For anyone living in Sweden or visiting Sweden. I highly recommend visiting Birka with family or friends. It is a fun recreated viking age island. With shops, history to learn and activities. Been there 3 times myself. Twice with my family and once with my class when i was a kid.
Nice im planning too visit there soon too i wanted too go there for awhile but its been stuff in the way that has been hindering it but it seems like an cool place.
🛡🗡 _"Jenner won the men's decathlon event at the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal, setting a third successive world record and gaining fame as _*_"an all-American hero". Given the unofficial title of 'world's greatest athlete"_*_ , Jenner established a career in television, film, writing, auto racing, business and as a Playgirl cover model." - Caitlyn Jenner, Wikipedia_ 😁👍
I feel like this obsession with valuing women if they were warriors is anti-women. Why can't there be more research and value placed on the work that women did.
@@vladdrakul7851 I do value all women and men. Honestly I don't give a shit how people want to be. You do you. I am a pagan I come here for information about paganism. You know nothing of my politics and I certainly wouldn't discuss it in youtube comments - because I have a life. I'm obsessed with archeaology and watch what is in the media about it. There is almost never an article about the lives of the MAJORITY of women, which would of been mothers, home makers, crafts women, healers I would love to hear more about them. But no media coverage is full of women buried with swords. A majority male activity. Why is the media only interested in ancient women when they do stuff that men do?
I was just reading about that. Why is being a warrior more valued than being the ones who take care of the culture and knowledge of centuries? It's cool that scholars want to challenge the idea of gender, but I'd love that they started to give women the recognition we deserve for the work we have done and stop focusing on male roles in society. Come on, the viking age was so much more than raiding and fighting.
There were horses found buried next to swords, armor, and shields at Sutton Hoo. Originally, the horse skeleton was assumed to be a man, because "why would a horse be a warrior?" A baseless assumption to be sure. It took horses working in the Post-Species Studies Program at Uppsala University to consider an alternate interpretation. Using principles of critical war theory, these intrepid ponies tore the lid off the narrative promoted for the sole benefit of the Hominarchy. Horses probably rode men into battle just as often as men rode them. There were horses that were better riders, and some men were better runners. There weren't strict roles. Unless we sponsor the promotion of more horses in the field of archaeology, scholarship will continue to be hindered by backward assumptions.There were just as many humans buried with horses, so why do we assume the horses were their property -- how do we know that men weren't the beasts of burden, carrying weapons and armor for their horse lords? These discursive historical narratives must be explored, and more funding made available to do so.
Disclaimer - I'm no expert, just an enthusiast and I have have read none of the surrounding literature. So, We have a woman, wearing foreign (steppe/Ukrainian) men's clothing, buried with horses, archery equipment and other weapons. Questions I would ask: 1) does this fit with NOT Viking, BUT steppe/Ukrainian traditions ? 1.1) is her steppe/Ukrainian origin supported by any evidence (i.e. genetic, chemical) borne by the skeleton ? 2) does the skeleton provide any evidence of muscular development that one might associate with a skilled horsewoman ? 2.1) does her skeleton betray any injuries that might be associated with horse riding 2.2) did Scandinavian women do a lot of riding in this period ? 3) I think the shoulder muscular disparity thing relates to the English longbow - what sort of bow was she buried with - a steppe/Ukrainian bow ? 3.1) does her skeleton imply the sort of musculature associated with this type of bow ? 4) More generally, are the weapons that she is buried more suited to use by a woman ? e.g. are they smaller and lighter ? In conclusion, if she is indeed foreign, then she is an exception and therefore can be considered atypical of Viking society - meaning that basing an entire discussion about the role of women in Viking society upon her grave is probably a little questionable... I can buy the mounted archer theory because this method of fighting probably relies more upon skill and agility and less upon strength and weight (and in fact being lighter probably equates to being faster on a horse and so is an advantage here) . If this were the case, I would not expect to see battle damage on the skeleton because, if you were good at being a mounted archer, you would not be on the ground fighting it out hand to hand...
This post is old, but yes the weight of the burden directly correlates with the speed of the beast. Race riders would often spit (yes as in expelling saliva from the mouth) themselves into a state of dehydration before a race attempting to remove as much weight from their body as possible, some would even practice extreme dietary restrictions (so much so, that we might recognize it as anorexia if it was independent of their job)
The Swedish Viking activities were primarily in the East, trading down the rivers of Central/Eastern Europe til they reached Byzantium. They would have contact with all manner of Steppe/ Eastern cultures and Vikings were not adverse to adopting parts of the material cultures of the cultures they encountered. She might have been a Scandinavian who adopted Steppe dress for reasons of her own. Equally possible is that she was native to the Steppes who took service in the garrison at Birka. An isotope analysis of her teeth, if possible, would tell where she was born and lived.
Isotope analysis of her teeth indicates she was born in Scandanavia, Sweden I think. But she'd led a peripatetic life which explains how she encountered the steppe people as the Swedes traded mostly down the rivers of Central and Eastern Europe.. As far as her weapons, the drawing of the sword in her grave depicts a standard Viking Era weapon. She was also buried with a spear.
Speaking as a infantry soldier from the 1980's and 90's, even today the vast majority of women make piss poor infantry soldiers, they are too slightly built and weak to carry the loads and they generally lack the aggression to fight and win effectively. A 1,000 or more years ago where strength and aggression was even more important, in actual hand to hand fighting, not a chance. Shield Maidens were a thing from poetic sagas.
Probably right. But, I would understand the rational that its worth having women in their ranks because they need to have women with them if Valhalla is to be at all enjoyable. But, I agree, without the belief of Valhalla, women have no place in a Line Unit. I would have left the Marine Corps if I got to my unit and my Platoon Commander was a female.
I can 100% confirm what you’ve said as a former soldier of 10 years myself. It’s all good as a nice ‘touchy feely’ PC sentiment to have the whole ‘hey women can do anything’ bullshit brainwashing of today. But I can tell you FIRST HAND that they CAN NOT. The amount of times women were a complete liability to the team was in my time in the military was a complete blatant, hard truth. It’s a nice fairy tale. But when it comes to the crunch and the shit hits the fan of reality....it’s not their place. They can have their place to assist in certain aspects of support. But not in combat.
Most women have difficulty showing up to work on time, actually working for their entire shift, staying until their shift actually ends, as opposed to leaving early, and they call in sick WAY more than men. I also served as an infantryman back in the mid-80's and a women who is physically and psychologically capable of performing at a MINIMAL level is so rare as to be statistically non-existent. This idea that women and men are equally capable is just another instance of the marxist-feminist struggle against reality.
Exactly there is a trove of logical reasons. Hell maybe she wanted to be barried in her husbands war cloths or something. Maybe she was killed in place of the archer. They want to believe it so that's the narrative. Is it possible for a woman to be an archer sure it is but it would be very rare to see one able to perform in combat against men. Hell maybe they were short of men and woman volunteered to fight against an invaders for there land. But to place a fantasy narrative of todays social constructs created by man haters on an ancient bones is childish and a disservice to education.
@@odinschild2239 just curious... you KNOW for a fact you would win in a fight to the death against a girl trained with weaponry, using actual deadly weaponry? Also..young boys were also fighting. So a fully grown woman can't take on a young unskilled boy? A fully grown trained woman? This isn't a wrestling match or a boxing match. These were fights to the death with deadly weapons. Its not really about being a man hater or whatever to see that "women are weaker" isn't actually very logical excuse to outright dismiss it when its a woman, but have no doubts when its a male.
@@Rhaenarys a trained women with a weapon could beat an untrained boy ..a trained women with a weapon could kill an untrained man ...but women WERE NOT Trained , and men and boys WERE..did some wome fight ..sure at home if there home or village was under attack ,in ..maybe a few on raids ..i but in full blown battles ...nope because they were not trained ..and there is 0 evidence to say other wise. They aren't the spartans ..and unlike hollyweird would like to portray ..there was no ( viking age ) women warrior society..and thoes who did fight at all were the exception ..by far not the norm .ppl need to not use wishful thinking and movies as there history teachers ..
What do you think about this Roman quote saying north European women were more tough? "The women of the Celtic tribes are bigger and stronger than our Roman women. This is most likely due to their natures as well as their peculiar fondness for all things martial and robust. The flaxen-haired maidens of the north are trained in sports and war while our gentle ladies are content to do their womanly duties and thus are less powerful than most young girls from Gaul and the hinterlands." -- Marcus Borealis
Also, he's describing their genetic traits. I have some of that North people DNA. Every woman in my family is a pear shape. Large hips and thighs could have been misconstrued as athletic build also. In a time when most were more fit than today, a woman with thicker legs might have been seen as somehow stronger.
That’s how you know it’s all fake. Forget the Poetic Eddas bit, forget the bone structure not matching up, forget the clothing being inconsistent with Norse culture, gamer girls objectively do not and have never existed.
Julius Caesar wrote that German warriors would bring their women with them into battle to act as cheer leaders. maybe one of them decided to play dress up with the extra equipment.
Military clothing is far more utilitarian than woman clothing, so the female may have been wearing it for that reason. As a woman, when I'm out in nature with my husband, I wear his old BDU's. I wear my dresses inside the house.
Truth is so much sexier than myths. We are studying the vikings and I have found such disgusting lies on them perpetuated by modern sexuality. I love the way you broke this all down. I want women to be known as strong and tough too but not based on pure lies. Thank you so much for this video. Wish more men in all countries could be as brave as you.
The steppe clothing is the most intriguing pice of the puzzle for me. Perhaps she was some kind of political emissary or ambassador? Maybe dying of illness whilst at Birka and afforded a high-status burial as a mark of respect, or to counter any notion of foul play?
maybe she was a result of a political marriage among nobles of some kind, and since they have high status, the burial. maybe she kept to her native culture
That would seem the most likely option. Let us say that she was a Steppe horse rider, even if you aren't an archer, you're driving horses and potentially also roping them, which could also give someone a notable difference of occupational markers like an archer.
@Ian Miles Estonians are not the same as Finns and Karelians. Estonians are part of the Baltic branch of the Indo-European family, Finns and Karelians are part of the Finno-Ugric family.
@@bilbobaggins5938 Estonians have lots of mixture with Indo-Europeans and Slavs if I remember right, but they're still Finnic people with finno-ugric culture very similar to Finns and Karelians.
Newsflash, so is androcentrism. Any ideological position that is essentially contemporary makes getting at the past in anything like an objective way unlikely. The point of Birka is that the grave was initially misinterpreted as male simply because the grave goods were considered male. This is only one example of many of how not being self reflexive in how we think about gender (no matter what political side you are on) can be a major problem is doing even the most basic level of archaeological interpretation.
I think it was probably a tradition with Corded Ware people that women join the fight if the home was directly being attacked, all else had failed and it was a last resort. I remember an archaeology program which showed pretty clear evidence of some females helping in a fight against village invaders (the village was slaughtered in the end, but they did fight). Basically, the women weren't passive - but that's still far from saying they were especially trained for fighting or that there was any sort of tradition of female warriors. Probably just the odd one now and then, as it has been throughout history, and those rarities were probably freakishly strong and mannish compared to most females (like Brienne of Tarth, in Game of Thrones). It's the same in China. The earliest known fencing competition staged by an Emperor (something like 400 BCE iirc) was legendarily won by a woman, and there are a few other examples dotted throughout history. And the Chinese seemed to have no objection in principle to girls training alongside boys in village martial arts at times throughout China's history, so they could defend their honour (though this fluctuated back and forth, sometimes it was forbidden). But again, just very rare.
In the end, no woman truly wants to be raped. Of course women defended themselves and homes when male family were away. They had infants and daughters. They had investments to protect. Even, slaves they had to protect as they were technically seen as investments as well. That's a tonne of pressure. I'm sure most women had at least a kitchen knife in their back pocket at all times that they felt confident using in a fight.
I think the fact that she was dressed in male clothing is actually the best evidence for her being a shield-maiden rather than the weapon grave deposits. In the sagas it seems that women are only called shield-maidens when they are dressed in men's clothing and in one case I am aware of; completely hiding the fact that they are a woman. This is contrasted with women who are forced to take up arms in defense of their homes while their husbands are away, but do not embrace the gender roll of a man. These are probably those burials which are still dressed in women's clothing and accompanied by typical feminine items but perhaps with the addition of a weapon or two as well. This taken into account, I still believe that an overwhelming majority women in pre-Christian Scandinavia were not warriors nor had the desire to be.
Very well spoken. There were items placed in my Grandfather's casket from us, his children and grandchildren that were gifts. Not just items that were his but things that represented us, his progeny.
The norse word you mentioned associated with passive homosexuality is a cognate of the Langobardic "arga", a word which appears in the Codex of Rotari and has the same meaning.
women sometimes DID fight alongside the men in those times. There have been female skeletons found buried with their own ships with treasures which suggests they had some power or influence. but it wasnt common. women were too precious of a resource to lose in battle.
Here's another reason why women probably weren't generally warriors. I'll use hunting as an example. When we hunt deer, we hunt the males not only because they are a better "trophy" but because it's less harmful to the population of any animal to lose males vs females as females are capable of creating new life and males aren't. It much easier for a society to regenerate its population and numbers with more women around than men. In a way, in nature's view, a man is more "expendable" in that way. It only takes one man to knock up a bunch of women and replenish the population. So for society as a whole the loss of a woman is actually a more "serious" loss as it represents the loss of all of her potential offspring as well. Therefore, it would be pretty stupid for a society to allow large numbers of women to engage in very dangerous behavior like warfare if it wasn't absolutely necessary. So to all the feminists out there, stop trying to be men; you're important and valued in your own way.
The bravest men and the most beautiful women amd mothers have always been revered in many cultures, so the symbolism of female Valkyria makes sense, though i think it as just symbolism, that women bring life (giving birth) and claim life, in the form of beautiful, fearsome Valkyries taking only the bravest men from death, a cyclical symbolism which would inspire the men to be unafraid of fighting or death but, as you said,there could have been exceptions within the fighting order, perhaps when a man was lost in battle that his woman might take his place, through a desire for honour or necessity if they needed the numbers perhaps, an interesting topic all the same. And after all, if you've just died in battle, there could be nothing better than a beautiful woman taking you to the halls :) excellent video as always. Also, come on 50k subscribers, this man well deserves it and more!
I'm a feminist, but really don't understand this need to "wash" history with these stories. As an average woman, I'm physically weaker than my husband. That's the way it is and has been forever. Women had to take care of the home, children, injured family etc.. how the heck would they be worriors? Why these activities are less important or interesting to report? Great content in your channel, keep up the good work!
Two hearts I've gotten from jive so far! Lol btw, in case you're reading, Im just finishing up a masters in classics, doing my thesis on the cross-cultural connections between the heroes Beowulf and Achilles. Wish me luck bro
Both my wife and I trained in Martial arts. During this training we both became skilled in fighting, however I became much stronger during that timeframe. As a computer programmer, I have a certain level of strength. After ten years of training I am a different physical human male. So many white collar males have no idea what they are capable of.
It is a shame to live ones life never to fulfill the physical capacities one can achieve. I dont remember the wise man who once said that, but it is nonetheless true.
This is a very balanced explanation. I don't even understand why feminists are looking for validation in ancient times. Women had in general less rights in the past. So even if female warriors had been a thing in Scandinavia, someone can bring up other societies like ancient Greece where their status was far from good. Besides, we don't live in a Viking society, so no matter what they did, why should it have an impact on our society? Vikings also raided places. Does it mean we can do that too? Is it an example to follow? And we DO have women in our armies, it's not as if it was forbidden and they were trying to show it had been done before... We have female soldiers. So really what's the point in trying to show ancient times were full of female soldiers? I just don't understand how it's supposed to help feminism or women's rights right now. This feels like just empty virtue signalling. You are spot on at the end. It's very frustrating to see intelligent people get caught up in ideology to the point that it makes them approach a topic in a rather non logical manner :/ Also spot on about the left making an extreme statement then the right making a "reverse statement", just as manichean. The most interesting aspect for me in that story is that she was dressed the Ukrainian way. I'm still new to your channel and I admit I don't know that much about Vikings (I'm more about the Celts ^_^). I heard Vikings took a lot of Eastern Europeans as captives but then included them?
Perhaps the grave goods were her's meant to be passed onto the children she never had. From Tacitus on Germany : To the husband, the wife tenders no dowry; but the husband, to the wife. The parents and relations attend and declare their approbation of the presents, not presents adapted to feminine pomp and delicacy, nor such as serve to deck the new married woman; but oxen and horse accoutred, and a shield, with a javelin and sword. By virtue of these gifts, she is espoused. She too on her part brings her husband some arms. This they esteem the highest tie, these the holy mysteries, and matrimonial Gods. That the woman may not suppose herself free from the considerations of fortitude and fighting, or exempt from the casualties of war, the very first solemnities of her wedding serve to warn her, that she comes to her husband as a partner in his hazards and fatigues, that she is to suffer alike with him, to adventure alike, during peace or during war. This the oxen joined in the same yoke plainly indicate, this the horse ready equipped, this the present of arms. 'Tis thus she must be content to live, thus to resign life. The arms which she then receives she must preserve inviolate, and to her sons restore the same, as presents worthy of them, such as their wives may again receive, and still resign to her grandchildren.
As far as Viking shieldmaidens are concerned, Norse mythology was known to glorify the Valkyries (female warriors sent to retrieve dead Vikings to Valhalla). And based on a few accounts on specific battles and raids, there were at least some women who fought alongside the men even if it wasn't as common depending on who you ask.
Now to be fair; shield maidens DO appear in folklore so you could argue that at some point there were possibly SOME women who were on the battlefield. Though the fact that it's in folklore rarely could be an indication that it was also extremely rare in real life
As an anatomy and physiology instructor, I can tell you that testosterone promotes greater density of bones and muscles in males. The people promoting the "warrior princess" hypothesis are ignoring basic biology. That said, both sexes had to cooperate and work hard to ensure their survival.
Your conclusions are exactly the same as mine. And your analysis was probably the the best I found since the paper came out too. That said, I didn't know about your essay about gender in Njál's saga, and I really enjoyed it. Good work overall!
Thanks for that video, I'm actually making a video related to that topic for my (French) channel, my conclusions are pretty close to your, I also noticed the fact that excepting the shields, there is no defensive weapons in the grave, such as chainmail or a helmet, suggesting that she was not involve directly in combat, maybe she was some Kind of Hersir, a member of an aristocratic family who pay an lead a troop of warriors... because an important fact about Viking society is: hierarchy, the rank of an individual is more important than sex in some way: a free wife was superior to a man slave. In the French media, this discovery was interpreted by some in a feminist way (gender equality), but also as a proof that Vikings were "Queer" or "Gender fluid"...
Ever come across Ethelfledr, Our Lady of the Mercians? I’ve heard it denied that she took an active part in combat. I’ve also read that she personally, as a 15 year old, led the defence against a Viking attack against her own wedding party. We don’t hear enough about the Battle of Tettenhall, which I see as the real start of English history.
The sagas mention a small number of women took up arms to defend themselves or in acts of revenge but it's very rare. It was seen as an honorable deed though. I think being buried with weapons is a similar symbol of honor. That doesn't mean that they were career warriors. Most burials of individuals who died in battle or were injured in battle are all men, unless there is an exception I'm not familiar with
Would be possible that she is a high status woman who is related to a viking General. That would explain the grave goods. Also if needed, women can fight but it is Men’s job that does Not happened. Men are more expendable than women in civilization
How tall were these ancient women? British army cavalry men were only between 5 feet 2 inches and 5 feet 9 inches max! They were trained to fight on horseback slashing the enemy with sabres . Being small is an advantage to cavalry troops.
Is it? I remember reading Napoleon Bonaparte was only allowed to take an officer commission for the artillery, because he was too short for the infantry and cavalry. And Napoleon wasn't even that short, he was about average height for the time.
I am reminded of when Pirus attacked Sparta, while the army was in Crete, he lost again, but fought the women and old men of Sparta. My point is that brave actions in a defensive action could earn weapons in burial. The clothing is strange if not local. Could they have been honoring the whole culture?
The best view seems to be that unusual women (perhaps the wife or widow of a great male warrior) occasionally presented themselves as warriors, but there was no normal female warrior role?
Valkyries were essentially the God, Odin's, angels of death... They cannot be compared to mortal women (unless of course a woman particularly devoted to either Odin or Freya is rewarded with rebirth as a Valkyrie. But even then, it would still be a post-mortem spiritual transformation).
I've watched a few of his videos now and....I never like men with blonde hair. They look related to me. But I think this guy is SOOOO gorgeous. And hes smart. My mothers side came from Scotland. Wonder if he has any videos about scotland.
As I understand it, a Norse woman inherited both her husband's property and duties if he died. That would include his arms and armour, and his duties to fight. The normal situation would be that she'd either defer that role to an adult son, or re-marry so that those rights and duties would revert to her new husband. In Norse colonies, with limited population and higher death rates, women stepping into warrior roles would be more common in those remote settlements than in mainland Norse towns. Hence we find more women buried with weapons in the colonies than in mainland Norway. Those settlements didn't have the luxury of strict labour division by gender, and defending the place could involve calling up the women to fill ranks short of men. So they apparently did have warrior women, but in the context of inherited duty rather than an open choice. Being a warrior wasn't an alternative path for a woman, but rather something that could happen to her in the normal course of society. The Celts incidentally had something similar: The Roman records clearly state that Celtic women accompanied the men to war, and that the women would fight as a reserve force. Caesar says, "Woe betide you if a Celtic man summon his wife to the fray". There are also noted examples of women chariot drivers, while Boudicca went into battle with a male chariot driver. So this was a thing, in both Norse and Celtic societies, but it was neither the case that there were no warrior women, nor that women warriors were the norm; it was something that could happen within their societies. It may have been the case that calling the women into battle was akin to modern soldiers fixing bayonets, a last ditch move if they were being overrun.
No not always. there are specific circumstances when they did but they were not free to sell the property without getting permission from a man, It was paatriarchy
Given what I understand was the respect Viking had for individualism, I suspect that choice of life role was exactly that, pretty much disregarding gender. Certainly, given the emphasis Vikings placed on fighting ability, I would expect both boys and girls to practice fighting when their other chores permitted.
Just found your channel, subscribed almost immediately, but crikey your comment at 2:30 made me gag, great comedic timing, and the deadpan delivery 😘 👌
Im swedish / jag är svensk - been to Birka many times (even have a friend named Birk) and most likely thjis woman buried with horses was a watch guard/scout- or messenger, in the other times very peaceful town of Birka. Its well known vikings and others used to light up a bonfire to warn others in advance, and at certain mountain tops or higher peeks to raise the "alarm". My own suborn has a symbol of it here im from in Mälaren. So yes, maybe this "armed" woman was to ride up and warn in times of need - and having two horses is a great way to travel distance in speed.
quezcatol horse sacrifice is central to Norse paganism- they probably weren’t her horses but even if they were their sacrifice was about appeasing gods
@@Survivethejive I still stand by watch guard, we have them in sweden now, wouldnt be crazy back in the day, especially since prostitution was illegal for "norse people" not other people and they had checkers.
no problem. she peeled turnip with her sword. stirred porridge with an axe. used arrows for sishkabob. used a silk shirt for a dish rag. we called her retchet rachel the raven of the east. the beauty and the beast. made bread without yeast. her taxes left us fleeced. well you've set my imagination right off here thomas. have fun saxon son. take care spear in air.
In my second grade class we had to pass certain physical requirements in order to continue on. I think I may have been the worst in our class. All I had to do was keep my chin above a bar for thirty seconds. The boys, except for one who had some condition, had to do actual pull ups. They could all do it. None of the girls could except for one. She initially beat all the boys. She made it look so easy. There were one or two boys who took it as a challenge and were able to beat her record. Now the strange thing to me at the time was that our gym teacher was in no way surprised. He knew she could do it. Later on I read about some genetic thing that some women have that gives them crazy muscles and they usually have thicker necks, they are stout and have a darker complexion no matter their race. This fits her description completely. So there could have been a few and how many have they found? One?
You have a point (such as the effect of practicing with a bow). What I wonder is why someone buried with weapons automatically is seen as a man. If dna says it's a woman, she's not a worrior. That's inconsistent. If the items first say it's a worrior, then that should be the same. Dna have also shown that someone first seen as a woman, because of the items, turns out to be a man. That kind of bias goes both ways. Also, what really says that the gender roles where rigid? We can only interpret whats left. That might show rigidity, but, as usual, there's always a variety.
People like the archer/cavalry theory because the bow is romanticized as a women's weapon, and because this individual has no skeletal damage. The former is ridiculous given how much strength archery requires, especially compared to a one kilo sword. The latter because not every fighter received blows down to the bone. It takes far less to immobilize someone in combat, so incredibly deep wounds aren't a certainty. It should also be pointed out that archers did in fact face melee, for which they were prepared with swords/axes.
I think you are starting with the assumption of modern depictions when you say "It takes far less to immobilize someone in combat, so incredibly deep wounds aren't a certainty." The idea of a sword being a battlefield weapon and such. But if we are talking about people in armor and formation, blunt force and pole arm weapons replace the sword. That is a good point about the bow, but I think "ridiculous" is too strong a word. Not all bows have the same poundage and it is physically possible for women to handle war bows, though it probably isn't the best choice. That is another good point about archers being in melee. However for the theory of horse archer, they have the mobility to run away and pick their range against foot soldiers. So entering the melee is far less likely.
I’m super late to this but in my limited reading of Norse sources (I’m not a historian) it seems that generally speaking, sagas and the eddas are taken to mirror idealized aspects of Norse culture. For example the funeral of Baldr has been used to reconstruct what we might think of as an ideal funeral for elites with obvious mythological elements. Why then, would we assume there was no real life parallel for the shieldmaiden? Perhaps it was rare but I don’t see why it would be an exception to how these stories tended to reflect Norse life.
My daughter is being trained riding, shooting a bow.... she's got a sword and shield.... that doesn't mean that her younger brother doesn't calm her nerves when she can't sleep....assuring her that he will "help dad from the second row if burglars come in"
Well, Survive the Jive, just because it was not usual for women to fight, I would like to point out that 1. Romans did have women gladiatrix, who participated in games during the time of Nero, Domitian and Titus etc. During the reign of Tiberius, the prohibition on who could fight in the arena (only lower social classes) was extended to include gladiatrix, so they were part of the entertainment. 2. the Amazons are a Greek interpretation of Scythian culture where women did hunt and fight as Herodotus and Plutarch mentions battles with Amazons in the Black Sea area. The National Geographic Oct. 28, 2014 article on skeletal remains of women 'warriors' found in kurgans in this area proves the point. They even had women generals, the Scythian Queen Tomyris who according to Herodotus killed Cyrus the Great comes to mind. My point is that when faced with extinction' women can and do fight if this is within their cultural norms. 3. As for your men and bow strength argument, I'd think that a woman using a crossbow could be as deadly as a man as it negates longer arm length and the muscle mass needed to achieve higher arrow speeds. But why stop at bows and arrows, let's compare guns and rifles where muscle size doesn't matter. As for riding ability, women outperform men, in fact equestrian is the only Olympic event in which men and women compete head to head and it is a sport dominated by women.
I don't know about most of that but I will comment on the weapons part. Crossbows do negate the strength and skill requirements, however they give up speed. If you look at rate of fire of some archers in the modern day that train with longbows then you will see how big of a deal this is. I believe there is typically a big difference in range due to the design difference between arrows and bolts. On to guns, again your correct about this negating the muscle difference. But shooting is a small part of real combat. I recall a story from a navy seal about a guy that brought too much gear which caused exhaustion. Bullets are heavy, grenades are heavy, modern armor is very heavy, and water is very very heavy. (Battles can easily take hours and stretch into days. And inside the armor the temperature can easily get to 140 degrees. So water is brought with them in the thick of it.) So although women can shoot just as well as men, the strength difference + stamina difference is still huge.
Absolutely correct. The feminist types find some ambiguous rarity and all of a sudden all the women in our culture were fierce independent wamyn who didn't need no man, when clearly the vast majority of the rest of the historical and archeological evidence suggests the opposite.
the female Scythian graves had arthritis and bowed hips and legs from fighting on horse back.the viking female may have been a warrior but it would have been a rare thing. the pechenegs had female warriors i am not sure how many. they were fighting trading with the rus and norse .
@@Survivethejive yeah i don't think there were women warriors, but there might have been cases were women had to defend themselves. vrag said it best what kind of society sends it women to fight. whats your opinion on aethelflaed be a warrior queen.
@@nickdial8528 You're right it was the Solør, Norway grave. My bad. But she had more than just an axe though. She was buried with a collection weaponry, including arrows, a sword, a spear and an axe. Her head was laying on the shield. The large dent in her forehead showed signs of healing. It's interesting at any rate.
Not to upset anyone's applicants, but there's a female burial in Solar, Norway which included a sword, Ax and spear among other weapons. Interestingly, she'd sustained an injury to her forehead said to be consistent with a sword wound. So now there's two, one with a possible battle injury.
Again, we know that non combatants are buried with weapons. For example children and disabled people. The fact she was murdered by a sword isn't proof she was a warrior and the assumption that female skeletons are not warriors until proven otherwise is a sound judgement based on known anthropological trends of gendered labour in humans in general and specifically in the documented culture of the Norse as evidenced in saga literature in which female warriors are not prominent at all
@@Survivethejiveby your logic, burial with weapons is no evidence a man was a warrior either. In Viking culture, people were buried with the items they used in their daily life. If you believe I'm wrong, please cite some sources that document burials with only items included to "honor" the perzon.
Women warriors are common in Scytho-Sarmatian burials (the Amazon mythos of a purely female warrior society is clearly fanciful, but there clearly were female warriors in Scytho-Sarmatian culture) and I don't think it's any coincidence that the practice appeared in Scandinavia after the disappearance of the Scythians (very likely into Scandinavia, imo). Personally, I have some suspicion that most women warriors by viking times typically acted as "home guard" though, rather than as raiders, because of the relatively small amount of information about them from other cultures when discussing viking raids and the fact that where it appears in Scandinavian material, their raiding typically appears to be seen as noteworthy, rather than normal - though there are potentially also some small clues that this may be a problem with the later authorship and not authentic to pre-Christian Scandinavia. I would advise looking at some picture stones (the most detailed representations of warriors in viking art) before you ask "why would a real warrior be depicted without a helmet?". You can admire many different hairstyles, because a great number of the warriors shown are not helmed. You may also notice that the Gjermundbu style of helmet (the only style found archaeologically) shows up precisely nowhere in viking art. Does this mean that no viking art relates to real-world warriors? I would argue that it suggests instead that the information that we have about viking warrior attire divulges only a tiny sliver of the reality. Talking about the bow, we can look at Konungs skuggsjá: "Formerly the custom was for all who wished to become expert in such arts and thoroughly proficient in war and chivalry to train both hands alike to the use of weapons." So, asymmetry? Maybe this female was simply a very expert warrior and trained with the bow from left and right. =P On the subject of skill, it has to be said that not all warriors can be expected to have received injuries which can be seen on the bones, just unskilled or unlucky ones. A more serious explanation for the lack of deformation though is that she simply didn't belong to a culture where there was any kind of compulsory training for hours at a time with very heavy bows - the practice which results in deformed skeletons. Take a look at some steppe skeletons and let me know if you find any Mary Rose archer-like deformations - Scythians were generally avid lifelong archers (the name "Scythian" means "shooter"), so we should expect more or less every single one to be highly deformed, no? Look at other viking age warrior burials and let's hear about it - we know that the vikings used archery in war extensively and introduced the longbow as a weapon of war to much of Britain, so if your assertions about bone deformation are correct, we should see it in spades across the "real" male warrior burials. These people weren't full-time professional distance shooters; they were occasional shooters and their musculature can be expected to have as much to do with countless other everyday manual tasks. Also from the Konungs skuggsjá (Back to the 13th century): "Now it seems needless to speak further about the equipment of men who fight on horseback; there are, however, other weapons which a mounted warrior may use, if he wishes; among these are the horn bow and the weaker crossbow." This is just a hint that using a bow on horseback in war was a familiar practice in medieval Scandinavia. It can also be found in some Frankish artwork from viking times and on the Bayeux tapestry. The earliest illuminations showing Rus warriors (roughly contemporary with the Konungs skuggsjá) show them fighting as massed cavalry archers. At this time they were fighting against the Mongols, but we can surmise that if this mode of combat was necessary as a response to Mongol horse archers, it would presumably also have been necessary against certain viking age enemies of the Rus, such as the Khazar Khagnate (the main adversaries of the Rus at that time). Petroglyphs from Bohuslän show that the recurved bow started to appear in Scandinavia around the bronze/iron age transition, along with increased numbers of horseback warriors. In my view, this is one pointer to an integration of Scythian migrants/invaders bringing their iron age culture into the place, where it was combined with local customs. While we don't have any textual sources that I'm aware of regarding horse-archery among the vikings, there is insurmountable evidence that the vikings (and Anglo-Saxons) used mixed forces, including both cavalry and archers, just as the Normans did. The idea that vikings fought in a "shield wall" on foot is a myth, brought about by some 19th century clutching at straws (primarily connecting the "shield wall" kenning with a single misinterpreted scene on the Bayeux Tapestry). I think it's a bit silly to equate the weapons taken into the afterlife by children with those taken by adult women. A child who goes to the afterlife may not be a child when they get there or there may be a natural sorrow that they didn't reach their potential and have the things that they would have had if they'd grown to adulthood. In contrast, it doesn't seem likely that there was a belief that women change their sex on the way to the afterlife, nor that there was a general sorrow that being born female disqualified them from the things that they would have had, if they'd been born male. If I have to bury an animal, I might bury with it some preferred food that I'm sad that it didn't get the chance to eat. I'm not going to bury a sheep with a ham hock, sorrowful that it didn't get to be a dog.
Part the 2nd: Here are a few snippets regarding female warriors from Saxo's work: - There were once women among the Danes who dressed themselves to look like men, and devoted almost every instant of their lives to the pursuit of war, that they might not suffer their valour to be unstrung or dulled by the infection of luxury. For they abhorred all dainty living, and used to harden their minds and bodies with toil and endurance. They put away all the softness and lightmindedness of women, and inured their womanish spirit to masculine ruthlessness. They sought, moreover, so zealously to be skilled in warfare, that they might have been thought to have unsexed themselves. Those especially, who had either force of character or tall and comely persons, used to enter on this kind of life. These women, therefore (just as if they had forgotten their natural estate, and preferred sternness to soft words), offered war rather than kisses, and would rather taste blood than busses, and went about the business of arms more than that of amours. They devoted those hands to the lance which they should rather have applied to the loom. They assailed men with their spears whom they could have melted with their looks, they thought of death and not of dalliance. (I'll pause here to mention that the maidens described are noted as particularly tall and comely or headstrong. For a start, these are all descriptions of noble women. Higher status people had better nutrition and health care, allowing them to be taller and stronger than lower status people and this is reflected in textual references to them, which contrast them with small and ugly lower status people. It could be conjectured that the women who took these roles did so as a sign of their nobility - to signal that their families were noble warrior families and that no member of those families was less than any common man in any way. It being the case that lower status men were on average less capable in combat than higher status men, is it thus the sensible default to assume that lower status male burials with weapons do not belong to warriors or that the weapons didn't belong to those lower status men? What can be done to overcome that apparent onus of proof? The descriptions are also clearly descriptions of praise - something common to most references to female warriors in that society. I'd argue that the shame associated with being insinuated to be feminine was simply a common form of the shame of accepting any lie about yourself. It's a notion that if you let someone lie about you, they have attacked and dominated you, gaining status by taking it away from you. If the person really was your superior, you were expected to accept their insults, but if not, you were expected to punish them. It's also a good opportunity to mention that armed combat in the viking period was not a matter of strength and that BJJ is a very poor combat analogy. Fighting with spears and swords is much more a game of speed and reach than it is a game of strength. A female who is taller and healthier than her male counterpart therefore has an advantage in this type of combat, regardless of who might win in an arm wrestle or BJJ match. I'm a thousand times stronger than the deadly snakes that live in this part of the world, but I'm not about to challenge one to a game of slaps.) - The maiden Stikla also withdrew from her country to save her chastity, preferring the occupations of war to those of wedlock. - He exchanged garments with a serving-maid, and feigned himself to be a maiden skilled in fighting; and having thus laid aside the garb of man and imitated that of woman, he went to the town, calling himself a deserter. (Yep, a guy dressing as a female raider to be inconspicuous). - The maidens I have named, in fighting as well as courteous array, led their land-forces to the battle-field. Thus the Danish army mustered company by company. - The maiden Weghbiorg fought against the enemy and felled Soth the champion. While she was threatening to slay more champions, she was pierced through by an arrow from the bowstring of Thorkill, a native of Tellemark. - Alfhild was led to despise the young Dane; whereupon she exchanged woman's for man's attire, and, no longer the most modest of maidens, began the life of a warlike rover. Enrolling in her service many maidens who were of the same mind, she happened to come to a spot where a band of rovers were lamenting the death of their captain. - Among them was Ladgerda, a skilled amazon, who, though a maiden, had the courage of a man, and fought in front among the bravest with her hair loose over her shoulders. All-marvelled at her matchless deeds, for her locks flying down her back betrayed that she was a woman. Ragnar, when he had justly cut down the murderer of his grandfather, asked many questions of his fellow soldiers concerning the maiden whom he had seen so forward in the fray and declared that he had gained the victory by the might of one woman. I would say that if the art, archaeology and textual sources all suggest that (even a few) women warriors were a part of the society and there is zero evidence that can be substantiated for any other suggestion, the burden of proof is actually on those who are promoting the other possibilities. Ultimately, we'll never know for sure, but at this point, the only place that evidence lines up together is with the idea that it's the grave of a female with a warrior role.
Btw one of swedens oldest noble houses, "natt and dag" came from the knight Sigridsson in 1200 AD- the son of the woman, Sigrid. Sometimes noble houses had no choices, had to dress that last woman up as a "brave one".
The thing that bugs me the most about the whole thing is that most peoples interest in the story seems to be seeking or denying sanction for behavior today. Like whether or not BJ581 was female sex will determine if "its ok" for women to be in HEMA or to operate predator drones despite the matter being actually kind of irrelevant to todays issues.
All gender politics aside, my in-laws are of Scandinavian descent. The women are pretty fierce when provoked. Just saying... And I am going to go with princess
A really good video, very factual, convincing and reasonable. I think a lot of the issue of this progresing is the modern medias use and recycling of shieldmaiden articles.
I think it is vital to define the term "female warrior", we can define this in several ways, but the main two ways I see as relevant to the vikings is the cultural aspect and the female role in society versus the female role in other cultures. The second definition is the "classical" soldier, the professional that lives by the sword and dies by the sword. of the two the latter is by far the most uncommon and maybe even unlikely one, and that leaves us with definition 1 In the old norse society girls and boys both had weapons traning and grew up fairly equally, though naturally boys eventually would train more for fighting and girld more for the domestic aspects. However this means that a young mother in her 20s, will have potentially years of weapons traning , though not actual combat. If her skill is at a supriseingly "high level" compared to what an enemy soldier would expect from a woamn of his culture, he will see a female warrior and refer to her as such. Then you have the women who are more "tomboy" their parents allow them to train for fighting like the boys, these women does not loose any status or honor, they will naturally be at a disadvantage physically and most likely not be "front line" fighters. it is also unlikely that many if any would go on to become life long soldiers, with most traveling with the men as camp helpers, and this would make them see combat at times, and if trained they are to the enemy a female warrior, but to their fellow vikings only a daughter or a sister or a wife, a "mere housewife" if you will. Women could and was leaders, a leader who's military is victorious would also be considered a great "warrior", and seeinf some the generals from ancient times, rarely if ever did they engage in combat themselves, leaveing this to their general and their troops. and with women being leaders, even powerful ones, they would be and !was" seen as warriors, even if they never actively fought themselves. so we first need to define what is a female warrior from the norse culture, once we have the right definiton, then and only then can we begin to really dig in to the layers of truth needed
For most Vikings, warfare was a part-time occupation. Most spent their lives as farmers or skilled artisans. Karl's had a few household troops who were pretty exclusively warrios. Interestingly, the Birka grave was located on the path from the garrison to the village and was marked by a large boulder easily seen from the garrison. This could be interpreted as she being important to the garrison and they wanted to honor her as one of them.
Off topic, but do you have any idea why peoples who voluntarily converted to Christianity did so? For example, the Irish. Or you made a video on the, I believe, Lithuanians who won a war against Christians only to convert shortly after. Did any of these peoples leave a record of their problems with Paganism?
'He who controls the past controls the future..." That's what this is all about. Besides, if there really were "shield maidens" or "gladiatrixes (remember that BS?), thousands of their skeletons would remain today. The fact that we're arguing over the inconclusive minutiae of a single skeleton is the answer. Shield maidens are a myth.
Just based on what you've described, I'm putting my bets on her being maybe a wife/family member close to a reputable military man, since her bones don't seem to show any indication that she engaged in combat herself.
Just wondering if you have any sources documenting how frequently injuries consistent with battle wounds have been found on the bones of skeletons found with weapons?
@@johngraham2118 Nope none at all, but I'd figure if she's a buried high ranking general surrounded in close combat weapons, she may have had at least one or two boo-boos in her hayday. That's just my guess. If it turns out she was the baddest bitch in the world, good for her 🤷♂
At the time this Lady lived the Magyars were a Steppe people who lived adjacent to the original Scandinavian Rus on the lower Pontic plains. Perhaps she was actually a Magyar married to a returning Swedish adventurer.
@@SlemtexSlem I called her the Birka Lady because she was clearly a high status person and was buried on Björkö. My point about her possible Steppe origin still stands however. Particularly since her ethnic origin has not been clearly established.
When I was in Madrid in 2007, I went to an Archaeology museum. There was a warrior skeleton that looked about 7 feet tall, and I believe was supposed to be female. (My Spanish isn't very good, but I'm pretty sure that's what the sign said. ) I'm also not sure what time period it was from - I'm guessing from the Medieval period. Has anyone else seen this skeleton? Maybe I'm totally off.
If the Birka woman solely fought defensively as a last resort, what were tge two horses doing there? Why were there no fenale itens that she used in her daily life included in her grave? Vikings buried people with the items they used daily.
Thank you fir being honest about biology! I am a reinacter that is looking for a historically accurate female warrior story line, what in your opinion would be the most realistic, would I be pretending to be a man or??
Realistically it would be a masculine woman who may find it difficult to find a husband due to stima of gender bending. I suspect she would prefer archery to close combat
@@Survivethejiveumm you're projecting modern gender roles onto the Vikings. We really don't know if they had any concept of gender non-conformity or had any problem with it. And there's no evidence that she would have any problem establishing romantic relationships with men. As far as I know, no osteological eval has been done to determine if she'd borne children or how many.
I blame that Vikings TV show for popularising this myth.
she could have been a scout/watch guard from a viking family, not at all impossible. Def would explain the horses.
It's retarded that normie followers believe in that myth.
Nah. Vikings TV show is a consequence, not a cause.
I believe your right. I've thought the same thing. They may be contributing too. It's also happening in Hollywood movies.
@Charlie Bronson Irish/Canadian
For anyone living in Sweden or visiting Sweden. I highly recommend visiting Birka with family or friends. It is a fun recreated viking age island. With shops, history to learn and activities. Been there 3 times myself. Twice with my family and once with my class when i was a kid.
Hur tar man sig bäst dit?
@@andersengman3896 Färja från Stockholm gjorde jag, gick mycket bra och var mysigt.
@@Surtur99 Varifrån avgår färjan?
@@andersengman3896 Ganska säker det finns flera bryggor. En av dom är nära Tre kronor-Stadshuset.
Nice im planning too visit there soon too i wanted too go there for awhile but its been stuff in the way that has been hindering it but it seems like an cool place.
Next year it will be "proven" that this was actually an African transgendered woman Muslim Shield Maiden.
In Sweden? I have no doubt. I weep for my brothers and sisters across the border to the east. I weep for all of Europe, truth be told.
Yes
The Left. Over You are a great academic.
that floated in air as she could not walk due to weak bones
🛡🗡 _"Jenner won the men's decathlon event at the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal, setting a third successive world record and gaining fame as _*_"an all-American hero". Given the unofficial title of 'world's greatest athlete"_*_ , Jenner established a career in television, film, writing, auto racing, business and as a Playgirl cover model." - Caitlyn Jenner, Wikipedia_
😁👍
I feel like this obsession with valuing women if they were warriors is anti-women. Why can't there be more research and value placed on the work that women did.
Great point
@@vladdrakul7851 I do value all women and men. Honestly I don't give a shit how people want to be. You do you. I am a pagan I come here for information about paganism. You know nothing of my politics and I certainly wouldn't discuss it in youtube comments - because I have a life. I'm obsessed with archeaology and watch what is in the media about it. There is almost never an article about the lives of the MAJORITY of women, which would of been mothers, home makers, crafts women, healers I would love to hear more about them. But no media coverage is full of women buried with swords. A majority male activity. Why is the media only interested in ancient women when they do stuff that men do?
I was just reading about that. Why is being a warrior more valued than being the ones who take care of the culture and knowledge of centuries? It's cool that scholars want to challenge the idea of gender, but I'd love that they started to give women the recognition we deserve for the work we have done and stop focusing on male roles in society. Come on, the viking age was so much more than raiding and fighting.
@@florenciatorboli7073 Yes! Thank you! You perfectly articulated this concept!
@@vladdrakul7851 Your comment made me laugh, your life Story is so obviously Fake and blown out of proportion it's ridicouless.
There were horses found buried next to swords, armor, and shields at Sutton Hoo. Originally, the horse skeleton was assumed to be a man, because "why would a horse be a warrior?" A baseless assumption to be sure. It took horses working in the Post-Species Studies Program at Uppsala University to consider an alternate interpretation. Using principles of critical war theory, these intrepid ponies tore the lid off the narrative promoted for the sole benefit of the Hominarchy. Horses probably rode men into battle just as often as men rode them. There were horses that were better riders, and some men were better runners. There weren't strict roles. Unless we sponsor the promotion of more horses in the field of archaeology, scholarship will continue to be hindered by backward assumptions.There were just as many humans buried with horses, so why do we assume the horses were their property -- how do we know that men weren't the beasts of burden, carrying weapons and armor for their horse lords? These discursive historical narratives must be explored, and more funding made available to do so.
Sacasm is so underrated!. Fantastic post 😃
Underrated post.
Lol
gold
Brilliant! :-)
Disclaimer - I'm no expert, just an enthusiast and I have have read none of the surrounding literature.
So, We have a woman, wearing foreign (steppe/Ukrainian) men's clothing, buried with horses, archery equipment and other weapons. Questions I would ask:
1) does this fit with NOT Viking, BUT steppe/Ukrainian traditions ?
1.1) is her steppe/Ukrainian origin supported by any evidence (i.e. genetic, chemical) borne by the skeleton ?
2) does the skeleton provide any evidence of muscular development that one might associate with a skilled horsewoman ?
2.1) does her skeleton betray any injuries that might be associated with horse riding
2.2) did Scandinavian women do a lot of riding in this period ?
3) I think the shoulder muscular disparity thing relates to the English longbow - what sort of bow was she buried with - a steppe/Ukrainian bow ?
3.1) does her skeleton imply the sort of musculature associated with this type of bow ?
4) More generally, are the weapons that she is buried more suited to use by a woman ? e.g. are they smaller and lighter ?
In conclusion, if she is indeed foreign, then she is an exception and therefore can be considered atypical of Viking society - meaning that basing an entire discussion about the role of women in Viking society upon her grave is probably a little questionable...
I can buy the mounted archer theory because this method of fighting probably relies more upon skill and agility and less upon strength and weight (and in fact being lighter probably equates to being faster on a horse and so is an advantage here) . If this were the case, I would not expect to see battle damage on the skeleton because, if you were good at being a mounted archer, you would not be on the ground fighting it out hand to hand...
So she's a Scythian / Steppe / Mongol type fighter.
Believable for a scythian horse archer. Nothing to do with Vikings except she ended up living around them.
This post is old, but yes the weight of the burden directly correlates with the speed of the beast. Race riders would often spit (yes as in expelling saliva from the mouth) themselves into a state of dehydration before a race attempting to remove as much weight from their body as possible, some would even practice extreme dietary restrictions (so much so, that we might recognize it as anorexia if it was independent of their job)
The Swedish Viking activities were primarily in the East, trading down the rivers of Central/Eastern Europe til they reached Byzantium. They would have contact with all manner of Steppe/ Eastern cultures and Vikings were not adverse to adopting parts of the material cultures of the cultures they encountered. She might have been a Scandinavian who adopted Steppe dress for reasons of her own. Equally possible is that she was native to the Steppes who took service in the garrison at Birka. An isotope analysis of her teeth, if possible, would tell where she was born and lived.
Isotope analysis of her teeth indicates she was born in Scandanavia, Sweden I think. But she'd led a peripatetic life which explains how she encountered the steppe people as the Swedes traded mostly down the rivers of Central and Eastern Europe.. As far as her weapons, the drawing of the sword in her grave depicts a standard Viking Era weapon. She was also buried with a spear.
Feminism is now travelling back in time like the Terminator
My god thats scary!
the Feminator
😅
Yes
BTW, that archer showing his back development is 70+ years of age. Not bad.... :)
@@callummason6589 indeed!
What is his channel called pls
@@joeljensen436: search for Gary Chynne, the channel is in his name.
@@comesahorseman thank you kinsman
'On average there is x difference between these two groups of people, across society'.
'How can this be the case when this one person exists?'.
Speaking as a infantry soldier from the 1980's and 90's, even today the vast majority of women make piss poor infantry soldiers, they are too slightly built and weak to carry the loads and they generally lack the aggression to fight and win effectively. A 1,000 or more years ago where strength and aggression was even more important, in actual hand to hand fighting, not a chance. Shield Maidens were a thing from poetic sagas.
Probably right. But, I would understand the rational that its worth having women in their ranks because they need to have women with them if Valhalla is to be at all enjoyable. But, I agree, without the belief of Valhalla, women have no place in a Line Unit. I would have left the Marine Corps if I got to my unit and my Platoon Commander was a female.
James R women don’t go to Valhall.
The505Guys you completely nailed it in every aspect of your reply. My thoughts Exactly.
I can 100% confirm what you’ve said as a former soldier of 10 years myself. It’s all good as a nice ‘touchy feely’ PC sentiment to have the whole ‘hey women can do anything’ bullshit brainwashing of today. But I can tell you FIRST HAND that they CAN NOT. The amount of times women were a complete liability to the team was in my time in the military was a complete blatant, hard truth. It’s a nice fairy tale. But when it comes to the crunch and the shit hits the fan of reality....it’s not their place. They can have their place to assist in certain aspects of support. But not in combat.
Most women have difficulty showing up to work on time, actually working for their entire shift, staying until their shift actually ends, as opposed to leaving early, and they call in sick WAY more than men. I also served as an infantryman back in the mid-80's and a women who is physically and psychologically capable of performing at a MINIMAL level is so rare as to be statistically non-existent. This idea that women and men are equally capable is just another instance of the marxist-feminist struggle against reality.
sexual dimorphism in humans is a fascinating subject it even effects the immune system
Maybe she was a brave person and the warriors were doing her honor
Exactly there is a trove of logical reasons. Hell maybe she wanted to be barried in her husbands war cloths or something. Maybe she was killed in place of the archer. They want to believe it so that's the narrative. Is it possible for a woman to be an archer sure it is but it would be very rare to see one able to perform in combat against men. Hell maybe they were short of men and woman volunteered to fight against an invaders for there land. But to place a fantasy narrative of todays social constructs created by man haters on an ancient bones is childish and a disservice to education.
@@odinschild2239 just curious... you KNOW for a fact you would win in a fight to the death against a girl trained with weaponry, using actual deadly weaponry? Also..young boys were also fighting. So a fully grown woman can't take on a young unskilled boy? A fully grown trained woman? This isn't a wrestling match or a boxing match. These were fights to the death with deadly weapons. Its not really about being a man hater or whatever to see that "women are weaker" isn't actually very logical excuse to outright dismiss it when its a woman, but have no doubts when its a male.
@@odinschild2239William of Occam would like to have a word with you.
@@Rhaenarys a trained women with a weapon could beat an untrained boy ..a trained women with a weapon could kill an untrained man ...but women WERE NOT Trained , and men and boys WERE..did some wome fight ..sure at home if there home or village was under attack ,in ..maybe a few on raids ..i but in full blown battles ...nope because they were not trained ..and there is 0 evidence to say other wise. They aren't the spartans ..and unlike hollyweird would like to portray ..there was no ( viking age ) women warrior society..and thoes who did fight at all were the exception ..by far not the norm .ppl need to not use wishful thinking and movies as there history teachers ..
What do you think about this Roman quote saying north European women were more tough?
"The women of the Celtic tribes are bigger and stronger than our Roman women. This is most likely due to their natures as well as their peculiar fondness for all things martial and robust. The flaxen-haired maidens of the north are trained in sports and war while our gentle ladies are content to do their womanly duties and thus are less powerful than most young girls from Gaul and the hinterlands." -- Marcus Borealis
Also, he's describing their genetic traits. I have some of that North people DNA. Every woman in my family is a pear shape. Large hips and thighs could have been misconstrued as athletic build also. In a time when most were more fit than today, a woman with thicker legs might have been seen as somehow stronger.
@@kimberlywalker_ extremely doubtful
Interesting. Very very cool
@@skeletorlikespotatoes7846Nothing doubtful. Eddie Hall gets his muscle myostatin deficiency from his nordic mother whose cslves are as big as him.
@@ktheterkuceder6825 I can't remember why I replied to this so you'll have to excuse me. I mean sure but big calves aren't a myostatin deficiency sign
2:02 And she was also a gamer girl wow.
Are you in love :P
That’s how you know it’s all fake. Forget the Poetic Eddas bit, forget the bone structure not matching up, forget the clothing being inconsistent with Norse culture, gamer girls objectively do not and have never existed.
Wait, how do you know that ? I don't remember that the scientists proved that she oppressed minorities.
Julius Caesar wrote that German warriors would bring their women with them into battle to act as cheer leaders. maybe one of them decided to play dress up with the extra equipment.
Shieldmaiden/Sköldmö is just like a golf caddy. They carried extra shields to the men and probably tended to the wounded.
Military clothing is far more utilitarian than woman clothing, so the female may have been wearing it for that reason. As a woman, when I'm out in nature with my husband, I wear his old BDU's. I wear my dresses inside the house.
In many cases woman have role of executors, they ended the wounded enemies, and maraud fallen .
A lot of good insight. It’s odd that this still has to be debunked so much.
I'm only at the beginning of this but...
_"no, not a woman in a burka"_
I cackled XD
Truth is so much sexier than myths. We are studying the vikings and I have found such disgusting lies on them perpetuated by modern sexuality. I love the way you broke this all down. I want women to be known as strong and tough too but not based on pure lies. Thank you so much for this video. Wish more men in all countries could be as brave as you.
The steppe clothing is the most intriguing pice of the puzzle for me. Perhaps she was some kind of political emissary or ambassador? Maybe dying of illness whilst at Birka and afforded a high-status burial as a mark of respect, or to counter any notion of foul play?
maybe she was a result of a political marriage among nobles of some kind, and since they have high status, the burial.
maybe she kept to her native culture
That would seem the most likely option.
Let us say that she was a Steppe horse rider, even if you aren't an archer, you're driving horses and potentially also roping them, which could also give someone a notable difference of occupational markers like an archer.
Very insightful
@@lowqualityshitposts8860isotope analysis indicates she spent her first years in Scandanavia.
Blonde woman stomp on their balls...Cracked me up :D Greeting from Estonia
@Ian Miles Estonians are not the same as Finns and Karelians. Estonians are part of the Baltic branch of the Indo-European family, Finns and Karelians are part of the Finno-Ugric family.
@@bilbobaggins5938 Estonians have lots of mixture with Indo-Europeans and Slavs if I remember right, but they're still Finnic people with finno-ugric culture very similar to Finns and Karelians.
@@paavoilves5416 u said it like slavs are not indo-europeans
@@АрчибальтРомуальдович-м7ы You're right, sorry. I probably meant Germanic peoples.
Gynocentrism is a catalyst for pseudo history, increasingly so in post modern society. One day, this will change though.
Newsflash, so is androcentrism. Any ideological position that is essentially contemporary makes getting at the past in anything like an objective way unlikely. The point of Birka is that the grave was initially misinterpreted as male simply because the grave goods were considered male. This is only one example of many of how not being self reflexive in how we think about gender (no matter what political side you are on) can be a major problem is doing even the most basic level of archaeological interpretation.
I think it was probably a tradition with Corded Ware people that women join the fight if the home was directly being attacked, all else had failed and it was a last resort. I remember an archaeology program which showed pretty clear evidence of some females helping in a fight against village invaders (the village was slaughtered in the end, but they did fight). Basically, the women weren't passive - but that's still far from saying they were especially trained for fighting or that there was any sort of tradition of female warriors. Probably just the odd one now and then, as it has been throughout history, and those rarities were probably freakishly strong and mannish compared to most females (like Brienne of Tarth, in Game of Thrones).
It's the same in China. The earliest known fencing competition staged by an Emperor (something like 400 BCE iirc) was legendarily won by a woman, and there are a few other examples dotted throughout history. And the Chinese seemed to have no objection in principle to girls training alongside boys in village martial arts at times throughout China's history, so they could defend their honour (though this fluctuated back and forth, sometimes it was forbidden). But again, just very rare.
In the end, no woman truly wants to be raped. Of course women defended themselves and homes when male family were away. They had infants and daughters. They had investments to protect. Even, slaves they had to protect as they were technically seen as investments as well. That's a tonne of pressure. I'm sure most women had at least a kitchen knife in their back pocket at all times that they felt confident using in a fight.
I think the fact that she was dressed in male clothing is actually the best evidence for her being a shield-maiden rather than the weapon grave deposits. In the sagas it seems that women are only called shield-maidens when they are dressed in men's clothing and in one case I am aware of; completely hiding the fact that they are a woman.
This is contrasted with women who are forced to take up arms in defense of their homes while their husbands are away, but do not embrace the gender roll of a man. These are probably those burials which are still dressed in women's clothing and accompanied by typical feminine items but perhaps with the addition of a weapon or two as well.
This taken into account, I still believe that an overwhelming majority women in pre-Christian Scandinavia were not warriors nor had the desire to be.
I know a lot of women involved in war strategy. She might not be a marine but she drops the bomb
Very well spoken. There were items placed in my Grandfather's casket from us, his children and grandchildren that were gifts. Not just items that were his but things that represented us, his progeny.
I finally understand how offensive were the knights who said ni...
The norse word you mentioned associated with passive homosexuality is a cognate of the Langobardic "arga", a word which appears in the Codex of Rotari and has the same meaning.
women sometimes DID fight alongside the men in those times. There have been female skeletons found buried with their own ships with treasures which suggests they had some power or influence. but it wasnt common. women were too precious of a resource to lose in battle.
Here's another reason why women probably weren't generally warriors. I'll use hunting as an example. When we hunt deer, we hunt the males not only because they are a better "trophy" but because it's less harmful to the population of any animal to lose males vs females as females are capable of creating new life and males aren't. It much easier for a society to regenerate its population and numbers with more women around than men. In a way, in nature's view, a man is more "expendable" in that way. It only takes one man to knock up a bunch of women and replenish the population. So for society as a whole the loss of a woman is actually a more "serious" loss as it represents the loss of all of her potential offspring as well. Therefore, it would be pretty stupid for a society to allow large numbers of women to engage in very dangerous behavior like warfare if it wasn't absolutely necessary. So to all the feminists out there, stop trying to be men; you're important and valued in your own way.
I am a feminist and agree with you 110%
The bravest men and the most beautiful women amd mothers have always been revered in many cultures, so the symbolism of female Valkyria makes sense, though i think it as just symbolism, that women bring life (giving birth) and claim life, in the form of beautiful, fearsome Valkyries taking only the bravest men from death, a cyclical symbolism which would inspire the men to be unafraid of fighting or death but, as you said,there could have been exceptions within the fighting order, perhaps when a man was lost in battle that his woman might take his place, through a desire for honour or necessity if they needed the numbers perhaps, an interesting topic all the same.
And after all, if you've just died in battle, there could be nothing better than a beautiful woman taking you to the halls :) excellent video as always.
Also, come on 50k subscribers, this man well deserves it and more!
Chris this is a pretty interesting interpretation of the shieldmaiden/Valkyrie mythos
I'm a feminist, but really don't understand this need to "wash" history with these stories. As an average woman, I'm physically weaker than my husband. That's the way it is and has been forever. Women had to take care of the home, children, injured family etc.. how the heck would they be worriors? Why these activities are less important or interesting to report? Great content in your channel, keep up the good work!
Thanks!
Dude it's so great that you featured Gary Chynne. Such a chad old man.
Two hearts I've gotten from jive so far! Lol btw, in case you're reading, Im just finishing up a masters in classics, doing my thesis on the cross-cultural connections between the heroes Beowulf and Achilles. Wish me luck bro
Both my wife and I trained in Martial arts. During this training we both became skilled in fighting, however I became much stronger during that timeframe. As a computer programmer, I have a certain level of strength. After ten years of training I am a different physical human male. So many white collar males have no idea what they are capable of.
It is a shame to live ones life never to fulfill the physical capacities one can achieve.
I dont remember the wise man who once said that, but it is nonetheless true.
This is a very balanced explanation.
I don't even understand why feminists are looking for validation in ancient times. Women had in general less rights in the past. So even if female warriors had been a thing in Scandinavia, someone can bring up other societies like ancient Greece where their status was far from good. Besides, we don't live in a Viking society, so no matter what they did, why should it have an impact on our society? Vikings also raided places. Does it mean we can do that too? Is it an example to follow? And we DO have women in our armies, it's not as if it was forbidden and they were trying to show it had been done before... We have female soldiers. So really what's the point in trying to show ancient times were full of female soldiers? I just don't understand how it's supposed to help feminism or women's rights right now. This feels like just empty virtue signalling.
You are spot on at the end. It's very frustrating to see intelligent people get caught up in ideology to the point that it makes them approach a topic in a rather non logical manner :/ Also spot on about the left making an extreme statement then the right making a "reverse statement", just as manichean.
The most interesting aspect for me in that story is that she was dressed the Ukrainian way. I'm still new to your channel and I admit I don't know that much about Vikings (I'm more about the Celts ^_^). I heard Vikings took a lot of Eastern Europeans as captives but then included them?
would be like Jews saying they were actually well respected by the 3rd reich
Perhaps the grave goods were her's meant to be passed onto the children she never had.
From Tacitus on Germany :
To the husband, the wife tenders no dowry; but the husband, to the wife. The parents and relations attend and declare their approbation of the presents, not presents adapted to feminine pomp and delicacy, nor such as serve to deck the new married woman; but oxen and horse accoutred, and a shield, with a javelin and sword. By virtue of these gifts, she is espoused. She too on her part brings her husband some arms. This they esteem the highest tie, these the holy mysteries, and matrimonial Gods. That the woman may not suppose herself free from the considerations of fortitude and fighting, or exempt from the casualties of war, the very first solemnities of her wedding serve to warn her, that she comes to her husband as a partner in his hazards and fatigues, that she is to suffer alike with him, to adventure alike, during peace or during war. This the oxen joined in the same yoke plainly indicate, this the horse ready equipped, this the present of arms. 'Tis thus she must be content to live, thus to resign life. The arms which she then receives she must preserve inviolate, and to her sons restore the same, as presents worthy of them, such as their wives may again receive, and still resign to her grandchildren.
As far as Viking shieldmaidens are concerned, Norse mythology was known to glorify the Valkyries (female warriors sent to retrieve dead Vikings to Valhalla). And based on a few accounts on specific battles and raids, there were at least some women who fought alongside the men even if it wasn't as common depending on who you ask.
YAAAAAAAAS QWEEN
Peaceful Saxon Migrant SLAYYY
Now to be fair; shield maidens DO appear in folklore so you could argue that at some point there were possibly SOME women who were on the battlefield. Though the fact that it's in folklore rarely could be an indication that it was also extremely rare in real life
maybe they were in folklore because they were rare and not the standard
As an anatomy and physiology instructor, I can tell you that testosterone promotes greater density of bones and muscles in males. The people promoting the "warrior princess" hypothesis are ignoring basic biology. That said, both sexes had to cooperate and work hard to ensure their survival.
So why are you called Survive the Jive?
Your conclusions are exactly the same as mine. And your analysis was probably the the best I found since the paper came out too.
That said, I didn't know about your essay about gender in Njál's saga, and I really enjoyed it. Good work overall!
Thanks for that video, I'm actually making a video related to that topic for my (French) channel, my conclusions are pretty close to your, I also noticed the fact that excepting the shields, there is no defensive weapons in the grave, such as chainmail or a helmet, suggesting that she was not involve directly in combat, maybe she was some Kind of Hersir, a member of an aristocratic family who pay an lead a troop of warriors... because an important fact about Viking society is: hierarchy, the rank of an individual is more important than sex in some way: a free wife was superior to a man slave.
In the French media, this discovery was interpreted by some in a feminist way (gender equality), but also as a proof that Vikings were "Queer" or "Gender fluid"...
Survive the Backlash.
I think they found Xena.
I am think also that as she was a high status woman those might have been the weapons of men sworn to protect her.
Ever come across Ethelfledr, Our Lady of the Mercians? I’ve heard it denied that she took an active part in combat. I’ve also read that she personally, as a 15 year old, led the defence against a Viking attack against her own wedding party. We don’t hear enough about the Battle of Tettenhall, which I see as the real start of English history.
The sagas mention a small number of women took up arms to defend themselves or in acts of revenge but it's very rare. It was seen as an honorable deed though. I think being buried with weapons is a similar symbol of honor.
That doesn't mean that they were career warriors. Most burials of individuals who died in battle or were injured in battle are all men, unless there is an exception I'm not familiar with
@29:25 that's called presentism... and I hate it.
You shouldn't look at a historical period with the views of the modern world.
Would be possible that she is a high status woman who is related to a viking General. That would explain the grave goods. Also if needed, women can fight but it is Men’s job that does Not happened. Men are more expendable than women in civilization
Looking at the girl in the thumbnail I remember Hermaoine saying :
*We are a culture not a costume*
How tall were these ancient women?
British army cavalry men were only between 5 feet 2 inches and 5 feet 9 inches max!
They were trained to fight on horseback slashing the enemy with sabres .
Being small is an advantage to cavalry troops.
Is it? I remember reading Napoleon Bonaparte was only allowed to take an officer commission for the artillery, because he was too short for the infantry and cavalry. And Napoleon wasn't even that short, he was about average height for the time.
Like the Celtic morrigana who's bird was the raven and the symbol of death, who would flock the battlefield to pick at the bones of the dead.
That thumbnail....
I am reminded of when Pirus attacked Sparta, while the army was in Crete, he lost again, but fought the women and old men of Sparta. My point is that brave actions in a defensive action could earn weapons in burial. The clothing is strange if not local. Could they have been honoring the whole culture?
The best view seems to be that unusual women (perhaps the wife or widow of a great male warrior) occasionally presented themselves as warriors, but there was no normal female warrior role?
I can already hear feminist's hoofs.
Trotters*
Valkyries were essentially the God, Odin's, angels of death... They cannot be compared to mortal women (unless of course a woman particularly devoted to either Odin or Freya is rewarded with rebirth as a Valkyrie. But even then, it would still be a post-mortem spiritual transformation).
human women =/= [whatever vallkyries are] women
I've watched a few of his videos now and....I never like men with blonde hair. They look related to me. But I think this guy is SOOOO gorgeous. And hes smart. My mothers side came from Scotland. Wonder if he has any videos about scotland.
As I understand it, a Norse woman inherited both her husband's property and duties if he died. That would include his arms and armour, and his duties to fight. The normal situation would be that she'd either defer that role to an adult son, or re-marry so that those rights and duties would revert to her new husband.
In Norse colonies, with limited population and higher death rates, women stepping into warrior roles would be more common in those remote settlements than in mainland Norse towns. Hence we find more women buried with weapons in the colonies than in mainland Norway. Those settlements didn't have the luxury of strict labour division by gender, and defending the place could involve calling up the women to fill ranks short of men.
So they apparently did have warrior women, but in the context of inherited duty rather than an open choice. Being a warrior wasn't an alternative path for a woman, but rather something that could happen to her in the normal course of society.
The Celts incidentally had something similar: The Roman records clearly state that Celtic women accompanied the men to war, and that the women would fight as a reserve force. Caesar says, "Woe betide you if a Celtic man summon his wife to the fray". There are also noted examples of women chariot drivers, while Boudicca went into battle with a male chariot driver.
So this was a thing, in both Norse and Celtic societies, but it was neither the case that there were no warrior women, nor that women warriors were the norm; it was something that could happen within their societies.
It may have been the case that calling the women into battle was akin to modern soldiers fixing bayonets, a last ditch move if they were being overrun.
No not always. there are specific circumstances when they did but they were not free to sell the property without getting permission from a man, It was paatriarchy
Given what I understand was the respect Viking had for individualism, I suspect that choice of life role was exactly that, pretty much disregarding gender. Certainly, given the emphasis Vikings placed on fighting ability, I would expect both boys and girls to practice fighting when their other chores permitted.
Just found your channel, subscribed almost immediately, but crikey your comment at 2:30 made me gag, great comedic timing, and the deadpan delivery 😘 👌
@5:30- spot on, if they have the bones, even if no bone wounds, they will show musculature stress development.
Im swedish / jag är svensk - been to Birka many times (even have a friend named Birk) and most likely thjis woman buried with horses was a watch guard/scout- or messenger, in the other times very peaceful town of Birka. Its well known vikings and others used to light up a bonfire to warn others in advance, and at certain mountain tops or higher peeks to raise the "alarm". My own suborn has a symbol of it here im from in Mälaren. So yes, maybe this "armed" woman was to ride up and warn in times of need - and having two horses is a great way to travel distance in speed.
quezcatol horse sacrifice is central to Norse paganism- they probably weren’t her horses but even if they were their sacrifice was about appeasing gods
@@Survivethejive I still stand by watch guard, we have them in sweden now, wouldnt be crazy back in the day, especially since prostitution was illegal for "norse people" not other people and they had checkers.
@@Survivethejive I know there was rituals in killing horses, but these horses wasnt beheaded- was they?
no problem. she peeled turnip with her sword. stirred porridge with an axe. used arrows for sishkabob. used a silk shirt for a dish rag. we called her retchet rachel the raven of the east. the beauty and the beast. made bread without yeast. her taxes left us fleeced. well you've set my imagination right off here thomas. have fun saxon son. take care spear in air.
Hope you enjoyed your cameo
@@Survivethejive i did. thank yew.
In my second grade class we had to pass certain physical requirements in order to continue on. I think I may have been the worst in our class. All I had to do was keep my chin above a bar for thirty seconds. The boys, except for one who had some condition, had to do actual pull ups. They could all do it. None of the girls could except for one. She initially beat all the boys. She made it look so easy. There were one or two boys who took it as a challenge and were able to beat her record. Now the strange thing to me at the time was that our gym teacher was in no way surprised. He knew she could do it. Later on I read about some genetic thing that some women have that gives them crazy muscles and they usually have thicker necks, they are stout and have a darker complexion no matter their race. This fits her description completely. So there could have been a few and how many have they found? One?
You have a point (such as the effect of practicing with a bow). What I wonder is why someone buried with weapons automatically is seen as a man. If dna says it's a woman, she's not a worrior. That's inconsistent. If the items first say it's a worrior, then that should be the same. Dna have also shown that someone first seen as a woman, because of the items, turns out to be a man. That kind of bias goes both ways. Also, what really says that the gender roles where rigid? We can only interpret whats left. That might show rigidity, but, as usual, there's always a variety.
This man is asking to be canceled in 2020.
I like this guy.
People like the archer/cavalry theory because the bow is romanticized as a women's weapon, and because this individual has no skeletal damage. The former is ridiculous given how much strength archery requires, especially compared to a one kilo sword. The latter because not every fighter received blows down to the bone. It takes far less to immobilize someone in combat, so incredibly deep wounds aren't a certainty. It should also be pointed out that archers did in fact face melee, for which they were prepared with swords/axes.
I think you are starting with the assumption of modern depictions when you say "It takes far less to immobilize someone in combat, so incredibly deep wounds aren't a certainty." The idea of a sword being a battlefield weapon and such. But if we are talking about people in armor and formation, blunt force and pole arm weapons replace the sword.
That is a good point about the bow, but I think "ridiculous" is too strong a word. Not all bows have the same poundage and it is physically possible for women to handle war bows, though it probably isn't the best choice.
That is another good point about archers being in melee. However for the theory of horse archer, they have the mobility to run away and pick their range against foot soldiers. So entering the melee is far less likely.
Not gonna lie. The thumbnail got me.
I’m super late to this but in my limited reading of Norse sources (I’m not a historian) it seems that generally speaking, sagas and the eddas are taken to mirror idealized aspects of Norse culture. For example the funeral of Baldr has been used to reconstruct what we might think of as an ideal funeral for elites with obvious mythological elements. Why then, would we assume there was no real life parallel for the shieldmaiden? Perhaps it was rare but I don’t see why it would be an exception to how these stories tended to reflect Norse life.
My daughter is being trained riding, shooting a bow.... she's got a sword and shield.... that doesn't mean that her younger brother doesn't calm her nerves when she can't sleep....assuring her that he will "help dad from the second row if burglars come in"
Well, Survive the Jive, just because it was not usual for women to fight, I would like to point out that 1. Romans did have women gladiatrix, who participated in games during the time of Nero, Domitian and Titus etc. During the reign of Tiberius, the prohibition on who could fight in the arena (only lower social classes) was extended to include gladiatrix, so they were part of the entertainment. 2. the Amazons are a Greek interpretation of Scythian culture where women did hunt and fight as Herodotus and Plutarch mentions battles with Amazons in the Black Sea area. The National Geographic Oct. 28, 2014 article on skeletal remains of women 'warriors' found in kurgans in this area proves the point. They even had women generals, the Scythian Queen Tomyris who according to Herodotus killed Cyrus the Great comes to mind. My point is that when faced with extinction' women can and do fight if this is within their cultural norms. 3. As for your men and bow strength argument, I'd think that a woman using a crossbow could be as deadly as a man as it negates longer arm length and the muscle mass needed to achieve higher arrow speeds. But why stop at bows and arrows, let's compare guns and rifles where muscle size doesn't matter. As for riding ability, women outperform men, in fact equestrian is the only Olympic event in which men and women compete head to head and it is a sport dominated by women.
I don't know about most of that but I will comment on the weapons part.
Crossbows do negate the strength and skill requirements, however they give up speed. If you look at rate of fire of some archers in the modern day that train with longbows then you will see how big of a deal this is. I believe there is typically a big difference in range due to the design difference between arrows and bolts.
On to guns, again your correct about this negating the muscle difference. But shooting is a small part of real combat. I recall a story from a navy seal about a guy that brought too much gear which caused exhaustion. Bullets are heavy, grenades are heavy, modern armor is very heavy, and water is very very heavy. (Battles can easily take hours and stretch into days. And inside the armor the temperature can easily get to 140 degrees. So water is brought with them in the thick of it.) So although women can shoot just as well as men, the strength difference + stamina difference is still huge.
One body means nothing, it could be for reasons we know nothing about, find me another 50 and you'll have a pattern.
Absolutely correct. The feminist types find some ambiguous rarity and all of a sudden all the women in our culture were fierce independent wamyn who didn't need no man, when clearly the vast majority of the rest of the historical and archeological evidence suggests the opposite.
Best video on this topic ive seen well done brother...
Great video....Thanks
the female Scythian graves had arthritis and bowed hips and legs from fighting on horse back.the viking female may have been a warrior but it would have been a rare thing. the pechenegs had female warriors i am not sure how many. they were fighting trading with the rus and norse .
WarDogMadness i dont think scythians had many if any female warriors. Just because they rode horses doesn’t mean they were active in mounted combat
@@Survivethejive yeah i don't think there were women warriors, but there might have been cases were women had to defend themselves. vrag said it best what kind of society sends it women to fight. whats your opinion on aethelflaed be a warrior queen.
Note: there is now (2019) a claim there is a gash on her forehead and marks on her shield that show combat experience
@@nickdial8528 You're right it was the Solør, Norway grave. My bad. But she had more than just an axe though. She was buried with a collection weaponry, including arrows, a sword, a spear and an axe. Her head was laying on the shield. The large dent in her forehead showed signs of healing. It's interesting at any rate.
Not to upset anyone's applicants, but there's a female burial in Solar, Norway which included a sword, Ax and spear among other weapons. Interestingly, she'd sustained an injury to her forehead said to be consistent with a sword wound. So now there's two, one with a possible battle injury.
Again, we know that non combatants are buried with weapons. For example children and disabled people. The fact she was murdered by a sword isn't proof she was a warrior and the assumption that female skeletons are not warriors until proven otherwise is a sound judgement based on known anthropological trends of gendered labour in humans in general and specifically in the documented culture of the Norse as evidenced in saga literature in which female warriors are not prominent at all
@@Survivethejiveby your logic, burial with weapons is no evidence a man was a warrior either. In Viking culture, people were buried with the items they used in their daily life. If you believe I'm wrong, please cite some sources that document burials with only items included to "honor" the perzon.
Women warriors are common in Scytho-Sarmatian burials (the Amazon mythos of a purely female warrior society is clearly fanciful, but there clearly were female warriors in Scytho-Sarmatian culture) and I don't think it's any coincidence that the practice appeared in Scandinavia after the disappearance of the Scythians (very likely into Scandinavia, imo). Personally, I have some suspicion that most women warriors by viking times typically acted as "home guard" though, rather than as raiders, because of the relatively small amount of information about them from other cultures when discussing viking raids and the fact that where it appears in Scandinavian material, their raiding typically appears to be seen as noteworthy, rather than normal - though there are potentially also some small clues that this may be a problem with the later authorship and not authentic to pre-Christian Scandinavia.
I would advise looking at some picture stones (the most detailed representations of warriors in viking art) before you ask "why would a real warrior be depicted without a helmet?". You can admire many different hairstyles, because a great number of the warriors shown are not helmed. You may also notice that the Gjermundbu style of helmet (the only style found archaeologically) shows up precisely nowhere in viking art. Does this mean that no viking art relates to real-world warriors? I would argue that it suggests instead that the information that we have about viking warrior attire divulges only a tiny sliver of the reality.
Talking about the bow, we can look at Konungs skuggsjá:
"Formerly the custom was for all who wished to become expert in such arts and thoroughly proficient in war and chivalry to train both hands alike to the use of weapons."
So, asymmetry? Maybe this female was simply a very expert warrior and trained with the bow from left and right. =P
On the subject of skill, it has to be said that not all warriors can be expected to have received injuries which can be seen on the bones, just unskilled or unlucky ones.
A more serious explanation for the lack of deformation though is that she simply didn't belong to a culture where there was any kind of compulsory training for hours at a time with very heavy bows - the practice which results in deformed skeletons. Take a look at some steppe skeletons and let me know if you find any Mary Rose archer-like deformations - Scythians were generally avid lifelong archers (the name "Scythian" means "shooter"), so we should expect more or less every single one to be highly deformed, no? Look at other viking age warrior burials and let's hear about it - we know that the vikings used archery in war extensively and introduced the longbow as a weapon of war to much of Britain, so if your assertions about bone deformation are correct, we should see it in spades across the "real" male warrior burials. These people weren't full-time professional distance shooters; they were occasional shooters and their musculature can be expected to have as much to do with countless other everyday manual tasks.
Also from the Konungs skuggsjá (Back to the 13th century): "Now it seems needless to speak further about the equipment of men who fight on horseback; there are, however, other weapons which a mounted warrior may use, if he wishes; among these are the horn bow and the weaker crossbow."
This is just a hint that using a bow on horseback in war was a familiar practice in medieval Scandinavia. It can also be found in some Frankish artwork from viking times and on the Bayeux tapestry. The earliest illuminations showing Rus warriors (roughly contemporary with the Konungs skuggsjá) show them fighting as massed cavalry archers. At this time they were fighting against the Mongols, but we can surmise that if this mode of combat was necessary as a response to Mongol horse archers, it would presumably also have been necessary against certain viking age enemies of the Rus, such as the Khazar Khagnate (the main adversaries of the Rus at that time).
Petroglyphs from Bohuslän show that the recurved bow started to appear in Scandinavia around the bronze/iron age transition, along with increased numbers of horseback warriors. In my view, this is one pointer to an integration of Scythian migrants/invaders bringing their iron age culture into the place, where it was combined with local customs.
While we don't have any textual sources that I'm aware of regarding horse-archery among the vikings, there is insurmountable evidence that the vikings (and Anglo-Saxons) used mixed forces, including both cavalry and archers, just as the Normans did. The idea that vikings fought in a "shield wall" on foot is a myth, brought about by some 19th century clutching at straws (primarily connecting the "shield wall" kenning with a single misinterpreted scene on the Bayeux Tapestry).
I think it's a bit silly to equate the weapons taken into the afterlife by children with those taken by adult women. A child who goes to the afterlife may not be a child when they get there or there may be a natural sorrow that they didn't reach their potential and have the things that they would have had if they'd grown to adulthood.
In contrast, it doesn't seem likely that there was a belief that women change their sex on the way to the afterlife, nor that there was a general sorrow that being born female disqualified them from the things that they would have had, if they'd been born male.
If I have to bury an animal, I might bury with it some preferred food that I'm sad that it didn't get the chance to eat. I'm not going to bury a sheep with a ham hock, sorrowful that it didn't get to be a dog.
Part the 2nd:
Here are a few snippets regarding female warriors from Saxo's work:
- There were once women among the Danes who dressed themselves to look like men, and devoted almost every instant of their lives to the pursuit of war, that they might not suffer their valour to be unstrung or dulled by the infection of luxury. For they abhorred all dainty living, and used to harden their minds and bodies with toil and endurance. They put away all the softness and lightmindedness of women, and inured their womanish spirit to masculine ruthlessness. They sought, moreover, so zealously to be skilled in warfare, that they might have been thought to have unsexed themselves. Those especially, who had either force of character or tall and comely persons, used to enter on this kind of life. These women, therefore (just as if they had forgotten their natural estate, and preferred sternness to soft words), offered war rather than kisses, and would rather taste blood than busses, and went about the business of arms more than that of amours. They devoted those hands to the lance which they should rather have applied to the loom. They assailed men with their spears whom they could have melted with their looks, they thought of death and not of dalliance.
(I'll pause here to mention that the maidens described are noted as particularly tall and comely or headstrong. For a start, these are all descriptions of noble women. Higher status people had better nutrition and health care, allowing them to be taller and stronger than lower status people and this is reflected in textual references to them, which contrast them with small and ugly lower status people. It could be conjectured that the women who took these roles did so as a sign of their nobility - to signal that their families were noble warrior families and that no member of those families was less than any common man in any way.
It being the case that lower status men were on average less capable in combat than higher status men, is it thus the sensible default to assume that lower status male burials with weapons do not belong to warriors or that the weapons didn't belong to those lower status men? What can be done to overcome that apparent onus of proof?
The descriptions are also clearly descriptions of praise - something common to most references to female warriors in that society. I'd argue that the shame associated with being insinuated to be feminine was simply a common form of the shame of accepting any lie about yourself. It's a notion that if you let someone lie about you, they have attacked and dominated you, gaining status by taking it away from you. If the person really was your superior, you were expected to accept their insults, but if not, you were expected to punish them.
It's also a good opportunity to mention that armed combat in the viking period was not a matter of strength and that BJJ is a very poor combat analogy. Fighting with spears and swords is much more a game of speed and reach than it is a game of strength. A female who is taller and healthier than her male counterpart therefore has an advantage in this type of combat, regardless of who might win in an arm wrestle or BJJ match. I'm a thousand times stronger than the deadly snakes that live in this part of the world, but I'm not about to challenge one to a game of slaps.)
- The maiden Stikla also withdrew from her country to save her chastity, preferring the occupations of war to those of wedlock.
- He exchanged garments with a serving-maid, and feigned himself to be a maiden skilled in fighting; and having thus laid aside the garb of man and imitated that of woman, he went to the town, calling himself a deserter. (Yep, a guy dressing as a female raider to be inconspicuous).
- The maidens I have named, in fighting as well as courteous array, led their land-forces to the battle-field. Thus the Danish army mustered company by company.
- The maiden Weghbiorg fought against the enemy and felled Soth the champion. While she was threatening to slay more champions, she was pierced through by an arrow from the bowstring of Thorkill, a native of Tellemark.
- Alfhild was led to despise the young Dane; whereupon she exchanged woman's for man's attire, and, no longer the most modest of maidens, began the life of a warlike rover. Enrolling in her service many maidens who were of the same mind, she happened to come to a spot where a band of rovers were lamenting the death of their captain.
- Among them was Ladgerda, a skilled amazon, who, though a maiden, had the courage of a man, and fought in front among the bravest with her hair loose over her shoulders. All-marvelled at her matchless deeds, for her locks flying down her back betrayed that she was a woman.
Ragnar, when he had justly cut down the murderer of his grandfather, asked many questions of his fellow soldiers concerning the maiden whom he had seen so forward in the fray and declared that he had gained the victory by the might of one woman.
I would say that if the art, archaeology and textual sources all suggest that (even a few) women warriors were a part of the society and there is zero evidence that can be substantiated for any other suggestion, the burden of proof is actually on those who are promoting the other possibilities. Ultimately, we'll never know for sure, but at this point, the only place that evidence lines up together is with the idea that it's the grave of a female with a warrior role.
Btw one of swedens oldest noble houses, "natt and dag" came from the knight Sigridsson in 1200 AD- the son of the woman, Sigrid. Sometimes noble houses had no choices, had to dress that last woman up as a "brave one".
The thing that bugs me the most about the whole thing is that most peoples interest in the story seems to be seeking or denying sanction for behavior today. Like whether or not BJ581 was female sex will determine if "its ok" for women to be in HEMA or to operate predator drones despite the matter being actually kind of irrelevant to todays issues.
So has this been demonetized yet?
no
Is there any more news about this woman? I'm wondering about isotopes to see if she did come from the Steppe.
All gender politics aside, my in-laws are of Scandinavian descent. The women are pretty fierce when provoked. Just saying... And I am going to go with princess
@Sivard "when provoked"
@Schwingalongadingdong LOL! Only when we get kinky
@Sivard I thought it was because she is a Pisces. But if it is because she is a Dane, well, either way, I love my blue eyed blonde
@Sivard sounds very scientific lol... anecdotally most of the Scandinavian women I've known have been just like Bill said
A really good video, very factual, convincing and reasonable.
I think a lot of the issue of this progresing is the modern medias use and recycling of shieldmaiden articles.
I think it is vital to define the term "female warrior", we can define this in several ways, but the main two ways I see as relevant to the vikings is the cultural aspect and the female role in society versus the female role in other cultures.
The second definition is the "classical" soldier, the professional that lives by the sword and dies by the sword.
of the two the latter is by far the most uncommon and maybe even unlikely one, and that leaves us with definition 1
In the old norse society girls and boys both had weapons traning and grew up fairly equally, though naturally boys eventually would train more for fighting and girld more for the domestic aspects. However this means that a young mother in her 20s, will have potentially years of weapons traning , though not actual combat.
If her skill is at a supriseingly "high level" compared to what an enemy soldier would expect from a woamn of his culture, he will see a female warrior and refer to her as such.
Then you have the women who are more "tomboy" their parents allow them to train for fighting like the boys, these women does not loose any status or honor, they will naturally be at a disadvantage physically and most likely not be "front line" fighters. it is also unlikely that many if any would go on to become life long soldiers, with most traveling with the men as camp helpers, and this would make them see combat at times, and if trained they are to the enemy a female warrior, but to their fellow vikings only a daughter or a sister or a wife, a "mere housewife" if you will.
Women could and was leaders, a leader who's military is victorious would also be considered a great "warrior", and seeinf some the generals from ancient times, rarely if ever did they engage in combat themselves, leaveing this to their general and their troops.
and with women being leaders, even powerful ones, they would be and !was" seen as warriors, even if they never actively fought themselves.
so we first need to define what is a female warrior from the norse culture, once we have the right definiton, then and only then can we begin to really dig in to the layers of truth needed
For most Vikings, warfare was a part-time occupation. Most spent their lives as farmers or skilled artisans. Karl's had a few household troops who were pretty exclusively warrios. Interestingly, the Birka grave was located on the path from the garrison to the village and was marked by a large boulder easily seen from the garrison. This could be interpreted as she being important to the garrison and they wanted to honor her as one of them.
I'm also curious about norwegian society before the advent of agriculture and Iceland.
Surely it's being scrutinised more because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Off topic, but do you have any idea why peoples who voluntarily converted to Christianity did so? For example, the Irish. Or you made a video on the, I believe, Lithuanians who won a war against Christians only to convert shortly after. Did any of these peoples leave a record of their problems with Paganism?
'He who controls the past controls the future..." That's what this is all about. Besides, if there really were "shield maidens" or "gladiatrixes (remember that BS?), thousands of their skeletons would remain today. The fact that we're arguing over the inconclusive minutiae of a single skeleton is the answer. Shield maidens are a myth.
he who controls the Present controls the Past, too..
Just based on what you've described, I'm putting my bets on her being maybe a wife/family member close to a reputable military man, since her bones don't seem to show any indication that she engaged in combat herself.
Just wondering if you have any sources documenting how frequently injuries consistent with battle wounds have been found on the bones of skeletons found with weapons?
@@johngraham2118 Nope none at all, but I'd figure if she's a buried high ranking general surrounded in close combat weapons, she may have had at least one or two boo-boos in her hayday. That's just my guess. If it turns out she was the baddest bitch in the world, good for her 🤷♂
What about the Valkarie my man? Where do they fit in?
Oh. Should wait until end of vid
Hey nice to see Gare make a random appearance in your vids, as opposed to the comment section this time
16:30 I'm given to agree that the grave goods were family heirlooms & simultaneously gifts for the Ancestors in the afterlife.
A courier in life, and a courier in death?
Birka means sheep in hungarian. Curious. Maybe if you believe this story you are one?
At the time this Lady lived the Magyars were a Steppe people who lived adjacent to the original Scandinavian Rus on the lower Pontic plains. Perhaps she was actually a Magyar married to a returning Swedish adventurer.
Birka is the latinized version of Björkö, the Swedish name for the Island.
It literally means Birch Island.
Björk (birch), Ö (island).
Well it was a fun idea until it lasted.
@@Paul_W.E_Ingham Her name was not Birka,
her grave was in Birka though.
@@SlemtexSlem I called her the Birka Lady because she was clearly a high status person and was buried on Björkö. My point about her possible Steppe origin still stands however. Particularly since her ethnic origin has not been clearly established.
Very well put brother. Lets put these Grace Jones types into the category they belong. She'er Fantasy.
When I was in Madrid in 2007, I went to an Archaeology museum. There was a warrior skeleton that looked about 7 feet tall, and I believe was supposed to be female. (My Spanish isn't very good, but I'm pretty sure that's what the sign said. ) I'm also not sure what time period it was from - I'm guessing from the Medieval period. Has anyone else seen this skeleton? Maybe I'm totally off.
If the Birka woman solely fought defensively as a last resort, what were tge two horses doing there? Why were there no fenale itens that she used in her daily life included in her grave? Vikings buried people with the items they used daily.
Great video as always, Thomas.
Thank you fir being honest about biology!
I am a reinacter that is looking for a historically accurate female warrior story line, what in your opinion would be the most realistic, would I be pretending to be a man or??
Realistically it would be a masculine woman who may find it difficult to find a husband due to stima of gender bending. I suspect she would prefer archery to close combat
@@Survivethejive thank you
@@Survivethejiveumm you're projecting modern gender roles onto the Vikings. We really don't know if they had any concept of gender non-conformity or had any problem with it. And there's no evidence that she would have any problem establishing romantic relationships with men. As far as I know, no osteological eval has been done to determine if she'd borne children or how many.