Female Legionaries

[RGB]

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.

The Roman had a high-carb over-calorie diets for both legionnaires and gladiators, so "blubber" = "desired" provided it's paired with muscle. You're right though that marching was the primary occupation of infantry so they couldn't keep the blubber on even if they tried.

Also everyone going around pretending that weight categories are not a thing is just amusing. A bigger and stronger fighter will beat a smaller opponent the vast majority of times even if the smaller opponent has somewhat more skill. Open weight categories are almost always dominated by the larger fighters regardless of style involved. There's some individual variation but the overall pattern is pretty clear.

The only weak points are chin, nose, back of the head. Even finger locks and joint control can be resisted by sufficiently powerfully built individuals. So in an ambush in a dark bar with a bottle to your head or something your body size won't help you. In all other situations it will.

Granted, here we're talking about weapons and discipline and there's a lot of mitigating factors once that comes in. Muscle and fat might help against some things (swords slashes) but won't make much difference against high-kinetic impacts like arrows and spears.

So as far as legionnaires go women might manage alright. They just won't be on average as strong as the male legionnaires and might not form a front line.

This is completely ignoring the fact that Roman culture wouldn't be able to accommodate such a huge change.

 

[Elfwine]

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.

No, 99% chance of winning is losing 3.5 times per year. Losing=/=being raped.

Fighting unfair is something that a trained fighter would know how to deal with - and probably know how to do if we're talking people taught these things as a survival/combat skill.

If it was that effective at giving an edge, the police would always lose.

Avitus: Thanks for commenting.

 

[RGB]

If it was that effective at giving an edge, the police would always lose.

The police have standard arms and training against people who are unarmed or have improvised arms at best, the police are armoured against people who have little to no defences, the police are generally also NOT below the population average in size and strength, they have the law and intimidation factors on their side (even if you "win" you are in trouble, even worse now actually), but most importantly, the police if they are following procedures always take their targets on in superior numbers because that way it mitigates the very possibilities we're discussing.

That whole "good standard tactics" is where any discussion of female soldiers in a historical context should begin.

 

[Elfwine]

The police have standard arms and training against people who are unarmed or have improvised arms at best, the police are armoured against people who have little to no defences, the police are generally also NOT below the population average in size and strength, they have the law and intimidation factors on their side (even if you "win" you are in trouble, even worse now actually), but most importantly, the police if they are following procedures always take their targets on in superior numbers because that way it mitigates the very possibilities we're discussing.

That whole "good standard tactics" is where any discussion of female soldiers in a historical context should begin.

Especially for Rome (not known for producing especially large people, unless some research has turned up something). Which is to say, the "average Roman" in a war situation is not necessarily going to have size in his favor, so he'd better have everything else.

But as relates to my point:
All of those advantages apply just as well whether our hypothetical prefects are female and of whatever level of strength, size, and so forth - or male.

That is, if on our 1-10 scale, all prefects are 7s, 7 is either good enough or it isn't. There may be a lot fewer 7s in certain areas for women (size, upper body strength), but if we're seriously trying to assemble potential recruits (prefects, soldiers, bodyguards, whatever role we want to add some women to), we need to look at those who do reach 7 rather than all the women who don't.

Unless someone wants an all female force on such a large scale we can't do that, in which case I join the group saying that's nonsense.

There are potentially some women who can meet those standards. There are potentially some women who are smaller but who can compensate for that - size may always be an advantage for equally well prepared (trained and equipped) fighters, but fighting and winning fights on the streets or in war needs more than that. I'll take the person willing to keep fighting after serious hurt over the person who physically can take it but mentally can't.

Ideally I'd take the space marines, but that's just being silly.

 

[DominusNovus]

No, 99% chance of winning is losing 3.5 times per year. Losing=/=being raped.

You're giving 1st century street thugs a lot more credit than I'm willing to.

 

[Elfwine]

You're giving 1st century street thugs a lot more credit than I'm willing to.

Who said anything about giving them credit?

Not every fight ends with the loser helpless before the winner.

 

[RGB]

There are potentially some women who can meet those standards. There are potentially some women who are smaller but who can compensate for that - size may always be an advantage for equally well prepared (trained and equipped) fighters, but fighting and winning fights on the streets or in war needs more than that. I'll take the person willing to keep fighting after serious hurt over the person who physically can take it but mentally can't.

Ideally I'd take the space marines, but that's just being silly.

SPESSS MAHRINS!

I think in theory women should be just as decent at marching and even standing in line as men and with a supportive enough environment not be a drag on even a pre-modern fighting force.

Problems:

1. Fellow soldiers may act in a hostile or predatory manner
2. Societal attitudes may discourage and disdain on women who fight.
3. Reproductive costs to society in general as people mentioned earlier (although in the Ancient world with celibacy, chronic caloric deficits, monasticism and routine infanticide this may be less pronounced than people might think)
4. Psychological factors (enemy targets women on purpose, fellow soldiers feel obligated to protect their female comrades more than is tactically necessary) that can be managed today but could have been completely focal back then.

 

[Elfwine]

SPESSS MAHRINS!

I think in theory women should be just as decent at marching and even standing in line as men and with a supportive enough environment not be a drag on even a pre-modern fighting force.

Problems:

1. Fellow soldiers may act in a hostile or predatory manner
2. Societal attitudes may discourage and disdain on women who fight.
3. Reproductive costs to society in general as people mentioned earlier (although in the Ancient world with celibacy, chronic caloric deficits, monasticism and routine infanticide this may be less pronounced than people might think)
4. Psychological factors (enemy targets women on purpose, fellow soldiers feel obligated to protect their female comrades more than is tactically necessary) that can be managed today but could have been completely focal back then.

Yeah. None of those problems are absolutely unaddressable if one wanted to create a fictional (or massively changed from OTL) society, but all of them would take a considerable amount of effort - its notable that no amount of contact or knowledge of or stories of the steppe peoples and the legendary Amazons made a dent on 1, 2, and 4.

And a society which is low on males and decides "okay, what about females?" is about as likely as a monarchy switching to democracy to make up for a lack of princes.

Its just too much to do too suddenly to work out how to handle those issues, even ignoring what the enemy will do.

 

[Mike Louis]

The two PODs I can see Ancient Rome realistically employ female legionaries:

• Roman Kingdom/Early Republic: Instead of having the Etruscans as its next neighbors, have Rome be influenced by a matriarchal tribe/society. However that will be going into ASB territory.

• The Punic Wars: Rome does worse after the battle of Canae, and Hannibal has better luck trying to sway the non-Roman Italians to ally with him. In desperation, some Senators suggest that women be allowed to fight in the legions. Cato or some other conservative senator opposes the idea, warning:

"The day we teach our wives and daughters to use the sword, is the day we must give them legal and political privileges." Cato then continues "Mark my words, if our women by some miracle drive Hannibal back to Carthage, they will then come upon us with their demands. If we having taught them the sword then refuse them, Jove himself will inflict upon us the worst kind of civil strife which will engulf all of Italy. Having said this my fellow senators, if you still want to enroll the wives and daughters of Rome into the legions, we must in return grant them the same rights we enjoy or else we will rue the day we decide to teach them the use of the sword."

 

[DominusNovus]

The two PODs I can see Ancient Rome realistically employ female legionaries:

• Roman Kingdom/Early Republic: Instead of having the Etruscans as its next neighbors, have Rome be influenced by a matriarchal tribe/society. However that will be going into ASB territory.

If it is going into ASB territory, how is it realistic?

• The Punic Wars: Rome does worse after the battle of Canae, and Hannibal has better luck trying to sway the non-Roman Italians to ally with him. In desperation, some Senators suggest that women be allowed to fight in the legions. Cato or some other conservative senator opposes the idea, warning:

"The day we teach our wives and daughters to use the sword, is the day we must give them legal and political privileges." Cato then continues "Mark my words, if our women by some miracle drive Hannibal back to Carthage, they will then come upon us with their demands. If we having taught them the sword then refuse them, Jove himself will inflict upon us the worst kind of civil strife which will engulf all of Italy. Having said this my fellow senators, if you still want to enroll the wives and daughters of Rome into the legions, we must in return grant them the same rights we enjoy or else both we will rue the day we decide to teach them the use of the sword."

You know, it occurs to me that all these scenarios take a huge assumption for granted: That the women would *want* to join the Legions.

Beyond that, particularly during the pre-Marian days, if you were joining the legions, you had to hold a significant amount of property. So, either you have to let women own property, or have the Romans be defeated so badly that they waive the property restrictions (something that didn't happen for over a century after Cannae) and then *still* lose so terribly that they have to turn to the women. Though I do find it somewhat amusing that you have a conservative arguing "if we arm women, we should also give them the vote." Other than as a high risk maneuver of reverse psychology, I just don't see Cato or anyone else saying something like that.

 

[AussieHawker]

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.


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.

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

Look I practice Martial Arts at a basic level as well as sometimes watch it. Skill is Important but if you have strength then you will win most of the time. I was versing a girl who had been doing it for a year longer then me and we were sparing. She got knocked on her arse from kick while i took 3 without being even moved. If i had been versing a master then I would have been smashed but that was because I had only the basic training.

In Legion battles you need to just hold up your shield while pushing the enemy back with your shield as you stab him. And so Greater strength is ESSENTIAL. No real skill just raw strength and nerves of steel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Humans

Look at this and it shows that male humans are on Average taller, stronger and faster and the only real advantage women have is flexibility. Men can also heal faster and endure more.

Also Long term Endurance doesn't favor women otherwise why do men mostly win Endurance events at all levels.

 

[Mike Louis]

If it is going into ASB territory, how is it realistic?



You know, it occurs to me that all these scenarios take a huge assumption for granted: That the women would *want* to join the Legions.

Beyond that, particularly during the pre-Marian days, if you were joining the legions, you had to hold a significant amount of property. So, either you have to let women own property, or have the Romans be defeated so badly that they waive the property restrictions (something that didn't happen for over a century after Cannae) and then *still* lose so terribly that they have to turn to the women. Though I do find it somewhat amusing that you have a conservative arguing "if we arm women, we should also give them the vote." Other than as a high risk maneuver of reverse psychology, I just don't see Cato or anyone else saying something like that.

In the scenario I'm describing, Cannae already went down, the non-Roman Italian states anxious to be on the winning side, switches sides to Hannibal. The Senate seeing the rest of Italy turn traitor, waives the property requirements in order to raise the forces needed to put down what they consider to be rebellion by the other Italians. The resulting civil war is very brutal and fierce, critically draining available Roman manpower. While this is all going down, Hannibal's army comes down upon Italy from the Alps. Meanwhile in Rome some patriotic women seeing the need to stop Hannibal, petitions the Senate to let them join the legions. While most senators scoff at the idea and would rather parley with Hannibal for terms; a desperate few hoping for a miracle, turn to the women. Cato conservative Roman that he is, opposes the idea of female legionaries. However he's wise enough to know that with Italy embroiled in civil war, Rome's "final throw of the dice" has come. Cato also been in politics to know that to the women of Rome didn't petition to fight in the legions out the goodness of their hearts. Seeing the desperation in many of his fellow senators' faces, he therefore turns from merely opposing the petition, to warning them of the political and social consequences of enrolling women into the legions.

 

[Elfwine]

Look I practice Martial Arts at a basic level as well as sometimes watch it. Skill is Important but if you have strength then you will win most of the time. I was versing a girl who had been doing it for a year longer then me and we were sparing. She got knocked on her arse from kick while i took 3 without being even moved. If i had been versing a master then I would have been smashed but that was because I had only the basic training.

Strength is a component. Not much good for the kicker if that kick doesn't land, however.

Which is where skill comes in. Less likely to be kicked, more likely to land a kick.

In Legion battles you need to just hold up your shield while pushing the enemy back with your shield as you stab him. And so Greater strength is ESSENTIAL. No real skill just raw strength and nerves of steel.

Yeah, no need whatsoever to know anything about swordsmanship or anything about anticipating your opponent's moves. And nerves of steel are not a male only prerogative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Humans

Look at this and it shows that male humans are on Average taller, stronger and faster and the only real advantage women have is flexibility. Men can also heal faster and endure more.

Also Long term Endurance doesn't favor women otherwise why do men mostly win Endurance events at all levels.

Wikipedia, the refuge of those who can't find anything professional on the subject.

http://faculty.washington.edu/crowther/Misc/RBC/gender.shtml

Read this.

http://www.sdcenterforhealth.com/topics/159-male-versus-female-athlete-considerations

This also mentions some advantages for women, as well as some of their disadvantages.

But on the whole: "on average" . . . who cares about the "average woman" vs. "average man" when looking at whether or not a (or more than one individual) woman is capable of being good enough?

I'm not proposing an all female force, but if you can find a woman who is strong, tough, fast, steely nerved, and all the rest enough to pass muster, claiming that a higher number of guys can do that isn't a good reason to regard her as a bad soldier. And no circumstances are going to see the majority of women enrolled even if sexual dimorphism wasn't a thing.

 

[Ravenflight]

I'm not proposing an all female force, but if you can find a woman who is strong, tough, fast, steely nerved, and all the rest enough to pass muster, claiming that a higher number of guys can do that isn't a good reason to regard her as a bad soldier. And no circumstances are going to see the majority of women enrolled even if sexual dimorphism wasn't a thing.

Ahh, now I see where we are differing. I was considering an 'all female force' not females as a member of a co-ed legion.

Well, that brings into being a totally different number of things.

Yes, I agree that there may be a minority of females who could 'mix it with the men' and be good enough to be considered for the Legion.

In my soldiering days we had a troop that was designated 'male only' because of the physical demands of the job. This went before various bodies as being discriminatory and so it was opened to both sexes IF they could reach the requirements.

Out of a Squadron of 48 OR's (about 50:50 male:female), only 1 female was able to meet the standards required.

From what I know of Marius' mules I would think that the physical demands of a Legionary would be far greater than that of the soldiers in my Squadron.

So the problem quickly becomes one of the 'female section' being outnumbered something on the order of 20:1 (likely to be more). Discipline and the like would be a nightmare under these circumstances.

Either which way, I agree that a woman COULD meet the physical requirements of a Legionary, but the numbers would be very small.

Given the difficulties we have getting women into combat roles in our modern touchy feely equality based society, I cannot see this being something that would occur.

 

[Elfwine]

Ahh, now I see where we are differing. I was considering an 'all female force' not females as a member of a co-ed legion.

Yeah. That explains a lot of our argument - an all female force runs squarely into the fact that only a minority of females are up to the relevant standards.

A co-ed force is mostly a problem as far as the way the females in arms fit into the existing situation in regards to men, social standards, and so on rather than if we can find any.

Well, that brings into being a totally different number of things.

Yes, I agree that there may be a minority of females who could 'mix it with the men' and be good enough to be considered for the Legion.

In my soldiering days we had a troop that was designated 'male only' because of the physical demands of the job. This went before various bodies as being discriminatory and so it was opened to both sexes IF they could reach the requirements.

Out of a Squadron of 48 OR's (about 50:50 male:female), only 1 female was able to meet the standards required.

From what I know of Marius' mules I would think that the physical demands of a Legionary would be far greater than that of the soldiers in my Squadron.

What branch, if I may ask?

And that seems reasonable to me - I don't know how much greater, but it would certainly beat standard infantry combat loads these days from what I've read.

So the problem quickly becomes one of the 'female section' being outnumbered something on the order of 20:1 (likely to be more). Discipline and the like would be a nightmare under these circumstances.

I'm not sure. Obviously it would have to be addressed carefully, but - let's say that we go with Avitus's figure of 5% of the female population passing muster.

Say 4 females in a century (the unit, not the time measurement).

I can think of a variety of obvious issues. But I think a lot of those come from the fact addressing those issues is done poorly - especially in the bad old days, in which an army having its way with the women of a city it stormed wasn't even disciplined, let alone stopped.

Either which way, I agree that a woman COULD meet the physical requirements of a Legionary, but the numbers would be very small.

Given the difficulties we have getting women into combat roles in our modern touchy feely equality based society, I cannot see this being something that would occur.

Given that our modern society has leftovers of old prejudices and old ideas on how "boys will be boys" and other shitty attitudes, calling it "touchy feely equality based" is something I'll believe when I see it.

With due respect to those of our service personal who don't think harassment is okay, too many seem to just brush it off.

But historical Rome would have to go far even to get to the point of the 1950s. Imagining it to the point where "Yeah, you have a problem with my sister-in-arms, bro?" is probably even more ASB than an all female force being physically good enough.

Some society of that pre-industrial level, maybe not. Rome in particular . . . no one is even going to suggest recruiting women, let alone do so.

 

[Ravenflight]

What branch, if I may ask?

You may. I'll send it as a PM.

And that seems reasonable to me - I don't know how much greater, but it would certainly beat standard infantry combat loads these days from what I've read.

Well, if you see the crap load of stuff that the Royal Marines were carrying around the Falklands I'd say that there would be situations where the modern soldier would carry more, but there are a few things that affect that:

The modern soldier is highly unlikely to walk from Rome to Germany. He may walk once there, but he's not gonna trot the whole way; and,

The modern solider has much better kit, so would be feeling like he's carrying less even if it's actually more.

Given that our modern society has leftovers of old prejudices and old ideas on how "boys will be boys" and other shitty attitudes, calling it "touchy feely equality based" is something I'll believe when I see it.

(slight tangent warning)

Yeah, I didn't mean 'touchy feely' to be a derogatory comment. I'm all for equality, but I also am for ability. I mean, I would have fought tooth and nail for the standards to be reduced to allow a woman to join the ranks IF those standards were a requirement. I don't see the need for a standard to be a standard just coz that's how we've always done it, but if you're going to move the goal posts it has to be for the right reasons, and that reason is to make the military machine better at its job, not for a political agenda.

With due respect to those of our service personal who don't think harassment is okay, too many seem to just brush it off.

And I would equally fight tooth and nail to string up some bastard who decided to harrass (verbally or physically or emotionally) a female of any sort.

But historical Rome would have to go far even to get to the point of the 1950s. Imagining it to the point where "Yeah, you have a problem with my sister-in-arms, bro?" is probably even more ASB than an all female force being physically good enough.

Agreed.

Some society of that pre-industrial level, maybe not. Rome in particular . . . no one is even going to suggest recruiting women, let alone do so.

Again, agreed.

I actually did a search once on the number of 'armies run by the fairer sex' because of my interest in Palmyra and Zenobia in particular. It's quite amazing the number of armies that were led by women, but leading is not the same as soldiering. There were a few units here or there, but I honestly cannot imagine a female legionary in a female only formation and can imagine it in a mixed formation even less-so.

 

[caliburdeath]

What if you had them as a unit that was not a basic legion? As already stated the police (dealing mostly with burglary, fire, and town watching, only being auxiliaries for violent crime & riots), but what of a bow/sling unit, a ballista unit, a mounted unit, etc?
I understand generally legions were all-purpose, and this sets aside most social concerns.

 

[Ravenflight]

I understand generally legions were all-purpose, and this sets aside most social concerns.

That depends a lot on what period you're talking about.

Republic Legion was a lot different to 500AD legion.

The early republic was basically a hoplite army. I mean, they had auxilliaries, but they were NOT citizens of the 1st through 3rd order... so not what I'd consider when the question is asked 'can they be a Legionary'.

Once they had learned their lessons from the Etruscans and started to have the manipular system, then it would be possible (I guess) to have them be velites, but not Principes or Hastitii and definitely not Triarii. This is based on your comments above, not on the idea of the mixed formations earlier discussed.

 

[Elfwine]

You may. I'll send it as a PM.
Well, if you see the crap load of stuff that the Royal Marines were carrying around the Falklands I'd say that there would be situations where the modern soldier would carry more, but there are a few things that affect that:

The modern soldier is highly unlikely to walk from Rome to Germany. He may walk once there, but he's not gonna trot the whole way; and,

The modern solider has much better kit, so would be feeling like he's carrying less even if it's actually more.

Seems reasonable to me - I think on the whole the modern army soldier isn't forced to, but I know I've read SAS guys having to carry loads that would make Marius's mules go cross eyed.

(slight tangent warning)

Yeah, I didn't mean 'touchy feely' to be a derogatory comment. I'm all for equality, but I also am for ability. I mean, I would have fought tooth and nail for the standards to be reduced to allow a woman to join the ranks IF those standards were a requirement. I don't see the need for a standard to be a standard just coz that's how we've always done it, but if you're going to move the goal posts it has to be for the right reasons, and that reason is to make the military machine better at its job, not for a political agenda.

I cannot agree with this (underlined) more as a civilian. The military machine's standards should be what it takes for the military to do what it does well, and whether that means lowering them or raising them should be accepted by those of us who struggle (I'm mentally probably unfit and near sighted - so you'd have to try pretty hard to make me infantry worthy, for example).

Not that I want to be one, but if someone decided that "inclusive of all people" meant making allowances for autism/Asperger's, I'd really, really hope they knew what they were doing.

And I would equally fight tooth and nail to string up some bastard who decided to harrass (verbally or physically or emotionally) a female of any sort.

I wish that was normal. I don't think it's abnormal from what I've ran into in talking with former or current military people online (I don't know many offline), but it doesn't seem to have become the default either.

Some day, maybe even in my lifetime (I'm all of 27), but the less lovely traditions die slowly and regenerate when not scorched with fire.

I actually did a search once on the number of 'armies run by the fairer sex' because of my interest in Palmyra and Zenobia in particular. It's quite amazing the number of armies that were led by women, but leading is not the same as soldiering. There were a few units here or there, but I honestly cannot imagine a female legionary in a female only formation and can imagine it in a mixed formation even less-so.

Not much to add here.

 

[Ravenflight]

I cannot agree with this (underlined) more as a civilian. The military machine's standards should be what it takes for the military to do what it does well, and whether that means lowering them or raising them should be accepted by those of us who struggle (I'm mentally probably unfit and near sighted - so you'd have to try pretty hard to make me infantry worthy, for example).

Well, my point was more of 'if your changes aren't improving, then they are likely weakening... which ISN'T what you want in your defense force'.

So, taking my stand back a little, if it moved 'sideways' (i.e. didn't make it better, but didn't make it worse) then I'd be ok with it.

I'm concerned with the 'no matter what, we've gotta get women equal in everything' mentality.

You see, I hesitate to say this because it is always taken the wrong way... but men and women are not equal. That doesn't mean that one is worse than the other, or inferior to the other. Men and women are not mathematical symbols that mean that man = 2 and woman = 1 therefore man is twice as good as woman. Men and women are like truck and sports cars (deliberately exaggerating the point). You wouldn't want a truck to get you somewhere quick, but you wouldn't want a sports car to help you move your house. You pick the right piece of equipment for the right job. In some cases it really doesn't matter which piece of equipment you use, they can both do the job equally well, but they are NOT the same, and shouldn't be mistaken as the same.

Personally, I'm glad women aren't the same. I just don't swing that way.