As a woman who does archery I absolutely agree with this! Movie shots of people holding fully drawn bows for minutes at a time are ridiculous. I also like throwing knives- but they're not very practical- you lose your knife.
yes, but it's not very cost effective. A working arrow can be made pretty cheap- you don't even have to forge a metal tip if you're on a budget stone or just hardened wood will work. Throwing knives are more limited in use- whether you're carrying 1 or 6, you still want to be able to retrieve them.
Throwing weapons are not unprecedented in battle. For instance Roman legionaries carried pila into battle to lob at the enemy and hopefully break their formation. No reason you couldn't carry a few throwing knives with you to try to distract or disrupt the enemy.
Would be interesting see the conditions in that sport, what kind of bow they used, distance, etc. Anyway I think the point here is "using it for combat", and use a bow in combat and use it in a sport is very diferent. In reality even a normal man, no trained, cant shot a bow much more than 3 or 4 times before start to feel very tired and lose a lot of power in the shots. I have used a bow before, I dont have a atletic body or strong arms/back, and I was very surprised at the effort it took.
Also they use different kind of bow than long bow. Reflection bow would be better for female warrior. I'm woman with strength below average and can use reflection bow without much effort, so I guess for only a bit more fit woman it would be good choice.
A competition bow has around 40 pounds if I'm not wrong, while medieval warbows had up to 180 pounds. Few people can handle these warbows nowadays. It's not only about precision, to shoot targets a heavy bow is not required at all, while in a war, you would want a bow that can out range your enemies' bows and can be lethal at long distances. A competition bow would simply not be lethal enough in a war(maybe only against enemy without any type of armor and using broadheads, but against a standard medieval soldier, would not even pierce the gambeson)
Is that why USA still doesnt have woman president of federation xD and why only Trump is constantly trying to use them xD? www.aol.com/article/news/2019/08/26/trump-denies-claim-that-he-wanted-to-drop-nuclear-bombs-to-stop-hurricanes-from-hitting-the-us/23801553/?fbclid=IwAR2KPcobvVvNOL6l6u3VEXqHg2C6cFZ53MnTS_xfVW2lo43IQBRXlnun43k
The Romans had slingers equipped with bronze bullets and I think porcelain bullets too. Porcelain= sharp shards flying bronze= hit like a sledgehammer.
eh, few years ago a crazy woman dragged 6 police officers across a motorway in Britain, center of gravity and short term bursts of momentum play a role there but crazy=stronger certainly isn't just an anime thing.
That's a bit overstated. Even with a handgun, a weak person is going to have more trouble keeping the muzzle on target, especially for follow-up shots due to recoil, and is going to be either less accurate or have a slower rate of fire or both. I've known plenty of weak people who have a hard time even holding their arms up with an ordinary gun and want something lighter and with a shorter barrel to move the center of mass closer to their hands. Lower weight forces you to choose between more recoil or less powerful ammo, or both. Shorter barrel means a shorter sight radius (lowering accuracy) and less time for the gases to impart energy to the bullet, further reducing power.
Aram Fingal this is true, but it is still more of an equal playing field. It is easier to win using a gun against a stronger person with a gun than it would be if both combatants had swords or clubs.
While I am not an expert in HEMA, I can see logic in this. Spears are easier to make than swords and Skallagrim chose this as a weapon of choice for those with little to no martial arts training. So if a woman had to defend herself from an attacker and was able to grab a spear I think she might have a chance. Spears were often used since the days Man lived in tribes and small communities. But like I said I am no expert in HEMA so this is just a layman's opinion.
TheRemainingFaithful spears also have way more reach (ridiculously important in combat), can be used one handed(allowing shield), and are very precise. So spears were cheap, required little training, and were the most effective if not one of battlefield weapons of the time. So essentially spears are absurdly o.p. which explains why sone varient of spears were used throughout almost all of human history even into the dawn of gunpowder
In feudal Japan, the naginata (polearm weapon) was considered the optimal weapon for a woman to use to defend her home while her husband was away a war. The reasoning was that a woman didn't have to deal with a man's strength, speed, or skill up close (like in a katana duel) and just fight at a distance. The naginata quickly grew to become an iconic symbol of female prowess in Japan. Naginata tournaments in modern Japan are almost entirely comprised of women.
Marcusjnmc well not really. Poison has infinite range and it is difficult to find the culprit. Look at Game of Thrones. How Jophrey and his sister was poisoned. Distance is not an issue. I can poison a bottle of wine send it hundreds of miles to kill someone.
Honhoa Ong good point but bad example, Joffrey's death was orchestrated by people close to him, the actual poisoner sitting at the same table, high risk, the sending a bottle of wine is a good example but lacks reliability increasing the element of chance, ie. another person drinking from the wine prior to the target.
I would say they best melee weapon for a woman would probably be a pole arm. In Japan there was a Samurai cast for women called: Onna-bugeisha and they were notorious for using the Naginata. A pole arm similar to Glaive. It allowed women to fight an opponent of superior strength because it kept her foe at a distance so the he could not use his strength and she could use the pole and blade as a lever to further negate (if not reverse) the advantage of her opponent. Its a good read.
@Corvo@AZ Being a part of the bushi cast did not exclude gender. Bandits were very common, so they would typically rally the defense of thier land while their husbands were at war. Bushi Women were expected to burn with their castle if they were to fail at defending it. Being skilled at archery and pole arm use was a status symbol and a part of maintaining honor of their cast. Very rarely, women could become generals or major officers in an army. Women being removed from armed conflict mostly was influenced by edo era neo-confucianism, which had major restrictions on roles of women in public and private. The Chinese bureaucracy had very low opinions on women and China's influence and emulation brought that as well.
@@ZhangHe2369 Just adding to the conversation here! Nearly anyone with a sharply tipped spear can be amazingly effective in group combat. It matters little how strong the combatants are if one group has a bunch of long metal spikes that can poke through gaps in armor, or out-range all the swords. Obviously spears aren't a 100% win, but historically, before the invention of firearms, it's the spears that won wars!
That's really interesting- thanks for sharing! Currently trying to write a female fighter into my book, but she's not strong enough to really be useful with a sword.
This isn't a great video to say that on. While it's true-ish that a rapier weighs the same as an arming sword, they are much more agile in the hand because of how that weight is distributed. The point of balance (which isn't quite the same as weight distribution but close enough) on a typical arming sword is 3"-5"/7.6-12.7cm from the hilt, where on rapier it typically tops out at around 3"/7.6cm. The reduced mass of the blade also reduces momentum, making it easier to stop and redirect the blade. Consider that an ax or mace also weighs roughly the same as an arming sword. How easy or difficult a sword is to move around is less about the raw weight of the weapon, and more about how that weight is distributed.
@@corneredfox Doesn't change the fact that the stereotype of rapiers are considered light and agile and thus are used in fantasy for "weaker" characters who have a fast and agile playstyle is absolutely ludicrous. Daggers and short swords are the best for that, not rapiers lol. Rapiers can be longer and more cumbersome than some standard arming swords.
@@LethalByChoice Knives, daggers, and shortswords would be infinitely worse. Not only is the shorter reach problematic on its own, now you're also inside of grappling range. If you're "weaker," that's a contest you absolutely *_do not_* want to get in. Rapiers, with their long blade lengths (which are usually much longer than arming swords, some are even longer than a typical longsword), can keep you outside of that range; their weight distribution makes them relatively easy to control as well. Their main shortcoming is lack of true cutting power, mostly reliant on thrusts (or stupidly precise cuts) to actually end a fight.
@@corneredfox the rapier is at an enormous disadvantage against someone with armor though. It's a tired trope for weak characters to use it. A weaker person would be perfectly capable of using a spear effectively. Basic pointed stick>special shiny pointed stick.
@@DoctorSantaPhD While a spear would be a perfectly acceptable weapon, it's a bit tiring if you're having to carry it around all day just doing day-to-day errands. Also you can't exactly have a second spear strapped to your hip in case your first one breaks. While a rapier isn't exactly ideal for wearing around, it's not as bad as a spear is, and you can have one at your side along with the spear (or other polearm) in hand. As for armor, while no sword is good for plate armor, the thin tip of a rapier is even better than a longsword at dealing with (chain)mail - whether worn as a stand-alone armor or as voiders.
One of my fav books when I was younger was called the Ranger's Apprentice, and what I really loved was that the main character used a massive bow which had hundreds of pounds of draw, and it was clear about that. The princess used a sling and it worked really well for her.
Those books are the best! There's a sequel series where Will trains a female apprentice, who uses both a bow and a sling, and it's really interesting how the author handles it. There's also a spinoff series, Brotherband, where there is a female main character who uses an atlatl, and it's awesome. Love those books!
@@aurorameyer159 It was so good, royal ranger was amazing. It was also great in the 12th book of rangers apprentice how they confronted she wouldn’t be as good with strong bows, but she would be great at sneaking around and all due to females naturally being more nimble.
Yeah it always baffles me when they give hobbits daggers and short swords in the Lord of the Rings. "Oh hey you already have a huge range disadvantage, better give you a really short weapon to make it even worse!"
Apparently noone makes hobbit sized weaponry, so they just gave them small weapons, maybe a hobbit could use a shortsword how normal people use longswords.
I remember a scene in a book where a character calls the bluff of another because the bow was held back for so long. He knew that the bow wasn't really a threat, because it was held at full during the whole conversation. He and his buddy then proceeded to give the thieves advice on how to actually be a threat someone. The book was Theft of Swords by Michael J. Sullivan, who I think did his martial art research, because (to me, an inexperienced newbie) the combat made sense in a way Hollywood combat never does.
Hi, female archer and sword fighter speaking here. I've shot on long bow, recurve, and compound. Recurve, the style you see handed to women most often in film, these bows are not for penetrating metal armor (which is what a minimum 60 lb yew long bow would be for) and are instead made to be able to penetrate leather at far range and a gambeson with a chain shirt at short range (maybe a poorly made coat of plates). How do I know that a woman could have handled a bow that could do this easily? The average woman by the time she has grown would have been expected to haul at least 7 buckets of water into her home daily, wearing roughly 30-45 lbs a bucket depending on size, and assuming she was doing that by single hand instead of a yolk, in which case the weight on her shoulders and back easily surpasses 60 lbs. This gives very strong upper arm, shoulder, and back muscles. And any archer worth their bow knows you do not shoot using your arms, you use your back. You are meant to 'stack' your back and shoulder muscles, using all of them to draw back. Hunting weight bows start at 30 lb draws to take down elk at moderate range. Speaking as someone who started shooting with modern female upper body and back strength (which is far less than our medieval counterparts) I was able to draw a 30lb recurve bow back and hold for longer than 30 seconds on my first day shooting, granted you shouldn't do that because it screws with the tension in how your bow fires ones you release and is hard on the limbs. But it is very easily possible. I haven't trained with a crossbow, but I have shot them a number of times. They have a large draw back when compared with a bow, they take a LONG time to load especially if you do not have the strength for a crank back crossbow. Not only that, but the medieval styles are awkward to carry around, have you tried to go hunting with one? They're not nearly as easy to move about with as a recurve, and even longbows suffer in dense underbrush compared to recurves (not surprising since long bows are meant to be used either in an open field or in the relative roominess of a turret). Going to the swords, I have trained first in rapier (mostly Spanish style), then in German long sword, and have on and off dabbled in the arming sword. While you are right that the arming sword and the rapier are of similar weights, the fighting styles and lengths of the swords are extremely different. The rapier has an average length of 104 cm while the arming sword has an average length of 75 cm, with the widths of the swords being just as starkly different. This completely changes how I as the fighter can use these two weapons. A rapier is meant to draw (slice) and stab, meaning the user is not meant to hack away at their opponent but instead keep the opponent at distance (hence the extra length of the blade) until an opening where an artery or distracting injury (the eyebrow, they bleed like crazy and get into the eyes) can be found. An arming sword is made to mainly to hack, draw, and occasionally stab, you are hacking through the weak points of mail (before full plate became slightly more common) and in some cases you aren't even trying to break their armor, but the opponent inside it. Even with proper padding and an excellent suit, blunt force trauma was common, broken wrists, arms, legs, ankles, necks, concussions. The arming sword is closer to it's ancestor the spatha (viking sword) and is often paired with the long sword, to be used as a means of last defense if you lost your long sword. To go with the long sword, I'm assuming you mean the ones meant to be used by the 'average' warrior and not the horse choppers that were handed to the largest strongest men on the field regardless of rank? Going on that assumption, long sword fighting styles require full commitment to your attack, and a lot of arm and full body strength, no feinting out of it as you would with a rapier or even an arming sword. This puts you at a disadvantage if you were wrong, and now being committed to your attack, are going to be cleaved by your opponent. Three different swords, three different styles, for different kinds of fights. Rapiers come into fashion when canons and blunderbuss become common military weapons, because as we all know you can't out armor a canon ball or even really a lead ball. As canons become more common arming and long swords disappear. With swords disappearing and canons on the scene heavy armor becomes less and less common (because really what good is it doing besides being expensive and creating shrapnel when shot hits it?), But should you come into close range you still needed a reliable weapon, something that can cut, stab, and hack; the cut and thrust. Cut and thrusts were military grade thin tapered swords, similar but not quite a rapier. Rapiers were for use by kings, aristocracy, and eventually common folk. Rapiers, especially diamond shaped ones, have a reputation as being 'whippy' which they are compared to their German schlager cousin or the triangle/star blades favored by the Spanish. But again it depends on style of fighting. Even still a rapier is meant for an opponent with no armor, the other two are meant for an medieval armored battle, and a cut and thrust sword (military grade rapier) was your weapon of last defense should you end up in a close combat situation on a battle field and your firearm was not firing. So I suppose the true complaint that should be made about these films is not what is appropriate on gender or strength, but more so what sort of fight are they creating? Is this 'fantasy' or a 'historic' film? Are the people fighting using weapons appropriate to their class (not everyone can afford a sword, in fact most people for a long while couldn't it's why bows, spears, and axes are more commonly found)? Are the weapons appropriate for what common sense dictates to be around at the time? Because I don't care if you're the best rapier fighter in the land, you aren't bringing that to a fight against someone fully trained in long sword will full plate armor (looking at you GoT). As for the fights we see in LotR and the Hobbit, it's fantasy. Tolkien has 7 foot tall immortal elves and dwarves that are still stronger than eight human men when they're seniors (Thorin). There's some alternative world bio-mechanics and physics going on there, is all I can say. Anyway, nice video, interesting views. Just thought I'd share my perspective as a female who has trained in most of what you were talking about. Cheers!
I agree spear but spear is better all round on the battlefield I think he was going more 1 on 1 or small group engagements. and self defence were a sword would be good tho I would personally say a shortsword like a Gladys would be best especially if she has a shield to use with it
Pole arms for less physically strong or short stature people. Reach and torque to offset the disadvantages. As far as i know, that's why in Japan, the Naginata was (kinda still is really in sports) the preferred weapon of women.
that and iirc also when the longer spears (what was their name...) started getting used in battle in greater scale, leftover naginatas were simply just left there unattended, and anyone could simply train/fight with them.
+Staun Shay If you use a device for leverage or a pulley system, it should be manageable, but I'd have to try it myself before I could really attest to that.
+Rensune Thing is, whether it's appropriate depends very much on the setting. Whilst the tech has been around since maybe 500BC, the earlier/simpler versions were more in aid of better using the strength of stronger soldiers who could pull harder than the normal bows of the time could handle, or weaker ones who could buddy up to pull and latch the string harder than either could have with a regular bow (suppose you could have a pair of women cocking it and taking turns shooting maybe?). And whilst winched versions and even other semi-automatic (including repeater) ones didn't take too long coming along, the history of the thing and its spread is weirdly patchy. Appeared in southeast Asia and hung around there pretty much forever until their pioneering use of gunpowder displaced it (again earlier than in the west), and made showing in Greece then Rome only 100-200 years later (travelling idea? simultaneous convergent inspiration?), it seems to die out almost completely with the decline of Roman influence, and not reappear in Europe until perhaps as late as the 15th century, certainly well into the second millennium AD. It's almost like one of the defining features of the dark ages and most of the mediaeval period is the curious lack of crossbows. Even when they reappeared it followed the same pattern - simple draw-and-latch "belly shooters" (as you drew it by bracing the bow between your stomach and the ground, and dragging the string up two-handed (or four-handed...) using far more muscles and limbs than normal in order to gain the advantage) came first, then the winched kind, and it never really got back to the repeating or semi-auto stage because gunpowder weapons spread from China and Japan (which would, aside from maybe Leo DaVinci, also have been the source of said advanced mechanisms) to the west a mere century or two later. So where and when you can have them appear, and in what form, is something that actually bears a good bit of historical research in itself...
I always liked spears. People often assume that spears are ONLY good medium range, and when it comes to close range combat they are useless.But in reality that isnt true
You got it: I think the key is that it serves most fantasy stories better to give women a ranged weapon. This allows women to contribute to the battle while minimizing their exposure to direct physical contact-which services _many_ fictional considerations. I do think gender is a more important issue than physical strength in this fictional choice. Firstly, a woman who is at ranged distance doesn't need to have seemingly unrealistic abilities to avoid being injured or scarred. (A woman's beauty is generally protected like the limb of a man: it will be taken away only if it services a major plot point.) Similarly, a woman who saves an incapacitated man with a bow doesn't present the same kind of inversion of archetypal gender roles as a woman who saves a man using her physical strength with a melee weapon. The symbolism is very different, and you would expect many characterizations would see a man somewhat unmanned if a woman saved him with physical strength when the man's was not adequate. Indeed, the use of a sword (or club) as a phallic symbol in fiction is quite common. A bow, on the other hand, is curved and meant to receive the shaft of an arrow-a sort of borrowed potency. I think a crossbow somewhat weakens this: it feels more like a firearm. A female character who is skilled with a bow feels special and valuable, whereas shooting a crossbow feels more like something that anybody could do. (I'm not saying that a crossbow requires no skill, but I think it _feels_ less skilled to most people.) A crossbow just doesn't have the same martial romance as a bow. (It also reduces or eliminates the feminine curve of a bow.) I'm not saying that kind of symbolism is everything. It can be a trap to interpret every shape and interaction as some kind of sexual metaphor. However, these metaphors, symbols and archetypes do exist in the minds of both writers and audiences. A good writer will use tropes and symbols in ways that serve his characters and story, and a bad writer will likely use them through cliché even if they have no purpose at all. TLDR: I don't think you'll see a lot of fantasy fiction put women in the front lines with swords unless ideas about gender change a lot. For a writer, equipping a woman with a bow avoids a number of potential problems and allows her to demonstrate useful skill in a way that emphasizes her femininity. Please note that this is not a rant about gender politics. I'm not advocating any change in attitudes or writing: I'm arguing that there _are_ attitudes and archetypal notions, and that they affect our fiction. I'm saying that people are more reluctant to see a woman's beauty marred than a man's, that people may think a male character less masculine (or a female character less feminine) if a woman shows superior melee strength, and that a woman with a bow tends to look and feel more feminine than a woman with a crossbow, sword or mace. If you disagree with those suggestions, I'm happy to discuss with you. I think this is interesting territory. If you think I'm implying that your favorite work fiction is evil & misogynist, please read my comment again, as that's not at all my point.
Well argued. That being said, IMO it's kinda sexy for women to fight on the front. Bravery is a very attractive trait, and I don't feel that a woman's femininity is lessened by being a physical powerhouse. Furthermore, we don't typically associate women with strength and martial prowess, so a subversion of that makes the woman more exotic. Plus, there's something about a physically powerful woman that exudes a feeling of protection, like they can keep you safe. That being said, my only real female friend is built like a brick, does sword training in heavy armour, and is more masculine than all my male friends combined, so I could be a biased source. To be honest, I'd kinda be the weak little flower up the back with the ranged weapon XD.
Discord Lexia The thing is, I dont think most males think being protected is sexy. Also take a look at Brienne from Game of Thrones and then look at a character like Shae or Daenerys. Women sexually attract most men with a curved body, medium breasts, and larger hips. For a women to be strong enough to fight in a real medieval battle on the front lines(this includes the ability to march for hours, fight for hours, block and parry blows from men, etc.) they generally have to sacrafice some of these sexual features. I'm not saying thats bad, but this is most likely why most media depicts women far from the frontlines in a medieval setting.
What I always find extremely exciting is when a female character, when confronted with the need to defend herself, effectively uses something as a weapon that's not supposed to be a weapon. Like a vase, a piece of furniture, a belt, anything. I all at once shows character development, and increases the sense of danger and precarity of the situation, which I feel makes us connect more with the character. I like resourceful characters you use their environment to their advantage wether they are male or female, I find it so much more thrilling to watch.
@Blume Shullman Jackie Chan is a master of this in his movies. He uses it not only for good action scenes but to great comic effect. I like his fight scenes because they seem more realistic. When a bunch guys come after him, he runs like hell and tries to deal with them one at a time and things of that sort. He's very creative and resourceful.
*applauds loudly* Finally. Its worth noting that samurai women (i.e. the wives and daughters of samurai, who were expected to defend the homestead while their husbands were away) trained to use the naginata, not because of any particular strength profile but because women on the whole are shorter than men and so the added reach of a pole arm is extremely valuable in leveling the playing field and no warrior ever complained "Oh no, I have too much reach. I can kill my opponent without seriously endangering myself!"
you would imagine it would be beneficial for women to band up together for added protection. children could use the crossbows, too, in emergency. poison those arrows and you got some nasty lethal kids.
Glaives, spears, and tridents/trishulas (like an Indian trident, but the prongs are blades) are my favorites. And bladed chains, but those are impossible to use irl unless you’re superhuman.
Longswords are hand and half, but still makes use of shield quite tricky. Maybe thats why such combo were likely never used. My favourite also, and quite effective with even slightest skill.
Interestingly at least one person has told me that this has been done. It was the video where I explain the names and terminology of a castles individual parts. I was very flattered by it. Then there was that time when someone asked if they could cite me as a source in a university paper, lol. I had to tell them that the only qualification I hold on these subjects is my boundless enthusiasm. Apparently that's not considered as a credited qualification ^_^
Don't be so humble. Qualification doesn't mean you necessarily need to have a degree. If you know a lot about a certain topic and can back up your information that suffices to science standard. Only the form of publication is an issue. So start writing for magazine and your eventually an official expert.
Yes. I keep trying to avoid this channel and it's nonsense, but it keeps appearing in my list. Is there a 'never show me this trash channel again' option?
There is nothing that I hate more than the idea that bows are a women's or even a little girls weapon. My archery class was lucky to have an actual weapons historian. He brought in a recreated english long bow. This is nothing like a modern compound. The best way to explain what its like holding a bow back is like holding an 8 year old by a tiny string while they want to wriggle around. You can totally control it for a few seconds, but it is agonizing to try and hold it long. I also find it stupid that crossbows are usually given out as the heavy weapon.
wolflordjsww They're just considered heavy because they can pull a heavier draw weight and were notorious for piercing plate armor. Otherwise, *real* war bows may take more strength to use that any swordsman can hope to attain
Daisuke Yoshioka Sure fine, but they were still the one given out en-masse to the normal soldiers. You can make anyone a crossbowmen it takes a long time to make an archer.
True but in a battlefield setting it didn't really matter how good your peasants actually where with their warbows since all you're really gunna have them do is fire volleys in the direction of the other army once its in range.
Well, I agree on the crossbow, but concerning melee, I'd argue that a spear is significantly more useful to a weaker fighter than a longsword. Longsword a get you up close, not too scarcely resulting in pushing battles, where strength will decide ultimate victor. The spear, however, doesn't require too much strength to wield, there is not much a stronger fighter can do that you can't. There's a reason spears (or some variation) were the main weapon of almost any army around the globe for the until some 250-300 years ago. It's easy to use, and requires comparatively little strength.
bro, I agree, but pushing battles are a myth my hema trainer punished my class for early on ;-) if your opponent pushs against your blade, you just bush his blade to the side and create a nice opening you can work with while your opponent gets his weapon back into position. And to avoid your opponent doing so to you there's one rule: Don't push! Leverage is against you. I would argue stabbing is less tiresome then slashing that's why I would say spear. I also don't think large armies used Spears due to weakness. if you have large masses of men you are better of going for weapons for average strength people. because the average Joe has average strength. Duh. Spears are cheap and easy that's probably why they were popular as fuck.
They need a katana. Cuts through armor easier. Therefore need less strength. It's so sharp you can spit a cloth in 2 only by letting it glide down the edge with gravity alone. I saw the in a movie. So it must be true.
@@withastickangrywhiteman2822 well that depends the crossbow does still require quite a bit of strength, quite honestly a spear is the best option because you don't need a a ton of strength to wield one and not a lot of training though a crossbow is kinda like the spear of ranged medieval weapons
Spears have no match to Shield+sword, That is how Greeks lost to Romans. crossbow bolts can even though shields, a woman can use belt hook to draw it. or with a little drawing tool, even an old lady can use crossbow.
@@anthonyteasley3837 The Catholic Church threatened crossbow users with excommunication because one of those little, scrawny, little-trained, poorly-fed bastards could easily kill a knight in full plate armor that costs years and lots of money to train, feed and equip. So, I'm with the crossbow, too. God created men and before Samuel Colt made them equal, the crossbow also did.
Shepherd’s sling: Pros: Ranged Doesn’t require much physical strength. About as powerful as many muskets Cons: Hard to learn Perishable skill Not as cool as a bow
Or rely on stealth, guerilla-like tactics, range. Because to add a bit of depth to your point, any melee weapon is going to put you at a distinct disadvatage as you'll like be facing off against someone quite a bit stronger with a more threatening weapon--possibly a longer reach and likely to crash through your attempts to parry. Crossbows and well-aimed throwing knives delivered "safely" out of melee range. Or take a note from fantasy rpg Rogues (depending on the tone of the movie) and carry a dagger or two so you can dodge and weave into an opponent's blind spot, find a weakpoint, and just stick the dagger in there in heartbeat. Of course, realistically, it still takes a fair amount of strength to drive a blade into a human body _without_ any sort of armor in the way.
You still have to be strong to wield a cross bow, you need to be able to hold steady and be able to pull the cross bow back. Or carry a heavy cross bow (which are heavy) and crank it.
Slings do require some decent strength to kill at short range and to reach relatively long range, but yes; that is a good suggestion. A staff sling would be even better, increasing power with added leverage.
To be fair not many things do much to a knight in full plate. You're generally already relying on stabbing through week spots or bashing their brains to paste. I guarantee you that a big ol' lead sling bullet to the noggin's not gonna improve the knight inside's day.
A sling is giving full plate armored armys a lot of trouble. Slings have the longest reach and are a powerfull weapon to bombard the army with stones from the sky where no arrow reaches. Slings were actually used by quite many historic bow-warriors to increase their range. the stones or metal bullets have a lot of momentum and are able to penetrate as good as an arrow does.
@@praisejesus6750 actually it wasnt. The Yari and the bow was. (Yari is a thrusting spear. Naginata is a slashing polearm) The reason being is that its two handed, can be forged the same way as a Katana, and allows for a woman's better agility to come into play
Interestingly, in Bernard Cornwell's novels set in the Hundred Years' War, the protagonists and other longbow archers are said to have trained in the longbow since childhood, and that helped them developed the huge muscles needed to wield the weapons, while the French used crossbows instead because they didn't do the same training. One of the main female characters in the books uses a crossbow herself.
Speaking from experience, got a girlfriend who weighs about 50 kg or less: you are right about longsword, she way more prefers lighter two-handed weapons and practically can't fight with arming sword or sabre. But she is a devil with naginata. See, she is weak physically and very lightweight, which makes her way more mobile than your average mid-to-heavy built dude. So, she can use reach of this versatile polearm with great efficiency, changing distance and evading most hard attacks by stepping back and counterattacking. Spears are also fine, but I say that light cut-and-thrust polearms are the best for women / weak guys. They have no reason to be in close combat anyway, they're going to be crushed, so they may as well to maximize their distant hitting power. Another point on two-handed ease of use: while using one-handed sword, very many techniques rely on your sword arm intense usage. But with two-hander you tend not only to use two arms at once, you always add other muscle groups, such as back muscles. And it is kinda easier to learn how to add footwork power into two-handed strikes, while it is less obvious with one-handers. Spot on with the crossbow, of course. I hate these petite female archers of fiction.
Exactly so! This is, yet again, so damn spot on! :) Why do Elven characters use bows? In Tolkien's _Arda_ Elves were not weak... They just knew how to handle both heavy missile and heavy melee weapons.
I always took the elves using bows in LotR as just a preference for ranged weapons and not about their strength or anything of the like. Being immortal except for being killed you would tend to try and stay away from your opponent who can end your many thousands of years of existence with a stab of a sword. Just much better to lessen that risk and shoot them from a hundred feet or so away, especially when you have had a few thousands of years to work on your aim.
Its probably due to their skills and environment. For example forests are sometimes densely packed and so fighting with a heavy weapon there can be detrimental where a bow wouldn't. They are also known for just being more inherently dexterous.
I love that film! It's not supposed to be historically accurate, but conceptually, showing that A VERY STRONG warrior's main feature is his archery ability is very correct, and fixes the silly Hollywood perception of bows being a quick and nimble rogue weapon. I actually think it all started with Illiad, that association of Paris with a bow, but the point there was that he was a BAD archer so hit the Achilles heel accidentally!
Nice vid, Shad! As a former HEMA practitioner, I've literally seen this. Women in my gym tend to do way better with longswords and spears than with one handed weapons in general. Our instructor used to tell us it had more to do with the tendency to rely more in their footwork than men in order to get good angles (in the case of spears) and the narrower shoulder span (for swords), and I also remember him saying curved swords being particularly challenging for most of the women in the group, although I can't recall why he said he thought it was... As for the crossbow point: there is, as you stated, no point in physical strength when the weapon itself has built-in aids, so I don't see why every women in both fantasy and fiction medieval settings wouldn't be equipped with one. PS: have you seen Lindybeige's video on Ygritte from GoT? That "draw hold" trope will never die.
I'm pretty sure the reason why women in movies use the bow often is because the pose opens up their chest. It has nothing to with "weak person" and more to do with why their armor exposes just enough to not be censored. Otherwise, they would all use daggers and throw them...which is casted as well, but for different reasons, mostly because "balance" vs. "strength" is an alluring feminine characteristic. Look at gymnastic competitions. Ballerina?
I've noticed, too, that men seem to rely more on bludgeoning rather than using the engineering of their bodies. And women have lower centers of gravity on the average and can use that to more easily get into a stable stance and keep balanced as they (we) move. Low center of gravity also means a more effective and balanced sweep and reap techniques. And diving for the hole makes it hard for your opponent to get a hold on you. And there are some really badass women who are martial artists that fling the men around at the championships and Olympics as if they were towels mopping the floor! The women are quick, deft, and graceful as they put down their opponent. They don't wait in each round.
The reason you see so many women and skinny elf males using bows in fiction is simply lack of knowledge and authors not giving any thought on how much strenght is necessary to draw a bow, and how effective different kinds of bows are against different targets. Basically they treat it like a gun (one with no recoil for that matter), simply point and shoot, but we know that's not the case.
Even a gun takes a stronger man to use. You need to hike around with a large tube of steel and packs full of lead and copper. That's a huge amount of weight. That's not including survival supplies and in some cases armor.
Strategiusz Always sad when, in popular media, the dagger is demoted to a near-useless weapon of cowards, theives, & people traditionally considered weak. The dagger is horrifyingly deadly and, to my knowledge, carried by damn near everyone, especially knights and the like. Poor dagger:(
true. Damn near everyone would carry a dagger on their person. You have to consider fantasy settings however in which everyone has a primary weapon and only that primary weapon that they specialize in and nothing else.
@@matthewbadger8685 Strength actually comes from strain, and micro tears in your muscle, causing it to heal larger. If you whack it for long enough, your arm will get tired, therefore strain, therefore damage. Source: My mum is a nurse.
@@theshribe Trust me, i've tried a low weight high repetition routine before, and it's absolutely crap for building muscle. That's because at first as you say, muscle fibres are torn and you heal larger, however due to the low weight your muscle adapts and no longer gets torn as much any more, creating diminishing returns even during periods of newbie gains - That's why such training regimes always result in low volume but high muscle definition. The true method of gaining volume is to work with progressively heavier weights in order to maintain the same rate of muscle damage over time, with about ten to twelve repetitions per set. If you want strength, you need to capitalise on your muscles lack of tears early on by putting in more effort immediately - Ideally by using very heavy weight with low repetitions, usually four or five. This way, you lift heavier weight but over a lower time period, resulting in stronger muscles with slightly less volume than the above method. The word of nurses is crap in the field of exercise/muscle building, since they focus only on the health-related aspects with little focus on maximising results - That is why they only know about muscle fibre tearing and their healing, as they don't reasonably need to know any more. As a result, the only way to build a respectable body is to increase the weight that you lift over time, otherwise you'l stagnate at a level of muscle size which is recognised as lacklustre across the board. If you aren't convinced by what i've written here then answer me this; Why on earth do skinny dudes who knock one out every night never improve their physique over time? Literally everyone does it, but I've never seen anyone with noticeably lopsided arm development, or arms out of proportion to their bodies. If what you said were true, either of those two scenarios should be the case since their arms would never adapt to the weight and exertion placed on them. Regardless though, i suggest you do your own research rather than trot out shit you've heard from others. If the info is as good as you've said, you should put your money where your moth is and try it out for a while.
TV Tropes actually has a page on this topic: "Guys smash, girls shoot". It's actually more of a cultural thing - generally, it's considered slightly more acceptable for a man-at-arms to be engaged in physical combat, than for a woman-at-arms to be. This could be its own conversation topic, but it's not the topic I want to pursue. Generally, the spear is the ultimate n00b weapon. An inexperienced spear-wielder can easily be a threat to a swordsman; it takes training to know how to properly fight a spear and get inside it's dead zone between the wielder and the tip. Also, more or less anything with a shield. Shields are the ultimate 'boring but practical' tactical accoutrement. Shields can be used as melee weapons in their own right, and if you can move the shield in position quickly enough, you can simply outlast an opponent (even a spear-wielder.) According to Skallagrim, a mace+shield combo is good for a noob, because you don't have to worry about edge alignment as a sword- or axe-wielder would have to. Bows are incredibly strength and skill-intensive. There was a saying, "To train a great bowman, start with his grandfather." Swords are a sidearm primarily, much like a pistol is in today's military context - effective at a certain range, but keeps an opponent away from the whites of your eyes. There's no way a woman who's not a dame would even be trained in this, let alone using it at all.
Everyone forgets the sling. It's a great peasant weapon. It is easy to make and simple to use, though it does require a lot of practice. Shepherds were purported to have been able to bring down wolves and even loins with their slings. I have my doubts about the latter, but historically we know they were heavily employed during the bronze age and early iron age.
I find it more plausible than you, but only because I believe I remember something along the lines that before lions applied to the singular species we think of today, it may have also been used to refer to the other large cat species of europe (now long extinct).
+The CM Studio Afaik they stopped using slings in warfare because they didn't have enough trained men for that. The Romans used Sardinian levies that were immensely skilled and stiff armour doesn't protect you that much from 300g stones flying in your face. Many people died after the battles due to concussions and blood vessel ripping from sling stones. The most feared weapon of the Incas an Aztecs for the Spanish were their slings, which are said to kill a horse with one hit (probably exaggerated, but who knows). A modern sling can throw a stone as far as 400m and they don't loose that much force during the flight, a frightening weapon. The big downsides to slings are their need for a lot of space (you don't want to hit the guy behind/next to you) and that they are diffcult to learn/master. Most slingshot "units" stem from farming regions and the people there used them their entire life. Similar to Long bows, the only country able to field them in big masses were the British due to their population training with them since childhood.
Pretty neat video. I read an article not too long ago about why women in fantasy media are always equipped with bows and it made a lot of sense. The author asserted that as the care-giving/nurturing sex, woman should be as removed from combat as possible, hence the range. That's why you always see female archers and clerics and mages in fantasy settings. Female heavy warriors like barbarians or knights are usually depicted as very masculine, not just physically but in attitude as well. "I wear armor instead of dresses", "screw the corset/bodice", "who needs heels when you have a good pair of leather boots?" And these characters typically shun feminine activities like cooking and sewing, which doesn't even make sense because in a medieval world these things are necessary for survival. As a character designer I've grown quite tired of seeing these archetypes in media.
Modern character design is sadly informed by modern stereotypes, which were largely developed in the Victorian era. Ironically in medieval times high heels would actually be seen as manly and really anyone would die to get their hands on any fancy clothes since they cost an arm and a leg.
MR.Chickennuget 360 When men created and perfected the art of poisoning, I'd say that makes you fellas its masters. The reason we women learned the art was because we tend to be the ones handling the food, therefore easier access.
To be fair to the girls using bows trope, it's not quite as bad as you are making it out to be. For one, I can't think of anyone who used this trope and gave any of the girls-using-bows a full longbow/warbow. They are always using lightweight hunting bows (ex. Katniss), and firing small arrows with small tips. The lie of the trope, inasmuch as there is one, is not about their choice of weapon type, it's about their fucking mythical accuracy with their bows. Katniss is a good recent example, so consider that one further - it's not that she couldn't shoot that bow with her physical strength, it's that she shoots everyone in vital spots everytime. It's not that the bow can't be fired as far as they portray it given the draw, it's just that she would need to be arcing her shots high everytime (which makes her accuracy even more impressive). In short, it's not that girls couldn't wield hunting bows effectively - the trope is that any girl who picks up a hunting bow turn into an Olympic-tier marksmen overnight. The second issue would be Hollywood's love of pausing at full draw for (dramatic) tension, which is not only bad for aim, it's really hard to actually hold: yet Hollywood likes the idea of somehow becoming more accurate the longer you hold at full.
All that girls with super powerful bows shooting with super accuracy stuff, that all goes back to the goddess Artemis in greek mythology. So it was a fantasy from the start, the only "logic" needed for her perfect archery was that she was a goddess & her bow itself was explicitly portrayed as being magical & never missing a shot, on top of her, literally, divine archery skills. The rest is not about "tropes" etc it's just straight out fantasy, hollywood or ancient or otherwise that does not match the reality of archery, whether it's male or female archers being portrayed.
Yvaelle. I would say tho a women with a midevil bow would be much as the most common bows are long warbows with high draw strength next being a recurve bow which still has a high draw weight. now a morden compound bow different story
This wimp should sat that to my wife she uses the same draw weight on her hunting bow as I do 80 lbs. MY wife is taller than average but doesn't look like a muscle girl but she sends about a hundred arrows down range per day. She has been an archer and even a tournament archer for many years.
The CM Studio Yeah, I know. But in most fantasy board games, bows are often managed by a dexterity/agility stat while melee weapons, like a dagger, is managed by a strength-style stat.
I think if a character, or irl person, can train up a certain level of skill with a weapon, regardless of the weapon, they should be allowed to use whatever that weapon be. I don't care if it's nunchakas or a halberd. Kinda want one for Christmas. Probably not gonna get one unless I make it myself tho.....
I think most people know these things (or atleast would not argue) but it's just nice to have stereotypes to rely on in storytelling. It helps immersion immensely when people assume a certain set of rules, and as such makes deviations exciting, like "wow that woman has a huge hammer what the fuck" etc. In short, stereotypes aren't all bad. They're just stereotypes.
Dorothy had a dog, Alice a looking glass, Snow White used a broom to clean house, Red Riding Hood had a basket of food and no weapon I am aware of other than maybe a knife to cut the bread. So don't know where they got idea all women carried bows in fantasy that is just a recent trend. Cinderella used a hunting bow when her father was still alive is an exception to the rule most of the story was after her father died and she cooked and cleaned, so nothing more than hot water, fire, knife or broom and whatever else was in the house.
What about a sling as a weapon for the less physically gifted? ;) I know that the Romans, Carthaginians, many other armies maintained slingers in their ranks. Thanks for another great video!
Nathan Tonning Slinging a stone doesn't require much strength, but doing that throughout a whole battle demands some pretty beefy and calous arms and shoulders
well, sure, in an open battle perspective. A sling doesn't have much accuracy so it's better to use against a large formation. But it won't be as effective for self defense or something of the sort (see Lindybeige's video for more information)
because slings require more training than mastering three other weapons -.- in that time you could've build up muscles like Arni but they are fun I can tell ;)
Is there any record of what Joan of Arc fought with, and did she actually engage in personal combat? The Biblical accounts show warriors being killed by women twice: Once by driving a tent peg through his head while he was asleep, and the second was by dropping a millstone on his head from a tower. That second actually seemed pretty common in the ancient world; women were frequently in besieged cities, and while they weren't necessarily up for a scrap with soldiers in armour, they could most definitely drop really heavy things from a really tall height. I'll wager they could work ballistas or other siege weapons too. Which is probably the best advice for someone with less physical strength in the medieval world: If you can, don't fight warriors in melee. If you must , because you're forced to, use whatever advantage you can. Leave the chivalry to those meatheads in armour who can afford it!
Joan carried a sword, though rarely drew it, preferring to carry a standard instead. In the few times she ended up surrounded and needing to use her sword, she tended to fight defensively - trying to keep them back, rather than aggressively. So far as I can tell, she never killed anyone herself, and rarely injured anyone more than a ding or scratch. As to what type of blade she carried, I'm not certain, though it was likely a common blade for the timeframe- a light longsword or possibly arming sword would be my guess based on images.
It's really isn't the question of could women do it, but more of whether their social role and lifestyle allowed for that. In nomadic societies, women could not stay at home, and had to travel on horseback, hunt, defend themselves etc. archaeologists usually applied a big dose of sexism when examining old bones, and deciding that any skeleton with arms and armor is a man... because of that we had a misconception of ancient people being very short too! For a number of reasons, after nations settled, he campaigning armies were almost exclusively male (until very recently), so the only way women could fight was, yes, in a siege.
I actually did research on this for a story I'm writing. The legend goes that Joan received a vision of a sword behind the alter of St. Catherin de Fierbois. The sword was said to belong originally to Charlemagne and contained five crosses. She carried it throughout her campaigns but the only substantial record of her using it was to chase a couple of men who were harassing a prostitute.
gurugeorge as a killing blow against armored foes it is a good weapon to use, but you want to knock your opponent off their feet first and a dagger just can't manage that
+RoboGameBoy64 Precisely what i wanted to say. more often than not when you need to go fight in a war setting, chances are your opponent is a ferocious sonofabitch, fully armored or not. & daggers have problem stabbing even through thick leather, & if you're close enough to stab someone & that someone is NOT down after about 2 hits, you're royally fucked.
I think just piercing your hand through their armor and chest then ripping out their heart would be better. If that doesn't work, tear off their head. And if they still aren't dead then stomp them into a paste. Then incinerate them for good measure.
You're topic brings to mind a moment from Homer's Odyssey. Specifically during Queen Penelope's challenge to the suitors. She said she would only marry the man who could string Odysseus' bow and shoot an arrow cleanly through twelve axes. Naturally, not one of the suitors could string it. So, you may be right about some men being weaker
sadlobster1 I remember hearing that it possibly refers to a different type of bow which was newer at the time and had to be strung differently, thus it was a tricky way to keep the suitors at bay rather than a test of strength.
Hello Shad, what is your take on women shooting composite recurve bows from horseback? Archaeologists argue strongly that women horse archers were a mainstay of the ancient Skythian and Sarmatian horse nomad tribes who once lived on the Ukrainian steppe. A female horse archer is able to engage more muscular male opponents from stand-off range. The bow and arrow provide the initial stand-off range and the speed and agility of the horse make it difficult for an enemy to close that stand-off range, says the conventional wisdom. What say you?
Men get bows with greater draw weight, out shoot the women, and then there's no more women archers. There have been horse archer cultures for millennia, but all the alleged female archers occured in civilizations that were mythical in status even among their contemporaries and with very poor or nonexistent documentation.
@@BrennanCh06 Your show of ignorance is overwhelming. This is like stating a peasant can't use a knight's sword because we don't have photographs of it happening. Well done. Since you clearly don't understand the muscle groups used in archery, maybe just sit quietly in the back.
Perfectly plausible. Like Shad said, it's only a matter of draw weight of the bow. With the right training, women can use recurve bows as long as they're not victoria secret model's with no muscle mass. But as for the stand off part... not really, maybe on skirmishes? Extra Range from extra draw weight could overcome the added mobility in large battlefields with no cover. I'd say there's not an overwhelming advantage, though.
Arms and armor are actually given quite good attention in LOTR. What always made me cringe is battle tactics. Pikemen in front during a siege? Cavalry charge against the walls full with archers? And lets not even start on the "blob of chaos" classic orcish formation.
Ravensburger my two cents on the orc blob, the orcs were not necessarily known for smart with strategy. they were uncivilized and the representation of chaos. some groups would be better and stronger like the uruk hai but Tolkien never describes the orcs as the most militarily intelligent race in LOTR
Not a coincidence the spear historically did much if not most of the killing. Weaker people should be using spears. Two handed weapons mean no shield, no shield on a battlefield with enemy archers equals picked off and dead.
+hazzmati Women and runts are at a disadvantage up close. Grapple with a 12yo boy and you pretty well get a sense of what even a fit woman is capable of. A few years of Judo and traditional Ju Jutsu drive that point home. One of my teachers had a habit of pairing off disproportionate partners. It teaches the stronger to emphasize finesse and the lesser that they have to rely on technique because they cannot power out of it. Bow at range, spear in close.
This was very interesting, thanks for the video! :D I think bows are often picked because of the clear silhouette and the kind of "noble" poses it can lead to.
Thank you for bringing up how the movies have these characters draw a bow and hold the drawn bow for as long as they feel like. Always drove me nuts on the bs of that.
I think a slingshot should be a good weapon. Or a sling.They take practice, but so does a bow, whether recurve or longbow. I've seen some nice ones that have an arm rest for steadiness, and they fold up. Set one up on your gauntlet, and you could unfold and lock into place the business end to follow up your bow shots with close-range projectiles. You can even use it by itself. Light, compact, uses common projectiles. Uses muscles close to the body for power in the pull. And a sling can be kept in a pocket. Even if you don't hit anyone, several close volleys can slow an enemy's progress as a shower of longbow arrows would. So I would have me a long shield, a helm, and probably chain mail, and I'd learn to hold onto my shield with my slingshot arm and draw back with the other. And I'd be back, maybe behind the archers. I have no illusions; I know I am not physically strong and need all the proper protection I can get. However, if necessary, I do know some in-fighting if I would survive such a war to be hand-to-hand with a combatant. A lot of that is diving for the hole. Some grappling and Judo. And a lot of staying in balance. Some sword moves (not many). Using environmental weapons. I can easily wield a cast-iron skillet.
Slings are useful for movement, such as aboard a ship, since they maintain gyroscopic stability. Staff slings are an easy levy weapon. Slingshots require elastic and are modern only, and few would be heavy enough to matter in battle.
Excuse me? One of the oldest sling battles in history is recorded in the Bible. Please re-read David and Goliath. No elastic needed. Even today, Bedouin shepherds are armed with slings. The sling *shot* is a poor substitute for the ancient and deadly sling weapon.
and it gives you an advantage in the 'lever arm' force multiplier; the longer the strings on your sling, the more force you can deliver with it.. ISTR a page where the greeks got up on little stands so they could whirl their 6-8ft slings above the heads of their comrades, building a LOT of speed and thus momentum!
Women-warriors in fantasy or historical fiction, despite being supposed to avert stereotype, are only enforcing it by giving them "graceful" weapons, therefore turning them back into eye-candy. The thing is, eye-candy sells. What was the last time you've seen a main character in medieval setting use practical, but boring weapons, like spear or war hammer, or a non-fancy crossbow? It's the same thing as with chainmail bikiny.
It’s interesting how this stereotype continues to modern (or even futuristic) settings-in Predator: Hunting Grounds, the female predator is given a bow (even though the females were originally conceived to be larger and stronger than the males, but we have to make our 7’+ crab-faced murder monsters “feminine”).
The only reason not to carry a sword on the back is that it would be awkward to sit on chairs. And harder to put back in the sheath. It could be easily drawn if the sheath isn't attached completely to your back and can tilt. I'd see it getting in the way less than if you were to carry it on a belt, unless you're sitting on a chair with back support or lying down.
***** it's much slower to draw from the back than from the hip, and also takes a lot more space and leaves the body more exposed while drawing. Pretty much the sole reason to carry it on your back is when traveling when you don't expect to need it a lot.
I have a cheap wall hanger katana (cost me around 60usd). It's a replica of Hiro Nakamura's katana from Heroes, blade is around 85cm long, it has a sheath designed to be carried on the back. It's not that uncomfortable to sit while having it on my back, really. And I've managed to find a way to quickly get it out from my back, and then put it back in. And you know what? It's around 5-6 times slower to just unsheath it. And when you pull your sword from the hip, you're already in a position to throw a cut, something like one handed unterhau, whilst when pulling it out from your back, to get it out completely, I have to put my hand under tsuba, throw it out a bit, grab a blade, pull it out completely, transfer my hand from the blade to the grip, assume a stance and then throw a cut. Putting a sword back is less of a hassle, and when doing so you're usually not in so much of a hassle like when you are when pulling it out. Plus, like Captain said, it leaves you exposed not only due to the time it takes to unsheath it, but you also have to reach to the back, leaving your entire body exposed, whilst when grabbing it from the hip, you automatically put your hand in front of you, acting as a barier to the more vital organs. And if you have your hand in front of your body, it's quicker if you need to abandon unsheathing a sword, and use your very own hand to defend yourself. When you pull a sword from the hip, not only you're already in one of the cut stances, you're also in one of the guard stances. Look up 6 cuts and guards from sabre fencing. Basically, there is only one reason to carry a sword on your back, and it's when you have a true zweihander. landsknechts carried their swords on their backs, but that's because their swords were as big as them, so wearing them on the hip was impossible. But those were strict warswords, that they carried to the battlefield, and would take them from their backs before the battle.
alnoso That's even better. The muscular biceps and ham-fists of a man, plus the deadly teeth of a dog, and the head of a dog so it'll never question you.
Well the strength difference between us ladies and the fellas is about 40% more muscle mass (give or take) this is a medical fact. That is a big difference, in fact I heard of a female bodybuilder arm wrestling average guys and only having a win rate of 40 ish percent. Men did after all evolve to be the fighters between the two of us so barring other circumstances men will always have the strength advantage. This is also why I snicker when they give women characters in anything a long bow. Daggers or a well balanced two handed or hand and a half sword would be a better choice since we have more lower body muscle mass than men giving us a lower center of gravity which makes us fairly agile in contrast. Still over long distances men are the faster given stride length and pelvic tilt actually makes a man naturally better at running which makes sense since they are the hunter and being able to run well can keep you fed or not. So to me at least light fast weapons would work better for us ladies or we can just use our guile like women have for 1000's of years to fight. On a tangent though skimpy armor would be distracting to straight male foes which could give you an opening since you know where his eyes and mind are. xD
Agree with what you're saying, but you really should preface it by saying "A male and a female with equal amounts of training" Obviously someone like Karyn Marshall can carry heavier weights than Chandra Bahadur Dangi. After all, this all concerns averages.
The difference is so large that only the strongest 10% of women are stronger than the weakest 5% of men. Thats a pretty huge difference. Less than 1% of women are stronger than even the weaker males in society. Males in training are just more able to increase muscle mass.
Don't give too much credits on Bodybuilders. They have only muscle mass, but no muscles. But yes, women have the strongest weapon human kind ( specifically man kind) has faced... femeninity, and used wisely, it can kill the strongest of Human foes. ( it sadly don't work on animals.)
Shad, you should talk aboit the different types of Japanese swords. There is more than just a katana, and each have their own roles and styles. swords are: Tanto, Tsurugi/hen, etc.
Cornered Fox well im not an expert, the tanto is a dagger, and the tsurugi is a double edged straight sword, a longer version of the single edged chokuto, im not the best on the origins, and there are a lot more i cant remember
Cornered Fox those are the ones that i were thinking of too! I think that the main public perception is that the katana is the only 'samurai' swors. It would be nice to see a breakdown of the other Japanese swords, why they are the way thwy are, the history, etc.
from what I understand the "tanto" wasn't used historically by Samurai. It was a modern hollywood invention. I may be wrong but I know I heard it from someone into japanese history. I think he also stated that the smallest blade used by the Samurai, if not a knife, was a wakizashi, more of a short sword than a dagger in my opinion.
Capten The tanto dates to the heian period , when it was mainly used as a weapon but evolved in design over the years to become more ornate. Tanto were used in traditional martial arts (tantojutsu) and saw a resurgence of use in the West in the 1980s as the design made its way to the US and is a common blade pattern found in modern tactical knives. Edit: may have butchered the spelling of heian,
let's also keep in mind that the favoured weapons of the samurai was the bow and pole arm. Odachi and Nagamaki were basically variants on naginata, often used as anti cavalry or crowd control, rather than 1v1 combat iirc
One problem is also skill. Crossbows and Spears are also really good for those unskilled in combat, as neither of them take as much to learn, as say a longsword or a rapier, and if someone, no matter how weak they may be at the start, begins to practice with a certain weapon, they will grow stronger, and be able to use that weapon more and more effectively. So I'd argue that its not so much about finding a weapon suited for someone's strength, but finding a weapon for their skill level, and what they have practiced. If they're unskilled AND weak give them a spear and perhaps a shield, and/or a crossbow, if they're unskilled and strong, both of those still work, but it also opens up axes, maces, warhammers etc, all of which only require a basic understanding of combat to be effective.
Ultramasterjedi shields require a lot of strength. When people start sword and buckler their right hands are a bit stronger. After a year they will have around 20-30% stronger left arms than right.
Combat has always been ruinous to the human body. Your rubbish about "brittle bones" has no bearing in reality. There's a reason infantry are always extremely young on average, and at that age sex does doesn't matter when it comes to skeletal integrity. I think your contempt for female combatants would get you killed by one in the real world. Never underestimate someone who intends to kill you. There's no profit in it.
I call bullshit. I've served with women in a field unit, many of whom had served for 20 years and there was no sign of these medical problems you're conjuring. Give stats from reputable sources or piss off.
And spear is a bitch to carry around. so it would be a good choice if you are going to fight. but you cant really walk around and do everyday things with a spear, in that case a sword is better as you can carry it around when doing pretty much anything. But the perfect mix could be spear AND longsword. As even if you fight with a spear you will probably want a backup weapon. and then even if you don't carry the spear you still have the sword
Posted the comment just before he said that another option would be a spear. And yeah of course eveything depends on the context. For an adventuring-type situation I would go for a crossbow and a short sword/long knife, and maybe a buckler-type thing, provided you're not writing in a context where gunpowder is commonplace. For a battlefield situation then I'd go for a spear, a great big shield and sword as backup. Unless you gotta be an archer but if u a wimp you probably wouldn't be able to draw a warbow well enough to be useful against armoured enemies.
Gstrangeman96 For a person that's less strong than average and in an adventure type situation. Then i would say Crossbow is a good choice but for side arm i would still recommend longsword over a smaller one handed sword. Then you don't have to carry around a buckler to. As you would like to carry as little as possible. it would not be like in games where you can carry almost any amount of gear with you. Cross bow is a good choice if you wanna stay at range as much as possible. If going more for melee i would say spear and a sword as backup weapon
nice video, but there is one flaw, the long sword argument is not entirely right in my opinion, holding a sword with two hands doesnt mean you can hold a sword that is twice as heavy, not to mention when you swing the sword it requires specific muscle which means the difficulty of swinging a sword grows exponentially with the weight
Superpower Dragon yet the weakest people always pick the two handed weapon after trying the one handers (simply because with o e handers you are either having some kind of shield in an extended position or the weapon itself all the time and that takes well built muscles)
Thank you so much for this video! This is something I've often wondered about, but it's hard to hear opinions where people are honest but not derogatory and, in my opinion, you've managed it perfectly :D
Yeah, that would make absolute sense ... if the enemy were to run about bare-ass naked. Otherwise, no thank you. Thick clothing would make a blowgun nothing more but a toy
ruining ur day Do you always run around with nothing but bare skin under your chainmail? If so, you'll soon have no skin left to show. Even if you weren't wearing any sort of padding (which, again, reduces blowguns to cute little sticks), the chance of a dart hitting the surface area between the chainlinks is like 30%, and before you've reloaded your stone age toy, you'll have a sword run right through your jungle-ass
ruining ur day Nice memes there, I wasn't aware this was a party. As far as I can tell, this is a channel dedicated to furthering knowledge on medieval combat and warfare.
When I was young and carefree I actually loved going to an outside pursuits place called Dalguise. The (sorry Shad) Welsh longbow is a beast to draw, give me a Claymore any day.
In Turkish history we have rulers and group of women warriors. Our history says they used leather armor, shield and one handed axe weapons with horses. They also used bow and arrows on the horses. You can investigate turkish middle assia history for women warriors/soldiers. We have plenty of them.
Slings, quarterstaff, daggers/poniards, atlatl all reasonable for someone with less strength. Also mid weight bows can still be quite effective, you are disregarding the distance factor if say the enemy was 100 feet away you don't need a super powerful/heavy draw weight bow as long as the arrowhead was the proper shape/sharpness depending on armor type.
Bows are indeed violently effective even at relatively low draw weights. Effective hunting bows have a fairly modest draw weight and can still kill big game. The fact that the English longbow has such an obscene draw weight is mostly because it was designed to penetrate armour.
Bit rubbish at very close quarters though. Or if you want to do anything more than stab someone who's straight in front of you and no more than two metres (or whatever distance you can throw it with enough force and accuracy, which may not be much) away. As it's essentially a knife blade on a pole. It's a decent weapon for the particular uses it might be specifically chosen for, like hunting or as a particular part of a combined army as an alternative to or alongside bows & arrows to launch a one-shot close-ranged javelin attack (or more likely, defence, digging them into the ground at an angle and stepping back behind them, or used as the spikes of a romanesque "hedgehog" spear-and-shield formation), but not really as a general purpose one. Plus if the pole is made of wood, it just takes one wild sword sweep and suddenly you haven't got a spear, you've got a broom handle and a dagger with a strangely shaped handle.
Mark Penrice Unless your spear shaft is made of balsa wood, it would certainly take more than one hit from a metal blade to cut through, especially if it's made of a hardwood such as oak or ash.
Depends how it's being held and the quality of the sword, I'd expect. You cut trees down with axes, even oaks and ashes, don't you? Besides, it doesn't need to go all the way through. Halfway is enough, suddenly you've got something that's got a lot less compressive strength and may bend, splinter and snap when you try to stab someone with it. Or a second blow from the sword would be enough to break the now compromised spear in two. Plus, with a sword blade lodged in it, you're not going to be able to wield it anywhere near as effectively and may well drop it thanks to the blow and the sudden extra weight (or be forced to [by/before] it break[ing/s] your wrists).
Mark Penrice there's a big difference between cutting through fresh wood such as in a living tree, and dried hardened wood such as used in making tool handles and weapons. A properly made spear shaft or axe handle is hardened over a fire and would eventually weaken and break but it would take many hits over time from a bladed weapon gradually chipping away at it. One or two strikes isn't going to do it, nor would it likely sink deep enough into the wood to allow the blade to get stuck. Meethinks somebody's been watching too many movies.
In movies bows are superpowerful weapons which can go thru armor as if it were butter. Is like watching soldiers taking out tanks with assault rifles, so ofcouse weaker people can use them, they instakill with magical plot powers.
Archaeology has shown that a large number of Scythian (ancient horse archers) fought alongside the men and those who did not were expected to defend the camp and herds from raiders. Their weapon of choice was the bow--with poison tipped arrows. Crossbows are commonly used by women today in hunting and a Chinese style repeating crossbow would be devastating, regardless of who used it. As great as Shad's knowledge of arms and armor is (and he is great) he tends to have armor on the brain. Most warriors did not wear armor all the time, only in battle. The rest of the time they were vulnerable to even weak bows. A thirty pound bow will kill an unarmored person just as dead as a hundred pound one. Besides, one does not have to kill a person to remove him or her from the battle. All it takes is an arrow to the knee.
It's funny you talk about needing strength to use bows. Reading "The Dragon Knight" series by Gordon R. Dickson, and in the first book in the series "The Dragon and The George", the titular Dragon Knight meets up with those who become his allies during the rest of the series (with a few being added here and there later on), and one of them is a woman named Danielle. Initially, James, our protagonist, is a little unsure about having her in the recently formed group that's going to attack these Dark Powers. However, Sir Brian, a local knight, states that the woman can use a 100lb warbow, as does half of the outlaws in the group her father leads, (blame magic for units there, as I think the author was American, and so is the time/dimensional-lost protagonist), which James finds interesting, as he used to do some archery, and found 60lb to be his limit. The knight himself mentions that he could use an 80lb bow decently well. Then there's Dafydd, who uses a bow that's easily 150-200lbs, was made by him, along with the arrows, which can punch through armor of the era (think Edward the Black period, at around 1350, although time's slightly different in this world of magic, dragons, and talking wolves), and I personally think could give Legolas a run for his money in an Archery competition, and isn't too bad with a sword either.
