I lile how you say "the only" like you have anything to base that on.The only women alongside viking warriors were their spouses.
And please, refrain yourself from posting that one and only alleged female viking who's authenticity is heavily disputed, at best.
Im saying they existed.
You can believe whatever you want, but there isn't any historical proof that supports your claims.
I think a lot of you underestimate the deadliness of weapons, sword and stuff.
If both armies are equally trained and the discipline is the same, and neither has the ground advantage.
Ancient battles were mostly fought with spears, so the reach advantage for the men would count for nothing.
At a 2:1 advantage, the shield walls of the Women army would counteract any physical advantage the men would have.
Just look online on how effective shield walls are.
With a slight advantage of morale, or having the better ground, or better tactics, any of these in favor of the women would lower to 1:1
If it was shield and spear warfare I’d favor the men even more. That type of warfare is based on a lot of drill beforehand. Men can train far harder and more intensely than women.I think a lot of you underestimate the deadliness of weapons, sword and stuff.
If both armies are equally trained and the discipline is the same, and neither has the ground advantage.
Ancient battles were mostly fought with spears, so the reach advantage for the men would count for nothing.
At a 2:1 advantage, the shield walls of the Women army would counteract any physical advantage the men would have.
Just look online on how effective shield walls are.
With a slight advantage of morale, or having the better ground, or better tactics, any of these in favor of the women would lower to 1:1
OP explicitly said , same training, same everything. otherwise yes.If it was shield and spear warfare I’d favor the men even more. That type of warfare is based on a lot of drill beforehand. Men can train far harder and more intensely than women.
It’s not possible to have the same training is my point.OP explicitly said , same training, same everything. otherwise yes.
Imperial Russia had female only combat units:There were no female armies because in a battle against the enemy, you want to be stronger and the enemy wants to be stronger than you. So you use the best stuff you can have. And men are significantly better than women in such battles. Like, it's not even close.
Netflix, right?since the Viking times there were women fighting
Well, this is from the same link you posted:Imperial Russia had female only combat units:
Women's Battalion - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
So, just something to inspire men to fight. I can see how this would work as a backup plan or "last ditch effort" like the article says. If you left with nothing, you are going to use something, whatever you got. Still, that doesn't mean it's optimal.a last-ditch effort to inspire the mass of war-weary soldiers to continue fighting in World War I
No, art history! You know tombs on Britain! Go look it up! Women buried with swords and romans write about them!Netflix, right?
Jeez....
I'm scared alreadyAll the women would have to do is have the most attractive ones get naked and hold up a sign saying free sex and then have archers pop out of hiding and slaughter the men with arrows as soon as they got in range.
The men would have a huge advantage in a melee obviously. A man can swing a sword harder and faster than a woman for longer. I’d say 20 to 1 in a fight between professional armies. But it could be way more.
The largest advantage would be logistics. A Men’s army would far more efficiently use calories than a woman’s army especially if women need 10 - 20 times the numbers to make up for physicality.
So, Romans (some time 2000 years ago) somehow fought against Netflix' female Vikings (some time 1000 years ago) as seen on "you know tombs in Britain".No, art history! You know tombs on Britain! Go look it up! Women buried with swords and romans write about them!
Do they have arrows or spears they can throw?
OP says no firearms so every man would have 3 women with knives, spears or swords to defend against. Have you ever been in a fight against multiple people? There is a reason even trained fighters recommend running if you face multiple attackers. While you focus on 1 or 2 attackers, the other one is gonna stick a fork into the back of your skull.
Yes? Whats stopping women from devising battle plans and using tactics to win? Men have the advantage of individual strength, not brains.This isn't a street fight.
Fighting 1 vs 3 is a lot different from fighting 10000 vs 30000.
There's several historical examples of outnumbered armies winning massive battles (Agincourt 6k vs 30k, battle of Alesia 50k vs 200k, battle of Muret, 1k vs 10k)
One skilled man could possibly take 50 or 100 women
Yes? Whats stopping women from devising battle plans and using tactics to win? Men have the advantage of individual strength, not brains.
The battle of Alesia was a last stand siege, not really a battle.
And this statement by the OP is bordering on the nonsensical
Really? This is the premise of the OPWhat you said was nonsensical.
"Have you ever been in a fight against multiple people? There is a reason even trained fighters recommend running if you face multiple attackers. While you focus on 1 or 2 attackers, the other one is gonna stick a fork into the back of your skull."
This is completely irrelevant for a large scale battle.
Strength is a huge advantage during this type of battle, they can take hours or even days, to say that it doesn't give men a huge advantage is ridiculous.
This is basically biological advantage vs numbers. I'd bet on numbers any day of the week, especially if both sides are equal in anything but brute strength.Assume that both armies are well fed, healthy and highly trained.
Really? This is the premise of the OP
This is basically biological advantage vs numbers. I'd bet on numbers any day of the week, especially if both sides are equal in anything but brute strength.
This isn't a street fight.
Fighting 1 vs 3 is a lot different from fighting 10000 vs 30000.
There's several historical examples of outnumbered armies winning massive battles (Agincourt 6k vs 30k, battle of Alesia 50k vs 200k, battle of Muret, 1k vs 10k)
This isn't about strategy, it's about melee combat.Yes? Whats stopping women from devising battle plans and using tactics to win? Men have the advantage of individual strength, not brains.
The battle of Alesia was a last stand siege, not really a battle.
And this statement by the OP is bordering on the nonsensical
He probably thinks this is the average male cutting down 50-100 ( ) trained soldiers without breaking a sweatThis isn't about strategy, it's about melee combat.
A single woman could theoretically kill a group of men if she was smart enough to lead them to a trap. Dunno, maybe poison their food or make them cross a river full of crocodiles or something.
As far as i understand, this topic is about putting a bunch of men VS a bunch of women in a melee battle.
This isn't about strategy, it's about melee combat.
A single woman could theoretically kill a group of men if she was smart enough to lead them to a trap. Dunno, maybe poison their food or make them cross a river full of crocodiles or something.
As far as i understand, this topic is about putting a bunch of men VS a bunch of women in a melee battle.
I agree, i quoted the wrong person.Yes, and a bunch of men would beat a bunch of women in a melee battle.
Yes? Whats stopping women from devising battle plans and using tactics to win? Men have the advantage of individual strength, not brains.
The battle of Alesia was a last stand siege, not really a battle.
And this statement by the OP is bordering on the nonsensical