Female Vikings

That's pretty fucking funny. Are there Black Moslem Vikings too? Please tell me Alfred the Great is black

The difference in upper body strength between men and women is so severe that it is effectively impossible for a woman to compete with men in sort of physical combat. I'm sorry, but its true.

Ivar the Boneless looks kind of swarthy. Also Ragnar meets some chink slave in Denmark.

Well, yeah, that's partially true, but it's not really the reason women were not sent to war.

The real reason is that they are too valuable to waste on the battlefield, since they control how many children a society can have, not through selection but through physiology.

You don't have to be particularly strong to wear light armor and walk forward with a pointy stick, but losing a woman is many times worse than losing a man, when population is a concern.

>You don't have to be particularly strong to wear light armor and walk forward with a pointy stick

You do when you're going to be up against a line of men who are equally well armed and armored. To say that medieval battles were strenuous is an understatement.

Well, yeah, that obviously plays a factor, but the fact that they're an inherently valuable resource is the key factor as to why fighting women were never selected for.

Obviously most men are going to be stronger than most women

>Obviously most men are going to be stronger than most women

Most? More like "nearly all." There is a reason why athletics are generally segregated by gender. Women simply cannot compete in any situation where physical strength is a factor.

Vikings did write about it. Lagertha and Ragnar Lothbrok you dolt.

That doesn't mean the stories are true, of course.

Besides the Vikings didn't really write anything because they only had runes.

>They're jumping on this to push Feminist Beliefs
Why can't feminists "empower" themselves through honoring feminine roles in history, it looks sad when they try and push the strong warrior women thing when it's just not a real phenomena. They should talk about matriachs, queens, crafters, deception instead if they want somewhat believable revision

To be fair by the time of the Saga's writing I believe they had well been christianized and I am pretty sure with that came a washing of things like homosexuality and other topics that would make them be seen as Savage including allowing women to go to war.

But yeah, I hear you.

Or they should realize that strength of character is important, and that even though a woman may have been a wife and mother, she could still be of a noble character.

There's also the fact that most people in the middle ages weren't soldiers, they were farmers, and women and men worked in the fields on near even keels
I don't think you can argue for a lack of those things by blaming Christianity.

Already been questioned by a researcher

norseandviking.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/lets-debate-female-viking-warriors-yet.html?m=1

>Well, yeah, that obviously plays a factor, but the fact that they're an inherently valuable resource
That is the defining factor, if women were as strong as men and thus fit for combat they would have been used for combat despite their biological importance, maybe not in such great numbers, but they would have been a common sight on any battlefield and would be written about regularly.

Instead we get oddities like in the OP that feminists gush over not even having the self perception to realize they are projecting their inferiority complex when they praise one in a million woman who was able to do something 99% of men did in essence admitting that it is unusual and out of the ordinary for women to be "equal to a man".

The only people who claim women could not be warriors are as retarded as they claim those women to be. Learn how to fight. It's not all brute strength or anything like that.

You're all so stupid.

>the person in this grave must have been a warrior as they were buried with a weapon
>the person buried at Sutton Hoo must have been a fisherman, as he was buried with a ship

> It's not all brute strength or anything like that.
No, you're stupid, "fighting" is mostly lugging heavy things around for possibly hundreds of kilometers in terrible conditions and then fighting at the end of it. Look at american reports on female recruits, under female fitness standards, and you'll quickly see the massive difference in injury rates, most women can't hope to pass male fitness standards at all. Females literally have a normal body fat % twice that of males (10% vs 20%). Women who get their body fat % on par with the male norm are considered at health risk.

Even fighting sports often have weight categories because brute strength is an inherent advantage, especially when both sides are trained. They all have categories by sex.

You tricked me. I read the whole article, I agreed with it and now I found out it was written by a WOMAN.

How can I cope? Now I have to go read some Karl Kraus. I'm between a rock and a hard place, believing into FEMALE viking warriors, or believing a woman.

No, but one of the characters spends the whole time butchering Christians and then one day he comes across a Mosque in Spain and immediately falls in love with Islam

She was probably a well respected shield maiden. The Vikings we're not sexual egalitarians by any means , but the practice of shield maidens assisting men is well documented.

On the other hand, it could just be that a woman was buried with her husband's belongings

>(3) Having concluded, to their own satisfaction, that the deceased in Bj 581 was indeed a female warrior, the authors go on to conclude, with very little discussion or justification, that she was 'a high-ranking officer', based apparently on the fact that the burial contained 'a full set of gaming pieces' which apparently 'indicates knowledge of tactics and strategy'. Another factor which may have led them to this conclusion, though it is not stated explicitly, is the fact that they determined that the individual was 'at least above 30 years of age'. By the end of the article, 'the individual in grave Bj 581 is the first confirmed female high-ranking warrior', because 'the exclusive grave goods and two horses are worthy of an individual with responsibilities concerning strategy and battle tactics'. All this seems to me to move rather quickly from evidence to speculation which is presented as fact.
>(4) The authors also note that there were 'No pathological or traumatic injuries' observed on the skeleton.
>They also say nothing about whether there was any indication on the bones of the kinds of activities one might expect a warrior to have engaged in, as strenuous physical activity might be expected to have left some traces, particularly if they were good enough to avoid injury to themselves.
>But such perspectives do not seem to be applied here - they want the woman to be a warrior, so the scientific analysis makes her a woman and her 'archaeological context' makes her a warrior.

>>(4) The authors also note that there were 'No pathological or traumatic injuries' observed on the skeleton.
>>They also say nothing about whether there was any indication on the bones of the kinds of activities one might expect a warrior to have engaged in, as strenuous physical activity might be expected to have left some traces, particularly if they were good enough to avoid injury to themselves.

I think this is the most telling. She might have been a female warrior, she might just be buried with her husband's / father's / son's sword, there doesn't seem to be any way to know.

I might be wrong. But isn't it so that people can be mortally wounded and killed in battle without actual damage to the bones.

Its possible, but if she was really a warrior its highly possible that her bones would be damaged. Most people who see combat for extended periods of time develop those sorts of injuries.

There's a rigorously displayed precedent for Christianity doing it, but certainly user cannot forward that it must have been there to remove simply because it would've been removed, had it been there in the first place.

dude kill drumpf xD

Especially women. Today women get injuries from just regular boot camp training the men do without injuries like marching so you'd think that a viking warrior woman would have injuries visible in her bones.

/thread

Why can't people get this?

this, dudes, especially soldiers were pretty much all fucking yoked until very recently in history, healthy men in the middle ages were either builtfat or shredded

the vikangz were actually black, dont let the white washed media fool you

Even without injuries, physical activities let traces on the skeleton, where the muscles are attached. You can say with 100% accuracy if someone was a worker or a lazy noble.

>but the practice of shield maidens assisting men is well documented.

No. You've been watching TV

>There's a rigorously displayed precedent for Christianity doing it
There's really not. Christianity tended to keep things like homosexual relationships in tact and interpret them differently. Nobody took away the Amazons either. Don't know where you're getting these notions from

its not actually physically possible. Viking women would have been stronger then women of today. But viking men and other male warriors would have been superhuman in strength compared to men of today. No woman would stand a chance

Stop pulling nonsense out of your cunts

>tfw no futa viking will ever rape you

But >Reddit told me that Viking women were a well documented phenomena in Scandinavian museums

>thinks being a soldier was easy and that all armor was basically weightless
>hurr pointy stick lol
>has the hide to call anything else in this thread nonsense

neck yourself lad

>Its a woman being buried with her husbands stuff most likely.
So where's the husband?

Raw physical labour does not build muscle anywhere near the same way as bodybuilding does, especially when you're likely low on nutrition.

Muscle is muscle.

It was common for Norsemen lost at sea to have a favorite thrall or Trell take his place to guard his items in the afterlife.
Most likely its his favorite Trell with her throat slit , tossed in.

The board game making her " a powerfull military strategist" still cracks me up everytime i read it

“On her lap she had gaming pieces,” said Hedenstierna-Jonson in a previous interview. “This suggests that she was the one planning the tactics and that she was a leader.”
Someone actually graduated by making suggestions like this

>“On her lap she had gaming pieces,” said Hedenstierna-Jonson in a previous interview. “This suggests that she was the one planning the tactics and that she was a leader.”
I'm not sure how serious is this statement (maybe she said it half jokingly), but the sad part is that most of people who read it will believe it...

No. Female muscles are, pound for pound, only about 90% as strong as male muscles.

>maybe she said it half jokingly
Why do people go so far to justify an argument that is not only wrong but a massive asspull and clearly not a joke? Is it because they're afraid to be called /pol/tards or whatever is the real life american term? It's okay to give the benefit of the doubt, sometimes, but this is too much.

bump for we wuzzing

>Why do people go so far to justify an argument that is not only wrong but a massive asspull and clearly not a joke?
Because I didn't read the article to begin with, and I (and you) don't know the context of the writing/interview. Hence "I'm not sure".

You know there are multiple different types of muscle fiber

i dont think he does

Yeah, but you don't exactly work cardiac and smooth muscle.
You get Muscular as you work, you might not end up like a body builder, but you get strong.

>letting a woman guard your prized belongings in the afterlife
it's almost as if the woman was a highly skilled warrior...

you dont understand. She's not guarding his property, she IS the property

This.

>it's almost as if the woman was a highly skilled warrior
except her bones dont show this.
No damage from wounds or cuts.And no warping of the bones due to rigorous training.We know who trained with the longbow at the battle of towton due to their collar bones because of this.
She was tall and well fed she never faced any hardship in her life this means she was from a wealthy family or a wealthy family's pet....

bump

We're talking about Sweden. She's being 100% serious.

It was more common for women to be buried with weapons and game-pieces than you think. Rather than personal possessions, these are just standard grave-goods, gifts of value for a departed relative. Even children were buried with weapons, it doesn't make them warriors.

Has it right. The author wants the female to be a Viking Warrior, so she's a Viking Warrior. There's no counter-argument entertained in the article, no alternate interpretation. The bias is pretty clear.

It's highly unlikely that female warriors ever existed in Scandinavia outside of sagas and myth. In short, gender roles were very rigid, and women were too important to society for renewing the population and rearing children. Women did have an important place in Viking Age society and could gain some prominence and respect, but not as warriors. Most Saga references to 'good' female characters depict them as dignified, honorable, and wise dispensers of counsel who guide their male relatives towards success.

Oh fuck, I just realized that the author of that blog post also wrote pic related.

Book was solid stuff. Judith is very, very careful to jump to conclusions and very methodical in her interpretation of evidence, and does a good job of alternate interpretations that don't agree with her own.

*Careful NOT to jump to conclusions

bump for literal conjecture

This. Most of being a soldier is walking and carrying shit all day.

I am skeptic of women writers but i will check that book out senpai.

>But viking men and other male warriors would have been superhuman in strength compared to men of today.

Are you legit retarded? They would be considered malnourished manlets today.
They also weren't particularly impressive at fighting compared to other factions at the time and even before the time of the Vikings. You literally fell for the Hollywood "le badass viking warrior XD" meme.

No need for conjectures, common sense and statistics should tell you that female warriors should have been very rare in ancient times.

i meant conjecture in the study utself where they literally make the jump from "board game" to "military strategist"

Read this article In short those who """studied""" the grave are laughable scientists, whose motivations seem to be more about personal beliefs than the research of the truth.

historians and archeologists aren't scientists

True but you know what I meant, they're supposed to have a scientific approach of their work.

I haven't read anything else by Jesch but the book was fairly interesting. Really all she did was compile and look through different forms of evidence: sagas, foreign accounts, the work of medieval historians, and archaeological evidence. At every step of the way she's thorough, analytical, and very grounded in her thinking. She entertains opposing points of view and really doesn't do much other than point out evidence and its possible interpretations. It's all very scholarly and I would totally recommend the book, provided you have a basic grasp of Viking Age history and society.

So rewrite history to make people feel good and get fat stacks of cash

For shame

The bones that were tested might not even be the original bones from the grave. The grave was dug up sometime in the 1800s and the discoverer just kinda threw stuff in bags with out a real labeling system. The only reason this body is tied to this grave is that it kinda looks like the drawing done at the grave dig.