I said .
>>(1). Irregardless of anything else, women are statistically weaker
>>than men.
Peter said
>Just because the best troops in Esrolia are female is not the same
>as saying that they are the equal of or better than male troops. The
>reason Esrolia has survived unto the present day is that they outnumber
>whatever enemy that can be sent against them. Esrolia has a population
>of 1.8 million whereas its potential enemies number little more than
>half a million. And some of those nations have been allied to Esrolia
>most of the time since the Dawn.
There is a wide variance between the size of your population and the number of troops a nation can field and even more difference between the size of a force and the quality. Esrolia is a farming nation and appears to have very little military tradition among its men and the amount it can have among its women would be limited. I would argue that Esrolia has survived not through the warrior traditions of its women but via the large economy it posesses, allowing it the abundant purchase of troops from the surrounding warrior cultures.
>Yes, Esrolia can be heaps stronger militarily if they allowed men to
>do all the fighting rather than the women. But they do not do this
>because it will lead to women being confined to the kitchens, kids and
>kirks (look at the surrounding states), and get the males all killed
>(cf rastagandar in the Sword and Helm quest). Most importantly they
>can survive amply with what they have. Besides if they were more
>'masculine-minded', they would have conquered everything within marching
>distance by now.
Er...How? Even if the women were more masculine minded and marched on other nations the chances of them winning are low. Let us remember that the Sartarites were only conquered by a macho male Lunar army outnumbering them substantially only after the severest trouble. Just being more milltarily minded and having a large population does not mean you are actually going to win.
>(2). Women tend to be less aggressive than men. This is largely due to
>testosterone and social conditioning so there are exceptions but as a rule
>aggressive states are hard for women to keep up in action.
>'Social Conditioning'. Obviously the fact that we're discussing a
>die-in-wool matriachy has escaped Martin. Not all women in Esrolia
>are warriors but there are significant Even if the average woman
>warrior was only 75% of the capability of the equivalent male warrior,
>they still got the numbers.
I know its a matriarchy as are the Trolls but you notice that they are smart enough to let the males do the fighting and keep the females safe. There is a good reason for this: If, as a matriarchal society you get involved in a long war (like the peloponesian war frex) the last thing you want to do is have the front line formations made up of the fit, healthy young women who would usually be giving birth to the next generation. Of course in a long war there would be massive casualties among this particular group and the result was that you would see a rapid drop in numbers and a certain long term defeat by a foe protective of their human resources. (like the Trolls).
>Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with women warriors but any
>country whose regular forces were entirely made up of women and who
>were surrounded by male warrior cultures wouldn't last ten minutes.
>When Esrolia has been conquered (Bright Empire, Arkat, God Learners and
>the Pharoah), the invaders found it more convienent to _keep_ the
>traditional social structure intact rather then risk harming the grain
>exports and the revenue that can be gained from it.
Ah! This makes sense because I think this is the answer to Esrolias survival. Why destroy the matriarchy when a conquerer (being a big hairy bloke more interested in a piss up and the next fight) doesn't give a stuff about running the farms as long as he gets his share? I would imagine the Queens of Esrolia are amazingly adept at twisting big hairy men around their pinkies and pitting one tribe against another but they' be careful because they know that they'd get their asses kicked in a head on scrap.
>Then there is the social problem. If the Esrolian queens kept summoning
>me from my farm to get slaughtered and kept giving me shitty weapons and
>told me to hold the line against a horde of cav while the women warriors
>took it easy behind us until the enemy were tired, I'd turn round, join
>the enemy and kill the snotty bitch who gave me the order for the callous
>coward that she was.
>For starters look up human wave tactics in the first world war. The
>infantrymen there held their officiers in worse disregard than being
>'snotty bitches' but still went over the top. Also look at peasant
>armies fielded by feudal lords during the middle ages. They didn't
>side with the enemy, did they?
Different. You went over the top for your regiment, for King and Country or Kaiser and Empire or whatever. Most of the officers were slauightered, it was only the staff who stayed back. What you are suggesting would be like all the officers in a regiment sitting in the trenches while all the men went over the top telling them "you take the trench lads, we'll be along when you're done" I think a mutiny would have happened in no time. Officers lead and if that means getting shot, so be it, they don't stand behind their men to stay out the way. If the Esrolian military did this they'd have a revolt..
Peasant armies in the middle ages rarely existed in reality. Most armies of the period were professional or feudal unless they were a milita and trained as such and thats not the same thing as what you are suggesting.
>Secondly, cavalry is not common amongst Esrolia's enemies, which is
>fortunate for them because it's a serious military weakness of the
>Esrolians. If the men were to hold a line of cavalry, they would
>drop spears and run. The Grazers number only 40,000 tops and would
>simply be knackered by sheer numbers if they tried to conquer Esrolia.
And how would they be caught? By the non-existant Esrolian cavalry? They would have to have some or else they'd be slaughtered. I'm sure the Grazers could gather more warriors in one place than the Esrolians could in a short period of time and get them where they wanted faster and more efficiently. Why do you think they are so damn dangerous?
>The Caladralanders, Shadow Plateau Uz and Wenelian Barbarians don't
>have significant amounts of cavalry and are loosely disorganized to
>boot. The Heortlings do have some cavalry to pose a serious threat
>(under King Richard) but the geography limits the potential forces
>that can be brought to bear.
Fair enough, its not great cavalry country but a civilised nation doesn't need to have a nomadic tradition to raise cav. If it has the need it can bring in the people to do it. If your enemies don't have cav and you do then you have a edge, the Esrolians have the money so why not get the edge?
>Thirdly, the men are used to charge the enemy rather than hold
>formation. After the inital shock, either the enemy is trampled
>in the mud, or the men are repulsed. If repulsed, they generally
>'retire' rather than duke it out and get slaughtered.
!!!?? Holy shit, who are these guys, the Dirty Dozen? These "farmers" just charge the enemy? And then retire in good order when repulsed? If they are the rabble you specify, they could no more do this than I could dance Swan Lake. They would be ordered to charge and having no training, would mess up, they'd arrive in lose order and be annihilated by a close order infantry like a Huscarl force, if they even closed past the missile barrage. As for retreating in order from a wedge attack, they'd likely break and be hacked apart by light Fyrd men.
>Then the female forces move in to knacker the enemy who has been tired by
>the recent onslaught. Sometimes the female officiers among the
>men can rally the 'retirees' to have a third go at the enemy.
So the women don't wait behind the lines? Why would the enemy be tired, the usual effect of just routing your enemy off the field is jubilation and a desire to crush the rest while the routed army usually sufferes considerable morale loss.
>Heres how I see the Esrolian military:
>20% Female. Units of Babeester Gor, Vingans, Female Humakti Elites,
>Light cav, Skirmishing archers mostly.
>80% Male. Humakti mercs, Regular spear, heavy cav.
>Esrolians don't have significant amounts of cavalry troops. Humakt
>is not a War God for the Esrolians AFAIK (Holy Country Humakti are
>generally foppish Duelists rather than grim huscarls). The main War
>Goddess is Babeester Gor whose followers qualify as *infantry* rather
>than skirmishing archers or light cavalry. Vinga is not an Esrolian
>diety being an outlet for warrior women in Orlanthi Society.
I presumed they hired troops from elsewhere and there must be some men who don't follow the ways of the Queendom and these men I would think are considered throwbacks and lumped into the army to keep them off the streets and let them use up their aggression on the enemies of the state. Babeester Gor cannot be more than a fraction of their forces for few young women could be attracted to so hard a faith. You're right about Vinga though, makes you wonder what other faiths they worship eh?
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail