As a woman who does archery I absolutely agree with this! Movie shots of people holding fully drawn bows for minutes at a time are ridiculous. I also like throwing knives- but they're not very practical- you lose your knife.
yes, but it's not very cost effective. A working arrow can be made pretty cheap- you don't even have to forge a metal tip if you're on a budget stone or just hardened wood will work. Throwing knives are more limited in use- whether you're carrying 1 or 6, you still want to be able to retrieve them.
Throwing weapons are not unprecedented in battle. For instance Roman legionaries carried pila into battle to lob at the enemy and hopefully break their formation. No reason you couldn't carry a few throwing knives with you to try to distract or disrupt the enemy.
The Romans had slingers equipped with bronze bullets and I think porcelain bullets too. Porcelain= sharp shards flying bronze= hit like a sledgehammer.
Would be interesting see the conditions in that sport, what kind of bow they used, distance, etc. Anyway I think the point here is "using it for combat", and use a bow in combat and use it in a sport is very diferent. In reality even a normal man, no trained, cant shot a bow much more than 3 or 4 times before start to feel very tired and lose a lot of power in the shots. I have used a bow before, I dont have a atletic body or strong arms/back, and I was very surprised at the effort it took.
Also they use different kind of bow than long bow. Reflection bow would be better for female warrior. I'm woman with strength below average and can use reflection bow without much effort, so I guess for only a bit more fit woman it would be good choice.
A competition bow has around 40 pounds if I'm not wrong, while medieval warbows had up to 180 pounds. Few people can handle these warbows nowadays. It's not only about precision, to shoot targets a heavy bow is not required at all, while in a war, you would want a bow that can out range your enemies' bows and can be lethal at long distances. A competition bow would simply not be lethal enough in a war(maybe only against enemy without any type of armor and using broadheads, but against a standard medieval soldier, would not even pierce the gambeson)
Is that why USA still doesnt have woman president of federation xD and why only Trump is constantly trying to use them xD? www.aol.com/article/news/2019/08/26/trump-denies-claim-that-he-wanted-to-drop-nuclear-bombs-to-stop-hurricanes-from-hitting-the-us/23801553/?fbclid=IwAR2KPcobvVvNOL6l6u3VEXqHg2C6cFZ53MnTS_xfVW2lo43IQBRXlnun43k
I would say they best melee weapon for a woman would probably be a pole arm. In Japan there was a Samurai cast for women called: Onna-bugeisha and they were notorious for using the Naginata. A pole arm similar to Glaive. It allowed women to fight an opponent of superior strength because it kept her foe at a distance so the he could not use his strength and she could use the pole and blade as a lever to further negate (if not reverse) the advantage of her opponent. Its a good read.
@Corvo@AZ Being a part of the bushi cast did not exclude gender. Bandits were very common, so they would typically rally the defense of thier land while their husbands were at war. Bushi Women were expected to burn with their castle if they were to fail at defending it. Being skilled at archery and pole arm use was a status symbol and a part of maintaining honor of their cast. Very rarely, women could become generals or major officers in an army. Women being removed from armed conflict mostly was influenced by edo era neo-confucianism, which had major restrictions on roles of women in public and private. The Chinese bureaucracy had very low opinions on women and China's influence and emulation brought that as well.
@@ZhangHe2369 Just adding to the conversation here! Nearly anyone with a sharply tipped spear can be amazingly effective in group combat. It matters little how strong the combatants are if one group has a bunch of long metal spikes that can poke through gaps in armor, or out-range all the swords. Obviously spears aren't a 100% win, but historically, before the invention of firearms, it's the spears that won wars!
That's really interesting- thanks for sharing! Currently trying to write a female fighter into my book, but she's not strong enough to really be useful with a sword.
While I am not an expert in HEMA, I can see logic in this. Spears are easier to make than swords and Skallagrim chose this as a weapon of choice for those with little to no martial arts training. So if a woman had to defend herself from an attacker and was able to grab a spear I think she might have a chance. Spears were often used since the days Man lived in tribes and small communities. But like I said I am no expert in HEMA so this is just a layman's opinion.
TheRemainingFaithful spears also have way more reach (ridiculously important in combat), can be used one handed(allowing shield), and are very precise. So spears were cheap, required little training, and were the most effective if not one of battlefield weapons of the time. So essentially spears are absurdly o.p. which explains why sone varient of spears were used throughout almost all of human history even into the dawn of gunpowder
It has been some years since I used martial arts, but as a woman holding a black belt in Okinawa karate I have some experience with weapons. My favorite is the Bo; that is, the long pole like Little John used in Robin Hood. It's very practical. It's long to stay out of reach of someone stronger, fast to spin if it's balanced right, fun to use and very effective for disarming someone, knocking them off their feet and then beating the snot out of them (not from personal experience disclaimer). Plus, even if you don't carry your own 6 ft.-long pole around with you, there are always billiard cues, broom handles and other Jackie Chan type stuff in the environment that your character can grab in a pinch.
Joan Caldwell i also did a few years of bo training as a 9-13 year old. I wish i had continued it tbh, but there came a point where it wasn't "cool" or "girly" so i gave in to societal pressures and stopped learning. These days I'd very much like to take the bo to the next step, the ko-naginata. Apparently the naginata martial arts are primarily dominated by women, because they were used by women to defend their homes since the feudal period in Japan. Though these days i guess i don't have the time or money to really get involved, unfortunately. I'm also unfortunately back in the US now, where there aren't very many naginata dojos.
Nice. As for me I prefer the tonfa. Its versatile and very natural in the hand. And also, (specific to my case) I took a form of silat that uses a backhand grip with a machete. Most of the moves we do does not even require the thing, but the machete can produce a better effect, because its a blade rather than flesh covered bones. So its kinda close to a tonfa, and might be easier to explain because its just wood (or steel) rather than a "scary" sharp blade
One of my fav books when I was younger was called the Ranger's Apprentice, and what I really loved was that the main character used a massive bow which had hundreds of pounds of draw, and it was clear about that. The princess used a sling and it worked really well for her.
Those books are the best! There's a sequel series where Will trains a female apprentice, who uses both a bow and a sling, and it's really interesting how the author handles it. There's also a spinoff series, Brotherband, where there is a female main character who uses an atlatl, and it's awesome. Love those books!
@@aurorameyer159 It was so good, royal ranger was amazing. It was also great in the 12th book of rangers apprentice how they confronted she wouldn’t be as good with strong bows, but she would be great at sneaking around and all due to females naturally being more nimble.
I remember a scene in a book where a character calls the bluff of another because the bow was held back for so long. He knew that the bow wasn't really a threat, because it was held at full during the whole conversation. He and his buddy then proceeded to give the thieves advice on how to actually be a threat someone. The book was Theft of Swords by Michael J. Sullivan, who I think did his martial art research, because (to me, an inexperienced newbie) the combat made sense in a way Hollywood combat never does.
That's a bit overstated. Even with a handgun, a weak person is going to have more trouble keeping the muzzle on target, especially for follow-up shots due to recoil, and is going to be either less accurate or have a slower rate of fire or both. I've known plenty of weak people who have a hard time even holding their arms up with an ordinary gun and want something lighter and with a shorter barrel to move the center of mass closer to their hands. Lower weight forces you to choose between more recoil or less powerful ammo, or both. Shorter barrel means a shorter sight radius (lowering accuracy) and less time for the gases to impart energy to the bullet, further reducing power.
Aram Fingal this is true, but it is still more of an equal playing field. It is easier to win using a gun against a stronger person with a gun than it would be if both combatants had swords or clubs.
In feudal Japan, the naginata (polearm weapon) was considered the optimal weapon for a woman to use to defend her home while her husband was away a war. The reasoning was that a woman didn't have to deal with a man's strength, speed, or skill up close (like in a katana duel) and just fight at a distance. The naginata quickly grew to become an iconic symbol of female prowess in Japan. Naginata tournaments in modern Japan are almost entirely comprised of women.
This isn't a great video to say that on. While it's true-ish that a rapier weighs the same as an arming sword, they are much more agile in the hand because of how that weight is distributed. The point of balance (which isn't quite the same as weight distribution but close enough) on a typical arming sword is 3"-5"/7.6-12.7cm from the hilt, where on rapier it typically tops out at around 3"/7.6cm. The reduced mass of the blade also reduces momentum, making it easier to stop and redirect the blade. Consider that an ax or mace also weighs roughly the same as an arming sword. How easy or difficult a sword is to move around is less about the raw weight of the weapon, and more about how that weight is distributed.
@@corneredfox Doesn't change the fact that the stereotype of rapiers are considered light and agile and thus are used in fantasy for "weaker" characters who have a fast and agile playstyle is absolutely ludicrous. Daggers and short swords are the best for that, not rapiers lol. Rapiers can be longer and more cumbersome than some standard arming swords.
@@LethalByChoice Knives, daggers, and shortswords would be infinitely worse. Not only is the shorter reach problematic on its own, now you're also inside of grappling range. If you're "weaker," that's a contest you absolutely *_do not_* want to get in. Rapiers, with their long blade lengths (which are usually much longer than arming swords, some are even longer than a typical longsword), can keep you outside of that range; their weight distribution makes them relatively easy to control as well. Their main shortcoming is lack of true cutting power, mostly reliant on thrusts (or stupidly precise cuts) to actually end a fight.
@@corneredfox the rapier is at an enormous disadvantage against someone with armor though. It's a tired trope for weak characters to use it. A weaker person would be perfectly capable of using a spear effectively. Basic pointed stick>special shiny pointed stick.
@@DoctorSantaPhD While a spear would be a perfectly acceptable weapon, it's a bit tiring if you're having to carry it around all day just doing day-to-day errands. Also you can't exactly have a second spear strapped to your hip in case your first one breaks. While a rapier isn't exactly ideal for wearing around, it's not as bad as a spear is, and you can have one at your side along with the spear (or other polearm) in hand. As for armor, while no sword is good for plate armor, the thin tip of a rapier is even better than a longsword at dealing with (chain)mail - whether worn as a stand-alone armor or as voiders.
eh, few years ago a crazy woman dragged 6 police officers across a motorway in Britain, center of gravity and short term bursts of momentum play a role there but crazy=stronger certainly isn't just an anime thing.
I agree spear but spear is better all round on the battlefield I think he was going more 1 on 1 or small group engagements. and self defence were a sword would be good tho I would personally say a shortsword like a Gladys would be best especially if she has a shield to use with it
Marcusjnmc well not really. Poison has infinite range and it is difficult to find the culprit. Look at Game of Thrones. How Jophrey and his sister was poisoned. Distance is not an issue. I can poison a bottle of wine send it hundreds of miles to kill someone.
Honhoa Ong good point but bad example, Joffrey's death was orchestrated by people close to him, the actual poisoner sitting at the same table, high risk, the sending a bottle of wine is a good example but lacks reliability increasing the element of chance, ie. another person drinking from the wine prior to the target.
Glaives, spears, and tridents/trishulas (like an Indian trident, but the prongs are blades) are my favorites. And bladed chains, but those are impossible to use irl unless you’re superhuman.
Longswords are hand and half, but still makes use of shield quite tricky. Maybe thats why such combo were likely never used. My favourite also, and quite effective with even slightest skill.
Pole arms for less physically strong or short stature people. Reach and torque to offset the disadvantages. As far as i know, that's why in Japan, the Naginata was (kinda still is really in sports) the preferred weapon of women.
that and iirc also when the longer spears (what was their name...) started getting used in battle in greater scale, leftover naginatas were simply just left there unattended, and anyone could simply train/fight with them.
I always liked spears. People often assume that spears are ONLY good medium range, and when it comes to close range combat they are useless.But in reality that isnt true
As a young woman, I chose archery as a hobby/sport, and before you began to make the point about strength, I was already there lol. I well remember my first pull on a 60-lb. bow. You are completely right about the bow poundage being a b****! A while back when I was a practicing medievalist, I came to the conclusion that in melee, I was better off with a somewhat short sword such as a Gladius, since it was powerful, yet maneuverable for me. lol, what I wouldn't have given for a "chakram" throwing item such as Warrior Princess Xena used on tv! I'm just glad I've never had to be on a real battlefield other than for fun :) Really nice analysis, thank you!
Chakram was a Persian weapon and Xena was suppose to be Greek but I guess she got around in story. Of course in one story she met David that fought Goliath and in another Julius Caesar. If David existed he would be hundreds of years before Julius Caesar, so not historically accurate on time period of myth and legions. Hercules should also have been hundreds of years before Julius Caesar as was based on Greek Herakles.
Depends on weight, height (and as the video pointed out women are generally weaker because they are generally shorter and lighter, not due to some magical female-male thing) training, individual weapons (hint: small and fast people who still like to be up and close to you tend to have a dagger as a preferred weapon. Speaking from personal experience), strength (which depends on height, weight and built-up muscle mass. ... and by built-up I mean actually built-up by training, not that overblown body builder stuff) and skill. What do you think, how would someone about 160cm, 55-59 kg fare against someone 187cm and about 80 to max 90 kg fare in either dagger fencing or hand-to-hand?
I'd say the lighter person may be effed if it's hand to hand so to say. When I was training for kickboxing/mma years back we had all weight classes sparring together, so when there was a switch between partners you could get someone lighter than yourself, or heavier(I had the scenario you describe above, being 183 at 90 kg) there was a real difference in power regardless of being trained or not. On the other hand heavier bulkier people tend to tire quicker due to heavy energy use. See heavyweight fights versus bantamweight fights and the bantams are still fighting strong at round three while the heavies are mostly clinching by then. So equipped with daggers my bet is on the shorter peeps.
Exactly so! This is, yet again, so damn spot on! :) Why do Elven characters use bows? In Tolkien's _Arda_ Elves were not weak... They just knew how to handle both heavy missile and heavy melee weapons.
I always took the elves using bows in LotR as just a preference for ranged weapons and not about their strength or anything of the like. Being immortal except for being killed you would tend to try and stay away from your opponent who can end your many thousands of years of existence with a stab of a sword. Just much better to lessen that risk and shoot them from a hundred feet or so away, especially when you have had a few thousands of years to work on your aim.
Its probably due to their skills and environment. For example forests are sometimes densely packed and so fighting with a heavy weapon there can be detrimental where a bow wouldn't. They are also known for just being more inherently dexterous.
Hi, female archer and sword fighter speaking here. I've shot on long bow, recurve, and compound. Recurve, the style you see handed to women most often in film, these bows are not for penetrating metal armor (which is what a minimum 60 lb yew long bow would be for) and are instead made to be able to penetrate leather at far range and a gambeson with a chain shirt at short range (maybe a poorly made coat of plates). How do I know that a woman could have handled a bow that could do this easily? The average woman by the time she has grown would have been expected to haul at least 7 buckets of water into her home daily, wearing roughly 30-45 lbs a bucket depending on size, and assuming she was doing that by single hand instead of a yolk, in which case the weight on her shoulders and back easily surpasses 60 lbs. This gives very strong upper arm, shoulder, and back muscles. And any archer worth their bow knows you do not shoot using your arms, you use your back. You are meant to 'stack' your back and shoulder muscles, using all of them to draw back. Hunting weight bows start at 30 lb draws to take down elk at moderate range. Speaking as someone who started shooting with modern female upper body and back strength (which is far less than our medieval counterparts) I was able to draw a 30lb recurve bow back and hold for longer than 30 seconds on my first day shooting, granted you shouldn't do that because it screws with the tension in how your bow fires ones you release and is hard on the limbs. But it is very easily possible. I haven't trained with a crossbow, but I have shot them a number of times. They have a large draw back when compared with a bow, they take a LONG time to load especially if you do not have the strength for a crank back crossbow. Not only that, but the medieval styles are awkward to carry around, have you tried to go hunting with one? They're not nearly as easy to move about with as a recurve, and even longbows suffer in dense underbrush compared to recurves (not surprising since long bows are meant to be used either in an open field or in the relative roominess of a turret). Going to the swords, I have trained first in rapier (mostly Spanish style), then in German long sword, and have on and off dabbled in the arming sword. While you are right that the arming sword and the rapier are of similar weights, the fighting styles and lengths of the swords are extremely different. The rapier has an average length of 104 cm while the arming sword has an average length of 75 cm, with the widths of the swords being just as starkly different. This completely changes how I as the fighter can use these two weapons. A rapier is meant to draw (slice) and stab, meaning the user is not meant to hack away at their opponent but instead keep the opponent at distance (hence the extra length of the blade) until an opening where an artery or distracting injury (the eyebrow, they bleed like crazy and get into the eyes) can be found. An arming sword is made to mainly to hack, draw, and occasionally stab, you are hacking through the weak points of mail (before full plate became slightly more common) and in some cases you aren't even trying to break their armor, but the opponent inside it. Even with proper padding and an excellent suit, blunt force trauma was common, broken wrists, arms, legs, ankles, necks, concussions. The arming sword is closer to it's ancestor the spatha (viking sword) and is often paired with the long sword, to be used as a means of last defense if you lost your long sword. To go with the long sword, I'm assuming you mean the ones meant to be used by the 'average' warrior and not the horse choppers that were handed to the largest strongest men on the field regardless of rank? Going on that assumption, long sword fighting styles require full commitment to your attack, and a lot of arm and full body strength, no feinting out of it as you would with a rapier or even an arming sword. This puts you at a disadvantage if you were wrong, and now being committed to your attack, are going to be cleaved by your opponent. Three different swords, three different styles, for different kinds of fights. Rapiers come into fashion when canons and blunderbuss become common military weapons, because as we all know you can't out armor a canon ball or even really a lead ball. As canons become more common arming and long swords disappear. With swords disappearing and canons on the scene heavy armor becomes less and less common (because really what good is it doing besides being expensive and creating shrapnel when shot hits it?), But should you come into close range you still needed a reliable weapon, something that can cut, stab, and hack; the cut and thrust. Cut and thrusts were military grade thin tapered swords, similar but not quite a rapier. Rapiers were for use by kings, aristocracy, and eventually common folk. Rapiers, especially diamond shaped ones, have a reputation as being 'whippy' which they are compared to their German schlager cousin or the triangle/star blades favored by the Spanish. But again it depends on style of fighting. Even still a rapier is meant for an opponent with no armor, the other two are meant for an medieval armored battle, and a cut and thrust sword (military grade rapier) was your weapon of last defense should you end up in a close combat situation on a battle field and your firearm was not firing. So I suppose the true complaint that should be made about these films is not what is appropriate on gender or strength, but more so what sort of fight are they creating? Is this 'fantasy' or a 'historic' film? Are the people fighting using weapons appropriate to their class (not everyone can afford a sword, in fact most people for a long while couldn't it's why bows, spears, and axes are more commonly found)? Are the weapons appropriate for what common sense dictates to be around at the time? Because I don't care if you're the best rapier fighter in the land, you aren't bringing that to a fight against someone fully trained in long sword will full plate armor (looking at you GoT). As for the fights we see in LotR and the Hobbit, it's fantasy. Tolkien has 7 foot tall immortal elves and dwarves that are still stronger than eight human men when they're seniors (Thorin). There's some alternative world bio-mechanics and physics going on there, is all I can say. Anyway, nice video, interesting views. Just thought I'd share my perspective as a female who has trained in most of what you were talking about. Cheers!
Yeah it always baffles me when they give hobbits daggers and short swords in the Lord of the Rings. "Oh hey you already have a huge range disadvantage, better give you a really short weapon to make it even worse!"
Apparently noone makes hobbit sized weaponry, so they just gave them small weapons, maybe a hobbit could use a shortsword how normal people use longswords.
+Staun Shay If you use a device for leverage or a pulley system, it should be manageable, but I'd have to try it myself before I could really attest to that.
+Rensune Thing is, whether it's appropriate depends very much on the setting. Whilst the tech has been around since maybe 500BC, the earlier/simpler versions were more in aid of better using the strength of stronger soldiers who could pull harder than the normal bows of the time could handle, or weaker ones who could buddy up to pull and latch the string harder than either could have with a regular bow (suppose you could have a pair of women cocking it and taking turns shooting maybe?). And whilst winched versions and even other semi-automatic (including repeater) ones didn't take too long coming along, the history of the thing and its spread is weirdly patchy. Appeared in southeast Asia and hung around there pretty much forever until their pioneering use of gunpowder displaced it (again earlier than in the west), and made showing in Greece then Rome only 100-200 years later (travelling idea? simultaneous convergent inspiration?), it seems to die out almost completely with the decline of Roman influence, and not reappear in Europe until perhaps as late as the 15th century, certainly well into the second millennium AD. It's almost like one of the defining features of the dark ages and most of the mediaeval period is the curious lack of crossbows. Even when they reappeared it followed the same pattern - simple draw-and-latch "belly shooters" (as you drew it by bracing the bow between your stomach and the ground, and dragging the string up two-handed (or four-handed...) using far more muscles and limbs than normal in order to gain the advantage) came first, then the winched kind, and it never really got back to the repeating or semi-auto stage because gunpowder weapons spread from China and Japan (which would, aside from maybe Leo DaVinci, also have been the source of said advanced mechanisms) to the west a mere century or two later. So where and when you can have them appear, and in what form, is something that actually bears a good bit of historical research in itself...
Interestingly, in Bernard Cornwell's novels set in the Hundred Years' War, the protagonists and other longbow archers are said to have trained in the longbow since childhood, and that helped them developed the huge muscles needed to wield the weapons, while the French used crossbows instead because they didn't do the same training. One of the main female characters in the books uses a crossbow herself.
Nice vid, Shad! As a former HEMA practitioner, I've literally seen this. Women in my gym tend to do way better with longswords and spears than with one handed weapons in general. Our instructor used to tell us it had more to do with the tendency to rely more in their footwork than men in order to get good angles (in the case of spears) and the narrower shoulder span (for swords), and I also remember him saying curved swords being particularly challenging for most of the women in the group, although I can't recall why he said he thought it was... As for the crossbow point: there is, as you stated, no point in physical strength when the weapon itself has built-in aids, so I don't see why every women in both fantasy and fiction medieval settings wouldn't be equipped with one. PS: have you seen Lindybeige's video on Ygritte from GoT? That "draw hold" trope will never die.
I'm pretty sure the reason why women in movies use the bow often is because the pose opens up their chest. It has nothing to with "weak person" and more to do with why their armor exposes just enough to not be censored. Otherwise, they would all use daggers and throw them...which is casted as well, but for different reasons, mostly because "balance" vs. "strength" is an alluring feminine characteristic. Look at gymnastic competitions. Ballerina?
I've noticed, too, that men seem to rely more on bludgeoning rather than using the engineering of their bodies. And women have lower centers of gravity on the average and can use that to more easily get into a stable stance and keep balanced as they (we) move. Low center of gravity also means a more effective and balanced sweep and reap techniques. And diving for the hole makes it hard for your opponent to get a hold on you. And there are some really badass women who are martial artists that fling the men around at the championships and Olympics as if they were towels mopping the floor! The women are quick, deft, and graceful as they put down their opponent. They don't wait in each round.
The reason you see so many women and skinny elf males using bows in fiction is simply lack of knowledge and authors not giving any thought on how much strenght is necessary to draw a bow, and how effective different kinds of bows are against different targets. Basically they treat it like a gun (one with no recoil for that matter), simply point and shoot, but we know that's not the case.
Even a gun takes a stronger man to use. You need to hike around with a large tube of steel and packs full of lead and copper. That's a huge amount of weight. That's not including survival supplies and in some cases armor.
Easy to use, has long reach, not too heavy...there's a reason it was the most dominant weapon on battlefields for centuries. You can't go wrong with a spear.
Spear only went out of date with late Gunpowder weapons, you need Gunpowder to make that shit obsolete. And even then, Bayonets could be considered a type of spear.
Spears were so common mainly because they were orders of magnitude easier to produce than a sword. There's a reason many cultures saw the sword as the mark of a true warrior and some even banned swords from the hands of lower classes. Give me a sword any day.
Jeremy Mine Ummm, no actually sword was the side-arm, spear was the main arm. The reason swords were held in high esteem is because later as armor became more advanced spears have lost some of their power and polearms and two-handed weapons came into the fold. Not to mention battlefield vs single combat situations and swords being used almost always with a shield in the off-hand.
Disclaimer: "Everyone" doesn't include people who are unlikely to have to fight and want a good weapon for the off-chance that they do end up being forced to for self-defense purposes, but don't want to unnecessarily burden themselves with something awkward to carry around. As the video said, polearms tend to be better for battlefields (Because they tend to be better suited to fights), while longswords are better for self defense (Because they're more portable and less of a pain to carry around, not to mention a sheathed sword tending to be seen as less hostile in social situations than a held spear would be.)
Interestingly at least one person has told me that this has been done. It was the video where I explain the names and terminology of a castles individual parts. I was very flattered by it. Then there was that time when someone asked if they could cite me as a source in a university paper, lol. I had to tell them that the only qualification I hold on these subjects is my boundless enthusiasm. Apparently that's not considered as a credited qualification ^_^
Don't be so humble. Qualification doesn't mean you necessarily need to have a degree. If you know a lot about a certain topic and can back up your information that suffices to science standard. Only the form of publication is an issue. So start writing for magazine and your eventually an official expert.
Spear. Easier to train the basics, less metal, longer range. At close range, a short sword and shield. A trained fighter with sword and board will defeat the longsword with no shield almost every time.
Spear AND shortsword? Or is it an either-or? I'd still go for bow + sword and shield instead. For one thing you get multiple shots and longer range than a single thrown spear, and if you're holding it to thrust over a few metres, you get more time to modeswitch and get yourself ready to throw down once the enemy gets towards the low end of the bow range. And it's demonstrable that if you have enough ammo available it's possible to rattle off shots at pretty high speed, probably as fast as you could repeatedly jab (like, once a second with snap-shot aiming accuracy). And you just need to aim for the eyes...
@@markpenrice6253 they didn't aimed for the eyes because it's small target that moves(thus easy to miss). Also a good and trained archer could fire 3 or 4 times in a min. Don't knoa about snap shots but assuming you still have to reach for the arrow and put on the string I'd go with at least 10 sec instead of one.
FIreballs? (lol) actually, I'd go with Crossbows and poison. Maybe a spear. (As it's medieval times all I would have to do is scratch them and let infection and disease handle the rest.)
Awesome video, it is weird how supposedly weaker character use bows, I do archery and it took a lot of practice to be able to shoot a 50lbs recurve well. For a weaker person polearms definitely seem to be the right type of tool, like a dane axe. In the hands of a stronger person it is devastating, but with training and proper understanding of leverage a smaller person could succeed wielding one. For reference I study kungfu and we have a polearm called a pudao (glaive), and using proper mechanics a small person could wield it, because eventually you realize that your whole body moves the weapon not just your arms. One of my seniors who I outweigh by 60lbs consistently beats me using good form and better tactics, even though I am much stronger than he is. No surprise though, he has 10 years more experience than I.
It's probably because it allows you to stay back and still contribute to the battle (maybe picking off lightly armoured or entirely unarmoured but still potentially dangerous enemies like so many flies), without having to pick up a blade and try to join the melee proper, where you would probably be dead within a minute, two minutes max. Maybe even thanks to an enemy arrow. But most likely because if you haven't the strength to pick off grunts at 50 metres, then you're not going to do well in a melee swinging a sword around.
pole arm thursts are heavy and soring af in case you dont know. swinging swords makes your arm tired. thrusting spears makes your whole fucking abs, ribs and shoulder tired. why would u think weak person can even compensate that. try 3 hard thrust with a 1.8m wooden stick u will know.
Well, I agree on the crossbow, but concerning melee, I'd argue that a spear is significantly more useful to a weaker fighter than a longsword. Longsword a get you up close, not too scarcely resulting in pushing battles, where strength will decide ultimate victor. The spear, however, doesn't require too much strength to wield, there is not much a stronger fighter can do that you can't. There's a reason spears (or some variation) were the main weapon of almost any army around the globe for the until some 250-300 years ago. It's easy to use, and requires comparatively little strength.
bro, I agree, but pushing battles are a myth my hema trainer punished my class for early on ;-) if your opponent pushs against your blade, you just bush his blade to the side and create a nice opening you can work with while your opponent gets his weapon back into position. And to avoid your opponent doing so to you there's one rule: Don't push! Leverage is against you. I would argue stabbing is less tiresome then slashing that's why I would say spear. I also don't think large armies used Spears due to weakness. if you have large masses of men you are better of going for weapons for average strength people. because the average Joe has average strength. Duh. Spears are cheap and easy that's probably why they were popular as fuck.
*applauds loudly* Finally. Its worth noting that samurai women (i.e. the wives and daughters of samurai, who were expected to defend the homestead while their husbands were away) trained to use the naginata, not because of any particular strength profile but because women on the whole are shorter than men and so the added reach of a pole arm is extremely valuable in leveling the playing field and no warrior ever complained "Oh no, I have too much reach. I can kill my opponent without seriously endangering myself!"
you would imagine it would be beneficial for women to band up together for added protection. children could use the crossbows, too, in emergency. poison those arrows and you got some nasty lethal kids.
They need a katana. Cuts through armor easier. Therefore need less strength. It's so sharp you can spit a cloth in 2 only by letting it glide down the edge with gravity alone. I saw the in a movie. So it must be true.
@@withastickangrywhiteman2822 well that depends the crossbow does still require quite a bit of strength, quite honestly a spear is the best option because you don't need a a ton of strength to wield one and not a lot of training though a crossbow is kinda like the spear of ranged medieval weapons
Spears have no match to Shield+sword, That is how Greeks lost to Romans. crossbow bolts can even though shields, a woman can use belt hook to draw it. or with a little drawing tool, even an old lady can use crossbow.
@@anthonyteasley3837 The Catholic Church threatened crossbow users with excommunication because one of those little, scrawny, little-trained, poorly-fed bastards could easily kill a knight in full plate armor that costs years and lots of money to train, feed and equip. So, I'm with the crossbow, too. God created men and before Samuel Colt made them equal, the crossbow also did.
Yes. I keep trying to avoid this channel and it's nonsense, but it keeps appearing in my list. Is there a 'never show me this trash channel again' option?
I love that film! It's not supposed to be historically accurate, but conceptually, showing that A VERY STRONG warrior's main feature is his archery ability is very correct, and fixes the silly Hollywood perception of bows being a quick and nimble rogue weapon. I actually think it all started with Illiad, that association of Paris with a bow, but the point there was that he was a BAD archer so hit the Achilles heel accidentally!
@@praisejesus6750 actually it wasnt. The Yari and the bow was. (Yari is a thrusting spear. Naginata is a slashing polearm) The reason being is that its two handed, can be forged the same way as a Katana, and allows for a woman's better agility to come into play
The difference is the same between the arming sword and the longsword: one you can only wield with one hand, all the weight on a single hand, and the other you can dual-wield, both hands helping stabilize the bastard.
Speaking from experience, got a girlfriend who weighs about 50 kg or less: you are right about longsword, she way more prefers lighter two-handed weapons and practically can't fight with arming sword or sabre. But she is a devil with naginata. See, she is weak physically and very lightweight, which makes her way more mobile than your average mid-to-heavy built dude. So, she can use reach of this versatile polearm with great efficiency, changing distance and evading most hard attacks by stepping back and counterattacking. Spears are also fine, but I say that light cut-and-thrust polearms are the best for women / weak guys. They have no reason to be in close combat anyway, they're going to be crushed, so they may as well to maximize their distant hitting power. Another point on two-handed ease of use: while using one-handed sword, very many techniques rely on your sword arm intense usage. But with two-hander you tend not only to use two arms at once, you always add other muscle groups, such as back muscles. And it is kinda easier to learn how to add footwork power into two-handed strikes, while it is less obvious with one-handers. Spot on with the crossbow, of course. I hate these petite female archers of fiction.
Slings do require some decent strength to kill at short range and to reach relatively long range, but yes; that is a good suggestion. A staff sling would be even better, increasing power with added leverage.
To be fair not many things do much to a knight in full plate. You're generally already relying on stabbing through week spots or bashing their brains to paste. I guarantee you that a big ol' lead sling bullet to the noggin's not gonna improve the knight inside's day.
A sling is giving full plate armored armys a lot of trouble. Slings have the longest reach and are a powerfull weapon to bombard the army with stones from the sky where no arrow reaches. Slings were actually used by quite many historic bow-warriors to increase their range. the stones or metal bullets have a lot of momentum and are able to penetrate as good as an arrow does.
Any real life Archer knows that you need some serious tricep, back, and shoulder musclez to shoot hunting and combat bows and crossbows effectively. The smaller women in movies are playing with the kid's toys.
Yeah, a woman archer (which certainly occurred, various peoples in history known for archery also employed female archers) would almost certainly have quite developed arm and shoulder muscles to be a good archer. The fact they do not in films is just a fault on behalf on the idiotic standard that even warrior women are meant to be scrawny and thin.
There is nothing that I hate more than the idea that bows are a women's or even a little girls weapon. My archery class was lucky to have an actual weapons historian. He brought in a recreated english long bow. This is nothing like a modern compound. The best way to explain what its like holding a bow back is like holding an 8 year old by a tiny string while they want to wriggle around. You can totally control it for a few seconds, but it is agonizing to try and hold it long. I also find it stupid that crossbows are usually given out as the heavy weapon.
wolflordjsww They're just considered heavy because they can pull a heavier draw weight and were notorious for piercing plate armor. Otherwise, *real* war bows may take more strength to use that any swordsman can hope to attain
Daisuke Yoshioka Sure fine, but they were still the one given out en-masse to the normal soldiers. You can make anyone a crossbowmen it takes a long time to make an archer.
True but in a battlefield setting it didn't really matter how good your peasants actually where with their warbows since all you're really gunna have them do is fire volleys in the direction of the other army once its in range.
You got it: I think the key is that it serves most fantasy stories better to give women a ranged weapon. This allows women to contribute to the battle while minimizing their exposure to direct physical contact-which services _many_ fictional considerations. I do think gender is a more important issue than physical strength in this fictional choice. Firstly, a woman who is at ranged distance doesn't need to have seemingly unrealistic abilities to avoid being injured or scarred. (A woman's beauty is generally protected like the limb of a man: it will be taken away only if it services a major plot point.) Similarly, a woman who saves an incapacitated man with a bow doesn't present the same kind of inversion of archetypal gender roles as a woman who saves a man using her physical strength with a melee weapon. The symbolism is very different, and you would expect many characterizations would see a man somewhat unmanned if a woman saved him with physical strength when the man's was not adequate. Indeed, the use of a sword (or club) as a phallic symbol in fiction is quite common. A bow, on the other hand, is curved and meant to receive the shaft of an arrow-a sort of borrowed potency. I think a crossbow somewhat weakens this: it feels more like a firearm. A female character who is skilled with a bow feels special and valuable, whereas shooting a crossbow feels more like something that anybody could do. (I'm not saying that a crossbow requires no skill, but I think it _feels_ less skilled to most people.) A crossbow just doesn't have the same martial romance as a bow. (It also reduces or eliminates the feminine curve of a bow.) I'm not saying that kind of symbolism is everything. It can be a trap to interpret every shape and interaction as some kind of sexual metaphor. However, these metaphors, symbols and archetypes do exist in the minds of both writers and audiences. A good writer will use tropes and symbols in ways that serve his characters and story, and a bad writer will likely use them through cliché even if they have no purpose at all. TLDR: I don't think you'll see a lot of fantasy fiction put women in the front lines with swords unless ideas about gender change a lot. For a writer, equipping a woman with a bow avoids a number of potential problems and allows her to demonstrate useful skill in a way that emphasizes her femininity. Please note that this is not a rant about gender politics. I'm not advocating any change in attitudes or writing: I'm arguing that there _are_ attitudes and archetypal notions, and that they affect our fiction. I'm saying that people are more reluctant to see a woman's beauty marred than a man's, that people may think a male character less masculine (or a female character less feminine) if a woman shows superior melee strength, and that a woman with a bow tends to look and feel more feminine than a woman with a crossbow, sword or mace. If you disagree with those suggestions, I'm happy to discuss with you. I think this is interesting territory. If you think I'm implying that your favorite work fiction is evil & misogynist, please read my comment again, as that's not at all my point.
Well argued. That being said, IMO it's kinda sexy for women to fight on the front. Bravery is a very attractive trait, and I don't feel that a woman's femininity is lessened by being a physical powerhouse. Furthermore, we don't typically associate women with strength and martial prowess, so a subversion of that makes the woman more exotic. Plus, there's something about a physically powerful woman that exudes a feeling of protection, like they can keep you safe. That being said, my only real female friend is built like a brick, does sword training in heavy armour, and is more masculine than all my male friends combined, so I could be a biased source. To be honest, I'd kinda be the weak little flower up the back with the ranged weapon XD.
Discord Lexia The thing is, I dont think most males think being protected is sexy. Also take a look at Brienne from Game of Thrones and then look at a character like Shae or Daenerys. Women sexually attract most men with a curved body, medium breasts, and larger hips. For a women to be strong enough to fight in a real medieval battle on the front lines(this includes the ability to march for hours, fight for hours, block and parry blows from men, etc.) they generally have to sacrafice some of these sexual features. I'm not saying thats bad, but this is most likely why most media depicts women far from the frontlines in a medieval setting.
What I always find extremely exciting is when a female character, when confronted with the need to defend herself, effectively uses something as a weapon that's not supposed to be a weapon. Like a vase, a piece of furniture, a belt, anything. I all at once shows character development, and increases the sense of danger and precarity of the situation, which I feel makes us connect more with the character. I like resourceful characters you use their environment to their advantage wether they are male or female, I find it so much more thrilling to watch.
@Blume Shullman Jackie Chan is a master of this in his movies. He uses it not only for good action scenes but to great comic effect. I like his fight scenes because they seem more realistic. When a bunch guys come after him, he runs like hell and tries to deal with them one at a time and things of that sort. He's very creative and resourceful.
Shepherd’s sling: Pros: Ranged Doesn’t require much physical strength. About as powerful as many muskets Cons: Hard to learn Perishable skill Not as cool as a bow
I found this really educational!!! I love history and love getting these stereotypes debunked. Even I didn't know rapiers were heavy! I love how there was so much analysis and history in every weapon discussed. Thank you so much for enlightening us about how it is to experience using these weapons.
I'm so happy that you're rephrasing this question in a way that writes out gender from the equation. Even though you can always talk about broad trends, the point of interest is actually physical characteristics, not eventual inherited gender traits.
Maybe you missed the part where I said you can always talk about broad trends (which is exactly what you do here), but you don't get a discussion that is as exact and to the point as when you take out gender and just focus on the characteristics that are actually relevant to the combat - in this case, strength.
@@matthewbadger8685 Strength actually comes from strain, and micro tears in your muscle, causing it to heal larger. If you whack it for long enough, your arm will get tired, therefore strain, therefore damage. Source: My mum is a nurse.
@@theshribe Trust me, i've tried a low weight high repetition routine before, and it's absolutely crap for building muscle. That's because at first as you say, muscle fibres are torn and you heal larger, however due to the low weight your muscle adapts and no longer gets torn as much any more, creating diminishing returns even during periods of newbie gains - That's why such training regimes always result in low volume but high muscle definition. The true method of gaining volume is to work with progressively heavier weights in order to maintain the same rate of muscle damage over time, with about ten to twelve repetitions per set. If you want strength, you need to capitalise on your muscles lack of tears early on by putting in more effort immediately - Ideally by using very heavy weight with low repetitions, usually four or five. This way, you lift heavier weight but over a lower time period, resulting in stronger muscles with slightly less volume than the above method. The word of nurses is crap in the field of exercise/muscle building, since they focus only on the health-related aspects with little focus on maximising results - That is why they only know about muscle fibre tearing and their healing, as they don't reasonably need to know any more. As a result, the only way to build a respectable body is to increase the weight that you lift over time, otherwise you'l stagnate at a level of muscle size which is recognised as lacklustre across the board. If you aren't convinced by what i've written here then answer me this; Why on earth do skinny dudes who knock one out every night never improve their physique over time? Literally everyone does it, but I've never seen anyone with noticeably lopsided arm development, or arms out of proportion to their bodies. If what you said were true, either of those two scenarios should be the case since their arms would never adapt to the weight and exertion placed on them. Regardless though, i suggest you do your own research rather than trot out shit you've heard from others. If the info is as good as you've said, you should put your money where your moth is and try it out for a while.
nice analysis, shad. I think main factor affecting on weapon of choice for knightly lady is who actually taught her to fight and of course nation and cultural preferences. but! history know at least one close combat weapon which was specially designed and adapted for women, japanese naginata. yes, I bet most users of this light glave-ish weapon was samurai men, but naginata-jutsu was developed with idea to give physically weak people a weapon of choice. And it worked quite fine. /And one
TV Tropes actually has a page on this topic: "Guys smash, girls shoot". It's actually more of a cultural thing - generally, it's considered slightly more acceptable for a man-at-arms to be engaged in physical combat, than for a woman-at-arms to be. This could be its own conversation topic, but it's not the topic I want to pursue. Generally, the spear is the ultimate n00b weapon. An inexperienced spear-wielder can easily be a threat to a swordsman; it takes training to know how to properly fight a spear and get inside it's dead zone between the wielder and the tip. Also, more or less anything with a shield. Shields are the ultimate 'boring but practical' tactical accoutrement. Shields can be used as melee weapons in their own right, and if you can move the shield in position quickly enough, you can simply outlast an opponent (even a spear-wielder.) According to Skallagrim, a mace+shield combo is good for a noob, because you don't have to worry about edge alignment as a sword- or axe-wielder would have to. Bows are incredibly strength and skill-intensive. There was a saying, "To train a great bowman, start with his grandfather." Swords are a sidearm primarily, much like a pistol is in today's military context - effective at a certain range, but keeps an opponent away from the whites of your eyes. There's no way a woman who's not a dame would even be trained in this, let alone using it at all.
Strategiusz Always sad when, in popular media, the dagger is demoted to a near-useless weapon of cowards, theives, & people traditionally considered weak. The dagger is horrifyingly deadly and, to my knowledge, carried by damn near everyone, especially knights and the like. Poor dagger:(
true. Damn near everyone would carry a dagger on their person. You have to consider fantasy settings however in which everyone has a primary weapon and only that primary weapon that they specialize in and nothing else.
Pretty neat video. I read an article not too long ago about why women in fantasy media are always equipped with bows and it made a lot of sense. The author asserted that as the care-giving/nurturing sex, woman should be as removed from combat as possible, hence the range. That's why you always see female archers and clerics and mages in fantasy settings. Female heavy warriors like barbarians or knights are usually depicted as very masculine, not just physically but in attitude as well. "I wear armor instead of dresses", "screw the corset/bodice", "who needs heels when you have a good pair of leather boots?" And these characters typically shun feminine activities like cooking and sewing, which doesn't even make sense because in a medieval world these things are necessary for survival. As a character designer I've grown quite tired of seeing these archetypes in media.
Modern character design is sadly informed by modern stereotypes, which were largely developed in the Victorian era. Ironically in medieval times high heels would actually be seen as manly and really anyone would die to get their hands on any fancy clothes since they cost an arm and a leg.
Hello Shad, what is your take on women shooting composite recurve bows from horseback? Archaeologists argue strongly that women horse archers were a mainstay of the ancient Skythian and Sarmatian horse nomad tribes who once lived on the Ukrainian steppe. A female horse archer is able to engage more muscular male opponents from stand-off range. The bow and arrow provide the initial stand-off range and the speed and agility of the horse make it difficult for an enemy to close that stand-off range, says the conventional wisdom. What say you?
Men get bows with greater draw weight, out shoot the women, and then there's no more women archers. There have been horse archer cultures for millennia, but all the alleged female archers occured in civilizations that were mythical in status even among their contemporaries and with very poor or nonexistent documentation.
@@BrennanCh06 Your show of ignorance is overwhelming. This is like stating a peasant can't use a knight's sword because we don't have photographs of it happening. Well done. Since you clearly don't understand the muscle groups used in archery, maybe just sit quietly in the back.
Perfectly plausible. Like Shad said, it's only a matter of draw weight of the bow. With the right training, women can use recurve bows as long as they're not victoria secret model's with no muscle mass. But as for the stand off part... not really, maybe on skirmishes? Extra Range from extra draw weight could overcome the added mobility in large battlefields with no cover. I'd say there's not an overwhelming advantage, though.
Or rely on stealth, guerilla-like tactics, range. Because to add a bit of depth to your point, any melee weapon is going to put you at a distinct disadvatage as you'll like be facing off against someone quite a bit stronger with a more threatening weapon--possibly a longer reach and likely to crash through your attempts to parry. Crossbows and well-aimed throwing knives delivered "safely" out of melee range. Or take a note from fantasy rpg Rogues (depending on the tone of the movie) and carry a dagger or two so you can dodge and weave into an opponent's blind spot, find a weakpoint, and just stick the dagger in there in heartbeat. Of course, realistically, it still takes a fair amount of strength to drive a blade into a human body _without_ any sort of armor in the way.
You still have to be strong to wield a cross bow, you need to be able to hold steady and be able to pull the cross bow back. Or carry a heavy cross bow (which are heavy) and crank it.
This was very interesting, thanks for the video! :D I think bows are often picked because of the clear silhouette and the kind of "noble" poses it can lead to.
In movies bows are superpowerful weapons which can go thru armor as if it were butter. Is like watching soldiers taking out tanks with assault rifles, so ofcouse weaker people can use them, they instakill with magical plot powers.
Everyone forgets the sling. It's a great peasant weapon. It is easy to make and simple to use, though it does require a lot of practice. Shepherds were purported to have been able to bring down wolves and even loins with their slings. I have my doubts about the latter, but historically we know they were heavily employed during the bronze age and early iron age.
I find it more plausible than you, but only because I believe I remember something along the lines that before lions applied to the singular species we think of today, it may have also been used to refer to the other large cat species of europe (now long extinct).
+The CM Studio Afaik they stopped using slings in warfare because they didn't have enough trained men for that. The Romans used Sardinian levies that were immensely skilled and stiff armour doesn't protect you that much from 300g stones flying in your face. Many people died after the battles due to concussions and blood vessel ripping from sling stones. The most feared weapon of the Incas an Aztecs for the Spanish were their slings, which are said to kill a horse with one hit (probably exaggerated, but who knows). A modern sling can throw a stone as far as 400m and they don't loose that much force during the flight, a frightening weapon. The big downsides to slings are their need for a lot of space (you don't want to hit the guy behind/next to you) and that they are diffcult to learn/master. Most slingshot "units" stem from farming regions and the people there used them their entire life. Similar to Long bows, the only country able to field them in big masses were the British due to their population training with them since childhood.
What about a sling as a weapon for the less physically gifted? ;) I know that the Romans, Carthaginians, many other armies maintained slingers in their ranks. Thanks for another great video!
Nathan Tonning Slinging a stone doesn't require much strength, but doing that throughout a whole battle demands some pretty beefy and calous arms and shoulders
well, sure, in an open battle perspective. A sling doesn't have much accuracy so it's better to use against a large formation. But it won't be as effective for self defense or something of the sort (see Lindybeige's video for more information)
because slings require more training than mastering three other weapons -.- in that time you could've build up muscles like Arni but they are fun I can tell ;)
MR.Chickennuget 360 When men created and perfected the art of poisoning, I'd say that makes you fellas its masters. The reason we women learned the art was because we tend to be the ones handling the food, therefore easier access.
Great points! However, I wanted to add that rapiers can be quite useful for weaker fighters, but not for the reason that is typically assumed in video games and the like. Like you said in the video, they do weigh about the same as any normal sword, but the way that one fights with a rapier is very different. It makes greater use of range and thrusts with much less use for cuts (speaking of video games, a little bit of me dies inside whenever I see a fictional character swing a rapier like its a typical sword). These thrusts are also primarily given force with the legs (which for most people are stronger than their arms), and meanwhile the arms' strength is mostly delegated to maneuvering the point which is in my experience not as strength intensive as swinging a sword thanks to the way the weight is distributed. The weaker fighter also benefits from the fact that the rapier is a sword that wants to be a spear, so they can keep stronger opponents at a distance (in fact, longsword and rapier blades are usually of comparable length). It has been a little bit since I've had the opportunity to fence with rapiers, but I think this is mostly accurate. Granted, the rapier is still a single-handed weapon so the user will tire more just from holding it pointed at the opponent than if they were using a two handed weapon, but I think that the other benefits of the rapier can make up for this fairly well. I also think that even if one is genetically weaker than average they can still exercise and train their endurance to be able to maintain their control of the rapier for the amount of time needed to conclude a fight. Anyways, I love the video! I just wanted to contribute my ruminations as a noodle armed rapier lover myself.
The CM Studio Yeah, I know. But in most fantasy board games, bows are often managed by a dexterity/agility stat while melee weapons, like a dagger, is managed by a strength-style stat.
I think if a character, or irl person, can train up a certain level of skill with a weapon, regardless of the weapon, they should be allowed to use whatever that weapon be. I don't care if it's nunchakas or a halberd. Kinda want one for Christmas. Probably not gonna get one unless I make it myself tho.....
I think most people know these things (or atleast would not argue) but it's just nice to have stereotypes to rely on in storytelling. It helps immersion immensely when people assume a certain set of rules, and as such makes deviations exciting, like "wow that woman has a huge hammer what the fuck" etc. In short, stereotypes aren't all bad. They're just stereotypes.
Dorothy had a dog, Alice a looking glass, Snow White used a broom to clean house, Red Riding Hood had a basket of food and no weapon I am aware of other than maybe a knife to cut the bread. So don't know where they got idea all women carried bows in fantasy that is just a recent trend. Cinderella used a hunting bow when her father was still alive is an exception to the rule most of the story was after her father died and she cooked and cleaned, so nothing more than hot water, fire, knife or broom and whatever else was in the house.
My first thought is the spear. Can be effective with one or two hands, can be used with or without a shield, engages opponents at longer distance than other melee weaponry, and is capable of focusing a great amount of force into a very small area without a ton of practice. The long sword would be great for a variety of reasons, including many you've stated, but it would also require far more training for the wielder to be effective. To add to this, a shield would not be easily utilized, wielding a long sword with only 1 hand would be even more tiring than a rapier or arming sword, generally speaking. Then again...this is why spears were classically the most numerous weapon on the battlefield. Easy to produce, simple in operation, effective (especially in groups), and not terribly difficult to train up an individual or group on its use.
I love over tens of thousands of years, the ultimate weapon was just various forms of "pointed stick". Even the best ranged weapons were "pointed stick throwers".
To be fair to the girls using bows trope, it's not quite as bad as you are making it out to be. For one, I can't think of anyone who used this trope and gave any of the girls-using-bows a full longbow/warbow. They are always using lightweight hunting bows (ex. Katniss), and firing small arrows with small tips. The lie of the trope, inasmuch as there is one, is not about their choice of weapon type, it's about their fucking mythical accuracy with their bows. Katniss is a good recent example, so consider that one further - it's not that she couldn't shoot that bow with her physical strength, it's that she shoots everyone in vital spots everytime. It's not that the bow can't be fired as far as they portray it given the draw, it's just that she would need to be arcing her shots high everytime (which makes her accuracy even more impressive). In short, it's not that girls couldn't wield hunting bows effectively - the trope is that any girl who picks up a hunting bow turn into an Olympic-tier marksmen overnight. The second issue would be Hollywood's love of pausing at full draw for (dramatic) tension, which is not only bad for aim, it's really hard to actually hold: yet Hollywood likes the idea of somehow becoming more accurate the longer you hold at full.
All that girls with super powerful bows shooting with super accuracy stuff, that all goes back to the goddess Artemis in greek mythology. So it was a fantasy from the start, the only "logic" needed for her perfect archery was that she was a goddess & her bow itself was explicitly portrayed as being magical & never missing a shot, on top of her, literally, divine archery skills. The rest is not about "tropes" etc it's just straight out fantasy, hollywood or ancient or otherwise that does not match the reality of archery, whether it's male or female archers being portrayed.
Yvaelle. I would say tho a women with a midevil bow would be much as the most common bows are long warbows with high draw strength next being a recurve bow which still has a high draw weight. now a morden compound bow different story
This wimp should sat that to my wife she uses the same draw weight on her hunting bow as I do 80 lbs. MY wife is taller than average but doesn't look like a muscle girl but she sends about a hundred arrows down range per day. She has been an archer and even a tournament archer for many years.
I did as they are easier and require less strength than most one handed swords Even if you take some of the lighter one handed swords like some of the lighter sabers that might weight a bit below 1kg (less than 2 pounds) they will still be more tiresome to wield not only due to the weight but also the stance. As many of the guard positions with swords like sabers with a bit better hand protection is harder to maintain. You stand more with the sword held out in front of you, held in one hand that is harder than most of the guards and stances with longswords. Same goes for rapier and that is not even a light sword. Some of the heavier rapiers did weight same as some of the lighter longswords
Ákos Kovács of course it is an issue of stamina and such. And training will effect that. but that still comes down to strength, at least partially. if you do train with a sword you will get stronger as your muscles get used to it. but still the strength you have to begin with can be important. as you would probably not chose to start practice a weapon you have to struggle with if you have any other option. like a weapon that suits your level of strength better. But it does not change the fact it takes more energy to hold most one handed swords, specially ones with higher hand protection, even light ones in the most common positions those weapons are used for than a longsword that you use with both hands. There might always be exceptions both when it comes to swords and stances/guard positions and so on. But in general even a light one handed sword that might weight below 1,5 pounds are a bit harder to use and require more stamina and strength than a longsword that weighs about 3 pounds
how would a spear work instead of a longsword. it would be the weapon that would be one of the more common on the field. it would be used by the mallita as well as professional soldiers.
Sean Rea well a spear would work well. But it have some drawbacks. It's size makes it impossible to carry around in a comfortable way. you need to always hold it in at least one hand. So you can no go around your daily life while carrying a spear. But with a sword that is not a problem. A spear is also less effective in confined spaces. And such things. But a spear and a sword would be a good idea. That way you have a backup weapon and also you can easily have the sword on you when you can't or don't fill like carry around a spear
In Turkish history we have rulers and group of women warriors. Our history says they used leather armor, shield and one handed axe weapons with horses. They also used bow and arrows on the horses. You can investigate turkish middle assia history for women warriors/soldiers. We have plenty of them.
You're topic brings to mind a moment from Homer's Odyssey. Specifically during Queen Penelope's challenge to the suitors. She said she would only marry the man who could string Odysseus' bow and shoot an arrow cleanly through twelve axes. Naturally, not one of the suitors could string it. So, you may be right about some men being weaker
sadlobster1 I remember hearing that it possibly refers to a different type of bow which was newer at the time and had to be strung differently, thus it was a tricky way to keep the suitors at bay rather than a test of strength.
Shad, you should talk aboit the different types of Japanese swords. There is more than just a katana, and each have their own roles and styles. swords are: Tanto, Tsurugi/hen, etc.
Cornered Fox well im not an expert, the tanto is a dagger, and the tsurugi is a double edged straight sword, a longer version of the single edged chokuto, im not the best on the origins, and there are a lot more i cant remember
Cornered Fox those are the ones that i were thinking of too! I think that the main public perception is that the katana is the only 'samurai' swors. It would be nice to see a breakdown of the other Japanese swords, why they are the way thwy are, the history, etc.
from what I understand the "tanto" wasn't used historically by Samurai. It was a modern hollywood invention. I may be wrong but I know I heard it from someone into japanese history. I think he also stated that the smallest blade used by the Samurai, if not a knife, was a wakizashi, more of a short sword than a dagger in my opinion.
Capten The tanto dates to the heian period , when it was mainly used as a weapon but evolved in design over the years to become more ornate. Tanto were used in traditional martial arts (tantojutsu) and saw a resurgence of use in the West in the 1980s as the design made its way to the US and is a common blade pattern found in modern tactical knives. Edit: may have butchered the spelling of heian,
let's also keep in mind that the favoured weapons of the samurai was the bow and pole arm. Odachi and Nagamaki were basically variants on naginata, often used as anti cavalry or crowd control, rather than 1v1 combat iirc
Thank you for bringing up how the movies have these characters draw a bow and hold the drawn bow for as long as they feel like. Always drove me nuts on the bs of that.
I knew it wouldn't of been the bow or rapier and would of assumed the pole weapons like you but kind of surprised of the two handed sword to be honest and it does make perfect sense when you think about it, just because of pop culture we think of the massive dude with the two handed sword.... where in reality a massive dude with a shield and sword is far more dangerous.
Arms and armor are actually given quite good attention in LOTR. What always made me cringe is battle tactics. Pikemen in front during a siege? Cavalry charge against the walls full with archers? And lets not even start on the "blob of chaos" classic orcish formation.
Ravensburger my two cents on the orc blob, the orcs were not necessarily known for smart with strategy. they were uncivilized and the representation of chaos. some groups would be better and stronger like the uruk hai but Tolkien never describes the orcs as the most militarily intelligent race in LOTR
Thank you so much for this video! This is something I've often wondered about, but it's hard to hear opinions where people are honest but not derogatory and, in my opinion, you've managed it perfectly :D
gurugeorge as a killing blow against armored foes it is a good weapon to use, but you want to knock your opponent off their feet first and a dagger just can't manage that
+RoboGameBoy64 Precisely what i wanted to say. more often than not when you need to go fight in a war setting, chances are your opponent is a ferocious sonofabitch, fully armored or not. & daggers have problem stabbing even through thick leather, & if you're close enough to stab someone & that someone is NOT down after about 2 hits, you're royally fucked.
I think just piercing your hand through their armor and chest then ripping out their heart would be better. If that doesn't work, tear off their head. And if they still aren't dead then stomp them into a paste. Then incinerate them for good measure.
but what about the Halberd. it works for the Japanese in the form of the Naginata. the Naginata being seen as the traditional weapon for Japanese Women from Samurai households.
Depends on the type of halberd, but I think the naginata (especially those for women) generally had rather slender blades, so they were closer to European spears in weight and balance. Maybe a smaller pollaxe?
This largely depended on the samurai lady herself, her level of training in the combat arts. Samurai women had the right to wear swords if they so desired, and some samurai fathers trained their daughters as well as their sons in combat.
Naginata(polearm "sword" technically) is usually considerably lighter the halberd(polearm combination of spear, axe and hammer) or I'm wrong somewhere? Maybe you've meant spetum instead of halberd?
+Jennifer Brewer Sword was the weapon of last resort so to speak even for male samurai. After all we're talking about japanese metallurgy(or rather excuse for it) and type of combat judging by the terms.
Is there any record of what Joan of Arc fought with, and did she actually engage in personal combat? The Biblical accounts show warriors being killed by women twice: Once by driving a tent peg through his head while he was asleep, and the second was by dropping a millstone on his head from a tower. That second actually seemed pretty common in the ancient world; women were frequently in besieged cities, and while they weren't necessarily up for a scrap with soldiers in armour, they could most definitely drop really heavy things from a really tall height. I'll wager they could work ballistas or other siege weapons too. Which is probably the best advice for someone with less physical strength in the medieval world: If you can, don't fight warriors in melee. If you must , because you're forced to, use whatever advantage you can. Leave the chivalry to those meatheads in armour who can afford it!
Joan carried a sword, though rarely drew it, preferring to carry a standard instead. In the few times she ended up surrounded and needing to use her sword, she tended to fight defensively - trying to keep them back, rather than aggressively. So far as I can tell, she never killed anyone herself, and rarely injured anyone more than a ding or scratch. As to what type of blade she carried, I'm not certain, though it was likely a common blade for the timeframe- a light longsword or possibly arming sword would be my guess based on images.
It's really isn't the question of could women do it, but more of whether their social role and lifestyle allowed for that. In nomadic societies, women could not stay at home, and had to travel on horseback, hunt, defend themselves etc. archaeologists usually applied a big dose of sexism when examining old bones, and deciding that any skeleton with arms and armor is a man... because of that we had a misconception of ancient people being very short too! For a number of reasons, after nations settled, he campaigning armies were almost exclusively male (until very recently), so the only way women could fight was, yes, in a siege.
I actually did research on this for a story I'm writing. The legend goes that Joan received a vision of a sword behind the alter of St. Catherin de Fierbois. The sword was said to belong originally to Charlemagne and contained five crosses. She carried it throughout her campaigns but the only substantial record of her using it was to chase a couple of men who were harassing a prostitute.
I think a slingshot should be a good weapon. Or a sling.They take practice, but so does a bow, whether recurve or longbow. I've seen some nice ones that have an arm rest for steadiness, and they fold up. Set one up on your gauntlet, and you could unfold and lock into place the business end to follow up your bow shots with close-range projectiles. You can even use it by itself. Light, compact, uses common projectiles. Uses muscles close to the body for power in the pull. And a sling can be kept in a pocket. Even if you don't hit anyone, several close volleys can slow an enemy's progress as a shower of longbow arrows would. So I would have me a long shield, a helm, and probably chain mail, and I'd learn to hold onto my shield with my slingshot arm and draw back with the other. And I'd be back, maybe behind the archers. I have no illusions; I know I am not physically strong and need all the proper protection I can get. However, if necessary, I do know some in-fighting if I would survive such a war to be hand-to-hand with a combatant. A lot of that is diving for the hole. Some grappling and Judo. And a lot of staying in balance. Some sword moves (not many). Using environmental weapons. I can easily wield a cast-iron skillet.
Slings are useful for movement, such as aboard a ship, since they maintain gyroscopic stability. Staff slings are an easy levy weapon. Slingshots require elastic and are modern only, and few would be heavy enough to matter in battle.
Excuse me? One of the oldest sling battles in history is recorded in the Bible. Please re-read David and Goliath. No elastic needed. Even today, Bedouin shepherds are armed with slings. The sling *shot* is a poor substitute for the ancient and deadly sling weapon.
and it gives you an advantage in the 'lever arm' force multiplier; the longer the strings on your sling, the more force you can deliver with it.. ISTR a page where the greeks got up on little stands so they could whirl their 6-8ft slings above the heads of their comrades, building a LOT of speed and thus momentum!
I feel like the korean horn bow would be a good choice, was used by fort garrisons in the region. Had good range and was very accurate while having a relatively low draw weight.
One problem is also skill. Crossbows and Spears are also really good for those unskilled in combat, as neither of them take as much to learn, as say a longsword or a rapier, and if someone, no matter how weak they may be at the start, begins to practice with a certain weapon, they will grow stronger, and be able to use that weapon more and more effectively. So I'd argue that its not so much about finding a weapon suited for someone's strength, but finding a weapon for their skill level, and what they have practiced. If they're unskilled AND weak give them a spear and perhaps a shield, and/or a crossbow, if they're unskilled and strong, both of those still work, but it also opens up axes, maces, warhammers etc, all of which only require a basic understanding of combat to be effective.
Ultramasterjedi shields require a lot of strength. When people start sword and buckler their right hands are a bit stronger. After a year they will have around 20-30% stronger left arms than right.
Combat has always been ruinous to the human body. Your rubbish about "brittle bones" has no bearing in reality. There's a reason infantry are always extremely young on average, and at that age sex does doesn't matter when it comes to skeletal integrity. I think your contempt for female combatants would get you killed by one in the real world. Never underestimate someone who intends to kill you. There's no profit in it.
I call bullshit. I've served with women in a field unit, many of whom had served for 20 years and there was no sign of these medical problems you're conjuring. Give stats from reputable sources or piss off.
I never realized how useful longswords would be! Given the context here, I am definitely going to consider having Iris-one of my weakest characters who also happens to come from a semi-medieval context-use a longsword if she ever develops enough strength and coordination to use a weapon in combat. Anyway, personal inspiration aside, great video! Thanks for making this. :)
One major reason to why Hollywood gives ranged weapons to female characters is that they have typically not wanted them to get into any close combat what so ever. Even if that has changed somewhat in recent years.
They're afraid to show female casualties. If you want to have females warriors, fine. But I hate it when they are too afraid to show women also getting killed. Its war, people die. Hollywood should learn that.
@Gabriel Mumm It may have popped up earlier than CS Lewis, but he's the first author I encountered who used this trope. Father Christmas specifically gives a bow and arrows to Susan and a dagger to Lucy (and the dagger is strictly for self-defense) because "Battles are ugly when women fight." tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GuysSmashGirlsShoot
Funny you mention that, the *female* "Numidian" charioteers in the re-enactment of the battle against Carthage in Ridley Scott's Gladiator not only had crossbows, but the original cut had one of them knocked off the chariot and get bisected by her own chariot's spinning wheel blade.
Jennifer Beveridge the amazons of Greek mythology were said to amputate a breast so they could shoot their bows with more accuracy. So that predates C.S. Lewis by a few thousand years
It's funny you talk about needing strength to use bows. Reading "The Dragon Knight" series by Gordon R. Dickson, and in the first book in the series "The Dragon and The George", the titular Dragon Knight meets up with those who become his allies during the rest of the series (with a few being added here and there later on), and one of them is a woman named Danielle. Initially, James, our protagonist, is a little unsure about having her in the recently formed group that's going to attack these Dark Powers. However, Sir Brian, a local knight, states that the woman can use a 100lb warbow, as does half of the outlaws in the group her father leads, (blame magic for units there, as I think the author was American, and so is the time/dimensional-lost protagonist), which James finds interesting, as he used to do some archery, and found 60lb to be his limit. The knight himself mentions that he could use an 80lb bow decently well. Then there's Dafydd, who uses a bow that's easily 150-200lbs, was made by him, along with the arrows, which can punch through armor of the era (think Edward the Black period, at around 1350, although time's slightly different in this world of magic, dragons, and talking wolves), and I personally think could give Legolas a run for his money in an Archery competition, and isn't too bad with a sword either.
As a woman who does archery I absolutely agree with this! Movie shots of people holding fully drawn bows for minutes at a time are ridiculous. I also like throwing knives- but they're not very practical- you lose your knife.
You can carry more than one knife an archer carries more than one arrow.
yes, but it's not very cost effective. A working arrow can be made pretty cheap- you don't even have to forge a metal tip if you're on a budget stone or just hardened wood will work. Throwing knives are more limited in use- whether you're carrying 1 or 6, you still want to be able to retrieve them.
Throwing weapons are not unprecedented in battle. For instance Roman legionaries carried pila into battle to lob at the enemy and hopefully break their formation. No reason you couldn't carry a few throwing knives with you to try to distract or disrupt the enemy.
Don't throw the knife. Use guile to get close and cut his throat.
Throwing weapons you say? How about unscrewing the pommel of your sword and throwing it at your enemy to end him rightly?
In ranged weapons, don't forget slings. Shepherds used them all the time, doesn't require much strength.
Yup. Hand artillery. And is devastating.
The Romans had slingers equipped with bronze bullets and I think porcelain bullets too. Porcelain= sharp shards flying
bronze= hit like a sledgehammer.
It requires dexterity
I thought it only killed giants 🤣
@@Richard_Nickerson yeah a lot more.
It is much easier to master a bow then a sling. I have been trying for years.
I hope someday I'm good at it.
Archery was an acceptable sport for high-class women at the end of the 19th century- I think, that’s where this image comes from.
Would be interesting see the conditions in that sport, what kind of bow they used, distance, etc. Anyway I think the point here is "using it for combat", and use a bow in combat and use it in a sport is very diferent. In reality even a normal man, no trained, cant shot a bow much more than 3 or 4 times before start to feel very tired and lose a lot of power in the shots. I have used a bow before, I dont have a atletic body or strong arms/back, and I was very surprised at the effort it took.
@@natsumenukunuku True, sport archery differs very much from battle archery. In Sport you go for precision, not for speed or amount of shooted arrows.
Also they use different kind of bow than long bow. Reflection bow would be better for female warrior. I'm woman with strength below average and can use reflection bow without much effort, so I guess for only a bit more fit woman it would be good choice.
It was also a popular sport among both (noble) men and women in the tudor period.
A competition bow has around 40 pounds if I'm not wrong, while medieval warbows had up to 180 pounds. Few people can handle these warbows nowadays. It's not only about precision, to shoot targets a heavy bow is not required at all, while in a war, you would want a bow that can out range your enemies' bows and can be lethal at long distances. A competition bow would simply not be lethal enough in a war(maybe only against enemy without any type of armor and using broadheads, but against a standard medieval soldier, would not even pierce the gambeson)
The most powerful weapon for someone with less physical strength is clearly a thermonuclear ICBM.
Is that why USA still doesnt have woman president of federation xD and why only Trump is constantly trying to use them xD?
www.aol.com/article/news/2019/08/26/trump-denies-claim-that-he-wanted-to-drop-nuclear-bombs-to-stop-hurricanes-from-hitting-the-us/23801553/?fbclid=IwAR2KPcobvVvNOL6l6u3VEXqHg2C6cFZ53MnTS_xfVW2lo43IQBRXlnun43k
Idk they look pretty heavy
But they can't press the button if you disable their hand!
@@DzinkyDzink I see what you did there, fellow trooper ;)
@@DzinkyDzink Medic!!!
I would say they best melee weapon for a woman would probably be a pole arm. In Japan there was a Samurai cast for women called: Onna-bugeisha and they were notorious for using the Naginata. A pole arm similar to Glaive. It allowed women to fight an opponent of superior strength because it kept her foe at a distance so the he could not use his strength and she could use the pole and blade as a lever to further negate (if not reverse) the advantage of her opponent. Its a good read.
@Corvo@AZ Being a part of the bushi cast did not exclude gender. Bandits were very common, so they would typically rally the defense of thier land while their husbands were at war. Bushi Women were expected to burn with their castle if they were to fail at defending it. Being skilled at archery and pole arm use was a status symbol and a part of maintaining honor of their cast. Very rarely, women could become generals or major officers in an army.
Women being removed from armed conflict mostly was influenced by edo era neo-confucianism, which had major restrictions on roles of women in public and private. The Chinese bureaucracy had very low opinions on women and China's influence and emulation brought that as well.
@@ZhangHe2369 Just adding to the conversation here! Nearly anyone with a sharply tipped spear can be amazingly effective in group combat. It matters little how strong the combatants are if one group has a bunch of long metal spikes that can poke through gaps in armor, or out-range all the swords. Obviously spears aren't a 100% win, but historically, before the invention of firearms, it's the spears that won wars!
Corrupted monk vibes
@Corvo@AZ whys that an issue
That's really interesting- thanks for sharing! Currently trying to write a female fighter into my book, but she's not strong enough to really be useful with a sword.
I have a handy table I like to use:
strong man: spear.
strong woman: spear.
weak man: spear.
weak woman: spear.
:D Great video Shad.
More like:
Strong Man: Halberd/Zweihander
Strong woman: Sword/Spear
Weak man:Spear/Sword
Weak woman:Spear
While I am not an expert in HEMA, I can see logic in this. Spears are easier to make than swords and Skallagrim chose this as a weapon of choice for those with little to no martial arts training. So if a woman had to defend herself from an attacker and was able to grab a spear I think she might have a chance. Spears were often used since the days Man lived in tribes and small communities.
But like I said I am no expert in HEMA so this is just a layman's opinion.
Amen. Spears are just awesome.
#reach
TheRemainingFaithful spears also have way more reach (ridiculously important in combat), can be used one handed(allowing shield), and are very precise. So spears were cheap, required little training, and were the most effective if not one of battlefield weapons of the time. So essentially spears are absurdly o.p. which explains why sone varient of spears were used throughout almost all of human history even into the dawn of gunpowder
Monday's Insanity, I also think if for some reason you might need to, the spear could be made into a throwing weapon, right?
It has been some years since I used martial arts, but as a woman holding a black belt in Okinawa karate I have some experience with weapons. My favorite is the Bo; that is, the long pole like Little John used in Robin Hood. It's very practical. It's long to stay out of reach of someone stronger, fast to spin if it's balanced right, fun to use and very effective for disarming someone, knocking them off their feet and then beating the snot out of them (not from personal experience disclaimer). Plus, even if you don't carry your own 6 ft.-long pole around with you, there are always billiard cues, broom handles and other Jackie Chan type stuff in the environment that your character can grab in a pinch.
If you don't pay no toll then we don't eat no rolls. Lol
Joan Caldwell i also did a few years of bo training as a 9-13 year old. I wish i had continued it tbh, but there came a point where it wasn't "cool" or "girly" so i gave in to societal pressures and stopped learning.
These days I'd very much like to take the bo to the next step, the ko-naginata. Apparently the naginata martial arts are primarily dominated by women, because they were used by women to defend their homes since the feudal period in Japan. Though these days i guess i don't have the time or money to really get involved, unfortunately. I'm also unfortunately back in the US now, where there aren't very many naginata dojos.
@Young Victor Yes because societal pressures play no role whatsoever in the life of a 13yr old.
Nice. As for me I prefer the tonfa. Its versatile and very natural in the hand. And also, (specific to my case) I took a form of silat that uses a backhand grip with a machete. Most of the moves we do does not even require the thing, but the machete can produce a better effect, because its a blade rather than flesh covered bones. So its kinda close to a tonfa, and might be easier to explain because its just wood (or steel) rather than a "scary" sharp blade
@@RepudiatedTruth Only as much as they allow.
One of my fav books when I was younger was called the Ranger's Apprentice, and what I really loved was that the main character used a massive bow which had hundreds of pounds of draw, and it was clear about that. The princess used a sling and it worked really well for her.
Lina I loved those books as a kid. I wanted to learn archery for such a long time just because of the incredible way the archery was written
I loved ranger's apprentice. Great series.
Those books are the best! There's a sequel series where Will trains a female apprentice, who uses both a bow and a sling, and it's really interesting how the author handles it. There's also a spinoff series, Brotherband, where there is a female main character who uses an atlatl, and it's awesome. Love those books!
messed with that series heavy. made me want to be a ranger, even without magic
@@aurorameyer159 It was so good, royal ranger was amazing. It was also great in the 12th book of rangers apprentice how they confronted she wouldn’t be as good with strong bows, but she would be great at sneaking around and all due to females naturally being more nimble.
Xena taught me that the ideal weapon for a woman is this weird disc-type thingy that comes apart in the middle.
neriumsuitedher lol
neriumsuitedher chakram
Isn't the Chakram from the middle east?
I watched the hell out of that, and Hercules. I want to go on a Xena and Hercules binge now.
Chakram
I remember a scene in a book where a character calls the bluff of another because the bow was held back for so long. He knew that the bow wasn't really a threat, because it was held at full during the whole conversation. He and his buddy then proceeded to give the thieves advice on how to actually be a threat someone. The book was Theft of Swords by Michael J. Sullivan, who I think did his martial art research, because (to me, an inexperienced newbie) the combat made sense in a way Hollywood combat never does.
I was thinking of this while watching this video too. And then Royce tells them to get crossbows as well too, mirroring the advice here.
Thank you I now have another book to read 😁
@@hannahlewis8636 I've read it too. It's easily one of my favorites. Definitely worth it!
Is that because that shouldn't be possible with the strong bow, therefore it must have a very weak draw weight?
This is why the first colt revolver was called the “Peacemaker” and “Great Equalizer” because anyone, weak or strong, could use it effectively.
I think the quote went like this... "God made some men big and some men small. But Mr. Colt made them all equal".
@Tianruo Yang it's because it leaves peaces of brain on the wall
That's a bit overstated. Even with a handgun, a weak person is going to have more trouble keeping the muzzle on target, especially for follow-up shots due to recoil, and is going to be either less accurate or have a slower rate of fire or both. I've known plenty of weak people who have a hard time even holding their arms up with an ordinary gun and want something lighter and with a shorter barrel to move the center of mass closer to their hands. Lower weight forces you to choose between more recoil or less powerful ammo, or both. Shorter barrel means a shorter sight radius (lowering accuracy) and less time for the gases to impart energy to the bullet, further reducing power.
Aram Fingal this is true, but it is still more of an equal playing field. It is easier to win using a gun against a stronger person with a gun than it would be if both combatants had swords or clubs.
@@aramfingal5180 this is true but people have second thoughts when they see someone with an armed gun.
In feudal Japan, the naginata (polearm weapon) was considered the optimal weapon for a woman to use to defend her home while her husband was away a war. The reasoning was that a woman didn't have to deal with a man's strength, speed, or skill up close (like in a katana duel) and just fight at a distance. The naginata quickly grew to become an iconic symbol of female prowess in Japan. Naginata tournaments in modern Japan are almost entirely comprised of women.
Japan actually had their own female samurai unit called the Onna-Bugeisha who used naginata’s exclusively 👍🏽
@@sladewilson9718 They were never samurai, in fact.
If I worked in Hollywood, I'd consult this guy for everything fantasy related.
This isn't a great video to say that on. While it's true-ish that a rapier weighs the same as an arming sword, they are much more agile in the hand because of how that weight is distributed. The point of balance (which isn't quite the same as weight distribution but close enough) on a typical arming sword is 3"-5"/7.6-12.7cm from the hilt, where on rapier it typically tops out at around 3"/7.6cm. The reduced mass of the blade also reduces momentum, making it easier to stop and redirect the blade. Consider that an ax or mace also weighs roughly the same as an arming sword. How easy or difficult a sword is to move around is less about the raw weight of the weapon, and more about how that weight is distributed.
@@corneredfox Doesn't change the fact that the stereotype of rapiers are considered light and agile and thus are used in fantasy for "weaker" characters who have a fast and agile playstyle is absolutely ludicrous. Daggers and short swords are the best for that, not rapiers lol. Rapiers can be longer and more cumbersome than some standard arming swords.
@@LethalByChoice Knives, daggers, and shortswords would be infinitely worse. Not only is the shorter reach problematic on its own, now you're also inside of grappling range. If you're "weaker," that's a contest you absolutely *_do not_* want to get in.
Rapiers, with their long blade lengths (which are usually much longer than arming swords, some are even longer than a typical longsword), can keep you outside of that range; their weight distribution makes them relatively easy to control as well. Their main shortcoming is lack of true cutting power, mostly reliant on thrusts (or stupidly precise cuts) to actually end a fight.
@@corneredfox the rapier is at an enormous disadvantage against someone with armor though. It's a tired trope for weak characters to use it. A weaker person would be perfectly capable of using a spear effectively.
Basic pointed stick>special shiny pointed stick.
@@DoctorSantaPhD While a spear would be a perfectly acceptable weapon, it's a bit tiring if you're having to carry it around all day just doing day-to-day errands. Also you can't exactly have a second spear strapped to your hip in case your first one breaks. While a rapier isn't exactly ideal for wearing around, it's not as bad as a spear is, and you can have one at your side along with the spear (or other polearm) in hand.
As for armor, while no sword is good for plate armor, the thin tip of a rapier is even better than a longsword at dealing with (chain)mail - whether worn as a stand-alone armor or as voiders.
So little cute girls under 3 feet tall don't wield giant hammers?
xenoblad Those Lolis aren't exactly weak though
In those cases strength is powered by craziness rather than muscle power, and when you have that much strength why not use a giant hammer?
xenoblad LOL, that only could happen from the power of anime logic and magical girls!
xenoblad IT'S THE POWER OF MOE, I TELL YOU
eh, few years ago a crazy woman dragged 6 police officers across a motorway in Britain, center of gravity and short term bursts of momentum play a role there but crazy=stronger certainly isn't just an anime thing.
And here's me in the background yelling "SPEAR! SPEEEAAAAAAR!" at my computer screen.
Had the same thing. Only I also thought about the cross-bow.
Good range and killing power without needing years of practice? Yes please
werewolf435 what if someone grabs your spear? I agree with you but that would totally counter a weak person with a spear
Well I doubt many people have a free hand when they go in well prepared in combat.
I agree spear but spear is better all round on the battlefield I think he was going more 1 on 1 or small group engagements. and self defence were a sword would be good tho I would personally say a shortsword like a Gladys would be best especially if she has a shield to use with it
"Best medieval weapons for WOMEN"
First thing shad says: "yeah no both men and women have their fair share of wimps."
What a legend. Awesome video!
Thicc boi *DESTROYS* both left and right wing with facts and logic.
Common Rabble, woman are more wimpy
@@Richard_Nickerson Look up Not Gay Jared arm wrestling.
@@Richard_Nickerson I bet.
@@Richard_Nickerson I hear a lot of excuses. Why are you so invested in the idea of strong women?
"What medieval weapon to wield if you're a wuss."
*Shifts eyes around nervously and begins to take notes*
Don't for any reason be ashamed. Realistic self-appraisal is key. I have to remind myself of that as well.
Marbo12f don't fight. use poisons. cowards use poison. Cowardice beats stupidity everytime. The coward is more aware of danger than the fool.
crossbow, plain and simple, xP more distance than poison
Marcusjnmc well not really. Poison has infinite range and it is difficult to find the culprit.
Look at Game of Thrones. How Jophrey and his sister was poisoned. Distance is not an issue.
I can poison a bottle of wine send it hundreds of miles to kill someone.
Honhoa Ong good point but bad example, Joffrey's death was orchestrated by people close to him, the actual poisoner sitting at the same table, high risk, the sending a bottle of wine is a good example but lacks reliability increasing the element of chance, ie. another person drinking from the wine prior to the target.
*Takes notes for my RPG characters*
Very pleased to see longswords get a recommendation, my favorite melee weapons! :D
Two-handed, though. Might make use of a shield a bit tricky.
Glaives, spears, and tridents/trishulas (like an Indian trident, but the prongs are blades) are my favorites. And bladed chains, but those are impossible to use irl unless you’re superhuman.
John MYOB Doe bladed chain?
Longswords are hand and half, but still makes use of shield quite tricky. Maybe thats why such combo were likely never used. My favourite also, and quite effective with even slightest skill.
just make sure they dont have huge boobs that get in the way of the two-handing stance lol theres a limit to how much they can be squished
Pole arms for less physically strong or short stature people. Reach and torque to offset the disadvantages. As far as i know, that's why in Japan, the Naginata was (kinda still is really in sports) the preferred weapon of women.
Indeed, it was meant to stab motherfuckers before they could get into close melee range, where women are at considerate strength disadvantage.
Yea I was thinking spears or pole arms myself.
that and iirc also when the longer spears (what was their name...) started getting used in battle in greater scale, leftover naginatas were simply just left there unattended, and anyone could simply train/fight with them.
and panzers
tanks are great weapons for smaller people. The less space you need inside the better.
"To train an English Longbowman, start with his grandfather" - someone who knew
From someone physically weak who has tried to shoot a bow in extended sessions, I can agree: not easy.
I was thinking spear, personally.
Probably the best option for anyone.
I always liked spears. People often assume that spears are ONLY good medium range, and when it comes to close range combat they are useless.But in reality that isnt true
Ikr? Women in Japan also used Naginata and other very long weapons because of the range advantage that its key against stronger oponents.
Well, that would probably would explain why my fantasy imagination placed pictures of pikes and crossbows in the hands of castle guards in my head.
spear is usually the right answer for everything.
only disadvantage is carrying it around in everyday life.
As a young woman, I chose archery as a hobby/sport, and before you began to make the point about strength, I was already there lol. I well remember my first pull on a 60-lb. bow. You are completely right about the bow poundage being a b****! A while back when I was a practicing medievalist, I came to the conclusion that in melee, I was better off with a somewhat short sword such as a Gladius, since it was powerful, yet maneuverable for me. lol, what I wouldn't have given for a "chakram" throwing item such as Warrior Princess Xena used on tv! I'm just glad I've never had to be on a real battlefield other than for fun :) Really nice analysis, thank you!
Chakram was a Persian weapon and Xena was suppose to be Greek but I guess she got around in story. Of course in one story she met David that fought Goliath and in another Julius Caesar. If David existed he would be hundreds of years before Julius Caesar, so not historically accurate on time period of myth and legions. Hercules should also have been hundreds of years before Julius Caesar as was based on Greek Herakles.
Depends, my friend.
Depends on weight, height (and as the video pointed out women are generally weaker because they are generally shorter and lighter, not due to some magical female-male thing) training, individual weapons (hint: small and fast people who still like to be up and close to you tend to have a dagger as a preferred weapon. Speaking from personal experience), strength (which depends on height, weight and built-up muscle mass. ... and by built-up I mean actually built-up by training, not that overblown body builder stuff) and skill.
What do you think, how would someone about 160cm, 55-59 kg fare against someone 187cm and about 80 to max 90 kg fare in either dagger fencing or hand-to-hand?
xena would shit on all of you in a 1 vs 1
I'd say the lighter person may be effed if it's hand to hand so to say. When I was training for kickboxing/mma years back we had all weight classes sparring together, so when there was a switch between partners you could get someone lighter than yourself, or heavier(I had the scenario you describe above, being 183 at 90 kg) there was a real difference in power regardless of being trained or not. On the other hand heavier bulkier people tend to tire quicker due to heavy energy use. See heavyweight fights versus bantamweight fights and the bantams are still fighting strong at round three while the heavies are mostly clinching by then. So equipped with daggers my bet is on the shorter peeps.
Exactly so! This is, yet again, so damn spot on! :)
Why do Elven characters use bows? In Tolkien's _Arda_ Elves were not weak... They just knew how to handle both heavy missile and heavy melee weapons.
I always took the elves using bows in LotR as just a preference for ranged weapons and not about their strength or anything of the like. Being immortal except for being killed you would tend to try and stay away from your opponent who can end your many thousands of years of existence with a stab of a sword. Just much better to lessen that risk and shoot them from a hundred feet or so away, especially when you have had a few thousands of years to work on your aim.
Its probably due to their skills and environment. For example forests are sometimes densely packed and so fighting with a heavy weapon there can be detrimental where a bow wouldn't.
They are also known for just being more inherently dexterous.
Hi, female archer and sword fighter speaking here. I've shot on long bow, recurve, and compound. Recurve, the style you see handed to women most often in film, these bows are not for penetrating metal armor (which is what a minimum 60 lb yew long bow would be for) and are instead made to be able to penetrate leather at far range and a gambeson with a chain shirt at short range (maybe a poorly made coat of plates). How do I know that a woman could have handled a bow that could do this easily? The average woman by the time she has grown would have been expected to haul at least 7 buckets of water into her home daily, wearing roughly 30-45 lbs a bucket depending on size, and assuming she was doing that by single hand instead of a yolk, in which case the weight on her shoulders and back easily surpasses 60 lbs. This gives very strong upper arm, shoulder, and back muscles. And any archer worth their bow knows you do not shoot using your arms, you use your back. You are meant to 'stack' your back and shoulder muscles, using all of them to draw back. Hunting weight bows start at 30 lb draws to take down elk at moderate range. Speaking as someone who started shooting with modern female upper body and back strength (which is far less than our medieval counterparts) I was able to draw a 30lb recurve bow back and hold for longer than 30 seconds on my first day shooting, granted you shouldn't do that because it screws with the tension in how your bow fires ones you release and is hard on the limbs. But it is very easily possible. I haven't trained with a crossbow, but I have shot them a number of times. They have a large draw back when compared with a bow, they take a LONG time to load especially if you do not have the strength for a crank back crossbow. Not only that, but the medieval styles are awkward to carry around, have you tried to go hunting with one? They're not nearly as easy to move about with as a recurve, and even longbows suffer in dense underbrush compared to recurves (not surprising since long bows are meant to be used either in an open field or in the relative roominess of a turret).
Going to the swords, I have trained first in rapier (mostly Spanish style), then in German long sword, and have on and off dabbled in the arming sword. While you are right that the arming sword and the rapier are of similar weights, the fighting styles and lengths of the swords are extremely different. The rapier has an average length of 104 cm while the arming sword has an average length of 75 cm, with the widths of the swords being just as starkly different. This completely changes how I as the fighter can use these two weapons. A rapier is meant to draw (slice) and stab, meaning the user is not meant to hack away at their opponent but instead keep the opponent at distance (hence the extra length of the blade) until an opening where an artery or distracting injury (the eyebrow, they bleed like crazy and get into the eyes) can be found. An arming sword is made to mainly to hack, draw, and occasionally stab, you are hacking through the weak points of mail (before full plate became slightly more common) and in some cases you aren't even trying to break their armor, but the opponent inside it. Even with proper padding and an excellent suit, blunt force trauma was common, broken wrists, arms, legs, ankles, necks, concussions. The arming sword is closer to it's ancestor the spatha (viking sword) and is often paired with the long sword, to be used as a means of last defense if you lost your long sword. To go with the long sword, I'm assuming you mean the ones meant to be used by the 'average' warrior and not the horse choppers that were handed to the largest strongest men on the field regardless of rank? Going on that assumption, long sword fighting styles require full commitment to your attack, and a lot of arm and full body strength, no feinting out of it as you would with a rapier or even an arming sword. This puts you at a disadvantage if you were wrong, and now being committed to your attack, are going to be cleaved by your opponent. Three different swords, three different styles, for different kinds of fights.
Rapiers come into fashion when canons and blunderbuss become common military weapons, because as we all know you can't out armor a canon ball or even really a lead ball. As canons become more common arming and long swords disappear. With swords disappearing and canons on the scene heavy armor becomes less and less common (because really what good is it doing besides being expensive and creating shrapnel when shot hits it?), But should you come into close range you still needed a reliable weapon, something that can cut, stab, and hack; the cut and thrust. Cut and thrusts were military grade thin tapered swords, similar but not quite a rapier. Rapiers were for use by kings, aristocracy, and eventually common folk. Rapiers, especially diamond shaped ones, have a reputation as being 'whippy' which they are compared to their German schlager cousin or the triangle/star blades favored by the Spanish. But again it depends on style of fighting. Even still a rapier is meant for an opponent with no armor, the other two are meant for an medieval armored battle, and a cut and thrust sword (military grade rapier) was your weapon of last defense should you end up in a close combat situation on a battle field and your firearm was not firing.
So I suppose the true complaint that should be made about these films is not what is appropriate on gender or strength, but more so what sort of fight are they creating? Is this 'fantasy' or a 'historic' film? Are the people fighting using weapons appropriate to their class (not everyone can afford a sword, in fact most people for a long while couldn't it's why bows, spears, and axes are more commonly found)? Are the weapons appropriate for what common sense dictates to be around at the time? Because I don't care if you're the best rapier fighter in the land, you aren't bringing that to a fight against someone fully trained in long sword will full plate armor (looking at you GoT). As for the fights we see in LotR and the Hobbit, it's fantasy. Tolkien has 7 foot tall immortal elves and dwarves that are still stronger than eight human men when they're seniors (Thorin). There's some alternative world bio-mechanics and physics going on there, is all I can say.
Anyway, nice video, interesting views. Just thought I'd share my perspective as a female who has trained in most of what you were talking about. Cheers!
Jessica Rech by the gods... another archer... are there more of our kind out there?
Erick Viana Quite a few, though mostly modern compound hunters and a few olympic recurve shooters. Historic shooting is a smaller crowd :)
Underrated comment! Very interesting read!
Why aren't you making this video???
The Sarmations used Female Horse Archers almost exclusively
Yeah it always baffles me when they give hobbits daggers and short swords in the Lord of the Rings.
"Oh hey you already have a huge range disadvantage, better give you a really short weapon to make it even worse!"
Cornered Fox So give them a two handed sword for hobbits.
Cornered Fox spears dude.
But for some reason, spears are seen as weapons of evil beings.
No idea why.
GREATSWORD FOR YOU FRODO! NOW FLY YOU FOOLS!
Apparently noone makes hobbit sized weaponry, so they just gave them small weapons, maybe a hobbit could use a shortsword how normal people use longswords.
Electric999999 They have blacksmiths who could make it though.
Crossbow.
Thus endeth the lesson.
It feels like crossbows are the answer to every medieval question.
But crossbows still require strength to nock/pull/load/whatever you call that action.
+Staun Shay If you use a device for leverage or a pulley system, it should be manageable, but I'd have to try it myself before I could really attest to that.
Thanks Tull
+Rensune
Thing is, whether it's appropriate depends very much on the setting. Whilst the tech has been around since maybe 500BC, the earlier/simpler versions were more in aid of better using the strength of stronger soldiers who could pull harder than the normal bows of the time could handle, or weaker ones who could buddy up to pull and latch the string harder than either could have with a regular bow (suppose you could have a pair of women cocking it and taking turns shooting maybe?). And whilst winched versions and even other semi-automatic (including repeater) ones didn't take too long coming along, the history of the thing and its spread is weirdly patchy.
Appeared in southeast Asia and hung around there pretty much forever until their pioneering use of gunpowder displaced it (again earlier than in the west), and made showing in Greece then Rome only 100-200 years later (travelling idea? simultaneous convergent inspiration?), it seems to die out almost completely with the decline of Roman influence, and not reappear in Europe until perhaps as late as the 15th century, certainly well into the second millennium AD. It's almost like one of the defining features of the dark ages and most of the mediaeval period is the curious lack of crossbows. Even when they reappeared it followed the same pattern - simple draw-and-latch "belly shooters" (as you drew it by bracing the bow between your stomach and the ground, and dragging the string up two-handed (or four-handed...) using far more muscles and limbs than normal in order to gain the advantage) came first, then the winched kind, and it never really got back to the repeating or semi-auto stage because gunpowder weapons spread from China and Japan (which would, aside from maybe Leo DaVinci, also have been the source of said advanced mechanisms) to the west a mere century or two later.
So where and when you can have them appear, and in what form, is something that actually bears a good bit of historical research in itself...
Interestingly, in Bernard Cornwell's novels set in the Hundred Years' War, the protagonists and other longbow archers are said to have trained in the longbow since childhood, and that helped them developed the huge muscles needed to wield the weapons, while the French used crossbows instead because they didn't do the same training. One of the main female characters in the books uses a crossbow herself.
Nice vid, Shad! As a former HEMA practitioner, I've literally seen this. Women in my gym tend to do way better with longswords and spears than with one handed weapons in general. Our instructor used to tell us it had more to do with the tendency to rely more in their footwork than men in order to get good angles (in the case of spears) and the narrower shoulder span (for swords), and I also remember him saying curved swords being particularly challenging for most of the women in the group, although I can't recall why he said he thought it was...
As for the crossbow point: there is, as you stated, no point in physical strength when the weapon itself has built-in aids, so I don't see why every women in both fantasy and fiction medieval settings wouldn't be equipped with one.
PS: have you seen Lindybeige's video on Ygritte from GoT? That "draw hold" trope will never die.
I'm pretty sure the reason why women in movies use the bow often is because the pose opens up their chest. It has nothing to with "weak person" and more to do with why their armor exposes just enough to not be censored. Otherwise, they would all use daggers and throw them...which is casted as well, but for different reasons, mostly because "balance" vs. "strength" is an alluring feminine characteristic. Look at gymnastic competitions. Ballerina?
I've noticed, too, that men seem to rely more on bludgeoning rather than using the engineering of their bodies. And women have lower centers of gravity on the average and can use that to more easily get into a stable stance and keep balanced as they (we) move. Low center of gravity also means a more effective and balanced sweep and reap techniques. And diving for the hole makes it hard for your opponent to get a hold on you.
And there are some really badass women who are martial artists that fling the men around at the championships and Olympics as if they were towels mopping the floor! The women are quick, deft, and graceful as they put down their opponent. They don't wait in each round.
The reason you see so many women and skinny elf males using bows in fiction is simply lack of knowledge and authors not giving any thought on how much strenght is necessary to draw a bow, and how effective different kinds of bows are against different targets. Basically they treat it like a gun (one with no recoil for that matter), simply point and shoot, but we know that's not the case.
Even a gun takes a stronger man to use. You need to hike around with a large tube of steel and packs full of lead and copper. That's a huge amount of weight. That's not including survival supplies and in some cases armor.
everyone should use a spear.
Easy to use, has long reach, not too heavy...there's a reason it was the most dominant weapon on battlefields for centuries. You can't go wrong with a spear.
Spear only went out of date with late Gunpowder weapons, you need Gunpowder to make that shit obsolete. And even then, Bayonets could be considered a type of spear.
Spears were so common mainly because they were orders of magnitude easier to produce than a sword. There's a reason many cultures saw the sword as the mark of a true warrior and some even banned swords from the hands of lower classes. Give me a sword any day.
Jeremy Mine
Ummm, no actually sword was the side-arm, spear was the main arm. The reason swords were held in high esteem is because later as armor became more advanced spears have lost some of their power and polearms and two-handed weapons came into the fold. Not to mention battlefield vs single combat situations and swords being used almost always with a shield in the off-hand.
Disclaimer: "Everyone" doesn't include people who are unlikely to have to fight and want a good weapon for the off-chance that they do end up being forced to for self-defense purposes, but don't want to unnecessarily burden themselves with something awkward to carry around.
As the video said, polearms tend to be better for battlefields (Because they tend to be better suited to fights), while longswords are better for self defense (Because they're more portable and less of a pain to carry around, not to mention a sheathed sword tending to be seen as less hostile in social situations than a held spear would be.)
History teachers should just show their class your videos.. history made fun
Interestingly at least one person has told me that this has been done. It was the video where I explain the names and terminology of a castles individual parts. I was very flattered by it. Then there was that time when someone asked if they could cite me as a source in a university paper, lol. I had to tell them that the only qualification I hold on these subjects is my boundless enthusiasm. Apparently that's not considered as a credited qualification ^_^
Shadiversity ahaha, awesome 😂👌
Don't be so humble. Qualification doesn't mean you necessarily need to have a degree. If you know a lot about a certain topic and can back up your information that suffices to science standard.
Only the form of publication is an issue.
So start writing for magazine and your eventually an official expert.
Um, no, unless you're interested in teaching people about stereotyping others.
PCGaming history is always fun
Frying pan! Indisputable
I'll see you on Mordhau sir!
Hey, it worked for Samwise Gamgee.
Rapunzel agrees
Must be properly balance cast iron, of course.
It's one handed and heavy, personnally i prefer my butcher knife.
Spear. Easier to train the basics, less metal, longer range. At close range, a short sword and shield. A trained fighter with sword and board will defeat the longsword with no shield almost every time.
Spear AND shortsword? Or is it an either-or? I'd still go for bow + sword and shield instead. For one thing you get multiple shots and longer range than a single thrown spear, and if you're holding it to thrust over a few metres, you get more time to modeswitch and get yourself ready to throw down once the enemy gets towards the low end of the bow range. And it's demonstrable that if you have enough ammo available it's possible to rattle off shots at pretty high speed, probably as fast as you could repeatedly jab (like, once a second with snap-shot aiming accuracy). And you just need to aim for the eyes...
@@markpenrice6253 they didn't aimed for the eyes because it's small target that moves(thus easy to miss). Also a good and trained archer could fire 3 or 4 times in a min. Don't knoa about snap shots but assuming you still have to reach for the arrow and put on the string I'd go with at least 10 sec instead of one.
@@aronnemcsik stop not using fantasy logic. Stop using real logic in a debate about real life circumstances. It makes to much sense!
@@TheFriendless1 oh my bad I will not use logic at all from now on. If I see any debate on this I'm gonna say MAGIC. The soultion for everything. LOL
Oh, just give me a flamethrower.
They could use flaming arrows or start grass fires, Flame throwers as we know them didn't exist back then.
FIreballs? (lol) actually, I'd go with Crossbows and poison. Maybe a spear. (As it's medieval times all I would have to do is scratch them and let infection and disease handle the rest.)
Petunia Wigglebottom Greek Fire ftw! :D
hydrolito Flamethrowers as we know them *did* exist back then -- you just had to live in Greece.
Use a flammenwerfer. It werfers the flammen.
Awesome video, it is weird how supposedly weaker character use bows, I do archery and it took a lot of practice to be able to shoot a 50lbs recurve well. For a weaker person polearms definitely seem to be the right type of tool, like a dane axe. In the hands of a stronger person it is devastating, but with training and proper understanding of leverage a smaller person could succeed wielding one. For reference I study kungfu and we have a polearm called a pudao (glaive), and using proper mechanics a small person could wield it, because eventually you realize that your whole body moves the weapon not just your arms. One of my seniors who I outweigh by 60lbs consistently beats me using good form and better tactics, even though I am much stronger than he is. No surprise though, he has 10 years more experience than I.
Bernard Weaver yes if you use your arms instead of your body you will get beaten.
It's probably because it allows you to stay back and still contribute to the battle (maybe picking off lightly armoured or entirely unarmoured but still potentially dangerous enemies like so many flies), without having to pick up a blade and try to join the melee proper, where you would probably be dead within a minute, two minutes max. Maybe even thanks to an enemy arrow. But most likely because if you haven't the strength to pick off grunts at 50 metres, then you're not going to do well in a melee swinging a sword around.
if you are physically fit enough to fight and have some good reflexes, I'd say the Jian is a good choice.
"Supposedly"
Looks in history for women being typical equal strength *tumbledown weeds*
pole arm thursts are heavy and soring af in case you dont know. swinging swords makes your arm tired. thrusting spears makes your whole fucking abs, ribs and shoulder tired. why would u think weak person can even compensate that. try 3 hard thrust with a 1.8m wooden stick u will know.
how weak you are?
*proceeds to load spiny crossbow with longsword as bolt*
Cantmiss Evershot.
Dr.Jex___ she misses a lot in the movies
Well, I agree on the crossbow, but concerning melee, I'd argue that a spear is significantly more useful to a weaker fighter than a longsword. Longsword a get you up close, not too scarcely resulting in pushing battles, where strength will decide ultimate victor.
The spear, however, doesn't require too much strength to wield, there is not much a stronger fighter can do that you can't.
There's a reason spears (or some variation) were the main weapon of almost any army around the globe for the until some 250-300 years ago.
It's easy to use, and requires comparatively little strength.
BoarhideGaming Most ARs and DMRs with a bayonet is basically a spear. so still in use. last recorded charge only 2005
I know about the one British infantry did in May 14, 2004 but who did one in 2005?
Trying to look it up I found one that Happened in 2011, look up British officer Sean Jones
9:35
bro, I agree, but pushing battles are a myth my hema trainer punished my class for early on ;-) if your opponent pushs against your blade, you just bush his blade to the side and create a nice opening you can work with while your opponent gets his weapon back into position. And to avoid your opponent doing so to you there's one rule: Don't push! Leverage is against you.
I would argue stabbing is less tiresome then slashing that's why I would say spear.
I also don't think large armies used Spears due to weakness. if you have large masses of men you are better of going for weapons for average strength people. because the average Joe has average strength. Duh.
Spears are cheap and easy that's probably why they were popular as fuck.
*applauds loudly* Finally.
Its worth noting that samurai women (i.e. the wives and daughters of samurai, who were expected to defend the homestead while their husbands were away) trained to use the naginata, not because of any particular strength profile but because women on the whole are shorter than men and so the added reach of a pole arm is extremely valuable in leveling the playing field and no warrior ever complained "Oh no, I have too much reach. I can kill my opponent without seriously endangering myself!"
you would imagine it would be beneficial for women to band up together for added protection. children could use the crossbows, too, in emergency. poison those arrows and you got some nasty lethal kids.
@@Redmanticore you'd get the kids on slings surely
Maryse Lightwood!
Using a picture of Orlando Bloom as an example of a weak guy XD Made my day.
A Frosch a picture with him as Paris, a weak dude, in the movie troy.
He is pretty dainty.
Legolas is strong. Paris, not so much. William in Pirates is a frickin' blacksmith. Kingdom of Heaven Orlando is... eh?
They need a katana. Cuts through armor easier. Therefore need less strength.
It's so sharp you can spit a cloth in 2 only by letting it glide down the edge with gravity alone. I saw the in a movie. So it must be true.
Best weapon for woman should be crossbows, very powerful and do not require strength.
@@withastickangrywhiteman2822 well that depends the crossbow does still require quite a bit of strength, quite honestly a spear is the best option because you don't need a a ton of strength to wield one and not a lot of training though a crossbow is kinda like the spear of ranged medieval weapons
Spears have no match to Shield+sword, That is how Greeks lost to Romans. crossbow bolts can even though shields, a woman can use belt hook to draw it. or with a little drawing tool, even an old lady can use crossbow.
You sound likr th biggest weeb tard. Good job.
@@anthonyteasley3837 The Catholic Church threatened crossbow users with excommunication because one of those little, scrawny, little-trained, poorly-fed bastards could easily kill a knight in full plate armor that costs years and lots of money to train, feed and equip. So, I'm with the crossbow, too. God created men and before Samuel Colt made them equal, the crossbow also did.
Anyone else have this 3 year old video suddenly showing up in their recommended for no apparent reason?
How'd ya know?
Yep
Yes. I keep trying to avoid this channel and it's nonsense, but it keeps appearing in my list. Is there a 'never show me this trash channel again' option?
Yeh.
yup.
That moment when you watch people realise that the scorpion king (Dwayne Johnson) is the only legit build for an archer.
I love that film! It's not supposed to be historically accurate, but conceptually, showing that A VERY STRONG warrior's main feature is his archery ability is very correct, and fixes the silly Hollywood perception of bows being a quick and nimble rogue weapon. I actually think it all started with Illiad, that association of Paris with a bow, but the point there was that he was a BAD archer so hit the Achilles heel accidentally!
In medieval Japan, the most popular weapon for woman warriors were pole arms (naginata)
@@praisejesus6750 actually it wasnt. The Yari and the bow was. (Yari is a thrusting spear. Naginata is a slashing polearm)
The reason being is that its two handed, can be forged the same way as a Katana, and allows for a woman's better agility to come into play
Maryse Lightwood!
Well, then there are lots of women playing in Elden Ring 😆
Axes are top-heavy and wear you out sooner,
Halberd: sweating intensely
The difference is the same between the arming sword and the longsword: one you can only wield with one hand, all the weight on a single hand, and the other you can dual-wield, both hands helping stabilize the bastard.
Speaking from experience, got a girlfriend who weighs about 50 kg or less: you are right about longsword, she way more prefers lighter two-handed weapons and practically can't fight with arming sword or sabre. But she is a devil with naginata. See, she is weak physically and very lightweight, which makes her way more mobile than your average mid-to-heavy built dude. So, she can use reach of this versatile polearm with great efficiency, changing distance and evading most hard attacks by stepping back and counterattacking. Spears are also fine, but I say that light cut-and-thrust polearms are the best for women / weak guys. They have no reason to be in close combat anyway, they're going to be crushed, so they may as well to maximize their distant hitting power.
Another point on two-handed ease of use: while using one-handed sword, very many techniques rely on your sword arm intense usage. But with two-hander you tend not only to use two arms at once, you always add other muscle groups, such as back muscles. And it is kinda easier to learn how to add footwork power into two-handed strikes, while it is less obvious with one-handers.
Spot on with the crossbow, of course. I hate these petite female archers of fiction.
Zomgmeister yes since females on average are shorter than males a weapon with longer reach like a spear would be perfect.
Don't forget slings.
Slings do require some decent strength to kill at short range and to reach relatively long range, but yes; that is a good suggestion. A staff sling would be even better, increasing power with added leverage.
I was going to suggest this exact thing!
To be fair not many things do much to a knight in full plate. You're generally already relying on stabbing through week spots or bashing their brains to paste. I guarantee you that a big ol' lead sling bullet to the noggin's not gonna improve the knight inside's day.
Ah, but that's just cuirass and a helmet.
A sling is giving full plate armored armys a lot of trouble. Slings have the longest reach and are a powerfull weapon to bombard the army with stones from the sky where no arrow reaches. Slings were actually used by quite many historic bow-warriors to increase their range. the stones or metal bullets have a lot of momentum and are able to penetrate as good as an arrow does.
Any real life Archer knows that you need some serious tricep, back, and shoulder musclez to shoot hunting and combat bows and crossbows effectively. The smaller women in movies are playing with the kid's toys.
Yeah, a woman archer (which certainly occurred, various peoples in history known for archery also employed female archers) would almost certainly have quite developed arm and shoulder muscles to be a good archer. The fact they do not in films is just a fault on behalf on the idiotic standard that even warrior women are meant to be scrawny and thin.
There is nothing that I hate more than the idea that bows are a women's or even a little girls weapon. My archery class was lucky to have an actual weapons historian. He brought in a recreated english long bow. This is nothing like a modern compound.
The best way to explain what its like holding a bow back is like holding an 8 year old by a tiny string while they want to wriggle around. You can totally control it for a few seconds, but it is agonizing to try and hold it long.
I also find it stupid that crossbows are usually given out as the heavy weapon.
wolflordjsww They're just considered heavy because they can pull a heavier draw weight and were notorious for piercing plate armor.
Otherwise, *real* war bows may take more strength to use that any swordsman can hope to attain
***** Hey don't underestimate a good knife. Especially if the person can throw.
Daisuke Yoshioka Sure fine, but they were still the one given out en-masse to the normal soldiers. You can make anyone a crossbowmen it takes a long time to make an archer.
True but in a battlefield setting it didn't really matter how good your peasants actually where with their warbows since all you're really gunna have them do is fire volleys in the direction of the other army once its in range.
***** yeah but the crossbow still does it easier
You got it: I think the key is that it serves most fantasy stories better to give women a ranged weapon. This allows women to contribute to the battle while minimizing their exposure to direct physical contact-which services _many_ fictional considerations. I do think gender is a more important issue than physical strength in this fictional choice.
Firstly, a woman who is at ranged distance doesn't need to have seemingly unrealistic abilities to avoid being injured or scarred. (A woman's beauty is generally protected like the limb of a man: it will be taken away only if it services a major plot point.)
Similarly, a woman who saves an incapacitated man with a bow doesn't present the same kind of inversion of archetypal gender roles as a woman who saves a man using her physical strength with a melee weapon. The symbolism is very different, and you would expect many characterizations would see a man somewhat unmanned if a woman saved him with physical strength when the man's was not adequate.
Indeed, the use of a sword (or club) as a phallic symbol in fiction is quite common. A bow, on the other hand, is curved and meant to receive the shaft of an arrow-a sort of borrowed potency.
I think a crossbow somewhat weakens this: it feels more like a firearm. A female character who is skilled with a bow feels special and valuable, whereas shooting a crossbow feels more like something that anybody could do. (I'm not saying that a crossbow requires no skill, but I think it _feels_ less skilled to most people.) A crossbow just doesn't have the same martial romance as a bow. (It also reduces or eliminates the feminine curve of a bow.)
I'm not saying that kind of symbolism is everything. It can be a trap to interpret every shape and interaction as some kind of sexual metaphor. However, these metaphors, symbols and archetypes do exist in the minds of both writers and audiences. A good writer will use tropes and symbols in ways that serve his characters and story, and a bad writer will likely use them through cliché even if they have no purpose at all.
TLDR: I don't think you'll see a lot of fantasy fiction put women in the front lines with swords unless ideas about gender change a lot. For a writer, equipping a woman with a bow avoids a number of potential problems and allows her to demonstrate useful skill in a way that emphasizes her femininity.
Please note that this is not a rant about gender politics. I'm not advocating any change in attitudes or writing: I'm arguing that there _are_ attitudes and archetypal notions, and that they affect our fiction. I'm saying that people are more reluctant to see a woman's beauty marred than a man's, that people may think a male character less masculine (or a female character less feminine) if a woman shows superior melee strength, and that a woman with a bow tends to look and feel more feminine than a woman with a crossbow, sword or mace. If you disagree with those suggestions, I'm happy to discuss with you. I think this is interesting territory. If you think I'm implying that your favorite work fiction is evil & misogynist, please read my comment again, as that's not at all my point.
Well argued. That being said, IMO it's kinda sexy for women to fight on the front. Bravery is a very attractive trait, and I don't feel that a woman's femininity is lessened by being a physical powerhouse. Furthermore, we don't typically associate women with strength and martial prowess, so a subversion of that makes the woman more exotic. Plus, there's something about a physically powerful woman that exudes a feeling of protection, like they can keep you safe. That being said, my only real female friend is built like a brick, does sword training in heavy armour, and is more masculine than all my male friends combined, so I could be a biased source.
To be honest, I'd kinda be the weak little flower up the back with the ranged weapon XD.
Discord Lexia The thing is, I dont think most males think being protected is sexy.
Also take a look at Brienne from Game of Thrones and then look at a character like Shae or Daenerys. Women sexually attract most men with a curved body, medium breasts, and larger hips. For a women to be strong enough to fight in a real medieval battle on the front lines(this includes the ability to march for hours, fight for hours, block and parry blows from men, etc.) they generally have to sacrafice some of these sexual features. I'm not saying thats bad, but this is most likely why most media depicts women far from the frontlines in a medieval setting.
What I always find extremely exciting is when a female character, when confronted with the need to defend herself, effectively uses something as a weapon that's not supposed to be a weapon. Like a vase, a piece of furniture, a belt, anything. I all at once shows character development, and increases the sense of danger and precarity of the situation, which I feel makes us connect more with the character. I like resourceful characters you use their environment to their advantage wether they are male or female, I find it so much more thrilling to watch.
@Blume Shullman
Jackie Chan is a master of this in his movies. He uses it not only for good action scenes but to great comic effect. I like his fight scenes because they seem more realistic. When a bunch guys come after him, he runs like hell and tries to deal with them one at a time and things of that sort. He's very creative and resourceful.
7:36 "and it might be not what you think"
me: it's a long sword isn't it
Shad: it's the long sword.
Shepherd’s sling:
Pros:
Ranged
Doesn’t require much physical strength.
About as powerful as many muskets
Cons:
Hard to learn
Perishable skill
Not as cool as a bow
David Krutov another con: on average a man would probably be better and more effective at it.
A sling is THE David weapon. To the point that fantasy settings give Hobbits slings with bonus against Goliath-like giants or trolls.
@@KasumiRINA
Biggest pro is you get to take down a giant with a headshot. Now that's epic.
Spinning a sling is a MUCH COOLER look than just pulling the string.
Is this what David killed Goliath with?
How did I end up here? Why haven't I seen this before? Weapons are fun.
@: eh...
you win some you lose some.
I found this really educational!!! I love history and love getting these stereotypes debunked. Even I didn't know rapiers were heavy! I love how there was so much analysis and history in every weapon discussed. Thank you so much for enlightening us about how it is to experience using these weapons.
Shad: "It's the longsword--"
Me: "I KNEW IT!"
The answer is a Pommel to end them rightly...
*I'm late aren't I?*
Only a bit late. Skall's fans killed that joke years ago :D
@@0num4 never death by pommel is the true way to end a noble worrior
My sword teacher calls that "dental work"
Late? Wizard arrives precisely when he needs to!
I'm so happy that you're rephrasing this question in a way that writes out gender from the equation. Even though you can always talk about broad trends, the point of interest is actually physical characteristics, not eventual inherited gender traits.
Maybe you missed the part where I said you can always talk about broad trends (which is exactly what you do here), but you don't get a discussion that is as exact and to the point as when you take out gender and just focus on the characteristics that are actually relevant to the combat - in this case, strength.
7:58: Umm...What if my right hand...Is considerably stronger than my left, because of...Reasons?
Strength comes from weight not repetition.
@@matthewbadger8685 Maybe the man's got really heavy foreskin. Don't judge.
@@matthewbadger8685 Strength actually comes from strain, and micro tears in your muscle, causing it to heal larger. If you whack it for long enough, your arm will get tired, therefore strain, therefore damage.
Source: My mum is a nurse.
@@theshribe Trust me, i've tried a low weight high repetition routine before, and it's absolutely crap for building muscle. That's because at first as you say, muscle fibres are torn and you heal larger, however due to the low weight your muscle adapts and no longer gets torn as much any more, creating diminishing returns even during periods of newbie gains - That's why such training regimes always result in low volume but high muscle definition.
The true method of gaining volume is to work with progressively heavier weights in order to maintain the same rate of muscle damage over time, with about ten to twelve repetitions per set.
If you want strength, you need to capitalise on your muscles lack of tears early on by putting in more effort immediately - Ideally by using very heavy weight with low repetitions, usually four or five. This way, you lift heavier weight but over a lower time period, resulting in stronger muscles with slightly less volume than the above method.
The word of nurses is crap in the field of exercise/muscle building, since they focus only on the health-related aspects with little focus on maximising results - That is why they only know about muscle fibre tearing and their healing, as they don't reasonably need to know any more.
As a result, the only way to build a respectable body is to increase the weight that you lift over time, otherwise you'l stagnate at a level of muscle size which is recognised as lacklustre across the board.
If you aren't convinced by what i've written here then answer me this; Why on earth do skinny dudes who knock one out every night never improve their physique over time?
Literally everyone does it, but I've never seen anyone with noticeably lopsided arm development, or arms out of proportion to their bodies.
If what you said were true, either of those two scenarios should be the case since their arms would never adapt to the weight and exertion placed on them.
Regardless though, i suggest you do your own research rather than trot out shit you've heard from others.
If the info is as good as you've said, you should put your money where your moth is and try it out for a while.
@@matthewbadger8685 My source is: my left arm is more muscular than my right. I'm right handed. That might just be the newbie gains though.
I would suggest the 12-gauge auto-loader, 45 long slide with laser sighting, a phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range, and the Uzi 9mm.
Good choice.
just what ya see, pal.
You know your weapons buddy
Or just ask Mr. Harrell to save us all.
*medieval*
nice analysis, shad. I think main factor affecting on weapon of choice for knightly lady is who actually taught her to fight and of course nation and cultural preferences.
but! history know at least one close combat weapon which was specially designed and adapted for women, japanese naginata. yes, I bet most users of this light glave-ish weapon was samurai men, but naginata-jutsu was developed with idea to give physically weak people a weapon of choice. And it worked quite fine.
/And one
TV Tropes actually has a page on this topic: "Guys smash, girls shoot". It's actually more of a cultural thing - generally, it's considered slightly more acceptable for a man-at-arms to be engaged in physical combat, than for a woman-at-arms to be. This could be its own conversation topic, but it's not the topic I want to pursue.
Generally, the spear is the ultimate n00b weapon. An inexperienced spear-wielder can easily be a threat to a swordsman; it takes training to know how to properly fight a spear and get inside it's dead zone between the wielder and the tip.
Also, more or less anything with a shield. Shields are the ultimate 'boring but practical' tactical accoutrement. Shields can be used as melee weapons in their own right, and if you can move the shield in position quickly enough, you can simply outlast an opponent (even a spear-wielder.) According to Skallagrim, a mace+shield combo is good for a noob, because you don't have to worry about edge alignment as a sword- or axe-wielder would have to.
Bows are incredibly strength and skill-intensive. There was a saying, "To train a great bowman, start with his grandfather." Swords are a sidearm primarily, much like a pistol is in today's military context - effective at a certain range, but keeps an opponent away from the whites of your eyes. There's no way a woman who's not a dame would even be trained in this, let alone using it at all.
In movies they give to women whip or two daggers for melee.
Both are really good weapons if you have a death wish especially with the average female fantasy armor.
Strategiusz Always sad when, in popular media, the dagger is demoted to a near-useless weapon of cowards, theives, & people traditionally considered weak. The dagger is horrifyingly deadly and, to my knowledge, carried by damn near everyone, especially knights and the like. Poor dagger:(
Bob Hopeldorf
Yeah but nobody in his right mind would use it as a main weapon.
Wooper is our lord and savior Fair point
true. Damn near everyone would carry a dagger on their person. You have to consider fantasy settings however in which everyone has a primary weapon and only that primary weapon that they specialize in and nothing else.
Pretty neat video. I read an article not too long ago about why women in fantasy media are always equipped with bows and it made a lot of sense. The author asserted that as the care-giving/nurturing sex, woman should be as removed from combat as possible, hence the range. That's why you always see female archers and clerics and mages in fantasy settings. Female heavy warriors like barbarians or knights are usually depicted as very masculine, not just physically but in attitude as well. "I wear armor instead of dresses", "screw the corset/bodice", "who needs heels when you have a good pair of leather boots?" And these characters typically shun feminine activities like cooking and sewing, which doesn't even make sense because in a medieval world these things are necessary for survival. As a character designer I've grown quite tired of seeing these archetypes in media.
Modern character design is sadly informed by modern stereotypes, which were largely developed in the Victorian era. Ironically in medieval times high heels would actually be seen as manly and really anyone would die to get their hands on any fancy clothes since they cost an arm and a leg.
+
Hello Shad, what is your take on women shooting composite recurve bows from horseback? Archaeologists argue strongly that women horse archers were a mainstay of the ancient Skythian and Sarmatian horse nomad tribes who once lived on the Ukrainian steppe. A female horse archer is able to engage more muscular male opponents from stand-off range. The bow and arrow provide the initial stand-off range and the speed and agility of the horse make it difficult for an enemy to close that stand-off range, says the conventional wisdom. What say you?
Men get bows with greater draw weight, out shoot the women, and then there's no more women archers.
There have been horse archer cultures for millennia, but all the alleged female archers occured in civilizations that were mythical in status even among their contemporaries and with very poor or nonexistent documentation.
@@BrennanCh06 Your show of ignorance is overwhelming. This is like stating a peasant can't use a knight's sword because we don't have photographs of it happening. Well done. Since you clearly don't understand the muscle groups used in archery, maybe just sit quietly in the back.
@@lydiaderhake2532 Stating he is wrong is not evidence of the existence of female involvement in ancient warfare. It's just abuse.
Perfectly plausible. Like Shad said, it's only a matter of draw weight of the bow. With the right training, women can use recurve bows as long as they're not victoria secret model's with no muscle mass.
But as for the stand off part... not really, maybe on skirmishes? Extra Range from extra draw weight could overcome the added mobility in large battlefields with no cover. I'd say there's not an overwhelming advantage, though.
@@BrennanCh06 www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/mongolian-amazon-0012510
Poor? Nonexistent?
Women in Japan who learned how to fight (and fought on the battlefield, this really happened) would typically use the naginata
Or swords. Or bows. Female warriors of all types weren't unusual in Sengoku era Japan.
The naginata compensated for a woman's shorter reach. That is why women favored it.
Exactly!!! The reach was key to fight much stronger men.
female samurai commander Tomoe Gozen was a master archer as well as a skilled sword and naginata fighter
I mean most combat in Japan favored either the bow or the spear since katana's weren't great for front line combat.
Effectively, if you're weak an' wanting to join in on fights. Get strong.
Or rely on stealth, guerilla-like tactics, range.
Because to add a bit of depth to your point, any melee weapon is going to put you at a distinct disadvatage as you'll like be facing off against someone quite a bit stronger with a more threatening weapon--possibly a longer reach and likely to crash through your attempts to parry.
Crossbows and well-aimed throwing knives delivered "safely" out of melee range. Or take a note from fantasy rpg Rogues (depending on the tone of the movie) and carry a dagger or two so you can dodge and weave into an opponent's blind spot, find a weakpoint, and just stick the dagger in there in heartbeat. Of course, realistically, it still takes a fair amount of strength to drive a blade into a human body _without_ any sort of armor in the way.
Or fight another weak person...
something1random23 I can imagine someone about to go to war "FIND ME YOUR WEAKEST WARRIOR"
Pobody's Nerfect 麦わら帽子 nobody ever said it had to be a war.
You still have to be strong to wield a cross bow, you need to be able to hold steady and be able to pull the cross bow back. Or carry a heavy cross bow (which are heavy) and crank it.
This was very interesting, thanks for the video! :D I think bows are often picked because of the clear silhouette and the kind of "noble" poses it can lead to.
In movies bows are superpowerful weapons which can go thru armor as if it were butter. Is like watching soldiers taking out tanks with assault rifles, so ofcouse weaker people can use them, they instakill with magical plot powers.
Everyone forgets the sling. It's a great peasant weapon. It is easy to make and simple to use, though it does require a lot of practice. Shepherds were purported to have been able to bring down wolves and even loins with their slings. I have my doubts about the latter, but historically we know they were heavily employed during the bronze age and early iron age.
I don't know; a slingshot to the loins sounds like it would take out most males.
.
.
.
.
(I know you meant Lions really, but I couldn't resist :P )
Ha! Good catch. That's what I get for not proofing. I'm going to leave it, though. Otherwise folks might not get your joke.
Yup, loins. Shoot that lion in the loins.
I find it more plausible than you, but only because I believe I remember something along the lines that before lions applied to the singular species we think of today, it may have also been used to refer to the other large cat species of europe (now long extinct).
+The CM Studio
Afaik they stopped using slings in warfare because they didn't have enough trained men for that. The Romans used Sardinian levies that were immensely skilled and stiff armour doesn't protect you that much from 300g stones flying in your face. Many people died after the battles due to concussions and blood vessel ripping from sling stones.
The most feared weapon of the Incas an Aztecs for the Spanish were their slings, which are said to kill a horse with one hit (probably exaggerated, but who knows).
A modern sling can throw a stone as far as 400m and they don't loose that much force during the flight, a frightening weapon.
The big downsides to slings are their need for a lot of space (you don't want to hit the guy behind/next to you) and that they are diffcult to learn/master. Most slingshot "units" stem from farming regions and the people there used them their entire life. Similar to Long bows, the only country able to field them in big masses were the British due to their population training with them since childhood.
What about a sling as a weapon for the less physically gifted? ;) I know that the Romans, Carthaginians, many other armies maintained slingers in their ranks.
Thanks for another great video!
Nathan Tonning Slinging a stone doesn't require much strength, but doing that throughout a whole battle demands some pretty beefy and calous arms and shoulders
And if you don't have it at the start of a Campaign as a slinger, you will have that at the end of one, assuming you survive.
well, sure, in an open battle perspective. A sling doesn't have much accuracy so it's better to use against a large formation. But it won't be as effective for self defense or something of the sort (see Lindybeige's video for more information)
because slings require more training than mastering three other weapons -.- in that time you could've build up muscles like Arni
but they are fun I can tell ;)
I agree
Poison?
Even a child could use poison, LOL.
Lord Eddard Stark: "I've heard it said that poison is a woman's weapon."
Grand Maester Pycelle: "Yes. Women, cravens and eunuchs."
Which is hilarious, since MEN are the masters of poisoning.
how are men the masters of poisoning?
MR.Chickennuget 360 When men created and perfected the art of poisoning, I'd say that makes you fellas its masters. The reason we women learned the art was because we tend to be the ones handling the food, therefore easier access.
Great points! However, I wanted to add that rapiers can be quite useful for weaker fighters, but not for the reason that is typically assumed in video games and the like. Like you said in the video, they do weigh about the same as any normal sword, but the way that one fights with a rapier is very different. It makes greater use of range and thrusts with much less use for cuts (speaking of video games, a little bit of me dies inside whenever I see a fictional character swing a rapier like its a typical sword). These thrusts are also primarily given force with the legs (which for most people are stronger than their arms), and meanwhile the arms' strength is mostly delegated to maneuvering the point which is in my experience not as strength intensive as swinging a sword thanks to the way the weight is distributed. The weaker fighter also benefits from the fact that the rapier is a sword that wants to be a spear, so they can keep stronger opponents at a distance (in fact, longsword and rapier blades are usually of comparable length). It has been a little bit since I've had the opportunity to fence with rapiers, but I think this is mostly accurate. Granted, the rapier is still a single-handed weapon so the user will tire more just from holding it pointed at the opponent than if they were using a two handed weapon, but I think that the other benefits of the rapier can make up for this fairly well. I also think that even if one is genetically weaker than average they can still exercise and train their endurance to be able to maintain their control of the rapier for the amount of time needed to conclude a fight. Anyways, I love the video! I just wanted to contribute my ruminations as a noodle armed rapier lover myself.
Good thoughts. Glad some one understands my frustration that people think all women in fantasy worlds should be archers all the time.
100 pound bow? All that matters is how fast you can run. Dagger? Depends on how many pounds you can benchlift.
Fantasy board games in a nutshell.
The CM Studio
Yeah, I know. But in most fantasy board games, bows are often managed by a dexterity/agility stat while melee weapons, like a dagger, is managed by a strength-style stat.
I think if a character, or irl person, can train up a certain level of skill with a weapon, regardless of the weapon, they should be allowed to use whatever that weapon be. I don't care if it's nunchakas or a halberd. Kinda want one for Christmas. Probably not gonna get one unless I make it myself tho.....
I think most people know these things (or atleast would not argue) but it's just nice to have stereotypes to rely on in storytelling. It helps immersion immensely when people assume a certain set of rules, and as such makes deviations exciting, like "wow that woman has a huge hammer what the fuck" etc. In short, stereotypes aren't all bad. They're just stereotypes.
Dorothy had a dog, Alice a looking glass, Snow White used a broom to clean house, Red Riding Hood had a basket of food and no weapon I am aware of other than maybe a knife to cut the bread. So don't know where they got idea all women carried bows in fantasy that is just a recent trend. Cinderella used a hunting bow when her father was still alive is an exception to the rule most of the story was after her father died and she cooked and cleaned, so nothing more than hot water, fire, knife or broom and whatever else was in the house.
This channel its so good man
"If your arms have the equivalent strength as each other'
Well, let me tell you about my Friday nights...........
My first thought is the spear. Can be effective with one or two hands, can be used with or without a shield, engages opponents at longer distance than other melee weaponry, and is capable of focusing a great amount of force into a very small area without a ton of practice.
The long sword would be great for a variety of reasons, including many you've stated, but it would also require far more training for the wielder to be effective. To add to this, a shield would not be easily utilized, wielding a long sword with only 1 hand would be even more tiring than a rapier or arming sword, generally speaking.
Then again...this is why spears were classically the most numerous weapon on the battlefield. Easy to produce, simple in operation, effective (especially in groups), and not terribly difficult to train up an individual or group on its use.
I love over tens of thousands of years, the ultimate weapon was just various forms of "pointed stick". Even the best ranged weapons were "pointed stick throwers".
To be fair to the girls using bows trope, it's not quite as bad as you are making it out to be. For one, I can't think of anyone who used this trope and gave any of the girls-using-bows a full longbow/warbow. They are always using lightweight hunting bows (ex. Katniss), and firing small arrows with small tips. The lie of the trope, inasmuch as there is one, is not about their choice of weapon type, it's about their fucking mythical accuracy with their bows. Katniss is a good recent example, so consider that one further - it's not that she couldn't shoot that bow with her physical strength, it's that she shoots everyone in vital spots everytime. It's not that the bow can't be fired as far as they portray it given the draw, it's just that she would need to be arcing her shots high everytime (which makes her accuracy even more impressive).
In short, it's not that girls couldn't wield hunting bows effectively - the trope is that any girl who picks up a hunting bow turn into an Olympic-tier marksmen overnight. The second issue would be Hollywood's love of pausing at full draw for (dramatic) tension, which is not only bad for aim, it's really hard to actually hold: yet Hollywood likes the idea of somehow becoming more accurate the longer you hold at full.
All that girls with super powerful bows shooting with super accuracy stuff, that all goes back to the goddess Artemis in greek mythology. So it was a fantasy from the start, the only "logic" needed for her perfect archery was that she was a goddess & her bow itself was explicitly portrayed as being magical & never missing a shot, on top of her, literally, divine archery skills. The rest is not about "tropes" etc it's just straight out fantasy, hollywood or ancient or otherwise that does not match the reality of archery, whether it's male or female archers being portrayed.
Yvaelle another trope is bows punching through armour like it wasn't even there
There are also those elephant breasts hanging in the corner of the room.
Yvaelle. I would say tho a women with a midevil bow would be much as the most common bows are long warbows with high draw strength next being a recurve bow which still has a high draw weight. now a morden compound bow different story
This wimp should sat that to my wife she uses the same draw weight on her hunting bow as I do 80 lbs. MY wife is taller than average but doesn't look like a muscle girl but she sends about a hundred arrows down range per day. She has been an archer and even a tournament archer for many years.
huh...did not expect a longsword
Sporebubu I didn't expect her to have Longsword
I did as they are easier and require less strength than most one handed swords
Even if you take some of the lighter one handed swords like some of the lighter sabers that might weight a bit below 1kg (less than 2 pounds) they will still be more tiresome to wield not only due to the weight but also the stance. As many of the guard positions with swords like sabers with a bit better hand protection is harder to maintain. You stand more with the sword held out in front of you, held in one hand that is harder than most of the guards and stances with longswords.
Same goes for rapier and that is not even a light sword. Some of the heavier rapiers did weight same as some of the lighter longswords
Ákos Kovács of course it is an issue of stamina and such. And training will effect that. but that still comes down to strength, at least partially.
if you do train with a sword you will get stronger as your muscles get used to it.
but still the strength you have to begin with can be important. as you would probably not chose to start practice a weapon you have to struggle with if you have any other option. like a weapon that suits your level of strength better.
But it does not change the fact it takes more energy to hold most one handed swords, specially ones with higher hand protection, even light ones in the most common positions those weapons are used for than a longsword that you use with both hands.
There might always be exceptions both when it comes to swords and stances/guard positions and so on.
But in general even a light one handed sword that might weight below 1,5 pounds are a bit harder to use and require more stamina and strength than a longsword that weighs about 3 pounds
how would a spear work instead of a longsword. it would be the weapon that would be one of the more common on the field. it would be used by the mallita as well as professional soldiers.
Sean Rea well a spear would work well. But it have some drawbacks. It's size makes it impossible to carry around in a comfortable way. you need to always hold it in at least one hand. So you can no go around your daily life while carrying a spear.
But with a sword that is not a problem.
A spear is also less effective in confined spaces. And such things. But a spear and a sword would be a good idea. That way you have a backup weapon and also you can easily have the sword on you when you can't or don't fill like carry around a spear
In Turkish history we have rulers and group of women warriors. Our history says they used leather armor, shield and one handed axe weapons with horses. They also used bow and arrows on the horses. You can investigate turkish middle assia history for women warriors/soldiers. We have plenty of them.
lol taking a shad on Hollywood myths. love your channel
You're topic brings to mind a moment from Homer's Odyssey. Specifically during Queen Penelope's challenge to the suitors.
She said she would only marry the man who could string Odysseus' bow and shoot an arrow cleanly through twelve axes. Naturally, not one of the suitors could string it.
So, you may be right about some men being weaker
Gem Monger
In metaphor? I never knew that and I've read the story many times
sadlobster1 I remember hearing that it possibly refers to a different type of bow which was newer at the time and had to be strung differently, thus it was a tricky way to keep the suitors at bay rather than a test of strength.
Shad, you should talk aboit the different types of Japanese swords. There is more than just a katana, and each have their own roles and styles. swords are: Tanto, Tsurugi/hen, etc.
Cornered Fox well im not an expert, the tanto is a dagger, and the tsurugi is a double edged straight sword, a longer version of the single edged chokuto, im not the best on the origins, and there are a lot more i cant remember
Cornered Fox those are the ones that i were thinking of too! I think that the main public perception is that the katana is the only 'samurai' swors. It would be nice to see a breakdown of the other Japanese swords, why they are the way thwy are, the history, etc.
from what I understand the "tanto" wasn't used historically by Samurai. It was a modern hollywood invention. I may be wrong but I know I heard it from someone into japanese history. I think he also stated that the smallest blade used by the Samurai, if not a knife, was a wakizashi, more of a short sword than a dagger in my opinion.
Capten The tanto dates to the heian period , when it was mainly used as a weapon but evolved in design over the years to become more ornate. Tanto were used in traditional martial arts (tantojutsu) and saw a resurgence of use in the West in the 1980s as the design made its way to the US and is a common blade pattern found in modern tactical knives.
Edit: may have butchered the spelling of heian,
let's also keep in mind that the favoured weapons of the samurai was the bow and pole arm. Odachi and Nagamaki were basically variants on naginata, often used as anti cavalry or crowd control, rather than 1v1 combat iirc
Thank you for bringing up how the movies have these characters draw a bow and hold the drawn bow for as long as they feel like. Always drove me nuts on the bs of that.
I would have thought it would be the spear and other polearms. I didn't even think of the crossbow and never would have thought of the longsword.
I knew it wouldn't of been the bow or rapier and would of assumed the pole weapons like you but kind of surprised of the two handed sword to be honest and it does make perfect sense when you think about it, just because of pop culture we think of the massive dude with the two handed sword.... where in reality a massive dude with a shield and sword is far more dangerous.
+MiTH MoN
Hmm looks like someone didn't watch the whole video again 9:31
I saw the video, I just chose the wrong words. What I sould have said was "I knew the spear would be their...".
I just wanna say thank you for ruining my Lord of the rings rewatch by dissecting the weapons and castles.
Arms and armor are actually given quite good attention in LOTR. What always made me cringe is battle tactics. Pikemen in front during a siege? Cavalry charge against the walls full with archers? And lets not even start on the "blob of chaos" classic orcish formation.
Ravensburger my two cents on the orc blob, the orcs were not necessarily known for smart with strategy. they were uncivilized and the representation of chaos. some groups would be better and stronger like the uruk hai but Tolkien never describes the orcs as the most militarily intelligent race in LOTR
Also, I read that naginatas were favored women's melee weapons in Japan.
Ooh, I like Naginatas, I hadn't read much about female warriors in Japan though, interesting.
Thank you so much for this video! This is something I've often wondered about, but it's hard to hear opinions where people are honest but not derogatory and, in my opinion, you've managed it perfectly :D
Hmm, the dagger would seem to be a glaring omission.
it simply isnt practical as a primary
I hate to tell you this, but Percy Jackson doesn't exactly have a good bearing on reAl life
gurugeorge as a killing blow against armored foes it is a good weapon to use, but you want to knock your opponent off their feet first and a dagger just can't manage that
+RoboGameBoy64 Precisely what i wanted to say. more often than not when you need to go fight in a war setting, chances are your opponent is a ferocious sonofabitch, fully armored or not. & daggers have problem stabbing even through thick leather, & if you're close enough to stab someone & that someone is NOT down after about 2 hits, you're royally fucked.
I think just piercing your hand through their armor and chest then ripping out their heart would be better. If that doesn't work, tear off their head. And if they still aren't dead then stomp them into a paste. Then incinerate them for good measure.
but what about the Halberd. it works for the Japanese in the form of the Naginata. the Naginata being seen as the traditional weapon for Japanese Women from Samurai households.
Depends on the type of halberd, but I think the naginata (especially those for women) generally had rather slender blades, so they were closer to European spears in weight and balance.
Maybe a smaller pollaxe?
This largely depended on the samurai lady herself, her level of training in the combat arts. Samurai women had the right to wear swords if they so desired, and some samurai fathers trained their daughters as well as their sons in combat.
Naginata(polearm "sword" technically) is usually considerably lighter the halberd(polearm combination of spear, axe and hammer) or I'm wrong somewhere? Maybe you've meant spetum instead of halberd?
+Jennifer Brewer
Sword was the weapon of last resort so to speak even for male samurai. After all we're talking about japanese metallurgy(or rather excuse for it) and type of combat judging by the terms.
Combat itself should be a last resort, since it represents a total breakdown in communication, ;-)
*Hey Shad!* Have u ever considered a collaboration with Skallagrim?
That could be really cool. Seeing that Shad tend to not look at the "practical use" or "combat tactics" in this videos of "Best weapon to someone".
Is there any record of what Joan of Arc fought with, and did she actually engage in personal combat?
The Biblical accounts show warriors being killed by women twice: Once by driving a tent peg through his head while he was asleep, and the second was by dropping a millstone on his head from a tower. That second actually seemed pretty common in the ancient world; women were frequently in besieged cities, and while they weren't necessarily up for a scrap with soldiers in armour, they could most definitely drop really heavy things from a really tall height. I'll wager they could work ballistas or other siege weapons too. Which is probably the best advice for someone with less physical strength in the medieval world: If you can, don't fight warriors in melee. If you must , because you're forced to, use whatever advantage you can. Leave the chivalry to those meatheads in armour who can afford it!
Joan carried a sword, though rarely drew it, preferring to carry a standard instead. In the few times she ended up surrounded and needing to use her sword, she tended to fight defensively - trying to keep them back, rather than aggressively. So far as I can tell, she never killed anyone herself, and rarely injured anyone more than a ding or scratch. As to what type of blade she carried, I'm not certain, though it was likely a common blade for the timeframe- a light longsword or possibly arming sword would be my guess based on images.
It's really isn't the question of could women do it, but more of whether their social role and lifestyle allowed for that. In nomadic societies, women could not stay at home, and had to travel on horseback, hunt, defend themselves etc. archaeologists usually applied a big dose of sexism when examining old bones, and deciding that any skeleton with arms and armor is a man... because of that we had a misconception of ancient people being very short too! For a number of reasons, after nations settled, he campaigning armies were almost exclusively male (until very recently), so the only way women could fight was, yes, in a siege.
I actually did research on this for a story I'm writing. The legend goes that Joan received a vision of a sword behind the alter of St. Catherin de Fierbois. The sword was said to belong originally to Charlemagne and contained five crosses. She carried it throughout her campaigns but the only substantial record of her using it was to chase a couple of men who were harassing a prostitute.
The Catholic Bible also includes the story of Judith, who got a foreign general intoxicated and beheaded him while he slept.
I think a slingshot should be a good weapon. Or a sling.They take practice, but so does a bow, whether recurve or longbow. I've seen some nice ones that have an arm rest for steadiness, and they fold up. Set one up on your gauntlet, and you could unfold and lock into place the business end to follow up your bow shots with close-range projectiles. You can even use it by itself. Light, compact, uses common projectiles. Uses muscles close to the body for power in the pull.
And a sling can be kept in a pocket. Even if you don't hit anyone, several close volleys can slow an enemy's progress as a shower of longbow arrows would.
So I would have me a long shield, a helm, and probably chain mail, and I'd learn to hold onto my shield with my slingshot arm and draw back with the other. And I'd be back, maybe behind the archers.
I have no illusions; I know I am not physically strong and need all the proper protection I can get. However, if necessary, I do know some in-fighting if I would survive such a war to be hand-to-hand with a combatant. A lot of that is diving for the hole. Some grappling and Judo. And a lot of staying in balance. Some sword moves (not many). Using environmental weapons. I can easily wield a cast-iron skillet.
Slings are useful for movement, such as aboard a ship, since they maintain gyroscopic stability. Staff slings are an easy levy weapon.
Slingshots require elastic and are modern only, and few would be heavy enough to matter in battle.
Excuse me? One of the oldest sling battles in history is recorded in the Bible. Please re-read David and Goliath. No elastic needed. Even today, Bedouin shepherds are armed with slings. The sling *shot* is a poor substitute for the ancient and deadly sling weapon.
Slings using 1 to 1 1/2 once lead bullets are powerful enough that Roman field doctors had a tool for removing them from flesh.
and it gives you an advantage in the 'lever arm' force multiplier; the longer the strings on your sling, the more force you can deliver with it.. ISTR a page where the greeks got up on little stands so they could whirl their 6-8ft slings above the heads of their comrades, building a LOT of speed and thus momentum!
Dodi Tov - you misread his comment. He said slingSHOTS are modern only.
I feel like the korean horn bow would be a good choice, was used by fort garrisons in the region. Had good range and was very accurate while having a relatively low draw weight.
One problem is also skill. Crossbows and Spears are also really good for those unskilled in combat, as neither of them take as much to learn, as say a longsword or a rapier, and if someone, no matter how weak they may be at the start, begins to practice with a certain weapon, they will grow stronger, and be able to use that weapon more and more effectively.
So I'd argue that its not so much about finding a weapon suited for someone's strength, but finding a weapon for their skill level, and what they have practiced. If they're unskilled AND weak give them a spear and perhaps a shield, and/or a crossbow, if they're unskilled and strong, both of those still work, but it also opens up axes, maces, warhammers etc, all of which only require a basic understanding of combat to be effective.
Ultramasterjedi shields require a lot of strength. When people start sword and buckler their right hands are a bit stronger. After a year they will have around 20-30% stronger left arms than right.
Combat has always been ruinous to the human body. Your rubbish about "brittle bones" has no bearing in reality. There's a reason infantry are always extremely young on average, and at that age sex does doesn't matter when it comes to skeletal integrity. I think your contempt for female combatants would get you killed by one in the real world. Never underestimate someone who intends to kill you. There's no profit in it.
Where did you get the stats on Israeli women's forces?
I call bullshit. I've served with women in a field unit, many of whom had served for 20 years and there was no sign of these medical problems you're conjuring. Give stats from reputable sources or piss off.
Ah, so you're just a troll. Okay, little boy, have your fun :)
I never realized how useful longswords would be! Given the context here, I am definitely going to consider having Iris-one of my weakest characters who also happens to come from a semi-medieval context-use a longsword if she ever develops enough strength and coordination to use a weapon in combat. Anyway, personal inspiration aside, great video! Thanks for making this. :)
One major reason to why Hollywood gives ranged weapons to female characters is that they have typically not wanted them to get into any close combat what so ever. Even if that has changed somewhat in recent years.
They're afraid to show female casualties. If you want to have females warriors, fine. But I hate it when they are too afraid to show women also getting killed.
Its war, people die. Hollywood should learn that.
It does not make any sense to me why that would be the case. Would you like to explain how you came to that conclusion?
@Gabriel Mumm It may have popped up earlier than CS Lewis, but he's the first author I encountered who used this trope. Father Christmas specifically gives a bow and arrows to Susan and a dagger to Lucy (and the dagger is strictly for self-defense) because "Battles are ugly when women fight." tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GuysSmashGirlsShoot
Funny you mention that, the *female* "Numidian" charioteers in the re-enactment of the battle against Carthage in Ridley Scott's Gladiator not only had crossbows, but the original cut had one of them knocked off the chariot and get bisected by her own chariot's spinning wheel blade.
Jennifer Beveridge the amazons of Greek mythology were said to amputate a breast so they could shoot their bows with more accuracy. So that predates C.S. Lewis by a few thousand years
Perhaps this should be phrased as "best weapons for not very strong people". But really the best way is get someone else to do the weapon wielding.
Woman are regarded as on average weaker
No love for the shield and short sword? RIP Sophitia
Seraephus I mean, she literally has a move with which she sits on your face...
It's funny you talk about needing strength to use bows. Reading "The Dragon Knight" series by Gordon R. Dickson, and in the first book in the series "The Dragon and The George", the titular Dragon Knight meets up with those who become his allies during the rest of the series (with a few being added here and there later on), and one of them is a woman named Danielle. Initially, James, our protagonist, is a little unsure about having her in the recently formed group that's going to attack these Dark Powers. However, Sir Brian, a local knight, states that the woman can use a 100lb warbow, as does half of the outlaws in the group her father leads, (blame magic for units there, as I think the author was American, and so is the time/dimensional-lost protagonist), which James finds interesting, as he used to do some archery, and found 60lb to be his limit. The knight himself mentions that he could use an 80lb bow decently well. Then there's Dafydd, who uses a bow that's easily 150-200lbs, was made by him, along with the arrows, which can punch through armor of the era (think Edward the Black period, at around 1350, although time's slightly different in this world of magic, dragons, and talking wolves), and I personally think could give Legolas a run for his money in an Archery competition, and isn't too bad with a sword either.
I love how you did this then moved on to elves and centaurs.