[Ben Coomer]

Found this interesting article:

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/09/female-vikin...oof-swords

So, its hardly conclusive that there were lots of women fighting within the Viking ranks, but it is probably fair to say that it was not uncommon.

If nothing else, it might help explain why we see so many short hilts on viking swords.

[Craig Peters]

You do realize the whole thing is an example of sensationalist media spin and is complete nonsense? The original study dealt with a tiny number of skeletons making it completely inadequate for drawing conclusions about Scandinavian civilization as a whole. Even more damning is the fact that the study says nothing about the female skeletons being warriors because there is no evidence that they were, indeed, warriors. It would be akin to someone finding a number of skeletons of soldiers who died during the Third Crusade, along with skeletons of the washerwomen and female camp followers, and therefore concluding from the female skeletons that women played a much bigger role in the fighting as warriors than previously thought.

[Joshua Waters]

A little clarification, The original article written by Shane McLeod back in 2011 was about migrants to eastern England during the 9th and 10th century's.

Here is an article about it www.medievalists.net/2014/09/03/2011-article-...attention/

I am not saying female viking warriors did not exist, but I do believe if the numbers of female warriors were that high, the victims of the raids would most likely have noted this. Most of the documentation of these raids was done by monks serving in monasteries which were popular targets for the vikings.

It's probably a sudden sensation because of the TV show Vikings, and what Marvel comics did to the Thor comic.

[Tom King]

The actual importance of this study is completely different than the media spin. Previously it was thought that the vikings conquered a region, then settled it with a second migration of women, children, etc. This find seems to show that they all came at once, rather than staggered.

but the number of skeletons studied was small, so it could be a fluke.

[Mikko Kuusirati]

Yeah. What the study actually indicates is that you cannot reliably determine the gender of human remains by their burial goods, and that at least in this one case women were among Norse settlers in significant numbers right from the start.

Norse settlers, mind. Nothing about this even remotely implies that half of viking crews were women.

[Nathan Robinson]

http://www.themarysue.com/viking-warrior-women-disappointed/

[Shahril Dzulkifli]

In Viking society some women served as shieldmaidens for their male counterparts.
Maybe that's the fact, I guess.

[Niels Just Rasmussen]

In his “Gesta Danorum“ Saxo (Latin version of Danish Saxe; yep his names means “Seaxes“) writes that an old times some Danish women used to dress like men and spend all their times training with weapon.

His book was the glorify Danish history for an international audience (thus it's written in perfect classical latin, that was admired by Erasmus of Rotterdam) and yet in the most famous battle (Battle of Brávellir) that Denmark lost; there are named three maidens that fight as men in the Danish army. There are not grunts but commanders. If this was not the case according to legend you can be pretty sure that Saxo would have omitted it (he has not a high regard of women).

It's a battle between Danish King Harald and Swedish King Ring. Here follow Saxos information of the tree maidens fighting in the Danish army, while the great male hero Starkad fights in the Swedish.

“Now out of the town of Sle, under the captains Hetha (Heid) and Wisna“....“On these captains, who had the bodies of women, nature bestowed the souls of men. Webiorg was also inspired with the same spirit“

“Wisna, a woman, filled with sternness, and a skilled warrior, was guarded by a band of Sclavs: her chief followers were Barri and Gnizli. But the rest of the same company had their bodies covered by little shields, and used very long swords and targets of skiey hue, which, in time of war, they either cast behind their backs or gave over to the baggage-bearers; while they cast away all protection to their breasts, and exposed their bodies to every peril, offering battle with drawn swords.“

“Hetha, guarded by a retinue of very active men, brought an armed company to the war, the chiefs of whom were Grim and Grenzli;
The maidens I have named, in fighting as well as courteous array, led their land-forces to the battle-field.“

“Now Brun, being instructed to form the line on Harald's behalf, made the front in a wedge, posting Hetha on the right flank, putting Hakon in command of the left, and making Wisna standard-bearer.“

The battle:
“Starkad, who was the first to set forth the history of this war in the telling, fought foremost in the fray, and relates that he overthrew the nobles of Harald, Hun and Elli, Hort and Burgha, and cut off the right hand of Wisna.“

“The same man witnesses that the maiden Weghbiorg (Webiorg) fought against the enemy and felled Soth the champion. While she was threatening to slay more champions, she was pierced through by an arrow from the bowstring of Thorkill, a native of Tellemark.“

“then the Danes besought him to appoint Hetha over the remainder of the realm; but, that the fallen strength of the enemy might not suddenly rally, he severed Skaane from the mass of Denmark, and put it separately under the governorship of Ole, ordering that only Zealand and the other lands of the realm should be subject to Hetha. Thus the changes of fortune brought the empire of Denmark under the Swedish rule. So ended the Bravic war.“

So conclusion.
Hetha is the actual Commander of the right flank and Wisna is a standard bearer. They also have their own company of men under them. The men of Wisna are slavic Berserkers and Hetha comes with an armed company.
Wisna had the hand cut of by Starkad and Webiorg is killed by an arrow after defeating a champion.
Hetha are even backed by the Danes for leading Denmark, but King Ring only gives her the authority over the lands east of Skaane (Scania).

It's important that they are maidens.

According to icelandic sagas then a woman could don men's clothing and act as a man in any way, if she no longer had male relatives to give her revenge. As soon as a woman was married she could no longer be a "shield-maiden" (Danish Skjoldmø).

Mythologically Skadi is a shieldmaiden after the Aesir has killed her father Thiazi (she shows up in Asgard in full battledress as a man) and as compensation the Aesir allows her to choose a Norse God based on only seeing legs of the Norse gods. She chose Njord thinking it was Frey and ended up disappointed; but as married she was supposed to stop as shieldmaiden. The marriage between Mountain (Skadi) and Coast (Njord) was a disaster so Skadi roamed around being a skiing-hunter giantess. Her name (Danish: Skade) likely means “harm/injury“. She was the one behind putting venomous snake over Loke's head when he was captured....“nice“.

So you definitely could have female warriors and they looked acted and talked like men in every respects. They sex might be female but their gender was male (socially they are males) until married. Revenge must then be conducted by her husband and his family.
It was the females roll in the house to push the males to exact revenge, since most men are lazy and not eager to fight when they can drink and relax. In many sagas the women push and push for blood-feuds as they keep scores with whatever is told about their husband and his actions.
In the viking world human sacrifices are done by women (gydja's).

[J. Nicolaysen]

Well that battle account by Saxo would certainly make a great movie. Thanks!

There are also accounts of women warriors in celtic, pictish and japanese myths and histories. While they may not have been a substantial part of any army, it is clear that several women served and commanded with distinction throughout the ages.

[Niels Just Rasmussen]

[Daniel Wallace]

the idea of a 'warrior' woman is always something that captures the imagination when drawing back in history.

Boudica of the Bretons, Eleanor of Aquitaine (who had gone on campaign twice), Joan or arch. I haven't personally read too much of their histories. what role they actually played in campaign I can't speak for.

I don't think its impossible an stretch to say that women took up arms - or even went to war. although the role they played in war - I can only draw on my own research from First Crusade sources. off of memory I can only remember a passage at the siege of Antioch where men and wives were mentioned - its pretty reasonable to say that if the text actually means 'wives' and not prostitutes which always follow marching armies, that they did come with the soldiers from Europe. at the time - the main body of the crusading army had not begun their settlement of the region, so where the 'wives' were picked up was either the local region, or came with them. did they actively fight, there's no evidence to support they ever did any actual fighting. they may have been just a part of a household structure.

the People's Crusade, on the other hand, leaves accounts of entire families taking off. but this was not a war party or army the those taking part seemed to be more a mob of fanatics and common people did they even intend to engage in war is a pretty good question.

[Niels Just Rasmussen]

[Randall Moffett]

I think part of the issue is even among groups such as the nomadic folk you mention most tend to be still heavily male dominated groups of warriors. That is not to say women did not fight, especially women from the cultural elite but the number of groups with a equal or heavier number of women fights largely has been limited in my experience to places fairly isolated from much of the world, a few islands in the Pacific come to mind but that is about it. Seeing as how most cultures seem to be patriarchal from fairly early in much of world history I am not overly surprised.

Now as to medieval Europe. I have for long time speculated in sieges in particular women likely played a part. That said there is very scare evidence. But as this is the case with much of history related to women fighting I think it should be looked at as something to address such, not per se as fact but look at the few examples and use them for what it is. We have Agnes Randolph, wife of the Earl of Dunbar who held off the English Earl of Salisbury a very able general. If the stories are true she was very much involved in the strategy and front lines that protected the castle. I have a hard time thinking women would not protect themselves and their families if push came to shove but for the most part it was not primary defense from what I see.

And do not forget that much of Europe took Roman concepts on a women's place as a building block. Fairly decided the Roman's were what the place of a woman in fighting was.

RPM

[Niels Just Rasmussen]

[Randall Moffett]

Yes that is true for the most part that strong patriarchal societies follow agriculture and civilization but I am still not convinced most or many nomadic societies, most of which are patriarchal had this phenomena of large numbers of women warriors. Part is the Matrilineal lines do not mean warrior generally. In fact even in most places that are matrilineal they are not matriarchal from what I have seen. Yes they follow the woman's line but as in many places in Western Africa they follow along leadership of war to male members in the matrilineal society. So yes mothers line but not so with leadership in war and many times politics either. So even if they follow the woman's line political and military activity do not necessarily follow. I was reading something some time ago now that indicated something like 80% of all societies charted on Earth from the start of historic times have been patriarchal, including sedimentary and non-sedentary

"Agricultural societies have a tendency to be very dominant patriarchal where the female are reduced to a breeding animal."
Not sure I'd go quite that far for most agricultural societies but I get what you are saying. But even if Romans and some Greeks thought something similar their women could still own property in many cases, divorce and go in public, entertainment and such so they did do more than just make babies.

"That was the case for eskimos/inuits until 100 years ago.
You had women famous as being skilled hunters, while some were not.
The point is that in hunter-gatherer societies you are evalued by your personal skill level, not your sex and graves reflect that.
Graves from for instance stone age Denmark show a totally equal society in grave goods."

This does not mean the women were warriors still. I am not sure in Scandinavian culture the goods do not mean symbolic over real terms as well. There are far too many possible variables and from what I am seeing the number of grave goods of a martial setting in graves still are overwhelmingly male there. So more equality and options I think likely. Total. Not so sure. So total equality seems a bit too far to me. For example pre-Islamic Arabs had women leaders on their tribal and familial councils and such but few to no warriors that were women. Just because they have other jobs than what is standard in our society does not mean war was included. The groups that live in sub-Sahara Africa along the west have women working the fields and doing much of the work that in almost every other continent was a man's job but the men still were the warriors.

Once again though your examples very likely are minorities of female warriors. Mongol women are clearly more tied into politics than other Asian women for the most part I can think of but even in this they still are living in a society that is overwhelmingly run by men in this respect. I'd be wary of Wikipedia in this respect especially. Not much as far as references there. That should be a red flag right away.

I have looked a great deal at nomadic societies and I just do not think it was likely to have a large mix of women in the armies generally speaking from what I have seen. There are some exceptions and I'd love to see more evidence of this but just looking at many of their attitudes toward women and how structure works in distribution of jobs and such I am not convinced we see this to level you are indicating. Many of the nomadic societies for sure are more free with women's places than neighboring agricultural societies but that does not mean the women are all warriors still which is my point.

Greeks and Romans are grossly biased against women in politics or war so I have no doubt they malign in barbarians that employed women in war in exaggerated ways to show how barbarous they were as well.

So I am onboard with other societies, especially nomadic having more options for women but I'd like to see far more evidence of them being warriors to shift what I am seeing as of now.

In attacks on towns and villages women have just as much to loose as the men. To me it seems highly unlikely they were spectators. But I wish I has more evidence to go on. All I find over and over is about the townsmen as defenders sadly. I do think I came across an account in a siege in Brittany during the 14th I will see if I can dig it up.

RPM

[Niels Just Rasmussen]

[Matthew Amt]

Women defending their homes are not necessarily warriors, and women helping to defend castles could simply be carrying rocks or arrow to the men, or sure, dropping stuff from the walls. I suspect that most women did know the basics of weapon use (reletive to the men in their social class!), but that did not mean they were at all trained, or used them with any frequency at all. We do know that some medieval women led forces and even wore armor or fought with weapons, but it's entirely possible to be an excellent general without ever touching a weapon or coming within bowshot of the enemy.

Spartan women never had to defend their homes, since Sparta was never attacked! There simply aren't any references to Greek or Roman women marching off to war as soldiers, though again, they could certainly have helped defend fortifications in extremis. But generally, what would be the point? If trained and armed killers are coming over the wall, a few girls chucking rocks are simply not going to do anything except make the invaders mad. They'd be better off heading out the back gate at high speed. I'm thinking more of a marching camp--obviously for a town under seige the options are more limited!

I'm also seeing some odd assumptions such as the woman would have to defend her farmhouse if her husband went off to war. That seems to assume that a "farmhouse" was home to ONLY one married couple and their 2.5 young children! Were not most households much more extended than that, and were not most farms at least loosely clustered into settlements? Such a settlement could easily send a number of warriors off somewhere and still have plenty of capable armed men for defense. Which is not to be saying I'd expect an easy time waltzing through the door of a Danish house if I knew that only the wife and her kids were inside! BUT it doesn't make the wife a warrior.

Be careful of assumptions! Even documented rarities do not make the rule.

Matthew

[Niels Just Rasmussen]

[Matthew Amt]

[Lafayette C Curtis]