Here, interesting stuff

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1411715,00.html

By Lewis Smith

THE remains of two Amazon warriors serving with the Roman army in Britain have been discovered in a cemetery that has astonished archaeologists.
Women soldiers were previously unknown in the Roman army in Britain and the find at Brougham in Cumbria will force a reappraisal of their role in 3rd-century society.

The women are thought to have come from the Danube region of Eastern Europe, which was where the Ancient Greeks said the fearsome Amazon warriors could be found.



The women, believed to have died some time between AD220 and 300, were burnt on pyres upon which were placed their horses and military equipment. The remains were uncovered in the 1960s but full-scale analysis and identification has been possible only since 2000 with technological advances.

The soldiers are believed to have been part of the numerii, a Roman irregular unit, which would have been attached to a legion serving in Britain. Other finds show that their unit originated from the Danubian provinces of Noricum, Pannonia and Ilyria which now form parts of Austria, Hungary and the former Yugoslavia.

Hilary Cool, the director of Barbican Research Associates, which specialises in post- excavation archaeological analysis, said that the remains were the most intriguing aspects of a site that is changing our understanding of Roman burial rites.

“It seems highly probable that we have a unit raised in the Danubian lands and transferred to Britain,” she says in British Archaeology.

“Though the numerii are generally referred to as irregular units, they are not thought of as having women among their ranks. However, the unit came from the area where the Ancient Greeks placed the origin of women warriors called Amazons. Could the numerii be even more irregular than anyone has ever dreamt?”

The cemetery at Brougham served a fort and the civilian settlement of Brocavum in the 3rd century and analysis of the remains of more than 180 people showed that everybody’s ashes were buried there. Archaeologists have been able to determine the ages and gender of the dead and to build up a detailed picture of Roman funerals in Brougham.

One of the sets of women warrior’s remains were found with the burnt remnants of animals. Bone veneer, used to decorate boxes, was also found alongside evidence of a sword scabbard and red pottery. The possessions suggest that she was of high status and her age has been estimated at between 20 and 40 years old. The other woman, thought to be between 21 and 45, was buried with a silver bowl, a sword scabbard, bone veneer and ivory

Excellent post, Ebus. What will Perun say? That the findings are all fake? :p

Bones Suggest Women Went to War in Ancient Iran

Dec 4, 2004 — TEHRAN (Reuters) - These days Iranian women are not even allowed to watch men compete on the football field, but 2,000 years ago they could have been carving the boys to pieces on the battlefield.

DNA tests on the 2,000-year-old bones of a sword-wielding Iranian warrior have revealed the broad-framed skeleton belonged to woman, an archaeologist working in the northwestern city of Tabriz said on Saturday.

"Despite earlier comments that the warrior was a man because of the metal sword, DNA tests showed the skeleton inside the tomb belonged to a female warrior," Alireza Hojabri-Nobari told the Hambastegi newspaper.

He added that the tomb, which had all the trappings of a warrior's final resting place, was one of 109 and that DNA tests were being carried out on the other skeletons.

Hambastegi said other ancient tombs believed to belong to women warriors have been unearthed close to the Caspian Sea.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=302539

Hmmmn interesting that these female "warrior" bones are always found in small quantities(2 in the fist example, 1 one in the second example). And Creveld deals with this issue quite well especially when dealing with the bones discovered in Russia supposedly proving the existance of Amazons. :rolleyes:

Hmmmn interesting that these female "warrior" bones are always found in small quantitiesYeah, interesting that what you say is not true.
And Creveld deals with this issue quite well especially when dealing with the bones discovered in Russia supposedly proving the existance of Amazons. :rolleyes:Creveld is totally inept in dealing with the issue. From the beginning, he had an admitted agenda: to keep women out of combat roles. So quite naturally, his starting premise is that women do not belong in combat. So he works backward from this premise by filtering out anything that might cast doubt upon it.

If women are so useless in combat, why are people like you so fanatically opposed to the idea? Why would you even need to oppose it in the first place? Let's assume for a moment that women really can't be good soldiers. Well. Just let women form some all-female combat units, and soon enough they will discredit themselves in the field.

Of course, the problem is that women have already proven themselves in battle, in many societies, time periods, and contexts. Your fear is that some women could turn out to be better warriors than you. And your most terrible - and justified - fear is that they already have. Women like Philippa Tattersall can pass Green Beret commando courses with flying colors. These are some of the toughest military training courses in the world. Meanwhile, you wimped out of basic training on account of "asthma." (Funny how you're not too "asthmatic" to puff on cigars all day...) Now that's pretty damning indeed, and it's no surprise you are horrified by the reality of women warriors.

Weren't some Scythian females supposed to be warriors ?

Weren't some Scythian females supposed to be warriors ?Archaeologists in the Ukraine say that at least 25% of the Scythian graves with weapons which have been found are of women.

How are we supposed to know that the bones belonged to women who were part of the units? What if they had been civilians who had died in the same place? Maybe they were camp-followers who happened to get caught in a sudden barbarian attack? So what if weapons are found in graves? Maybe they served some other purpose, something symbolic or religious or whatever?

The problem with archaeology is that context is hard to figure out.

Plus, basing modern decisions on archaeological finds that can be interpreted in a variety of different ways? While we're at it, why don't we make our water pipes out of lead, sodomise young boys, and enslave Greeks? :222

How are we supposed to know that the bones belonged to women who were part of the units? What if they had been civilians who had died in the same place?ROTFL. Man, you are in denial. These skeletons are clearly female (there easy ways to tell by analyzing skeletal shape among other things). They were properly buried with their weapons of war, many of which show intensive use. Maybe they were camp-followers who happened to get caught in a sudden barbarian attack? So what if weapons are found in graves? Maybe they served some other purpose, something symbolic or religious or whatever?Like I said, you're simply in denial. You are 100% against women in combat, so you just scramble for excuses instead of facing reality. The reality is that observers from many different eras have seen woman warriors doing their duty. They have commented about it in detail. Observers from a wide range of cultural backgrounds (Euro-Christian, Islamic, Central Asian, etc.) wrote down their observations regarding Scythian woman warriors. I suppose all of this is just some kind of conspiracy? The problem with archaeology is that context is hard to figure out.25% of buried soldiers being female is pretty clear cut actually. You just don't like what it means.

They were not soldiers, they were warriors. War has changed. We also no longer make the leaders of our societies the oldest and most competent warriors. Women may no longer be warriors, but hey, they also get to live through childbirth most of the time, and even (gasp!) often choose whether or not they want children!

Overall, I'd say things are better now. Looking to ancient barbaric or sorta-civilised societies for government policy is hardly a great idea.

I do, however, admit that my earlier argument was pretty lazy. It's Christmas, don't I get a break? :p I like my current argument better, as it allows me to be a snide asshole, which gives me a warm feeling inside.

I do, however, admit that my earlier argument was pretty lazy. It's Christmas, don't I get a break? :p I like my current argument better, as it allows me to be a snide asshole, which gives me a warm feeling inside.No problem, consider it my late x-mas gift to you. You get to be my favorite snide asshole today! :D

Excellent post, Ebus. What will Perun say? That the findings are all fake? :p
I know the Scythians and Sarmatians had some female warriors( as did the Celts) but what I find hard to believe is the Romans allowed the women to serve as auxillaries( except in the late late western empire, post Theodosius "The Great", where the Roman Army just meant barbarian warlords who the Emperor paid tribute to not to attack and keep other barbarians out) the Romans didn't think too highly of women and they had almost no rights unless they were unmarried and all their male family members were dead.

Female warriors of antiquity (and even today) are not unheard of.

Still though, females, on the average, are far less suited for combat, than the average male. However, as always, there are exceptional cases where a female can outperform a male in battle.

Yeah, interesting that what you say is not true.

Lets see, they find one female skeleton with weapons and automatically assume that female warriors was a common thing in ancient Persia. They find two skeletons in Britian and assume the Romans hired large numbers of female mercenaries. This logic is repeated time and time again.



Creveld is totally inept in dealing with the issue.

Of course you have yet to provide any real information to refute his claims, and instead just go on with ad hominem charades; which are frankly getting old. He's not the only person to write on this topic and come to the same conclusions. I sincerly doubt whether you have actually read Creveld, since your rants about him seem to point to the negative.


If women are so useless in combat, why are people like you so fanatically opposed to the idea? Why would you even need to oppose it in the first place? Let's assume for a moment that women really can't be good soldiers. Well. Just let women form some all-female combat units, and soon enough they will discredit themselves in the field.


Because warfare is a serious life or death situation and come cannot fool around with this kind of nonsense. Creveld again deals with this perfectly that women are only seen in militaries that are not fighting for the very existance of the societies they wish to protect. Yet in places were warfare is a daily fact of life and the very existance of societies are at stake; women are nowhere to be found near the battlefield. What a coinicidence!

The Western militaries are allowed the luxury of putting women in all sorts of military positions because its very existance is not militarily under threat. As Creveld explains, the enemies the West faces are more annoyances than real threats. Al-Qadea simply does not have the manpower to occupy the United States.



Of course, the problem is that women have already proven themselves in battle, in many societies, time periods, and contexts.

No. :rolleyes:


Your fear is that some women could turn out to be better warriors than you.And your most terrible - and justified - fear is that they already have.

LOL As usual, you cant refute my arguments with any real facts so once again you resort to ad hominems. As I said before, this is getting pretty old.


Women like Philippa Tattersall can pass Green Beret commando courses with flying colors. These are some of the toughest military training courses in the world.

Well good for her, except she wont be in combat anyways. And as one British officer remarked:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2017213.stm

Major General Thompson added: "I'm not in favour of women being on the front line.

"I am sure there are women who are strong enough, but we are talking about cohesion of the unit.

"Warfare is often in the most hostile environments and close combat situations can be bloody and dirty with hand-to-hand fighting and bayonets.

"Women would be a disruptive influence on the team."




Meanwhile, you wimped out of basic training on account of "asthma."

Ok this ad hominem charade about my asthma is a real desperate attempt to cover the fact you cant make a good argument. Not to mention its just low-life for you to knee-jerk me for a condition I have no control over.

Militaries around the world have different policies towards asthma. Some militaries reject for having it, others do no, others judge you on an individual basis, etc. Its not uncommon for people to be considered unfit for one military and yet accepted into another. I remember watching a program about the French Foreign Legion where they interviewed an American Legionaire who was rejected by the US Army but accepted into the Legion. So if one really looks deep into the matter, your argument concerning my asthma falls flat.



(Funny how you're not too "asthmatic" to puff on cigars all day...)

:rolleyes: The last time I smoked a cigar was July 5 and I was not puffing on them all day. Nice try.


Now that's pretty damning indeed, and it's no surprise you are horrified by the reality of women warriors.

Its pretty hard to be horrified at something that far from a reality, and pointing out rare cases do not prove your point. Every rule is defined by its exceptions as Aristotle stated.

Didn't we have this before? I think it ended with something like:

Some(very few) women faught(often badly) in war(mainly skermishes), in armies(or war bands), in ancient times.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Didn't we have this before? I think it ended with something like:

Some(very few) women faught(often badly) in war(mainly skermishes), in armies(or war bands), in ancient times.It ended with something like that probably because Perun (badly) made that argument. That doesn't make it true. It's not.

Because warfare is a serious life or death situation and come cannot fool around with this kind of nonsense. Creveld again deals with this perfectly that women are only seen in militaries that are not fighting for the very existance of the societies they wish to protect.You mean Creveld made a fool out of himself. The USSR was fighting for its very existence in WWII. The USSR also had about a million women-at-arms, many of whom were on the front lines. Really, this is why so many people give Creveld zero credibility.

It ended with something like that probably because Perun (badly) made that argument. That doesn't make it true. It's not.

I'm not suggesting it is.

You mean Creveld made a fool out of himself. The USSR was fighting for its very existence in WWII. The USSR also had about a million women-at-arms, many of whom were on the front lines. Really, this is why so many people give Creveld zero credibility.

Yeah a million out of a total of 12 million, so even at their height women made up 1/12 of Soviet military strength. Only 250,000 of those million were actually trained in using weaponry(this by itself does not prove they saw combat). 250,000 out of a total of 12 million? Thats less than 1% of the USSR's total manpower, so give me a fucking break here. If you want to overglorify the supposed actions of less than 1% of the Red Army be my guest, it wont get you far.

So just by the numbers alone, the argument about Red Army women fighting on the front lines is not impressive. The USSR had plenty of male soldiers to do the fighting without them.

If you glance at almost any photage of WW2, you dont see any women around. The only photage of women we ever see is a shot of them parading around and target practicing.

So in many ways Bathory, your argument just falls flat on its face.

I thought the Russian army in WWII was bigger than 12 million? I remember reading in places that Russian army deaths were 10 million.

Or maybe that was casualties. Too many people confuse the two.

I thought the Russian army in WWII was bigger than 12 million? I remember reading in places that Russian army deaths were 10 million.

The actual figure is believed to be about 20 million army deaths and I believe 7 million civilian.

I thought the Russian army in WWII was bigger than 12 million? I remember reading in places that Russian army deaths were 10 million.

The Wehrmacht numbered 3-4 million during WW2, yet suffered 8-10 million dead during the war. We dont know the exact numbers of how many in total served in the Red Army, but at its height it numbered 12 million. I can quote this if you want.

The USSR had plenty of male soldiers to do the fighting without them. Exactly, but they used over a million women anyway. Which shows that women are useful in combat roles.

The women are thought to have come from the Danube region of Eastern Europe, which was where the Ancient Greeks said the fearsome Amazon warriors could be found.

And all this time I thought they could be found on Paradise Island, its chief industries including the mining of Feminum and the manufacture of golden lassos and magic belts, with travel to it these days being limited to The Invisible Jet.

And all this time I thought they could be found on Paradise IslandNo, you'd have to go there to find a working Nazi state.

The Wehrmacht numbered 3-4 million during WW2, yet suffered 8-10 million dead during the war.

I assume you mean 3-4 mil at any one time, including foriegn auxiliaries.

I assume you mean 3-4 mil at any one time, including foriegn auxiliaries.
Is he including the Waffen SS( which accounted for most foreign auxillaries)? I don't think he is including the troops who technically( though not really in practice) under indepedent command. The Italians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, and Rumanians not directly brought into the Waffen SS.

The Waffen-SS wasn't a part of the Wehrmacht, let alone the Heer.

By the end of the war, it was only 50% German, making it sort of a "German Foriegn Legion". Funnily enough, a good number of Waffen-SS veterans went on to serve in the French Foriegn Legion, a lot in places like Vietnam and Algeria.