Women in Cossacks 3

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Field Marshall, Jul 12, 2015.

  1. Field Marshall

    Field Marshall Active Member

    It seems that some of you want to get very realistic and make everything exceptionally realistic and are not taking into consideration reality. The reason there should be women as peasants at least is because it is both historically accurate and make the game more appealing. We all know that there were women in the time and they did stuff. They did not spend the entire day in the house that is a lie. Women went out to the fields and spent their time in the town. They did not go to war. I can accept that there are no female warriors, but a town without women??? When there were thousands of peasant women in Europe. Is not about who does the hard work. If you want to get really realistic most town, camps or fortress were occupied by many people who were not soldiers, most of which were women and children. Yet there are no screenshots of any children or women occupying the town. Are they inside the house forever? No. It is historically inaccurate to have a town without any women or children. However, I can let the children go unnoticed but the women I cannot.

    If you look it up women even fought as soldiers. They dressed like man and went to battle to fight for their nation. Some became pirates, others politicians. It would be correct to say that the role of women in the 17 and 18th century was significant. Therefore there should be at least peasant women so we don't have a game so one sided.

    After all maybe one of the reasons there almost no women playing the game is because the game has so many male related factors and lacks elements that might be more appealing to women, like beauty, in-game women, structuring and development of your town for strategic purposes. With such things implemented I believe the game would reach a wider audience which is what we all are hoping for unless you want to play the game by yourself or with just the 3 other people you know that play the game. I, at least, want a broad audience for this game.

    I just got another mod idea. Make every character in the game female. That would be awesome. I will tear apart your kingdom with my female battalion.
  2. [IG]Hipolit

    [IG]Hipolit Active Member

    ... so we will mod in women and children into the game!


    By the way, this discussion about historical accuracy of the women presence and numerous of arguments supporting the fact that women existed 400 years ago is really funny...

    WE ARE ALL A PROOF THAT WOMEN WERE PRESENT THOSE TIMES AND DID THEIR JOBS WELL! Our presence here is just enough to state that and long deliberations about that are not needed! :)

    By the way, kids on the map running around working woman extracting stone from mines would be just too much for my eyes... :D

    Then we should introduce a division that women cannot chop down trees, mine the stone, work in mines, only on farms!!!! And cook food for soldiers!


  3. Field Marshall

    Field Marshall Active Member

    The fact that we are playing the game is historically inaccurate as no one man controlled an entire nation. Therefore not giving people the option of making their women mine stone is a very selfish idea. Women had the potential and the ability to do so then let the player decide weather he chooses to give the jobs to men or women. Remember you won't be the only one playing the game and I would like to have my women chopping wood or mining stone so why would I not be allow to do so? It is my nation and I am in total control as supreme ruler. Even if I chose to have female warriors that should be the players choice, because females had the potential and the ability to be warriors they were not allowed by the people in command. However, the game is very unrealistic because we are the people in command and we live in the modern era where women do any sorts of task and such old customs are not followed anymore. Therefore we must allow the player to choose what he wants, not limit just because of other players choice.

    Don't forget we are gonna be the dictators, kings, and supreme commanders of our nations.

    Hipolit, here is where we have to get a bit realistic. We are talking to a game development company about to release their game with 80% done. You need to realize that we need to ask for something achievable in the little time they have before release. I think just having women would be enough. If the game has good tools for management of your units then choosing which jobs you want to send them to would be the players choice.

    The only thing that is 100% historically accurate and we don't anyone to choose is that women existed in the time. Therefore that is something we can force the player to have to deal with. Just like the very historically accurate self moving cannons. Some don't like it but they were there at the time and we need to deal with them.
  4. Daddio

    Daddio Moderator Staff Member

    I can get behind an effort to place women in the game.

    I must admit that I had never thought of this, as most of my time has been used building economy, and then army to fight.

    I just used what was there.

    But I don't feel as strong about them as I do other updates to the game.

  5. Foeurdr

    Foeurdr Moderator Staff Member

    The comment on soldier was just a half joke to respond to your phrase about in war time, women replace the men in the fields.

    Nowy the law text I had concerned the way contract should be done for those seasonal worker I spoke of (seasonal who work almost all the year by the way). The big peasant would hire small peasant without land to work on their fields. these workers were more men sure but women were also common place and put to the same job. Agricultural work is physical no doubt but peasant women were able to do it like their male counterpart and it's not like everything is a test of strenght, sowing for exemple is hardly something needing strenght. I do know what these worker did as I had to research it a minimum and from what I found there was no difference.
    And fishing is hardly an agricultural job.

    About pregnacy and children
    I have the age of mariage record in France in 1780 of 26.5 for women (28.5 for men), it was lower before but not by a huge margin. And before being married and have a house to keep (but not only), guess what ? They work ! And if you are from a family of little peasant you work in the fields because that's how you have money and food.
    Children need you to take care of them and take time also but not all your time and you can work and have your children not far from you. Sure it mean you work in field a bit less but not totally.
    The other thing I said about pregnancy and the number of children was just to avoid the : "women in that time are always pregnant and had at least 10 children", which I heard to often and was never true to my knowledge in any age.

    I think something like what is in other game like AoE (since the 2) where 1 peasant out of two is a woman a good way to do it, but in the end I don't really make a distinction in game, peasant work if they are on my side and if they are ennemy they either change their side or die !
  6. Daddio

    Daddio Moderator Staff Member

    Well I am not sure why I am responding to this, but I do have something to add.

    Everyone here is correct and wrong. I have worked a farm, and the work around every farm from the beginning of time has worked pretty much the same.

    Yes the man does the majority of the heavy work if he is able. But that by no means is the majority of the work. Women have always worked side by side with the men. any successful farm is a 50/50 work separation. That goes for the kids also, They have their own chores to do. But the woman will likely spend just as much time in the fields as men. And it would be more realistic if they were there. But its not a game changer for me. (although I would think that woman would appreciate the thought?

    But I would think that they would appreciate a female warrior even more?
    Foeurdr likes this.
  7. Snuffy

    Snuffy Active Member

    [PR]Ernest likes this.
  8. Field Marshall

    Field Marshall Active Member

    A bit out of age, but yeah female warriors even if not historically accurate (even though there were some dressed like men) would be an awesome addition. Its a game, it could fix the errors of the past that were made in history to make them work better. It has been proven that although men are superior in anatomical strength to women, women can still surpass or match men's power in combat skills.
  9. [PR]Ernest

    [PR]Ernest Moderator Staff Member

    Field Marshall It was not error of past. In past was a lot of wars and mens died in mam battles and woman had to born children. Woman could not fight and born. If mam and woman would fight there could not be next generation of People.
  10. Field Marshall

    Field Marshall Active Member

    No it was an error. In fact giving birth is only 9 month sir. Lets extended to 1 year, after that year the father could take care of the children and the women could go to war. Europe spent centuries of war not a few years. There was plenty of time for women to have children and fight.

    Or are you suggesting that women today that fight in the army don't have children???
  11. [PR]Ernest

    [PR]Ernest Moderator Staff Member

    No, woman born one child, and second, and more and more to her dead. One child is not much. After born child woman had to look after her child about 12-14 years. In addition woman is weaker than man so they could not go to war.

    Yes they ussually don't have children and not much woman go to arms today.
  12. Field Marshall

    Field Marshall Active Member

    No wrong, there is no statistical facts saying that women in the army don't usually have children in fact many have more than 2 children. Even if women are weaker physically they can surpass a man in skill. Martial Arts and other principles of combat have shown that fighting and killing is not about raw strength, while raw strength gives an advantage it doesn't make you the best warrior. Women DID NOT HAVE TO LOOK AFTER HER CHILD that is a ancient custom that was part of male one sided views. It has been proven and it is clear that both men and women have the same ability to take care of children. The only difference lies in that women are the only one that can give birth to children, but that only last 9 month and even if you had 10 children that will sill give you time to participate in battles that usually lasted no longer than a year or two. Number of children doesn't matter here, 10 children is not much only 90 month or 7.5 years an average women lived and could have children up to 40s 40- 7.5 is 32.5 minus the years as a child or teenager 18, 32.5 - 18 is still leaves 14.5 years of your life to go to war and fight.

    It was not common practice because of old customs, not because it makes sense. That is a very biased view and has no real basis. Women in the army have many children please explain where you get this information from because it has a huge bias.There are plenty of interview with women in the army and they have many children. The true reason for not having women in the army is convenience and discrimination against women. Do not try to make sense of obvious discrimination of women at the time because it existed and is historically the explanation for why women needed to stay at home. Because it was a male oriented society that is the main reason.

    If women had so much time to take care of children and home why didn't they become kings or political figures who didn't have to fight in battle? They met all the requirements. Or are you gonna tell me that they were not smart enough? Come on, I don't have to argue this. This should be common knowledge.
  13. Falc09

    Falc09 Active Member

    Despite the question - women or not

    I would like to see different peasants (clothes, hats, hairs) thar would look much more realistic than one generic human typ of farmers

    In this regard some of them could be females of course
  14. Foeurdr

    Foeurdr Moderator Staff Member

    In one course I had this year in antiquity history, the professor talked about women during the late antiquity in the roman empire. A part you don't see often as we aren't well documented.
    We had a general introduction about the history of women and there was something about the conception of warfare in those time and why in the greek and roman there was no female warrior. I think it was Herodote from memory, who said that in fact nothing prevent a woman to fight like a man, that it was a issue of strenght and he even acknowlegde the existance of female warrior (like the amazon) but in the greek city it was the duty of the male citizen to fight and it was like that.
    So there if women weren't present in greek army it was just seen as a convention and not in fact as an issue of strenght.

    But I would like to have Cossacks historical so no women apparent in the army since even if there were some in my troop they would pass for men !
    [PR]Ernest likes this.
  15. Nowy

    Nowy Well-Known Member

    No, that was clear issue of strenght. Armour, helmets, shields, spears, swords were too heavy for average females.
    Males can took that heavy weight and can fought, but average females can not hold the line or withstand in battle.
    Few exceptions did not change the fact, that women did not played main roles in the battlefields in any times.

    Capability to hard work and combats predestined males for hard work and warfare, while females could play there only supportive roles. That's why warfare and hard work were males duties. Conventions only adopted these simply facts.
    [PR]Ernest likes this.
  16. Foeurdr

    Foeurdr Moderator Staff Member

    Have you ever had a complete set of armour on you ? Because it not a problem to wear one for anyone who is fit. The weight is well distributed and don't hinder you much. The only thing that could prevent a woman to wear an armor is if it's not tailored correctly and the same apply to male, an armor made for someone whose height is 1,90m won't fit well someone barely of 1,70m.
    And in any case there is also light infantry, cavalry were the weight of the equipment is hardly an issue.
    In most society we know women may play marginal role on the battlefield and even none at all but that doesn't mean they are unfit to the battlefield either. There are culture were women warrior exist. There is no sure thing in my opinion as predestined role in a society just social construction.
  17. Field Marshall

    Field Marshall Active Member

    This is not at all a fact this is a huge bias. Extremely huge and I can't believe that you don't know this yet. The strength difference is not a fact at all. In fact many men that went to battle were weak. You actually believe that every soldier was strong. You need to wake up to the time we are talking about, many men were fat and incapable of swift maneuvers, others were weak and incapable of accomplishing much in terms of strength. The man you are talking about were a selected few of which there were many stories written. In all men were not strong.

    All other reasons are a lie. This is not opinion based this is in any historical books. The number one reason why females were not used as soldier and were not given any positions of power was because of the discrimination against women as a result of the culture they had.

    Also you didn't bother to read over what I said because I clearly asked why women didn't get positions of political power. Why did they not??? Are you gonna tell me that women were stupid too?

    I quote:
    " Like the ancient philosophers, 17th century natural law philosophers defended slavery and an inferior status of women in law "
    Showing that there was discrimination.

    Here are some famous paintings of the soldiers of the 17th century. They were not the hollywood soldiers, neither Hercules, or the Cossack that appears in the Cossacks 3 image. Those were very few.


    In the image you can see the true images of the people of the time. Fat, old, skinny, unfit. Those were the true warriors. Women who also worked in hard labor even if they were not allowed to work in many "men jobs" could match the strength of these man and surpassed it whether it be with raw strength or with skill. The anatomical difference is shown when men and women both are fit. Yes when they are both fit men are stronger, but as you can see the soldiers of the time were not bodybuilders.

    Here more men

    Can you please highlight any strength over women? Specially the women of the time who were used to hard labor as the result of not having many rights.

    There is more. Here is the history of women who participated in warfare and being "weaker did not hinder them"

    Last edited: Jul 15, 2015
  18. [PR]Ernest

    [PR]Ernest Moderator Staff Member

    Field Marshall, I always try read your posts seriously but now I can say only hahaha.
  19. Field Marshall

    Field Marshall Active Member

    What happened with my post? I am not saying that women were actually in the army in the times. I am arguing that if the customs and the society looked at women differently they could have been in the army. There was no excuse other than discrimination and that's why women had to dress as men to participate in battles.
  20. condor_fly

    condor_fly Administrator Staff Member

    This is imege of Ilya Repin "Cossacks are writting a latter to the Turkish sultan" 1891 year - imege had written 250-300 years after it happens and no body knows is that view is true
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2015
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice