctly in the 3rd edition codex there was a mention of a regiment made entirely of women. thats the 3rd edition not 3.5 lol.

GentlemanGuy wrote:Imperial guard regiments differ with the gender issue

Cadia have both genders conscripted as do Armageddon, Tanith first & only and other regiments i can't remember lol

Catachan, Vostroya, Tallarn and Atillia don't have women as they follow a strict code of honor that only allow men (fathers and sons) to fight e.g. Vostroyan firstblood only have the first born sons of each family. On Atilla when a man joins the guard his wife is allowed to remarry because her husband is counted as dead.

Valhalla, Krieg, Mordia and others never have women fight in the guard as they're used on their planet for breeding the next line. In the novel dead man walking the commissar visited krieg and he discribed pregnant women lined up wearing rebreathers.

Ofcourse if i remember correctly in the 3rd edition codex there was a mention of a regiment made entirely of women. thats the 3rd edition not 3.5 lol.

Valhallan 597th are half female and half male.
Nothing in the Valhallan fluff seems to state they have a population shortage... apart from a single line in the Ice Guard novel.

purplefood wrote:

GentlemanGuy wrote:Imperial guard regiments differ with the gender issue

Cadia have both genders conscripted as do Armageddon, Tanith first & only and other regiments i can't remember lol

Catachan, Vostroya, Tallarn and Atillia don't have women as they follow a strict code of honor that only allow men (fathers and sons) to fight e.g. Vostroyan firstblood only have the first born sons of each family. On Atilla when a man joins the guard his wife is allowed to remarry because her husband is counted as dead.

Valhalla, Krieg, Mordia and others never have women fight in the guard as they're used on their planet for breeding the next line. In the novel dead man walking the commissar visited krieg and he discribed pregnant women lined up wearing rebreathers.

Ofcourse if i remember correctly in the 3rd edition codex there was a mention of a regiment made entirely of women. thats the 3rd edition not 3.5 lol.

Valhallan 597th are half female and half male.
Nothing in the Valhallan fluff seems to state they have a population shortage... apart from a single line in the Ice Guard novel.

ah fair enough

GentlemanGuy wrote:Imperial guard regiments differ with the gender issue

That pretty much sums it up. The Imperium as a whole doesn't care at all whether someone is a man or a woman - but what it also doesn't care for is an Imperial world's culture. As long as Imperial authority is respected, tithes are paid and people pray to the Emperor, none of the High Lords will care the slightest bit about how women (or men ) are treated there.

English Assassin wrote:What I would however stress is that these is less of a connection between patriarchy and Christianity that you seem to wish to imply; male inheritance and exclusivity of citizenship to men - both very relevant to classical citizen armies whose soldiers were obliged to supply their own equipment - antedate Christianity by more than a millennium.

Well, yes, one could say it is a coincidence - any faith taking root in a sexist culture is likely to "inherit" these qualities, though I would say that (considering what Roman women were still allowed to do) this aspect has increased somewhat over the centuries, very likely because the old female deities were abolished and religion now preached the idea that women were the source of sin, et cetera. It's the age-old practice of people abusing a religion for their personal gains, be them political, monetary or simply bias. It seems to be a typical human flaw that we like to point fingers at others, and women were by far not the only group of people who were suppressed due to this.
In the end, Christianity just "happened" to be the dominant faith when those tribes that featured women warriors got conquered and forcibly converted - though I still wouldn't say that this excuses these and other failings.