Women as Warriors

[Sigeric]

Greetings All,

I recieved the following link from another list I am on and thought it might be a good subject for discussion. I found the information very interesting, but was left wondering about the accuracy. Since I know nothing on the subject, I would like to hear from some scholars on this list.

http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women.html

[Padrig]

Thanks for the links, I will add it to the "For the ladies" section on my site.

Pad

[Tom Knighton]

I'm cautiously interested. While I think it's very interesting, many of the instances don't have sources listed. Many of the Viking ones all come from a single book. While this doesn't mean that they aren't accurate, to me anyways, I just can't accept it on face value from just that little bit.

Please note that I'm not saying the information isn't accurate, only that I personally would like to see more first. Some of the information listed I have seen elsewhere, so I have little doubt about it's accuracy. Still, all in all a very interesting site.

Bran

[Ernst]

I suppose it all depends on your definition of "warrior". Does defending a castle make one a "warrior" if the castle is also your home? Does being a political leader directing armies make one a "warrior"? My wife is certainly capable of using firearms to defend our home and children, but if she were required to do so, would she become a "soldier" or "warrior"? Golda Meir led the state of Israel and directed its armies, but did that ake her a "warrior"? Women undoubtedly played an important role in politics and were required to act in the defese of family if needed. Whether this makes them warriors or not is a matter of definition.

[chef de chambre]

Greetings All,

I recieved the following link from another list I am on and thought it might be a good subject for discussion. I found the information very interesting, but was left wondering about the accuracy. Since I know nothing on the subject, I would like to hear from some scholars on this list.

http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women.html

I'm both familiar with the site, and also have researched the topic for my eras of study fairly intensively.

As to the subject itself, women functioning as warriors proper in Northern Europe, post Roman Empire are an extreme rarity. Isolated examples occur that can be reasonably documented - it should be kept in mind that these are cases of extreme rarity. The further you go forward in history, the more examples occur in the record - I believe this is due to a thoroughness of recording, rather than to an increase in the phenomenon. Even so, the phenomenon represents a miniscule fraction of a fraction of women in any locale and any generation. In the vast majority of instances, the extremely rare women who pursued this did so disguised as men - not acting openly as women. My comments are directed to women who followed the profession of soldiers proper - not women who defended their homes out of need, such as the siege of a castle or a town.

As to the site, it has improved over time, but the author uses the method of a large bore (at least 8, and duckbilled to boot) shotgun in 'documentation', using the slightest reference from mythology or folklore, or poor documentation alongside better cases, as if by doing so somehow increases the validity of all.

[Gabriel Morgan]

While this is mostly off topic, I'll stick in a little post here about 'Ash: A Secret History'. It is a (gigantic) fictional historical/sf novel set in Burgundy in the 15th century, and centers around a female condottiere and her company. The author (a woman with an MA in Military History) certainly has a few debateable points to make about women in combat, but it is a good read, and very well researched.

You can get the novel as one book from amazon.uk, or split into innumerable smaller ones from amazon us.

Thought this might be of some interest to those reading.

[Wyrm]

I'm far from an expert on the topic of female fighters but I have seen this topic come and go (theres quite a few that pop up when searching the archive...). Its usually from the point of a female who is looking to authenticate their fighting image and acompanied by knowledgable people (often male) commenting on how rare it is or that the women concerned are actually defending something (if the material is a good source) or how preposterous it is (if it is a poor source - i.e mythology for one example).

Even if there is one (I know some prefer 3) example that is good and called rare if you want, that should be more than acceptable for authentic use of a woman fighter. Like if there is one good source for a weird or uncommon weapon/shield/piece or armour then that I think would make an authentic representation. I say same goes for female combatants, be they offensive or defensive in nature.

just my 5 cents,
Wyrm.

[Dalloch]

Just saw this on another bored so I'll put my response here as well

'Women were barred from military participation in a law passed at the synod of Druim Ceat in 590 A.D. The law proved to be unenforceable when the women warriors refused to lay down their arms.'

Wrong.

Annals of Ulster: 574 (redated to 590 Sharpe, R, peguin edition of the Life of Columba)

Magna con[uen]tio Droma Ceta, in qua erant colum Cillie ocus Aedh mc. Ainmirech

'The great convention of Druim Ceat at which were present Colu Cillie and Aed son of Ainmire

Nothing about women there.

Adomnan writes of the meeting, but talks about a Columba prophecy, and judging from the those recorded as present it seems likely that the purpose of the coucil was to discuss the nature between the Kingships of Aedan son of Gabrian and Aed son of Ainmure.

So much for 'Druim Ceat'.

It could be that the author meant the'Law of Adomnan'. This was a law enacted on the behest of Adomnan at Birr, in 697.

Au 697: Adomnanus ad Hiberiam pergit dedit Legem Inocentium populis.

Adamnan proceeded to Ireland and gave the Lex Innocentium to the people.

(ESSH p202-203)

In the law there are numberd paragraphs from 28 to 53.

Para.44

...If it be a blow with palm or the fist, and ounce of silverfor it. If it be a livid or red mark or a swelling, six scripuli and oneounce [of silver] for it. Women's hair fights, five wethers for it. If it be women-combat with degredation, three weathers for it

Also para. 52

'If it be making use of a women in a massacre or a raid, seven cumals for every hand [involved] as far as seven, and [it is reckoned as] the crime of one man from that onwards. If a woman has been made pregnant through fornication, without conttract, without property, without brideprice, without betrothal, full fines for it. Whatever reckoning is made for the [finished] hand-produce, however great or small, the same is made for the madder and woad and onion; if it be red dye of a cloak, the value of a cloak for it.

There are no other real refrences to any form of women fighting with the men. Its open to interpretaton what 'making use of awoman in massacre or riad' means, but I dont think it means that they are doing the fighting.

If the author of this site has evidence that the women 'refused to lay down there arms' I'd like to see it. Since so far as I can see, no one was asking them to, I think it might prove difficult.

Selected bibliogrpahy

Primmary:
Adomnan at Birr 697, O' Loughlin, T (ed), 2001

Adomnans Life of Columba, Anderson, A.O & M.O. (ed & trans), 1961

Annals of Ulster, Mac Airt, s, Mac Niocaill, G, 1983

Secondary:

Anderson, A.O, Early Soucres in Scottish historyAD.500-1286, Vol.1

Meckler, M., 'THe Annals of Ulster and the date of the meeting at Druim Cett', Perita, Vol.11, 1997

[chef de chambre]

I'm far from an expert on the topic of female fighters but I have seen this topic come and go (theres quite a few that pop up when searching the archive...). Its usually from the point of a female who is looking to authenticate their fighting image and acompanied by knowledgable people (often male) commenting on how rare it is or that the women concerned are actually defending something (if the material is a good source) or how preposterous it is (if it is a poor source - i.e mythology for one example).

Even if there is one (I know some prefer 3) example that is good and called rare if you want, that should be more than acceptable for authentic use of a woman fighter. Like if there is one good source for a weird or uncommon weapon/shield/piece or armour then that I think would make an authentic representation. I say same goes for female combatants, be they offensive or defensive in nature.

just my 5 cents,
Wyrm.

Hi Wrymspleen,

I believe you are entirely missing the point. The question or topic is in no way, shape, or form concerning 'soft soldiers' in reenactment - the discussion is about women warriors in history - historic fact, not modern opinion. You are barking up the wrong tree if you think I represent the opinion of those who think women should not be involved in this way in reenactment. I am *Adamantly against misrepresenting history when it comes to public education on the other hand.

Dalloch points out an excellent example of "documentation" on the site, that when examined, is not documentation at all. I will not blame the person responsible for the website for coming up with that on her own, but *whoever* presented that to her for use on the website is engaging in outright falsehood.

It is things like this that harm her website, and make serious students and scholars dismiss it out of hand, because 'documentation' like this abounds in that website.

Regarding your "authentic" use of a woman fighter - it is off topic. In a Society as large as the SCA, even being extremely generous historically (representing 30,000 people, assuming they were all soldiers in an army), the 30,000 would allow about a .5 female combatant portrayal statisticaly.

[Wyrm]

Regarding your "authentic" use of a woman fighter - it is off topic. In a Society as large as the SCA, even being extremely generous historically (representing 30,000 people, assuming they were all soldiers in an army), the 30,000 would allow about a .5 female combatant portrayal statisticaly.

Hi there Chef,
Yes, my bad, I am relating the topic to modern usage of the image of a female warrior and I didnt really mean females in the SCA in particular - I am sure there has been at least one female in a LH group who has tried to pass as a woman warrior and tried to justify it (if they got away with it is another thing entirely..).

I no doubt that the percentage is incredibly small for female fighters, I was just commenting that if they existed surely they are able to be portrayed, either in the SCA or a LH group or whatever, without questioning their authenticity. I know many people would probably accept female participants in modern re-enactment simply for the modern equality among sexes but would they truly feel that the female is representing something authentic or that she is merely there so as not to discriminate against her?

Because I dragged modern re-enactment and modern usage of authenticity into the topic (hope no one minds too much) I cant really get around the fact that there are more females interested in fighting now than there were back in medieval time, but I dont think we can really use numbers in a modern setting anyway when at most there are only a handul of participants in a group - is the female inauthentic because she is so rare or is it the males who are inauthentic because there are so few? Anyway, just my rambling thoughts..

Regards,
Wyrm.