Weekly Dev Diary #2 | Page 12

Thure · May 21, 2015

SirRitter said:
It has been already explained to you that ruling during war and actually leading an army into battle are not the same thing, specially in the medieval period when rulers actually engaged in combat and were expected o do so.

That list as well as most of the wikipedia articles you link to lack citations and are quite fanciful. Moreover, even if you can find a few examples of such(Jean of Arc being still the most notable) it does not change the fact that it was extremely rare and that it is quite silly to implement it in the game. Any respectable medievalist will tell you exactly that.

I see where this is going and it is ridiculous to be offended by history and facts, Sadly, feminists tend to do that and frequenty behave as autistic children.

Actually I study mediaeval studies and know a lot of serious medievalists

And my list is not a list about women 'ruling during war'. They participated in battles. Many of them were even captured in battles, which wouldn't be possible if they were just behind the lines. And you miss that many of them DID have sources... If you want sources... There:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_post-classical_warfare#Medieval

loup99 said:
Powerful real female rulers were quiet rare too though in comparison to males, so there are not that many female rulers to go from.

And this.

Female army leaders are rare, because female rulers were rare too. The only real exemples are feamle rulers and sometimes consorts or princesses. We don't speak about every women...

TheAnguishedOne · May 21, 2015

SirRitter said:
It has been already explained to you that ruling during war and actually leading an army into battle are not the same thing, specially in the medieval period when rulers actually engaged in combat and were expected o do so.

That list as well as most of the wikipedia articles you link to lack citations and are quite fanciful. Moreover, even if you can find a few examples of such(Jean of Arc being still the most notable) it does not change the fact that it was extremely rare and that it is quite silly to implement it in the game. Any respectable medievalist will tell you exactly that.

I see where this is going and it is ridiculous to be offended by history and facts, Sadly, feminists tend to do that and frequenty behave as autistic children.

First off, do not insult autistic people.

Second, you are just continuing to ignore the evidence provided by the other people posting because it goes against what you believe; that is being childish.

Third, if you don't like the decision Paradox has made, feel free to stop their games. Women been able to lead armies is something a lot of people have wanted for some time now, both male and female players. This has nothing to do with feminism, you are just using that word to give your argument power.

SirRitter · May 21, 2015

Evidence? Evidence of what? If you are really serious about this, do the following:

- Look up how many women on the list are actually christian women that lived during the period depicted in the game.
- Look up how many of them actualy lead their troops into battle, held arms and armor and engaged in combat with their soldiers as any male ruler would
- Look up how many of them are not legendary and exaggerated characters whose fame depends on fanciful chronicles and not reliable documentation(most articles have warnings about lack of citations).

What number do you come up with? 5? 10? 15? 20? 30? I'm leaning towards 5 to 10 myself. Do you think that is actually significant for a period that spanned nearly a thousand years and was marked by warfare, with thousands of known and notable commanders and rulers? Do you really think it is reasonable to have it as something "normal" considering the game mechanics?

Reality > feminist wishful thinking. Don't make me laugh.

Groogy · May 21, 2015

Best argument technique since the Classical era!
Anyway yes I want to clarify this only applies to ruling women, and not every women in the world which means it will be quite few who actually can use this unless the player intervenes somehow. Though I think you got that but you were exaggerating a bit on the scale it felt so just wanted to be extra clear.

SirRitter · May 21, 2015

Yeah, so...

- A dozen christian women or so are known to have lead armies into battle and engage in combat during the near 1000 years that spanned the medieval period. Many of them legendary or unaccounted(historians all agree that Matilda didn't actually fight, for instance).
- Let's make every female ruler able to command armies and fight as any men would have done during those days.

Sound very reasonable. Like I said, why not just go ahead and allow females to be councillors, enter jousting tournaments or lead military orders? If you want to be PC and ignore history might as well go all the way.

Thure · May 21, 2015

SirRitter said:
Yeah, so...

- A dozen women or so are known to have lead armies into battle and engage in combat during the near 1000 years that spanned the medieval period. Many of them legendary.
- Let's make every female ruler able to command armies and fight as any men would have done during those days.

Sound very reasonable. Like I said, why not just go ahead and allow females to be councillors, enter jousting tournaments or lead military orders? If you want to be PC and ignore history might as well go all the way.

And how many female christian rulers (ruling in their own right!) did we have in this period?

SirRitter · May 21, 2015

Thure said:
And how many female christian rulers (ruling in their own right!) did we have in this period?

Exactly. You are finally getting the point.

Groogy · May 21, 2015

SirRitter said:
Sound very reasonable. Like I said, why not just go ahead and allow females to be councillors, enter jousting tournaments or lead military orders? If you want to be PC and ignore history might as well go all the way.

Can't argue with that so done, added all of your requests. Women can now do all of those actions.

SirRitter · May 21, 2015

How nice for you. It will be awesome when the history buffs who make up your target audience stop playing your game because it has become a playing field for some deluded social justice warrior majoring in gender studies.

Thure · May 21, 2015

SirRitter said:
Exactly. You are finally getting the point.

Eh... why? Could you please explain better what you want to say? We don't have many female rulers in this period. So what's the problem if they can lead armies? Youself say we have maybe 5-30 exemples of females leading armies (while you believing in 5-10). So... We don't have many female rulers in this period too. So we don't see many female army leaders in the game because only female rulers can lead armies. Other women CAN'T lead armies ingame.

SirRitter · May 21, 2015

Thure said:
Eh... why? Could you please explain better what you want to say? We don't have many female rulers in this period. So what's the problem if they can lead armies? Youself say we have maybe 5-30 exemples of females leading armies (while you believing in 5-10). So... We don't have many female rulers in this period too. So we don't see many female army leaders in the game because only female rulers can lead armies. Other women CAN'T lead armies ingame.

Because strenght in arms was precisely what allowed one to rule during this historical period. If you really study medieval history you must know the whole system of feudalism was based on the idea of a warlord offering protection in exchange of tribute. It was uncommon for women to rule because of that.

Feminism wasn't a thing back then, you see.

aitaituo · May 21, 2015

SirRitter said:
Because strenght in arms was precisely what allowed one to rule during this historical period. If you really study medieval history you must know the whole system of feudalism was based on the idea of a warlord offering protection in exchange of tribute. It was uncommon for women to rule because of that.

Feminism wasn't a thing back then, you see.

If all your posts were intended to argue that female rulers should be less common in CK2, you should have just said so.

You also should have used the real reasons why women rarely ruled in the Middle Ages, instead of some dubiously abstract "Must be strong in past times to rule!" nonsense. Jerusalem was ruled by a teenage leper-King without issue (in both senses). Not every place in the world was Merovingian, where your crown authority dropped if you weren't a good soldier and a good pair of scissors could depose you.

Silfae · May 21, 2015

SirRitter said:
Because strenght in arms was precisely what allowed one to rule during this historical period. If you really study medieval history you must know the whole system of feudalism was based on the idea of a warlord offering protection in exchange of tribute. It was uncommon for women to rule because of that.

Well, we do have child rulers (those who got through the regency without being deposed/killed), they managed to rule without leading their armies personally in battle, I suppose. Regardless, dynastic ties were certainly not meaningless in medieval western society, it wasn't physical/military strength determining the heir, although it could make a use during a succession crisis.

That said, taking in consideration the cultural background of the time, I do agree having any woman ruler occupy any position on the council and leading armies seems excessive, in my opinion. In fact, it diminishes the accomplishments of those few women that did in fact manage to get to such positions in real life in that period, regardless of the cultural and physical limitations.

SirRitter · May 21, 2015

It was quite common for child-rulers to be murdered, kidnapped or have their title usurped. Dynastic ties meant nothing without power to rule, hence so many dynasties were killed off and crowns frequently changed hands. The very 1066 start of the game and the chaos that was England at that time showcases it well enough.

"Age of Christianity" aside, yes, power ruled back then. A considerable number of women held power and were politicaly able during the middle-ages, mind you, but it is historically quite uncommon to have women with military might and skill. This is not exclusive to the medieval period by far, up to the 20th century armies didn't even conscript women as a rule. Again, ideology and ideals(feminist or otherwise) can't change the fabric of reality.

They lack the agression and the strenght of men. It is hormonal and physiological. They are weaker and smaller as a rule. During warfare they are also vulnerable to rape and abuse. You can scream "Mysoginistic opressive shitlord!" or whatever all you like, it doesn't change the facts.

aitaituo said:
If all your posts were intended to argue that female rulers should be less common in CK2, you should have just said so.

You also should have used the real reasons why women rarely ruled in the Middle Ages, instead of some dubiously abstract "Must be strong in past times to rule!" nonsense. Jerusalem was ruled by a teenage leper-King without issue (in both senses). Not every place in the world was Merovingian, where your crown authority dropped if you weren't a good soldier and a good pair of scissors could depose you.

Baldwin IV ruled ably and scored a major(and should I say epic) military victory against Saladdin when he was 16 years old. He also lacked viable heirs and sucessors to claim his title. You couldn't have picked a worst example.

Silfae · May 21, 2015

Of course, for what concerns women in armies, it is ultimately a question of sexual dimorphism, that's why the factor is mostly consistent regardless of culture, religion and time period. To that, one has to add the social and religious discrimination during the middle ages as an additional obstacle.

Thure · May 21, 2015

SirRitter said:
Because strenght in arms was precisely what allowed one to rule during this historical period. If you really study medieval history you must know the whole system of feudalism was based on the idea of a warlord offering protection in exchange of tribute. It was uncommon for women to rule because of that.

Feminism wasn't a thing back then, you see.

Eh... I know many female rulers who did rule without leading armies...

SirRitter said:
It was quite common for child-rulers to be murdered, kidnapped or have their title usurped. Dynastic ties meant nothing without power to rule, hence so many dynasties were killed off and crowns frequently changed hands. The very 1066 start of the game and the chaos that was England at that time showcases it well enough.

You are so wrong... Chaos in England? Every party 1066 had dynastic claims on England. Even William used dynastic claims as legitimation for his conquest... This wasn't just 'The strongest get England without claims'. And you are also wrong that many child-rulers were murdered kidnapped or have their titles ursurped... That was the antiquity... Not the middle ages.

SirRitter · May 21, 2015

It is somewhat controversial, but many historians do agree that Harold effectively usurped the throne. And yes, a war of sucession fought by several contenders is indeed "chaos".

SirRitter · May 21, 2015

To the point, I'm not essentially against the idea of having females leading armies occasionally, but if the devs don't want to make fools of themselves and turn their game into a completely ahistorical PC joke, they should severely limit that possibility. If I understand Groogy right, every single female ruler will now be leading forces into combat, which is utterly nonsensical.

Say, it would be reasonable if only female rulers with very high martial skill and the "brave" or "strong" trait were allowed to actually lead troops. That would be historically acceptable actually. We are after all talking about something very rare and which only happened with exceptional women.

Silfae · May 21, 2015

I suppose ultimately is really not something important, the job_titles file has been moddable for years, anybody can set up all sorts of specific requirements for any council position and the army-leading function. In fact, seems strange they would change the basic set up now, considering how easy it is for any player to do so.

Once the update comes, if the new requirements appear too lenient for my tastes, I suppose I'll just tweak them to my preference for my personal copy of the game. As I already did ages ago for the previous versions.

Thure · May 21, 2015

SirRitter said:
To the point, I'm not essentially against the idea of having females leading armies occasionally, but if the devs don't want to make fools of themselves and turn their game into a completely ahistorical PC joke, they should severely limit that possibility. If I understand Groogy right, every single female ruler will now be leading forces into combat, which is utterly nonsensical.

Say, it would be reasonable if only female rulers with very high martial skill and the "brave" or "strong" trait were allowed to actually lead troops. That would be historically acceptable actually. We are after all talking about something very rare and which only happened with exceptional women.

But we have exemples for bad female army leaders... Look at the battle of Cassel I linked. It would make no sense if only strong women could do it. Because he have also exemples for bad female army leaders.

Chartularius Hamburgensis

Field Marshal

First Lieutenant

Fossilized Platypus

First Lieutenant

Chartularius Hamburgensis

First Lieutenant

Fossilized Platypus

First Lieutenant

Chartularius Hamburgensis

First Lieutenant

哀駘它

Colonel

First Lieutenant

Colonel

Chartularius Hamburgensis

First Lieutenant

First Lieutenant

Colonel

Chartularius Hamburgensis