Female councilors - historical precedent?

[viola]

Apparently the opression of women suddenly turned into a secret in the last 5 minutes. And that despite the fact we are discussing it here?
Fascinating.

And you think the systemic oppression of women through human history takes the form of some random guys going through archives and destroying any trace of female administrators because they really like the idea of systemically oppressing women?

Patriarchal societies are no secret, but I don't think they work like that.

 

[sandro chronicler]

In that case, the game is just nice enough not to bother us with that smokescreen.
If she is doing the decisions, it is her skill that has effeect.

The problem here is, if some women with money and connections (which definitely happened, we know many examples) really ruled through puppet mayor (i wouldn't be surprised if this many times happened historically), we wont gonna know about it - what point in being secret mastermind if everybody know your secret?

Change Manuela to Manuel about 100 year later. Done.

There actually was well known case, when successor of pharaoh Hatshepsut tried to cover up her whole existence (out of personal animosity, not misoginism). Why is this case so well known? Because it failed spectacularly. (btw, there is record of female regent as far back as 31th century bc...)

 

[Thure]

Change Manuela to Manuel about 100 year later. Done.

You are acting as if such a change was quantum physics. They were female humans, not aliens!

It's not that easy. You would have to change EVERY source which countains the name. And in many cases there is no place to add an additional letter. You would notice it. Also you would notice if the a was written by another person than the original text. So how exactly would you do this without anybody noticing? You don't know how medievqal manuscripts and documents and their research works, right? Also how would you REMOVE a letter? They didn't wrote their manuscripts with pencils. You can't use an eraser for it. You would have to stroke the a... and EVERYBODY would notice that. It's simply impossible to do something like this. I study history and work with medieval manuscripts and documents. There is no way to change a name on it 100 years later without anybody noticing it.

 

[WSRIII]

If people want women marshals, mayors, and Catholic bishops, make it a pre-game setting. But it shouldn't be permitted in the default rules.

 

[Thure]

If people want women marshals, mayors, and Catholic bishops, make it a pre-game setting. But it shouldn't be permitted in the default rules.

Female Catholic Bishops are a bug. They are not a feature. Mayors should't be female I agree. And Marshalls do make sense if they are landed noblewomen.

 

[JasperClay]

I think it's important to note that Paradox probably deliberately errs on the side of equality within the game. That makes sense: they gloss over a lot of the absolute grossest parts of medieval society, and the subjugation of women was a terrible facet of that era.

So, in a game that permits little flights of fancy - like the ability to create new religions, change cultures quickly, and have 5 emperors simultaneously in Europe - it's perfectly OK to make the crushing sexual inequality of the period a bit less awful.

 

[Karlington]

If people want women marshals, mayors, and Catholic bishops, make it a pre-game setting. But it shouldn't be permitted in the default rules.

Yeah, I think it would be neat if they added a Gender Equality game rule where you could have the default setting and also an Equal setting to make the sexes equal in doctrines and inheritance when it's enabled. In the interest of fairness they could also add an Inverted game rule where it would be reversed, so that we'd start with women dominating most faiths and realms.

I think this is a pretty cool idea, actually! It's not my idea, though. I just read straight off what's already in the game rules.

 

[philanthropic19]

Yeah, I think it would be neat if they added a Gender Equality game rule where you could have the default setting and also an Equal setting to make the sexes equal in doctrines and inheritance when it's enabled. In the interest of fairness they could also add an Inverted game rule where it would be reversed, so that we'd start with women dominating most faiths and realms.

I think this is a pretty cool idea, actually! It's not my idea, though. I just read straight off what's already in the game rules.

The issue is that the current Default setting of that Game Rule doesn't seem to produce results that are that "default" in terms of actual medieval history.

 

[Karlington]

The issue is that the current Default setting of that Game Rule doesn't seem to produce results that are that "default" in terms of actual medieval history.

Right, there have definitely been concessions made for playability purposes. Hence this thread.

 

[Prins Valiant]

So, in a game that permits little flights of fancy - like the ability to create new religions, change cultures quickly, and have 5 emperors simultaneously in Europe - it's perfectly OK to make the crushing sexual inequality of the period a bit less awful.

I have no problem with this being an option. My main two "issues" are:

1. Because of some mechanic in the game (male heirs dying on the field as knights are one of the suspects) after like 50-100 years there suddenly are a "lot" of women in positions of power. So the game seems to keep doing the same mistake over and over again. I prefer that the game if "left untouched" stay closer to real history. It would be perfectly fine if this happened once in a while, but at the moment, it seems to happen in a lot of games.
2. It's perfectly OK not making the sexual inequality of the period a big issue. However I would rather prefer that the game actually reflects that inequality and don't try to hide it. That doesn't do justice to the real women that lived in this age.

 

[Truronian]

I think the mayors thing could probably do with correcting, as we have historical evidence that female mayors were near unheard of in the time period. For councillors I don't mind as much; the council positions are kind of a catch-all for a liege's prominent courtiers that specialise in certain areas, and there were plenty of women historically who held sway in medieval courts even if their influence was somewhat unofficial.

 

[sandro chronicler]

If her brother hadn't died, the "election" would probably have been just a pro forma confirmation that he was the new thing. Margrete came to power because her father died without any clear heir. Through diplomacy it was decided that the regency should go to Margrete, this had nothing to do with the old "elective" institution.

What interesting here, is that none of the top noblesses usurped the tron, which happened quite often in similar situations. Basically, noblesses agreed to be ruled by Margret, and apparently seen nothing wrong with that (and, as far as i know, she wasn't nominal ruler, she was actually in charge)

That's really interesting question, while both elective monarchy and oligarchic republic work similarly - in both privileged elite choose one of their own as a ruler - former had at least some elected female rulers, while latter didn't.

It doesn't need to be re-quoted, it needs supporting evidence. Do you have any?

Well, that thing about North women running settlements is technically true - due to environment (harsh climate, geographic isolation) most settlements in medieval Scandinavia was really small, basically hamlets (it still true for most of Norway), and usually richest farmer, or minor noblesse if any was there, was in charge. Said leader's wife was helping in administration, and stayed in charge in her husband absents (which was often), and lead defence if need be. Widows often inherited their husband's manors too, due to somewhat higher status of women in Scandinavia.
In fact, there was one interesting example of woman that lead expedition into Vinland and established (temporary) settlement... while her husband stayed in Greenland.

Female Catholic Bishops are a bug. They are not a feature

Well, realm priest of county could probably be not a bishop, but an abbot... or abbess. Many of them had significant influence. Somewhat simplistic depiction of clergy in game didnt reflect this. In fact just 3 options for clergy gender and view on gender doctrines is not enough for reflecting realities of the era. *

P.s. apparently pre 12th century catholics had deaconess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaconess

P.s.s. *Interestingly, traditional Korean religion has opposed gender representation to catholic one - mostly female clergy with some low rank male clerics.

 

[Prins Valiant]

Basically, noblesses agreed to be ruled by Margret, and apparently seen nothing wrong with that (and, as far as i know, she wasn't nominal ruler, she was actually in charge)

She actually never styled herself as queen of Denmark. She started as a regent for her son Oluf. When he died, she managed to convince the "council" to allow her to keep her title as "regent of Denmark". And still - the reason she managed too acquire the position was because the Danish succession laws was so "advanced" that the right blood was more important than the right sex. Still, she reigned first for her son, next there was installed another heir (her sisters son). But yes, for all purposes she was a ruling queen, but she is more or less the ONLY ruling queen in Scandinavia EVER until the current queen Margrete II of Denmark (I think there are a couple of Swedish possible contenders).

Well, that thing about North women running settlements is technically true - due to environment (harsh climate, geographic isolation) most settlements in medieval Scandinavia was really small, basically hamlets (it still true for most of Norway), and usually richest farmer, or minor noblesse if any was there, was in charge. Said leader's wife was helping in administration, and stayed in charge in her husband absents (which was often), and lead defence if need be. Widows often inherited their husband's manors too, due to somewhat higher status of women in Scandinavia.

I cannot remember having read about norse wives inheriting their husbands. The point of the dowry was that the woman had an inheritance of her own in case her husband died. It might have happened if her husband died without any sons, no brothers etc, but I'm quite certain this is not correct.

It's also not a fact that women in norse Scandinavia had a higher status than what they did in later medieval ages. It is a popular "story" not without any basis in reality, but real history was probably more intricate. They were perhaps more free/had higher status in some fields, but in other fields, Christianity probably improved their status.

Well, that thing about North women running settlements is technically true - due to environment (harsh climate, geographic isolation) most settlements in medieval Scandinavia was really small, basically hamlets (it still true for most of Norway), and usually richest farmer, or minor noblesse if any was there, was in charge. Said leader's wife was helping in administration, and stayed in charge in her husband absents (which was often), and lead defence if need be. Widows often inherited their husband's manors too, due to somewhat higher status of women in Scandinavia.
In fact, there was one interesting example of woman that lead expedition into Vinland and established (temporary) settlement... while her husband stayed in Greenland.

 

[sandro chronicler]

I think there are a couple of Swedish possible contenders

Yup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina,_Queen_of_Sweden there maybe was more.
Anyway, other examples of elected queens (or female kings) are way claerer.

I cannot remember having read about norse wives inheriting their husbands. The point of the dowry was that the woman had an inheritance of her own in case her husband died. It might have happened if her husband died without any sons, no brothers etc, but I'm quite certain this is not correct.

It's also not a fact that women in norse Scandinavia had a higher status than what they did in later medieval ages. It is a popular "story" not without any basis in reality, but real history was probably more intricate. They were perhaps more free/had higher status in some fields, but in other fields, Christianity probably improved their status.

There was an book (unfortunately, only available in russian) that, based on sagas, conclude that law codes did not really reflect real status of women (and generally ignore women at all).
I remember reading about one example when viking captain abducted girl and made her his concubine. When she give birth to their son, she killed that viking in his sleep, and inherited all his property. (i honestly don't remember which saga it was)

 

[Undead Martyr]

The thing about the middle ages is that women tended to have substantial influence in court, without necessarily having any "official" title. Courtiers and councils are a possible way to model this, although could certainly be expanded upon.

IIRC the Catalan/Occitan nobility (which arguably included Eleanor) were reputed for having more influence than northern noblewomen.

Eta: I can't remember where I read it, but I've heard it argued that the early modern era saw a precipitous decline in women's influence and power. In the middle ages women were vital for maintaining broader familial clan ties and extended relations, could often start and manage businesses (eg burghers wives were basically fully equal partners in major enterprises, and women fulfilled a surprising number of industries, often working alongside their brothers, husband's etc on the farm or in the mills). The bureaucratization of states, and emergence of the nuclear family, both sharply curtailed women's influence and roles by making them more economically dependent on their male relations, and often locking them out of previous careers and positions.

 

[Prins Valiant]

Yup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina,_Queen_of_Sweden there maybe was more.
Anyway, other examples of elected queens (or female kings) are way claerer.

I really don't see what you are thinking this proves beyond the fact that the VAST majority of monarchs of Scandinavia from the beginning of history up until today was men. The only female regent in Denmark and Norway EVER is Margrete I (up until Margrete II). Sweden seems to have had two other queens and a female regent. That is a VERY low percentage of female monarchs and only proves that this is something that historically has happened very seldom.

There was an book (unfortunately, only available in russian) that, based on sagas, conclude that law codes did not really reflect real status of women (and generally ignore women at all).

One book that claims something is not evidence, it is one book claiming something. Why is it only available in Russian? If it contains some key information about the norse society, I find it very strange that it's not available in any of the nordic languages or English or German. If it's not, it would mean that it has probably not been read by the leading authorities on the subject, so it hasn't really been quality checked.

 

[Tiennos]

I can't remember where I read it, but I've heard it argued that the early modern era saw a precipitous decline in women's influence and power. In the middle ages women were vital for maintaining broader familial clan ties and extended relations, could often start and manage businesses (eg burghers wives were basically fully equal partners in major enterprises, and women fulfilled a surprising number of industries, often working alongside their brothers, husband's etc on the farm or in the mills). The bureaucratization of states, and emergence of the nuclear family, both sharply curtailed women's influence and roles by making them more economically dependent on their male relations, and often locking them out of previous careers and positions.

When the vast majority of the population lived through subsistance farming, every family needed everyone to work, from the kids to the elders, men and women alike. So even if the men were the head of the family, tasks were spread out between everyone so the women weren't simply relegated to housework.

When the economy switched from agrarian to industrial, the men worked to earn money, basically leaving the women to take care of all the work at home. I think that's why there was a decline in women's autonomy at the end of the middle ages.

Note that women's rights have varied hugely depending on the culture and the time period. For women in ancient Rome it was normal to do some politicking if their husbands were important people. In most of ancient Greece, women tended to have only slightly more rights than slaves. At the same time in Sparta, they were considered pretty important (albeit in the mildly disturbing way of "we need strong women to have strong babies to have strong soldiers")...

So it's not wise to make broad generalizations. What we can say is that society being dominated by men has been the norm and women in power has been the exception, but there were places where those exceptions were more likely to happen. Having game rules that apply to everyone would make it hard to reflect that.

 

[viola]

I think it's important to note that Paradox probably deliberately errs on the side of equality within the game. That makes sense: they gloss over a lot of the absolute grossest parts of medieval society, and the subjugation of women was a terrible facet of that era.

But not the brutal religious violence, the general political oppression, the torture and all that other fun stuff?

 

[JasperClay]

But not the brutal religious violence, the general political oppression, the torture and all that other fun stuff?

No, the game also glosses over that stuff. I don't think we need to list everything the game avoids, but it does literally skip portraying the most common form of torture women would be subjected to, for one obvious and notable example.

It's perfectly OK not making the sexual inequality of the period a big issue. However I would rather prefer that the game actually reflects that inequality and don't try to hide it. That doesn't do justice to the real women that lived in this age.

This entire thread is making an issue of it, and I have no idea why this is more immersion breaking than being able to declare a "Carpathian Empire" as Catholic Hungary, or the cost model of men-at-arms, or the control mechanic being so toothless it can't even represent the frequent breakdowns in Byzantine authority, which constantly spreads to Zaporzhia.

The game has lots of departures from history I think it needs to fix before I care about hammering out the finer points of the breadth of titles governed by Salic law in 1066.

 

[balmung60]

(albeit in the mildly disturbing way of "we need strong women to have strong babies to have strong soldiers")

Don't forget the last past, "... so the slaves we have do all of our actual economic work don't kill us all"