Challenge: Female Soldiers in the 1700's

I was thinking about skirmishers in the light infantry role, but really I know nothing about the warfare of this era. So if you're telling me light infantry stayed in a line and moved slowly in combat, I'll accept it.

Light infantry of the 17-1800's did sometimes break up and fan out, but that was only later and mainly in America. Light foot did indeed stay in a loose line, but usually did not fire in vollies, but continuously peppered the enemy with rifle shot. Then, the main infantry of the line would be be brought up or the light infantry brought back. Other times, the light foot regiments would run around the sides of the enemy and hammer at them from the sides.
 
I was thinking about skirmishers in the light infantry role, but really I know nothing about the warfare of this era. So if you're telling me light infantry stayed in a line and moved slowly in combat, I'll accept it.

Ah, skirmishers. Dashing from cover to cover?

I think they really fought in mostly loose lines that advanced and fell back at what is closer to a brisk pace than a full run.

And they mostly found friendly line inf or terrain to hide in when dedicated melee troops came to meet them, though not always.
 
Regarding the Revolutionary and Napoleanic Era.

Women are a lot lighter, so why not use that to get more height for observation balloons or you can use smaller balloons for same height, but being smaller can have more widespread use.
Say this happens in the mid 1790's, so with two decades of near constant fighting means women start moving into other non-frontline roles, and then gradual movement closer to the front.
 
We simply disagree about what modern experience shows. Men not only have more upper body strength and are bigger generally, they can also carry heavier loads (because they're bigger).

Men also sprint faster, fyi. I'm not sure what role that would play in 17th century warfare, though. Would light infantry be expected to do some quick skedaddling to get out of the way of a charge or advance?

It's not that the differences don't exist, its that modern warfare just isn't that deeply affected by them. Find me a case ANYWHERE where a modern unit has had any sort of tactical issue related to introducing women? They aren't carrying a lighter combat load, and I have yet to here any serious argument that women in the infantry has made, to use one example, the Canadian forces less combat effective.
 
Isolated cases of women picking up arms were sporadic throughout Europe and its colonies (An American writer nonchalantly mentions a woman shooting at redcoats during the Battle of Concord), so it's certainly possible, but I think the real problem is the remnants of chivalry. Any country using female regiments out of anything other than desperation would probably be lambasted for sending its women to the slaughter, and honor and rules of warfare in that era were almost as important as tactics, so it seems like a no-go without major changes to society happening first.
 
Though the discussion is not uninteresting, I'd like to suggest we shift the focus from biomechanical and out-of-temporal-frame arguments and back to the OP's proposal.

Napoleonic-era/style, fully uniformed, regular soldiery... in Eurasia.

But. Honestly, I still argue, send Prussian military attaches to Dahomé. I believe that is politically, historically, etc. plausible; and you have culturally established and militarilly-tested women-soldiers on hand, just crying out for smart European couture and whatnot.
 
Obvious points of employments could be guards. Yes, relatively small units - but precisely for that reason, the employer can select the minority of relatively tall and strong women (who, in any case, are bad-looking and have relatively poor marriage prospects compared to the weaker and prettier ones) - and armed and trained women can appropriately guard spots which otherwise would be tricky for matters of decency. Like a palace with a large number of concubines of the ruler (Turkey, anywhere in India, Thailand, China, Japan...), or a palace of a female ruler or regent (in 18th century, including Queen Anne, Empress Maria Theresia, Empresses of Russia).

Or showing up on a battlefield when their employer (male or female) chooses to lead from the front.

Or possibly taking police duties in capitals, which would enable them to enter homes and apprehend and search women without accusations of impropriety. They may have problems with big strong male criminals, but remember that e. g. Janissaries patrolling the streets of Istanbul were limited to clubs - not allowed blades or firearms to restrict savagery.

Considering how a Prussian king was able to select unusually tall males for his guard. If Catherine II wanted to select unusually tall women for her Guards so that she could really fight along them on a battlefield, how big unit could she have that realistically could fight average sized men on equal basis?
 
Last edited:
Top