Talk:Women in post-classical warfare

History or Legend?

There seem to be some legendary figures and stories in the list along with the strictly historically verifiable ones. Should we keep both? If we do, we certainly need to identify clearly which incidents are historically verifiable and which are less so. Xandar 21:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Doublet

• 8th century:[12]Shieldmaidens fight at the Battle of Bråvalla on the side of the Danes.[13]

and

• 750: Veborg, as well as many other Shieldmaidens, participate in the Battle of Bråvalla in Sweden.[16]

Cunibertus (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Princess Pingyang

The original text stated that she had formed the "woman's army" though according to the article on her she raised 70,000 soldiers to form the "Lady's Army" with her as general. Slight translation difference but does change historical accounts. Chalchiuhtlatonal (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Women in warfare or simply women who conducted war?

Should this:

1425-1428: Jacqueline of Hainault conducts a war against Philip III, Duke of Burgundy, over the succession to the County of Holland which Jacqueline had inherited from her father Count William VI.

Really be here? As far as I understand, Jacqueline of Hainault only issued a war the same way as any other female monarch did: she did not fight personally on the battle field. I thought this list was suppose to be about women who actually participated actively in warfare? If examples such as the above is allowed, well: then we can include virtually all female monarch that ever declared war with another country, could we not? That would make the list quite pointless, as this list is relevant because it lists the exceptions from the rule that women were not suppose to participate in war. So: should all the female monarchs in wikipedia, who's country was engaged in war during their reign, be included? We could start to add them any time. Great Britain was involved in a lot of wars during the reign of Queen Victoria--Aciram (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Victoria wasn't medieval, but aside from that, there certainly were a lot of medieval female rulers who did not actually participate in battle. There's nothing particularly unusual about that. If we added them all it would just be a list of female rulers. (Melisende of Jerusalem is another on who jumps out at me...none of the queens of Jerusalem ever fought in battle.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. That is my point: either this is a list about women who actively participated in war, which was a social exception and therefore something which makes a list relevant - or this list should include also women who declared war as the head of a state, just as Jacqueline did - which would make the list pointless. So: should Jacqueline be left in the list or removed from it? --Aciram (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I would remove her. Melisende too, and who else? Margaret of Anjou? Maybe the question is who shouldn't be removed... Adam Bishop (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I already tried, but it was reverted, so I brought it up here: perhaps she did actually accompany her troops in battle, but in that case, the text should say so, otherwise she should not be there. I have no information about Melisende, so I can't comment on her: but did not Margaret of Anjou wear an armour and accompany her troops in war at some occasion? I know she does in novels, so I was wondering if she did so at least once in reality, which could explain her presence here. If she lead her own troops in war, I could perhaps accept her being here, but I do not know if she did. Of course, they are several examples which deserves to be here, and to find them and seeing them chronologically makes the list important and valuable, but the list should not be overcrowded with people who seem to be placed her just to make the list longer. If Jacqueline actually followed her troops in to battle, which could perhaps be possible, the text should say so, and if this is not clarified, she should be removed, I think. The same goes, of course, for all the female monarchs mentioned here who stayed at home while their soldiers fought the war for them. --Aciram (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I was going through the list some more, but the definition at the beginning is rather vague. It's not really "women literally fighting in battle", so the ones we object to are not really out of place. It's more the case that a lot more of them could be added. But as we have said, this would also make the list essentially pointless, since there wouldn't be any female ruler in the Middle Ages who was not "involved in warfare" in some sense. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the text and definition should be altered in a way which would make the list relevant, otherwise the list is in danger of being deleted for not being relevant. Only women who participated in active warfare could be considered relevant enough to deserve this specific list. I believe this list is important - I often consult it myself and I have added several examples to it and to its adjoining lists - so it must be altered in a way which makes its presence at wikipedia relevant and protect it from being deleted in any case. If no one protests - and I do not think there is in fact a valid protest - then you have my full support in altering the definitions of these lists to the phrase "active warfare" or something similar, and clearly states that no woman involved in indirect warfare such as monarchs are allowed unless they actually lead their own armies and was present at the battle fields; I believe that they are women who were. We can accept women who served as spies, organised and lead the defence of their castles under siege, and lead and accompanied their troops in to war, which still includes, for example, several English noblewomen during the English civil war. But all the female monarchs, who conducted war without doing so, are here incorrectly, endangers the lists survival here at wikipedia, and should be removed. You have my support in doing this as well. Should we wait for someone to protest before considering this a decision? --Aciram (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I recommend inviting Ashelareh to the discussion: she/he created the list, watches the changes to it, and should be informed for the changes to be accepted as permanent--Aciram (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

As there are no objections to the conclusion in the discussion above since the last post, I trust it will be correct to adjust the text of the article and remove the people who did not participate in active warfare. The conclusion of the discussion is in short:

• this list is only relevant on Wikipedia if it is a list of women who participated in active warfare, and those who did not should be removed by any one at any time.
• Women who served as soldiers, participated in active warfare, lead armies in war or served as spies. Those who did not can and will be removed. If they are not removed, this list is not relevant and therefore in danger of being deleted, which in my eyes would be a truly great shame.--Aciram (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Necessary changes: change of article name

In accordance with the above discussion, I have begun to make the necessary changes. This list must be a list of exceptions, and female monarchs conducting war was in no way what so ever exceptions. The introduction text must be altered to specify that only women participating in active warfare are included in the list. Otherwise they are not exceptions and therefore their presence makes the list non-relevant.

In short, women who:

• fought as soldiers, served as spies, actively lead armies or defended castles or cities are included in the list (whether monarchs or not)
• female monarchs who conducted war without doing anything above was just as common as male monarchs conducting war; they are therefore not relevant to have their own list, and they are therefore not included.

I trust no one have any objections to this. The changes are not big, but they are necessary to ensure the lists relevance and thereby survival here on wikipedia. The only thing to to is really to remove the female monarchs who did not participate in active warfare and to insert a "active warfare" in the specifications in who should be included.

In accordance to his, the article name should be altered to: "Women in active warfare and the military in the medieval era". This is a very small change, but it is a necessary one. --Aciram (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm adding an edit for a wiki.edu college class.

I'm using scholarly sources to add to this page. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.48.39 (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Low quality article, NPOV

I believe this article does not meet the criteria required of a good quality Wikipedia article. It is a haphazard mix of historical references and myths, motivated mainly by feminist political propaganda, and not by the desire to provide quality source of objective information. To remedy that, I propose remove all unproven, mythical figures from the list, expand the article with broader, more in-depth analysis of the topic at hand, i. e. whether there were some military unit composed mostly of women (or mixed military units), what battles they participated in and with what results, etc. OR - change the name of the page so that it is clear it focuses on myth and folklore tales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamamura (talk • contribs) 12:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Madamxiancrop.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)