MikeRox said:
Farsala said:
Nuvendil said:
Farsala said:
Nuvendil said:
@generic-user-1
Well the plate armor thing isn't really true. Plate isn't as heavy as you would think. 33-55 pounds. Wearers remained agile and could jump even. And plate armor that is well made balances the weight over your whole body so it's not like you are carrying 33-55 pounds but rather that you weight 33 to 55 pounds more. Just saying
From Wikipedia: A complete suit of plate armour made from well-tempered steel would weigh around 15–25 kg(33-55 pounds).[2] The wearer remained highly agile and could jump, run and otherwise move freely as the weight of the armor was spread evenly throughout the body. The armour was articulated and covered a man's entire body completely from neck to toe. In the 15th and 16th centuries, large bodies of men-at-arms numbering thousands or even more than ten thousand men (as many as 60% of an army) were fighting on foot wearing full plate next to archers and crossbowmen. This was commonly seen in the Western European armies especially of France and England during the Hundred Years War, the Wars of the Roses or the Italian Wars.
So women having to wear next to nothing because they can't wear plate is dumb. That point is true :P
|
In full atire a woman would be very rare. And including weapon and shield women were not only the rarest thing to see but even if it were true they would not be able to keep fighting as an average man does.
Just saying a fully equipped woman would likely be double her weight. Back then Men and women were shorter and not as healthy.
It is likely they did not wear any plate in actual battles (maybe in joust, duel or as commander)
|
That has more to do with the rarity of professional female combatants. I was simply saying that they are more than physically capable with training. And plate armor runs into an issue when you bring in the posibility the woman in question has large breasts. Plate isn't flexible so if the armor has to come out too much it will obstruct movement.
|
It is likely that most women at that time had small breasts as they were shorter and not as healthy. And although the armor scales down to a womans size it was also true for most men. Average man today would have much bigger and heavier armor then is listed in wikipedia. But the shields and weapons being scaled down would not be feasible.
Now i do not want to speak in absolutes but I do not think training women had much success due to them not being able to handle standard issued weapons and armor.
I get what you are saying though.
|
I'm not sure armour and strengthetc have anything to do with it. It's basic survival instinct. Men are more expendable tthan women. And this dates back to tribal times.
Send your nmen to war, and as long as a few return. They can fully reproduce to the maximum number of women. Lose most of the tribe's women however and reproduction is heavily limited.
It is this thinking that has led to the current social attitudes towards men and women. It's a hangover from survival of the fittest and ensuring reproduction continues.
|
It is also the idea of most effective army. If 100 men fought against 100 women it is likely the men win. In modern times people are questioning the effectiveness of putting females in the army, due to strength and mans natural instinct to protect women. And thus break formation, go berserk, etc.
So it is not all about reproduction.
