Women in military?

[caldrail]

Historically there have always been women who went to war. Boudicca is an exception in that she did so openly, she was after all the leader of the revolt. Women have consistently, in very small numbers, disguised themselves as boys and shouldered their burden. Funny thing is, there's very little information on what happened when they got found out (and interestingly, very few did). The effectiveness of some of these women in combat is notable. I remember a female native american who became renowned for her skill as a warrior. There was a female samurai for instance whose skills were legendary. Notice that in her case the adoption of a sword as the major weapon that required speed and skill rather than brute strength is the factor that allowed her to function en par with the men. The same effect occurs with firearms (but not, according to the US military, with grenades!). In theory, bows or slings might also allow the same equality, provided the draw strength wasn't too heavy.

 

The restrictions of the roman army have been mentioned above. Physical strength was desired and deliberately improved by training. Indeed, the physical requirements of the roman military were every bit as tough as modern armies - but with one important exception - they weren't expected to shoulder huge loads in battle. Instead, that strength and endurance was to come to the for in hand to hand combat with swords and shield.

 

In roman legions, the recruits were given a medical examination, and I cannot believe a roman medic wouldn't notice the effiminacy of this recruit. Assuming he didn't, and could convince the recruitment officer that her upbringing was from a suitably physical background, then we reach the next problem. The roman equivalent of the quartermaster stores, where the recruit gets outfitted for her tunic and armour etc. One wonders what would happen when sublagaria were handed over.... Then again, roman soldiers got almost no privacy. They were billeted in eight man groups (conteburnium) in cramped spaces, that later during service might also have slaves and servants in there too. Having got to this point, there is a remote chance that the woman might persuade her group members to protect her secret (that doesn't automatically mean sex, it might be she was lucky to be amongst soldiers of a more generous nature) Thats ok until the centurion (or any other soldier of rank) spots that a conteburnium is 'carrying' or 'protecting' one of their members. He would want to know why and may well focus his attention on getting that soldier up to speed or even out the door as a failure. Certainly a woman amongst the men would be regarded as a morale disaster and very undesirable.

 

As an aside, its recorded that one wife of a legionary commander pestered her husband to allow her to drill the men. This caused much hilarity and derision, and I suspect, killed the mans career thereafter!

 

All in all, it would have been quite an achievement for a woman to survive as a legionary. But we'll never know if it actually happened.

[Kosmo]

Was Boudicca an worrior that was expected to fight hand-to-hand? Leading one's tribe/state to war does not mean that person it's a soldier. Were Elisabeth I, Victoria, Thatcher and Elisabeth the II worriors?

Of course, Boudicca had led her troops on the batllefield the same like Jean d'Arc did, but that had more to do with her status as queen rather then her fighting abilities. Maybe she was the only women in the army.

I believe that the absence of women in armies had more to do with their gender specialized functions rather then their lower physical strength.

A roman women could, sometimes, fight as a gladiator in the arena, but this does not mean that she was allowed in the army.

[M. Demetrius]

Was Boudicca an worrior that was expected to fight hand-to-hand? Leading one's tribe/state to war does not mean that person it's a soldier.

In many Celtic societies, both Insular and Continental, women were, indeed, soldiers in the field. In some, they were the weapons trainers for aspiring young warriors. Although a queen such as Boudicca would probably not go into the thickest part of the battle, it's more than reasonable to presume she was involved, likely hurling javelins from her chariot. The commander in chief of any army is foolish to be in a position of extreme danger when there are other choices. It's much harder to command when dead.

 

Boudicca, for example, would be able to fight hand to hand if that were the need of the time. I rather doubt she tried to break the Roman formation, as some shock troops would have done. But if a cavalryman or infantryman approached too close to her chariot, they did so at their own peril. No, she wasn't superwoman, but Celtic women had a reputation of being exceptionally fierce in battle. Sometime around 350-400AD, IIRC, a prominent church leader helped pass an ordinance that forbade women from fighting in combat.

[caldrail]

Was Boudicca an worrior that was expected to fight hand-to-hand? Leading one's tribe/state to war does not mean that person it's a soldier. Were Elisabeth I, Victoria, Thatcher and Elisabeth the II worriors?

Of course, Boudicca had led her troops on the batllefield the same like Jean d'Arc did, but that had more to do with her status as queen rather then her fighting abilities. Maybe she was the only women in the army.

I believe that the absence of women in armies had more to do with their gender specialized functions rather then their lower physical strength.

The difference with Boudicca is that she led from the front, which necessitates involvement in combat. I notice that Zenobia was willing to lead her syrian/rebel roman army from the front too, and that she wore armour and practised with swords. As to whether she actually got stuck in in any of her battles isn't recorded - I suspect she didn't, but remained a figure of inspiration at the rear - I may be wrong about that. The absence of women in the armies of the ancient world was for both reasons. The gender specialisation and the relative upper body strength. There are always exceptions of course. For instance, 'Black Mary', a woman in the american frontier who scared the macho cowboys witless with her rough behaviour.

 

A roman women could, sometimes, fight as a gladiator in the arena, but this does not mean that she was allowed in the army.

Female gladiators only fought each other, or perhaps animals. They were not allowed to fight men. The romans considered that contest as unfair.

[Melvadius]

I also suspect that Boudicca role was mainly either as a figurehead, or possibly as a 'war' leader possibly directing initial placement of her troops, but probably did not intend to come into direct physical contact with the enemy - except at javelin range.

 

I would agree that in relatively recent recorded history there have been instances of women being able to fulfil a 'normally' male function while apparently hiding their sex.

 

Possibly the most obvious of is the case of how this could be done is Dr James Stuart 'Miranda?' Barry who went to Edinburgh University to study medicine about 1809 and who performed one of the first successful caesarian operations. He also had one of the best patient survival records at the infamous Scutari hospital in the Crimea and rose to the upper echelons of the British army medical corps. Until his death at about 70, 'he' apparently successfully managed to hide both the fact of 'his' sex as well as at one point going through at least the early stages of pregnancy.

 

http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/barry.html - short article including his flirting and getting into a duel

http://www.usmedicine.com/column.cfm?colum...&issueID=28 - longer and better referenced article noting most of his military and civilian achievments.

 

There are a scattering of other recorded cases throughout history. I can't find the reference at present but believe there is at least one recorded case in the Napoleonic period of a woman 'officially' serving as part of a gun crew in the Royal Navy. In such a case unlike Dr Barry I would suspect that she would need to have had the active support of her mess-mates in the deception to successfully hid any 'obvious' sign of her sex from their officers who could then turn a blind eye to less obvious signs in an efficient 'crewman' adn gun team.

[Primus Pilus]

The difference with Boudicca is that she led from the front, which necessitates involvement in combat.

 

Forgive my tardiness to the discussion here, but in Boudicca's case there really isn't any evidence that she led from the front. Neither Tacitus or Cassius Dio (the only sources who mention her) make any reference to it. In the queen's defense though, none of the ancient sources typically provide enough detail for us to know definitively either way for most "generals", but we honestly don't know whether she led from the front or held a place on the battlefield at all. Regardless I see no reason to doubt her presence at Camulodunum, Londinium, Verulamium and in the final battle with Paulinus, nor do I see a reason to doubt her political position as both sources clearly attest to her prominent role in the revolt.

[caldrail]

Point taken, yet the brits were part of the celtic tradition of heroic single combat en masse. Since she was their leader, she must have been somewhere near the front or else their army wouldn't have been such a threat. Celts weren't keen on generals leading from a tent thirty miles away, that was cowardice in their eyes, and lets face it, boudicca certainly had no reputation for that!

[Gaius Octavius]

Amazons?

[caldrail]

A greek legend. I'm not sure if these women actually existed (would a woman really want to remove a breast purely to pull a bow?), but since women do occaisionally take on mens roles as it were, then perhaps there were one or two that started the legend off. Or maybe the greeks had sexual fantasies too?

[Lost_Warrior]

(would a woman really want to remove a breast purely to pull a bow?)

 

I surmise that this legend was written by a man who must have assumed that women with breasts could not shoot a bow. I have breasts, they are not small, and I shoot a traditional bow, not *well* (for want of practice) but acceptably. My breasts do not get in the way.

 

Also, the legend says that they cut off their right breast, which does not make a lick of sense to me, or else I draw a bow in a completely different way than most people. Because if they were going to cut one off, I would think it would have to be the left.

 

Or maybe the greeks had sexual fantasies too?

 

Why would the Greeks be any different than the entire rest of the human race?

[Gaius Octavius]

Lost Soul, did it ever occur to you that the Amazons were left handed and seven foots tall?

[Lost_Warrior]

They may have been seven feet tall...but I don't know what that has to do with breasts and bowstrings.

 

I find it hard to believe that they were all left handed. And even if they were, breasts still wouldn't get in the way.

[Gaius Octavius]

Are you considering the angle of potential energy? And why couldn't they be trained to use the bow left handed?

[Lost_Warrior]

I'm sure they COULD be trained to use the bow left handed. I'm not sure why they WOULD. I still don't see the reason for hacking off body parts though.