check out this site.
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/womenvik.html
Insane Irish
Who was looking for Documentation on Women fighting?
-
InsaneIrish
- SQUEEE!
- Posts: 18252
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Jefferson City Mo. USA
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
Hi Irish,
Unfortunately, almost all of the short "quotes" on that page break down into one of three categories: Either a.) women *led* troops in battle (nothing about actually weilding a weapon); or b.) were buried with a weapon (again, nothing about actually using it in battle); or c.) did something dangerous and a-typical in self-defense or in a fit of pique (but, again, nothing about formal battle).
We have lots of claims from the MA that women led troops in battle, at least in a titular sense, so my guess is that at least some of them are probably true. Not a single one of those sources, however, says anything about women actually taking part in real fighting like a man (except that story in Petrarch, and you may believe as much of that as you will; it's not corroborated by anything).
As for buriel with a weapon, well, remember that the early peoples were very superstitious: it's more likely these women were buried with weapons because the weapon had some religious connotation or was otherwise very important; for example, it may have been an important family heirloom, or she may have carried it when she led troops. In any case, there are far too many things *other* than being a wepaon the woman actually used in combat that might explain the buriel of these weapons with women. As for the tapestry showing women armed with spears, I can show you a tapestry showing the nine female worthies, each armed with weapons, etc.; that was meant to be allegorical, not to imply that any of these women actually used their weapons.
As for self defense or things that happen in rage, those are hardly arguments for a woman fighting in battle. A woman today might pick up her husband's rifle and shoot him in a fit of rage, or she might own and use a handgun on a potential rapist, but neither would not constitute an argument that the woman in question fought in a military engagement.
For some reason there's a tremendous interest in "proving" that women were warriors in period, and there just doesn't seem to be any evidence to support that myth. In fact, it's much more likely that such women would have been severely ostracized in period; remember, one of the reasons Joan of Arc was burned was for wearing a man's clothing!
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
Unfortunately, almost all of the short "quotes" on that page break down into one of three categories: Either a.) women *led* troops in battle (nothing about actually weilding a weapon); or b.) were buried with a weapon (again, nothing about actually using it in battle); or c.) did something dangerous and a-typical in self-defense or in a fit of pique (but, again, nothing about formal battle).
We have lots of claims from the MA that women led troops in battle, at least in a titular sense, so my guess is that at least some of them are probably true. Not a single one of those sources, however, says anything about women actually taking part in real fighting like a man (except that story in Petrarch, and you may believe as much of that as you will; it's not corroborated by anything).
As for buriel with a weapon, well, remember that the early peoples were very superstitious: it's more likely these women were buried with weapons because the weapon had some religious connotation or was otherwise very important; for example, it may have been an important family heirloom, or she may have carried it when she led troops. In any case, there are far too many things *other* than being a wepaon the woman actually used in combat that might explain the buriel of these weapons with women. As for the tapestry showing women armed with spears, I can show you a tapestry showing the nine female worthies, each armed with weapons, etc.; that was meant to be allegorical, not to imply that any of these women actually used their weapons.
As for self defense or things that happen in rage, those are hardly arguments for a woman fighting in battle. A woman today might pick up her husband's rifle and shoot him in a fit of rage, or she might own and use a handgun on a potential rapist, but neither would not constitute an argument that the woman in question fought in a military engagement.
For some reason there's a tremendous interest in "proving" that women were warriors in period, and there just doesn't seem to be any evidence to support that myth. In fact, it's much more likely that such women would have been severely ostracized in period; remember, one of the reasons Joan of Arc was burned was for wearing a man's clothing!
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Winterfell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 12345
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Reston
-
Rev. George
- Archive Member
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: athens. ga usa
- Contact:
Rhys:
Joan was burned for several reasons, the whole clothing thing was, from my understanding, "proof" that the voices she followed were not holy, but rather demonic. (for they told her to dress as a man, a thing which went against one or two lines in the old hebrew law)
The biggest reason joan was burned was the english wanted her dead. The whole trial was a farce. If she had dressed as a woman, they would have found something else.
My take on the whole women in combat:
They probably fought to some degree. some dressed as men (we have evidence as some were discovered) Some may have fought openly as women, maybe in dire circumstances, maybe normally. We will never know. The sources of history from that period are pretty biased. The monks would put religious connotations into anything. Youths were often referred to as being 13 years, because that was a good # (something about the life of jesus). Stories were censored, even religious books were. (One text was describing the definition of sodomy at the time, and included sex between a man and woman, "in the rear". That phrase was considered SO offensive that it was removed in most editions by the copying monk.)So unless we get a time machine, or find some new evidence, we'll never know.
-+G
Joan was burned for several reasons, the whole clothing thing was, from my understanding, "proof" that the voices she followed were not holy, but rather demonic. (for they told her to dress as a man, a thing which went against one or two lines in the old hebrew law)
The biggest reason joan was burned was the english wanted her dead. The whole trial was a farce. If she had dressed as a woman, they would have found something else.
My take on the whole women in combat:
They probably fought to some degree. some dressed as men (we have evidence as some were discovered) Some may have fought openly as women, maybe in dire circumstances, maybe normally. We will never know. The sources of history from that period are pretty biased. The monks would put religious connotations into anything. Youths were often referred to as being 13 years, because that was a good # (something about the life of jesus). Stories were censored, even religious books were. (One text was describing the definition of sodomy at the time, and included sex between a man and woman, "in the rear". That phrase was considered SO offensive that it was removed in most editions by the copying monk.)So unless we get a time machine, or find some new evidence, we'll never know.
-+G
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Winterfell:
<B>Rhys,
One name: Bodicea.
Led armies, sacked London, cut people's heads off. Real fun time girl.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right: *Lead* armies. There's no evidence she actually wielded a weapon herself. If you go back and read my post I indicated we probably had to accept that some (very, very few)women led troops (at least as figureheads). That's not the same as women *fighting*.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Rhys,
One name: Bodicea.
Led armies, sacked London, cut people's heads off. Real fun time girl.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right: *Lead* armies. There's no evidence she actually wielded a weapon herself. If you go back and read my post I indicated we probably had to accept that some (very, very few)women led troops (at least as figureheads). That's not the same as women *fighting*.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Stoffel
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1007
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: corpus christi, tx
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Rhys,
One name: Bodicea.
Led armies, sacked London, cut people's heads off. Real fun time girl.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I dont think that could be considered part of the argument for women fighting in the middle ages. That was long before. If you want to look back that far, I'm sure you can find all kinds of sources for women fighting in battles, before the principles of chivalry and courtly love.
One name: Bodicea.
Led armies, sacked London, cut people's heads off. Real fun time girl.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I dont think that could be considered part of the argument for women fighting in the middle ages. That was long before. If you want to look back that far, I'm sure you can find all kinds of sources for women fighting in battles, before the principles of chivalry and courtly love.
-
Kevin the Hound
- Archive Member
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Elkhorn, WI USA
Sir Rhys,
Further searching of that site, which admittedly has a prejudice >for< women in battle (opposite of yours), shows a few more detailed quotes, though without proper scholarly bibliography in some cases. I am pasting a couple of 14th century examples below.
Was this common? Not hardly, though it grew more common from the 14th through the 16th centuries. In more chaotic times of war the "rules of civilized behaviour" were often overlooked in place of expediency. That didn't mean the behaviour of these women was necessarily accepted, but if they were a part of a large armed force who DID accept them, the people who didn't approve often kept their mouths shut rather than risk the wrath of the aforementioned armed force.
So below are the examples I glanced at.
Kevin the Hound
"Agnes Hotot, (A.D. 1378? - ?). The coat of arms of the House of Dudley shows a woman in war helmet, dishelved hair hanging out, and her breasts exposed, commemorating a female champion. In the fourteenth century A.D., Agnes Hotot's father, of the House of Dudley, quarreled with another man and agreed to a lance fight to settle the affair. Upon the appointed hour, Agnes's father fell seriously ill. Agnes put on a helmet and disguised her sex, mounted her father's horse and set out for the tourney grounds. 'After a stubborn encounter,' Agnes dismounted her father's foe. When he lay on the ground, 'she loosened the stay of her helmet, let down her hair and disclosed her bussom,' so that he would know he had been conquered by a woman." (information given by Geoff Cook - geoff.cook@btinternet.com)"
"Maria of Pozzuoli
from "The Voice of the Middle Ages in Personal Letters 1100-1500" Edited by Catherine Moriarty ISBN 1 85291 051 8, Lennard Publishing.
"From Petrarch to Cardinal Giovanni Colonna. 23 November 1343
Of all the wonders of God,'who alone doeth great wonders,' he has made nothing on earth more marvelous than man. Of all we saw that day, of all this letter will report, the most remarkable was a mighty woman of Pozzuoli, sturdy in body and soul. her name is Maria, and to suit her name she has the merit of virginity. Though she is constantly among men, usually soldiers, the general opinion holds that she has never suffered any attaint to her chastity, whether in jest or earnest. Men are put off, they say, more by fear than respect.
Her body is military rather than maidenly, her strength is such as any hardened soldier might wish for, her skill and deftness unusual, her age at its prime, her appearance and endeavor that of a strong man. She cares not for charms but for arms; not for arts and crafts but for darts and shafts; her face bears no trace of kisses and lascivious caresses, but is ennobled by wounds and scars. Her first love is for weapons, her soul defies death and the sword.
She helps wage an inherited local war, in which many have perished on both sides. Sometimes alone, often with a few companions, she has raided the enemy, always, up to the present, victoriously. First into battle, slow to withdraw, she attacks aggressively, practises skilful feints. She bears with incredible patience hunger, thirst, cold, heat, lack of sleep, weariness; she passes nights in the open, under arms; she sleeps on the ground, counting herself lucky to have a turf or a shield for pillow.
She has changed much in a short time, thanks to her constant hardships. I saw her a few years ago, when my youthful longing for glory brought me to Rome and Naples and the king of Sicily. She was then weaponless; but I was amazed when she came to greet me today heavily armed, in a group of soldiers. I returned her greeting as to a man I didn't know. Then she laughed, and at the nudging of my companions I looked at her more closely; and I barely recognized the wild, primitive face of the maiden under her helmet.
They tell many fabulous stories about her; I shall relate what I saw. A number of stout fellows with military training happen to have come here from various quarters. (They were diverted from another expedition.) When they heard about this woman they were anxious to test her powers. So a great crowd of us went up to the castle of Pozzuoli. She was alone, walking up and down in front of the church, apparently just thinking. She was not at all disturbed by our arrival. We begged her to give us some example of her strength. After making many excuses on account of an injury to her arm, she finally sent for a heavy stone and an iron bar. She then threw them before us, and challenged anyone to pick them up and try a cast. To cut the story short, there was a long, well-fought competition, while she stood aside and silently judged the contestants. Finally, making an easy cast, she so far outdistanced the others that everyone was amazed, and I was really ashamed. So we left, hardly believing our eyes, thinking we must have been victims of an illusion.
The story goes that Robert [of Naples], that noblest of kings, was once sailing along these shores with a great fleet, and, tempted by the stories of this woman, he came ashore at Pozzuoli only to see her. This does not seem very likely, since, living so nearby, it would seem easier for him to summon her. But perhaps he landed for some other reason and was eager to inspect this great novelty. He has a very curious mind.
Let the tale-tellers bear the responsibility for the truth of this story, as of many others we have heard. For me the sight of this woman makes more credible not only the tales of the Amazons and their famous feminine kingdom, but also those of the Italian virgin warriors, led by Camilla, whose name is celebrated above all. For what hinders us from believing of many what I could hardly have credited of one, if I had not seen it? And that ancient Camilla was born not far from here, at Piperno, at the time of the fall of Troy; while our modern girl was born at Pozzuoli. I wanted to give you this report in my little letter.
Farewell and Prosper."
(info given by Jim Deakin)"
Further searching of that site, which admittedly has a prejudice >for< women in battle (opposite of yours), shows a few more detailed quotes, though without proper scholarly bibliography in some cases. I am pasting a couple of 14th century examples below.
Was this common? Not hardly, though it grew more common from the 14th through the 16th centuries. In more chaotic times of war the "rules of civilized behaviour" were often overlooked in place of expediency. That didn't mean the behaviour of these women was necessarily accepted, but if they were a part of a large armed force who DID accept them, the people who didn't approve often kept their mouths shut rather than risk the wrath of the aforementioned armed force.
So below are the examples I glanced at.
Kevin the Hound
"Agnes Hotot, (A.D. 1378? - ?). The coat of arms of the House of Dudley shows a woman in war helmet, dishelved hair hanging out, and her breasts exposed, commemorating a female champion. In the fourteenth century A.D., Agnes Hotot's father, of the House of Dudley, quarreled with another man and agreed to a lance fight to settle the affair. Upon the appointed hour, Agnes's father fell seriously ill. Agnes put on a helmet and disguised her sex, mounted her father's horse and set out for the tourney grounds. 'After a stubborn encounter,' Agnes dismounted her father's foe. When he lay on the ground, 'she loosened the stay of her helmet, let down her hair and disclosed her bussom,' so that he would know he had been conquered by a woman." (information given by Geoff Cook - geoff.cook@btinternet.com)"
"Maria of Pozzuoli
from "The Voice of the Middle Ages in Personal Letters 1100-1500" Edited by Catherine Moriarty ISBN 1 85291 051 8, Lennard Publishing.
"From Petrarch to Cardinal Giovanni Colonna. 23 November 1343
Of all the wonders of God,'who alone doeth great wonders,' he has made nothing on earth more marvelous than man. Of all we saw that day, of all this letter will report, the most remarkable was a mighty woman of Pozzuoli, sturdy in body and soul. her name is Maria, and to suit her name she has the merit of virginity. Though she is constantly among men, usually soldiers, the general opinion holds that she has never suffered any attaint to her chastity, whether in jest or earnest. Men are put off, they say, more by fear than respect.
Her body is military rather than maidenly, her strength is such as any hardened soldier might wish for, her skill and deftness unusual, her age at its prime, her appearance and endeavor that of a strong man. She cares not for charms but for arms; not for arts and crafts but for darts and shafts; her face bears no trace of kisses and lascivious caresses, but is ennobled by wounds and scars. Her first love is for weapons, her soul defies death and the sword.
She helps wage an inherited local war, in which many have perished on both sides. Sometimes alone, often with a few companions, she has raided the enemy, always, up to the present, victoriously. First into battle, slow to withdraw, she attacks aggressively, practises skilful feints. She bears with incredible patience hunger, thirst, cold, heat, lack of sleep, weariness; she passes nights in the open, under arms; she sleeps on the ground, counting herself lucky to have a turf or a shield for pillow.
She has changed much in a short time, thanks to her constant hardships. I saw her a few years ago, when my youthful longing for glory brought me to Rome and Naples and the king of Sicily. She was then weaponless; but I was amazed when she came to greet me today heavily armed, in a group of soldiers. I returned her greeting as to a man I didn't know. Then she laughed, and at the nudging of my companions I looked at her more closely; and I barely recognized the wild, primitive face of the maiden under her helmet.
They tell many fabulous stories about her; I shall relate what I saw. A number of stout fellows with military training happen to have come here from various quarters. (They were diverted from another expedition.) When they heard about this woman they were anxious to test her powers. So a great crowd of us went up to the castle of Pozzuoli. She was alone, walking up and down in front of the church, apparently just thinking. She was not at all disturbed by our arrival. We begged her to give us some example of her strength. After making many excuses on account of an injury to her arm, she finally sent for a heavy stone and an iron bar. She then threw them before us, and challenged anyone to pick them up and try a cast. To cut the story short, there was a long, well-fought competition, while she stood aside and silently judged the contestants. Finally, making an easy cast, she so far outdistanced the others that everyone was amazed, and I was really ashamed. So we left, hardly believing our eyes, thinking we must have been victims of an illusion.
The story goes that Robert [of Naples], that noblest of kings, was once sailing along these shores with a great fleet, and, tempted by the stories of this woman, he came ashore at Pozzuoli only to see her. This does not seem very likely, since, living so nearby, it would seem easier for him to summon her. But perhaps he landed for some other reason and was eager to inspect this great novelty. He has a very curious mind.
Let the tale-tellers bear the responsibility for the truth of this story, as of many others we have heard. For me the sight of this woman makes more credible not only the tales of the Amazons and their famous feminine kingdom, but also those of the Italian virgin warriors, led by Camilla, whose name is celebrated above all. For what hinders us from believing of many what I could hardly have credited of one, if I had not seen it? And that ancient Camilla was born not far from here, at Piperno, at the time of the fall of Troy; while our modern girl was born at Pozzuoli. I wanted to give you this report in my little letter.
Farewell and Prosper."
(info given by Jim Deakin)"
-
Rev. George
- Archive Member
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: athens. ga usa
- Contact:
-
FrauHirsch
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4520
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: San Diego, CA, USA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by InsaneIrish:
<B>check out this site.
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/womenvik.html
Insane Irish</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They only give reference to the Viking women fighting, but there are several sagas quoted in Du Chaillu's Viking Age discussing female champions and specific fights of theirs during the battle. One Lady is listed as the most famous "Chevalier" in all the North, which he used as there was no real close single word for the old norse word he felt meant something like "Warrior Champion of Horseback fighting"
Hervor is also a famous female Viking warrior. Several of her individual fights are described in Sagas.
Juliana
<B>check out this site.
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/womenvik.html
Insane Irish</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They only give reference to the Viking women fighting, but there are several sagas quoted in Du Chaillu's Viking Age discussing female champions and specific fights of theirs during the battle. One Lady is listed as the most famous "Chevalier" in all the North, which he used as there was no real close single word for the old norse word he felt meant something like "Warrior Champion of Horseback fighting"
Hervor is also a famous female Viking warrior. Several of her individual fights are described in Sagas.
Juliana
-
Kevin the Hound
- Archive Member
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Elkhorn, WI USA
-
Gaston de Clermont
- Archive Member
- Posts: 3369
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Austin, Texas USA
- Contact:
I gave the owner of the site a heads-up to the discussion here. She was unable to sign in because of her email address for some reason, but here is her reply:
"> Either a.) women *led* troops in battle (nothing about
> actually weilding a weapon); or b.) were buried with a
> weapon (again, nothing about actually using it in battle);
> or c.) did something dangerous and a-typical in self-defense
> or in a fit of pique (but, again, nothing about formal battle).
Here are a few examples (from those very pages) of women taking part in
formal battles as ordinary soldiers - Gothic women captured by the Romans,
Hethna, Visna and Vebiorg at the battle of Bravellir, Gaita of Lombardy, the
members of The Order of the Hatchet, Maria of Pozzuoli, women serving in
medieval gun crews, women listed on town muster rolls, Marguerite Delaye,
women in the Scots Army which marched on Newcastle in 1644, a Royalist
corporal captured near Nottingham during the English Civil War, Mother Ross,
Hannah Snell, Catherine Lincken, Phoebe Hessel, Ann Mills, an Ensign killed
at Waterloo, Hannah Whitney, 750 or so troops in the American Civil War,
Angelique Brulon, the women's brigades in the French Revolution, Nadezhda
Durova, Sylvia Mariotti, women of the Dahomey tribe, Polish troops in WW1,
Serbian troops in WW1, Cossack troops, Russian Women's Battallions, the Rani
of Jhansi Regiment, Collette Nirouet, combat troops in the Greek civil war,
Bracha Fuld, 12000 Israeli women in 1948...
Another question is what evidence is there that men fought? Is the evidence
for men fighting really better than the evidence for women fighting? What
steps have been taken to check the gender of skeletons excavated from
battlefields?
Nicky"
"> Either a.) women *led* troops in battle (nothing about
> actually weilding a weapon); or b.) were buried with a
> weapon (again, nothing about actually using it in battle);
> or c.) did something dangerous and a-typical in self-defense
> or in a fit of pique (but, again, nothing about formal battle).
Here are a few examples (from those very pages) of women taking part in
formal battles as ordinary soldiers - Gothic women captured by the Romans,
Hethna, Visna and Vebiorg at the battle of Bravellir, Gaita of Lombardy, the
members of The Order of the Hatchet, Maria of Pozzuoli, women serving in
medieval gun crews, women listed on town muster rolls, Marguerite Delaye,
women in the Scots Army which marched on Newcastle in 1644, a Royalist
corporal captured near Nottingham during the English Civil War, Mother Ross,
Hannah Snell, Catherine Lincken, Phoebe Hessel, Ann Mills, an Ensign killed
at Waterloo, Hannah Whitney, 750 or so troops in the American Civil War,
Angelique Brulon, the women's brigades in the French Revolution, Nadezhda
Durova, Sylvia Mariotti, women of the Dahomey tribe, Polish troops in WW1,
Serbian troops in WW1, Cossack troops, Russian Women's Battallions, the Rani
of Jhansi Regiment, Collette Nirouet, combat troops in the Greek civil war,
Bracha Fuld, 12000 Israeli women in 1948...
Another question is what evidence is there that men fought? Is the evidence
for men fighting really better than the evidence for women fighting? What
steps have been taken to check the gender of skeletons excavated from
battlefields?
Nicky"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kevin the Hound:
[B]Sir Rhys,
Further searching of that site, which admittedly has a prejudice >for< women in battle (opposite of yours
Sorry, you must be speaking about someone else. I have no bias against anything but sloppy research.
Oh, and I referenced the Petrarch quote in my original post; did you see that?
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
[B]Sir Rhys,
Further searching of that site, which admittedly has a prejudice >for< women in battle (opposite of yours
Sorry, you must be speaking about someone else. I have no bias against anything but sloppy research.
Oh, and I referenced the Petrarch quote in my original post; did you see that?
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Kevin the Hound
- Archive Member
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: Elkhorn, WI USA
-
Rev. George
- Archive Member
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: athens. ga usa
- Contact:
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kevin the Hound:
<B>My apologies, Sir Rhys, your last paragraph in your first post on this (mentioning Joan of Arc) was strongly worded enough to appear to show a bias.
Kevin the Hound</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
All I said about Joan was that one of the reasons she was burned was for wearing men's clothing; how can you perceive a bias in that simple statement of fact???
I don't *believe* in medieval women soldiers other than in unbelieveably rare circumstances, but that's not a bias, it's research.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>My apologies, Sir Rhys, your last paragraph in your first post on this (mentioning Joan of Arc) was strongly worded enough to appear to show a bias.
Kevin the Hound</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
All I said about Joan was that one of the reasons she was burned was for wearing men's clothing; how can you perceive a bias in that simple statement of fact???
I don't *believe* in medieval women soldiers other than in unbelieveably rare circumstances, but that's not a bias, it's research.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
channeling for Nicky again:
"> Morgan:
>What evidence do they have that MEN fought? How about "every mass grave
> from battle fields"? Unless one wants to dispute the fact that PEOPLE
didn't fight
> wars AT ALL.
The point I was making is that the gender of almost all medieval battlefield
casualties hasn't actually been scientifically investigated. There are mass
graves of, as Morgan correctly points out, PEOPLE who died in battle. On the
whole the gender of these people has been assumed to be male, but no tests
have been done to prove that.
There has been an automatic assumption that soldiers are male, which has
affected the way in which evidence is treated. It had been perfectly
standard practice in archaeology to identify gender on the basis of
equipment, but recent studies, including West Hestlerton where DNA was
analysed, have shown that some skeletons previously identified as male are
actually female and some skeletons previously identified as female are
actually male.
I'm not disputing that the majority of soldiers were male, but I'm
suggesting that, based on the current literary and archaeological evidence,
it is reasonable to say that some soldiers could have been female.
> Murdock
> and didn't Bodica loose?
An awful lot of soldiers and generals over the centuries have lost. It
doesn't mean they weren't soldiers or generals in the first place.
Nicky"
"> Morgan:
>What evidence do they have that MEN fought? How about "every mass grave
> from battle fields"? Unless one wants to dispute the fact that PEOPLE
didn't fight
> wars AT ALL.
The point I was making is that the gender of almost all medieval battlefield
casualties hasn't actually been scientifically investigated. There are mass
graves of, as Morgan correctly points out, PEOPLE who died in battle. On the
whole the gender of these people has been assumed to be male, but no tests
have been done to prove that.
There has been an automatic assumption that soldiers are male, which has
affected the way in which evidence is treated. It had been perfectly
standard practice in archaeology to identify gender on the basis of
equipment, but recent studies, including West Hestlerton where DNA was
analysed, have shown that some skeletons previously identified as male are
actually female and some skeletons previously identified as female are
actually male.
I'm not disputing that the majority of soldiers were male, but I'm
suggesting that, based on the current literary and archaeological evidence,
it is reasonable to say that some soldiers could have been female.
> Murdock
> and didn't Bodica loose?
An awful lot of soldiers and generals over the centuries have lost. It
doesn't mean they weren't soldiers or generals in the first place.
Nicky"
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Hi All
Can this woman provide the primary documentation she cites to support her position? She quotes a lot of alleged examples, but does not give the primary documentation they are derived from
I want to know, especially regarding the women on gun crews. Quoteing Gerry Embletons offhand remark is not sufficient, when I mean I want primary documentation, I mean I want a solid citation - like a listing of accounts paid to gunners and their families, or a direct quote from a memoir or chronicle.
I am not biased one way or the other, but to make such assertions, you need to be able to "throw down" when you are asked. Otherwise it is so much hot air. If she could give manuscript numbers on her website, it would be taken a lot more seriously - I certainly would be grateful for the information.
For the record, my position is that some women throughout the course of history have chosen to follow armies, sometimes actively. That siad, it is an infenitesmily small number that have in comparison to the general population of women. The Middle Ages were not particularly 'liberated' for women - more so than her Victorian descendants, but much less so than womankind today.
A woman would not be actively encouraged, or willingly allowed to actively participate on campaign as a soldier - no lord would pay out cash for what he would consider an inferior product (if you doubt my veracity regarding Norther European attitudes to women in the high & late middle ages, I suggest some study of serious social histories - ones with footnotes to primary documentation - not anictdotal evidence pop culture coffee table "history books"). Women that "followed the drum" as soldiers disguised themselves as men - I know of a precious few examples in the 15th century, and were in all cases but one forced to return to "normal" careers once discovered to be women.
Women regulary participated in the defence of their homes - be they townswomen on the walls of Beauvaise in 1472, or be they ladies defending their lands. This is readily documentable, and indisputable. This makes them armed civillians in a state of emergency - not professional soldiers or warriors. Margret Paston was quite ready to defend her home with a handful of servants against the depredations of a rapacious neighbor, to qute a readily available and documentable example.
Another example is at Grandson in 1476. As the Swiss routed the Burgundian army, a number of women disguised as men, and wearing bits of harness like a valet or footsoldier were overtaken. Their reaction was to fall to their knees and cry for mercy based on their sex - exposing their breasts to prove their case (Diebold Schilling, the Great Chronicle of Berne). The simple reason for their disguise is most likely this - that Charles the Bold had ordered ALL women to be turned out of the companies of the ordinances, as he felt they caused disruption in the ranks - he was nearly killed intervening in a squabble between two English archers over a woman in the camp before Neusse in 1475. The women who followed their hisbands were either forced out of camp, or probably disguised themselves as men. Those forced out of camp without support would have faced a grim future, and this provides the most likely explanation to their presence and disguise. They most emphaticaly were not behaving as soldiers.
The actual cases of disuised women acting as soldiers were most likely on order of one in a million, which matches well to documentable cases from the 18th and 19th centuries (Deborah Sampson AR, about 20 examples from the Civil War, several from Marlboroughs campaigns, including Anne Bonney).
In short, they did happen, but so rarely to make it an oddity in the extreme, and not a commonplace.
------------------
Bob R.
Can this woman provide the primary documentation she cites to support her position? She quotes a lot of alleged examples, but does not give the primary documentation they are derived from
I want to know, especially regarding the women on gun crews. Quoteing Gerry Embletons offhand remark is not sufficient, when I mean I want primary documentation, I mean I want a solid citation - like a listing of accounts paid to gunners and their families, or a direct quote from a memoir or chronicle.
I am not biased one way or the other, but to make such assertions, you need to be able to "throw down" when you are asked. Otherwise it is so much hot air. If she could give manuscript numbers on her website, it would be taken a lot more seriously - I certainly would be grateful for the information.
For the record, my position is that some women throughout the course of history have chosen to follow armies, sometimes actively. That siad, it is an infenitesmily small number that have in comparison to the general population of women. The Middle Ages were not particularly 'liberated' for women - more so than her Victorian descendants, but much less so than womankind today.
A woman would not be actively encouraged, or willingly allowed to actively participate on campaign as a soldier - no lord would pay out cash for what he would consider an inferior product (if you doubt my veracity regarding Norther European attitudes to women in the high & late middle ages, I suggest some study of serious social histories - ones with footnotes to primary documentation - not anictdotal evidence pop culture coffee table "history books"). Women that "followed the drum" as soldiers disguised themselves as men - I know of a precious few examples in the 15th century, and were in all cases but one forced to return to "normal" careers once discovered to be women.
Women regulary participated in the defence of their homes - be they townswomen on the walls of Beauvaise in 1472, or be they ladies defending their lands. This is readily documentable, and indisputable. This makes them armed civillians in a state of emergency - not professional soldiers or warriors. Margret Paston was quite ready to defend her home with a handful of servants against the depredations of a rapacious neighbor, to qute a readily available and documentable example.
Another example is at Grandson in 1476. As the Swiss routed the Burgundian army, a number of women disguised as men, and wearing bits of harness like a valet or footsoldier were overtaken. Their reaction was to fall to their knees and cry for mercy based on their sex - exposing their breasts to prove their case (Diebold Schilling, the Great Chronicle of Berne). The simple reason for their disguise is most likely this - that Charles the Bold had ordered ALL women to be turned out of the companies of the ordinances, as he felt they caused disruption in the ranks - he was nearly killed intervening in a squabble between two English archers over a woman in the camp before Neusse in 1475. The women who followed their hisbands were either forced out of camp, or probably disguised themselves as men. Those forced out of camp without support would have faced a grim future, and this provides the most likely explanation to their presence and disguise. They most emphaticaly were not behaving as soldiers.
The actual cases of disuised women acting as soldiers were most likely on order of one in a million, which matches well to documentable cases from the 18th and 19th centuries (Deborah Sampson AR, about 20 examples from the Civil War, several from Marlboroughs campaigns, including Anne Bonney).
In short, they did happen, but so rarely to make it an oddity in the extreme, and not a commonplace.
------------------
Bob R.
-
Murdock
- Something Different
- Posts: 17705
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Milwaukee, Wi U S of freakin A
- Contact:
An decent pathologist supposedly can look at a skeleton and determine sex fairly easily.
Were these bodies that had been sexed wrong complete or mostly complete skeletons, or were they piles of smashed bone? Misidentifying a mostly complete skeleton i find highly unlikely, espically since a woman "knight" would be a big news story and a very noteworthy find. No reason to hide it.
Were these bodies that had been sexed wrong complete or mostly complete skeletons, or were they piles of smashed bone? Misidentifying a mostly complete skeleton i find highly unlikely, espically since a woman "knight" would be a big news story and a very noteworthy find. No reason to hide it.
Absolutely correct!
My boss here at the museum is scarily good at ID'ing bone fragments.
I'm sure there are other people like him in the world.
(sigh....)
Contrary to popular belief, people who do stuff like that for a living aren't usually idiots who make stuff up as they go along.
I love how willing many participants in the SCA are to disregard what people actually EMPLOYED in the field have to say.
I mean, yeah, you may work as an accountant by day, but by night you're a medieval history proffessional, with all the credentials that go with it, and on weekends you hit people with sticks....right? (wink)
I'm ever so glad some of you aren't in the medical field...(grin)
I'm looking at this post, and while I have no problem with women fighting in the SCA, I must say alot of you are going about trying to validate it VERY poorly.
V
My boss here at the museum is scarily good at ID'ing bone fragments.
I'm sure there are other people like him in the world.
(sigh....)
Contrary to popular belief, people who do stuff like that for a living aren't usually idiots who make stuff up as they go along.
I love how willing many participants in the SCA are to disregard what people actually EMPLOYED in the field have to say.
I mean, yeah, you may work as an accountant by day, but by night you're a medieval history proffessional, with all the credentials that go with it, and on weekends you hit people with sticks....right? (wink)
I'm ever so glad some of you aren't in the medical field...(grin)
I'm looking at this post, and while I have no problem with women fighting in the SCA, I must say alot of you are going about trying to validate it VERY poorly.
V
-
FrauHirsch
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4520
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: San Diego, CA, USA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kevin the Hound:
<B>Juliana,
If you look at that site more closely, scroll dow to the bottom of the page, you'll see that they cover a lot more than just Viking era.
Kevin the Hound</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I realize that, I was just pointing out where anyone intersted can find primary source quotes for the Viking stuff..
regards,
Juliana
<B>Juliana,
If you look at that site more closely, scroll dow to the bottom of the page, you'll see that they cover a lot more than just Viking era.
Kevin the Hound</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I realize that, I was just pointing out where anyone intersted can find primary source quotes for the Viking stuff..
regards,
Juliana
-
Prince Of Darkmoor
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4793
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Salinas, CA
-
Morgan
- Archive Member
- Posts: 18229
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Dallas, TX (Ansteorra)
- Contact:
Yeah, I was going to post to contridict Cunian, but Murdock beat me to it. The SCIENTISTS who do these digs would be meticulous about the bodies. They do whatever they can to get all the bones together correctly (IE, this femur goes with this pelvis) and do all kinds of cataloging. They know the apxt age of the dead person, and the sex as well.
Speaking for myself now, (My, this is getting confusing.)
I have read one very scholarly work with copious footnotes that is cited on the vikings and anglo-saxons page - "Maiden Warriors and Other Sons" - Carol J. Clover - Journal of English and Germanic Philology (JEGP), 85 (1986):35-49. Basically, it contends that, in pagan germanic tradition, in the limited circumstance of a woman finding herself without living male relatives either through marriage or blood, she can adopt a male role to pursue vengeance or carry on feuding. It was a pretty good read, and I wish I had it handy, but it's in a box in the basement and I haven't a clue which one. (We just moved.)
I certainly would never suggest that women fighting in period was particularly common or acceptable. However, we have a pretty steady few documented through the last few centuries. Generally, from my sketchy recall uncovered, (literally), after being wounded, and documented by medical personnel. I don't really think women fighting was a lot more acceptable in the 18th and 19th centuries than in period, so it might be reasonable to assume a somewhat constant trickle through the centuries.
Chef - I found your information fascinating. Generally, the 15th century is not my cup of tea, but...
I think the interest in women fighting in period among women fighters is more of a persona idea thing, or just an interest, than a belief that it was a regular thing, or that we are acting in character playing in SCA tourneys and whatnot. For myself, it's a fun game, not something I'd do with large guys like Syr Rhys for life or death with real swords.
I have read one very scholarly work with copious footnotes that is cited on the vikings and anglo-saxons page - "Maiden Warriors and Other Sons" - Carol J. Clover - Journal of English and Germanic Philology (JEGP), 85 (1986):35-49. Basically, it contends that, in pagan germanic tradition, in the limited circumstance of a woman finding herself without living male relatives either through marriage or blood, she can adopt a male role to pursue vengeance or carry on feuding. It was a pretty good read, and I wish I had it handy, but it's in a box in the basement and I haven't a clue which one. (We just moved.)
I certainly would never suggest that women fighting in period was particularly common or acceptable. However, we have a pretty steady few documented through the last few centuries. Generally, from my sketchy recall uncovered, (literally), after being wounded, and documented by medical personnel. I don't really think women fighting was a lot more acceptable in the 18th and 19th centuries than in period, so it might be reasonable to assume a somewhat constant trickle through the centuries.
Chef - I found your information fascinating. Generally, the 15th century is not my cup of tea, but...
I think the interest in women fighting in period among women fighters is more of a persona idea thing, or just an interest, than a belief that it was a regular thing, or that we are acting in character playing in SCA tourneys and whatnot. For myself, it's a fun game, not something I'd do with large guys like Syr Rhys for life or death with real swords.
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Hi Cunian,
I well understand your position and sympathise with it. I have no problem with women playing the game (whichever it is) alongside of men, so long as in the case of reenactment they attempt to either disuise themselves as men, or act the part of a campfollower defending the camp impromptu - I would strenuously object to a woman openly portraying some sort of female fighter or 'knight', and giving the publiic the impression this was a done thing.
In case any doubt the veracity of my position on the subject, one of my newest recruits is a woman, portraying the role of a mounted archer (within the limitations set above), complete with her own horse. One of the few requirements we have is that you should actually be able to fulfil your function in a military role, and since she is a firefighter capable of lifting me in a firemans carry and hauling my butt out of a burning building, and she is a practised archer, I have no doubt about her ability to fill the role.
That said, as a historian who is interested in the subject, I sincerely want to see the documentation this Nikki is using for her statements on her website. I am not hostile to the concept she is espousing, but I need more than her say so and some vauge quotes to view the information contained as being accurate. Surely it is not too much trouble to provide which sources she has derived her information from - I want to go look at them too.
To sum up - I have no objection to women playing the game. I do object if it is presented as commonplace in history.
------------------
Bob R.
I well understand your position and sympathise with it. I have no problem with women playing the game (whichever it is) alongside of men, so long as in the case of reenactment they attempt to either disuise themselves as men, or act the part of a campfollower defending the camp impromptu - I would strenuously object to a woman openly portraying some sort of female fighter or 'knight', and giving the publiic the impression this was a done thing.
In case any doubt the veracity of my position on the subject, one of my newest recruits is a woman, portraying the role of a mounted archer (within the limitations set above), complete with her own horse. One of the few requirements we have is that you should actually be able to fulfil your function in a military role, and since she is a firefighter capable of lifting me in a firemans carry and hauling my butt out of a burning building, and she is a practised archer, I have no doubt about her ability to fill the role.
That said, as a historian who is interested in the subject, I sincerely want to see the documentation this Nikki is using for her statements on her website. I am not hostile to the concept she is espousing, but I need more than her say so and some vauge quotes to view the information contained as being accurate. Surely it is not too much trouble to provide which sources she has derived her information from - I want to go look at them too.
To sum up - I have no objection to women playing the game. I do object if it is presented as commonplace in history.
------------------
Bob R.
-
Konstantin the Red
- Archive Member
- Posts: 26713
- Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Port Hueneme CA USA
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Prince Of Darkmoor:
Having made a half dozen or so maille bikini tops now, I'd have to agree
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There's something about those armored curves that makes my toes curl too.
------------------
"The Minstrel Boy to the war is gone..."
Having made a half dozen or so maille bikini tops now, I'd have to agree
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There's something about those armored curves that makes my toes curl too.
------------------
"The Minstrel Boy to the war is gone..."