Females are shit warriors for biological reasons. They dont have the body and they dont have the aggression. They were brought with the army for other purposes than fighting (no im not talking about sex). An army would usually be 1/3 of actual soldiers.
Also, that image is fucking gay. People in 10th century didnt have white teeth, washed hair and wearing no fucking armor.
They absolutely washed their hair and bathed daily; we know that they literally prepared baths, as in tubs of heated water to sit in. Dental hygiene is also attested throughout Europe (usually consisting of scraping the teeth with soft wood or cloth). You're right that the image is gay, however.
Anon is probably more so referring to the common depiction of vikings as being fur pelt loincloth-wearing savages, when your average grunt would probably look more like picrel.
In the sane sagas saying draugs exist and random people could throw spells
all those things are true. Hervarar Saga ok Heithreks is an accurate account of history.
No evidence that they were ever more than a myth/folk-story. If they had entered a Viking era battle they would have been hilariously rofl-stomped.
you talk like war was fought by strong people besting others and not formations and speed
but zero christians wrote about them, too which there's nothing but the age old cope "they didn't write about things they didn't like!"
Cope, seethe, dilate, and remember that your parents will use your real name on your tombstone
there are at least some examples.
Robert Guiscard's wife allegedly accompanied him into battle swinging an axe.
but the historical account comes from a woman (byzantine emperor alexios' daughter) so it could just be fanfiction.
Are you familiar with the standards for corroborating sources in history?
Basically a single source means nothing, and you need multiple, credible, corroborating accounts of the same event before anyone will take you seriously when you claim that something happened.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Like all we know about alexander being based on one single surviving biography based on supposed earlier ones?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
There's sufficient evidence of his existence that that's enough. Extraordinary claims (like 'le ebin wimmin warriers!!!!') require extraordinary proof. Just go and watch a Marvel Movie, that's clearly more your speed.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
so you always assume literally every anecdote only written about by a single historian (like one single nobles warrior wife) to be false?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Just go and masturbate into your own face, you'll achieve about as much as you are here, and it'll feel better for you too.
Oh, but I did address that in my post. >the historical account comes from a woman (byzantine emperor alexios' daughter) so it could just be fanfiction
also why i used "allegedly"
I can see what you're saying there, but honestly it's further even than that - given the complete absence of all physical evidence, cultural evidence, and the sheer implausibility of the claim it wouldn't have mattered if the one source you can remember claiming it had been absolutely air tight. It might as well have been a claim that Mrs Guiscard was actually a witch who killed an army of orcs with lightning magic.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Oh, but I did address that in my post. >the historical account comes from a woman (byzantine emperor alexios' daughter) so it could just be fanfiction
also why i used "allegedly"
War involves a lot of walking and moving around, setting up camps and so on. This is all very exhausting work.
1/3 of women who menstruate cannot do any physical work from pain. Melee combat itself is pretty exhausting and good .
Nta
mongols, for example, were so good at what they did because of their nomadic lifestyle and the fact the entire population travelled with the army. That is, men had their whole families with them, not just wives. You go do battle 9 to 5, come home to wife's dinner.
Anon the fucking chainmail alone weight 27pounds/12 kilos, have you ever worn one? I have. They really weight you down. That's nearly a third of a womans weight. Plus holding two heavy objects in each hand, swinging and bracing. Its not a joke.
You need to hammer hard enough to break into a layer of metal to kill your opponent before he kills you.
A woman cant do this. Theres no fucking feminism in the world that is going to save a woman from a man trying to kill her while they both wearing 30 kg of gear between their arms. 9/10 a woman wouldnt even win in an unarmed fight.
And like another anon said, the combat itself is only a small part of being a soldier. You need to be able to march for days non stop with full outfit and dig a trench immediately after.
Lastly, its not a good idea for any society to have massive casualties of women. A society can endure massive casualties of men, but women means extinction. The people back in ancient times understood this too.
The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantines) remarked several times that they were surprised to find women among the dead when Rus vikings tried to engage in pitched battles. I think Ahmad Ibn Fadlan also saw an armed woman in a Rus viking warband.
Western Christian writers mention women among vikings once or twice but mention that it is hearsay, and haven't heard confirmed reports from reliable sources.
However, there are multiple (rare) notable mentions of female warriors among the Germanics in the early Middle Ages among the Christian nations; Brunhilda of the Franks, Aethelflaed of the Mercians (Anglo-Saxons), Matilda of Tuscany (Italy), Sikelgaita of the Normans. It stands to reason that female combatants were a rare but plausible occurrence among the armies of post-Roman Europe. I would estimate their occurrence at about one in every hundred at best, more likely one in every two or three hundred given soldiers; so say, approximately 2-3 per average warband, maybe one or two dozen in a large army. And I'm talking real combatants, not merely camp followers.
She participated in open battle multiple times against the Vikings, mounted on a horse, with sword and shield, mail and helmet, hacking at enemy men. She is the direct inspiration of Eowyn in Lord of the Rings, and one of the few unequivocally recognized examples of a true female warrior. But she's Christian so nobody cares; pop culture and normalfags only care about vikings.
>She participated in open battle multiple times against the Vikings, mounted on a horse, with sword and shield, mail and helmet, hacking at enemy men.
What's the proof of this?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, William of Malmesbury, John of Worcester, and the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, William of Malmesbury, John of Worcester, and the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland
Where's the actual proof that she took part in the fighting herself?
Most of those sources don't provide it.
She might well have been present at various battles and given orders, but that's not fighting.
Retarded take.
People have always practised personal hygiene.
Look at any of the areas that the Vikings conquered and you can find some kind of evidence of people bathing, combing hair, clipping nails, washing hands etc. before any Vikings came along.
Vikings also said they were taken by Valkyries on flying chariots for sky orgies. It's pretty typical fare of embellishments, i.e. Amazons and the like. All made up. All of it.
it's amazing how confident people can be when they're this wrong >flying chariots
Not a thing. They didn't have wings either, the valkyries had magical undergarments that allowed them to fly. >for sky orgies.
what in the fuck are you even saying
nobody's boning in valhalla
>the norse believed in an afterlife, so everything they assert is false
you have no point, you're a flailing retard who's been so politics poisoned that he has to revise history to exclude the like 1 or 2 fucking notable female warriors that existed in the history of all of pagan europe.
>the norse believed in an afterlife, so everything they assert is false
That was never the assertion, and I was clearly referencing stories like Weyland and the Volsungs with the Valkyrie bit. You're just genuinely stupid and have nothing to contribute here.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>and I was clearly referencing stories like Weyland and the Volsungs with the Valkyrie bit.
uh huh, right. You were referencing mythological poetry to prove the point that... people 1,000 years ago believed in supernatural phenomena, which was standard for everyone 1,000 years ago, and this proves that... women vikings didn't exist. Amazing. >y-you're misrepresenting me!
maybe, but the above train of "logic" is the only conclusion someone could reach about what you believe based on your past posts. If it's wrong, then why don't you actually attempt to state something affirmatively so it can be analyzed.
there are at least some examples.
Robert Guiscard's wife allegedly accompanied him into battle swinging an axe.
but the historical account comes from a woman (byzantine emperor alexios' daughter) so it could just be fanfiction.
it's not like women were never used as soldiers in anything more than an obscure fashion
but those societies are very rare and we don't really have much evidence for their being female viking warriors outside of the same scholars who thought human sacrifice was christian propaganda wanting them to exist
Considering how contemporary accounts of vikings seized upon every outlandish detail of them they could, the lack of any mention of female warriors probably means they were not at all common, more like exceptionally rare.
They also wrote sagas about ice giants. In the last century we've written untold thousands of sagas about aliens invading Earth - does that mean that future historians should believe that aliens blew up the White House in 1996?
>They also wrote sagas about ice giants.
No they didn't. They wrote poetry about "Jotnar" who are a faction of gods that are opposed to Odin and the Aesir. They're basically demons, but they just look like normal people.
Mythological poetry concerns unobservable, supernatural phenomena. Norse heroic sagas are historical records that are meant to discuss the deeds of real people.
It really doesnt matter how you try to twist and turn this. Women were not in the army. They arent fighters.
No medieval or ancient society in the world had women in the frontline. They dont have the body, they dont have the aggression. They would be a burden, not a profit.
A woman weight less, she has less muscles, she cant wear heavy armor and swing a heavy blade and hold a heavy shield for several days the way a man can.
Battles relied on formation, they cant have a weak link in their lines, it puts everyone at risk. Do you understand this?
Equiptment and weapons were extremely expensive back then, iron and steel were scarce, they wouldnt waste it on one who is more likely to fail than the other.
Someone needed to protect the home and family, tender the crops, tender the children. Leaving women out was smart, it was practical. Having heavy female casualties is far more critical than heavy male casualties, it makes your society implode.
There could be a selective few worth wiritng a poem about, but these were selective few nontheless, regardless how much you try to highlight their existence.
Don't forget if you send women to war and they die, but you win. This means many men wont have wives and won't have motivation to work, since their would be wives would be dead.
A society that wages war and loses large chunk of its male population, but wins, can recover better since, they don't have incels running around.
The same goes for a society that wages war and loses.
>"viking literature reveals a society hostile to the concept of female warriors" >wtf norse literature literally has multiple female warriors >"Hah, guess what, libtard! Fielding female warriors is TOTALLY logistically infeasible, so they couldn't have existed in mass numbers!"
whatever, homosexual. Nobody here even disagrees with this, you're shouting at ghosts.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Dude, you can believe whatever crazy bullshit you want - just don't get salty when people remind you how retarded it is.
In many of the coastal societies around Baltic sea, the family structure itself is fairly matriarchal in that men were always out at sea. Mostly just fishing, but that left wife the head of the household, why they wouldn't have time to mess around sailing the seas and pillaging.
my class on this tried to argue gender norms were more permissive or something and would cite the Valkyrie myth along with the one buried woman-with-sword they found to somehow claim it was feminist.
> historically speaking, how common were female vikings?
Practically non existant,
since the vast majority of males weren't vikings, only a few %,
you then additionally reduce the % of vikings from % of possible women vikings,
and you get % on a %, thus like 0.001% or thereabouts.
Hell, even the fucktard militaristic societies like Rome had only like 1-2% of its male population as warriors, so even when talking about men, you are still talking about 90ish% of them being civilian pussies,
>and make insults at people.
not just any old people. There's an eagle/ hawk at the top of yggdrasil and an evil serpent at the bottom. The two hate each and are constantly cussing each other out, and the squirrel, Ratatoskr, is constantly relaying their swears between them.
He's like the courier from skyrim but all he says is "I fucked ur mum. t. nithhoggr"
Is it possible that Norse women disguised themselves as males, in order to fight? Like in later time periods, for example in the British Empire, it happened, but was rare.
AFAIK, there's no conclusive evidence of openly female vikings, but some grave burials of women with martial equipment. Plus, women having more rights under pagan Norse rule, than Christian rule.
>Is it possible that Norse women disguised themselves as males, in order to fight?
That's exactly what the viking princess Hervor does in the Saga of Hervor and Heithrek.
If I remember right, I believe she wears pants, binds her hair up, and uses a male name when doing her viking shenanigans.
Describing it as "rights" isn't really correct. Rather, Asatru legal theories held that men and women were basically different species and as such were treated completely differently. For example, a man could divorce his wife if she wore pants, and she could divorce her husband if he walked around without a collar on (the reason that dress shirts have collars ultimately descends from a Germanic taboo about showing the neck). A woman couldn't inherit property, or own land, but a woman HAD to be taken in by SOMEONE, and it was a crime to not care for a woman if she got plopped in your lap. A woman couldn't act as a witness or prosecute a lawsuit, but she also couldn't be charged with criminal suits AT ALL (a man could be charged with not controlling her, however). So on and so forth.
All of this went away with Christianity which holds that all people are equal.
Is it possible that Norse women disguised themselves as males, in order to fight? Like in later time periods, for example in the British Empire, it happened, but was rare.
AFAIK, there's no conclusive evidence of openly female vikings, but some grave burials of women with martial equipment. Plus, women having more rights under pagan Norse rule, than Christian rule.
>some grave burials of women with martial equipment.
This means nothing. Many women carried around weapons on their person to show that they were free women and not slaves (the right to carry a weapon was only given to free men; slaves or thralls, and there is a slight difference, were legally prohibited from carrying weapons). It's a fashion statement at most.
In many of the coastal societies around Baltic sea, the family structure itself is fairly matriarchal in that men were always out at sea. Mostly just fishing, but that left wife the head of the household, why they wouldn't have time to mess around sailing the seas and pillaging.
This isn't a matriarchy, in anthropology it's referred to as an Iroquoian style society, society was run by male aristocrats who weren't out seafaring or hunting. The Basques (and Iroquois) were like this, as are the Mosuo of China.
>All of this went away with Christianity which holds that all people are equal.
Maybe in the west, but Eastern Orthodoxy has a patriarchal understanding of gender.
For example, in the Orthodox church, a man is allowed to beat his wife if she is disobedient or requires discipline. This was standard discipline in Russia.
>Asatru legal theories held that men and women were basically different species and as such were treated completely differently. For example, a man could divorce his wife if she wore pants, and she could divorce her husband if he walked around without a collar on (the reason that dress shirts have collars ultimately descends from a Germanic taboo about showing the neck). A woman couldn't inherit property, or own land
tbh this all sounds quite reasonable and sensible except for the weird rule about wearing a collar
They were more common than female knights or female samurai, but they were still a minority among Vikings. The vast majority of medieval Norse women lived lives of domesticity typical of women in any place or time.
Feminism did not really exist as a big cultural thing until the French revolution. Some of the French revolutionaries were basically twitter SJWs but centuries earlier.
The only major precursor to this is some parts of the Talmud that talk about equal rights for women and erasing boundaries between the genders. But that idea didn't spread out to the gentile cultures until the French revolution.
There were none. Germanics consider it shameful and terrible for a people to send their women to fight. But they sometimes took daughters or wives with them on campaign, who would carry their shield (shieldmaiden) and act like cheerleaders, who would sometimes even kill their own fathers, brothers or husbands, if they dared to flee the battlefield. They even placed themselves in a way, where they would all be killed, if the men fled.
So no. There are no female Vikings.
As common as female crusaders or female centurions
Pretty common, they needed some pussy on those boats
>Pretty common, they needed some pussy on those boats
that's not what I heard about sailors
they made frequent expeditions south of the azores/canaries
Females are shit warriors for biological reasons. They dont have the body and they dont have the aggression. They were brought with the army for other purposes than fighting (no im not talking about sex). An army would usually be 1/3 of actual soldiers.
Also, that image is fucking gay. People in 10th century didnt have white teeth, washed hair and wearing no fucking armor.
>People in 10th century didnt have white teeth, washed hair and wearing no fucking armor.
Source?
>People in 10th century didnt have white teeth, washed hair
False
They absolutely washed their hair and bathed daily; we know that they literally prepared baths, as in tubs of heated water to sit in. Dental hygiene is also attested throughout Europe (usually consisting of scraping the teeth with soft wood or cloth). You're right that the image is gay, however.
>wearing no fucking armor
The plebs absolutely did
Anon is probably more so referring to the common depiction of vikings as being fur pelt loincloth-wearing savages, when your average grunt would probably look more like picrel.
all those things are true. Hervarar Saga ok Heithreks is an accurate account of history.
you talk like war was fought by strong people besting others and not formations and speed
but zero christians wrote about them, too which there's nothing but the age old cope "they didn't write about things they didn't like!"
Tell me you're an upper-bodylet manbaby who doesn't understand anything without saying it.
seethe
Cope, seethe, dilate, and remember that your parents will use your real name on your tombstone
Are you familiar with the standards for corroborating sources in history?
not really no
Basically a single source means nothing, and you need multiple, credible, corroborating accounts of the same event before anyone will take you seriously when you claim that something happened.
Like all we know about alexander being based on one single surviving biography based on supposed earlier ones?
There's sufficient evidence of his existence that that's enough. Extraordinary claims (like 'le ebin wimmin warriers!!!!') require extraordinary proof. Just go and watch a Marvel Movie, that's clearly more your speed.
so you always assume literally every anecdote only written about by a single historian (like one single nobles warrior wife) to be false?
Just go and masturbate into your own face, you'll achieve about as much as you are here, and it'll feel better for you too.
I can see what you're saying there, but honestly it's further even than that - given the complete absence of all physical evidence, cultural evidence, and the sheer implausibility of the claim it wouldn't have mattered if the one source you can remember claiming it had been absolutely air tight. It might as well have been a claim that Mrs Guiscard was actually a witch who killed an army of orcs with lightning magic.
Oh, but I did address that in my post.
>the historical account comes from a woman (byzantine emperor alexios' daughter) so it could just be fanfiction
also why i used "allegedly"
War involves a lot of walking and moving around, setting up camps and so on. This is all very exhausting work.
1/3 of women who menstruate cannot do any physical work from pain. Melee combat itself is pretty exhausting and good .
Nta
a good chunk of armies used to be the wives and children of soldiers tagging along with them
They were there to feed the soldiers.
and walking and moving around, setting up camps and so on. This is all very exhausting work.
Yeah, I'm sure women and children chopped wood around and turned it into fortifications for the camp.
mongols, for example, were so good at what they did because of their nomadic lifestyle and the fact the entire population travelled with the army. That is, men had their whole families with them, not just wives. You go do battle 9 to 5, come home to wife's dinner.
Anon the fucking chainmail alone weight 27pounds/12 kilos, have you ever worn one? I have. They really weight you down. That's nearly a third of a womans weight. Plus holding two heavy objects in each hand, swinging and bracing. Its not a joke.
You need to hammer hard enough to break into a layer of metal to kill your opponent before he kills you.
A woman cant do this. Theres no fucking feminism in the world that is going to save a woman from a man trying to kill her while they both wearing 30 kg of gear between their arms. 9/10 a woman wouldnt even win in an unarmed fight.
And like another anon said, the combat itself is only a small part of being a soldier. You need to be able to march for days non stop with full outfit and dig a trench immediately after.
Lastly, its not a good idea for any society to have massive casualties of women. A society can endure massive casualties of men, but women means extinction. The people back in ancient times understood this too.
The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantines) remarked several times that they were surprised to find women among the dead when Rus vikings tried to engage in pitched battles. I think Ahmad Ibn Fadlan also saw an armed woman in a Rus viking warband.
Western Christian writers mention women among vikings once or twice but mention that it is hearsay, and haven't heard confirmed reports from reliable sources.
However, there are multiple (rare) notable mentions of female warriors among the Germanics in the early Middle Ages among the Christian nations; Brunhilda of the Franks, Aethelflaed of the Mercians (Anglo-Saxons), Matilda of Tuscany (Italy), Sikelgaita of the Normans. It stands to reason that female combatants were a rare but plausible occurrence among the armies of post-Roman Europe. I would estimate their occurrence at about one in every hundred at best, more likely one in every two or three hundred given soldiers; so say, approximately 2-3 per average warband, maybe one or two dozen in a large army. And I'm talking real combatants, not merely camp followers.
>Aethelflaed of the Mercians
She wasn't a warrior.
She participated in open battle multiple times against the Vikings, mounted on a horse, with sword and shield, mail and helmet, hacking at enemy men. She is the direct inspiration of Eowyn in Lord of the Rings, and one of the few unequivocally recognized examples of a true female warrior. But she's Christian so nobody cares; pop culture and normalfags only care about vikings.
>She participated in open battle multiple times against the Vikings, mounted on a horse, with sword and shield, mail and helmet, hacking at enemy men.
What's the proof of this?
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, William of Malmesbury, John of Worcester, and the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland
>The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, William of Malmesbury, John of Worcester, and the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland
Where's the actual proof that she took part in the fighting herself?
Most of those sources don't provide it.
She might well have been present at various battles and given orders, but that's not fighting.
Those are actually actors, they didn’t have cameras in Viking times
You sure about that?
What if its a camera that takes a picture of the past?
wealthier vikings had special grooming kits with them. ingluding a comb and a shaving razor to match their sword.
jersy shore
The Vikings were what introduced hygiene to most of the regions they conquered.
Retarded take.
People have always practised personal hygiene.
Look at any of the areas that the Vikings conquered and you can find some kind of evidence of people bathing, combing hair, clipping nails, washing hands etc. before any Vikings came along.
Yes, basic cleaning practices are a new invention. Fucking retard.
rare from what we can tell, but the vikings say that they did exist.
In the sane sagas saying draugs exist and random people could throw spells
Vikings also said they were taken by Valkyries on flying chariots for sky orgies. It's pretty typical fare of embellishments, i.e. Amazons and the like. All made up. All of it.
it's amazing how confident people can be when they're this wrong
>flying chariots
Not a thing. They didn't have wings either, the valkyries had magical undergarments that allowed them to fly.
>for sky orgies.
what in the fuck are you even saying
nobody's boning in valhalla
Oh sorry they were like Mormons with magic underwear instead of chariots. Still doesn't detract from the point dumb nagger.
>the norse believed in an afterlife, so everything they assert is false
you have no point, you're a flailing retard who's been so politics poisoned that he has to revise history to exclude the like 1 or 2 fucking notable female warriors that existed in the history of all of pagan europe.
>the norse believed in an afterlife, so everything they assert is false
That was never the assertion, and I was clearly referencing stories like Weyland and the Volsungs with the Valkyrie bit. You're just genuinely stupid and have nothing to contribute here.
>and I was clearly referencing stories like Weyland and the Volsungs with the Valkyrie bit.
uh huh, right. You were referencing mythological poetry to prove the point that... people 1,000 years ago believed in supernatural phenomena, which was standard for everyone 1,000 years ago, and this proves that... women vikings didn't exist. Amazing.
>y-you're misrepresenting me!
maybe, but the above train of "logic" is the only conclusion someone could reach about what you believe based on your past posts. If it's wrong, then why don't you actually attempt to state something affirmatively so it can be analyzed.
No evidence that they were ever more than a myth/folk-story. If they had entered a Viking era battle they would have been hilariously rofl-stomped.
there are at least some examples.
Robert Guiscard's wife allegedly accompanied him into battle swinging an axe.
but the historical account comes from a woman (byzantine emperor alexios' daughter) so it could just be fanfiction.
it's not like women were never used as soldiers in anything more than an obscure fashion
but those societies are very rare and we don't really have much evidence for their being female viking warriors outside of the same scholars who thought human sacrifice was christian propaganda wanting them to exist
Considering how contemporary accounts of vikings seized upon every outlandish detail of them they could, the lack of any mention of female warriors probably means they were not at all common, more like exceptionally rare.
The modern myth of "feminist vikings" is a total lie and propaganda. The medieval texts describing Norse society show a very patriarchal culture.
the vikings literally wrote an heroic saga about a woman viking
Vikings wrote heroic sagas about lots of fantastical things we have no real proof exist.
They also wrote sagas about ice giants. In the last century we've written untold thousands of sagas about aliens invading Earth - does that mean that future historians should believe that aliens blew up the White House in 1996?
>They also wrote sagas about ice giants.
No they didn't. They wrote poetry about "Jotnar" who are a faction of gods that are opposed to Odin and the Aesir. They're basically demons, but they just look like normal people.
Mythological poetry concerns unobservable, supernatural phenomena. Norse heroic sagas are historical records that are meant to discuss the deeds of real people.
It really doesnt matter how you try to twist and turn this. Women were not in the army. They arent fighters.
No medieval or ancient society in the world had women in the frontline. They dont have the body, they dont have the aggression. They would be a burden, not a profit.
A woman weight less, she has less muscles, she cant wear heavy armor and swing a heavy blade and hold a heavy shield for several days the way a man can.
Battles relied on formation, they cant have a weak link in their lines, it puts everyone at risk. Do you understand this?
Equiptment and weapons were extremely expensive back then, iron and steel were scarce, they wouldnt waste it on one who is more likely to fail than the other.
Someone needed to protect the home and family, tender the crops, tender the children. Leaving women out was smart, it was practical. Having heavy female casualties is far more critical than heavy male casualties, it makes your society implode.
There could be a selective few worth wiritng a poem about, but these were selective few nontheless, regardless how much you try to highlight their existence.
Don't forget if you send women to war and they die, but you win. This means many men wont have wives and won't have motivation to work, since their would be wives would be dead.
A society that wages war and loses large chunk of its male population, but wins, can recover better since, they don't have incels running around.
The same goes for a society that wages war and loses.
>"viking literature reveals a society hostile to the concept of female warriors"
>wtf norse literature literally has multiple female warriors
>"Hah, guess what, libtard! Fielding female warriors is TOTALLY logistically infeasible, so they couldn't have existed in mass numbers!"
whatever, homosexual. Nobody here even disagrees with this, you're shouting at ghosts.
Dude, you can believe whatever crazy bullshit you want - just don't get salty when people remind you how retarded it is.
relatively speaking woman did have a bunch of rights they didn't have in christian Europe though
In many of the coastal societies around Baltic sea, the family structure itself is fairly matriarchal in that men were always out at sea. Mostly just fishing, but that left wife the head of the household, why they wouldn't have time to mess around sailing the seas and pillaging.
my class on this tried to argue gender norms were more permissive or something and would cite the Valkyrie myth along with the one buried woman-with-sword they found to somehow claim it was feminist.
> historically speaking, how common were female vikings?
Practically non existant,
since the vast majority of males weren't vikings, only a few %,
you then additionally reduce the % of vikings from % of possible women vikings,
and you get % on a %, thus like 0.001% or thereabouts.
Hell, even the fucktard militaristic societies like Rome had only like 1-2% of its male population as warriors, so even when talking about men, you are still talking about 90ish% of them being civilian pussies,
let alone fucking women lol
One of the funny and charming things about Germanic mythology is the squirrel who would run up and down the tree and make insults at people.
>and make insults at people.
not just any old people. There's an eagle/ hawk at the top of yggdrasil and an evil serpent at the bottom. The two hate each and are constantly cussing each other out, and the squirrel, Ratatoskr, is constantly relaying their swears between them.
He's like the courier from skyrim but all he says is "I fucked ur mum. t. nithhoggr"
Very common. Around one fifth of all viking graves were occupied by females.
Lmao this thread reminded me of this short video
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DgorWpmpztY
Is it possible that Norse women disguised themselves as males, in order to fight? Like in later time periods, for example in the British Empire, it happened, but was rare.
AFAIK, there's no conclusive evidence of openly female vikings, but some grave burials of women with martial equipment. Plus, women having more rights under pagan Norse rule, than Christian rule.
>Is it possible that Norse women disguised themselves as males, in order to fight?
That's exactly what the viking princess Hervor does in the Saga of Hervor and Heithrek.
If I remember right, I believe she wears pants, binds her hair up, and uses a male name when doing her viking shenanigans.
>Is it possible that Norse women disguised themselves as males, in order to fight?
Why would any female want to do that
>Plus, women having more rights under pagan Norse rule, than Christian rule.
what an absolute meme
Describing it as "rights" isn't really correct. Rather, Asatru legal theories held that men and women were basically different species and as such were treated completely differently. For example, a man could divorce his wife if she wore pants, and she could divorce her husband if he walked around without a collar on (the reason that dress shirts have collars ultimately descends from a Germanic taboo about showing the neck). A woman couldn't inherit property, or own land, but a woman HAD to be taken in by SOMEONE, and it was a crime to not care for a woman if she got plopped in your lap. A woman couldn't act as a witness or prosecute a lawsuit, but she also couldn't be charged with criminal suits AT ALL (a man could be charged with not controlling her, however). So on and so forth.
All of this went away with Christianity which holds that all people are equal.
>some grave burials of women with martial equipment.
This means nothing. Many women carried around weapons on their person to show that they were free women and not slaves (the right to carry a weapon was only given to free men; slaves or thralls, and there is a slight difference, were legally prohibited from carrying weapons). It's a fashion statement at most.
This isn't a matriarchy, in anthropology it's referred to as an Iroquoian style society, society was run by male aristocrats who weren't out seafaring or hunting. The Basques (and Iroquois) were like this, as are the Mosuo of China.
>All of this went away with Christianity which holds that all people are equal.
Maybe in the west, but Eastern Orthodoxy has a patriarchal understanding of gender.
For example, in the Orthodox church, a man is allowed to beat his wife if she is disobedient or requires discipline. This was standard discipline in Russia.
>Asatru legal theories held that men and women were basically different species and as such were treated completely differently. For example, a man could divorce his wife if she wore pants, and she could divorce her husband if he walked around without a collar on (the reason that dress shirts have collars ultimately descends from a Germanic taboo about showing the neck). A woman couldn't inherit property, or own land
tbh this all sounds quite reasonable and sensible except for the weird rule about wearing a collar
They were more common than female knights or female samurai, but they were still a minority among Vikings. The vast majority of medieval Norse women lived lives of domesticity typical of women in any place or time.
Either extremely rare or nonexistent.
Zero.
?si=JdxD1wSuny_thuqG
Feminism did not really exist as a big cultural thing until the French revolution. Some of the French revolutionaries were basically twitter SJWs but centuries earlier.
The only major precursor to this is some parts of the Talmud that talk about equal rights for women and erasing boundaries between the genders. But that idea didn't spread out to the gentile cultures until the French revolution.
Israel has female warriors today.
They don't put them in combat roles anymore. They stopped doing that after the w*man soldiers got raped to death by Muslims.
There were none. Germanics consider it shameful and terrible for a people to send their women to fight. But they sometimes took daughters or wives with them on campaign, who would carry their shield (shieldmaiden) and act like cheerleaders, who would sometimes even kill their own fathers, brothers or husbands, if they dared to flee the battlefield. They even placed themselves in a way, where they would all be killed, if the men fled.
So no. There are no female Vikings.
Don't believe in feminist revisionism. No community back then could spare any womb/farm hand