I want to know what the truth is about the female warrior it seems to have become a kind of running trope lately and there seems to be a lot of propaganda and revisionism on the topic, so what is the actual historic evidence for this?
>>366453
The modern representation is quite authentic, as in females were glorified cheerleaders.
>>366453
Shield maidens were called shield maidens because they carried fucking shields, they didn't fight like >ebic femonibsts claim they did
They are plenty of female warriors in the sagas, and I think archaeologists have found burials of females with armour/weaponry
>>365952
It depends on the culture. There were women warriors. That's a fact.
They weren't that common though. And most times they were a last line of defense.
Still they existed. Boudica, the Dahomey Amazons, the Onna-bugeisha.
You don't send your only means of producing more humans into battle. Men are expendable.
>>366477
Don't know what happened with the quote there. I selected the OP...
They probably did. Seeing as they were SJWs and Keks. /his/ hates those cowards anyway.
>>366453
FUCK no.
They left those bitches in the rear.
All this modern feminist bullshit is just that, feminist bullshit.
>>366502
'Now out of the town of Sle, under the captains Hetha (Heid) and Wisna, with Hakon Cut-cheek came Tummi the Sailmaker. On these captains, who had the bodies of women, nature bestowed the souls of men. Webiorg was also inspired with the same spirit, and was attended by Bo (Bui) Bramason and Brat the Jute, thirsting for war.' - Saxto Grammaticus, Gesto Danorum
There's evidence pointing towards there being female warriors at times. Maybe not shield-maidens, but females probably fought every now and then.
>>366474
>archaeologists have found burials of females with armour/weaponry
which does not mean they fought. These have been found in trading settlements such as Birka. Armour and weapons were high-status artefacts so it would make sense that a high-status woman were buried with them regardless of whether they fought or not
>>366477
>And most times they were a last line of defense.
this almost all the times.
it was better to die fighting than end up raped and killed afterwards - so when the odds and numbers were overwhelmingly negative to their side and they were defending their last bastion/village they usually prefer to risk everything and send elders, women and children to the 2nd line to fight the invaders.
>>366532
>...but females probably fought every now and then.
So did children, and nobody gives a fuck about them, either.
>>366474
>If I wanted to now I could go buy some army surplus gear kill myself and leave a note saying I wanted to be buried in it
doesn't make me a soldier or mean I fought in a war at any time.
bait aside
Celtic and Germanic tribes would often bring their families with them to war, more organized states would still have a lot of women as camp followers, they would be expected to defend the baggage train or help in a siege, but a melee really wouldn't be the place for her to be.
an analogy might be martial arts, a female kickboxer can bash all the fedora tipping neckbeards at comicon but she is not going to survive against kimbo slice
>>366453
It's literally impossible to know for sure, because the Vikings kept shitty records that didn't clearly distinguish between fact and legend, and most of what we know about them was written after the fact by Christian missionaries who weren't exactly reliable narrators either.
We know that there were Viking women who accompanied the men on raids, and we know that there were Viking women who were buried with weapons and armor similar to male warriors.
Odds are that they were mostly glorified camp followers and second-line combatants, with a few cases of individual shieldmaidens who demonstrated exceptional skill and fought with the men.
>>366480
It does make sense in certain cases.
There's no point in leaving women behind to make children, for example, if in case of defeat those children will be your enemies' children.
My assumption is that the women defended their villages from other norse while the men were away on viking raids
>>366766
Incorrect. Only allowing men to fight allows humanity to continue growing unabated. Loss of women is a setback to the species. Losing men is just a means of competition to make humanity stronger culturally and to a lesser extent genetically.
>>366453
No, basically some journalists heard about female graves being unearthed with military equipment in them and automatically jumped to the conclusion that these must be some formidable female war heroes. They justified it by citing mythological stories, the same ones with dragons and shit in them, and the presence of women on expeditions to other places.
>>367910
This does not apply to an enemy force that considers the conquered tribe to be subhuman.
>>366474
>t. american who gets his knowledge from youtube and history channel
>>366453
There's that recent discovery where half the women were buried as warriors, or half the Warriors buried were women. It's not across the board as that was only one regiment/battle but some were.
I dunno about shieldmaidens, but the samritans/samartians (I get them mixed up tbqh) had warrior women
>>368620
Sauce?
>>368914
They weren't hand to hand tho. They were horseback archers who relied on speed and accuracy not strength.
Remains in Russia initially showed a woman in woman's clothing with weapons
Turns out the genetic testing was that of a 16 y/o boy, so atleast we know transgender people existed and probably fought.
>>366453
They did exist,but mostly as a secondary line of defense. Since chicks can have babies, putting them on th frontlines would be unwise
Yes i think they existed. I don't think armies of women occured and i don't think they were common but surely some women decided they wanted to go out and fight.
It annoys me when all evidence is just dismissed for no good reason
>burials of female warriors
>Reports of female warriors
>entire stories of female warriors
>uhhhh
>ITS ALL A MYTH
Fuck off
>>368970
>Archery not relying on strength
>melee combat relying entirely on strength
>>368620
IIRC that article was bullshit. It talked about half the norse settlers somewhere in England being half female. It had nothing to do with warriors.
>>366532
>There's evidence pointing towards there being female warriors at times.
There's a difference between something happening in extreme circumstances and something being a cultural institution.
Feminists have clearly been trying to do some almost Holocaust-denial tier historical revisionism on this subject.
>>369624
>burials of female warriors
burials of wealthy women with some weapons
>Reports of female warriors
>entire stories of female warriors
no
>>369741
I don't think it's so much a specifically feminist thing as it is a typical media impulse to sensationalize. "Doctors discover promising treatment to improve lives of cancer patients" will transform into the headline "Doctors discover cure for cancer", and so forth - it makes for better click bait.
In the same way, "Bones of women found buried with weapons" does not sound as exciting as "Woman Warrior Discovered!"
Back to the topic at hand, pic related is probably one of the better documented women warriors that fought with hand-to-hand weapons. She fought for the Tokugawa at Aizu and apparently killed several men with a naginata before getting shot.
>>369629
B-But D&D told me.....
>>369730
This, I read it as well, and it's hilarious and sad at the same time. The article in question was, as you said, about norse settlers in England.
But the news media said LOL FEMALE VIKINGS.
That said, of course there's been female warriors but to what degree is impossible to say.
>>368970
> Archery
> Not requiring strength
What the fuck am I reading
>>366453
>Is there any evidence of the shieldmaiden/female warrior being a common thing?
Nobody ever claimed it was common thing. The opinions are divided between some shieldmaidens existing, and no shieldmaidens existing, or if they existed they were just part of rituals and celebrations, not fighting.
>I want to know what the truth is about the female warrior it seems to have become a kind of running trope lately and there seems to be a lot of propaganda and revisionism on the topic, so what is the actual historic evidence for this?
You mean you want links to propaganda that confirms your view point, so you can post them whenever someone posts propaganda you disagree with.
>the rest of the replies
Yarrrr, boi power! Tell dem bitches to sit in the kitchen LOL make me a sammich slut hahaha.
Anyway, the serious response is that when the norse went somewhere with a large group of people, soldiers would often bring their wives and children, to settle the place. When the norse camp was attacked, it made sense that some women would join the defense. If some of them performed exceptionally well, they may be treated specially, be said to be supported by the gods or whatever, and then brought in for the next assault.
It was at any rate very uncommon, and not normal practice, if it did at all happen in organized attacks. But surely it did happen in defensive battles, and we know of women given a warriors burial, probably those that died defending the camp/settlement with the men.
A similar situation can be seen during the defense of Spartha in Macedon times. Also different roman authors have written about germanic and gaul women fighting with the men, and being particularly loud and fierce, and the roman soldiers trying to stay away from them. The later probably more because of not wanting to kill women rather than fear, but it is written as it is written.
>>369895
Another woman that proved a capable "warrior" is Milunka Savić. Other more recent examples are abundant in USSR times, in the airforce and snipers defending cities.
