Tannith
Veteran
Wow. This thread went in crazy directions since last I visited. Once again, behind a spoiler button...
For those arguing against skill being of importance, let's just chuck out some myths.
Myth 1: an engagement with edged weapons requires lots of muscles. Well, yes, if the weapon in question is 4 foot of longblade, but those aren't very good weapons in a pitched battle. They require enormous amounts of room to be anywhere near effective. If you're lost, go grab a broom handle, some friends, and tell 'em to crowd in on you. Now try to actually hit any of them. Hint: you won't; you just won't.
Converse, and myth debunked: an engagement with a blade less than 3 foot in length (less than 1 meter), one that is fullered to increase its strength and reduce its weight, reduces the need for strength and increases the need of skill, speed, and agility.
Myth 2: 'sword fights' were long drawn-out affairs.
Converse and myth debunked: back in the days when it was 'for real' two people met over blades and one of 'em was mortally or seriously wounded only *seconds* later. In the crush on a battlefield, people died or went down really fast. It wasn't strength that kept anyone alive. Speed and skill were all that mattered. Even today that's so: back when I was messing with a basket-hilt broadsword, my bouts never, ever ran over a minute, and more commonly lasted less than 20 seconds (single touch. First to three, etc. is playacting). More recently I've been having fun with a round shield and Ulfberht-type blade (Hurstwic Viking Combat. Look it up). Even in a press, I 'kill' in under a minute (and if the DLC devs read this: please go look up Hurstwic, especially shield usage. Thanks).
You're all forgetting that Vikings and other folk of the day were NOT the giants we think them to be. Along with living longer, we've gotten taller, and ask some guys with big muscles just how much they eat. Newsflash: around 900AD there were no dietitians, and no muscle supplements, and having enough food was a constant worry. What muscle anyone had in those days was acquired through work.
Which brings me to this point: if you must insist that strength is the first requirement to wield a sword or spear, I'm afraid you've lost that argument against women. It's redundant: as someone else mentioned, the women of those days would likely 'wreck' the average man today (barehanded, I might add), because they engaged regularly in heavy physical labour.
Further, there was mention of armour being heavy. Yes, it is. But I promise that if you wear a 24kg 6-in-1 hauberk every day for just a week, and do nothing but walk around in it, you'll end up a helluva lot fitter at the end of that week. Just make sure that you have a good wide belt to help bear some of the weight, or your shoulders will *die*. I speak from experience. My only complaint was rather sore feet, but I got used to that rather quickly, too.
Lastly, there's the nature of women under threat. If any woman knows herself capable of self-defence, woe betide the person who intends her harm. We are vicious, ruthless, we bring the hurt without mercy. There goes that silly "But women are nurturers!" argument. Threaten those we care for, threaten us individually, and if we know how to fight, we don't stop until the threat's been reduced to something bloody and pathetic, and quite possibly dead.
Subtract a few hundred years, train a woman to fight, and what you have is someone who kills quickly, without hesitation, and is more than adequate to the task of looking after things at home while the men are off fighting somewhere.
Please note: this does not mean that shieldmaidens fought as regular Viking troops. But please, if you have no experience of historically accurate bladeplay/simulated combat with *forged* weapons (as opposed to crappy spring steel ones), just drop the BS "Skill wasn't as important as strength!" argument. Anyone who makes that argument looks a right tosser from where I'm sitting, because I'm 5'3"/1.6m, do not have big muscles, but the men who've faced me over blades have all been of the opinion that they're rather glad the bouts weren't 'for real'.
Have a nice day.
Myth 1: an engagement with edged weapons requires lots of muscles. Well, yes, if the weapon in question is 4 foot of longblade, but those aren't very good weapons in a pitched battle. They require enormous amounts of room to be anywhere near effective. If you're lost, go grab a broom handle, some friends, and tell 'em to crowd in on you. Now try to actually hit any of them. Hint: you won't; you just won't.
Converse, and myth debunked: an engagement with a blade less than 3 foot in length (less than 1 meter), one that is fullered to increase its strength and reduce its weight, reduces the need for strength and increases the need of skill, speed, and agility.
Myth 2: 'sword fights' were long drawn-out affairs.
Converse and myth debunked: back in the days when it was 'for real' two people met over blades and one of 'em was mortally or seriously wounded only *seconds* later. In the crush on a battlefield, people died or went down really fast. It wasn't strength that kept anyone alive. Speed and skill were all that mattered. Even today that's so: back when I was messing with a basket-hilt broadsword, my bouts never, ever ran over a minute, and more commonly lasted less than 20 seconds (single touch. First to three, etc. is playacting). More recently I've been having fun with a round shield and Ulfberht-type blade (Hurstwic Viking Combat. Look it up). Even in a press, I 'kill' in under a minute (and if the DLC devs read this: please go look up Hurstwic, especially shield usage. Thanks).
You're all forgetting that Vikings and other folk of the day were NOT the giants we think them to be. Along with living longer, we've gotten taller, and ask some guys with big muscles just how much they eat. Newsflash: around 900AD there were no dietitians, and no muscle supplements, and having enough food was a constant worry. What muscle anyone had in those days was acquired through work.
Which brings me to this point: if you must insist that strength is the first requirement to wield a sword or spear, I'm afraid you've lost that argument against women. It's redundant: as someone else mentioned, the women of those days would likely 'wreck' the average man today (barehanded, I might add), because they engaged regularly in heavy physical labour.
Further, there was mention of armour being heavy. Yes, it is. But I promise that if you wear a 24kg 6-in-1 hauberk every day for just a week, and do nothing but walk around in it, you'll end up a helluva lot fitter at the end of that week. Just make sure that you have a good wide belt to help bear some of the weight, or your shoulders will *die*. I speak from experience. My only complaint was rather sore feet, but I got used to that rather quickly, too.
Lastly, there's the nature of women under threat. If any woman knows herself capable of self-defence, woe betide the person who intends her harm. We are vicious, ruthless, we bring the hurt without mercy. There goes that silly "But women are nurturers!" argument. Threaten those we care for, threaten us individually, and if we know how to fight, we don't stop until the threat's been reduced to something bloody and pathetic, and quite possibly dead.
Subtract a few hundred years, train a woman to fight, and what you have is someone who kills quickly, without hesitation, and is more than adequate to the task of looking after things at home while the men are off fighting somewhere.
Please note: this does not mean that shieldmaidens fought as regular Viking troops. But please, if you have no experience of historically accurate bladeplay/simulated combat with *forged* weapons (as opposed to crappy spring steel ones), just drop the BS "Skill wasn't as important as strength!" argument. Anyone who makes that argument looks a right tosser from where I'm sitting, because I'm 5'3"/1.6m, do not have big muscles, but the men who've faced me over blades have all been of the opinion that they're rather glad the bouts weren't 'for real'.
Have a nice day.
i totally agree with all you have said before. I'm bored of people who believe in nothing except archeology and their beliefs, history is not only archeology, for some people nothing is believable, saxo grammaticus is **** wikipedia is ****, myths seems to come from nowhere... girls can't fight and all that ****... They says there is no facts and they argue about counterfactualism, maybe if we build a time travel machine and make a video they will listen to our arguments 
