The Amazon Virus (RAR!)

[Zor]

In this scenario around 1000 CE a set of thirty two canisters fall from orbit over population centers in Europe, India, China and Japan. They decelerate down to a manageable speed and burst, releasing a fine spray of water which settles down as either rain or mist over the surrounding area. A few blacksmiths find some odd chunks of strange metal here and there, but it otherwise goes unnoticed. However, the water (or more specifically the synthetic viral contents that used said water as a medium for transport) have a noticeable effect on the human population.

For male humans and post pubescent females it does not do much besides make them carriers for the virus (which will fade away after a decade or so) and modified genes. For girls that are infected and born forthwith it has a major effect. Once going through puberty, if well fed women will reach an average height of 1.8 to 2 meters, weigh 80 kilos with a tendency towards a lean muscular build. They will also have a reinforced bone structure and an improved musculature allowing them to have about 1.25 times the upper body strength of a comparably sized man. There is no difference in brain structure or general personality between an effected woman and a non effected woman.

What is the consequence of said development?

Zor

[Crossroads Inc.]

Zor... I really worry about your mental health some times ;P
(sigh)

Ok, keeping in context that if these are ONLY Physical changes, and woman in general do not mentally become any more dominant or aggressive then normal... Considering the cultural male hegemony of the time, not much will initially change in regards to high society. Certain sexual fetishes may (ahem) become much more widespread than originally, and of course it will change males views on what is "Beautiful" as well as sexually appealing.

That said. The women right movement may happen far faster, not all at once, but in certain societies it may happen a bit more quickly. Others, well, some things never change.

[KraytKing]

Wartime manpower just doubled. Sure, it'll take some time before men are willing to give up their stranglehold, but desperation breeds innovation. Once they get over the new hierarchy, feudal lords are going to have a whole new population to draw from. With no one to raise the next generation and twice as many people dying in war, I imagine the world population is going to be affected significantly.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Perhaps in some regards, but remember for vast periods of time most woman were fully indoctrinated into what “the role of women was” ie, making and easing babies. I can imagine plenty of 8ft super woman looking at a sword or musket and say “why I could never hold that! That’s a mans work!”

That said, for those woman that do NOT think like that, it will certainly give a huge boost in self confidence.

The type of woman who would sign up to fight in bloody war, may usually not be the type popping babies out. So I don’t think it will effect population growth in THAT regards. One way I do think it will drastically change things is in the pre industrial societies.

Forgot warrior women, think of gaming women. A woman who can carry a 200lb hog with ease or do the work of several other farm hands. We would probably see a short term huge boost in the labor force on farms and the textile industry.

The problem I see is the male dominated society putting forth a “big but dumb” image for woman. They would have to work to avoid going from one stereotype:
“Small and fragil”
To another one
“Strong but stupid”
And told men must do the thinking for them

[Simon_Jester]

Let's see, this permanently alters DNA, right?

Bluntly, the inability of men to easily physically coerce women or to reliably outperform them at hard manual labor is going to start making a lot of differences pretty quickly. You may not see women signing up in armies in large numbers for an extended period of time.

But you will see, for example, a lot more widows trying to run their own farmsteads instead of having to sell them off to a man because they can't afford enough hired male labor to do all the physical heavy labor involved.

The social changes are going to come from the bottom up, and looking only at armies would cause you to miss out on a lot of them.

[Adam Reynolds]

Lack of effective birth control would prevent this from having as strong an impact as it otherwise could, and pregnancy would still be something at least somewhat used to keep men in power.

Before the modern age of high populations, amazons were a bad policy for an army regardless of physical strength differences, it reduces the total population during the next generation far quicker when you lose women in addition to men. If women did have greater political power as a result of this, male armies would be seen as even more expendable.

Besides the social changes, I wonder if the greater total physical ability would have any difference on civilization?

[LaCroix]

This scenario is skewed by looking at a 1000CE world through the lens of a post-enlightenment world.

A female farmer during this time would be by no means frail and of an "I can't do this" mindset. They were doing the same amount of back-breaking labour than their male counterparts. That was a mindset of aristocrats and rich burghers - a farmwoman you call frail would most likely slap you into next week. There was a mindset of them being mentally inferior to men, easier corruptible to evil, etc., though. They also had verly little legal rights, and even less means to fight for them, as they still were weaker than their male counterparts, and thus, their violence.

After that virus, they tower over the average man (1.6-1.7m) by at least a head or two, outmass him by 10-20kg, and on top, are suddenly 25% stronger instead of ~25% weaker. So an average woman is now about twice as strong than a well-trained man of that time. Noblewomen now routinely overshadow their brothers in martial ability...

All during a time when legal duels (and the mindset of "might makes right") are still a thing, even for women (with special rules that give them an advantage in the fight)...

I can see a very swift change in legal status when women are simply not content with following rules that were enforced by the threat of beatings.

Another thing - sexual assault will be drastically reduced when the average woman can beat the crap out of you with ease. This (not needing male protection from other males) will have a definitive impact on female behavior. There is a pretty substancial chance that we see the society flip to either gender equality or even outright matriarchal.

[Simon_Jester]

... Once going through puberty, if well fed women will reach an average height of 1.8 to 2 meters, weigh 80 kilos with a tendency towards a lean muscular build. They will also have a reinforced bone structure and an improved musculature allowing them to have about 1.25 times the upper body strength of a comparably sized man.

I would just like to point out something. "If well fed" suggests that relative levels of nutrition are a big deal here.

If well fed, and not debilitated by parasites or childhood diseases, human males tend to reach an average height of 1.7 to 1.9 meters, after all. So women have, in this scenario, an average height advantage of about ten centimeters. Combining the 'upgraded' musculature (1.25x multiplier), greater height, but also relatively moderate build (eighty kilos is not actually all that heavy and muscular a weight for someone 190 centimeters tall), the female strength advantage looks like, oh... 30-40%?

In 1000 AD, the "if well fed" and "no childhood stunting" assumptions were less often in play. Which is precisely why most men of that time were significantly smaller specimens than the males of the developed world today. But the same effect would apply roughly equally to women. So the 30-40% strength advantage and ~10cm height advantage is preserved, just in miniature for both sexes until an industrialized world diet spreads among the population.