Weekly Dev Diary #2 | Page 16

Donelloth · May 22, 2015

SirRitter said:
I'm not sure that would be accurate. A ruler who refused to lead his troops into battle would probaby be branded a coward and lose infuence over his subjects, since that was expected of him as one of his duties. Baldwin IV was mentioned in this thread, he suffered from leprosy and lead his subjects into battle even when suffering disability. I could also mention that the merovingians lost their power precisely because they passed military responsabilities to officers.

The ruler in question should receive an opinion malus from refusing to lead troops if he is able to do so. Not in the case of females though. And I do hope we won't see every singe female ruler playing Joan of Arc and kicking ass all over Christendom.

Can you imagine the poor Basques? The legendary amazons won't be legendary anymore.

I was thinking refusing to lead your troops should have an opinion and moral malus on your vassals and troops but cramming that in would have taken away from the point. And that point is that the new button should be a function of character behavior. A craven character should probably get quite the stink eye when hes hiding away in his castle during war. As for female rulers, I think the -10 opinion malus for being a female ruler already covers that. But they should get the penalty if they are a ruler refusing to lead under a religion without that opinion malus for being a female ruler. Which is like, 3.

KestrelGirl · May 22, 2015

I think we need a "Funny" vote button at the bottom of each posts. There's some undetected sarcasm going on here.

Thure · May 22, 2015

Tancred DH said:
Good point, and another example of where the sjw brainwashed arguments fall flat when faced with reality. The most important and highly respected role of a noblewoman was the the nurturing of healthy heirs. It wasnt like today where infants are thrown into daycare at 6 months so the strong women go carry on being corporate warriors. You peoples twisted view dominates all aspects of our lives now, isn't that enough? Why do you have to shoehorn contemporary PC nonsense into a computer game set in medieval times too?

Females in the middle ages are not 'birth machines'! Read a book about women in the middle ages but stop this nonsense. You even miss the part that noblewomen were mostly very active at the administration of the realm.

And why should a noblewoman, ruling in her own right!, be a birth machine? She rules in her own right, she don't has to care about her husbands will. JUst look at the famour marriage of Mathilde of Tuscany with Welf. A boy who was many decades younger than her. And they most likely never shared the bed together.

And the noblewomen in the monasteries are not birth machines. They were some of the few people in whole Europe who where educated. I would search a good book for you but sadly I mostly know German books and not that much English ones.

Alrek Yngling · May 22, 2015

@Groogy I still think the penalty modifier for homosexuality amongst Cathars should be removed, as was the negative penalty for female rulers in a previous update. If anything it should have a positive opinion modifier....

Knotz · May 22, 2015

So guys can we at least agree that:

1. Female rulers were rare (comparatively [to men] speaking).
2. Female rulers who personally led their troops were yet more rare (comparatively [to female rulers who did NOT lead troops] speaking).

Thure · May 22, 2015

Knotz said:
So guys can we at least agree that:

1. Female rulers were rare (comparatively [to men] speaking).
2. Female rulers who personally led their troops were yet more rare (comparatively [to female rulers who did NOT lead troops] speaking).

We should make a list of all women during the game timeline and check if they lead armies or not. But the point is also that for many women we don't have sources if they lead the troops or not. Of course we could say 'if noone says the women was leading troops she never lead her troops'. And we also should take into account how long the women ruled. If she just ruled for 5 years there isn't as much time to lead her troops as if she would rule for 10-30 years... It's not that easy.

If we just compare female rulers I wouldn't say the rate was that bad. I would say at least 50 % of the female rulers also lead their own armies in some way

But this would be something for a scientific research...

Voy · May 22, 2015

Alrek Yngling said:
@Groogy I still think the penalty modifier for homosexuality amongst Cathars should be removed, as was the negative penalty for female rulers in a previous update. If anything it should have a positive opinion modifier....

No. That is propaganda from the papacy. Does anyone on this forum ever practice source criticism?

Tancred DH · May 22, 2015

50% of female rulers led troops!? That's rich coming from the guy trying to condescendingly tell me I should read a book because my conception of history is wrong, i.e. contrary to his own and the warped anachronistic liberalist view that dominates all academia. You might want to start doing some logical thought of your own and not just cherry picking books that feed your own cognitive dissonance. To try and suggest that Mathilda of Tuscany is somehow typical (or 50% typical) of medieval female rulers is so obviously ridiculous I shouldn't have to explain this any futher.

Knotz · May 22, 2015

Thure said:
We should make a list of all women during the game timeline and check if they lead armies or not.

We don't have a list of every female in the timeline but we do have KestrilGirl's list of every female (or close to) in the game. Of which I think (but am not sure) one led her troops personally.

Thure said:
But the point is also that for many women we don't have sources if they lead the troops or not. Of course we could say 'if noone says the women was leading troops she never lead her troops'.

As soon as you furbish me with a reliable source that gives me any reason to think that female's leading their troops was anything approaching standard practice I will start to reconsider assuming 'females did not lead troops' was the default. Since, yah know, the historical accounts that point out the women that lead their troops go to pains to point out that they were exceptional. If they weren't exceptional they wouldn't do that. Accounts of wars and battles the queens participated in would be as ubiquitous and taken-for-granted as their male counterparts. This is not the case though.

Thure said:
I would say at least 50 % of the female rulers also lead their own armies in some way

That's so vague as to be meaningless. 'Led their troops' in what way? By telling their general that they want X and Y conquered? By marching with them as a source of inspiration but not actively contributing in any way? By talking with their generals about the plans for a campaign?

Rather let's use the metrics for being a commander as it's used in CK2: marching at the head of an army and being directly involved in a battle. As in stabbing and/or smashing people and potentially being smashed and/or stabbed in return.

Do you think 50% of female rulers did that?

Will Steel · May 22, 2015

This is nice. But wondering one thing - can you allow homosexuals to use seduction on others of the same gender please? That would make the focus more worthwhile for them.

Alrek Yngling · May 22, 2015

Voy said:
No. That is propaganda from the papacy. Does anyone on this forum ever practice source criticism?

Yet you have nothing to say about the fact they can appoint female generals and Councillors uninhibited? It's not about 100% historical accuracy. They weren't even called Cathars. And they were anti-procreation. They believed the God of the Old Testament is evil and created the physical world whilst the Good God of the New Testament created the spirit world. There wouldn't be a reason for homosexuality to be widely condemned by the faith. And to say that the papal sources were completely propaganda and had no legitimate basis is ludacris, unless you were there. Considering the circumstances it would have most likely had some merit.

Austrah · May 22, 2015

Is this whole discussion about if all landed women should be able to lead troops instead of conditions like the trait brave or high martial stats? Or about women being able to leed troops at all?

Imo there should be a condition that female commanders are supposed to have the brave trait, the strong trait or a higher martial stat than 10 or 12 (or two of those conditions). But also for women without title but good relations to their liege. What if an appointed female commander gets a diplomalus with her male collegues? So it would be possible for her to become commander but male commanders will try to get rid of her. Is this plausible?

Donelloth · May 22, 2015

Will Steel said:
This is nice. But wondering one thing - can you allow homosexuals to use seduction on others of the same gender please? That would make the focus more worthwhile for them.

They can, but only on other homosexuals. On the same token, you can not seduce opposite sex homosexuals if you are straight.

Voy · May 22, 2015

Alrek Yngling said:
Yet you have nothing to say about the fact they can appoint female generals and Councillors uninhibited? It's not about 100% historical accuracy. They weren't even called Cathars. And they were anti-procreation. They believed the God of the Old Testament is evil and created the physical world whilst the Good God of the New Testament created the spirit world. There wouldn't be a reason for homosexuality to be widely condemned by the faith. And to say that the papal sources were completely propaganda and had no legitimate basis is ludacris, unless you were there. Considering the circumstances it would have most likely had some merit.

Firstly, it's not Byzantine empire either, but when know something by a name we all can understand, it's okay to use it. Secondly, I do not care what female characters can do in this game if they're cathars because that's already in the game and its interesting and interesting gameplay is what we need, even though it probably wasn't practised to any greater extent historically. However adding positive opinion for homosexuals is problematic and you will surely see this yourself considering PDS probably wont add it. I wouldn't mind if they removed the negative malus for homosexual rulers if playing cathar though, but it's not important.

Alrek Yngling · May 22, 2015

Voy said:
Firstly, it's not Byzantine empire either, but when know something by a name we all can understand, it's okay to use it. Secondly, I do not care what female characters can do in this game if they're cathars because that's already in the game and its interesting and interesting gameplay is what we need, even though it probably wasn't practised to any greater extent historically. However adding positive opinion for homosexuals is problematic and you will surely see this yourself considering PDS probably wont add it. I wouldn't mind if they removed the negative malus for homosexual rulers if playing cathar though, but it's not important.

The 'if anything it should have a positive opinion modifier' was more jesting as in if there's going to be an opinion modifier it should be positive because it makes a hell of a lot more sense then the current negative one in place. But my main point overall is that the 'negative malus' shouldn't be there. I'm not saying homosexuality was put on a pedestal (at least that we credibly know of) but it certainly wasn't condemned either. All forms of non-procreative sexual acts were encouraged over pro-creational sex, from what we know.

Thure · May 22, 2015

Tancred DH said:
50% of female rulers led troops!? That's rich coming from the guy trying to condescendingly tell me I should read a book because my conception of history is wrong, i.e. contrary to his own and the warped anachronistic liberalist view that dominates all academia. You might want to start doing some logical thought of your own and not just cherry picking books that feed your own cognitive dissonance. To try and suggest that Mathilda of Tuscany is somehow typical (or 50% typical) of medieval female rulers is so obviously ridiculous I shouldn't have to explain this any futher.

As I said.,.. It's an assumption and I would have to research on all christian female rulers at this time. But at the same time we could also research how many male leaders did lead their armies. The point is... Female rulers at all are rare in this era. And actually I'm cherry picking because some people here don't believe in the whole list on wikipedia. Many of them have sources (even the one with [citation needed] often have sources on the page of the person). And most of them are not mythical or legendary. And even legends often have a certain truth. Maybe they lead armies but not as powerful as the legends tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_post-classical_warfare#8th_century

Knotz said:
We don't have a list of every female in the timeline but we do have KestrilGirl's list of every female (or close to) in the game. Of which I think (but am not sure) one led her troops personally.

As soon as you furbish me with a reliable source that gives me any reason to think that female's leading their troops was anything approaching standard practice I will start to reconsider assuming 'females did not lead troops' was the default. Since, yah know, the historical accounts that point out the women that lead their troops go to pains to point out that they were exceptional. If they weren't exceptional they wouldn't do that. Accounts of wars and battles the queens participated in would be as ubiquitous and taken-for-granted as their male counterparts. This is not the case though.

That's so vague as to be meaningless. 'Led their troops' in what way? By telling their general that they want X and Y conquered? By marching with them as a source of inspiration but not actively contributing in any way? By talking with their generals about the plans for a campaign?

Rather let's use the metrics for being a commander as it's used in CK2: marching at the head of an army and being directly involved in a battle. As in stabbing and/or smashing people and potentially being smashed and/or stabbed in return.

Do you think 50% of female rulers did that?

Did you think 50 % of the male rulers did this in the exactly same way?

And the point is that female rulers at all are an exception. So we have few women who rule on their own right. So of course female army leaders are the exception... But only if we look at the number of male army leaders. For the males this women were the exception. But actually... did you have any special quote, where this women where called 'exception's?

Alrek Yngling said:
The 'if anything it should have a positive opinion modifier' was more jesting as in if there's going to be an opinion modifier it should be positive because it makes a hell of a lot more sense then the current negative one in place. But my main point overall is that the 'negative malus' shouldn't be there. I'm not saying homosexuality was put on a pedestal (at least that we credibly know of) but it certainly wasn't condemned either. All forms of non-procreative sexual acts were encouraged over pro-creational sex, from what we know.

But how many cathars really believe in this? I mean... I don't think the Cathar nobles would stop to have sex. And I also don't think they would start to accept homosexuality just because the new religion says they are ok

Alrek Yngling · May 22, 2015

But how many cathars really believe in this? I mean... I don't think the Cathar nobles would stop to have sex. And I also don't think they would start to accept homosexuality just because the new religion says they are ok[/QUOTE]

Uhm..every Cathar? I mean that belief system is part of being a Cathar. I'm assuming you haven't done much research on the issue based off if your question. No, obviously they wouldn't abstain from all sex and I never said they did. Masturbation, oral, and anal sex are primary examples of 'non-procreative' sexual practices that would have been encouraged. Not really sure how to respond to your last point because it's not really making sense to me at all. If you think hard on it I think you'll find the same.

Knotz · May 22, 2015

Thure said:
Did you think 50 % of the male rulers did this in the exactly same way?

Straw man.

Thure said:
And the point is that female rulers at all are an exception. So we have few women who rule on their own right.

Yes. You've said this once or twice. I don't think anyone has disputed it.

Thure said:
So of course female army leaders are the exception... But only if we look at the number of male army leaders.

No. They were the exception even IN COMPARISON TO other female rulers.

Thure said:
But actually... did you have any special quote, where this women where called 'exception's?

Dude. You are going against the flow by stating that you think it was normal (or even semi-normal) for female rulers to personally lead their armies. This means the burden of proof is ON YOU to prove your statement. How do I prove female rulers did NOT lead their troops personally, if you won't even acknowledge all the times female rulers are mentioned with no reference to them participating in warfare? It's like asking me to prove god does NOT exist. That unicorns do NOT exist. Your logic is so circular I'm scared you're going to create a black hole that will consume all of existence.

But hey. I did find this, a very well referenced list of females in some military capacity. I couldn't find a list of all the female rulers in the entirety of the medieval era though. Probably because that list would be ridiculously long and exhaustive. But I did find this list. Why did I find this list? Why did someone bother to make it? BECAUSE IT WASN'T COMMON. It was in fact exceptional. As in being the exception. As in not being found often. Also found this, please try and focus on how often the author and her quoted sources use qualifiers and literary 'yes buts' and not on the fact this happened which I know it did and am not disputing.

EDIT:

Zarathustra_the · May 22, 2015

You will actually find that typically the principle of necessity was what brought about women leading armies. We have evidence for instance of Queen Catherine of Aragon successfully destroying the Scottish army while Henry VIII was otherwise engaged in the continent. Furthermore, it is not until the reformation that it becomes important enough of a social issue for the myth of exceptionality of women commanders to be propergated. The primary example I can think of for this myth would be Queen Elizabeth the Great with her great martial showing prior to the Armada. Indeed Elizabeth did much to create the myth of it being a rare woman who actually could rule, claiming that while she was born in the body of a woman she was possessed of the heart of a king.

What is clear however, is that prior to the reformation actual circumstances dictated who would control an army. Typically a wife was seen as a physical extension of the will of her husband. Because of this it was not uncommon to see a Queen with her advisers leading an army in defense while her husband was abroad. This being a commonly comprehensible thing is clearly evident in the nature of how Catherine of Aragon's leading of the English army of the north is recorded by the chroniclers, there is no great umbrage at her doing so, which typically indicates that the authors found the conduct was permissible. Furthermore, England's Queen Matilda was also known to engage in the direct control of armies, though of course she is much overshadowed by both her Husband and her Son. Speaking of the son, Henry II's wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine is recorded on occasion to have led military forces due in part to the nature of ruling a cross continental empire. This reinforces the middle ages concept of a wife as an physical extension of her husband's will.

Now as for combat itself, it was decidedly rare for a woman to partake in the actual practice of middle ages warfare, even more so a noble woman. Typically they would lead an army not at the front but by controlling actions taken from a suitable overlook. This practice of abstracted military guidance would extend to kings and lords as well, and is notable that by the 17th century it was regarded as insane for a monarch to engage in direct military contact. At the battle of Naseby, Charles I in seeking to lead a final charge was forcibly restrained by one of his courtiers.

All in all, there is no practicable reason to prevent women from taking part in military action, as they typically would do so if the situation warranted such action. What would however be a better reflection of history is making it so that a military education is less common for a woman. In this case, it becomes less wise to let a woman lead an army, not because she cannot do it, but because her energies have not been devoted to mastering the arts of war. Let the prohibition to reflect the extremeness of the rarity be a reflection of the historical reality, women did not lead armies not because they were women, but because more often there was a man around who had the skills to do it better.

Thure · May 22, 2015

Alrek Yngling said:
Uhm..every Cathar? I mean that belief system is part of being a Cathar. I'm assuming you haven't done much research on the issue based off if your question. No, obviously they wouldn't abstain from all sex and I never said they did. Masturbation, oral, and anal sex are primary examples of 'non-procreative' sexual practices that would have been encouraged. Not really sure how to respond to your last point because it's not really making sense to me at all. If you think hard on it I think you'll find the same.

Every Cathar? Ohhhh.... Of course Cathar nobles would stop to make children and reproduce... Did you really think the reality was, that every Cathar believe in all of its teachings...? Especially the Nobles wouldn't care about a lot of the believs... Otherwise they would even be disallowed to fight...

And by the same logic every Catholic wouldn't war an other Catholic

My point was... the people were not only against homosexuality because they church says so. The fear against homosexuality was a social problem. Just because you change your religion you don't change your view on homosexuality that suddenly.

Filthy Cathar

Captain

Chartularius Hamburgensis

Private

[un]Secret Witch

Chartularius Hamburgensis

Wiki Royalty

Private

[un]Secret Witch

Centurion First-File

Private

Sergeant

Filthy Cathar

Wiki Royalty

Private

Chartularius Hamburgensis

Private

[un]Secret Witch

Lt. General

Chartularius Hamburgensis