About Me

My photo
Either an author who fences, or a fencer who tends to write a lot. I found a passion for writing first, then I found fencing. I also found that the pen and the sword work very well together. The pen may be mightier than the sword but together they are much greater.

Sunday, May 13, 2018

Myth Debunking: Female Combat Training

Greetings,

One of the great joys that I take as a trained historian is debunking myths. One of the reasons for this is that there is nothing like a good historical argument, backed by evidence. The other real reason is that I like seeing the correct information going out into the public sphere for people to access. This would be the reason why I wrote one of the recent posts about curatorial elements of the sword. It also irritates me a little when people continue to spread myths around because they are just too lazy to get off their butts and do the research.

When we see ladies in reenactment we often see them dressed in dresses playing the part of the lady, as the public expects. Less often we see them in armour, but it is spectacular when they are dressed in armour and are fighting. Something which I support completely. There is a modern myth that ladies in the medieval period did not engage in combat and were not trained to do so. Yes, it is a myth.

The question of the shield maiden is something which has been brought up again ever since the series "Vikings" has become popular and there are arguments for and against their existence. There is some archaeological evidence for their existence and quite a bit of folklore to go along with it. For your convenience, if you click on "shield maiden" (above) you will find the Wikipedia site for it and I would use this as a launch-pad for future research.

The Elizabethan Era is one of the most well-known for swordplay due to the duel occurring and of course the plays of Shakespeare and the London Masters of Defense. What has also been documented is that Elizabeth watched the playing of several Prizes of the London Masters of Defense. A candidate would play a "Prize" to gain his next rank in the organization. A list of prizes which were played can be found here. If nothing else this shows Elizabeth's interest in swordplay. What's more, it is rumoured that she also encouraged her ladies to be trained with the sword as a sort of "last defence" bodyguard and also for their own virtue.

We live in a pictorial age and many people are driven by what they can see. So often we hear "Pictures or it didn't happen." Well, supporting this particular contention which is being presented is pictorial evidence from some French manuscripts. The first is from Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève  MS.1126 "Roman de la Rose"


This image clearly depicts two women crossing swords while dressed in civilian outfits. This would mean that it is most likely that they are in training rather than actually fighting. It is, however, a clear demonstration of a training scene of females being trained in combat. An image which points more toward them being engaged in actual combat follows below.

The women in this image on the left seem to be defending themselves from the group on the right. While these individuals are wearing civilian clothes, it looks less like a training scene and more like that they are defending themselves from a group of bandits. This image is also from a French manuscript of the fourteenth-century. While this image could be mistaken form some sort of training or game, the following image is less likely to.
The original manuscript in this case is from another fourteenth-century French manuscript, but can be found along with several other images of women in armour on the page Babes in Armor, which is a celebration of women in armour. That this image shows the individual in armour leaves no doubt that the individual is in a situation where she may come to harm. This would seem to break the myth that women did not put on armour and did not use weapons. The final image which I have will give those who do not think that the medieval female had training some real pause for thought.
This image is from "De Mulieribus Claris" (BNF Français 598), and clearly depicts a woman in armour and involved in the combat. That she is present on the field of combat should give one pause for thought. That she is using the weapon she is armed with and doing harm means that she is at least trained with the weapon.

We should all be careful about making large sweeping statements about things which did or did not happen in the past. It goes especially much where there is evidence for both sides of the argument present. We must all ask ourselves what influences would be making us take either side of an argument and why this is. Is the answer we are giving going to benefit or detract?

Just from the evidence presented here, I would think that some would at least consider re-evaluating their positions with regards to women in history and their positions. The female in the medieval period was obviously not barred from training in weapons, but may not have chosen to do so. Thus we must consider what position the individual was in to make this choice, if they had one at all. We should all do our best not to perpetrate, and perpetuate myths from any period of time as they muddy the history and give misdirection to our future researchers.

Cheers,

Henry.

You can view the Second Part of this discussion, with more detail and research here.

Update: 15 January 2023

There are comments below claiming that the above images are allegorical or of mythological content and that because of this possibility that this means that the women in these images were not trained in combat, and did not see combat, or were not involved, and consequently women would not and could not have been trained in combat. This I dispute quite strongly.

I am adding this here because most of the readers have not bothered to read the second part as indicated in the link above, but have decided to ignore the historical evidence and focus on the possibility that these images are allegorical or mythological. Such ideas are based in fact, allegorical or mythological as they might be. There is historical evidence, as presented in the second part and this list https://www.rejectedprincesses.com/women-in-combat for women in combat from pre-1st century all the way up to the 20th century.

It is evident from the historical record that women were trained in weapons and they did see combat. This is evident from the list presented in the link above and also the list of individuals who are presented in the second part of this discussion. So both aspects of this discussion, and argument are covered. That the images may be allegorical or mythological is beside the point, the fact is that women were trained in combat and did see combat as indicated, as is argued in this and the second part of the discussion. The foundation for such images had to come from somewhere, further, it could be claimed that some who did see combat could be inspired by such images as Oscar Wilde states, "Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life".

Further, the argument that Jeanne d'Arc did not see combat because she did not fight, is false logic. Or the same logic could be used that none of the generals of 18th century battles, including Napoleon or Wellington to name two, saw combat because they did not fight; or that medics such as Medal of Honour recipient Corporal Desmond Doss did not see combat, because he did not fight, or even carry a weapon. 

I will not be responding to such false arguments anymore, or those directed against such simplistic ideas, negating the idea of women in combat, due to the presented source material, when there is further evidence presented in another article indicated. That women saw combat in the Medieval and Renaissance period is an historical fact, and one that is evident across many cultures. I see no reason to respond to such false arguments, which grasp desperately at straws, and deny historical truth.

7 comments:

  1. Genuine question, How were they allowed to fight but had no other rights (basically)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The estimation that women had no rights during the medieval and Renaissance periods, is a very large generalization. I certain cultures women did have rights, while often not the same as their male counterparts, it is not to say that they had none. If you read the second part of this investigation, you will find women of rank who clearly had rights, throughout the periods.
      Cheers,
      Henry

      Delete
  2. Hello, I would like to point out that the art might be allegorical or depicting mythology. I know for sure that the Romance of the Rose contains allegorical miniatures in which the personifications of various abstract ideas fight. It is also possible that the pictures depict Amazons. Do you know what the texts that go with the pictures are? That could tell us a lot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Considering that there is a single image from the text you have pointed out, your argument is rather weak. These are not the only images from medieval art which I could have posted, indeed there are quite a few more, and as you will note in the second part, there were quite a few female warriors from the medieval period and flowing through into the modern, factual, actual female warriors whose lives we can trace. Not allegorical not mythological.

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry but your argument for this whole article is very weak. You would have to study the sources and the context of the pictures extensively, now you just cherry picked images you thought strengthen your point, but this is not how real historical work should be done. Context is everything! I have collected a lot of images of women in armour from the Middle Ages, but they are almost all fantastical. The notable expection is of course Jeanne d'Arc, who DID NOT EVER fight herself. She was a leader. Almost all the other pictures of women in armour and/or with weapons from the Medieval period fall into the following categories:
      Depictions of Biblical stories, such as Judith and Holofernes.
      Depictions of Ancient myths, such as Penthesileia and other Amazons.
      Depictions of Ancient goddesses, such as Athena and Minerva.
      Allegorical depictions, like wrath or other feelings.
      Depictions of the Nine Worthy Women, like the Amazons again, or Semiramis and Tomyris, mythical ancient leaders.
      Many other mythical, fantastical, allegorical or otherwise fictional themes included armoured women in art. That does not make it a reality. It is an easy thing to imagine, just turn things upside down, women dressed like men and fighting in battle. That has been a theme that has always intrigued people, especiallu men. The modern obsession of warrior women in popular culture is a testament to that, the recent women's empowerment movement has only emphasized it to another level. There has always been a titillating aspect to it too, the Romans made their female gladiators fight bare chested (they only fought against other women), and the Medieval illustrators often drew breasts on the armours to distinguish the women from men even more (though their faces were almost always shown just for this purpose). The armours worn by women in Medieval art is almost universally fantasy armour, not based on realistic armours at all, just like the stories behind the images were myths too.

      Delete
  3. I've read it all, and despite so many examples, they are scarce and on a very long period of time. Fighting women in medieval age were so rare we can name them. It means they were exceptions. I don't deny the fact they could be taught how to fight, as I've also found historical proofs of it, but it is not good to make a general rule of a lot of them fighting alongside and against men (which implies the way you wrote it).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you read the premise of this article, and the previous is that there is a belief that women were trained to fight. Evidently, as you admit, there are examples of them being trained, so the premise holds. One need only look further afield to the Japanese to see that women were most certainly trained on a regular basis to fight to defend their homes. So, the premise of the first part holds that women were trained to fight in the medieval age, and not just in the West, but also in the East. More evidence of this has been gathered in recent times in Scandinavian countries of women fighters training and fighting alongside men, from extant burials.

      Further, if you are including both parts of this document, you will find that in the Soviet army during the Second World War, and even more recently, the Israeli army trained women to fight, alongside men in large conflicts. The point of the second document being that there is evidence of female combat training throughout history, from the Roman period all the way to our present era. Indeed, it continues into our present era.

      Likewise, there is clearly a difference in the premise between women being trained to fight, which was the original premise; and women being trained to fight and fighting alongside men as a general rule, which is the premise you have implied from these discussions. I used examples (exceptions as you called them) of them fighting, as evidence that women were trained.

      I am sure that the lack of evidence of more women fighting has something to do with the predominance of historians being male. This is likely based on assumptions made by such males based on the supposed capacity of women to be trained and to fight. Further, this is likely founded on some old notion of the roles of males and females in society, and the influence of Victorian era historians.

      Delete

Comments are welcomed if they are in English and are relevant to the topic. Comments will be moderated.