Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.55480790 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Here's a "realistic," historically accurate set of female body armor.

>> No.55480864 [DELETED] 

>>55480790
Yeah, we all miss having quest threads on this board. They were fun for lots of people, instead of bait threads which are only fun for the OP.

>> No.55480891 [DELETED] 

>>55480864
There's a quest board. I started a few quests but the responses kind of came in too slow.

>> No.55480905 [DELETED] 

>>55480864
Shut the fuck up.

>> No.55480917 [DELETED] 

>>55480864
I hate you so fucking much. Why don't you return to your ghetto, where there are plenty of quests that you love so much?
Stupid fuck.

>> No.55480974

>>55480790
Similarly, OP's pic represents all the women he's fucked.

>> No.55480978 [DELETED] 

>>55480891
>There's a quest board. I started a few quests but the responses kind of came in too slow.
That's one of the main reasons why no one who runs a quest likes /qst/.

>> No.55481006

>>55480790
(You)

>> No.55481082 [DELETED] 

>>55480864
I agree, but it's a small price to pay to maintain quality posts like these that /tg/ is known for.

>> No.55481098

>>55480974
No u, women have never existed as a vanguard force at any point in history. Ergo, they've never had "accurate" body armor.

>> No.55481156

>>55480790

>> No.55481179

>> No.55481187

>>55481156
Hobbyist are cotemporary, not historically accurate.

>> No.55481358

>>55481098
Has a single woman ever been fitted for armor, anon? Yes. Ergo, there is such a thing as accurate body armor. One-of-a-kind sets aren't "inaccurate" just because a single person wears them.

Ultimately, the fact that you care about this to any extent demonstrates that you're a cunt. Go make a productive thread, you cunt.

>> No.55481472

>>55480790

So you're saying women went into battle naked?

>> No.55481558

>>55481472
They didn't go into battle, period. It's fucking delusional myth on par with WE WUZ KANGS. If there was a siege, then women would help defend the wall, or if there was an army supply line, then women might help defend that. They were always support, and a last ditch support, at that. So no armor, specialized equipment or anything else. My primary point being, that people can just make up whatever the fuck they want to. Because reality isn't accommodating to their bullshit.

>> No.55481561

>>55480790
not in the times where plate armour was worn because it was accompanied by chivalry and christianity. Mail was the armour of choice for centuries before and its not exactly tailored to fit. Danes and celts have examples of women fighters

>> No.55481573

>>55481558
>. If there was a siege, then women would help defend the wall, or if there was an army supply line, then women might help defend that.

Those sound like going into battle. So 'Didn't go into battle, period' is kinda undermined by your own post.

>> No.55481575

>>55480974
I didn't say that. I said you've never made a woman actively want any part of you inside her.

>> No.55481583

>>55481561
Not as a vanguard force they don't. Not on their warships they don't.

>> No.55481585

>>55481187
Previous poster is a time traveler, who posted that pic from 300 years in the future.
It's historical to him.

>> No.55481601

>>55481573
There's a difference between getting caught in the middle of something and seeking it out under lawful employment.

>> No.55481625

>>55481575
NO U

>> No.55481644

>>55481585
I would consider the Gulf War to be historical, and we have examples of body armor, worn by women, from that conflict.

>> No.55481720

>>55481644
Still reserves, still shit tier. Still wearing gear made for men by men.

>> No.55481740

>>55481583
>>55481720
Wow, it's the amazing moving goalposts. Went from 'no women wore armor ever' to 'but not in a way I think was important'

>> No.55481766

>>55481601

That's not what was said. What was said was 'Didn't go into battle, period'. Not that they were mercenaries.

>> No.55481767

>>55480790
Didn't Joana wear armor?

Not saying she fought, but pretty sure she did. Also I think it would be standard and not custom.

>> No.55481899

>>55481720
>he thinks men and woman are so physically different that they need custom carriers
I'd say I'm disappointed, but I expect nothing more from /tg/

>> No.55481938

>>55481899
Not him but come on, dude...
https://www.army.mil/article/87464/

>> No.55481981

>>55481938
Wrong conflict. Also they're being fitted for comfort, not functionality.

>> No.55482001

>>55481558
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birka_female_Viking_warrior

>i-it's just a meme!

>> No.55482008

>>55481938
Wait, so OP is even more wrong? No surprise.

>> No.55482019

>>55481981
>That left vulnerabilities where the body armor left gaps, particularly under the arms. But it also made the vests uncomfortable enough to affect performance, Hennessey explained.
>In some cases, women were reporting bruising on their hip bones because the side plates dragged down to their hips, she said. "And when they were sitting down, it was riding up to their chins, because the torso was so long."
Is that not a functionality concern?

>> No.55482032

>>55481767
I think she went into battles but she just bore the standard and not a sword.

>> No.55482035

>>55481766
I didn't say that they were mercenaries. Because they sure as fuck weren't. They were civilians that happen to be around at the time, a last resort.

>> No.55482050

>>55482019
It's a sizing concern.
Most body armors are massed produced to fit sized A-D, and if you aren't A-D, it fits like shit.

>> No.55482064

>>55482050
And if you're wearing the wrong size of body armor, and the plate inserts don't line up with the areas they're supposed to protect, is that not a functionality concern?

>> No.55482073

>>55481767
She was a political figure that got turned into fire wood when her purpose was served. That's now a combatant. >>55482001

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birka_female_Viking_warrior


LOL, wikipedia. Nice historical revisionism. Bitch was probably the fuckers wife they choked out and sent to the afterlife with him. But, I bet you didn't know they did that...

>> No.55482075

>>55482019
>left gaps
>implying modern carriers aren't full of fucking gaps

>> No.55482086

>>55482035
And they still went into battle, defeating your point that women didn't go into battle period. When you try to set an absolute, PLEASE don't let your only lime of defense be semantic.

>> No.55482093

>>55482075
Where the gaps are located matters just as much as how many gaps there are.

>> No.55482100

>>55482050
>Most body armors are massed produced to fit sized A-D

AKA, the body size of the average MALE soldier.

>> No.55482102

>>55482064
Then get smaller armor and stop bitching about bruised hips.

>> No.55482115

>>55482102
>"The size extra-small was too large for 85 percent of the females, so they weren't getting a good fit. It was too loose and too long."
Did you even read the article?

>> No.55482121

>>55482100
Woman wore 'male' carriers just fine through the 80s and 90s

>> No.55482126

>>55482086
No, they didn't. If somebody kicks in your home and attempts to kill you because your home is ground zero for a conflict. That isn't going into combat. That's called getting attacked, and women happened to be at locations that were attacked.

>> No.55482131

>>55481981
Funny enough, I can't seem to locate any photos or articles on females wearing PASGT vests, so you've got me there I suppose.

>> No.55482136

>>55482115
Then get double X small and stop bitching.

>> No.55482140

>>55482126

So defensive troops don't go into combat because the fight came to them?

>> No.55482147

Here you go.

>> No.55482167

>>55482136
>get a size that doesn't exist and stop bitching
Par for the course I guess.

>> No.55482195

>>55482140
No, they dress in armor and use weapons. Then precede to follow a military strategy of conflict at a designated location. Often being paid for their services or even being professionally employed as a lifetime soldier. That didn't exist for women, and has only in the 20 years technically existed. Which, if you speak to female marines, you can ask them how much "action" they end up actually seeing. Not much. Also, you can check the employment rates for female soldiers in modern PMCS that involve active combat roles.

>> No.55482222

>>55482121
I wonder what could've changed about body armor in the late 90s...

>> No.55482235

>>55482167
It's funny, because smaller males have the same issues even with X-small gear. I've seen it. No amount of adjusting straps helped my smaller male students. So you know what we did? Duct taped shit until it stayed where it needed to be and told them to suck it up. Did the same for female students. Cost a few dollars a roll.

>> No.55482273

>>55482235
If they're that small why even give them armor? Just have squat down and they won't even be a target anymore!

>> No.55482282

>>55482222
Checked. Never got old seeing the faces on the soldiers being told their armor is fragile.

>> No.55482290

>>55482273
I don't know if you know this, Ivan, but most Americans can't squat.

>> No.55482329

>>55482273
I know you're joking, but we drill into their heads that staying out of sight and under cover is the best way to avoid getting shot, because it is.

Of course we also have to teach them that a bush is not cover. Same with a sheet of plywood.

>> No.55482368

>>55482329

Though it IS concealment, which is often better than nothing.

>> No.55482414

>>55482368
No shit Sherlock.

>> No.55482439

>>55480790

>> No.55482451

>>55482414
Is it better to have no armor and be able to move for hours and hours at three times with significantly more SA and less fatigue. Or, is it better to have the armor that might catch the bullet with your name on it?

>> No.55482463

So have we established that female armor does, in fact, exist. And that there are women around the world who have seen more combat ad killed more people for a living than OP has?

Can we agree he's probably just some assblasted little pussy who got DQd at MEPS for being too fat for even the chair force?

>> No.55482469

>>55482439
Dat ass.

>> No.55482487

>>55482469
Dem calves.

>> No.55482490

>>55482451

Depends on your role and current mission. Endurance is much less a concern for tooling about in the APC for example.

>> No.55482494

>>55482073
You idiot, there was no other skeleton in the grave.

>> No.55482520

>>55482451
Have the armor that might catch that bullet or piece of debris. Even if the armor is uncomfortable, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the mission. And no, complaining that it's heavy, itchy, or chaffing is not the armor getting in the way, it's you.

>> No.55482541

>>55482451
depends on the mission

>> No.55482573

>>55481558
>They didn't go into battle, period

Man, I love it when people phrase things poorly.

Okay, so defining "going into battle" as "deliberately taking part in an aggressive attack action" as opposed to "defending a point where fleeing is not a viable option" or "being in the middle of a battle and defending oneself", but also allowing for the idea of armies that were led by a woman who might not have directly participated but certainly were on the battlefield and in harm's way, we have...

Jeanne d'Arc
Jeanne de Clisson
Tirgatao of the Ixamotae
Pingyang
Catalina de Erauso (a lesbian, to boot!)
Boudicca, of course
CHING SHIH, motherfucker!
Tomyris (the most likely killer of Cyrus the Great)
Sparethra (who also fucked up Cyrus the Great a few years earlier)

>> No.55482574

>>55482463
>So have we established that female armor does, in fact, exist.

No, it didn't. The one example given was for a woman that never saw combat. Which, may not have even been real. Also, if it doesn't exist nowadays. How the fuck would it have existed back then?

>And that there are women around the world who have seen more combat ad killed more people for a living than OP has?

Can you name a single woman serving in the army that even has a kill record from an active assault or raid?

>Can we agree he's probably just some assblasted little pussy who got DQd at MEPS for being too fat for even the chair force?

Well, I can tell you've never been in the service. Chair force is a cute little nick name that will get your ass cited faster than you can say whiplash.

>> No.55482593

>>55482494
Because it was torched... God damn, you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

>> No.55482601

Were there "standard issue" armors in medieval times? Since everything was done locally, wouldn't you just go to your local armorer and get armor made to fit you?

>> No.55482610

>>55482195
You're borderline incoherent here, mate. You're not engaging at all with the point your opponent's making.

When people go to fight defensively, are they or are they not engaging in battle?

The one thing that's relevant that you do bring up is that military service as we understand it in modernity has only existed recently, and armies were generally levied in previous times. Which means there is even LESS of a difference between people called up to fight on a battlefield a few miles away and people called up to fight in defense of their homes.

>> No.55482620

>>55482573
By the way, there's probably more, I just didn't feel like spending all day on this.

Ching Shih can generally represent any female pirate, of course, though Ching Shih is herself the most successful pirate in history and so takes the cake. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Golden Age of Piracy Caribbean pirates...but render unto Ching Shih that which is Ching Shih's.

>> No.55482635

>>55482574
I was a combat comm tech in the chair force for a decade. 'Chair force' isn't going to get you cited for shit.

>> No.55482653

>>55482573
>Man, I love it when people phrase things poorly.

Nobody phrased anything poorly. You are arguing with yourself based on assertion nobody made other than you. All those examples you gave are hotly debated and questionable at best.

>> No.55482666

>>55482574
>he doesn't even know who Lady Death is.

>> No.55482678

>>55482653

Can you provide a link to these hot debates?

>> No.55482686

>>55482593
...The remains of a burning (and, yeah, there were remains) were buried, you absolute moron. They were placed under a tumulus of stone and dirt. Additionally, a slave buried alongside her master's remains would never been buried in the central position of the corpse in the Birka grave, flanked by shields, as this is literally how it was often traditional to enshrine an actual warrior, depending on the specific time period.

It is you that doesn't know your shit.

>> No.55482696

>>55482678
>>>/pol/
of course

>> No.55482697

>>55482574
>Also, if it doesn't exist nowadays. How the fuck would it have existed back then?

Well shit boys, someone tell the press Dinosaurs never existed, it was all a lie to get more funds for 'research'

>> No.55482719

>>55482573
Ooh, found another great one: Mai Bhago, a Sikh warrior-saint who led 40 deserters against a Mughal army in order to save the Sikh guru. And won, and was the only survivor.

>> No.55482741

>>55482574
>your ass cited
Yeah, you're fucking dumb. Probably did get turned back at MEPS.

>> No.55482746

>>55482574
>Also, if it doesn't exist nowadays. How the fuck would it have existed back then?

There have been females fighting in the Middle East against IS for the last few years, you stupid mong.

>> No.55482769

>>55482746
Let's also not forget the females fighting FOR those shit bags.

>> No.55482791

>>55482686
I'm sure they'd go out and grab them up you stupid fuck. Ash and minor pieces of bone left aren't going to as intact as the slave girl's non incinerated remains.

>> No.55482810

>>55482791

Do you have any evidence for your conjecture?

>> No.55482813

>>55480790
No matter how cringey and stupid SJWs can be, it's good to know the anti-SJW counter culture will always be 40x worse.

>> No.55482823

>>55482813
Low testosterone levels does weird things to a boys mind.

>> No.55482834

>>55482719
Sure... DELUSIONAL. Pointing out propagandized historical figures as actual warriors. Take one look some ye olde are from the middle ages. See any fucking women fighting? Didn't think so.

>> No.55482839

>>55482791
>underestimating modern archeology this hard

If there were the remains of a guy in that grave, we'd know it. How do you think we know that the Norse generally buried the burned remains of their men? Because we fucking find those remains under burial mounds.

>> No.55482840

>>55480790
Here is op of this thread.

>> No.55482849

>>55482810
Seeing how no evidence has presented to qualify your assertion, none shall be provided for mine, either. Just good luck dredging a lake for the remains to bury.

>> No.55482887

>>55482839
Except this grave is a singular freak occurrence that contradicts everything we know about their culture. Or... maybe the man's body was displaced, destroyed, or non recoverable.

>> No.55482889

>>55482834
So what's your point? That aside from the women who fought, no women fought? I think I can live with that.

>> No.55482892

>>55482573
Hatshepsut, probably.

>> No.55482929

>>55482889

Clearly no women fought and any woman who potentially fought is a lie!

>> No.55482952

>>55482849

Generally when you are trying to displace the current theory, you want some evidence for it.

>> No.55482958

>>55482889
That I can give hundreds of thousands of examples of no women participating in warfare of this age other than as a last resort, and you pull up about five examples of mythological figures that may not have even existed or were grossly misrepresented like Joan D'arc. Yeah, I think I can tell who has the stronger position on this one. Also, modern times, women still don't have custom made gear or serve on active combat raids. Food for thought. Even with guns women aren't trusted with anything other than reserve work as a desperate last call.

>> No.55482962

>>55482834
By that logic I don't think Richard the Lionheart or Saladin ever fought either. There's way too much propaganda around them for me to believe that. It's all fake. They're all fake.

Seriously, dude. 200,000 years of modern h. sapiens existence, 53.5 billion women have ever lived in that time, and you mean to tell me that you don't think that even once in that time, before the 20th century, women charged into an aggressive battle willingly? That's its purely an aberration brought on by modern times?

>> No.55483005

Wow, there's some huge ass misconceptions about viking burial rituals up here in this thread.

First, and most importantly: burial by fire was not how every man or warrior was seen off into the afterlife. Not even every man who had gone viking in his life - even DIED in the profession - was buried in this way. It wasn't a universal tradition.

Secondly, only a small percentage of those cremated after death were burned 'at sea'. It was more common for the corpse to be burned on a pyre. Those remains that could be retrieved have often been found in central positions beneath Norse barrows.

Thirdly, human sacrifices were generally thralls, but rarely sex slaves. It was actually quite common for a warrior's concubine to have an active role during a funeral as a sort of symbol of life and fertility. Wives were sometimes sacrificed but, man, that was not common at all.

Fourthly, human sacrifices were generally burned with the deceased man if he was being cremated.

>> No.55483006

>>55482958
>mythological figures

From my list, Jeanne d'Arc, Catalina de Erauso, Boudicca, and Ching Shih are all people that we are 100% certain existed and actually took part in battle as you appear to define the term (that is, an aggressive attack, as opposed to "mere" defensive action).

>> No.55483012

>>55482958
The fact that you can list a bunch of battles where no women fought does not mean no women fought Period. If you stance is 'X never happened', then 1 example is sufficient to disprove that.

>> No.55483013

>>55482962
Except there's historical evidence of him fighting and leading a group of men to war. Because men actually fought wars, and no amount of PC, SJW Disney horseshit will ever change that reality. Also, I'm surprised you didn't bring up the Russian female snipers. Or that you lasted this long in this entirely ridicules thread I created to kill some time. Keep in mind my original point, was there was no female armor. Which, given the fact that women not wanting to get ass raped in raids, would probably have put on some gambeson or anything else they could in order to not die.

>> No.55483037

>>55481558
>They didn't go into battle, period.
Except as about a third of all combatants outside of professional armies.

>>55481720
>wearing gear made for men by men
It's literally the same shit. The human body and its susceptibility to force doesn't change much just because you've got a little more fat on the chest. The sizing issue has been brought up, but in a lot of historical cases, armor was made to fit anyway, so it doesn't matter if it's a design that was developed for men or fucking nephilim, it can be scaled appropriately.

>> No.55483060

>>55482887
Thing is, mate, we don't actually know much about their culture. Our understanding of these people is not exhaustive, due to in part their transmission of ideas, and in part due to a very pervasive cleansing of older elements of these cultures during the transition toward Christianity.

We have lost so much of their footprint that most of what we 'know' about them is based on very little real evidence, and a great deal of guesswork. Shit, a lot of what we know about their religion and mythology is extremely suspect, as many of our sources are Christian revisionists.

>> No.55483070

>>55483013
>I was only pretending to be retarded to kill some time.

>> No.55483077

>>55483013
And there's historical evidence for Jeanne d'Arc, Catalina de Erauso, Boudicca, and Ching Shih fighting and leading a group of men to war. There's also some women who dressed as men and served in mercenary companies or otherwise participated in warfare, but I deliberately left those out.

>Also, I'm surprised you didn't bring up the Russian female snipers

I also purposefully limited myself to about the 1700s or before, since we seem to be generally focusing on pre-modern warfare.

>was there was no female armor

Jeanne d'Arc had a suit of plate made especially for her, which she wore into battle. Yes, I realize she carried a standard and not a sword, but she was still in a battle at risk of getting shot or stabbed, and wearing armor that was intended to protect her, not look showy.

Ergo, there was female armor, QED.

>> No.55483079

>>55483013
>thread I created to kill some time

>>>/qst/

>> No.55483090

>>55483013
>Keep in mind my original point

Why should we? You haven't. All you've done is shift goalposts and 'pretend' to be retarded.

>> No.55483101

>>55483090
Perhaps he is only pretending to be pretending to be retarded.

>> No.55483102

>>55483013

>Also, I'm surprised you didn't bring up the Russian female snipers.

Oh, that's a thought. 588th Night Bomber Regiment, the Night Witches. 24,000 recorded missions.

>> No.55483109

>>55483013
The historicity of someone like Mai Bhago or Ching Shih or Tomyris is just as solid as that of Lionheart.

In fact, all things considered, accounts of Lionheart's life are probably less reliable than Shih's.

>> No.55483131

>>55480790
The concept of "female armor" is fucking stupid, and "male armor" isn't better. There is armor, that's it.

>> No.55483142

>>55483090
>>55483101
U MAD. Anyway, I saw some shitty artwork of a woman dressed as a knight and decided to take out on TG for some reason. Also, to kill some time.

>> No.55483146

>>55483013
Just because you're butt hurt that the pretty athletic blonde bombshell got to go be a Marine while you got told to fuck off by the recruiter for being a sissy fattass doesn't mean you need to pretend to be an idiot on 4chan.

Go pick up something heavy and put it down. Repeat until your hormones are appropriately balanced. Eat less, and you'll even lose some weight!

>> No.55483177

>>55483142
Keep your autism in check next time, you worthless retard.

>> No.55483180

>>55483146
>Just because you're butt hurt that the pretty athletic blonde bombshell got to go be a Marine while you got told to fuck off by the recruiter for being a sissy fattass doesn't mean you need to pretend to be an idiot on 4chan.

WTF are you on about? Is this some horror story from your life?

>> No.55483197

>>55482032
Actually she did had a sword, named Fierbois for some time. Then she broke it by beating a slut with.

>> No.55483202

>>55483177
Says the person that got into massive masturbatory shit flinging fight over women's armor. Fuck, you couldn't even come up with some good examples. I had to give a good one to you.

>> No.55483205

>>55483180
he's telling you to stop being a sack of shit.

>> No.55483212

>>55483142
So the reason you made this dumb thread is because some artwork made you buttblasted?

>> No.55483219

Come on man, you know that there has been at least ONE woman in history that has been fitted for armour. You're legitimately saying that no female EVER has had their own armour?

>> No.55483228

>>55483202
I'm actually the chair force vet who thinks you're dumbing for telling people that saying 'chair force' will get you a citation. It fucking won't unless you're a dibshit and someone in your chain has a stick in their ass.

>> No.55483231

>>55483205
Well, it sounds like he's having a flashback to his time in the service's equivalent of the DMV. Which, while boring, isn't exactly hard to get a passing mark from.

>> No.55483234

>>55481098

No u, women have never existed at any point in history.

>> No.55483260

>>55483228
Everybody calls it the chair force unless you are talking about their MPs.

>> No.55483277

>>55483231
You either have terrible reading comprehension or you're desperately pretending.

>> No.55483282

>>55483212
It was really shitty artwork.

>> No.55483312

>>55483277
All I'm reading there is somebody projecting their own issues in an attempt to insult somebody else. A common mistake when a person projects is that they think other people have shared their experiences or have even the faintest idea of what the fuck they are talking about.

>> No.55483318

>>55483260
No, even Sec Fo gets called chair fighters. Fuck, even PJs, CCTs, and TACP tell you they're in the chair force.

The only ones who will get mad at your for saying chair force are tanker pilots. Because they're fucking tanker pilots.

>> No.55483331

>>55483037
>but in a lot of historical cases, armor was made to fit anyway,

Crossdressing was frowned upon in many cultures, bro. You can't just fit a standard armour design to a woman without having her end up crossdressing.

>> No.55483342

>>55483318
I guess I just met a touchy MP, then...

>> No.55483345

>>55483312
Yeah, you really do have poor reading skills.

>> No.55483349

>>55483282
So? This is a really shitty thread.

>> No.55483355

>>55483331
>clothes and armor are the exact same thing

>> No.55483365

>>55483342
A really touchy one. If I had to guess, he probably got recycled into his current afsc

>> No.55483376

>>55483345
They assumed the person was in the service, was kicked out, or washed out of it. They assumed the person was talking about modern equipment or gear. Or even cared about either of those topics.

That isn't my lack of reading comprehension, that's you being a dumb ass and assuming a lot about a person your mad at.

>> No.55483382

>>55481625
No /u/?

>> No.55483397

>>55483382
NOO U

BTW I think OP jumped ship after the first post. I've just been helping keep this tire fire going...

>> No.55483399

>>55483355
European armour imitated male fashion. Chinese armour imitated male fashion.

Sorry, boya, but armour is pretty clearly coded as a male item of dress all across Eurasia.

>> No.55483451

>>55483376
Actually, they assume you didn't even get into the service to begin with, and are upset at the women who did. Seems like a fair assumption to me, considering your current behavior. Thanks for demonstrating your piss poor education.

>> No.55483469

>>55483397
>still pretending

>> No.55483542

>>55483451
How is that any less retarded?

>> No.55483559

>>55483399
That's because women were never a vanguard force and at no point participated in wars.

>> No.55483645

>>55483542
You fail to understand that he wasn't actually suggesting you got rejected from military service. He's saying your so dysfunctional as a boy that even a woman is preferable to the DoD.

He's insulting you, you dense dumbass.

>> No.55483696

>>55483645
No, he's clearly created a fan fiction for a troll thread that he is incurably butt hurt over. You have two people that incredibly upset over the lack of the fairer sex's participation in mankind's bloody history. Don't really get it, but whatever.

>> No.55483722

>>55483559
>no point participated in wars
Op the retarded faggot said again without giving anything to back up his shit and ignoring that he was proved wrong already.

>> No.55483754

>>55483559
Except of course in Asia and Europe.

>> No.55483806

>>55483722
The only thing I've seen in here outside of colossal faggotry is an inability for anybody to back up women participating in ancient wars. One person cited individual females in officer roles. Which they were able to produce less than five examples of. Exceptions within exceptions aren't examples of females participating in wars. Armor was primarily for men and no women were riding around in plate serving as fucking knights.

>> No.55483811

>>55483696
>OP used Harden

>> No.55483824

>>55483811
Was it effective?

>> No.55483827

>>55483806
You wouldn't accept any proof as valid anyways.

>> No.55483879

>>55483806
Ah yes, the old anything that shows that you are wrong does not count butthurt reply. Cry more retard.

>> No.55483929

>>55483879
I can bring up five examples of a person doing just about anything in all of human existence. Does that make it the fucking norm? Also, does "leading" an army have anything to do with actually fighting in it? Especially when you are just a figure head?

>> No.55483961

>>55483824
No, it failed.

>> No.55483997

>>55483929
Something not being the norm and something never happening are two different things you stupid faggot.

>> No.55484011

>>55483929
Who said anything about the norm? A set of body armor doesn't need to be "the norm" to be realistic, it only needs to be based on a real example or believable enough in its context.

Take your autism back to /pol/.

>> No.55484023

>>55483961
We need a role call here, who is who. I'm not posting another thing until I know I'm not talking with a single person pretending to be eight different people just to fuck with me.

>> No.55484038

>>55483929

>Does that make it the fucking norm

Moving Goalpoasts

>> No.55484100

>>55484038
Not giving real examples isn't moving goal posts you retard. Citing five figures that may have had fucking tinsel on or not actually been involved day to day fighting doesn't prove shit. Show me evidence of an actual employed female soldiering force that had armor fitted for them, and weapons sized for them. You fucking can't, because it didn't fucking exist. Women have had no active role in militaries until the advent of the modern firearm system, and even that is highly debatable.

>> No.55484148

>>55483929
>Does that make it the fucking norm?

Nobody said it was the norm you drooling backbirth. Stop moving dem goalposts to suit your argument.

>> No.55484195

>>55484148
The "norm" is all there is, or was. Anything outside of the norm is an unusual even and not indicative of actual history or events. Did women lead armies? No. Did women fight in them? No. Did they have armor or weapons? No. Did at some point in human history a female participate as a figure head or have to defend herself and her home? Undeniably.

>> No.55484206

>>55484100
Aside from the 180 warriors that Sun Tzu trained, the Chariot drivers in the Greek armies who were women, and the rank and file female soldiers in the history of the Chinese before Christ was even born, of course. But we'll just ignore all those since they're not acceptable to your standards of women not having armor made for them which is the entire premise of the OP.

Oh wait....

>> No.55484224

>>55484100
>>55484195
Stop retard you are only digging yourself deeper.

>> No.55484240

>>55483012
These retards hang themselves on their own arguments.

>> No.55484248

>>55484195
Actually a significant number of women lead armies, especially in China and Indonesia. Women also fought in them.

The gender roles that OP is trying to enforce weren't as strictly adhered to in the Orient before 400 AD.

>> No.55484252

>>55484195
What was the argument? The argument was that there has been armor made for females worn by females in combat.

The argument was never that the majority, or even many, females were employed in soldiery. You brought that in to pretend you hadn't been soundly beaten.

>> No.55484266

>>55484206

>Aside from the 180 warriors that Sun Tzu trained

>the Chariot drivers in the Greek armies who were women,

>rank and file female soldiers in the history of the Chinese


Evidence for any of that? Thesis confirming it. Historical references from more than one source. Ancient artwork depicting it? Female bones with signs of a warrior's life style. Literally fucking anything back up that load of horseshit?

>> No.55484269

>>55484224
>Stop retard you are only digging yourself deeper.
But the whole point of OP's thread is to see how fast he can hit 310 replies...

>> No.55484270

How about Khutulun?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khutulun
We have enough different sources to prove her existence

>> No.55484300

>>55484270
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khutulun


Dat wikipedia entry. Dat top notch source.

"Netflix's 'Marco Polo' Stars Joan Chen, Zhu Zhu, & Claudia Kim on Playing History's Most Powerful Women".

>> No.55484333

I swear to god this female empowerment shit is god damn cancer. Libtards uploading references from agenda driven TV shows on to Wikipedia and then claiming it as legitimate historical source.

>> No.55484373

>>55484269
You already tried the pretending to be retarded bs.

>> No.55484394

>>55484333

>> No.55484410

>>55484300
>>55484333
Yeah, it's funny how you only notice "sjw propaganda", and not that both Marco Polo and Rashid Al Din Hamadani wrote about her centuries before the concept of feminism was made.
But go on, keep telling us about your more vast knowledge of the ancient world than the ones who lived in it.....

>> No.55484414

>>55484300
>let me just ignore the REFERENCE MATERIAL THE ARTICLE CITES
>because god forbid reference material exists

>> No.55484430

>>55484373
Turns out OP isn't the only one who thinks his thread is shit.

>> No.55484472

>>55482746
>There have been females fighting in the Middle East against IS for the last few years, you stupid mong.
Hmm.
How's that working out? It's like making a military fit some sjw wetdream, doesn't get shit done.

>> No.55484478

>>55484300
>ignoring 5 sources in the references
>going straight for the "pop-culture" to screech about propaganda
noice

>> No.55484522

>>55483077
>There's also some women who dressed as men and served in mercenary companies or otherwise participated in warfare

Thanks Disney. You know cartoons aren't a good basis to argue history, right anon?

>> No.55484532

>>55484410
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khutulun


>was the most famous daughter of Kaidu, a cousin of Kublai Khan. Her father was most pleased by her abilities, and she accompanied him on military campaigns.

Right... Second sentence confirms she was just a political figure head, and the sources have references to Feminist propaganda. Fuck you and this entire thread. Give me a real fucking source. Not fucking wikipedia. A goddamn respectable professional journal or source that makes reference to a FEMALE FIGHTING FORCE. Not a fucking figure head, not the general's god damn daughter, but a contingent of actual fighting women.

>> No.55484563

>>55484532
With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World

>> No.55484582

>>55484532
>Not a fucking figure head, not the general's god damn daughter, but a contingent of actual fighting women.
What about the Amazons?
Are you saying the documentary about wonder woman is false???

>> No.55484590

>>55484563
>>55484532

LES MOTS ORIENTAUX DANS LE TEXTE DE MARCO POLO. (Romanian)
By: Ménnard, Philip. Romance Philology , Fall2009, Vol. 63, p87-135, 49p. Publisher: Brepols

>> No.55484597

>>55484532
>Not a fucking figure head, not the general's god damn daughter, but a contingent of actual fighting women.

That's a hell of a stretch from 'Women never fought, period' where this started. Anyway:

588th Night Bomber Regiment

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/soviet_women_pilots.html

Monash University.

http://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=madrush

An actual citable academic article about them (Under what they were renamed to)

>> No.55484609

>>55483077
Now I know you are just fucking around. You confirm her presence is a decorative hood ornament.

The rest of what you posted has no sourcing or evidence to it, and I can't take your word for it.

>> No.55484610

>>55484266
But you've already stated that bones and weapons in female graves aren't evidence. NOW it's evidence but not before?

Hmmm.

Anyways, the story of Sun Tzu's workn with the emperor's concubines was documented by Sima Qian, the historian who actually lived at that time, and was quoted and referenced by Alfred Bradford in "With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World".

And the women who ran the Chariots was documented in ancient Greek historical records, as opposed to television. But then, if you actually had any interest in this stuff aside from causing arguments, you would have looked it up yourself and educated yourself on it. Since you haven't any actual historical interest, you didn't, and will dismiss these statements out of hand, because they don't fit into the trolling or your personal word view, depending on which moron you're pretending to be.

>> No.55484612

>>55484522

>> No.55484630

>>55484590
>>55484563
I'm pulling about 6k entries in my journal proxies for Khatun alone (some combat related, but Mongol women is a broad topic particularly as you get into west-central asia).

>> No.55484635

>>55482073

Here's the actual paper.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23308/full

>> No.55484662

>>55484597
>http://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=madrush

Fourth goddamn page.

>It is necessary first to address the difficulty that comes with researching this regiment.There is limited access to Soviet military records, and many records have been lost because of poor conditions and theft.It is hard to count the number of women that served in the military because the government did not distinguish men from women in their records.There are not many primary or secondary sources published in English on this topic, and some of the primary sources published in English have been met with scrutiny and critical disregard from historians


AKA pure bullshit.

>> No.55484703

1st C:
A
Agrippina the Elder
B
Boudica
C
Cartimandua
L
Mother Lü
P
Phùng Thị Chính
T
Thusnelda
Triaria
Trưng Sisters
V
Veleda

3rd C:
A
Arsinoe III of Egypt
B
Busa of Canosa di Puglia
J
Empress Jingū
L
Lady Triệu
W
Wang Yi (wife of Zhao Ang)
Z
Zenobia

4th C:
C
Caeria
L
Li Xiu
M
Mavia (queen)

11th C:
A
Adela of Hamaland
Adelaide of Susa
Akkadevi
D
Mary Díaz de Vívar
F
Florine of Burgundy
Freydís Eiríksdóttir
H
Bergljot Håkonsdatter
I
Isabel of Conches
M
Matilda of Tuscany
N
Emma de Guader, Countess of Norfolk
S
Sikelgaita
U
Urraca of Zamora

>> No.55484704

>>55484662
>I can only understand if it goes in my way, let's ignore everything else, it's propaganda!

How about a catalan pdf?
https://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjfoML0xbTWAhUEKVAKHYWuBKcQFghFMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.raco.cat%2Findex.php%2FCatalanReview%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F309325%2F399303&usg=AFQjCNE_-1XrStpgqDehto5qOTfCEtQCmQ
Page 11, Malcada Scaletta

>> No.55484706

>>55484635
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.23308/full


>Objectives

>The objective of this study has been to confirm the sex and the affinity of an individual buried in a well-furnished warrior grave (Bj 581) in the Viking Age town of Birka, Sweden. Previously, based on the material and historical records, the male sex has been associated with the gender of the warrior and such was the case with Bj 581. An earlier osteological classification of the individual as female was considered controversial in a historical and archaeological context. A genomic confirmation of the biological sex of the individual was considered necessary to solve the issue.

Stated purpose is propaganda, mentions it in the introduction of the paper. Lovely...

>> No.55484719

>>55484703
12th C:
A
Moremi Ajasoro
Alrude, Countess of Bertinoro
B
Maud de Braose
C
Constance, Queen of Sicily
E
Eleanor of Aquitaine
Elizabeth of Hungary, Duchess of Bohemia
F
Fannu (Almoravid princess)
G
Gertrude of Babenberg, Duchess of Bohemia
Tomoe Gozen
Gwenllian ferch Gruffydd
H
Hoelun
Hōjō Masako
I
Ida of Formbach-Ratelnberg
J
Joan of England, Queen of Sicily
K
Khulan khatun
L
Liang Hongyu
M
Aoife MacMurrough
Matilda of Boulogne
Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem
S
Sibylla of Anjou
Sibylla, Queen of Jerusalem
T
Teresa of León, Countess of Portugal
U
Umadevi
Y
Yennenga


13th C:
B
Beatrice of Provence
Blanche of Castile
Maud de Braose
D
Alix de Montmorency
Rudrama Devi
Dina and Clarenza
Doquz Khatun
Shajar al-Durr
E
Eleanor of Castile
Eleanor of Provence
H
Hangaku Gozen
Nicolaa de la Haye
Magistra Hersend
Bertha van Heukelom
I
Isabella of Aragon, Queen of France
J
Joan I of Navarre
K
Khutulun
M
Margaret of Provence
Mercadera
O
Orghana
T
Töregene Khatun
Y
Yesui

>> No.55484721

>>55484662
Apoнoвa Paиca Epмoлaeвнa // Гepoи Coвeтcкoгo Coюзa: Кpaткий биoгpaфичecкий cлoвapь

>> No.55484722

>>55484662
If you overlook the fact it does not say that women never served.

>> No.55484733

>>55484706
>Stated purpose is propaganda, mentions it in the introduction of the paper. Lovely...

...no, it says it's to confirm the gender as it had been assumed to be male.

>> No.55484741

>>55484719
14th C:
A
Agnes, Countess of Dunbar
B
Christina Bruce
C
Camiola
Dyah Pitaloka Citraresmi
D
Isabella de Vesci
E
Eleanor of Arborea
I
Isabella of France
J
Joanna of Flanders
M
Malika Fadel ben Salvador
Maria, Queen of Sicily
P
Philippa of Hainault
R
Richardis of Schwerin, Duchess of Schleswig
U
Urduja
W
Tribhuwana Wijayatunggadewi

15th C:
A
Jeanne des Armoises
B
Ats Bonninga
C
Caterina d'Ortafà
Máire Ní Ciaragain
E
Elise Eskilsdotter
H
Jeanne Hachette
J
Joan of Arc
Joanna of Rožmitál
K
Foelke Kampana
Alice Knyvet
Ida Königsmarck
L
Ólöf Loftsdóttir
M
Mandukhai Khatun
Margaret of Anjou
Margareta of Celje
N
Katarina Nipertz
P
Bauck Poppema
Q
Qutlugh Nigar Khanum
R
Cecília Rozgonyi
S
Caterina Sforza
Sharifa Fatima
Swob Sjaarda
T
Tang Saier
Brita Tott

>> No.55484746

>>55484706

>> No.55484761

>>55484741
16th C:
A
Mary Ambree
Amina
B
Gunilla Bese
Chand Bibi
Gertruid Bolwater
Burecca of the Maldives
C
Agnes Campbell
India Catalina
Catherine Ségurane
Françoise de Cezelli
Abbakka Chowta
Christina of Saxony
D
Jeanne d'Albret
Dedisimedi
Marguerite Delaye
Iníon Dubh
Rani Durgavati
E
Anna Bielke
G
Gaitana
Christina Gyllenstierna
H
Mariotta Haliburton
Kenau Simonsdochter Hasselaer
Hille Feicken
Jane Howard, Countess of Westmorland
I
Idia
Ii Naotora
K
Kaihime
Rani Karnavati
Siti Wan Kembang
Keumalahayati
Komatsuhime
L
Louise Labé
Marie-Christine de Lalaing
Trijn van Leemput
Euphemia Leslie
Anna Leuhusen
M
Isabel Madeira
Maeda Matsu
La Malinche
Mandukhai Khatun
O
Brita Olofsdotter
Grace O'Malley
P
María Pacheco
Brianda Pereira
María Pita
Q
Quilago
R
Trijn Rembrands
Catharina Rose
Anne Rud
S
Maria van Schooten
Sibylle of Cleves
Suriyothai
Ebba Stenbock
Barbro Stigsdotter
Inés Suárez
T
Tachibana Ginchiyo
Ingeborg Tott
Tsuruhime
Tun Fatimah
U
Unniyarcha

>> No.55484776

>>55484746
Wikipedia entries and propaganda don't give your non argument any more credence, but hey maybe a woman that picked up a rake for thirty minutes in China one time and killed fifty thousand men by herself will confirm what you are saying!

>> No.55484785

>ITT:
Foreveralone fedorabeards will never understand that tits are essentially squishy slabs of fat that fit easily into the steel barrels that are plate armour.

>> No.55484787

>>55484706
>An earlier osteological classification of the individual as female was considered controversial in a historical and archaeological context.

>Guys,I think it's female
>Nah
>Let's do CD,then

>> No.55484788

>>55484662

Anon, you do realize the problem here is the actual numbers, not the fact that they fought, right?

Which anyway was clearly recognized by the Germans themselves?

>>55484706

The paper is about the genetical test. Which said pretty clearly that's a woman's skeleton.

>> No.55484809

>>55484706
Sure, they just faked the DNA evidence they accrued durign the reseach. Of course it was to prove somethign that was an assumption, because the bones were determined to be female in a male ioritented gravesite, which confused the shit out of everyone who made the assumption they were male (back in the 1700's I might add, where anything a woman did was suspect and there were no female academics allowed because that was unthinkable). So they had to go through unusual measure to get the Royal Historical society to admit they were wrong, because the Royal Historical society is NEVER wrong.

And I'm not some feminist, I'm pointing out factual things here, that are historically true, not conjecture.

Idiot.

>> No.55484816

>>55484788
>genetics
>credible science

oh god you're serious

>> No.55484833

>>55483234
Pretty sure there were no women when the earth was a molten hellscape.

>> No.55484837

>>55484788
The articles you are referencing mention "controversy" and have additional links to actual SJW propaganda. There's no excuse for this thread to continue women had no role to play in the military now or then and should all go back to the kitchen, where they belong.

>> No.55484842

>>55484816

Demonstrate that it isn't, then.

>> No.55484847

>>55484706
Please for the love of God tell me you're just pretending to be retarded. Please, please let this be a troll. Nobody can actually be this stupid. This has to be fake.

>> No.55484850

>>55484816

Is the only credible science to you the ancient art of dickonomics?

>> No.55484852

>>55484776
>waaa stop posting stuff that shows I am wrong. waaa all that stuff does not count/is propaganda.

>> No.55484882

>>55484816
Please stop pretending to be OP.He's a faggot but that much of a faggot

>> No.55484917

>>55484837
So you can't prove the articles wrong? Also good job showing that you are just a butthurt retard.

>> No.55484920

Does anyone have that screencap about women incapable of harming a man in combat?
The one with a women-manned tank rendered ineffective and the duel....

It would SO fit that thread

>> No.55484927

>>55484847

Do you really think the people in /pol/ just feign stupidity? Sweet summer child...

Btw on the subject of the 588th there is also this

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/night-witches-the-female-fighter-pilots-of-world-war-ii/277779/

Not sure if the Iron Cross bit is true

>> No.55484933

>>55484816
Look... I'm just going to ask it straight. Please stop shitting on women like this. I'm a 25 year old virgin with a shit job and no friends outside of tg. The only way I'm ever going to get a girlfriend is if I meet her through D&D, and if guys like you drive them off that's never going to happen. So please, would kindly just FUCK THE HELL OFF!

>> No.55484953

>>55484816
Oh, you're a Christian! That explains everything.

>> No.55484956

>>55484837
>"controversy"
>difficulty that comes with researching this regiment.There is limited access to Soviet military records, and many records have been lost because of poor conditions and theft.
>>55484721
>An earlier osteological classification of the individual as female was considered controversial in a historical and archaeological context. A genomic confirmation of the biological sex of the individual was considered necessary to solve the issue.
>>55484787
>links to actual SJW propaganda
As in?

>> No.55484963

>>55484920
No need, this thread went full retard when op the underage retard made the thread.

>> No.55484977

>>55484927
>Not sure....

The only honest statement from you two retards. Not sure is a fucking understatement.

>> No.55484999

>>55484953

Hey, most of us consider genetics a credible science. Gregor Mendel was a friar after all. He's likely not Christian, some sort of Protestant I'd guess.

>> No.55485000

>>55484933
LOL, go to your local game shop. Also, you don't want to hook up with libtarded fem dikes that don't know how to make a sandwich and claim they was kangs.

>> No.55485001

>>55484977

>> No.55485018

>>55484977

If your frustration was quantifiable, we'd have enought energy to build a Dyson sphere.

When will you just say you were pretending to be an actual subhuman?

>> No.55485026

>>55484816
At this point, i wouldn't be surprised if you think dinosaurs bones are only there to test your faith.....

>> No.55485037 [DELETED] 

V-virt?

>> No.55485045

>>55485001
OP IS A MASSIVE FAGGOT! Keep dick waving you pol sucker.

>> No.55485048

>>55485000

>> No.55485069

>>55485026
Probably wears them through his nose.

>> No.55485086

>>55482678

/r9k/, /pol/, Reign of Kings, Slut hate, The delusions of /r/mensrights, /r/incel, /r/theredpill, /r/The_Donald, /r/conspiracy and other retards

>> No.55485123

>>55481472

FOR CALEDONIA! DEATH TO ROMANS!

>> No.55485147 [DELETED] 

>>55485086
Confirmed fema nazi Liberal Bitch Shill. KYS FAGGOT.

>> No.55485180

how long will OP be BTFO for before he gets bored of trying to troll?

>> No.55485226

The moral of this fable is such:
If you want to make a point ,check the sources yourself,before accusing someone in falancy of said sources.
The moral for us:
Don't discuss topics that doesn't belong on the board.This thread is /his/ platinum ,I seriously don't know why are we discussing this.

>> No.55485246

>>55485147

>> No.55485252

>>55485086
t.latent cuck

>> No.55485254

>>55485180
A long time, looks like it's the first time in his life someone gives him attention.
Mom surely did not hug him enough.

>> No.55485411

>>55485252
t. butthurt retard.

>> No.55485465

>>55485254
GAYYYYY, go dawn some fema NAZI armor toad woman.

>> No.55485486

>>55485465

>> No.55485490

>>55485465
It's okay Anon, you can tell us about your lack of love, we won't judge you.

>> No.55485506

>>55485411
t. angry latent cuck

>> No.55485524

>>55485506
Good job finding yourself

>> No.55485556

OP went from no realistic female armour

>>55480790

to no women ever fought in battle

>>55481558

to defensive battles don't count

>>55481585
>>55481601
>>55481720
>>55482126
>>55482195 (bonus crazy politician tier rewording to avoid answering the fucking question)

to the examples of women in combat don't exist lalala

>>55482653
>>55482958


and his last resort? call it all sjw shit.

>>55483013
>>55483142
>>55484472

I wonder why this fuckface is so mad?

>>55482073

Ooh.

did you daddy beat you up too much for you to be this brain damaged, or did he not beat you enough? Is your issue with women because he beat mommy too? Did you walk in while daddy was wailing on mommy with the belt? Did he touch you? were you a better fuck than his bitch whore wife?

>> No.55485583

>>55485506

we're not the retards mad over women in the military.

>> No.55485617

>>55485556
Are you the faggot that was projecting earlier about being some washout in the service? How's fantasy land treating you?

>> No.55485631

>>55485583
Neither am I.

>> No.55485677

>>55485524
>t.
I bet you though you will sound smart but now you're not just a cuck but also a mouth breather

>> No.55485726

>>55485677
t. a smelly faggot that is retarded and butthurt.

>> No.55485747

>>55485617

> implying I'm an americunt

kys

>> No.55485757

>>55481558
Lakshmibai

>> No.55485765

>>55485726
t.an extremly angry and retarded latent cuck who is already breathing hard

>> No.55485776

>>55485765

>> No.55485905

>>55480790
Who says /tg/ is hard to troll?

>> No.55485912

Can we get back talking about women in war? So we can at least learn something...

>> No.55485934

>>55485747
Ah, Euro trash. Or maybe its inbred brother, a Canadian.

>> No.55485941

>>55485776

>> No.55485956

>>55485912
What more do you need to know? They were figure heads, last ditch efforts at defense, and more likely. Victims.

>> No.55485964

>>55485934
>Yankee trash is talking about inbreeding

>> No.55485965

>>55485941

>> No.55485996

>>55485956
You are still buttblasted and stupid I see.

>> No.55486102

>>55485996
Hey I'm talking about reality. Women were more often than not horribly raped and killed. That's just how it went.

>> No.55486120

>>55485956
Oh, you reminded me you wanted a Female Fighting Force, here is one:
The Dahomey Amazons
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/dahomeys-women-warriors-88286072/

>> No.55486146

>>55485934

> Retard hick who elected a fucking orange talk about inbreeding

>> No.55486169

>>55486102
So yes you are still buttblasted and stupid.

>> No.55486416

>>55486120
>http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/dahomeys-women-warriors-88286072/

So we've gone full retard with this, then.

>> No.55486472

>>55486416
Yeah you sure have.

>> No.55486483

>>55481098
That doesn't mean that no woman has ever worn armor, or even that no armor has ever been designed specifically for women. Furthermore, we're talking about FANTASY here, "historically accurate" generally means it borrows from our own history in an intelligent way, rather than throwing incoherent things together for "coolness" or out of ignorance. Assuming that people calling for a "historically accurate" fantasy world mean the world must be exactly identical to some historical period and place is just silly, because at that point it wouldn't be fantasy.

>>55481187
It's "historically accurate" in the sense of being based on technology and customs that did exist historically, which is perfectly adequate to satisfy the predicate of historical accuracy as applied to fantasy settings.

>>55481558
>My primary point being, that people can just make up whatever the fuck they want to. Because reality isn't accommodating to their bullshit.
Yeah but there is a balance obviously. One can make a fantasy setting that actually is fantasy, i.e. not an exact replica of some actual historical setting, while also paying attention to actual historical trends to guide cultural and historical development, rather than just saying anything goes.

>>55481766
I'd say that participating in a battle in any way, especially willingly, counts as "going into battle". I think a better way of phrasing what you were trying to say is "no professional soldiers were women".

>>55482451
I don't think armor is actually that limiting, at least for someone who passes military fitness requirements in the first place. Certain troops (bomb disposal specialists, heavy assault troops) might wear armor heavy enough to slow them down like that, but that isn't your ordinary equipment, it's for those facing extremely hazardous situations, and even then it's at the cost of not being able to remain in the field for long. Regular infantry armor isn't going to slow you to 1/3 speed.

>> No.55486517

>>55484472
It's been working great you retard. The Kurds have been pushing ISIS's shit in.

>> No.55486557

>>55481573
siege =/= battle

>> No.55486591

>>55486517
>implying that's due to women fighters
You're the retard for making that logical jump

>> No.55486606

>>55486472
>55486472
Women are weak as shit, they didn't fight in melee wars.

>> No.55486639

>>55486606
Or maybe you are weak as shit and didn't fight in melee wars.

>> No.55486688

>>55486606
>melee wars
Anon, i'll need you to explain to me how a war can exclusively be a melee, because you're looking more and more retarded

>> No.55486714

>>55486639
NO U

>> No.55486737

>>55486688
It's where real men fight from roof top to roof top, and when they're done. They go home and have sex in a rubber tube.

>> No.55486771

>>55486591
I'm not saying it's due to female fighters. But clearly, female fighters aren't enough of a detriment that they're losing, either. So saying "How's that working out?" is fucking retarded, as is once again trying to shift the goalposts.

You've been disproven constantly and your only response has been to try to change the argument. Just go back to /pol/ you retard.

>> No.55486829

>>55486714
No you

>> No.55486898

>>55482958
"There were no female warriors ever" is an INHERENTLY weak claim, because to prove that it is true you would have to have knowledge of every warrior that ever existed. It would be one thing to say "there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence of women soldiers being significant historically", which is how scientific reasoning actually works. But making such an absolutist claim is just asking to be absurd. All it would take is one woman being trained as a soldier and entering battle to disprove it. And while we may not have specific evidence of that happening, given the span of history it's very unlikely that such a thing NEVER happened.

>> No.55487018

>>55484195
>The norm is all there is or was
You just went full retard.

>> No.55487125

>>55483013
>Also, I'm surprised you didn't bring up the Russian female snipers
So what's your refutation of that claim?

>Keep in mind my original point, was there was no female armor. Which, given the fact that women not wanting to get ass raped in raids, would probably have put on some gambeson or anything else they could in order to not die.
And what exactly is your evidence that there was no "female armor"?

>>55483331
Women in combat were frowned upon too, but that doesn't mean it literally never happened. The armor that was made for women may have differed somewhat than that made for men, depending on how rigid and tight it was, but in any case I think the claim that women wearing armor constitutes crossdressing and therefore couldn't ever have happened is pretty flimsy.

>>55484706
How does that constitute "propaganda"? It just says they're trying to determine the actual sex of the body. Is merely CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY of female warriors existing propaganda to you?

>>55484776
This is what desperation looks like.

>>55484837
obvious troll is obvious

>> No.55487344

>>55482494
Sure there was no other skeleton in the grave but said skeleton didn't have any combat nor even training related injury that other warriors have had.

>> No.55487430

So we've gone from
>women never had armor
to
>women were never combatants
to
>women were never part of the vanguard force of combatants
to
>women were never the majority of a fighting force

What, exactly, is the fucking point of this thread

>> No.55487469

>>55483013
There doesn't really need to be female armour since most are pretty unisex.

>> No.55487488

>>55482813
Just looking at the length of this thread and the feverishly sincere replies says a lot.

>> No.55487493

>>55485912
In the second Persian invasion of Greece, Artemesia I of Caria commanded some(5, IIRC) ships in the Persian navy. She was pretty fucking ruthless. In one battle, she was being chased by an Athenian ship and decided to ram a friendly ship in order to convince them she was on their side. It worked, and the ship she rammed sank. After that battle she found and took the corpse of Xerxes brother back to him. That, combined with the fact that she had already said not to go into the naval battle they lost and his already high opinion of her led him to basically make her one of his most trusted advisors. He also sent her a whole suit of armor and said at the battle she had excelled over all others in the fleet. He asked her whether or not she should lead his armies in Greece personally, and she advised him not to because it was a pointless risk and he had already fulfilled his vow to burn Athens. He didn't go in personally, and sent her home with some of his bastards and a bunch of money, and her lands always did well from that point on. The other generals he sent in wound up dead as shit and Greece stayed free.

>> No.55487615

>>55480790
Yes, there are no sets of armor fitted for women because they were not allowed to bear arms or go into war.

Everyone knows this. Are you retarded?

>> No.55487643

>>55487493
Nice fan fiction faggot.

>> No.55487660

>>55487430
You have to look inside yourself to find the answer to that.

>> No.55487690

>>55487615
Looking at this thread yes op is retarded.

>> No.55487983

>>55485556

>> No.55488098

>> No.55489046

>>55487643
here's your (you)

>> No.55489080

>>55482439
that's a man in high heels

>> No.55489131

>all these white knight faggots

>> No.55489162

>>55489131

>> No.55489718

>>55487430

OP admits he just got mad at seeing a drawing of a lady knight and had to start an argument over it.

literal fragile masculinity

>> No.55490223

>sexual dimorphism don't real, only feels are real
Am I on /co/?

>> No.55490281

>>55490223

>> No.55490287

>>55489718
>literal fragile masculinity
Ok I agree OP is a retard who shifts goalposts but let's not dignity SJWs by using their silly terms

>> No.55490346

>>55485556
It's because OP is a nigger bitch

>> No.55490379

>>55490287
It's called "taking words back." Like how "queer" was used as an insult for gays, but now it's an academic term. We can take back "fragile masculinity" from those niggers on the left!

>> No.55490405

>>55490281
>shitposting this obnoxiously just to spite /pol/

>> No.55490449

>>55490405
This thread is a shitpost you retard.

>> No.55490498

Women warriors are a fun concept in table-top and fantasy, and there are proven historical records of women fighting wars, but it's nothing more than a statistical anomaly. Men are physiologically more suited for enacting violence. Deal with with.
This entire thread is just contrarianism against the alt-right which has become the new boogeyman. If this thread was made in 2014 at the peak of SJWism, all of you faggots would be agreeing with OP

>> No.55490501

>>55480790
>it's fucking nothing

Took me a second to get my head out of the gutter.

>> No.55490570

>>55480790
Fucking owned.

>> No.55490575

>>55490501
I had to read quite a few replies myself before I realized that OP didn't mean "in real history, women exclusively fought naked".

I honestly feel a lot better about myself than I do about the pile of faggots ITT.

>> No.55490586

>>55490498
No, we've had these threads since our inceptions and we've pretty much beat them the fuck off every time.

>> No.55490589

>>55490570
Op the fag lord sure is.

>> No.55490610

>>55490223
tl;dr

>> No.55490672

>>55490498
You fucking antiSJWs and your insecurities have made you just as bad as SJWs. Fucking pathetic nigger bitches.

>> No.55490689

>>55490586
Really? You don't think I made that observation because I had experience with these exact threads in the past?

>> No.55491031

Anyone got good images of women in armor that are almost impossible to distinguish because of decent female armor is exactly the same as male armor?

Something like this. I mean many plate breastplates generally bulge outward in the upper chest area anyway.

>> No.55491568

>>55484609
>You confirm her presence is a decorative hood ornament

Carry a sword or carry a standard into battle. Either way you're getting shot and stabbed at.

>>55484522
Hua Mulan is a ballad and probably not real, true, though note that I was not in fact referring to Mulan in particular

Here's some women that we know existed and we know fought in battles directly as soldiers. This list does NOT include women who dressed as men in order to escape a battle or siege. It also doesn't (intentionally) include people we'd today term as transgender (that is, anatomic males who identified as females but dressed as males to enlist), such as Chevalier d'Eon.

- Joanna of Flanders
- Onorata Rodiani
- Jeanne d'Arc, of course
- Brita Olofsdotter
- Catalina de Erauso
- Christian Davies
- Deborah Sampson
- Anna Maria Lane
- Joanna Żubr
- Hannah Snell
- Ulrika Eleonora Stålhammar
- Phoebe Hessel
- Albert D. J. Cashier
- Maria Quitéria
- Jane Dieulafoy
- Nadezhda Durova
- Eleanore Prochaska
- Friederike Krüger
- Anna Lühring
- Mária Lebstück
- Sarah Emma Edmonds
- Mollie Bean
- Mary and Molly Bell
- Cathay Williams
- Loreta Janeta Velazquez
- Viktoria Savs
- Flora Sands
- Wanda Gertz
- Dorothy Lawrence
- Zoya Smirnow

>> No.55491590

>>55491568
>Here's some women that we know existed and we know fought in battles directly as soldiers.

*and who dressed as men. Forgot to specify that.

>> No.55492132

This thread was bad, and you should all feel bad.

>> No.55492657

>>55490498
>statistical anomaly
>men are physiologically more suited for enacting violence
Not if you consider the rules of a typical fantasy RPG to be an accurate representation of the setting. Most give no mechanical difference between the sexes, except maybe for special magical effects.

>> No.55492894

>>55480974
>dude ur a virgin LOL

>> No.55493032

>>55492894
Yes, because someone just rolling in pussy would make thread like this.

>> No.55493065

>>55490610
woman who was in the army who was physically way above the female standard (and met the male standard) said that she thinks it's a bad idea for women to be in combat roles

>> No.55493598

>>55484266
>Aside from the 180 warriors that Sun Tzu trained

Do you take fables for historic documents?

>> No.55493908

>>55493598
Op the butthurt faggot is still at it.

>> No.55494162

>>55484999
Well the group he joined was Catholic not Protestant.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action