# Women knights?



## Lafayette (Dec 16, 2016)

As a lot of you know by now women warriors are often featured in fantasy. In fact, I have a woman warrior in the novel that I am writing.

However, I know that reality is a whole lot different than fantasy. So, my question is: if the culture of the medieval age and the Renaissance permitted women to be warriors how well would they have functioned?


----------



## The Big Peat (Dec 16, 2016)

Tolerably well I imagine. They were female warriors in Japan in this period - Onna-bugeisha - Wikipedia - and I see no reason to think European warfare would have been greatly more taxing.


----------



## Wiglaf (Dec 16, 2016)

I don't know.  I doubt they would fare as well with maces, axes, and hammers.  However, they would probably do well as horse archers or, with a low center of gravity and strong legs, perhaps be steadfast additions to a shield wall.  I have no clue as to how they would fare with lances.*

* I am discussing the center of the distribution, not individuals.  I am assuming employing women at the same rate as men, a 50% female army.


----------



## Nick B (Dec 16, 2016)

Women warriors were common amongst Vikings. Just a normal thing. As it should be.


----------



## Stewart Hotston (Dec 16, 2016)

Depends what they were doing and the type of fighting. As with men of different sizes and strengths, there were a variety of weapon sets and skills that were taught - it also depends when and what the battle was. A heavy melee with short weapons and grappling would favour the well fed and trained - as always. The biggest determining factors would be discipline, training, command, supplies and equipment. AFTER that would be individual physical strength. 

It's simply too complex a question for an easy answer. However there are a number of societies which had female mix or female only units and they seemed to fair well. For instance, the Amazons talked about by Herodotus were based on a real force of female soldiers. There's a great In Our Time that covers it.

I fight with renaissance and late medieval weapons every week and two of our best duelists are women (and indeed the School of the Sword was founded by a woman). When I've fought in mass melees it's almost never individual skill i worry about, nor an individual's physical strength - it's the guy standing next to my direct opponent I worry about because he's looking at me all concentrating on another guy and leaving a big opening for them to twat me around the head. i.e. chance and opportunity are the big factors there - those come about because of decisions taken by commanders at some other point.

Also, remember that for most battles of the period most people have in mind when they say 'medieval' the real battles were fought with long weapons as much as possible because it reduced the need for extensive technical training for peasants and also kept people away from the business end of short weapons (which are horrible to fight with in a way that spears and polearms aren't - the greatest number of double hits are always seen in knife fighting. Basically no one wins.). 

in the end I don't think sex has anything to do with it for mass melee, or at least, it's influence would only come out if training, strategy, tactics, equipment, theatre, command decisions, discipline and supplies were all completely equal.


----------



## Toby Frost (Dec 16, 2016)

I agree. They would probably be a bit smaller and might use slightly smaller weapons, so might lack a little in reach and leverage (perhaps). However, my understanding is that, in Japan, women fighters would often use a polearm rather than a sword to compensate for lack of reach. It seems to be assumed that women are generally slightly less strong than men but have a higher pain threshold and very similar stamina. So that would work ok, especially given the variance between individuals. After all, humans are generally fairly fragile creatures, and don't take much to injure if you know what you're doing (which a knight would). Nancy Wake, a WW2 British agent, killed a German stormtrooper with one blow of the hand.

Of course, a viable female knight wouldn't look feminine. Chances are she'd just look like a small man, with (perhaps) an altered breastplate. Leaving aside cultural or societal issues, and assuming that the training would be of similar quality for men and women, I can't see why not.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 16, 2016)

Lafayette said:


> if the culture of the medieval age and the Renaissance permitted women to be warriors how well would they have functioned?



If you're using Mediaeval Northern Europe as a template, then certainly you wouldn't ordinarily get female knights. Joan of Arc is the only example that comes to mind, and she was burned to death for her trouble.

However, you can play with and adapt the rules of society as you want for your world - but take care to make it believable, and if you're going to try and use modern ideals of equality then it's not going to be a very period work.

I'm sure we had a discussion on this recently...

EDIT: Here we go: Women in the Crusades


----------



## The Big Peat (Dec 16, 2016)

Quellist said:


> Women warriors were common amongst Vikings. Just a normal thing. As it should be.



What's the historical evidence on that? My impression on this was that the evidence was rather scant and social attitudes weren't generally in favour of the idea (there's an article that used to be on De Re Militarii to that effect although since it's no longer there I'm wondering if I've gone mad). But I can't say I'm as knowledgeable re the period as I'd like to be these days so I could be talking out of my rectum.


----------



## Nick B (Dec 16, 2016)

To be fair, the historical evidence is sparce, since the norse folk didn't write much down. The evidence is much more anecdotal from the likes of Snorri and so on. 
The sexing of graves by bones rather than burial items does seem to point at an almost 50/50 gender split, and there are many instances of women buried with weapons, though this is no guarantee they were in fact warriors. The women came in the first wave though, not a second 'colonising' wave as initialy assumed.
Another thing that makes it hard is that medicaly, you get the same bone changes swinging a scythe farming as you do swinging an axe or sword.

As with much of Viking history, so much has to be taken from their myths and stories, which for the most part were handed down verbaly rather than written, so open to a great deal of change. 


So, it is highly open to speculation. It seems likely, given the numbers, the graves, the bone changes in weapon wielding arms, that women did fight alongside the men. But, all these things could be interpreted differently. Especialy by a society that makes assumptions based on its own cultural ways.


----------



## The Big Peat (Dec 16, 2016)

Quellist said:


> To be fair, the historical evidence is sparce, since the norse folk didn't write much down. The evidence is much more anecdotal from the likes of Snorri and so on.
> The sexing of graves by bones rather than burial items does seem to point at an almost 50/50 gender split, and there are many instances of women buried with weapons, though this is no guarantee they were in fact warriors. The women came in the first wave though, not a second 'colonising' wave as initialy assumed.
> Another thing that makes it hard is that medicaly, you get the same bone changes swinging a scythe farming as you do swinging an axe or sword.
> 
> ...



Have there been more studies done pointing at an even gender split than the one by Shane McLeod that only looked at 13 graves?

I didn't know about the bone changes though.

That at least some women fought in the Viking age seems very very likely but I personally wouldn't describe it as common.


----------



## Nick B (Dec 16, 2016)

By 'common' I meant there were frequently women, not anything like a 50/50 common. I think it appears that if a woman wanted to fight, it was just accepted as normal rathar than being unusual. A lot of the problem with reading viking stuff, is learning _how_ to read it, it is open to so much interpretation.

I don't know of further, or more detailed research sadly.


----------



## The Big Peat (Dec 16, 2016)

Interpretation is the joy and curse of early history.

I think this might have been the paper I was remembering:

http://sydney.edu.au/arts/medieval/saga/pdf/375-norrman.pdf

There seem to be limits to the acceptance both culturally and legally:

"Both the Norwegian Gulafling Law and Grágás, the Icelandic law code, express the view that anyone who dresses like the opposite sex and women who wear weapons as a man must be punished"

Although those law codes might not accurately reflect the cultural mores of the Viking age proper given their dates.


(Not that this isn't quite the tangent from the original topic )

edit:

Since I'm puddling around and it seems relatively relevant, I'll stick up this link

Women in Medieval Warfare


----------



## Overread (Dec 16, 2016)

I never looked further into it and it was only one article I read which I read so long ago I can't recall where it was

However I did read an interesting angle written by an American general in modern (semi modern) times regarding women in the army and his opposition to their inclusion; which I think might be worth considering, especially as the topic of disipline has come up earlier.

His argument was that the problem with women in the armed forces as part of a combined force is men and their more instinctive behaviour. His observation was that when a battle was engaged if a woman was injured it was more likely that males within the same side would start to adjust their behaviour away from their training and to focus on protecting/saving the injured women. 
Now this might be a reflection on training of the forces he was observing, but it might also be something to consider regarding women in armed forces, both as ally and opposition. It would certainly be something worth looking into as if there is a grain of truth it means that armed forces looking to include women might have to either adjust training or suffer from potential organisation/control problems once the battle begins - although of course injured women on the opposing side might also affect enemy moral and order even more (esp if that armed force wasn't used to fighting women).

Of course in a close combat situation it might be that the chaos of the battle obliterates such thinking.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Dec 16, 2016)

interesting Q there. I'd take a counter point based on personal experience - as a youth I was a good average (as opposed to good) sprinter in most years I'd have qualified for the womens 100m final at most Olympics. I rather suspect that most pugilists of a good average standard would beat most if not all women. I suspect that things might be different in Judo or some of the other martial arts but where physicality is required then it'd be a very rare woman who could compete with a professional soldier. Even if you look at archery, javelin etc women use lighter equipment (though to be fair get hit with a pointy thing it's going to hurt)


----------



## Overread (Dec 16, 2016)

Thing is how many people in an army are at peek physical condition? Especially before modern times where we have professional armies as opposed to conscripts and peasants as the bulk of the troops. Sure a male of good breeding in top condition and well trained is likely to be stronger than an equal woman (on average); however most men in an ancient army won't be perfect.

And it doesn't mean how perfect or how wonderful they are, if they get stabbed with a sword they still bleed. So if having women in your army bulks up your numbers and if they are well trained to use the strength they've got and use appropriate weapons - chances are they are not vastly different to men in performance - on average.


----------



## Hex (Dec 16, 2016)

Overread said:


> I never looked further into it and it was only one article I read which I read so long ago I can't recall where it was
> 
> However I did read an interesting angle written by an American general in modern (semi modern) times regarding women in the army and his opposition to their inclusion; which I think might be worth considering, especially as the topic of disipline has come up earlier.
> 
> ...



Just in passing on this: there's research I think which shows men react very differently to male children and female children, encouraging a lot more risk-taking behaviour by the boys. This is little kids in play parks, not soldiers at war, but perhaps it suggests something similar social or even evolutionary. Or maybe it's just a random thought...

Also, the assumption that seems to underlie some of these points is that there's an infinite supply of soldiers. A woman mightn't be as strong as a man, but she's a lot better than nothing.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Dec 16, 2016)

Lafayette said:


> However, I know that reality is a whole lot different than fantasy. So, my question is: if the culture of the medieval age and the Renaissance permitted women to be warriors how well would they have functioned?



It's an impossible question to answer, because if the culture of the Middle Ages and Renaissance permitted women to be warriors they wouldn't be the same cultures.  Not even remotely. It would take such a massive overall of society the result would have probably been unrecognizable. The only reason it works in so many fantasy novels is because the Medieval and Renaissance setting is only the thinnest veneer over modern sensibilities. 

Before the Medieval period, there were cultures that allowed women to be trained as warriors.  Among the Celts, it would appear to have been a fairly common practice, but ideas about women and their place in society were very different from feudal Europe.

And I think it depends very much on the style of fighting, armor, and so forth.  If agility and endurance are important, women might do well.  But the knight in heavy armor, although nowhere as clumsy and weighted down as many people assume, was not a marvel of agility.  And hefting a shield and fighting with a broadsword would probably require a degree of upper body strength difficult for women to achieve.  As knights, I think they would do rather badly.

But when it came to the camp-followers (especially the sturdy sort of women who might drive supply wagons, or work as cooks, etc.), it's not likely that the men in heavy armor would be attacking them -- quite beneath a gentleman's notice! -- but against the foot soldiers who would be the ones to rush the wagons, they'd probably be more than adequate with a knife or a bow.


----------



## The Big Peat (Dec 17, 2016)

There's women doing well in competitive jousting in mixed competitions. I don't know how big they are as its pretty hard to find profiles but I doubt they're all giants as not all the men are either.  One of the Royal Armouries champions is only 5'4", which is average female height. 

Slightly different kettle of fish being on foot, but if women have the strength to use a lance and participate in mounted melees against men, I'm guessing they'd probably do a decent job of on foot melees with broadsword and shield. Hard to say as, insofar as I can tell, the various armoured combat bodies don't let boys go against girls, but its not like all the boys are huge heavy types either. And the women look fairly agile wearing full plate (and modern full plate is heavier than the old stuff).


----------



## Overread (Dec 17, 2016)

Strength is not everything; many times its not the raw power but the correct application and use of the strength one has which can turn the tide in a fight. 

Sometimes I think the strength angle is somewhat overplayed as a core argument, yes its part of it but I think that there are multiple other factors that come into play. Also I think that part of it is also our modern view point on women both today but also our impression of them in the past. There is a general view that women were seen as meek and weak where-as chances are your average peasant farmer (male or female) was likely fitter physically than most people (male or female) are today (provided they had access to food and were not sick or injured).


----------



## Abernovo (Dec 17, 2016)

Okay, you're asking a question which is really a whole set of questions.

You use the word 'warriors'. There are a lot of different types. Even as knights/knechts, you might have grander and more lowly examples. Some fought mainly from horseback, others exclusively on foot. Some were retrained as bodyguards to their liege lords. John Hawkwood was, allegedly, a knight, but he started (by repute) as a bowman, and rose to lead a group of condottieri, who were often kidnappers ransoming their captives to gain riches. William Marshall, senior knight of England and occasionally regent, grew rich on the tourney field, taking down profitable nobles who, again, had to pay for their release. Both used subterfuge as a weapon.

In the same way, women are all different, as are men, and fighting units. Strengths and weaknesses come together to make a whole, balancing out. So, could the women in your story not be the same, each having personalities and traits which contribute to the effectiveness of the group? And, before we get into a whole question of genders, let's remember that you can have, for example very masculine (for want of a better word) women, as well as very feminine ones, just as you may have ostensibly feminine men compared to those demonstrating perceived masculine traits. When the ordure hits the air conditioning, those traits may mean nothing. Some macho men are full of bravado and nothing else, some meek men are steely in their resolve. The same can be said for women. A slight-looking woman might be pure muscle and lightning fast, perhaps not able to take the full force of a mace, but if she's already slipped a stiletto into nerve and blood vessel clusters of her opponents (oxters, groin, solar plexus, neck, kidneys; plus any other weak spots such as back of the knees, hamstrings etc.) she's off drinking ale while said opponents are...not. Or she might spend her time off the battlefield being quiet and refined.

And battles are not always won by brawn. In the Scottish borders during the wars of independence, a local population ran off, leaving all their cattle to be eaten by the invading English army. In reality, they left out diseased cattle, which provided the invading army with a dose of anthrax, severely weakening them. Sometimes, strategy is key.


----------



## Lafayette (Dec 18, 2016)

Brian G Turner said:


> If you're using Mediaeval Northern Europe as a template, then certainly you wouldn't ordinarily get female knights. Joan of Arc is the only example that comes to mind, and she was burned to death for her trouble.
> 
> However, you can play with and adapt the rules of society as you want for your world - but take care to make it believable, and if you're going to try and use modern ideals of equality then it's not going to be a very period work.
> 
> ...



I know Joan de Arc wore armor, but I've always been under the impression that she herself did no fighting. Am I wrong in this assumption? Would the (assumed) fact that she wasn't a fighter explain why she was so easily captured?


----------



## The Big Peat (Dec 18, 2016)

Lafayette said:


> I know Joan de Arc wore armor, but I've always been under the impression that she herself did no fighting. Am I wrong in this assumption? Would the (assumed) fact that she wasn't a fighter explain why she was so easily captured?



You're correct that its generally believed that she didn't fight. 

There's a few examples of medieval North European noblewomen riding to war in armour but its hard to find one where the chronicler says they went around ganking people like the boys. 

Isabel of Conches is mentioned by Orderic Vitalis; "in war she rode armed as a knight among the knights". Stabbing and hacking sounds plausible, but may not have happened; its just as plausible there was none. I haven't read the original text so maybe that mentions ganking but I can't help but think a direct quote like that would be all over the net.

Florine of Burgundy died on Crusade in battle. There seems to be a fairly good chance she was trying to kill someone at that point although its likely she would have never entered a battle if the Turks hadn't attacked her husband's army and given her little choice. Plenty of women went on Crusade, few are reported as getting their murder on. Ida of Austria also died on Crusade so its possible she was fighting too.

About the only definite one I can find is Walter Bower remarking that a female lancer died in battle killing a Scots horseman in 1335.

Still, this something of a digression from how they'd have got on, not whether they did (although it is interesting to note a definite case of a woman killing someone with a lance (insofar as we treat any event from the chronicles as definite)).


----------



## Overread (Dec 18, 2016)

Another aspect is to consider that war records that we have might not be complete truthful accounts. It might well be that women who fought during major medieval battles might well have been reported only as wearing armour or parading with knights and that tales of their actual battle prowess simply never made it into recorded mediums - maybe because of bias of the writers; maybe because it was felt that such details shouldn't be said; maybe because they never distinguished themselves enough to warrant mention (that's not to say they were poor fighters just that they never did anything outstanding or killed any one important).

So there's a whole other marketing and reporting angle that could colour our impressions of those days with reasons on both sides of the conflict for underplaying or under reporting on the warrior women of the day.


----------



## MWagner (Dec 18, 2016)

Movies and novels have led us to believe that being a knight is all about the armour, and learning to fight as a knight was something our motivated commoner protagonist could do in a couple weeks covered in a training montage. However, not only did the arms and armour cost a fortune, but the training real knights underwent was an extremely rigorous endeavour begun in childhood and requiring enormous amounts of time, not to mention a higher quality diet than the vast majority of people had access to. It was akin to training to become a professional athlete today. The notion that a female aristocrat (or a male commoner) could just practice with a sword for a few weeks, don some plate armour, and fight as a knight is akin to believing an average person today who had never played American football could practice in a field for a couple weeks with some friends and then play middle linebacker for the New England Patriots. Gendered physical differences aside, there were strict social conventions that made it surpassingly unlikely that a woman could undertake this kind of highly specialised training. As for untrained combat, this would be undertaken by women only in times of extreme danger, such as when whole tribes on the move were met in battle and the women guarded the baggage train.


----------



## Toby Frost (Dec 18, 2016)

I think we are assuming that this fantasy world is arranged so that it's an accepted convention that women can and do fight. Presumably the social structure is in place to enable that to happen and therefore this isn't going to be one of those worlds that's effectively medieval Europe with the religion left out and a few dragons put in.

That said, I take the point that a knight of the high medieval period (1300, say) didn't exist on his own, any more than a fighter plane is kept going solely by its pilot. If he went on a military campaign, he would have a support team and, unlike the knights in Arthurian stories, wouldn't have spent much time charging around the countryside on his own in plate armour. The answer would probably be to either write this (for both genders), base the story on a later or earlier period when less paraphenalia was required, or give him some sort of lighter or magical armour that didn't require so much work. Or you could just completely ignore the problem, the way some Arthurian writers have done, and crack on with the story.


----------



## The Big Peat (Dec 18, 2016)

My absolute 'favourite' resolution of that dilemma was as done in Eddings' Elenium/Tamuli, in which you've got five knights (often in full plate) riding around the countryside and only one of them has a squire and that squire is seen as an archaism and whose main purpose is to indulge in the supremacy of reverse-snobbery. Genius.

Mind you, Eddings does routinely demonstrate that his knowledge of medieval warfare could be tattooed on a baby's fingernail by a blind butcher.


----------



## Lafayette (Dec 20, 2016)

Thank you for your input.

The fact that knights to be had go through extensive training from childhood escaped my memory. The other factor that may play into this is (and I know I may be wrong) that somewhere in the stages of growing up boys become physically stronger than girls. This factor would eventually disqualified the girls. This is not to say females couldn't excel in some forms of combat, but not in enough forms to allow entry into knighthood.

I ruled out plate armor in my novel. Thinking where in the world are they going to put it when their not wearing it or they have no pack animals because they're traveling on foot? Or who is going to take care of it? If I get someone to do this then I have to write a new character in and that could slow the story down. I also thought that it would be very inconvenient for the characters to always  be wearing plate armor.


----------



## Toby Frost (Dec 20, 2016)

Lafayette said:


> The other factor that may play into this is (and I know I may be wrong) that somewhere in the stages of growing up boys become physically stronger than girls. This factor would eventually disqualified the girls.



I'm not sure that it would, unless there comes a point in training where you have to be of X strength or you can't continue, like being the right height on a rollercoaster - but I'm not sure why that would be necessary. If the trainee can't swing a big sword yet, but shows aptitude, why not give them a slightly smaller sword or more press-ups to do? Especially in a setting what there isn't plate armour and training a knight isn't so much of a financial investment (or, perhaps, has less religious or social significance than it did in the real world). Plate armour makes someone considerably harder to damage: take it away and you could probably kill or maim a soldier with one or two well-aimed blows, which would come as much from skill as raw strength. Without plate armour, but with a feudal-style fantasy world, you might end up with something like a samurai class.

My feeling on this whole issue is that the "system" can be comfortably rigged to allow it to happen, whether in pockets of society or overall, but the end result will be rather different to medieval Europe.


----------



## The Big Peat (Dec 20, 2016)

I find myself concurring with Tobemeister 3000 for the most part there and would add that the religious and social significance of knights was not universal across Medieval Europe. For example, the German Ministerialis knight class started as unfree men.

The main issue with a widespread female warrior culture, if you wish it to be as realistic as possible, is the issue of birth rates if you have large forces of women on the average battlefield.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 20, 2016)

Lafayette said:


> The fact that knights to be had go through extensive training from childhood escaped my memory. The other factor that may play into this is (and I know I may be wrong) that somewhere in the stages of growing up boys become physically stronger than girls. This factor would eventually disqualified the girls. This is not to say females couldn't excel in some forms of combat, but not in enough forms to allow entry into knighthood.



It was never an issue of strength, but of social attitudes. Knights were traditionally part of the upper class, which meant - as a generalisation - that sons were expected to win fame and fortune, whereas daughters were expected to produce children through politically useful marriages (or get thee to a convent). 



Lafayette said:


> I ruled out plate armor in my novel. Thinking where in the world are they going to put it when their not wearing it or they have no pack animals because they're traveling on foot? Or who is going to take care of it? If I get someone to do this then I have to write a new character in and that could slow the story down. I also thought that it would be very inconvenient for the characters to always  be wearing plate armor.



Knights have servants - often a squire and page, at the very least. No respectable upper class toff with armour is going to expect to carry all their armour and supplies and do all their own chores. Usually a knight would belong to a household anyway, and have everything supplied and provided for. A knight by themselves isn't likely to be viewed as a knight but as a mercenary, in which all rules can be broken - cf John Hawkwood.


----------



## Toby Frost (Dec 20, 2016)

In the real world, yes, and also in more "realistic" fantasy. But in older and more fantastical books, knights seem to operate on their own: take Sturm from Dragonlance or anyone from T.H. White or John Steinbeck's books about King Arthur (probably because the stories date from a pre-plate armour time, and our mental image of the characters is coloured by Victorian illustrations). George R.R. Martin's knights seem to manage with a single squire (Brienne and Poderick spring to mind). The answer is probably that the questing knight never really existed in reality, or at least not as depicted in King Arthur.

But then again, this isn't reality. It just has to feel right.


----------



## Overread (Dec 20, 2016)

Don't forget in older times many more children were lost before becoming adults and even child birth was much more risky; so women being kept away from battle and focused on producing offspring wasn't so daft a thought when even the upper classes might lose many before adulthood. 


If we look at modern times many developed nations have women now having not only fewer children but having them much later in life; advances allowed by modern living and medical support. This is as a result of many things, but including careers. Thus society without modern food, housing, sanitation and medication would have a likely bias toward encouraging women (and men) toward producing offspring.


----------



## MWagner (Dec 20, 2016)

I often come across the modern conceit that it was simple sexism that kept women confined to traditional roles. It's difficult to understand how fundamentally different society was in a pre-modern era before reliable birth control, mass education, modern medicine, and labour-saving appliances. When the onset of sex meant the onset of child-rearing and nursing not as a matter of choice but of nature. When having children was either a necessity to maintain the family bloodline (in the case of the wealthy), or a duty to produce more farmers and soldiers for your liege in a world driven by muscle-power. When the labour to keep a household (and its animals) fed, watered, clothed, and in some kind of basic level of sanitation required unrelenting toil from sun-up to sun-down for most of the year. It doesn't help that our impressions of the 'olden days' are usually of the wealthy and powerful.


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 20, 2016)

MWagner said:


> I often come across the modern conceit that it was simple sexism that kept women confined to traditional roles. It's difficult to understand how fundamentally different society was in a pre-modern era before reliable birth control, mass education, modern medicine, and labour-saving appliances. When the onset of sex meant the onset of child-rearing and nursing not as a matter of choice but of nature. When having children was either a necessity to maintain the family bloodline (in the case of the wealthy), or a duty to produce more farmers and soldiers for your liege in a world driven by muscle-power. When the labour to keep a household (and its animals) fed, watered, clothed, and in some kind of basic level of sanitation required unrelenting toil from sun-up to sun-down for most of the year. It doesn't help that our impressions of the 'olden days' are usually of the wealthy and powerful.


And don't forget that your children were also your pension plan.


----------



## The Big Peat (Dec 20, 2016)

MWagner said:


> I often come across the modern conceit that it was simple sexism that kept women confined to traditional roles. It's difficult to understand how fundamentally different society was in a pre-modern era before reliable birth control, mass education, modern medicine, and labour-saving appliances. When the onset of sex meant the onset of child-rearing and nursing not as a matter of choice but of nature. When having children was either a necessity to maintain the family bloodline (in the case of the wealthy), or a duty to produce more farmers and soldiers for your liege in a world driven by muscle-power. When the labour to keep a household (and its animals) fed, watered, clothed, and in some kind of basic level of sanitation required unrelenting toil from sun-up to sun-down for most of the year. It doesn't help that our impressions of the 'olden days' are usually of the wealthy and powerful.



And yet other societies with all the same issues kept up with some marked differences on traditional roles and rights for women. We stray quite a way from the topic but necessity only goes so far as an explanation.


----------



## Ladymage (Dec 21, 2016)

Female warriors are an interesting topic. Since they are permitted to function openly as warriors, I'd imagine that in a society like that it would not take long for that sort of equality to stretch through all layers of society. I think the women would make the best archers or spies though.


----------



## Danny McG (Dec 24, 2016)

Being a married man of many years I can think of nothing scarier than my wife running about in the usual psychotic manner but with a sharp edged weapon every 28 days ( sigh for the slatings I will now get)


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Feb 14, 2017)

Brian G Turner said:


> It was never an issue of strength, but of social attitudes. Knights were traditionally part of the upper class,



Actually, traditionally they were _not_. They were a definite rank below lords - originally a big rank below.



Brian G Turner said:


> Knights have servants - often a squire and page, at the very least. No respectable upper class toff with armour is going to expect to carry all their armour and supplies and do all their own chores.



Example numbers: in 1202/1203, Philip Augustus' professional army on Normandian border was about 2600 men.
573 horsemen. Of whom 257 were knights and 316 mounted non-knights. Plus about 2000 foot.
Did all the 257 knights have squires and pages?
Doubt that.



Brian G Turner said:


> Usually a knight would belong to a household anyway, and have everything supplied and provided for. A knight by themselves isn't likely to be viewed as a knight but as a mercenary, in which all rules can be broken - cf John Hawkwood.


They were knights - and mercenaries.


Toby Frost said:


> George R.R. Martin's knights seem to manage with a single squire (Brienne and Poderick spring to mind). The answer is probably that the questing knight never really existed in reality, or at least not as depicted in King Arthur.



Yet they did exist.
Take William Marshal in his youth. Or the poor knights on First Crusade.
The accounts of First Crusade comment on the plight of poor knights whose warhorse (his only one) died and who were "counted among infantry". 
Meaning they were knights who had neither multiple horses nor squires.

A 11th...12th century knight errant is comparable to an unemployed/underemployed corporal or sergeant trying to earn a permanent job or credentials that might enable him to get a permanent job on return home.  And a typical 11th/12th century knight had neither a batman nor squire. Lords and officers did exist, and did have and rely on squires/batmen, but the title "knight" included lower-ranking military professionals, who normally operated without servants/batmen.


----------



## MWagner (Feb 14, 2017)

chornedsnorkack said:


> A 11th...12th century knight errant is comparable to an unemployed/underemployed corporal or sergeant trying to earn a permanent job or credentials that might enable him to get a permanent job on return home.  And a typical 11th/12th century knight had neither a batman nor squire. Lords and officers did exist, and did have and rely on squires/batmen, but the title "knight" included lower-ranking military professionals, who normally operated without servants/batmen.



A typical knight may not have a lot of cash on hand at any given time, but they almost all grew up in the propertied class who were wealthy enough to own weapons, armour, and horses - a very small percentage of the population at the time. It's not as though a typical farmer, cobbler, or baker's assistant could just decide to become a knight because it looked like pretty good pay.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Feb 14, 2017)

MWagner said:


> A typical knight may not have a lot of cash on hand at any given time, but they almost all grew up in the propertied class who were wealthy enough to own weapons, armour, and horses - a very small percentage of the population at the time. It's not as though a typical farmer, cobbler, or baker's assistant could just decide to become a knight because it looked like pretty good pay.


No.
In Domesday Book, there are a modest number of knights mentioned as landholders - and most of them were mentioned as holding the land for life only.
In Cartae Baronum of 1166, about 7500 knights were found in England. But many of them were completely landless employees in a lord's household. Of the majority who did hold land by 1166, a lot had only received the land after 1135.
In Feoda Campanii of 1175, about 1900 knights were found in Champagne. Of whom many held "money fiefs" - promise of cash salary from a specified income source of lord, but no actual property.

Could a typical farmer's son become a knight? I suspect that in 11th century, the answer was yes.
A lord needed men, and could afford men. A castle meant a lot of men living together (and a few women).
A lord would recruit a number of lads, and yes, why not peasant lads. If they had no useful skills, well, they'd be employed as scullions, turning roasting spits at kitchens, sweeping floors, keeping fireplaces burning... But if a lad seemed to be sturdy and have quick reactions, it would have made sense for the lord to have him trained in wielding the weapons, guarding the walls of the castle, and riding to war alongside the lord. It would be the lord's judgment call who stays in the kitchen and who gets out of the kitchen - but a plausible option.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 14, 2017)

I think there's potential for confusion in that we're discussing a title that changed significantly over the centuries. The knight of the 1100's would be very different in every way to the knight of the 1400's.

I tend to focus on the latter, as that's when the title had matured into the more mature and familiar chivalric form.

I'm not sure how difficult it would be for a woman to become a knight in early Norman England. I suspect there may be some interesting variations across Western and Eastern Europe.


----------



## Overread (Feb 14, 2017)

It's not just variation over time, but also location. Knights were present in many European nations so a Knight from one country would be very different to a knight from another. And that's without then also taking into account regional variation. With transport and travel much slower there is potential for great variety within a nation. Knights from certain regions might well have been poorer than others, or lived a different lifestyle. 

It's why discussions about a lot of ancient times get bogged down; because most people only learn a small part of the already tiny knowledge we have of those times. When you then try to discuss it, only those with a deeper and more formal understanding can start to say "ok lets talk about knights from the 1200's from the English and compare them to French Knights in rural France from the same time". Otherwise kinghts is a bit like an elf or an ork - we all have a rough idea what it means, but most of the specific details are hazy to highly variable.


----------



## Abernovo (Feb 14, 2017)

Brian G Turner said:


> It was never an issue of strength, but of social attitudes. Knights were traditionally part of the upper class, which meant - as a generalisation - that sons were expected to win fame and fortune, whereas daughters were expected to produce children through politically useful marriages (or get thee to a convent).
> 
> Knights have servants - often a squire and page, at the very least. No respectable upper class toff with armour is going to expect to carry all their armour and supplies and do all their own chores. Usually a knight would belong to a household anyway, and have everything supplied and provided for. A knight by themselves isn't likely to be viewed as a knight but as a mercenary, in which all rules can be broken - cf John Hawkwood.


Hawkwood was rumoured to have started out as a bowman, so not a knight, although not from a meagre background. Amongst his troop of condottiere, there were not only mounted cavalry (chevaliers by that definition) but footsoldiers. Few of them would bear much relation to the idea of chivalrous knight of stories mostly written by Victorians (although I'm well aware of Chaucer writing about chivalry - I've read his work): there were hardened soldiers. But, often, 'proper' knights were little different. William Marshall amassed a fortune on the tourney field by feats of what we would regard as brutality, and by ransoming much richer nobles back to their families - tournaments in his time were not the quaint affairs from Hollywood movies. His actions in battle were ruthlessly expedient in service to the crown. 

You sum it up very well in saying...


Brian G Turner said:


> I think there's potential for confusion in that we're discussing a title that changed significantly over the centuries. The knight of the 1100's would be very different in every way to the knight of the 1400's.
> 
> I tend to focus on the latter, as that's when the title had matured into the more mature and familiar chivalric form.
> 
> I'm not sure how difficult it would be for a woman to become a knight in early Norman England. I suspect there may be some interesting variations across Western and Eastern Europe.


I think you're very right. Certainly, from time in Eastern Europe, I know of the voyvodas (war leaders, sometimes guerrilla fighters), who were mostly men, but there are tales of women being in their bands. How much fighting was done by them I cannot say, although a few throats were suggested to have been slit.

And, a farmers daughter, raised to bring in hay and move cattle and pigs around might very easily understand how to use a poleaxe - not that different from several long handed tools, including pollarding bills - and would possibly not hesitate to pick one up if threatened. Or any other weapon, for that matter.

Fighting was, and is, vicious. You might not pay much attention to the social background (or the sex/gender) of the person who's back to back with you in that moment - only be glad that they're on your side and keeping you alive.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Feb 14, 2017)

Overread said:


> It's why discussions about a lot of ancient times get bogged down; because most people only learn a small part of the already tiny knowledge we have of those times. When you then try to discuss it, only those with a deeper and more formal understanding can start to say "ok lets talk about knights from the 1200's from the English and compare them to French Knights in rural France from the same time".


13th century is a period when there was a divergence between what English Knight and French Knight meant - leading to appearance of nobility in France, but not in England.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 14, 2017)

Abernovo said:


> Hawkwood



I think it was in a biography of Hawkwood it was explicitly mentioned that knights of the Condottieri went into formations with their squires and pages, and together they were regarded as a unit within the ranks. However, I don't recall mention of anything similar in a biography of William Marshall. Time and geography separate both quite substantially.



Abernovo said:


> Eastern Europe, I know of the voyvodas





Overread said:


> most people only learn a small part



I think the less familiar the setting is, the more open-minded the reader will be. Everyone thinks they know something about Mediaeval England - but Europe, near-Asia, and the near-East, were all an extremely rich mix of cultures. 

Also, I really wish writers would pay more attention to class - just because the rich and landed dominate written history, doesn't mean to say they should do so in fiction. Noble women were the most restricted social class of all - but the lower classes were capable of almost anything.


----------



## Abernovo (Feb 14, 2017)

Brian G Turner said:


> Also, I really wish writers would pay more attention to class - just because the rich and landed dominate written history, doesn't mean to say they should do so in fiction.


This. I want to read stories about everyday people, with realistic problems, not fanciful tales of great feasts and magnificent armour - or, in modern tales, bloody billionaires. It's part of why I like *Doomsday Book*, by Connie Willis, even though much of it focuses on an aristocratic family in a manor house.



Brian G Turner said:


> Noble women were the most restricted social class of all - but the lower classes were capable of almost anything.


In many ways, very true.


----------



## RX-79G (Feb 15, 2017)

Another factor in all of this is that women are simply not as naturally violent as men. Our prisons are not full of women are there for strangling, stabbing or beating another human being to death after violently raping them. Bloodlust was a real and important factor on ancient battlefields.


----------



## MWagner (Feb 15, 2017)

RX-79G said:


> Another factor in all of this is that women are simply not as naturally violent as men. Our prisons are not full of women are there for strangling, stabbing or beating another human being to death after violently raping them. Bloodlust was a real and important factor on ancient battlefields.



Good point. In a general levy of a local militia, most will be incapable of doing much more than hold their ground without giving into their natural instincts to flee the horror-show of close combat. By the accounts I've read, only a fraction of men in hand-to-hand combat demonstrate real aggression and enthusiasm for the task, and it's these 'champions' that others rally around (and whose death often precipitates panic). These men possess what are likely inborn psychological traits for aggression that most humans lack. I've seen studies that suggest a relatively small number of sociopaths account for a hefty proportion of kills in war. Since men are three times more likely to be sociopaths than women (and much more likely to engage in violence of all kinds), it seems there's more than social traditions at play in making war a gendered activity.

Professional training and repeated exposure to combat can eventually build up something like a low-level sociopathy in soldiers at war. But even in professional armies the 'natural born killers' do the most damage.


----------



## Overread (Feb 15, 2017)

Wagner its an interesting point that you mention about killers being few in battles. It's something that in this day of movies, books and games we forget or are never aware of. Indeed its interesting to learn how many people, even in the days of guns when there isn't the physical confrontation, many people admit to firing wide or never aiming at people. 

I suspect because most of us grow up in a society that abhors killing to the point where its not just a legal but religious and moral wrongdoing to kill another. Then they go to battle and are required to kill, to go against the training that the most formative years of their life has taught them not to do. It's a big mental leap for many, even in battle. 

Of course, as you say, professional armies and repeat training and experience can overcome this; and natural studies would suggest that this is valid. People, all people, can kill and can be trained to kill. Of course a lot depends on when that training and requirement starts and on their social upbringing. 

It does come down to a nature-nurture question; which in my experience leads to both being an aspect in varying amounts depending on the person. There are certainly people who no matter how you train them, are going to shy away from killing and combat and those who will partake and relish in it.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 15, 2017)

MWagner said:


> By the accounts I've read, only a fraction of men in hand-to-hand combat demonstrate real aggression and enthusiasm for the task



This topic was covered in more detail in this thread: The difficulty of killing people in real life


----------



## RX-79G (Feb 15, 2017)

Brian G Turner said:


> This topic was covered in more detail in this thread: The difficulty of killing people in real life


I think there is an assumption in this that might not be correct: That soldiers avoid direct combat because of their avoidance of killing. It would be more accurate to say that many soldiers avoid direct combat because it increases their chances of being killed.

The Marshall Study after WWII is one of the first documents that demonstrated how few soldiers did all the fighting and put numbers to the problem. By Vietnam, things had changed, despite a largely conscript army. It was a technological change - the issue firearm was easier to fight with without exposing the user to greater danger. Essentially, every US soldier had a low recoil version of a squad automatic weapon, rather than a low capacity, hard kicking semi auto. With this tool, soldiers didn't necessarily take more risks, but were much more likely to fire at the enemy then they would have previously.

And I think that goes back to discussions about what sort of weapons might be preferred by medieval soldiers and their participation in war - short weapons that required wading deep into combat required a much greater degree of bravery than long spears or bows. Given a choice between a pike and an ax, the pike bearer is more likely to do something in the battle since they have been granted a degree of protection that the short handled weapon bearer lacks.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Feb 19, 2017)

RX-79G said:


> I think there is an assumption in this that might not be correct: That soldiers avoid direct combat because of their avoidance of killing. It would be more accurate to say that many soldiers avoid direct combat because it increases their chances of being killed.
> 
> And I think that goes back to discussions about what sort of weapons might be preferred by medieval soldiers and their participation in war - short weapons that required wading deep into combat required a much greater degree of bravery than long spears or bows. Given a choice between a pike and an ax, the pike bearer is more likely to do something in the battle since they have been granted a degree of protection that the short handled weapon bearer lacks.



And an armoured knight among his unarmoured comrades also has a degree of protection encouraging him to step forward among the foes and swing his sword.


----------



## AnyaKimlin (Feb 19, 2017)

The Big Peat said:


> What's the historical evidence on that?



When it comes to Vikings historical evidence is often scant due to the lack of writing.  However there is considerable, emerging archaeological evidence from graves that women were warriors.

Better Identification of Viking Corpses Reveals: Half of the Warriors Were Female

Shieldmaiden - Wikipedia


----------

