From: Sandy Petersen (sandyp@idcube.idsoftware.com)
Date: Wed 06 Jul 1994 - 08:21:54 EEST
Paul Reilly says:
>I doubt that quoting medieval chronicles would change your opinion.
Not so, Paul. You wound me. I base my opinion on my previous readings and studies, not on some theoretical basis. If you can quote chapter and verse on female warriors, that's added to my basis for knowledge, and my opinion is altered.
>In any case my claim is not that female knights existed in real
>life but that period historians record their existence
List your examples o' female knights. I've done some reading in medieval manuscripts myself, though doubtless not as much as you. Also, my own readings are admittedly mostly medieval fiction (like the Vulgate). But I have read enough to know that Joan of Arc didn't actually fight, though she did wear armor, and got close enough at one siege to be injured by a crossbow bolt.
I'm all ears to hear of them. Also, how many of these cases are women who donned armor and weapons for one (1) fight or maybe two, because they were besieged in their castle or something? Like Molly Pitcher, who's no soldier, but fought in one (1) battle when her husband was hit, and has been immortalized in American history ever since.
If you have examples of women who regularly donned armor and fought in battles more than once, I'll be utterly convinced that they existed, though no doubt in minute numbers. I can't help but suspect that just about every single case of medieval female warriors was recorded because of its' unusual nature.
> Sandy, do you scoff at the existence of female gladiators?
No, of course not. But the situation is completely different. A gladiator provides entertainment for a jaded public. A knight is expected to go on campaign, joust, etc. Well, I'll still accept the lady knights even if they didn't joust. That would be a bit much to expect.
Bryan Maloney:
>Men are warriors, because they're expendible. Kill a man, and
>you've just killed a man. His breeding potential can be replaced by
>another man and the rate of reproduction doesn't diminish.
Not strictly true, given that even in polygamous human societies 97% of the marriages are monogamous (Actual Statistic). Kill a man, and his wife's breeding probably stops. BUT, it's true that if he's already had some kids, his death is less traumatic and dangerous to the kids' welfare than hers would be. Also, since most warriors are young (in their twenties), their living children also tend to be quite young, and the mother could not afford to leave them to go to battle.
> in "hunting" society, the women procure most of the food.
Yes, but there's more to it even than that. In the spring, summer, and fall, the women absolutely provide more than half the food. But in winter, one study stated that the male hunters provided 70% of the food -- the man is still essential to the tribe's survival, but only for one period of the year.
>I'd even venture to say that if anyone "owns" the herds, it would be
>the WOMEN of Prax, not the men.
Several times on the Daily I've stated my own (and Greg's) opinion that the women own the cows, while the men own the bulls. Since there are few bulls in any given herd (like you said, they're killed and eaten), the women own most of the property.
Mark Foster sez:
>being a homeless wanderer who kills stuff to get their treasure
>really sucks
I feel I must defend my campaign, in which every person is a homeless wanderer. I can only point out that there's a difference between being "a homeless wanderer", and being "a homeless wanderer who kills stuff to get their treasure." I strive to make my own campaign one of the former rather than one of the latter, and the players trade, make friends, explore, etc. And admittedly engage in combat, but not outright banditry so far. Not all the members are combat-oriented, either. One player is primarily a ship-captain. Another is a remarkably ineffective-in-combat sorcerer.
>being a soldier, warrior etc. is only "fun" in movies and games.
I agree. But it CAN be fun in movies and games. It doesn't even have to be glorified to be enjoyable -- SCHINDLER'S LIST doesn't make the Holocaust look like fun, but it's tremendous to watch.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:35:42 EEST