Female Legionaries

[DominusNovus]

Very well; then we have agreement that women could comprise a part of the police force in some cities?

In a theoretical sense, its no worse than women serving in the legions on occasion.

However, its still worse in practice because armies work as groups, while what police forces exist will not always be grouped together, meaning you'll still either have female prefects out in the winding streets on their own, or prefects that are less useful than their counterparts.

 

[Elfwine]

50% of the women in that story can handle themselves. You want to be the one that flips the coin to decide whether or not prefect Aemilia is going to be alright?

I want to be the one who points out the woman who has training can handle herself just fine, despite being a smaller than average woman (let alone smaller than the average man).

So prefect Aemilia has a far greater than 50% chance of being alright - especially since prefect Aemilia is probably stronger than the short buttkicker in the story.

If you're taking away "50% of the women in that story can handle themselves" and ignoring why one of them can, then I don't know what to say in regards to discussion of the issue.

Sure, the state will weed out the weaker candidates. But you know what else is a good process for weeding out the weak? Being part of the criminal underground.

Which is why I point out the issue of proper training. There are ways to deal with an opponent of superior size and strength, and any competent police force will cover that.

Meanwhile, "the criminal underworld" doesn't have a training regime to cover these things - some learn it on their own, some fail to learn it at all.

 

[DominusNovus]

I want to be the one who points out the woman who has training can handle herself just fine, despite being a smaller than average woman (let alone smaller than the average man).

So prefect Aemilia has a far greater than 50% chance of being alright - especially since prefect Aemilia is probably stronger than the short buttkicker in the story.

If you're taking away "50% of the women in that story can handle themselves" and ignoring why one of them can, then I don't know what to say in regards to discussion of the issue.

Which is why I point out the issue of proper training. There are ways to deal with an opponent of superior size and strength, and any competent police force will cover that.

Meanwhile, "the criminal underworld" doesn't have a training regime to cover these things - some learn it on their own, some fail to learn it at all.

50% chance of not losing in any encounter, 75%, 95%, 99%... the odds are still pretty bad. Sure, there's thugs and there's thugs, some of which are stronger and some of which are weaker. Of course, the weaker ones will tend to die earlier, and those that don't are probably not going to look for trouble, but the stronger ones... And, of course, they'll all fight fair, one on one...

The Romans rebuilt their entire society because they were outraged by one rape. I really don't see them as a civilization that will put their women in danger. They'd probably prefer anarchy.

 

[Elfwine]

50% chance of not losing in any encounter, 75%, 95%, 99%... the odds are still pretty bad. Sure, there's thugs and there's thugs, some of which are stronger and some of which are weaker. Of course, the weaker ones will tend to die earlier, and those that don't are probably not going to look for trouble, but the stronger ones... And, of course, they'll all fight fair, one on one...

When "99% chance of not losing" is "still pretty bad", I have to wonder what your standard of good enough is for male police. That sounds less like a reasoned argument and more like "Certain inconvenient facts don't support my position, so I'm just going to brush them aside."

And what does fighting fair one on one have to do with anything?

 

[Monte-Cristo]

Roman policewomen? Given how macho the patriarchal Roman society was, I can't imagine women being granted legal authority over males (outside their own household servants and slaves).

Female bodyguards for V.I.P. women are less unlikely in the Eastern Roman Empire, given the Greek tradition of the gynaeceum, the 'women only' part of the house: the equivalent zenana was propitious to the formation of female guard units in Muslim India. The Imperial Palace in Constantinople had such as gynaikonitis.

 

[Ravenflight]

Is it possible, that following some defeat that severly drains Rome of men, the Romans are willing to allow woman to serve as soldiers?

I actually get a bit sick and tired of the 'women kicking men's butts' in Hollywood these days.

Women just wouldn't have the strength to be a Legionary. It's actually quite amazing how much stronger men are than women.

I don't mean that as a sexist remark. It's just true.

In a time when raw power meant winning or losing, you would have to be in severe dire straights to warrant such a thing... and by then you're fighting at the gates of Rome.

Now, all the people who are going to jump on me, yes I'm aware that there are female martial artists that could kick my butt, but there would be less skilled male martial artists that could kick HER butt. You're not comparing apples and apples.

 

[Elfwine]

I actually get a bit sick and tired of the 'women kicking men's butts' in Hollywood these days.

Women just wouldn't have the strength to be a Legionary. It's actually quite amazing how much stronger men are than women.

I don't mean that as a sexist remark. It's just true.

Men are stronger (read: better suited as far as muscle) than women in some ways. Not every thing - its mostly the upper body strength that sees the distinct gap. Speaking of averages - not the male gender on the whole vs. all females.

On the strength question, if someone has a better link than this, I'd appreciate it:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/509536-muscular-strength-in-women-compared-to-men/

In a time when raw power meant winning or losing, you would have to be in severe dire straights to warrant such a thing... and by then you're fighting at the gates of Rome.

Now, all the people who are going to jump on me, yes I'm aware that there are female martial artists that could kick my butt, but there would be less skilled male martial artists that could kick HER butt. You're not comparing apples and apples.

And you're not showing much knowledge of martial arts if you think "Hey, he's stronger, therefore he's going to win even if he's less skilled".

So not only are you not comparing apples to apples (Claiming a less skilled but stronger fighter would win because he's stronger), you're assuming strength - especially upper body strength - is the decisive factor in a fight - ignoring endurance, experience, will, and smarts (related to experience), to name the four things that come to mind to me.

Muscular coordination is probably going to pay off more than mere upper body muscle in a fight. I'd happily listen to anyone with experience in martial arts indicating the contrary, but my reading on the subject suggests overall fitness is more relevant than mere power.

If "raw power" alone was the key to winning, the ideal fighter would look like a sumo wrestler. I have never heard of any such thing being regarded as ideal outside such forms of combat, which are irrelevant to our hypothetical prefects.

 

[kevnie27]

That was the angle was I talking about in my last couple of posts, the political one. In a state like OTL Ancient Rome, the day you recruit women as soldiers is the day you have to give them political rights. Remember in OTL, it took until the Social War to get the non Roman Italians full citizenship in Rome. If you thought Rome had political and social issues after the Punic Wars in OTL, imagine the political problems the Roman Republic would've face if it resorted to female legions to fight the Punic Wars. If someone did a timeline of Rome using female legions with a POD at the time of the Punic Wars (perhaps a much worse Canae, even two or three such defeats in a row), with all the political and social consequences unleashed as a result, I'll be one of the first to view it.

I would be willing to Write a TL like that. Unfortantly my knowledge of Roman history is kind of lacking in some areas. But i can certaintly try.

 

[Ravenflight]

And you're not showing much knowledge of martial arts if you think "Hey, he's stronger, therefore he's going to win even if he's less skilled".

Nope - I didn't say that. What I said was that skill comes into it, but someone who is more powerful will win against someone less powerful even if the less powerful person is more skilled.

You just have to look at examples of world records to see that men are 10-20% greater in 'athletic ability' than women.

Records:

100m sprint:
Usain Bolt 9.58 (2012)
Florence Griffith 10.49 (1988)

Men, 10% faster in a sprint.

Pole Vault:
Sergey Bubka 6.14 m (20 ft 1½ in)
Yelena Isinbayeva 5.06 m (16 ft 7 in)

Men, able to vault 20% higher than women.

The 10th fastest man, is faster by TEN MINUTES than the fastest woman.

Javelin Throw;
Men - 98m
Women - 72m

50m freestyle:
men - 21.03 seconds
women - 24.05 seconds.

Long Jump:
Men - 8.95m
Women - 7.52m

This is at the highest possible level. Going purely by empirical evidence I'd suggest that at a non-professional level that would be stretched even further.

Men are taller, which means have a greater reach. Men are stronger, which means that they hit harder, take more punishment and carry more hardware. Men are (when discussing the race) much more clearly the warrior in comparison to the woman.

Could women be legionaries. Practically, they could put on the armour, carry the weaponry and all that. They could probably put up a good fight. At the end of the day, the equivalent male population would destroy them. What's the point in that?

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that skill doesn't come into it. Clearly it does. But a man with 90% of the skill of a woman will generally win in a fight just because he has the higher muscle mass.

 

[AussieHawker]

Men are stronger (read: better suited as far as muscle) than women in some ways. Not every thing - its mostly the upper body strength that sees the distinct gap. Speaking of averages - not the male gender on the whole vs. all females.

On the strength question, if someone has a better link than this, I'd appreciate it:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/509536-muscular-strength-in-women-compared-to-men/

And you're not showing much knowledge of martial arts if you think "Hey, he's stronger, therefore he's going to win even if he's less skilled".

So not only are you not comparing apples to apples (Claiming a less skilled but stronger fighter would win because he's stronger), you're assuming strength - especially upper body strength - is the decisive factor in a fight - ignoring endurance, experience, will, and smarts (related to experience), to name the four things that come to mind to me.

Muscular coordination is probably going to pay off more than mere upper body muscle in a fight. I'd happily listen to anyone with experience in martial arts indicating the contrary, but my reading on the subject suggests overall fitness is more relevant than mere power.

If "raw power" alone was the key to winning, the ideal fighter would look like a sumo wrestler. I have never heard of any such thing being regarded as ideal outside such forms of combat, which are irrelevant to our hypothetical prefects.

Except the skill for these types of battles is just standing in line and not losing your nerve. Strength to keep your shield up and keep stabbing for long periods not being able to dance around like a dancer.

Also Sumo Wrestlers have massive amount of Fat (and Muscle) and so a better warrior would be someone more Thinner were you can see their muscles not a belly of blubber.

 

[Elfwine]

Nope - I didn't say that. What I said was that skill comes into it, but someone who is more powerful will win against someone less powerful even if the less powerful person is more skilled.

So let me get this straight because otherwise I'm not sure what to say to your post.


You did not say "He's stronger, so he's going to win even though he's less skilled." What you said is, "Someone more powerful (than the other fighter) is going to win even if the less powerful fighter is more skilled."

What is the difference between those statements in normal English?

Also, as far as statistics go: I note that the average man is incapable of meeting any of those record setting women. So for raising an army, would you rather have the above average women who are capable of approaching those records, or the men who can't?

Because being a man in and of itself does not make you taller, stronger, or anything else than any woman. Average vs. average, sure. Best recorded vs. best recorded, sure. But when raising an army, we're presumably hoping anyone is capable of certain levels of ability - and a man who just barely meets that isn't any better than a woman who just barely meets that.

Your post kinda implies otherwise, which I assume is either my reading comprehension this late or unintentional on your part, but I do want to note it as sending a misleading message here.

Except the skill for these types of battles is just standing in line and not losing your nerve. Strength to keep your shield up and keep stabbing for long periods not being able to dance around like a dancer.

Who said anything about dancing around like a dancer? Muscle coordination and general fitness has nothing to do with dancing.

And long term endurance favors women, not men, if anything.

Also Sumo Wrestlers have massive amount of Fat (and Muscle) and so a better warrior would be someone more Thinner were you can see their muscles not a belly of blubber.

My point exactly (bolded). If raw muscle counted for more than skill, armies would have encouraged the blubber build.

 

[kevnie27]

My point exactly (bolded). If raw muscle counted for more than skill, armies would have encouraged the blubber build.

From what i have read, the Romans actually encouraged their soldiers to eat like pigs in the days before setting out on a campaign. There was however a paractical reason behind it: Food is easier to carry as body fat and after a few days of being on the march carrying all their Equipment the men would be back to normal anyway.

 

[Elfwine]

From what i have read, the Romans actually encouraged their soldiers to eat like pigs in the days before setting out on a campaign. There was however a paractical reason behind it: Food is easier to carry as body fat and after a few days of being on the march carrying all their Equipment the men would be back to normal anyway.

Do you remember where you read that?

I've never heard of that particular custom, but given how Confederate armies operated in the American Civil War ("cook three days rations" tended to mean "eat all you can now" to the troops themselves - whether the officers wanted that is another question), it sounds surprisingly sensible.

 

[Ravenflight]

You did not say "He's stronger, so he's going to win even though he's less skilled." What you said is, "Someone more powerful (than the other fighter) is going to win even if the less powerful fighter is more skilled."

Perhaps I'm not being clear... I am very tired.

Skill is important.
Strength is important.

Let's rate them (no real ranking system, plucking numbers out of my butt).

Let's say the highest level female martial artist is a 10/10 in skill.

Let's say the highest level male martial artist is also a 10/10 in skill.

The power of the male martial artist will trump the female skill every time. Their skill levels are the same.

The strongest possible female would be something like 7/10 in comparison to the strongest possible male.

It's not a direct comparison, so you couldn't say that a 7/10 skill male vs a 10/10 skill female would be an equal fight, but it would be something like that.

There have been attempts to make the competative sports equal between men and women. Men and women competing at the same level, but there is no comparison. If they did that men would get Gold, Silver and Bronze, and probably all the way down to 10th place before a woman came close.

It's not a slight on the woman. Women are just not the same physically as men.

Anyway - I've had enough. I am tired, if this doesn't make sense then I don't know what else to say.

 

[kevnie27]

Do you remember where you read that?

I've never heard of that particular custom, but given how Confederate armies operated in the American Civil War ("cook three days rations" tended to mean "eat all you can now" to the troops themselves - whether the officers wanted that is another question), it sounds surprisingly sensible.

I read it in the Total War Rome 2 encyclopia (i like to read the background information) about the supply reform tech.

 

[Elfwine]

Perhaps I'm not being clear... I am very tired.

Skill is important.
Strength is important.

Let's rate them (no real ranking system, plucking numbers out of my butt).

Let's say the highest level female martial artist is a 10/10 in skill.

Let's say the highest level male martial artist is also a 10/10 in skill.

The power of the male martial artist will trump the female skill every time. Their skill levels are the same.

The strongest possible female would be something like 7/10 in comparison to the strongest possible male.

Understood so far.

It's not a direct comparison, so you couldn't say that a 7/10 skill male vs a 10/10 skill female would be an equal fight, but it would be something like that.

Except that superior skill tends to beat superior strength. So a 7/10 skill male vs. a 10/10 skill female is - assuming the same strength ratio - probably the one at a disadvantage. Even before getting into martial arts that neutralize an opponent's strength (more relevant for the prefect situation than soldiers, since they tend to take more room to move).

There have been attempts to make the competative sports equal between men and women. Men and women competing at the same level, but there is no comparison. If they did that men would get Gold, Silver and Bronze, and probably all the way down to 10th place before a woman came close.

It's not a slight on the woman. Women are just not the same physically as men.

And saying that all women are going to be outclassed by all men is just silly.

Yes, if you have an average man who has spent say, five years training vs. an average woman who has spent five years training, that's one thing

But if we're trying to produce people who can - for example - do a three mile run in X length of time, then all we should be concerned about is the number of women who can do that.

And there are definitely women who can outrun, outlift, and outpunch the average man. Even average militarily fit man.

I read it in the Total War Rome 2 encyclopia (i like to read the background information) about the supply reform tech.

I wonder where they took it from. It seems sensible - but the Total War series has been hit or miss on historical accuracy in some areas.

 

[Ravenflight]

And there are definitely women who can outrun, outlift, and outpunch the average man. Even average militarily fit man.

No doubt, but for every woman who can do that there are a hundred men who can out run, outlift, ourpunch that same woman.

 

[Elfwine]

No doubt, but for every woman who can do that there are a hundred men who can out run, outlift, ourpunch that same woman.

I would love to see the source of that, even if "a hundred" is shorthand for "a fairly large number".

But even more so, I'd love to know why if its good enough for a male legionary to be able to do - say - a six minute mile that it's not good enough for a woman to be able to do so.

 

[Avitus]

Muscular coordination is probably going to pay off more than mere upper body muscle in a fight. I'd happily listen to anyone with experience in martial arts indicating the contrary, but my reading on the subject suggests overall fitness is more relevant than mere power.

If "raw power" alone was the key to winning, the ideal fighter would look like a sumo wrestler. I have never heard of any such thing being regarded as ideal outside such forms of combat, which are irrelevant to our hypothetical prefects.

My own experience with martial arts says that yes, upper body strength is a very important factor. Granted, someone with great upper body strength and no training in a specific martial art will lose, but if both people are trained, the less skilled person can still win if they are stronger. The difference in skill between a master and an intermediate fighter is usually not enough to make up for a considerable difference in strength, particularly if the martial art involves striking or wrestling (submission styles lend themselves to women slightly more, but I come from a submission fighting background, so I'm confident based on my own experiences that the same holds true there, just to a slightly lesser extent). The big point is that, aside from making your own attacks more powerful, muscle also helps you resist the attacks of others. The exception is the tip of the chin and the back of the head, where muscle build up doesn't offer any significant protection, and someone hit in those places can almost always be knocked out (ironically long hair and a beard are actually somewhat significant natural defences for these areas).

Not that women couldn't make up a portion of the legions without hurting its performance. Biologically it could work, socially I have my doubts that the Romans would go for it, but I couldn't resist commenting on something MMA related.

 

[DominusNovus]

When "99% chance of not losing" is "still pretty bad", I have to wonder what your standard of good enough is for male police. That sounds less like a reasoned argument and more like "Certain inconvenient facts don't support my position, so I'm just going to brush them aside."

And what does fighting fair one on one have to do with anything?

99% chance of winning is getting raped 3.5 per year. I'd call that a pretty bad year. Again, the Romans are going to get a little bit more peeved about their women getting raped than their prefects getting murdered.

Fighting unfair is how street thugs can overcome well trained prefects.