In this setting, the family unit is based around a clan system. An individual's wealth and status is related to the clan they are born in, and its ancestry is based on matrilineal lines. Marriage does not exist in the form we would recognize. Women remain in the clan they were born into, and support it throughout their lives.

Elven boys exit their clans upon reaching adulthood. These males leave their families to join small bands of males who live as nomads. Roving bands of these men wander the countryside, hunting and living off the land, moving when neccessary. During breeding season, these bands visit one of these small clans, spend the season, and then leave to go back to their lives.

However, these roving bands can be dangerous. Being made to live off the land, they may be forced to compete with each other for resources. This turns them into seasoned hunters and warriors. Many can see the small clans, made up of women to be easy prey. Some warlord may even decide to join forces and bring many bands together to dominate the weaker clans. Without the equalizing force of technology we have today, this presents a problem.

I need a way to make this viable so that it is actually possible to make this happen in the ancient world. Religion is always the go-to answer for why people do things, but that doesn't seem enough in this case for partial reasons. What set of circumstances would I need to introduce in order to make this culture and way of life stable over the long term?


closed as off-topic by JBH, ltmauve, Cyn, StephenG, dot_Sp0T Jun 18 at 10:27

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ This is too broad and POB. What technologies are available to the women? What is the geography around (each and every) clan? What is the physiology of the species? Frankly, what makes this different from every homesteading settlement in the U.S. old west period? Remember, WB questions are about rules and systems. Off-topic questions are about circumstances, actions, and plot. This is asking what action the characters should take. Can you be more specific? Can you make this about culture rather than character actions? $\endgroup$ – JBH Jun 16 at 17:31
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ There's a conflict between "An individual's wealth and status is related to the clan they are born in" and "Boys exit their clans upon reaching adulthood. These males leave their families to join small bands of males who live as nomads". What use is clan allegiance? You might be the firstborn son of the empress of the eastern isles, but that ain't gonna slaughter no mammoths. Hunter-gatherers prize competence and charisma when it comes to respect and power. There's no room for dead weight, after all. $\endgroup$ – Starfish Prime Jun 16 at 19:54
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I know bards aren't that popular a class but ancient touring boy bands didn't even have amplification, never mind social media. I may have misread your title a couple of times, the first couple of paragraphs didn't make it any better. $\endgroup$ – Separatrix Jun 17 at 8:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the biggest problem here, is simply your assumption that there is actually a question to answer. You haven't said anything that explains to me, why the women would automatically be weak or undefended or unable to do what the males do. Can you clarify the issue that creates the wjestion you want us to.address? $\endgroup$ – Stilez Jun 17 at 11:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @elemtilas done $\endgroup$ – Incognito Jun 21 at 7:59

11 Answers 11


Three pieces of tech that have been protecting humans from other humans for 5000 years.

  1. Hill forts.

Fortified villages.


The women live on fortified hills. They can see people coming from a distance and they watch. It is a costly endeavor to try to storm one of these hill forts because the women are good shots and they have a lot of arrows. And poison.

  1. Dogs.

wild dogs These semi-feral dogs live in the fields around the fort. The women encourage them and feed them, sometimes. The dogs keep out herbivores. They also keep out men.

3. Better the devil you know...

The men are no dopes. When it comes breeding time, they know what is up. A band of men will stake out territory in the countryside around a given hill fort. If some other band shows up to get in position, they will have to fight for it. The local band is a known quantities to the women, and these locals do not want to screw up the good thing they have going. They are going to respect the ladies and their system and in turn they get let inside the walls once a year. Random dudes in the hinterlands are out of luck.

If a serious band of marauders does show up and overpower the local band, surviving men will head for the hill fort. They have to get past the dogs, but if a couple of the regular guys show up with their tails between their legs, the women will know to light the fires and get ready.

  • 16
    $\begingroup$ +1 just for pointing out that men would lay claim to clans. Kinda like lions and their prides. In fact, this symbiotic relationship would be almost culturally unavoidable. $\endgroup$ – JBH Jun 16 at 17:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I like the dogs idea, but the issue there is that you need a decent supply of meat to keep your dogs in good condition, and that places certain requirements on the sorts of farming, fishing or trade that the female population need to engage in. I suspect that chariots or cavalry would be somewhat anachronistic given the "ancient world" requirement, alas, and there aren't too many dangerous, domesticable herbivores about. $\endgroup$ – Starfish Prime Jun 16 at 19:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @StarfishPrime If your setting is Europe, cows are an excellent choice. In Spain in particular, they have have made it a national sport to anger a cow and then try not to get killed. America has their own cows as well. Not sure if there are any native to Australia, but if not, a kangaroo will do just fine. $\endgroup$ – John Dvorak Jun 17 at 12:58
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnDvorak alas, I am unaware of anyone having made use of War Cows, or War Boars, or anything else quite like that. If I were creating a fantasy world, I'd be unleashing my armies of Hippoes and ain't nobody gonna laugh at them for very long. Kangaroos now, hmm. That's a very interesting idea, and perhaps wone worthy of more thought... $\endgroup$ – Starfish Prime Jun 17 at 13:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StarfishPrime I don't have much drawing skills, but I'm somewhat proficient in Googling. Enjoy a war kangaroo. $\endgroup$ – John Dvorak Jun 17 at 13:38

Assuming that (1) we are speaking about humans and (2) by "ancient world" we are to understand the historical ancient world, that is, no pre-historical hunter-gatherers, then the way of life described in the question can be made stable over the long term, but probably not as the querent envisioned it.

The problem comes from the huge disparity between the population densities of a settled agricultural society and a dispersed hunter-gatherer society.

Since the question speaks about the ancient world we must assume that the matriarchal clans are settled in villages or towns and practice some sort of agriculture. This enables them to reach reasonably high densities and total numbers of inhabitants. But then the question says that boys are expelled at 12 or 14 years of age (when they "reach adulthood" according to ancient conventions) and go to live from hunting and gathering. This has the immediate consequence that most men die young, and thus in the world of the question there are many more women than men. And those males who don't die young must by necessity live in very small groups scattered far and wide, for the hunter-gatherer lifestyle cannot support dense populations.

Moreover, the hunting and gathering men cannot possibly be "seasoned warriors". Fierce brawlers, yes, quite possibly. Fearless fighters, acceptable. Seasoned warriors, nope. War as practiced by half-starved hunter-gatherer barbarians is simply not at the same level as war practiced by civilized settled societies.

So in the end the civilized women can easily fend off attacks by the barbarian men. Women have numbers on their side, they have actual military formations and tactics and discipline, and they have fortifications. How do I know that they have fortifications? Because everybody had fortifications in the antiquity. Even a ditch and an earthen rampart, what the Romans called a vallum, are force multipliers. (Fun note: the English word "wall" comes from Latin vallum, an earthen fortitication consisting of a ditch and rampart. A proper wall is murus in Latin.)

All right, so the barbarian men are too few, too dispersed and too barbarian to pose a significant threat to the civilized women. What can be done to make them more fearsome, while preserving as much as possible from the premiss of the question?

Simple. Ditch hunting and living of the land and make them nomadic pastoralists.

Nomadic pastoralism was indeed a well recognized way of life in the antiquity, and not only. Some cultures, for example the Lapps and the Mongolians, preserved it well into the modern age.

Make the sexual division of labor in this world more pervasive than in our real history: have the women labor the land and grow crops, while men roam the wide plains with their herds in search of pasture.

Such an approach would naturally lead to the conflict between tribes of nomadic pastoralists, reminiscent of the range wars known from American westerns; it would also naturally lead to conflict between free-roaming open-range pastoralists and the settled crop-growing women.

  • But in this case, wouldn't women (smaller, physically weaker, etc. stereotypes) be certain to lose? No. The settled women would still have an advantage in numbers, albeit smaller than in the case of confronting scattered hunter-gatherers; they would still have an advantage in culture and discipline; they would still have fortifications.

  • But didn't the nomadic pastoralists Mongols conquer the world? Well, they did indeed conquer a lot of land, which then they promptly lost. We will never know what would have happened in the end if the Mongols had persisted in their invasion of Europe; I for one think that they would have been beaten even if they had not decided on their own to abandon the attempt. Anyway, better to have those feminine settlements be somewhere not in the featureless boundless steppe.


  • "Breeding season": humans do not have a breeding season. Better make the sexual congress take place in the autumn, after the crops are gathered and everybody feasts.

  • "Some warlord may even decide to join forces and bring many bands together to dominate the weaker clans": and what's keeping the settled towns from banding together to defend their lands? That's the ancient and time tested response to external threats: form a confederacy, a kingdom, an empire. The plucky warlord will realize that what he has done is piss off the mighty Empress of the Fertile Valleys. The bards sing to this day the heroic feats of arms seen in the epic battles.

  • $\begingroup$ "half-starved hunter-gatherer barbarians" oh, come on now. You should know better than that. "the hunter-gatherer lifestyle cannot support dense populations" by which you mean usually does not support dense populations. The people of the pacific northwest did extremely well for themselves, for example. $\endgroup$ – Starfish Prime Jun 16 at 19:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StarfishPrime: I have no idea how well the people of the peaceful northwest did. I don't even know who those people were. Link please, even to WIkipedia? (My knowledge of things American is rather limited, and what little there is is shamefully out of date: but I am curious and willing to read.) (And when the question asks for the "ancient world" I naturally think of the Old World.) $\endgroup$ – AlexP Jun 16 at 19:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Huh. I was not expecting that response, and am slightly unprepared for it ;-) The matter is a complex one, and the wikipedia link is basically an index rather than an informative overview, and I don't have any other good resources off the top of my head. As a very, very brief summary: the amount of food that could be obtained by hunting and gathering there allowed for unusually large permanent settlements and a quite elaborate culture. $\endgroup$ – Starfish Prime Jun 16 at 19:39
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @StarfishPrime Without men in constant proximity, you're not likely to have as many children. It's also fairly likely that a society run by women would not have the same taboos around sharing knowledge of childbirth techniques, compared to one run mostly by men with a male-centred religion. There's no way around child mortality, but at least midwifery might be better. $\endgroup$ – Graham Jun 17 at 1:50
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @AlexP the TL;DR is they hit the jackpot: the Pacific Northwest is basically a temperate rainforest, the apex predators are remarkably chill because food is ridiculously plentiful, and the humans mostly got their food from the ocean. So plentiful fish, little conflict with the local predators, and a near ideal climate meant the hunter/gatherer strategy supported many more people than in other parts of the world. $\endgroup$ – Morgen Jun 17 at 8:17

If we assume that we are speaking about humans or a sufficiently similar species, I can imagine one way that can be achieved comparatively easily.

Whether you want to implement it would depend on the degree of cynicism and brutality you want to have in your setting.

It's a primitive, but a pretty effective practice of population control that archaic societies actually often employed - castration. It's pretty horrific, but not much more then female circumcision that is still practiced in some regions.

The eunuchs would then stay in the female villages, and the proportion of villagers to rowing males would be quite far from natural 1:1. The precise proportion of men who are cut to those who are left whole can also be different, depending on the result you want. If you want the maximum genetic diversity with the minimal number of males, they would banish the firstborn son of every woman at puberty and cut all subsequent ones.

The cultural attitude to such practice and the attitude of eunuchs themselves can also be quite different. On one end of the spectrum, they can be treated as property and traded between clans (as women sometimes were, historically) - then you may have a pretty disgruntled portion of population. On the other end, especially if property and status are family matter and not individual, they can stay with their mothers and sisters, working to improve the position of the family and getting privileges from that themselves. In that case, eunuchs can actually count themselves more lucky then those 'whole' males that were banished to the wild lands in puberty. In that case, most of the people in this society won't even think there's anything obviously wrong in their arrangement.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I was going to suggest a more surreptitious poison'n'backstab approach whereby the wrong kind of men tended to get culled from the flock by cunning rather than outright violence, but this idea is much better. $\endgroup$ – Starfish Prime Jun 16 at 19:30
  • $\begingroup$ I think it's pretty clear we're NOT talking about humans. Maybe something close, but having a breeding season and a culture structured around the separation of sexes is a strong indicator. $\endgroup$ – elemtilas Jun 17 at 17:06
  • $\begingroup$ @elemtilas sexual dimorphism where males are slightly bigger, faster, stronger and more aggressive than females (as OP specified) is 'sufficiently similar' for the purposes of my answer. Honestly, before the edits I've assumed that 'breeding season' was speaking figuratively. And significant separation of sexes is not completely unheard of in human cultures either - archaic 'youth houses', various religious and monastic communities, harems and even 19 century boarding schools. $\endgroup$ – Cumehtar Jun 20 at 23:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Cumehtar --- The OP edited the question to change that variable a) after I wrote my answer and b) after I made the above comment. The original query made no mention of sexual dimorphism with larger males. $\endgroup$ – elemtilas Jun 20 at 23:58

The way you describe them sounds like this is a hard-wired, bred-in bioevolutionary situation. In other words, we're not dealing with human beings, but rather with a different race. Having had some experience with such races in my own world, I'll offer the following:

I would posit that the females of this race, living separated from the adult males, will do what females must. They will be their own warriors, their own hunters, their own watchmen, their own scouts. This works well if they're close in size and strength to males.

I would suspect that because of their biology and their social wiring, males have no interest in females except during the mating season. Once the girls' pheromones wear off and pregnancies are ensured, that's the last they'll see of their boyos until next time. It may be that, perhaps unknown to the females, their males kind of look after them from a distance. They may not live in one community, but these associations of males may wander from place to place in a broad territory that encompasses the smaller territories of their females.

  • $\begingroup$ "the females of this race, living separated from the adult males, will do what females must. They will be their own warriors, " Well, they can try. In this case, at least statistically, biology is destiny, and women are on the wrong side of sexual dimorphism. To be blunt, when it comes to swinging a sword or a club, or pulling a bow, the average woman is at a real disadvantage compared to the average man. Then there's the whole aggression bit, with women at a disadvantage due to their hormonal deficiency: low testosterone levels attendant on lack of testicles. $\endgroup$ – WhatRoughBeast Jun 17 at 21:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The OP didn't ask about humans. I'm not describing humans. Just because almost every answer assumes humans doesn't mean we need to fall into the trap of assumption. $\endgroup$ – elemtilas Jun 17 at 21:21
  • $\begingroup$ @WhatRoughBeast - there are species where the larger, stronger, more dominant are the females. What turned out one way for human folk need not be the same for, as elemtilas mentions, not-human-folk $\endgroup$ – Megha Jun 19 at 8:09

Have you thought of a trading structure?

You're right that living off the land as a hunter / forager is going to make the male bands more dangerous; there's a reason why we as a species took up agriculture and it basically boils down to being able to support more people in smaller territories. Agriculture allows us to use all the arable land available to us to produce food, rather than relying on the randomness of what plants grow in a given area that are food-bearing as a percentage of the whole. The disadvantage of cropping for the most part is that it's a relatively long term investment during which the land has to be protected from the very marauders you describe in your roving bands of males.

So, on the one hand you have a female clan that probably has agriculture to support themselves in a smaller but fixed territory, and you have men who can defend those positions if needed and also hunt. So, my proposal is that the men trade with the women outside of mating season.

The women can provide vegetables, baked goods and the like that help sustain the men. The men can provide meat, and in dangerous times, can also provide defensive capabilities.

It is possible that this kind of arrangement may effectively tie specific male bands to specific female clans, but then that is likely to happen in any event as the roaming bands are still likely to want to stick to a given territory that they know well rather than roam in a random manner, risking not being close to essential resources like water when it's really needed. Nomads that live off the land as they move about seldom do wander randomly, especially in areas where resources are limited. Better to do without at known intervals than to risk losing everything by gathering resources out of unknown lands.


Pretty much by the same mechanism that tribes of males or males and females survive. By being effective and cooperative warriors. There is a saying -- Bows make men and women equal. Okay, it's not really a saying. But it ought to be. And, things like atlatl and the sling magnify human strength. Spears and stones don't care who through them if they hit their mark.

Plus, the chicks can bake cookies. And say, we have cookies!! And, the roving bands of marauding males are going to give it up. Cause ... who can say no to cookies?

  • $\begingroup$ You must be thinking of the Equalizer Bow, made by Mr Colt ? $\endgroup$ – Robin Bennett Jun 17 at 10:33
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, that must have been it. Thanks! I was thinking it was either Winchesters Repeating Bow or Smith&Wesson’s Nickel plated bows, but wasn’t sure which. $\endgroup$ – EDL Jun 17 at 13:42
  • $\begingroup$ @EDL whichever it is, until advance of guns, the bows wouldn't have been equalizers as much as you seem to assume. Physical strength would still determine how fast and -- crucially -- how far the arrow will fly. $\endgroup$ – Gnudiff Jun 17 at 14:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Gnudiff, I completely agree with your observation. But, the missile -- arrow or sling stone -- only needs to fly fast enough and far enough to kill or wound their opponent. Once that threshold is crossed, faster and farther doesn't make someone anymore dead. While the greater range has a benefit, accuracy is more important once that threshold is met $\endgroup$ – EDL Jun 17 at 15:21
  • $\begingroup$ @EDL A good point. As I am not an expert on shooting bows, I was wondering, however, how much the approximately up to 2x human male upper body strength would translate in larger accurate distance. If the accurate distance achieved by males would be significantly larger than achievable by females, it could translate in nullifying women's bow shooting in a number of cases. My thoughts were prompted by another question here on WB SE, where it was discussed if the bows required strength, and afai remember the answer was -- yes, to a significant degree. $\endgroup$ – Gnudiff Jun 17 at 15:31

Sorry, but I think I have to do frame challenge on the whole question, before speaking about organizing defenses, as it appears to me that some of your premises don't work together, unless you are willing to do some heavy handwaving or magic. Some of the issues were raised by @AlexP 's answer, but in addition:

1) Not only humans have no "breeding season", but it doesn't make much evolutionary sense that they should. Humans have the longest childhood of all known Earth animals. The only comparable animal is elephant. All the others reach maturity at least 5x times faster -- generally, a couple of years, max.

During this time children are vulnerable and weak. If there is a "breeding season", it means all children are born at approximately same time, and this incurs heavy penalty on the amount of women available to care for anything else. Of course, the same goes for the period of pregnancy.

Next, having all children of the same age around, heavily increases chances of a generation dying all together. For example, a heavy drought. Or a flood. Epidemy. Children of younger ages are much more susceptible to being killed by things that larger and older kids will survive.

2) Heavy work. Ancient world presumes most of work is hand-work. While females and males both can be assumed stronger physically than current day ones, in general, males of the human species can be expected to have about two times stronger upper body and up to about 1/3d stronger lower body. Whatever the settlement a clan lives in, what will they do, when they urgently need some wall repaired against predators, or a burst dam? Send for the nearest roving band, which might be a week away or more, when not "in breeding season"? Assigning twice as many females to the task, as the "surplus" men? Quite possible, but not very viable by survival economics -- in ancient times, and not only then -- there frequently was little enough food to go around. Add to it the "breeding season", and you really have a recipe for disaster: a lightning strike sets your settlement on fire, there have been hungry wolves spotted in vicinity, and half of your women are in the last months of pregnancy.

Due to (1) and (2) your premise of: "Boys exit their clans upon reaching adulthood. These males leave their families to join small bands of males who live as nomads. Roving bands of these men wander the countryside, hunting and living off the land" appears to place incredible burden on the women. Instead of having some division of work and the males at least regularly bringing back valuable sources of protein and fat, not to talk about doing the heavy lifting, you have males barely surviving in wilderness -- very much dependant on their luck, while women have to assign disproportionate amount of, well, women, doing the work that males could do faster/easier.

This separate living sounds like a recipe for extinction.

I am not even starting to consider that ancient communities were generally very wary and hostile of strangers, as compared to members of one's own clan. While you call your society "clans", what it amounts basically is men being expulsed from society, to form their own. What kind of loyalty could they be expected to have towards the women settlement then?

  • $\begingroup$ Framing challenges are legit, but do note that the query specifies that the race in question has a breeding season. They are obviously not humans. $\endgroup$ – elemtilas Jun 17 at 17:04
  • $\begingroup$ @elemtilas ah, you are right. I read some of the answers, and since they worked with presumption of humans, and some points in op question indicated it might be talking about humans, I presumed it did. $\endgroup$ – Gnudiff Jun 17 at 19:13
  • $\begingroup$ No worries! Most of the answers (all the ones I read, anyway) include boilerplate to the effect of "if we assume humans..." You're not alone! $\endgroup$ – elemtilas Jun 17 at 19:15

Because it would cause too much infighting between themselves.

With the males being nomadic hunters (and using the female camps as trading posts) it makes more sense for them to be small bands of a dozen or so - too many members, and you run into issues with either scaring the animals away, or not having enough food available to hunt. If a band get too large, then it will tend to split into two or more smaller bands.

On the other hand, the females are farming and never leave their clans. This means the clans will be larger. By only allowing males into the camp at certain times of year - and, presumably, by only allowing certain women to get pregnant (you don't want your entire workforce to be 9 months pregnant at the same time! Perhaps they take turns, or perhaps it's the most successful farmers?) they are more able to control the size of their population, but it is still likely to be much more than the roving bands of males.

This means that a female village will support multiple bands of males (certain industries are harder to maintain as nomads - for example, brewing beer, or working metal) which will often bee competing for the same resources out in the wilderness.

If any of these bands decide that they want to "take over", and claim the clan compounds and women, then the other bands will rally against them. A powerful or charismatic warlord trying to pull bands together into a larger force will run into logistical issues trying to keep them fed and happy, while also trying to keep his growing army from being noticed and put down before it can cut his rivals off from their annual conjugal visits.

On the other hand - as mentioned, metal working is one of the industries that is much, much easier when you have the ability to construct a static forge and mine. This means that the women in the village probably have easier access to superior weapons and armour (steel vs bronze?), and are more than capable of putting down the upstarts themselves.


I think the biggest problem with this scenario is that while your tribe of women might have religious reasons for expelling their young men, other tribes would not. Those other tribes would have all the advantages of a settled civilisation, plus they'd be able to raise a stronger army. Not only would their soldiers be (on average) larger and stronger, but losing soldiers in war would not reduce the tribe's ability to have children. Tribes that didn't expel half their workforce would, sooner or later, out-compete those who did.

So, you'd need a world where everyone had to live like this. The one that springs to mind is David Brin's Glory Season

Three thousand years before the story starts, Lysos founds a human colony on the isolated planet of Stratos in an effort to radically re-engineer human life into a happier, more pastoral form. She developed a strain of human beings that conceives clones in winter (always female), while those conceived in summer (variants or "vars") obtain their genes through sexual reproduction just in case biological adaptation becomes necessary.

Further, males and females have opposed seasons of sexual receptivity: men in summer and women in winter. This scheme is said to be stable over evolutionary time because women gain an advantage from self-cloning, while men only reproduce in summer. Finally, men have been made far less aggressive during the times that they are less sexually receptive and are much less numerous.

The social result is that the vast majority of the population of Stratos consists of groups of female clones, each in its own social or economic niche. Over the centuries, these groups have come to dominate society. Men are confined to relatively few professions (such as sailing) and have a lower social status than clones, but higher than vars. In each generation, a few women vars become successful enough to found their own clan or "hive" of clones.


Use the Byzantium system - rely on superior fortifications for defense while playing the different bands against each other to prevent them from fielding a large army against you.

Fortifications can be womanmade or natural, depending on the tech level and resources. In a low resources environment, a narrow valley with a wall on the entrance can be as impregnable as any fortress. enter image description here

On top of that, if the men are forced to live in very unforgiving, low resources conditions, their survival might at times require help from the women. For example, during winter some small bands might be given food, or even allowed inside (mating season right?) thus creating an intensive for them to be friendly with the women.

Of course if they disobey or grow too strong, another band can be selected to replace them...


The Women Are Amazing Warriors

Every female is trained from a young age to be a warrior. They are strong and have an organized military system, like Gengis Khan's: There's a group of ten soldiers in which the leader was chosen by vote, There's a group of ten groups of ten soldiers with 100 women in which the leader was chosen by vote, There's a group of ten groups of ten groups of soldiers with 1000 women in which the leader was chosen by the leader of the clan. Of course, as you said they are small clans, you can make the number of soldiers of each group lower, but this is up to you.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There would have to be a very good reason why females are chosen to be warriors instead of men. This would seem to be a rather unstable situation unless you are dealing with a species where females are larger, stronger or more aggressive than the males. $\endgroup$ – DrMcCleod Jun 17 at 9:21
  • $\begingroup$ @DrMcCleod The other reason why choosing females as warriors is suicidal for a clan/tribe, is that a killed man is usually at most a killed man. A killed woman is a gravestone on her potential children. Not a good survival strategy for ancient tribe, to send their women to war unless there are exceptional circumstances. $\endgroup$ – Gnudiff Jun 17 at 14:14

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.