Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="txwad" data-source="post: 1545180" data-attributes="member: 12509">With respect to the "women in combat" (sounds like a playboy issue) thread, Im not saying that a student of medieval history doesnt need to know Queen Elizabeth of England, Theodora of Byzantium, Joan of Arc, Eleanor of Acquitaine, Boadicea of the Iceni and a dozen others.  Im not saying that women didnt occasionally fight (the Scythian females supposedly did en masse defensively).  Of course, we've all read a few accounts of women crossdressers who served as a soldier or a pirate.  But thats the point, thats like saying that Africa or the Islamic world is prosperous.  Of course, one can cite a few modest examples (botswana or abu dhabi is kinda interesting) but the percentages indicate that the general proposition is false.  If a military history student from 400 bc to 1600 ad didnt even bother to learn anything about any woman except the few above, he could be an A+ student.  They simply didnt "matter" for the most part, if matter is defined narrowly as directly determining the outcome of the battle.  Honestly, women barely (from a quantitative perspective) serve in active combat NOW (from an overall global military perspective and modern warfare is far less physically demanding).Where women did matter from a historical military perspective most of all IMHO, is as loot or booty or as a culturally maintained reproductive reward.  Think about the Vikings, Mongols and Turks, half of the goal of their depredations was to obtain/rape women.  One of the turkish rulers delighted in being served by the naked wives and daughters of his foes.  The Zulus illustrate this very clearly.  Shaka ordered their society very clearly, where men were formed into age-ordered cohorts and forbidden to marry (though not to have certain forms of prepenetration sex) until they achieved X in combat.  Talk about a powerful incentive to prove your bravery and run the risk of death!  Think of such a society as having cultural eugenics reproductively favoring bravery, etc. On a more western note, think of the traditional injunction of the spartan woman "come home with your shield (ie dont run) or on it."Lets simply admit the obvious.  One man is capable of fertilizing dozens of women.  Men are thus as Lionel Tiger observed, "disposable".  In other words, a society can kill off a big chunk of every male generation and still reproduce.  History treated men accordingly.  Anyone who grew up in a rough or poor portion of modern America has an inkling of this, by observing the death rates and sexual patterns of gang members.  Modern gang members in the inner city are not that different from scandinavian farmers who went "a viking" or shakas zulu warriors with aggressive members having high rates of reproductive activity with multiple partners and having an extremely high attrition rate.My point is simply if you want to talk about the dynastic wiles of Elizabeth of England or Eleanor of Acquitaine, thats cool if you want to talk about the role of women as prostitute disease vectors carrying syphilis in the early sixteenth century thats fine.  If you want to discuss a few hundred exceptional women who served as a soldier, pirate etc thats cool.  But the point is that these were regarded at the time and should be regarded now as "exceptional" and therefore it is patently absurd to discuss such until one understands dozens of other aspects of medieval military/society worked.Strangemonkey, Im not offended by anything you've written.  I just believe that modern academia (in general) takes such great pains not to offend anyone in our diverse society that it focuses on "case studies" (like woman pirate X) that reflect the individual and the particular and misses the broader picture of how premodern and certain segments of modern society really function.  In addition, from the perspective of someone who was a part of academic society for a long time and then moved on to financially greener pastures in the real world, academic language is 'orwellian' in the sense that it obfuscates rather than illuminates.  Those are the main points that I find exception to in your writing.</blockquote>

Verification