Most of what Kromey said is true and I mostly am supporting of it. I am, however, going to point out some of the obvious trends of history mostly to show how your military culture may develop.
First, I'm going to come out and say it, women, on average, have less upper body strength and thus are not as good as front line infantry as men. Some women will be stronger then your average man and kick butt, and some men weaker then your average woman, but you should acknowledge the statistical average for imagining how it would affect what roles women would most likely take.
This is not relevant for many types of militaries. Many militaries have one effective tactic that they emphasise and train everyone in. These militaries will simply put women and men all together for the same tactics. For that matter many militaries were disorganized throwing together of men (and women) with swords and pointing them to the general direction with little concept to advanced units or tactics (if you have enough people it's easier to overwhelm others than try to train everyone for anything fancy). However, it sounds like you are more interested in a military with more complex combined arms and specialized roles.
For more specialized militaries I think women would naturally be suggested/preferred for areas where upper body strength was less relevant. Note I say suggested, not forced or required. Unless you have cultural reasons for it your military will likely allow people to train in whatever role they choose to emphasise in without forcing people in to specific roles. Women will thus likely be in every role out there, However, at the same time some roles may be seen as a better fit for women and tend to have women choose to pursue more often.
Getting back to the point, I think this would most be demonstrated in magic. Simply put more women would be encouraged towards magical combat than melee because it makes the most tactical sense for them. If you assume women and men are equally capable at using magic, but men have a better upper body strength which gives them a slight edge in melee sword fights, and a significant edge in range with a bow, then logically it makes more sense for a woman to focus on the magical side of combat where there isn't a potential strength disadvantage. Some women may not feel like doing magic, or may have an aptitude for another combat form, or simply have the build to be good at the other formats, which is why women will likely show up in all roles, but statistically speaking a larger percentage will choose to focus on the area where they have a more equal footing.
This would, in turn, likely lead to men being slightly encouraged towards infantry and bow work, because you need a decent number of all roles and if women are tending towards one you need men to consider the other just to keep from having an over abundance of mages. This would thus lead to a culture that has a slight focus on the concept of men as infantry and women as mages. This culture may not be to the extreme that there is heavy bias and prejudice against someone going in a non-traditional role, but it should be acknowledged as at least a subconscious presumption.
Do people presume a women are all naturally better at magic simply because more women in the military use it on average? Maybe infantry men will complain about the lack of women in their platoon making it harder to find romantic partners due to women being less likely to choose that role. It wouldn't be a significant impact on your overall story, since women would still exit in all roles, but it could add some culture and some of that world building that makes your world feel a little more alive.
Of course you would see plenty of women, as well as men, in all of the many other roles of military, like organization, generals, leadership, etc. Maybe women are more prone to these roles simply because society wants more men on the frontline where their upper body strength gives them an advantage. Though again I don't think this has to be a significant part of the story, just background world building details.
I think that women in any role would likely be held to exactly the same standard as men though. They would have to carry the same heavy packs, do the same work, eat the same food, live the same life. If you hold them to any less standards you're making a weak point in your military.
One option if you would like a more even distribution of sexes in roles is to find ways to de-emphasise physical upper body strength in these roles. For instance I think the use of crossbows over traditional bows could make upper body strength less relevant, certain systems use the whole body to load rather than just the arms which makes upper body strength irrelevant. Horse archery with crossbows would work equally well with any sex, the emphasis is far less on upper strength than coordination, aim, and balance. To make infantry fit more with women simply add use of melee weapons that are less about upper body strength (don't know enough about melee combat to say which). Or alternatively add in light magic use even with melee fighters, which would make quick thinking and good use of magic distractions and fancy swordwork more relevant than pure strength.
Relations would be something to consider. Kromey was pretty accurate with everything he said here, but remember there would likely be more men then women in infantry and traditional archery platoons. This could lead to 'fighting' over the women. I think the obvious response would be to strongly discourage any romantic relationship between women and men in the military, which actually is often done for other reasons too. This is mostly relevant because of just how long a military march can be in these timeframes, the military would be in very close areas for very long times so avoiding potential drama between platoon mates is always good. Perhaps relationships between people of different platoons would be considered acceptable, just not within the same platoon.
Pregnancy, as mentioned, would be another concern, but I can't see the military having much luck with banning all sexual intercourse, military people are pretty notorious for living 'in the moment' and being pretty rowdy as soon as they get to a base with members of the opposite sex. You would have a hard time preventing sex, even if it was technically forbidden. I would say it's more realistic to have it 'strongly discouraged', but admit that it does happen anyways. Of course use of magic or herbs to prevent pregnancy makes it easier, otherwise simply acknowledge that some women will get pregnant and if they make it far enough along without the obvious miscarriage occurring they get medical leave and are shipped off with the wounded until they deliver or something.
Separate tents (remember, most of the time you're likely in the field) for sexes would likely be done for much the same reason, the desire to mitigate romantic liaisons in the field. It doesn't take much more logistics to put people of the same sex in the same tent. Of course your tent may be right next to the guys tent, I doubt they will put in the time to try to have completely separate areas for sexes, just that everyone in a tent is expected to be the same sex.
Otherwise, I really don't think this requires much creativity. The two sexes are mostly the same, one doesn't need to redefine or restructure anything to make it happen. Look at our modern forces, where women are in almost every role men are in without much issue (though I still don't know why we don't let women do every combat role, upper-body strength means nothing in modern military so it's just stupid to treat the sexes remotely different. I wish we were more egalitarian).