@Based_Accelerationist - ➡️ they might join as reinforcements if their men needed that, and they might take arms against their men if they attempted to flee.

I've been pondering if there's any sort of appreciable social-darwinian advantage to such a tactic... 🤔

But it also seems like an unmistakable sign of cuckery that reaches back into the mists of prehistory.

I don't seek to needlessly insult, but to understand. And maybe Germanic tribal culture was particularly ➡️

@Based_Accelerationist - ➡️ susceptible to Christianity, due to the elevated status of their women? 🤔

I dunno... But I want to not repeat that sort of mistake in the rebuild, so a conscious effort is needed - but figuring out the direction that effort should be applied to is tough.

Germanics had a lot going for them. So yeah, just food for thought I guess, in finding that dividing line. 🍻

@YoMomz Sounds like an advanced form of "white feather" shaming then. Highly doubt they served as reinforcements, that's the last thing a man needs to endure in the heat of battle, his own wife. No way that's a common practice. Now I don't trust whoever wrote that book.

@Based_Accelerationist - Lol! 🤣 Prehistory was crazy. Everything was trial and error.

I think it was Tacitus's account, maybe Caesar mentioned it too? 🤔 Don't quote me on that.

@YoMomz That's definitely the right mentality to have when researching history.

"Bringing their women into battle as cheerleaders" sounds like they were watching the whole thing up-close. I'm guessing the leaders allowed the women to reunite with their men after the battle, so they wouldn't be so homesick and reminded them of what they were supposedly fighting for, serving as a morale boost.