Women warriors of the 13 century

Story & Setting
#41

We of course don´t want to speak here about typical average woman. Average woman is not warrior, thats undisputable.

But I can imagine some charismatic girls with bit more proactive and/or violent nature, living during some conflict (so basically anytime in medieval history) who lost her husband/father/whole family, and just doesn´t have anything else to live for. If she can learn something, she could in theory join the army, or MUCH more likely, become mercenary, vigilante, bandit…
Everybody here talks only about some official warriors, but becoming bandit(and later very well known bandit) is much more likely to happen after such events in this period. And there is quite a good reason to think that such bandits would have some physical skill and training with weapons, atleast to just survive, thus we can refer about such girl as warrior or fighter.
Although, I really think that life expectancy of such women must be really really short, as no lord, or city major would want to be ashamed by some woman and her thugs, ergo they would probably find and kill her rather quickly…

#42

You pretty much just made my point for me. Your argument is built on a lack of first-hand knowledge and understanding of how the martial arts of the time period actually worked, yet you’re trying to dispute people who actually DO train.

#43

There is no reason to assume that a sword would be messed up when used correctly against harness.

You use techniques that control his weapon, then either work the point into a gap or strike with the pommel (which makes the sword an effective ‘warhammer’ style weapon). The sword probably wouldn’t take any more edge damage in harness fighting than in blossfechten (fewer wide cuts parried with another cut, more winding or ringen with the halfsworded grips. In half sword there is less advantage from reach (in fact being able to work in closely is important and a shorter weapon may be advantageous, and the reach advantage of a 6’6" person over a 5’6" person is minimal when using a similar 4’ long sword in the normal grip anyway - especially since the hands are often a valid and vulerable target and are by necessity presented with the sword.

Modern strength differences between men are increased by the dieting and no (significant) exercise we practice in the modern age. There are two ways of managing weight - eating well and moving lots (or moving other things lots) - and restricting food and being sedentary and never carrying heavy things.

Both can cause injury if abused too much, the former broken bones, torn ligaments and muscles, cartiliage wear… the latter early onset osteoporosis, muscle atrophy and “slender obesity”, where the body is slender but the muscle is almost entirely atrophied and surrounded by deep fatty deposits. I’m not sure that peasant cultures permit the degree of sedentary life that we see in much of our societies today, and you would on average start with less of the difference we see (particularly if you start the training of strength by doing in childhood for both knave girls and gay girls).

#44

So you are saying that person who is stronger has no advantage on weaker person. if they are both of same skill?
Because @SirWarriant comment had a next part:

I think the best way how to have a discussion would be to explain why his assumptions are wrong. Especially if his assumptions are sound.
Just pointing out that they are wrong will not lead anywhere.

1 Like
#45

Why you don’t dicuss the different demands at a men at arms?
First I belive that a men at arms usually is fighting in armor, when he do his job.
Second, do we talk about a one o one duel or do we talk about fighting in a formation like a shield wall?
In a duel a nimble person has more advantage than in a croweded formation.
In my opinion fighting in such a formation gives those with more bodymass a advantage and that is for me the physical reason why the most womens wasn’t man at arms.

#46

No, strength does not offer much in a way of advantage. One of the central concepts of Western Martial Arts is what the Germans called fühlen; feeling your opponent’s intent upon making contact, and reacting to it. For example, if someone attempts to overwhelm you with brute strength, you use that strength against him by letting him go through (redirecting his blow somewhere safe because it will naturally follow the path of least resistance). You rarely, if ever, have a strength-vs-strength shoving match.

2 Likes
#47

Yeah. You let him run off if he is strong, and strike around using his impetus to accelerate some types of cuts (e.g. the Zwerchau off of a Brellhau - a horizontal overhead cut with the thumb on the flat following a cut that parries with the flat and doesn’t bind). If he is weak then you cut through or convert the cut into a thrust (e.g. Zornort)

You don’t use brute strength because every attack you make gives your opponent an opening to attack, and you need to remain fast in order to protect yourself from harm. Big cuts take more time and often can be seen coming - simply voiding requires no strength at all and is totally effective - even offers the option to follow with an almost unparriable attack following your opponent’s line of cut in Nachreisen)

#48

But in situations when you know that you are stronger, wouldnt it be possible to force your opponent into situations which can be decided only by power?

For example in crowded or narrows spaces, when there is not much space to maneuver, wouldnt really a stronger fighter have a better chance? (just notcied @Waldkauz mention it in comment above]

Also, in 14-15th century, would it be common for a simple soldier to know techniques and ways how to deal with these kind of situations?

2 Likes
#49

Um where did i dispute what you said?

1 Like
#50

One of my favorites is to let him run off, and then allow him to use his own momentum coming in to drive his face into my pommel. :grin:

No. Because there ARE no situations that can be decided only by power. That’s the entire reason fühlen exists; if someone comes in strong, you don’t match him power-to-power.

  1. If you’re talking an enclosed area IE an alleyway or narrow street, no. The technique I mentioned above doesn’t rely overmuch on having room to get around him. In fact you end up running straight THROUGH him: We meet in the bind, he tries to force his way through. I angle my point downwards, letting him run off. I step into him with my pommel high, and as he comes forward it drives my pommel right into his face. Close-range technique requiring very little room to maneuver.

  2. If you’re talking formation fighting, then a fighter’s individual strength or skill is largely irrelevant. Medieval formations weren’t a line of men one deep. You’re being pushed forward in the press by anywhere from four to five men in ranks BEHIND you, (pike squares, for example, were typically on the order of 10 files by 10 ranks) to say nothing of the man to your left and right.

Yes. Even “simple soldiers” were drilled, particularly by the 14th and 15th centuries as armies became more diversified and tactics became more complex (particularly with the rise of the pike, which requires a great deal of discipline to use effectively on the field). The idea of Medieval armies being made up of untrained peasants waving whatever weapon they could find has been grossly exaggerated.

Right here. Strength by and large isn’t at all that much of an advantage. Two equally skilled opponents comes down to who executes their strategy and technique better, NOT who is stronger. And as Lieste and I both noted, a physically weaker opponent can easily destroy a strong one who tries to rely on their strength simply because of the nature of the art.

1 Like
#51

How does that dispute what you said at all? You said strength gives you an advantage, and i said i believed that if two opponents who were both equally trained were to fight, the stronger of the two would win due to having that advantage.

1 Like
#52

Strength is AN advantage. But not enough to be the deciding factor between two opponents who otherwise are a match in skill.

#53

Okay, but i never disputed what you said.

1 Like
#54

Well this is useful information. Thank you for the insight.

#55

Yes you did. You said that in a fight between a physically stronger and weaker opponent of equal skill, the stronger one would win. I’m saying it’s NOT the case and that physical strength isn’t going to be a deciding factor.

#56

No i did not. Take a good long read, there is literally nothing in my statement that contradicts or goes against what you said in that original statement, you yourself said strength gives an advantage. So i stated that if two people who were equally trained were to fight, then the stronger of the two (having the advantage) would most likely win.

You then informed me i was wrong after that, and i made no attempt to argue.

1 Like
#57

You dont know Bulgarian or Greek mothers it seems :wink:

1 Like
#58

Ha talk about beating a dead horse.

3 Likes
#59

Duplieren even uses the force in the bind to simultaneously act as a fulcrum and to bodily drive the weakly bound fighter’s sword into the far side of the stronger fighter’s head and neck. It is a bit awkward to do, requiring winding up the ‘wrong way’ and then flicking the point against the bind, but it (along with other ‘weak in the bind’ techniques) does discourage over forceful binding…

#60

Soldiers may be drilled - but by in what exactly? I’m not sure they train those techniques we now study from the books.
Also when you said equally skilled, how skilled do you mean? Because the lower is the skill of the combatants, the more advantage the stronger gets. Just the intimidating effect is often enough here.
In brawl, the larger and stronger opponent will have the advantage even if both are experienced.

© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz