>How common was it?
Probably happened at some points since there were no regular armies and professionnal soldiers during most of the medieval times (aside from the nobility, which wasn't profesionnal) and the population would go fight at the cll of the local noble. They probably didn't check what was in the pants of the volunteers as long as they were ready to go wave a sword.

>How many women were famous in combat not just because "hur dur epic chick with sword" but women that actually had a historical impact?
None because the average soldier did not have any impact. the basic peon/footsoldier was a peasant with a dull sword who was little more than cannon fodder while the people with actual equipment (aka the "knights" to simplify it) did the part of the work that was remembered and documeted. And none of them were women since they were the only part of the armies that was controlled at the source.

>>291852
So basically there's a good chance women joined in the more fodder like sections of the army, but more controlled sections was a for sure no?

>>291863
Pretty much. As lng as the feudal and chivalry systems were used to structure the military, there is little to no way for a woman to get to a position of military importance.

In most cases it wasn't really remembered. Keep in mind that in the Feudal system nobody really wanted to go to war. War was dirty, grueling and difficult to endure- Those higher up on the totem pole could go to war in luxury and from them the entire experience was made glamorous and exciting.

When a knight left his Manor to go to war (taking his peasantry with him) there would likely have been a degree of relief among the women for being spared rather than a willingness to join in.

We do see some interesting cases of women politicians and rulers, however.

>>291807
Steppe tribes had scores of women in their armies. The tribe that defeated Cyrus the Great was led by a woman. The Sarmatians didn't allow their women to get married until they killed a man in combat. The Scythians probably were the source of the lore for the Amazons.

>>291852
>sword
Don't you mean pointy stick?

>>291807
I speak for Medieval period
>women
Never fought as you said, but they would often rule over the land whilst men were away.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NujhCEBoF7s
is a pretty good overview/account of women's significance in war.

>>291807
Women were part of professional armies, in that they served in an armies entourage of workers, entertainers and so on.
As fighters, it's not unlikely that they were part of militias, and helped defend in a siege or raid.

>>291807

I remember numerous instances in various countries history folklore where a retreating army flees back to their camp only to find their wives and women come out to scold them, shame them, and send them back into battle sometimes upon reengaging they actually win.

Women would be taken on military expeditions and would be at the camps tending to the 'domestic' aspects of said camps and sexual gratification of the soldiers.

>>292456
The Germanic tribes had their women and children literally show up to the battle, saying "if you fail, we all die too"

>>291807
Honor isn't a historical game in the slightest nor does it claim to be.

Women didn't really fight in warfare outside of perhaps select individuals but they have always been individuals and never a group. The exception is probably the Scythian who had female warriors but they were probably not expected to fight in melee just fire arrows from horseback.