Female Viking Warriors?
So, they identified the remains from a Viking grave as a woman, and the individual is buried with an axe, a sword, and also apparently an armour. But does this mean that there were female Viking warriors? Let's find out.
We have a lot of written material from this period, and where they write a heap load about the Vikings, and chieftains, and small petty kings, and wars, and attacks, and so forth. And in all the literature we have, they mention a total of zero female Vikings. Not one.
So I disagree. I really don't think this proves that there were female Viking warriors. It only proves that a female in the Viking era was buried with some weapons. And these weapons were probably the belongings of her father, or brother, or husband, or maybe even son.
The reason why I think they were not hers is because women were not warriors. Women didn't go Viking. And we know this from a heap load of literature, just as I stated, there's not one mention of a female Viking.
And with all due respect, they're women. You have a heap load of qualities, and you have qualities that men don't have, but when it comes to being warriors, you are inferior. You have less muscle mass, and you need a heap load of training to become as adapt(adept (?)) in combat as the average man without any training. So there is no rationale for training women to become warriors.[1]You would need ten times the amount of training for the woman than you would for the man. So why would you bother? Not only that, what kind of fucked up, pardon my French, society sends their women into combat? Yeah, because who need women to give birth to new generations of warriors, right? Why not send the children into combat too!?
Historically women's role in combat was to supply the men with weapons.[2]They would stand in the background, and the weapons would do the fighting, and when the[3]weapons of the men broke, or the shields, the women would rush forward with a new one. That was their role. That's the role of the shield maiden, to provide the man with a new shield when his other shield[4]breaks in combat. The man would step back, look around for the woman to come rushing towards him with his new shield, and then he would continue the fight. That's shield maidens. They weren't doing any fighting themselves.
To sum it up, I don't think this grave proves that they were female vikings, and we have no historical records of female vikings, and it would not be logical to train women to become warriors, and that's it really. Thanks for watching, bye bye. I can add that women did receive some combat training: Self defence training. A woman could have weapons and armour for this purpose, and this too could explain the grave found in Sweden.
So, they identified the remains from a Viking grave as a woman, and the individual is buried with an axe, a sword, and also apparently an armour. But does this mean that there were female Viking warriors? Let's find out.
We have a lot of written material from this period, and where they write a heap load about the Vikings, and chieftains, and small petty kings, and wars, and attacks, and so forth. And in all the literature we have, they mention a total of zero female Vikings. Not one.
So I disagree. I really don't think this proves that there were female Viking warriors. It only proves that a female in the Viking era was buried with some weapons. And these weapons were probably the belongings of her father, or brother, or husband, or maybe even son.
The reason why I think they were not hers is because women were not warriors. Women didn't go Viking. And we know this from a heap load of literature, just as I stated, there's not one mention of a female Viking.
And with all due respect, they're women. You have a heap load of qualities, and you have qualities that men don't have, but when it comes to being warriors, you are inferior. You have less muscle mass, and you need a heap load of training to become as adapt(adept (?)) in combat as the average man without any training. So there is no rationale for training women to become warriors.[1]You would need ten times the amount of training for the woman than you would for the man. So why would you bother? Not only that, what kind of fucked up, pardon my French, society sends their women into combat? Yeah, because who need women to give birth to new generations of warriors, right? Why not send the children into combat too!?
Historically women's role in combat was to supply the men with weapons.[2]They would stand in the background, and the weapons would do the fighting, and when the[3]weapons of the men broke, or the shields, the women would rush forward with a new one. That was their role. That's the role of the shield maiden, to provide the man with a new shield when his other shield[4]breaks in combat. The man would step back, look around for the woman to come rushing towards him with his new shield, and then he would continue the fight. That's shield maidens. They weren't doing any fighting themselves.
To sum it up, I don't think this grave proves that they were female vikings, and we have no historical records of female vikings, and it would not be logical to train women to become warriors, and that's it really. Thanks for watching, bye bye. I can add that women did receive some combat training: Self defence training. A woman could have weapons and armour for this purpose, and this too could explain the grave found in Sweden.
- "Why train 10 male warriors when you can train 1 female warrior for the same cost?"
Yeah. That makes sense. - And shields.
- Well, the men would do the fighting. Sorry about that.
- Or a new weapon.
Video version of this article
0:04:07
Source: https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/forskere-trodde-lenge-at-dette-var-en-mann-nye-analyser-kan-endre-vikinghistorien/68678539
If you're a regular viewer please DON'T try to become a Patreon supporter for as little as $1 per video because they are o...