Those looking for examples of women trained in arms in a later period might like to look up Julie d'Aubigny and Christian Davies from the 18th century. Defoe's life of Christian Davies is a fascinating account of a woman clearly pretty experienced with weapons (even so far as a fighting duel with a British officer) serving as a soldier during the Nine Years War and the War of Spanish Succession.
Could also look at Mary Read and Anne Bonny - the two females convicted of piracy in 1720 as part of Calico Jack Rackham's crew. What is particularly interesting about Mary Read is that, before she became a pirate (after a brief stint first as a privateer), she had previously served in both the British and the Dutch armies, only leaving when peace broke out and ruined her chances of military advancement. She clearly had no difficulty whatsoever passing as a man and serving very competently as one in two armies, on a privateer and then on a pirate ship. She is known to have killed at least one fellow pirate in a one-on-one duel, and when Rackham's ship was boarded by the Royal Navy, she and Anne Bonny were two of the only three crewmembers who even tried to fight off the boarding party. (Later, in prison, Anne Bonny told Jack Rackham immediately before his execution: "Sorry to see you there, but if you'd fought like a man, you would not have been hang'd like a Dog".) Tough ladies...
I'm under the impression that it was common for European women of any station in the middle ages and later to wear a sheathed knife for self-defence, as men did.
I run an annual event - FightCamp - at which a number of my friends teach Bartitsu, la canne and savate, including leading instructors Daniel Jaquet, Mr. Milo Thurston and James Marwood. I am also quite well acquainted with Tony Wolf, who is a regular contributor on my Schola Forum (can't put links in posts, but Google is our friend). So yes, I know Bartitsu quite well :-)
Glad to hear it! We have a slight bias against wasters at the school I attend (though not to Guy Windsor levels), so even though your videos thus far have all been fantastic I'm always a little wary of people who don't seem to use steel very much (especially with how floppy some of the nylon wasters get).
@Real Crusades History, you are obviously stuck in the mindset of the Medieval era, and seem opposed to looking at the broader picture. In pre Christian Ireland, there were "war colleges" that trained young men and women and some of the most reknowned were in fact run by women warriors. FACT: In 697 a Catholic church law known as Cain Adamnan prohibited women from fighting, bearing arms or taking part in war. This law, which stripped women of the right to fight for their families or defend themselves, was presented as an act of kindness to women, relieving them of the obligation to train for war, a clear indication that this had previously been the norm.
i believe in the book of the courtier mentions infrequent women trained as knights, though not common there will always be fathers who raise there daughters along side there sons
Unfortunately I think there is no real historical evidence for the Viking women legend (I think it is a 19th century invention)... Though there are fighting women in Norse mythology and stories, so who knows! Of course in modern times (and even in the 19th century) women are allowed to do martial arts and fencing, this hopefully goes without saying :-)
Our primary simulator is blunt steel, and there's a tendency to have beginners transition to steel early-ish. Obviously however we wear a lot of safety gear, especially because our bouting/freeplay/sparring is more rigorous than most (apparently when our school tried feders they tended to snap, although obviously this could have been due to poorly made blades). Otherwise the simulator of choice tends to be modified shinai, which have their own issues.
Some manuals depict fancy judicial duels (e.g. judicial shields). Their purpose might have been to give both oppenents the oppertunity of having the same time to train.
Thank you for that video. It actually fills in some holes I had been thinking about. I posted in your discussion area a question relating to this topic, and I will repeat it here in hopes I can get some more answers. I had a thought I was wondering if you could illuminate. What was the historical relationship between swords and women? Specifically I was thinking that since you make it clear swords and arms were accessible in number and in price throughout lots of periods in history, did women in certain periods habitually carry, or possibly be trained in using a sword or other weapons? I am not asking was it the norm, were women soldiers or fighters or something like that, I am referring to the idea that swords were primarily used as a form of civilian protection. It would seem to me that this creates a very similar environment as places in modern American and in other periods in America's history. Weapons are plentiful and people socially accept or are aware that they must defend themselves. It would stand to a kind of reason that if a woman was attacked she would be able to physically grab a sword, or know where one must be. What I am wondering is, was there any kind of institutionalized or I guess socially accepted idea that training a woman to defend herself was a good idea? Again, I'm not saying, were women being trained en mass to fight, but was there some kind of social impetus to show your wife how to use your sword, kind of how people today will take their wife shooting or something?
Pictures from the sources would have been awesome. Also a few examples like Joanne of Flanders, Jeanne Hachette or La Maupin would have made the case better.
Nice video. On an unrelated note - your freeplay/tournament videos seem to be mostly done with wasters rather than steel (besides of course the military sabre stuff). Is this representative of what you do, and if so is there a particular justification behind it?
I think that one way we need to look at this is in terms of a population sharing in high risk activities. Obviously, going into battle is a very high risk activity. But guess what else is also a very high risk activity? Yep -baring children! If you look at it in those terms, for thousands of years it has been a struggle for women just to survive giving birth, and a woman can't afford to have just one child -she needs to live long enough to have as many as possible because infant & childhood mortality are so high! With that in mind, why would any community put them in double jeopardy by sending them to battle as well? One very ugly fact of war is that especially among large armies, famine & disease usually killed more than the battles themselves. I think sending men to war instead of women can be seen as a way of the population sharing in the risks of life. Women going to battle equals too few women if they are also expected to hazard the mortal risks of baring children too.
Here’s a question. Any opinions would be appreciated. I have a number of men in my HEMA club, but only one woman. Marketing swordplay to men is a no-brainer. I’m trying to market this martial art to make it more appealing to women. In anyone’s opinion, what would make HEMA appealing to a woman & make her want to practice it?
I have prints of the only known falchion treatise, it consists of only 4 pages of images, and some lines of text, 2 of the pictures depict a woman fighting with a falchion.
I wonder why people behave like if it wasn't written down at some point it didn't happen. I think there is a lot that completely escaped the history books just because it was too mundane to write down, and we are of course looking at history through modern eyes, and doesn't that make almost everything we think about the past null and void ?
Krista Dís Guðmundsdóttir No: Historians are not as dumb as you think. Do you really believe they didnt realize the difficulties of analyzing the past through our eyes? They did long ago. No, it's you the one who fails how history works: if those female warriors were as "mundane" as you claim, we would still see a lot of them in the conventional historical record...since men are even more mundane. It's not the case. Even if they were underrecorded in historical records, those fem warriors would still have a strong presence in folklore, legends, and art...which is NOT the case (compared to the tons of male expamples). The examples we have are very scarce and they're fascinating for the same reason white tigers are: their rarity. So there you have it, they're scarce in both folklore and recorded history, so trying to argue that they were actually the real deal is nothing more than speculation and wishful thinking. Exceptions are just that.
Real Crusades History If Celts did not treat their woman warriors as equals then why would they have woman warriors like Scáthach in their folklore without even batting an eyelid or treating it as something highly unusual? I'm no expert on this, but am just curious for your reasoning.
Justin Lim The ancient Greeks and Romans had women warriors in their mythology as well. The presence of fantastical stories about fighting women indicates absolutely nothing about the status of women in a society. Also, the concept of equality is a modern concept. It didn't yet exist as an idea in the ancient and medieval world.
I’d say that they may have had women who participated in battle but I’d say it would have been very rare like if most of the men of a settlement had died for some reason be it in battle or due to something like a disease killing most of the men off, of course in the absence of men women would have to fill the need to defend the tribe, Bodica most likely was a great strategic leader as women can be that but I doubt she was down with the lads fighting Romans more so commanding her troops from a hill, however the celts probably did train their women to use weapons as it is logical to have everyone wether noble commoner or women being able to fight if time demands of it
I only know that their are at least some nordic graves in which were women with a full set weapons and armour, but those were the grave of mainly richer and more infulent women, so it could be differnt for ordinary women
I know this could be a complicated topic. But when I was studying history it became clear that history wasn't necessarily written by the victors, but by the researchers publishing books in more modern time. I wonder how many topics like this have been tainted by lets say 1900's mind sets and "Chinese whispers". I have seen women fight, and when it comes to weapons and skill, there usually is but a height advantage, which not all men have. I see no reason on the plausibility of women fighters, or women pretending to be men, or simply town militia sort of roles through European history. Outside of Europe, it's recorded as more common depending on region
I just separate it this way: MAAE(Martial Arts of Ancient Europe) MAME(Martial Arts of Medieval Europe...proper acronym pronounced like maim ) MARE(Martial arts of Renaissance Europe) MAEM(Martial Arts of Early Modern Europe) MAPM(Martial arts of Post Modern Europe. which I shall refer to as WW1+)
What would you say from your experience (since you teach both men and women, right?) how big is the general advantage in favour of men in a sword fight? And do weapons equalize the situation compared to un-armed fighting? Are the best sword fighters automatically men? (Also, would you think it's true that women have an advantage in a friendly fight because the men are afraid to hurt a woman and hence don't fight seriously? This is actually what I've heard people say. Not really sure if I believe that. I doubt it'd apply to all men at least.) Basically my impression is that men have an advantage but not so big that it's implausible for a woman to win (unlike what a certain male acquaintance of mine insists). But I don't have any proof of that. I don't do any martial arts at all. (Even though every now and then I feel like I'd like to. Watching all these videos makes me want to try fencing. Not that I haven't wanted to try it before because I used to love all that stuff as a kid.) (Well, I kind of have tried it a little bit. I took some theatre fighting classes back when I was a teenager because I used to do amateur acting. That included some four or five lessons of theatre fencing with fake rapiers. Basically we got to learn the basic positions and moves but then instead of sparring we did only choreographic fights. I played Aramis in The Three Musketeers (there were more male roles so some of us had to go cross-gender (not that I didn't want to play Aramis; I practically begged for it)) so I got to do it on stage too. But obviously it's not the same thing. Then again, the moves themselves should be correct since I think the guys who taught us also teach normal fencing. And I recognize a lot of them from videos like these and other sources. We also did some pole arm stuff. The fist fighting lessons, on the other hand, I don't think taught any practical skills since most of it was focused on *not* hurting your opponent. Plus the teacher wasn't an expert on fist fighting but theatre tricks.)
In my experience, as someone who practice hema for 3 years now. Men do have an advantage over women, but women (some of them) do develope strategies to overcome the differences with their male opponents. In most fights between men and women, I have seen men having a higher rate of victories, but there are womens who have developed strategies and those womens level the balance, the only problem is that men have more mass and muscle (in an even comparison) this gave them a really good advantage on the close plays where they can do more wrestling moves. Really at the end the biological advantage do existe, but people adapt around those differences and its just a mater of who is more witty (obviously ones they reach certain level of abilities the skill gap became to big, reason why we divide men and women in competences).
I think the biggest advantage men have is that women have to overcome that little part of their brain that says they don't belong to the enviroment of martial arts of contact sports. I had to overcome something similar as a short, fat gay man myself. But what many people fail to consider, like your friend, is that both men and women come in all sizes and shapes. Many women are stronger and faster than many men. Just like at pro MMA fighters. And physical strengh and size aren't everything either. When I used to practice Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, my teachers were a married husband a wife couple. They are both highly skilled black belts and she is perfectly able to beat stronger, bigger men (she was nicknamed 'bone crusher' because when she was still a student her teacher would put the newcomers to fight her so they would gain some humility). At the end of the day, the husband still has a big advantage over her due to his size and physical strengh. But she can hold her own and the most important thing is that winning isn't everything. Anyone practicing martial arts thinking only about winning is in for a big disappointment. People should practice because they want to. So, my advice to you is just go do it. Find a nice club and have fun. If you find stronger people, learn how to be better by adapting to their strengh. If you find weaker people, let them learn the same.
On average men have the advantages of size, strength and stamina, and in my opinion they are considerable advantages. Now of course a fit, strong and trained woman can defeat a man in a serious sword fight BUT if the level of skill is similar the average male warrior is likely to have a major advantage over the average female warrior. Now an unusually large, strong, agile and fit woman would have the advantage over the average man if their skill levels were similar but she is likely to be rare. Does anyone seriously expect that the top women in a true martial art is likely to compete with the top males in the same martial art. Again, men and women rarely compete directly at the top level of sports for very valid reasons. This is not a 'men are better than women' thing, it is a 'men and women have real differences that affect their ability to compete evenly in some things' thing.
I've seen male and female HEMAists in sparing and, although there is a biological difference, I'm not so sure it's that apparent. Let me explain. Yes there are obvious differences such as men being mostly taller and have a predisposition to have a bit more mass. But personally I blame culture for the big difference. Boys are usually encouraged to do sports, gain muscle, be strong etc. while girls should play with dolls, be polite etc. From this you get the culture where very few women go to gym (compared to men) and when they do they aren't there to get stronger. Most of the time they are afraid to lift more than a couple of kilos for fear they will look like body builders. All of these cultural things combined together make a person weaker because they do not move as much or use their body. So yes, they do have a disadvantage but only because there is a lack of assertive behavior toward physical activity. If we were to accept that women generally are not good at HEMA because of their biology, then we can just dispel all shorter non athletic men that practice HEMA. Keith Farell would be considered a shorter person compared to other HEMAists but he is one hell of a swordsman and instructor. So, TLDR, no. With proper attitude and physical development, I do not thing there would be a great difference in physical performance between male and female HEMAists.
What you just said reminds me of a filipino FMA instructor I knew that is way shorter than me (and I'm 5'6) and extremelly effective, even against my instructor at the time that was taller, more muscular and heavier.
Also didn't Nordic women around viking times have to know how to fight to protect the farms when men were off hunting and raiding? Not sure how true that is but I've heard it somewhere. And would it even matter if women weren't historically learned in martial arts they should be allowed in if they want to anyway, especially in this day and age?
hahah so the point of this video was, yes, martial arts has mostly guys in them, but there WERE some women. I think the more interesting question to answer would've been, "Has there been any martial arts developed specifically for women, or which directly addresses the physique of a woman, when she fights other women or people bigger than them?"
+Matrinique pretty sure all martial arts have ways to deal with size disparities. I will never understand for what purpose people look for a martial art specifically 'for women'. The physiques of women, and men, vary a lot.
It's true, they vary. But there are general differences between men and women that can be leveraged by specific martial arts. Men are strong, dude. There's a massive difference between the bodies of guys and gals once puberty kicks in. There's a reason they separate women's sports from men's. As for martial arts specifically 'for women,' I can think of a few purposes.
I believe you when you say you can't arm wrestle those ladies trained in rowing clubs or DLRG. "Strength has nothing to do with gender, but with life choices." I'd love to think that were true. Prove me wrong, please, because I do wish women were the same as men in terms of natural physical strength. While I certainly agree that life choices affect strength, I believe if a woman and a man made the SAME life choices, the man would generally still be stronger. "In armed combat, there is no need for special techniques for women." Is that true? The mechanics of swordplay make that so? A big strong man versus a weak little man -- both at the same skill level with the sword and using the exact same techniques -- would win about the same number of times if they fight? ...it would be very interesting if that were the case. Obviously in gun fights, physicality doesn't matter as much. I would think sword fights are a bit different. Uh, rereading my response I sound rather sarcastic. I'm not sarcastic at all. I am genuinely interested in this.
+Matrinique "Has there been any martial arts developed specifically for women, or which directly addresses the physique of a woman, when she fights other women or people bigger than them?" Yes.
Matrinique To answer your last comment about the scenario where two combatants of different strengths but "equal skill", I say it depends. In my opinion, "equal skill" is still vague. While warriors may know the same amount of techniques and capabilities, what it comes down to is other factors like chance, application, tactics, strategy, etc. It's not like both fighters will simultaneously launch the same move and have other attributes like strength to determine the outcome. Fighters can implement techniques that address another's attack. For instance, a strong fighter can try to strike with a heavy blow. Now if the other, weaker fighter used the same technique against that, logically he/she would be overpowered by the stronger adversary. However, he/she can get around such disparity by trapping the opponent's weak with the strong (thus gaining leverage) before launching a counterattack. This isn't to say strength should be dismissed. It can help affect the outcome. However, the nature of combat is so complex that it's possible to get around certain disparities with the correct technique implementation, even if both fighters are "equally skilled".
This is exactly why I *hate* grapling/wrestling... when someone is physically stronger than you, they *will* overpower you. And superiour technique doesn't really help in a setting where you don't actually intend to harm the other person (lots of guys when sparring are being dicks trying to show a girl how strong they are, rather than practicing what they're told...) I'll stick to stabbing them in the eye with a messer. :P
You are not completely right about the grappling or wrestling. In judo or in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu your skills will overpower opponent's strength, this is why Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu often promotes itself as a martial art when you can defeat anyone no matter what size they are. Because Mitsuyo Maeda often said that in the ground wrestling power of your opponent disappears, and he or she can't use his or her strength effectively if she or he can use it at all, and on the ground you and your opponent have equal chances if you trained, even more than equal, and if you really well trained in BJJ or other ground fighting your opponent's weight or stregth won't be a problem to you. That's how Mitsuyo Maedo in his journey through America defeated enemies much larger than himself. He was qiute small in comparison with his enemys. Sorry for my English.
Then why do they have weight classes and separate women and men's divisions? The fact is, weapons were designed for this very reason. Without weapons, the big guy almost always wins. Yes a highly trained martial artist against someone big with no training, or in a fight with rules has a better chance, but the crime reports clearly tell us it's pretty rare.
@@54eopifkg3ehfkj43 Actually, I have witnessed smaller guys beating larger opponents when it came to swordsmanship. It helps when one has a style or tactic/strategy that gets around height and/or reach disadvantages.
@@cadethumann8605 height and reach advantage are more important in a sword fight than they are in hand to hand combat, because when either person can kill in one cut the longer reach gets there first. But in MMA fights or hand to hand combat, weight is the most important. A short heavy guy has a huge advantage against a tall light guy in a fist fight but is disadvantaged in a sword fight.
Some women participated in actual war dressed as men. Most of them from low class families such as farmers. Soldiering was often just a way to gain everyday living, since there weren't that many jobs for women and certainly the pay was worse. There's proof of this in sources studied by modern historians, but the topic is little known to the general public. Studies I know of however concentrate on the early modern period and 19th century.
Women was the prisipal house owners ..i that they carried the house keys. and i would imagine that a scandinavian women during the time of the viking raides would have loads of oportunity of training maritial arts i do not see a reason why only the men would partake in the maritial fostering that was going on in that time.
As a HUGE fan of woman warriors, I am so happy that you have posted this video. Thank you so much for doing so. FYI, Joan d'Arc is my hero. That is all.
Well, you can be a fan of them, they did not exist. There are a few scattered examples of women fighting. They are EXTREMELY rare. Overwhelmingly women were not warriors, for obvious reasons. Joan of Arc herself probably did not fight. She simply led an army, and that in itself was so rare that it was considered a miracle from God.
Doesn't seem like a fair fight at all, unless there were time limits on judicial duels. If he's trapped she could just nag him to death, no need to even engage.
Sgt Moose there is no historical evidence to suggest that Joan of arc actually participated on the medieval front line, she was more of a morale booster, probably was great at speeches that inspired the French soldiers before the battle, but there is nothing to suggest she was on the frontline swinging swords at the English, she may have been competent in fencing and combat style and may have participated in tournaments and friendly duels but there is nothing historical suggesting that she was nothing more than Frances poster girl
