Women warriors of the 13 century

Story & Setting
#21

He argued that the physical requirements of a modern infantry soldier is less than back the, And that is simply not the case. that is why the weight of military gear is relevant.
I agree that the specifics are different, but body strength is a clear requirement for the modern infantry.

Averages is totally irrelevant. The question is can some females do the job? and the answer is yes.
And there are no reasons, (other than discrimination and sexism) for not allowing the (few) women who have the skills and physical ability to do the job.

Now lets get back to the question of female warriors in the medieval period.

Strength is not remotely the only factor in a fight with swords
 sure it is a clear advantage, but actual skills is also a factor. And so is the arms and amour used


That said, since we really don’t have any clear sources telling us about female warriors during the relevant time and place, adding some to the game would clearly be historical wrong.

#22

Stop pushing your political agenda. My last post had absolutely nothing to do with allowing female soldiers to serve in the 21st century.

You’re the only one who drove it away from that, no one was arguing with you on the topic of modern female soldiers, someone stated a fact that women are weaker physically then men, and you went off on a tangent calling him sexist, and then you proceeded to rant about women in the modern military.

Grappling happened quite often in fights between two opponents in plate armour. A male would most certainly win that fight, having the advantage in both weight and strength. I’m no expert, but from what i understand a battlefield was usually a chaotic place, and grappling with an enemy solider would not have been uncommon for a man at arms, and a female man at arms would be at a complete disadvantage grappling with a male man at arms.

1 Like
#23

I called him sexist, because what he wrote is just that. It is not up to him to decide if a specific job should be blocked for specific genders. And his commend have clearly been against females in the modern infantry.
So some are in fact arguing on that topic. saying that “im just saying that combat is not one of their functions- and for good reason”

So you might not have commended on this, but others have.

I fully agree that a women would have been at a disadvantage.
My main point is that a small % of women would properly have be able to do the job. (if gender roles was ignored and they had been trained from childhood.)
Especially since field battles was actually rather rare. And most fighting would be skirmishes and simply killing the peasants on the land belonging to you enemy. And a trained female wearing armour would have no problem killing untrained male peasants.

And there was also men who where not build for fighting
 but did so anyway, because it was expected of them.
(John II of France just to mention one) So having the body to be a great warrior was not a requirement to actually fight.
Gender roles, blocked women from fighting
 and when extra ordinary circumstances undermined public order, like during a siege or rebellion, that is when we do have sources that tell us of women who did fight.
(but that do not make them warriors)

And we need to remove 19th-20th century ideas of what is a proper job for a woman when we look at this.
Just because women have had a clear gender role for much of the last few centuries it do not automatically mean that gender roles have not been different in earlier times and cultures.
(the legal status of a women changed a lot during the last 500 years first with them having fewer and fewer rights up until mid 20th century, then the other way. And there where clear differences from one “country” to the next)

But equally we should naturally not allow 21st century ideas of gender roles (or lack of them) to get us to find female warriors where the sources do not support it.
And they do not when looking at Bohemia in 1403.

#24

Grappling in Western Martial Arts is a TAD more complicated than that. It mostly relies on joint locks, leverage, and body mechanics. Strength would provide AN advantage, but wouldn’t be the end-all be-all. Keep in mind that no two male warriors would necessarily have the same weight or strength, either. Even with two men fighting there’s very much a possibility that one may be significantly stronger than the other. The system makes it entirely possible for a someone smaller/not as strong as their opponent to be able to counter that. Especially considering some of those techniques are REALLY dirty (one of my favorites: Grab them by the balls, give them a sharp twist, and jerk hard upwards) and not ones that you’d see in a regulated fight IE the MMA.

Furthermore, grappling would mainly come into play during 1v1 duels for one simple reason: While you’re grappling one opponent, you’re completely locked into a fight against them, and unable to react to anything else going on around you. Which means you’ve just made yourself completely vulnerable to someone sticking you with a rondel from the side.

1 Like
#25

Actually most of the ringen is about disarms, control and finishing. Not all ends with you on the floor - or even with him there
 As with all techniques it is about skill and application, not merely weight.

I am the smallest person in my HEMA class by a considerable margin - at least 30lb, yet I can successfully accomplish most of the techniques - there are a few which I cannot do against a taller and heavier opponent, but in that case I would select a technique that relies on my being lower to unbalance my opponent.

Outside of the ringen work, being smaller has almost no influence - binds can be won with your opponent binding strongly or weakly - just select and apply the correct technique as appropriate. I am at a slight disadvantage in dead parries, but cuts that parry work just as well for me as anyone else.

While harness fighting differs from blossfecten it should be noted that only a few ounces of pressure is needed to either cut or thrust an unprotected human, and harness fighting with swords isn’t about penetrating armour, but rather bypassing it. For control you actually want to moderate force used during cuts - it permits faster transitions between openings and an easier time working with the provoker, taker, hitter pattern of fighting needed for safety when your opponent is armed.

1 Like
#26

im not trying to sound sexist and ill apologize if ive led you to believe that i am

BUT

I never said the load that the modern soldier was less than that of someone wearing a full suit of plate or mail, i simply said that aiming a gun and pulling a trigger is far easier than stabbing someone and trying to avoid getting stabbed.

and dont tell me that the day to day is more demanding than earlier period wars, modern soldiers have cars and other sorts of transport where men would have to march for days to reach their battle fields

combat was not as rare as youd think although large battles were rare

women make up % in democratic armies although the larger majority of those women serving in armies are not on the front lines

i also said that women were more undefended while relieving themselves. whether or not they can manage it is irrelevant since i know they can, i was just arguing that its not as good

not sure if i already said this before but women have this thing called a period and they typically require a bit more care to deal with than men who dont have to

also i think i read this somewhere so take this with a grain of salt but relationship issues? one breakup and a whole squad’s flow could be disrupted, although being dumped puts of most people (im taking this from sports people)

no i do not know any woman who is deployed in combat although i do know some who have been in supoort units

averages can actually be pretty important since most people who join the army (as far as i can tell) are just young people thinking they can do something for the world, country, bragging rights, or simply as a job and they just stuck with it

i never said women should never be soldiers i was simply pointing out that it usually isnt a good idea
those few women who are fit for combat still carry the disadvantages of other women
sure men have their own set of disadvantages but men are still more suited for combat that women

one last point is that men are historically fighting units because if a society loses a huge amount of its men but still has a ton of women their population can make huge recoveries in the next generation
now if both or just women are lost then the potential population of that society is far lower

the mental strain of modern war of course is far greater than that of a medieval battle fields


1 Like
#27

i also wrote that women if not encouraged to take typically male jobs they typically wont

spent like 20 minutes looking for it
couldt find the study that talked about this

sure a woman in armor could kill peasant men, but how about when she had to fight a man who is also in armor

once again id like to point out that im not trying to be sexist although reading back on what ive written it does sound horribbly sexist
but id like you to know that i was simply stating my point of view

#28

well id like to point out that there are weapons designed to combat armor that do require a rather large about of strength (maces for example)

swords against armor is a pretty bad idea and is pretty much sure to get the person with the sword pretty messed up

remember that those few ounces are needed to go through human flesh not armor
i realize that you were talkigng about unarmored bodies

we also have to rmember that bypassing armor is very difficult against a moving target who knows that you know where his weak points are

being larger typically means your stronger and as a bonus also means you have longer reach
theres also that intimidation factor that a typical person would feel when facing someone largeer and intent on killing them
of course with enough skill these advantages can be reduced but never nullified, and if the bigger person is more adept at whatever weapon hes using then youre in deep shit

of course if youve managed to disarm your oppnent then everything changes, of course if your positions were switched then it would be pretty much game over

#29

[quote=“fang3412, post:26, topic:29001, full:true”]
im not trying to sound sexist and ill apologize if ive led you to believe that i am[/quote]

You do sound very sexist and to the point where I find it hard to believe you aren’t. It is like the time when that homophobic gamer tried to tell Bioware to remove all non-straight relationships from their game because “the majority of male gamers are straight” and he backed his argument with percentages he pulled out of thin air and biases passed offed as “facts”. Then he went out of his way to say he wasn’t homophobic.

If you are going to make claims like the ones you are about women’s physiology and physical fitness as well as the military performance of both genders (modern or otherwise), some links to credible sources backing what you are saying would be welcome. This is a touchy subject matter after-all.

#30

#31

Point Missed. :confused:


and what does bestiality have to do with any of this?

#32

No it’s not, i understand Europe is heavily infected with the SJW mindset, so stating simple facts about Biology may seem sexist to you, but news flash they’re facts, facts cannot be racist, sexist, homophobic, ect.

It’s not that hard to grasp, lean non muscular bodies are not built for combat. Does this mean women cannot fight? No, but men are simply more suited for combat physically than women, this is a basic biological fact.

No his comment had nothing do with modern female soldiers, no one mentioned that but you. This is a topic about female warriors in the 13th century, there fore it is logical to assume he was talking about you guessed it female warriors in the 13th century.

Well i haven’t ever been trained in fighting, but i think I’m correct in saying that if two people are are equally trained fight, the stronger of the two will most likely win.

If she was a simple man at arms, with little to no training then she would be at an even bigger disadvantage when fighting a man, due to strength probably playing more of a factor.

You have to take into consideration how big strength gaps are between men and women though. A women who has above average strength (for a women) is still considerably weaker than a male who has average strength (for a male). An average 13 year old male is usually stronger than an adult women.

2 Likes
#33

You typed a whole bunch of nonsense, so i responded with a meme because what you said didn’t warrant a lengthy response.

#34

How is your bestiality meme not only nonsense but insensitive and sordid as well? It is fine to disagree with someone, but I think you may be actively avoiding and censoring out anything you don’t agree with.

After reading your post of scandalous claims about the female gender (It would be different if there were reliable sources to back it) and then that vulgar meme that implies some sort of connection between homosexuals and the practice of bestiality, I feel sick. I don’t think I can, nor wish to converse with you further. I think I will also be taking a break from this forum if this is what the content has turned into.

#35

This topic gone wrong fast, I would call it a day for now


There is nothing physical preventing woman from being warrior. Maybe lil bit worse warrior, but still warrior which would probably kick your sorry asses for this discussion.
Was it common or probable in medieval times? Nope.
Were there atleast very few female soldies? Almost 100% yes,
Is it necessary to have them in game for accuracy or equality reasons? No.
Would it be cool and interesting? Hell yeah.

Lets see what will warhorse deliver in 2017, but until than I thinkt this discussion is over, its only shitfest right now.

3 Likes
#36

Well maybe the question is not whether a woman is physically able to be a warrior but whether she wants to be a warrior, and whether she would be permitted to be a warrior.

Women are different from men. Physicaly and psychological, no one can dispute that.
So maybe women didnt really want to go to battles and kill other people.
And even if they wanted, would it be their decision to do so? would not their fathers, husbands, brothers prevent them to join an army?

Also life expectancy was bit lower than today so women would have to bare more children and much more sooner than today. (just my reasoning I have no sources to provide)
Which means that a typical woman would be pregnant a lot and if she was not she would be taking care of children.

Of course some exceptions are to be expected.

So to sum it up. I think that women had better and more important things to do than killing each other.

#37

This kind of irony is not understandable for everyone. It discriminate a special group of people. So this is not Ok. Now Gentelmen, it’s time to go back to Topic and stay 


1 Like
#38

then i apologize
but i will not take back my points as i believe that they are still correct

physiology should be common knowledge
i assume you are a man (correct me if you are not but the point still stands)
try picking up 100 lbs
then get a woman of equal height and weight as you and get her to do the same

im pretty sure that both of you will be able to do it but you will have a signifigantly easier time of it

for military performance ill remember to link for next time

and just as an extra im not homophobic but i am not gay and i doubt i ever will (titties are too much to pass up)
i will not go out of my way to avoid one but if i can i probably would stand a bit farther (like half a step farther away)

im done and as someone suggested im not going to respond to this topic although i expect to still be around if anyone gives a good point about the actual topic women warriors of the 13th century

#39

My issue is that there are a lot of assumptions being made and not many reliable sources to back any of them. As I am sure Warhorse can attest to there are a lot of assumptions and ideas about this time period that are false - worked into the public mind by fanciful literature and Hollywood. No doubt women were prevented from picking up several roles traditionally reserved for men. However we are talking about a time period that isn’t that well documented, partly because most people couldn’t read or write, but also the poor preservation of items from this time.

#40

I agree with @Urquhart here. Please stick more to the topic and make your point less misterious and puzzling by posting inappropriate pictures.

© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz