-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
How many women per man would it take for an all-female army to defeat an all-male army in ancient battle?
Considering we talk about actual battle not some fantasy book battle 20 to 1 is small because it doesn't take into account that all those swords, spears, arrows has to be maintained, tents don't magically come out of ground when army stops, walls don't build themselves when you create war camp, animals don't come nicely toward camp to be slaughtered for food. Supply side is completely forgoten aspect in fantasy battles. War can't exist without supplyside of units period.
The main problem though is that regardless if there is even 50 to 1 or even 100 to 1 none of those women have enough endurance to outmaneuver men in full gear and the bigger unit size the slower it moves which only increases men advantage not decreases it. Moreover the bigger the unit the more supplies they use daily which means they are the ones who can't prolong combat and have to decide things quickly.
Fantasy books battles are all about action but real life battles actually are about preparation, time and endurance. Battles where two sides just dukes each other in few minutes or half an hour almost never happened. What happened instead were small parties riding each other trying to conserve as much fighting power as possible trying to establish enough power over enemy so they will run away knowing they can't win. This could happen over days, weeks, months sometimes even years.
I think one of best ways to understand it is Julius Caesar conquest of Gals. Everyone interested in warfare should search youtube there are plenty of good explentations of his military achievements and you will quickly understand that there were no glorious battles resolved in minutes. Almost all battles were grueling weeks months battles with constant movement, strategizing, flanking, resting, regrouping, camping, digging fortifications, being in siege, retreating, pushing through front line, pushing back, faking moves, talking with enemy factions trying to bribe them, kidnaping elders and so on.
All of above was underpinned by strategy and endurance of his soldiers who despite being overwhelmingly undermanned managed to beat 2-3-5 times greater gal armies. And they were fighting men not women who wouldn't be able to churn like that in gear for days let alone weeks.
There are way more aspects of battles but endurance is enough to completely put above men in this battle. The only way for women to win with numbers advantage would be to put them in position where they can't refuse battle but historically this almost never happened.
If we take pure dunking it out in flat space without outside factors it would still be probably men win even at 20:1 ratio simply because women wouldn't be able to hold spears as long as men and their bows wouldn't be able to have same range as men bows.
So the only way for them to win would be suicide tactic where they would just use meat shields and overwhealm men weapons with their bodies. But that wouldn't happen because it would broke morale long before single woman would decide to get skewered by spear willingly.
So no even at 20:1 ratio there is no way women would win in ancient battles. The kind of battles they could win though are fantasy ones where things like supply side and morale doesn't exist.
The main problem though is that regardless if there is even 50 to 1 or even 100 to 1 none of those women have enough endurance to outmaneuver men in full gear and the bigger unit size the slower it moves which only increases men advantage not decreases it. Moreover the bigger the unit the more supplies they use daily which means they are the ones who can't prolong combat and have to decide things quickly.
Fantasy books battles are all about action but real life battles actually are about preparation, time and endurance. Battles where two sides just dukes each other in few minutes or half an hour almost never happened. What happened instead were small parties riding each other trying to conserve as much fighting power as possible trying to establish enough power over enemy so they will run away knowing they can't win. This could happen over days, weeks, months sometimes even years.
I think one of best ways to understand it is Julius Caesar conquest of Gals. Everyone interested in warfare should search youtube there are plenty of good explentations of his military achievements and you will quickly understand that there were no glorious battles resolved in minutes. Almost all battles were grueling weeks months battles with constant movement, strategizing, flanking, resting, regrouping, camping, digging fortifications, being in siege, retreating, pushing through front line, pushing back, faking moves, talking with enemy factions trying to bribe them, kidnaping elders and so on.
All of above was underpinned by strategy and endurance of his soldiers who despite being overwhelmingly undermanned managed to beat 2-3-5 times greater gal armies. And they were fighting men not women who wouldn't be able to churn like that in gear for days let alone weeks.
There are way more aspects of battles but endurance is enough to completely put above men in this battle. The only way for women to win with numbers advantage would be to put them in position where they can't refuse battle but historically this almost never happened.
If we take pure dunking it out in flat space without outside factors it would still be probably men win even at 20:1 ratio simply because women wouldn't be able to hold spears as long as men and their bows wouldn't be able to have same range as men bows.
So the only way for them to win would be suicide tactic where they would just use meat shields and overwhealm men weapons with their bodies. But that wouldn't happen because it would broke morale long before single woman would decide to get skewered by spear willingly.
So no even at 20:1 ratio there is no way women would win in ancient battles. The kind of battles they could win though are fantasy ones where things like supply side and morale doesn't exist.
Last edited:
finowns
Member
Yep. It’s all logistics. 20x women’s army would be consuming, at bare minimum, one ton of food daily. Their logistic supply train would be 50 wagons but probably way more, which they would have to protect or they die, and they would have to engage in a fight whereas the men would get to choose where they wish to fight or if they even want to. A better strategy for the men would be small flanking attacks and avoiding larger engagements.
We would need a specific scenario. Like locations and closest city that could resupply the armies. And qualifications for victory and defeat.
There are certainly examples of men versus men armies with very lopsided numbers with the smaller force being victorious due to better gear, tactics, location, or strategy. And often a battle would lead to a route with MASSIVE losses of the fleeing forces.
Could you assemble an army of Gina Carinos and Ronda Rouseys? Sure, but the male equivalents are Floyd Mayweather, Mike Tyson, and GSP. Those ladies would get WRECKED.
Maybe a female version of the Golden Horde, highly trained horse archers fighting mostly infantry, would have a chance with numeric parity.
Could you assemble an army of Gina Carinos and Ronda Rouseys? Sure, but the male equivalents are Floyd Mayweather, Mike Tyson, and GSP. Those ladies would get WRECKED.
Maybe a female version of the Golden Horde, highly trained horse archers fighting mostly infantry, would have a chance with numeric parity.
triplestation
Member
if they all look like chyna they could win
ChanerRedone
Banned
I honestly don't know if this thread is a parody. But now we have users saying not even 100:1 advantage is enough. In an age in which you can essentially hide behind a shield wall and wear the enemy out and flank with your numerical superiority, it doesn't matter how strong you are, you aren't going to shatter a wall of Roman scutum with swords or spears. Even if it is women hiding behind them. Just ask the Germanic warriors who, compared to the Romans, were taller, stronger, more numerous, and yes, may even have had bigger dicks (since I believe that is the true ulterior concern of many posters in this thread).
Also seems many people here are ignorant on ancient battles.
Last edited:
haxan7
Banned
I just had to sit here and watch that while post happened to me
ChanerRedone
Banned
Err what? Your post is irrelevant and provides nothing for this discussion.
haxan7
Banned
Thanks man.
Halo is Back
Member
Women would instantly win because they could withhold sex from all the men
ChanerRedone
Banned
So why'd you post? Was it the small penis syndrome comment I made or schooling people in ancient warfare.
haxan7
Banned
Small penis.
longdi
Banned
in a one on one fisticuffs, maybe male has advantage, but going into battle is a different proposition, the training, strategy, morale, food, technology, terrain and so much more.
i played tons of rts and turn based strategy games, male or female is just nothing in the grand scheme
i played tons of rts and turn based strategy games, male or female is just nothing in the grand scheme
It is not about shield walls. It is about any othher factor than manpower. Question. Can 1000 to 1 army win without food ? No. Men flank women burn their supply lines and watch them starve to death. Speed and endurance is everything in ancient wars.
Jon Neu
Banned
You know what happened after every battle? The winners went and raped all the women they wanted.
LaughingStock
Member
OP should clarify this. If these women have feminine penises I want to change my vote.
ChanerRedone
Banned
This thread isn't about logistics. I know you're trying to sound smart, but if a 1000:1 army advantage means the army can't feed itself, then it wouldn't be that large of an army in the first place. Now you're talking about an army outnumbered completely sneaking up behind them and taking out their supply? Jesus Christ you need to stop watching Game of Thrones. That's not how ancient battles worked.
ChanerRedone
Banned
Not every battle at all. Some battles were annihilations in foreign territory. Carrhae, being one of many examples. Teutoberg Forest, etc. Again, this forum seems to be completely oblivious to actual ancient history. Just out of curiosity, have you even heard about these famous ancient battles I mentioned?
Last edited:
Jon Neu
Banned
Good reading comprehension.
Imagine saying this while trying to defend the ability of women in battle against men.
SebastianShaw
Member
Is that xzxuglhu the destroyer? Very cool1-1 if we’re talking these women
Last edited:
ChanerRedone
Banned
Err..
Oops.
So long as the women can carry a 20lb scutum shield, you're not going to hack through 100 heavy shields because women are carrying it. I know a lot of people here have that strange fantasy, but I'm only pointing out that it is just a fantasy. One with no basis in reality.
Last edited:
Alfen Dave
Member
With Meleep Weapon/CQC/Unarmed, I`d say it takea 5 times women.
With long ranged (crossbow/firearm)...ouf..that`s tough..I dont even think you'd need 2-1...
And even Unarmed, maybe women could just fight naked as to destablize male focus and make them horny, as to decrease the amount of blood that goes into their muscles and goes down the penis.
Im dead serious btw. Put sexy naked women and the men wont fight as effectively.
With long ranged (crossbow/firearm)...ouf..that`s tough..I dont even think you'd need 2-1...
And even Unarmed, maybe women could just fight naked as to destablize male focus and make them horny, as to decrease the amount of blood that goes into their muscles and goes down the penis.
Im dead serious btw. Put sexy naked women and the men wont fight as effectively.
Jon Neu
Banned
Thank you for pointing out your lack of reading comprehension.
What are those fantasy women going to do? Keep the defensive formation forever like in Asterix & Obelix? The moment those women open the formation a little, is the moment men will utterly destroy them.
But not only that, a few men with horses and arrows would easily murder them anyway.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
The Dahomey warriors were feared in the African continent.
Jon Neu
Banned
Their greatest feat is being crushed by the french in hand to hand combat.
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
French soldiers with guns... This thread specifically said ancient combat. Guns aren't really ancient.
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
What are that tactics? If the women have a phalanx while the men are disorganized it may take less women than you think. If the men use a Roman Legions tactics against outdated battle tactics then I doubt numbers will matter. Training tactics and leadership all matter.
Jon Neu
Banned
So you brought them in the first place and then you complain because they didn't fit the rules of the thread.
Nice.
haxan7
Banned
I can take at least 3 girls dude
PanzerAzel
Member
If she knows how to play her cards right....one.
