Were most of viking warriors women along with their high ranked ones?

some of the vikings also were merchants and traded valuable goods such as furs and fish. these vikings become very rich and most of the time owned lands for farming.
as you can see in this picture.

damn that's one long house

*became
Of course some vikings raided the Brits and traded with the Greeks. but these people existed everywhere in Europe at this time.
remember, Vikings are not a tribe of warriors. more like a common label for everyone north of Germany.
and most people in Norway lived in huts like this 3-4 hours away form people.. the dream of every Veeky Forums user.

lol the tittle changes every week. First it was "A possible viking woman warrior has been discovered" and now it's "All viking women were motherfucking berserkers".
I can't wait for the next week.

Do you really think an army of woman could physically defeat an army of man? I'm not saying man are "better" for being physically stronger but they are, so in that particular aspect, if you want to raid some land armed with blunt weapons, i would suggest taking male soldiers.

t. genetic failure

>Me the 35 year old manlet

How is sexual dimorphism not an argument? Jesus Christ.
Post adolescence the average man is stronger than almost all women in his age range and physical strength is only one of their advantages.
When it comes to medieval warfare it's not hyperbole to say a man is worth 10 women.

>find one Viking warrior woman
>therefore, all Viking women were warriors

>find one Viking warrior woman
>find a woman buried with weapons

fix that. Women have been buried with weapons before and in the fashion of warriors, it doesn't mean they were warriors. A lot of male graves in that same fashion may not have been warriors.

>that one dude with 175 kg
>the other one with 25 kg

Kek

>that one milf with 100+

>no alpha viking erika wifey to wait to come home from raiding, nervously watching the distant horizon on the water while cleaning the hovel and feeding the kids
>why live ?

correction faggot, vikings were vikings, most words were farmers but there was shit to farm so like how today people migrate to work, people signed up to vikingniggers and invade foreign lands.

I have over 180 kgs, it's really not that much. I mean, it is compared to the average man, it's not when you compare yourself to really strong people.

>Do you really think an army of woman could physically defeat an army of man?

If the women were all archers yes, but that wouldn't happen as that would be cowardly to vikings

You need to be strong to use a warbow. This notion that thin girls can just pull bows like it's nothing is complete nonsense produced by hollywood.

I think it's per hand m8.

Nope, it's combined grip strength
The average man has a grip strength of 100 pounds per hand (100 right hand, something like 90-95 left hand), which is 200 pounds combined, i.e. 90 kg
I have over 200 pounds per hand, so over 180kg combined

why the fuck did I use i.e.? I should sleep more

I refuse to believe the average 20yo male can only diddly 80kg.

If you're a warrior, I would think you've been trained all your life.

The average 20yo male in the west probably can't deadlift much more than that, yes.
You're thinking of gym members, and out of those, you're probably not counting those that care mostly about cardio.
If you really don't believe what I said earlier I can link you the study on average grip strength.

Still, I doubt that there are many women there capable with training to draw heavy-poundage bows.

I guess Veeky Forums really messes with my perception of the world.

It really, really does.
Think of it like this:
To get to the population of fit that posts how much they lift you have to remove all of these groups:
- too young
- too old
- too fat
- too thin
- too sick
- all those who don't exericse
- all those who do exercise but don't do weighlifting
- all those who do weightlifting but are doing some shitty program that isn't going to bring them anywhere
- all those who are doing weightlifting correctly, but have been doing so for not much time
- all those who are doing weighlifting correctly, have been doing so for a while, but are intimated by other people's lifts so they don't ever post

You're looking at something like 5% of the population.

Well no, because again, using bows is cowardly

Your circular reasoning is pretty good.

>If the women were all archers yes
All foot archer force would get massacred by armored infantry on an open field.

I FUCKING HATE THIS ARTICLE!!

Hurrrrr let's make broad sweeping statements based on fucking nothing!

Let's ignore all evidence pointing out its most likely bullshit.

Norman grave of camp whore found in England buried with one (1) arrow.

Norman invasion of 1066 was 100% strong female warriors!

't. History Channel

Almost no one in any of those grave sites, male or female, showed any marks associated with major war injuries, or even the strain of a heavily physical life style. Sounds like they were well off noble types who had armor made for ceremonial duties.

>dna proves a body found is female
>evidence lays the body was found with other things that a high ranking person might be found with
>evidence also shows there is supposed to be another body, but that body is missing

>Oh and all these bodies were shuffled around a century or so ago, so they don't know if this is the original configuration or random configuration

So what did we learn? There's a female buried next to warrior weapons and ornaments, THEREFORE WE WUZ FEMALE VIKING WARRIORZ

battle of armies is something different than one on one duel,what counts in battle is training, communication, tactics and equipment. it's more likely that women win a battle (though they still have disadvantage) than woman winning an equal duel.
About blunt weapons, why the hell would you have dull blades? if you have blade you can afford to sharpen it, unless you are talking about percussion weapons, in that case in dark ages they were rarely used as full plate was not developed yet, or was too expansive to be popular

some were warriors, yes but not most and not even many. Most people think of vikings as figher's culture where strong is good but it was like most dark age cultures, women were less important politically, due t it being dark ages. next you will say that vikings didn't have slaves -.-

strenght is not essential in fightng.
yes women are weaker but by choosing right weapon you can decrease this disadvantage.
ex if you have squad of men with axes or ewen swords, you can easily keep them at bay using spears. and no, vikings would rush onto spears, they were not stupid

Where are you getting this information?

Women joining campaigns and expeditions as camp followers is a known phenomenon, but I haven't found any evidence claiming they were trained for combat. I would love any source or evidence that claims this, if you have it.

Everything in these posts is wrong. Not only does archery demand immense upper body strength and years of training, but there was no social stigma for Norsemen against archery in warfare. Consider the legendary archer Einar Thambarskelfir, or the saga character Gunnar from Njall's saga. Both were renowned warriors and capable archers. That they used bows was not a detriment to their honor, but one of many talents they employed as warriors.

The reason war-bows were not commonly used in Nordic warfare was a preference towards the Javelin as a ranged weapon. For one, Javelins are easier to make, easier to train to utilize, and would be exceptionally useful in hamstringing enemy warriors as their greater weight would slow down and obstruct its victim's motion more than an arrow, which is particularly useful if your enemy has a shield. You may not be able to get through that shield, but you can at least weigh it down to make it harder for your foe to use.

There was, however, immense social stigma against violation of gender roles in Norse society. The man's realm existed beyond the house and family, the woman's realm existed within it. Women were excluded from violence with little exception.

Every fucking article on this subject is nothing but wishful thinking and confirmation bias running rampant. There's plenty of reasonable explanations for this find more likely than "She was a female warrior" and "female warriors were common in iron-age Scandinavia".

Look up Judith Jesch's blogposts on the matter if you're really interested in all the reasons why.

So what was so wrong in my post?

Oh, I apologize, user! You were exactly correct. I actually meant to quote

Fuck, I meant Sorry man, I just woke up.

kek

progressives were a mistake

in duels men were stuck in a fucking hole to even the playing field.
ask modern female HEMA fighters, men are stronger and always have the advantage in a fight. A female can be a tactician, sure. But that isnt the same as being a fucking warrior.

Viking women berserkers were Muslim and posibly queer gender as well New study finds

Why would you want to be a stinky snownigger? Imagine the smell of helga, your childrens covered in mud and shit while barely speaking a human tounge just gutural noise , if you are not raiding is boring as fuck , you cannot read or write and even if you could it wouldn't be anything good exept more "hurr durr violence odiiin " the only thing left is to fuck your stinky wife who was probably raped by another snownigger while you were away.

>t.frog

A viking was, per definition, someone who went raiding. Viking is not an ethnic term, but a term for someone who engages in a certain kind of activity.
If you farm, you're a farmer. If you go a'viking, you are a viking. Not that "vikings" didn't farm or fish while they weren't on raids.

>cannot read or write
>children covered in mud and shit

You're thick as fuck mate.

Not sure about the vikings but the literacy rate in Western Europe at that time was extremely low. Only the clergy and, say, half of the nobility could read. There were very few things written anyway, and nothing in the daily life.
Also you probably don't have kids, these feral dwarves are ALWAYS covered in mudd, they literaly worship it.

The Vikings had a Runic alphabet. At its most simplistic it consisted of ~16 runes, each of which was responsible for a handful different sounds depending on context. Though slightly difficult to read, they were fairly easy to write with, and the simple, straight-line characters were meant to be etched into things.

Not only were rune-stones common ways to commemorate dead loved ones and significant events, but they could also be used to mark areas of property, and legitimize land claims: Inscriptions to the pattern of "Gunnar raised this stone in the name of his father Harald, from whom he inherited these lands" could accomplish both goals.

Furthermore, runic inscriptions have been found overseas- the Hagia Sophia had graffiti left by the Varangian Guard, and a stone statue of a Lion in Greece has a similar inscription left by a trader. Runic inscriptions have also been found on mundane items- names of owners, and humorous, pointless things such as a comb bearing the inscription 'I am a comb'. Wooden tags bearing men's names are theorized to have been used by merchants to mark their wares at market. There's also Saga evidence of widespread literacy: farmers sending messages to each other written on small pieces of wood, characters reading inscriptions.

All of this points to fairly common literacy among the Vikings. Certainly not the 99% in developed countries today, but common enough among the people that farmers could write their names and send written messages to one another. It's also likely that Runestones wouldn't be nearly as widely used if literacy was low.

>Kids
I work with kids. Fair point. Children ARE notoriously filthy, but Scandinavians at the time had a reputation for bathing often. Wish I could source it but I recall a Saxon noble ranting about how Danes bathe and wash their hair frequently in order to seduce British women.

>99% in developed countries today
You wish. The most developed countries don't reach 99%. And they don't even take in account that many illiterates hide their illiteracy. The reality must be around 90% max (it was like that when I was a kid but the end of conscrition ended the statistics), and it doesn't improve lately, more and more people simply forget the knowledge because of modern life.

I think he meant adult population.

>strength is not essential in fighting

Spot the guy who's never fought in his life.

"You can keep them at bay using spears"

Ok, a common scenario in bronze and iron age warfare was two shield walls clashing, most would be armed with spears, if we put a shield wall of women against one of men the men would win 999 times out of 1000

Maybe, however if you could only support 10000 soldiers out of a population of 2 million you would select mainly fit young men, the only older men being professional career soldiers. Pretty much every polity did this to get the best bang for their buck.

If you wanted to look for "Valkyries" your best bet would be female aristocrats, though these women would have the same knowledge, culture and goals as their male counterparts and would recruit from the same demographic.

>The reality must be around 90% max
That means 2-3 people in every school class are unable to read. I think the only people who can't read are too mentally retarded to do anything, foreigners, or one of the handful of weirdos who somehow avoided school. I don't know how many retards there are, but if you don't count them I absolutely think 99%+ literacy is realistic.

>a comb bearing the inscription 'I am a comb'

>I absolutely think 99%+ literacy is realistic.
In France the "official" rate of illiteracy is 7% (not counting those who are out of the charts, and they're fucking numerous, unemployed, weirdos, gypsies, migrants etc).

The female remains were found to have no injuries at all.
Either she was the worlds greatest fighter to have spent ten to fifteen years training and fighting without so much as a stress fracture, or she was a slave sent into the afterlife with a real fighter.

We will never know because the original excitation was fucked up beyond belief. They did not record the position of the remains in any detail. They did not catalog the remains. Everything went into one box for storage without being marked in any way.

This is what happens when left politics invade science. They take one paragraph of a six hundred page dissertation and run with it because it matches their world view.

Science is not about proving your world view, it is about expanding it, chalanging it.

For a good example Iceland has always had a pretty high literacy rate. This could've potentially been a continuation of late Viking-era trends