Could WOMEN have fought in medieval WAR, and won?

[@bronhaller]

Some good points, and thankyou again for specifying the difference in "can they fight" vs "would they comprise a significant proportion of an army", which are completely different questions. Even the Spartans, a highly militarised society whose women actually learned some skill at arms and trained athletically, wanted the men to fight and the women to breed - women were fit because it improved their chances of successfully breeding and surviving pregnancy, and they learned enough about fighting that they could defend themselves if they had to. When I was at Uni I was a fighter in a mediaeval reenactment society (I stopped doing it when I moved away after finishing Uni), and I am also a brown belt in Brazilian jiujitsu. I agree that menstrual cycles can significantly affect performance, but (possibly TMI here) if you train regularly, you can work around it, as there are times in your cycle that you are more resistant to pain and fatigue, and can lift heavier, just as there are times when you are weaker and more vulnerable; personally I had irregular periods that were usually 3 months apart, but when they came the pain was as bad as labour pains (yes, I have kids so I can compare the two) so after my kids I chose a contraceptive that pretty much stops my periods. Without the advantage of modern technology, I could be a reasonable fighter or a complete mess, and we don't need that sort of unpredictability in a military campaign (although I'm sure if I had to defend my town against invaders, I could have still made a positive contribution even on bad day, due to TRAINING). Stopping here before I ramble - great article! :)

[@killcat1971]

More importantly you don't WANT to have women fighting, because they can do one thing men cannot, have babies, if you lose half your men you can manage, if you lose half your breeding age women you are in trouble, basically they are too valuable to risk.

[@Knightstruth]

Oooof the incel is strong here.

[@Delt4_Cr4wfish]

@@andrewb9409 not to mention different in mental capabilities because that too plays a role.

[@tarvoc746]

@@killcat1971 Honestly, that was probably the most decisive factor in premodern times.

[@Knightstruth]

@@vanivanov9571 Afraid? Mostly no. Incels are mostly sad people. But they are a very hateful subculture and occasionally you do get violent incels such as Elliot Roger.

[@camdenharper7244]

"Statistically, men and women, like to have sex" Officially on my list of favorite quotes now

[@tahunuva4254]

"on average? Men and women, like to have se-" **WE LIVE, IN AN AGE OF PROGRESSION** Ad break, thine comedic timing doth slay me.

[@CAS3Y25]

There was a book I read about a decade ago that solves this for standing armies. The book was modern day alternate reality where people from the 21st century traveled back to WW2 and brought technology and medicine. Essentially men and women fought on the frontlines together because both received a chemical cocktail that suppressed sex drive and halted menstruation, among other things. Sort of like the movie Equilibrium. The idea being you would sacrifice these things to become a better unit of soldiers.

[@Marinealver]

Unless you are an Incel, the enemy of progressivism.

[@overboss9599]

@@CAS3Y25 so bind yourself by the strength of the weakest link? that sounds like a terrible idea, no offense, but essentially castrating the men and removing aggression in exchange for a higher number of bodies as a result sounds like a recipe for defeat.

[@CAS3Y25]

@@overboss9599 I forget most of the details of the novel, but i think the sexual suppression part seemed like one part of a few other enhancements that the soldiers received to better their combat effectiveness. Dosing infantry with combat drugs is more of an extreme measure in a fictional premise than a moral one. This was in the fictional context of time travelers shaking up WW2 with future tech, not a moral playbook.

[@wyzasukitan]

As a female myself (and a lover of both medieval and action movies!), I find it *way* more interesting and entertaining when female characters have to utilize their physicality differently than a man would have to in combat, or if they have to find ways *around* their limitations to succeed. Part of the reason why I couldn’t sit through the new Charlie’s Angels - the way that their punches made fully grown men fly through the air made my eyes roll so hard I may have pulled an ocular muscle. Of course we can ‘fight’ effectively, but the truth is that we’d have to be in amazing physical condition and be highly skilled in some kind of combat discipline in order to overcome the natural advantages biology has conferred on males. It’s just reality.

[@ErgonomicChair]

Absolutely! In the game I am making, two of the female companions you can have aren't as strong as the MC or the other female companions and they use weapons and skills to utilize their speed, agility, and endurance.

[@rmcgowa1987]

@@ErgonomicChair Yes women tend to be lighter when fit because they don't have as much muscle to weigh them down they are also more flexible than men so they would have a speed and agility advantage

[@rmcgowa1987]

No one would be able to send someone flying like they do in movies every action has an equal and opposite reaction so if you sent someone flying with a punch the same amount of force would also be applied to you as we all know this doesn't happen

[@ErgonomicChair]

@@rmcgowa1987 Yeah, that and I wrote a people up from the north where the disparity between muscle mass of mena nd women is lower, so the women while still being effeminite, if they work to get that bulk, they can match their men. There's some actual races of humans that are like this too, some scandanavian women historically can bulk up better than say women from france.

[@varangiangaming7178]

You can also do what some men including myself do which is to fight dirty for example: aiming for the pelvis, biting, clawing, and backstabbing having no honour in combat really does tend to balance things in your favour!

[@PrestonK_Productions]

In my adventures on Reddit, I noticed that people either vastly underestimate women in combat or vastly overestimate women in combat. The only people I've met online who have realistic ideas about women in melee combat are, get this, HEMA practitioners. Would you fancy that?

[@notsoprogaming9789]

Well the logical ones just dont speak, no need to engage when you can just go about your day. Look at me wagging my tongue when I should hold it still. Have a nice day

[@hairyballs089]

I think that also applies to people who do all types of physical sports as well.

[@yewknight]

Anyone who has trained in a martial art and sparred across the gender gap has a very real perspective on how significant that gap is and is not.

[@rodrigoreismarinho9552]

@@notsoprogaming9789 i've never seen someone write with their tongue before!

[@yewknight]

@Bread And Circuses I never said there was a skill gap. Men and women can both learn martial skills, the difference comes from men having advantages in athleticism. A force multiplier like a weapon can reduce the relevance of that gap, but without a weapon, it is a significant gap.

[@corous7880]

'' Untrained swordsman can sometimes be more dangerous '' If I have no fucking idea what I'm doing it will be impossible for my opponent to outsmart me😂

[@adamjenson9369]

The "sometimes" here is virtually never except in training. Untrained people are more dangerous in training because they haven't developed the self control to do things safely. I've been practicing self defense for over two decades and never have I seen, much list encountered, an untrained person who was more dangerous in a combat sense.

[@guestsuperguest403]

Ya but what's the difference between untrained and stupidity? Just make sure your not that one guy.... thatd be embarrassing. To think your just untrained but your really the village idiot..

[@synthemagician4686]

​@@adamjenson9369 Most fighters aren't trained against people who use impaling themselves on your sword to get a hit off as a "technique" And given the force multiplier that a sword is? This can be it's own kind of dangerous. I think it's mainly the fact that swords are just dangerous, and the people who don't realize how dangerous they are, are a special kind of stupid, I mean dangerous... Well stupid too I guess, but still dangerous lol

[@leonardoraffaelli7981]

@@synthemagician4686 I do historical fencing, and in the two hand longsword there is a move called "the hit of the paesant" (not sure if correct, I'm translating it from the Italian name "il colpo del villano") it's a 3 move hit that can be defined as: -wait his slash and parry -slide to the side (paying attention to the enemy's sword -hit the head it can be used only if the opponent doesn't know how to slash and put too much energy.

[@roninrichards2735]

As a hema practitioner, yes, your literally not wrong, sometimes fighting people who have little or no experience is interesting/helpful due to the fact they are completely unpredictable, sometimes they’re tricky, because you never know what weird, impractical shit they are gonna try

[@Zorro7Point5]

Think historically speaking, not disagreeing with anything being said in this video, but I would like to add the woman's life was valued more in the context of domestication. Loosing women's lives in war would debilitate what is being fought for. Fewer men can repopulate rather than fewer women.

[@Hiiiiii74]

@lyle Also, statistics show that after wars where a lot of men are lost in proportion to the population, more male babies are born thereafter to restore the losses back to equilibrium. It's strange, we are evolved for this.

[@soulfirez4270]

@lyle Which is why the feminist movement of today is so great , its anti having children so these women have made themselves men of society and men are expendable . Next big war I expect to see feminists on the front line proving there equality its going to be a great laugh .

[@elijahhickey4573]

If women were to be implemented into an army, they would do well to be put in the safest position, like behind all the melee soldiers as crossbowmen or something, because like you said they are more valuable in the reproductive sense than men.

[@pedroivantaveraferreira3037]

Also take in account the labour deaths. A man won't die during labour but women die a lot, even today pregnancy is mean bussiness

[@Zorro7Point5]

Hiiiiii74 I’m taking your word when I say that is amazing

[@SeRgEaNt_RaNdOm]

As a Star Wars fan that gets called sexist because I don't like Rey, I just have to say thank you for including Ahsoka in the montage at the beginning of the video, without a doubt my favourite character in Star Wars besides Obi Wan

[@DemoDick1]

Charlie Broom Same here. Ashoka started off as an annoying tween that had me rolling my eyes, then they developed her into an actual character, with, you know, an arc.

[@huntclanhunt9697]

Too bad rebels ruined her.

[@SeRgEaNt_RaNdOm]

@@huntclanhunt9697 I don't think it did, she continued to work with the rebels despite the fact that she could expose herself and put herself in danger, she killed an inquisitor when she didn't have her own lightsabers, took the inquisitors lightsaber and used its parts to help make two of her own then purified the kyber crystals turning them from red to white (which as we know from Jedi Fallen Order is hard for a light side force user to even hold since they feel all the pain and anger that went into it to make the crystal bleed). Then she was able to take on Darth Vader in a sith temple which could have weakened her as well as strengthen Vader and correct me if I'm wrong but she even managed to bring Anakin back for a moment. Rebels was no where near as good as Clone Wars but it definitely didn't ruin Ahsoka, at least in my opinion

[@SeRgEaNt_RaNdOm]

@@DemoDick1 Yeah, one of if not the best character arc in the whole series

[@huntclanhunt9697]

@@SeRgEaNt_RaNdOm I was referencing the fact she's only alive because time travel.

[@heiveldboy]

Maybe an interesting note considering you use Brienne in your thumbnail: George R.R. Martin actually addresses this in the Brienne chapters in A Song of Ice and Fire and I find what he delves into to be fair: Brienne is easily the strongest and best female fighter in the series, but she herself accepts that this is due to several factors and that while she's strong (and even potentially suffering from hormone inbalances considering she's always described as man-like) and tall, men who are her size are stronger than her. She thinks of Sandor Clegane and the Mountain, two characters who display superhuman strength in the series. In fact, one reason she loses her battle to Biter later on in the story is because of his strength and size, not because of skill. So this is the all-things-being-equal argument. But she also mentions that she wins many of her battles because of cultural factors and skill; namely she was taught by her master-at-arms that men will hate the notion of losing to a woman and will try to subdue her quickly to make sure others won't mock them for having difficulty with a woman. Because of that she's been trained to fight defensively and to conserve her stamina. She's essentially a tank that is all about tiring her opponents out. This is described as early as A Storm of Swords where Jaime describes her as such and that try as he may he can't hit her. And he's considered the best swordsman in Westeros. But of course, he had also been imprisoned for a year and Brienne accepts that he would have killed her had he been in his prime. So this is the skill argument. And that fancy armour that Brienne wears is also mentioned several times in the story: most notably when she fights, but also that it deters men from attacking her because they don't think she's worth the risk, even with their sexist notions of womanhood. And her Oathkeeper sword is both very practical (Valyrian Steel being OP, even though she prefers a mace because regular swords don't cut through armour) and detrimental, since it looks so Lannister that everyone thinks she's a Lannister mercenary. Thus she tries to conceal it to prevent people from attacking her because they think she's a traitor or because they want those fancy rubies. So there's the equipment argument. Honestly, I don't see the controversy in this. If George R.R. Martin can deconstruct and delve into the subject of female fighters and whether they're good or not, why can't others? There's nothing wrong about acknowledging that women are, on average, physically weaker and that they have disadvantages, especially if you also fairly look at other factors like skill, the culture, the weapons and armour, etc.

[@saadvideoguru]

I'm loving this comment. Please allow me to add a little bit I'd go so far as to say that having legitimate weaknesses in characters and seeing them succeed despite them, all the while facing opponents who try to use these weaknesses against them, makes for a far more interesting story That's why people dislike op characters and Mary Sues. That's why people like Brienne of Tarth

[@DeadHaremGuy]

I honestly feel like whether or not they can fight is not the real problem in this situation. If you were deploy women into battle you risk severely limiting your future population.

[@josescalcagno]

@@DeadHaremGuy That is another problem that was solved by modern times... overpopulation has a bright side it seems. But in the old times of yesteryear I think that would be a real consideration when dealing with full on war, not so much in a standing army though.

[@francescogulisano2917]

Brienne is also often described as very ugly and shunned by men as a potential sexual partner, which ties in with the concept of pregnancy being a very limiting factor for a woman warrior

[@QuixoteBadger]

Not to mention Area Stark. While not exactly a front line fighter, her small stature and unimposing figure put her at an immediate advantage in any given encounter. As well, her skill, discipline, and sheer force of will allow her to hold her own even when an opponent starts taking her seriously. Not to mention, in war of any era, it's not just the singing of dicks and swords. An assassins blade can turn the tide in an instant without a single marching order being issued.

[@austinbruggeman9064]

Here's a couple of interesting things to consider in a fantasy environment. The presence of monsters in fantastical settings significantly increases the danger of day-to-day life for the average person. As a result, combat training would be far more common among men and women alike because there is a significantly greater chance that you will need to fight for your life someday, be it against an invading nation or a roaming band of goblins. In this context, I think that it isn't at all unreasonable to assume that every mature adult, male and female, would have at the very least some informal combat training, either in the form of casual play fighting among peers or parental instruction. In more advanced societies or larger cities, there may exist an equivalent to boy scouts and girl scouts groups that teach martial combat and swordsmanship to younger individuals, thus ensuring that anyone and everyone could and would learn how to fight. If there was no form of birth control, I think it could be quite realistic to say that generally a kingdom or nation's army would be comprised mostly of men, however in this far more dangerous setting there would also be local militias to defend villages and settlements that would be comprised mostly of women (because most of the men would be serving as soldiers). If there was birth control, the presence of women in organized militaries would be stronger, however I still think that the majority of the soldiers would be men, simply less of a majority, and local militias would still be mostly women. In fantasy settings, there may also exist other equalizers between men and women, such as the characteristics of other races and magic. The general convention that men are stronger that women wouldn't apply to all fantasy races, like orcs. Furthermore, in most settings, magical capabilities are unaffected by physical characteristics; a male wizard would be just as powerful as a female wizard of equal skill and similar intellect, regardless of size, weight, and strength. Taking physical characteristics back into account though, an organized military may still have men as the majority of the fighting force, while women make up the majority of the magic users.

[@Laurantalasah]

FINALLY! Thank you!

[@Carpatouille]

This would make a lot of sense

[@zanir2387]

someone like the queen from rise of the shield hero?

[@jaredkalergi5498]

Think of lions; the females do all the hunting, because the male is dealing with the one threat to the children the females can't handle... other male lions. I can imagine in a dangerous enough setting women being trained to hunt down monsters and maybe bandits and criminals or whatever, simply because the men are busy dealing with bigger threats. you could even have priority given to training and arming women because they are simply more valuable and vulnerable, maybe have cases where girls get inflated egos because they can beat the boys when they're young and trained better, but getting a brutal reality check against a fully-grown and experienced male soldier or hardened criminal.

[@jaredkalergi5498]

@Reggie Jackman I don't know about you, but I've had a few jobs where the people who do the best in training/learning things completely suck when it comes to actually putting it into practice. There's also no amount of training that can extend your maximum reach beyond that of an opponent with superior reach (e.g. the average male in comparison to the average female). Reach / size is important enough that even among professionally trained boxers of the same gender, they're classed by weight because its such a game changer. There's a lot of ways to mitigate the advantage of a stronger/larger opponent, but its still just that: mitigation. when it comes to grappling/swordplay smaller fighters have decent options, but they're still having to put in extra effort to make up for disadvantages. Not to be rude, but the idea that effective training can surpass self-taught people with WAY more practical experience is an idea I've only ever seen in scrubs who have yet to do anything and government jobs that just need some good-sounding excuse to mitigate their liability for mishaps. I can assure you from experience that there is no way someone who learned from guided instruction is going to understand the subject better than someone who learned from bitter experience.

[@DoctorM42]

One more issue you haven't touched it interaction with men in the same army. Lots of men have instinctual urge to protect women, which is not always sensible on the battlefield. In Israeli army where were dozens of cases where male officers risked themselves and get killed or wounded to save female privates in the situations where they clearly should not, which is why modern Israeli army don't use mixed gender regiments, and even plans operations as to limit male and female regiment interaction as much as possible.

[@boruchzadok9188]

The Israelis have a mixed gender combat battalion, specifically the caracal infantry battalion. They are also trialling women in other roles, e.g. the tank corp. As to the urge to protect women reducing combat effectiveness, I can't comment beyond noting that this does not seem to worry the modern Israeli miltary

[@leogazebo5290]

I'm interested in this topic, so could you kindly give me links for the sources.

[@DoctorM42]

@@leogazebo5290 I'm only familiar with this topic through my online pall who served there. That's the justification he received for why infantrywomen train and live in entirely separate camp.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

@@boruchzadok9188 Well military have not always been right. we will just have to wait and see if this works.

[@USMCArchAngel03]

I can you from real world experience with mixed gender units that this is true. The other problem is that some of the other men become possessive of the females and rush to their defense in every little thing. The end result is huge morale drop and destruction of unit cohesion and esprit de corps.

[@LivingNihilism]

This video puts a new perspective on the words 'medievil period'

[@corous7880]

Oh you sly Bastard

[@toastwriter617]

Best realistic representation of a female warrior still having real disadvantage: Casca from Berserk; competent warrior, second in command in the band of the hawk, but she chooses to fight on her period and it nearly gets her killed. She’s not completely useless, she still gets some kills but she’s in so much pain it slows her down and she nearly dies because she was too stubborn to admit it was a disadvantage. She’s the only female in the mercenary company and doesn’t want to look weak but if she had just taken a week to rest until the cramps went away she would have been fine and she wouldn’t have looked bad or nearly died.

[@anikibruh4296]

@justvibing4796 Isn't Berserk seinen?

[@Clarkarius7]

I'm glad that you addressed the sociological elements in medieval history in the discussion, because my word do people not give people of the past much credit for what they had to put up with. It's easy to look at what we have now in the present and make general assertions but the reality was often much more complex then most with give credit for. One point that I would add is that atleast among the nobility, men were more often then not tied to service to their lords, which meant is was not to uncommon that many spent considerable amount times away from their lands or holdings. As such it was often the women who had a better knowledge of their estates and how they were run, they were by no means house wives with no rights, they knew what was theirs and how to safe guard it! That and not to mention the quite disastrous consequences that could follow if a man was viewed to have endangered his wife as part of a politically arranged marriage.

[@insiainutorrt259]

Obliviously saying: ''they were by no means house wives'' While describing the actual real life FACTUAL HouseWives as its pretty much always been outside of hollywood and ''school'' propaganda'n lies... ''Opressed women'' has never been real... oppresed as fuck people tho men women and childred screwed over... quite a bit... But smart rulers figured out how to make more people happy'er= thus we got all of modern tech and industry.

[@berilsevvalbekret772]

Yes they had so much rights! That's why they were taken seriously in any circle of life right? Like women were allowed to learn science or give sermons right? That doctors didn't care that mid wives know about childbirth then them and caused many deaths. They had certain amount of rights obviously but not as much as you make it out to be.

[@insiainutorrt259]

@@berilsevvalbekret772 Try finding out how much shit was put on men and then go back to women and notice how its just a giant shitpile covering them both aswel as their entire neighbourhood... Yes doctors aswel as many other things have been wrong with disastrous results for both men an women...still is today... Again enough with the retarded hollywood and ''school'' propaganda lies... Mayby you could even learn about your own families past?.... I know mine is quite the average shitpile all around.... generaly poor hard working people...

[@berilsevvalbekret772]

@@insiainutorrt259 haha oh I am well aware the past is a giant piece of shit pal don't worry. Of course men also have much on their plate I am not ignoring this fact but just looking at the privilages given to noble men and women the disparity is obvious. I am mostly talking about education and influence mind you. Medieval times were practically shit for everyone who wasn't aristocrat , trader or clergymen.

[@Clarkarius7]

@@berilsevvalbekret772 Well certainly not as many rights as today no, and I'm certainly not claiming that inequality did not exist. I was just stating that the arguement that women held no power whatsoever and had no presence within political disputes is not true. In my research in local nobility I have found some quite interesting examples of events of some quite saavy nobles making some interesting political plays over land disputes, but I digress. But still I would not want anyone to think that I'm playing down the harshness of medieval life, if anything I want to highlight what many people did achieve in spite of it. Edit: Also you are quite right, social class was a big factor at play on what options and protections many had (I only just caught up on the comment thread).

[@kylethomas9130]

I like how Shad isn't blanket statement the subject, he's just bringing up several factors that need considering to keep consistency with the fantasy/medieval setting.

[@josescalcagno]

That's what Shad does.

[@fuzzythoughts8020]

That's what a real expert sounds like. Actual experts hate blanket statements, and even if that statement is 99% correct, the true expert always points out where its not correct.

[@honkeykong4049]

It's one thing to bring up factors, it's another thing to be right about them. He got half that job done, kind of.

[@honkeykong4049]

@Chris George They would take them as warbrides to breed strong children. I think that's pretty obvious.

[@fakecubed]

@@honkeykong4049 Rather than die in battle, they would submit and make babies with the victors. That's true whether women are on the front lines or waiting at home. That's why they've never been counted on as brave and loyal soldiers.

[@RpattoYT]

Slight nit pick, on people don't know much about HEMA... The threat of injury, and or death can't really be accurately replicated in HEMA, as people respond differently to injury or even just a severer beating. The extra physical toll put on a person could be significant, when opponents are actually allowed to do harm to the other person. The beating you'd take, before actual death occurs in a medieval fight would be horrendous and physical fitness, strength are known to play a roll in the bodies response to severer fatigue. I personally think other sports, and HEMA give an accurate technical representation of the action, but full body endurance tests can't be measured to quite the same extent, when opponents can not intentionally inflict serious bodily harm upon each-other.

[@dranoradragonqueen1494]

point and a good one at that!

[@rbguerreiro2466]

On the other hand it has been proven women can deal with physical pain better than men.

[@ChickenBiscuits]

That is the problem I have with HEMA. The fact that those fights are not to the death or there is even a chance of death makes it not a good comparison for an actual battle.

[@droolguy]

So, what your attempting to describe can actually be accurately represented through high end combat and stress training. Which does include injury and severe pain to drive panic and life-or-death adrenaline levels. Essentially you replace "death" with severe chemically & electrically induced pain, which does not leave any permanent damage. If HEMA wants people to fight true to life without actual risk of death they can ask the US government for help designing a negative feedback system that goes under the armor.

[@MrAranton]

@@rbguerreiro2466 I'm not so sure about that. There are so many kinds of physical pain, it doesn't make sense to generalize like that. And how well people (regardless of gender) can deal with pain, depends on what they've experienced before. Historically speaking human societies did their best to protect women from pain and hardship, which is why women's work - even if it was objectively harder than men's work today - was always a walk in the park compared compared to men's work of the same period.. When I was 19 - and fresh out of my (conscripted) stint in my country's army my sister (who was 17 at the time) and one of her girlfrieds took a fancy to exploring the country on foot. They wanted to hike a long distance and sleep in tents. My father refused to let my sister do this unless I joined her, because I had experience biwaking. I wasn't looking forward to this, because I know what biwaking means. But neither my father nor my sister would take no for an answer. The girls had been hiking for about five kilometers and started to complain sore shoulders and asked me carry some of their stuff. After ten kilometers they started to complain about sore feet. On the second day I was carrying more weight than both girls combined and stil they were so groggy they just lay in the grass while I did all the camp-building and cooking. On the third day they gave up on the idea of long distance hiking and decided to take a train back home. I don't know about her girlfriend, but my took almost a week to recover, while I was annoyed about having to do this, but physically fine.

[@Lihoradka-s6v]

100% true. I would add that apart from being pregnant and on period from time to time when our performance could be lower, we women demand a higher level hygiene than a medieval army could provide (because of periods again). I think in the said epoch it was more reasonable for women to learn to defend themselves and the castles they live in, for any case of emergency when men are scarce or are away, than train to be a professional soldier or knight. Also women could be trained to be effective managers of whatever household they had under their control, which was also crucial for the survival of their community. You shouldn't necessarily go into battle to prove yourself.

[@cleverlyblonde]

Exactly! None of this should be very controversial :) In the viking age, the women often helped defending the homestead and organised the household.

[@nurainiarsad7395]

Yeah. There's a difference between offensive/invading warring and defensive warring. The context for amenities and resources is very different when the army is in enemy territory or in inhospitable terrain for long periods vs in territory close to one's own population centres. There's more to warfare than just the actual combat skills.

[@essimathews9056]

It might make sense for women to be successful in designing, building and defending fortresses. With time, women could absolutely build as good a castle as any man, and with the skills of running a household expanded into managing one's inventory for a siege, as well as women's tendency for better cooperation amongst themselves, and better resistance to starvation. This might absolutely be the tacitc that allows them to win wars.

[@jamesright9009]

@@essimathews9056 Not reallly I have seeen woman builders they might be okay painting try get theem to build a wall No way specially aa mediaeval Castle wall

[@essimathews9056]

@@jamesright9009 You do know that they used blind people to power the treadmills for the cranes historically, right? If disabled people were used to build castles, what makes you think women would be deemed useless? Can they not mix mortar? Can they not communicate the building plans? Can they not drive carts with supplies? It might not be easy, it might not be the most efficient allocation of resources when there are men around to do the STRONK LIFT OF ROCK! But it is possible. My point was that in warfare, that might be the preferred strategy for an army of women, as opposed to out-and-out attacking when given the choice, since women could get the same end product of a castle, with just a little more time, instead of relying on an advantage in physiological strength that just isn't biologically in the cards.

[@beccag2758]

Shad: do periods affect women's physical abilities? My cramps: *evil cackling*

[@dranoradragonqueen1494]

point

[@edi9892]

Gives +5 on aggression

[@Peecamarke]

The thing many guys don't understand is not all women have cramps and periods the same way. They vary depending on the female

[@shemac1482]

It depends. My period cramps are nearly nonexistent. Fatigue, however, could be an issue.

[@dranoradragonqueen1494]

@@Peecamarke I know I don't get cramps to badly most of the time. But when they do his ouch. It can feel almost impossible to move. Mine usually hit on the first day and are gone by the second. My apitie also tends to take a hit the first day.

[@thedarkmaster13]

That number of six children on average is also very important, since death at a young age and especially kids was far more common in the past. Women needed to have six kids on average just to maintain the population, so the advent of germ theory, the sanitation revolution, and agricultural revolution are just as important as the pill is for liberating women from pregnancy and having children being the most important thing for them to do.

[@miken4591]

If you add in 8 months of breast feeding per child, woman had very little time to do anything apart from child creation and minding. Well, apart from tending fields, minding animals, spinning, weaving, etc.

[@Amokra]

and yet the birth rate of the west is going down even though we are having higher live births (makes you wonder)

[@Amokra]

@@killdizzle just thinking about the idea when we had low birth rates we had more kids to make sure of keep up with the population (also a socio-economic issue) tended to surpass; but, now that it is not necessary we seem not to be able to even keep up. just giving something to think about

[@nosajimiki5885]

@@miken4591 8 months? That is a post feminism Western civilization standard intended to get working women back in the trenches as soon as possible. It is actually really unhealthy and significantly increases the odds of early childhood death. Between 6-12 months is when they begin producing the enzymes needed to digest most solid foods, but breastfeeding should continue to supplement their diet until at least the age of 2 when the child's immune system finishes maturing enough to not need his/her mother's antibodies to fight off common diseases. Most cultures in the world, and throughout history breastfeed for about 2-4 years.

[@miken4591]

@@nosajimiki5885 - the question is at what stage of breast feeding does it stop being effective contraception? That's what determines child spacing.

[@Wwdancwe690]

Honestly, as a woman, what annoys me is that female roles are basically only these “strong female roles”. Traditional feminine women are not valued at all in fiction much less real life. We’re all clamoring to be “just like the boys” and I’m not sure why we should or why we would want to be that. Men have done awesome things throughout history and that’s great but why can’t we value women’s roles and portray them faithfully with respect. There is so little of that that I find myself often frustrated by women being portrayed as either better because she’s more masculine, “not like other girl” or “ahead of their time”. To me this signifies a distinct lack of respect and value for women’s role in the preservation of humanity and a preference for masculinity, just not in men. Two recent movies come to mind that have both been reviewed on this channel. 1. The King and the oh so “empowering” yet entirely out of place speech the Princess makes at the end... when showing a woman in her position honestly shouldn’t be disempowering but traditional femininity shouldn’t be so maligned. 2. The outlaw King whose female character I believe is overall very well done, but I guess not flashy or exciting enough to be important or acceptable to modern standards. Overall why are masculinized women the way we should want to be why is femininity not useful in the modern day or fiction? Anyway that just truly gets to me.

[@benkalem]

This is just a hunch, but I'm guessing there are more male writers getting things published, and many of them don't really know how to write female characters.

[@chrissmith3587]

notsoartsyart it’s a lot easier to write a war film than a film about waiting for the soldiers to come home. But people demand diversity and eye candy so either add a female soldier, who to be an effective soldier must be more masculine, or do what Pearl Harbor did and add find an excuse for a non military personnel to appear however flimsy the pretence

[@jacobitewiseman3696]

@Larry Kenobi the media does. I don't I cringe because women that muscular are likely infertile.

[@gabesd6697]

@@benkalem Yep that's my bet as well. I would suspect that in combat-heavy fantasy specifically the slant is even more pronounced, but perhaps this is changing. It may be simple to make a character female to change the diversity of a cast, but to do so without thinking too much about backstories would result in this trope, especially if done en-masse.

[@gunchar06]

The Wonder Woman creator(who was also a psychologist and the founder of the lie detector btw.) talked about that specific point in the 1940s: “Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don't want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women's strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.” ― William Moulton Marston

[@ancientgamer3645]

My primary combat martial arts instructor, who was also a childhood friend, told me the most dangerous thing I would face during my training was the newbie student.

[@Aybrix]

It's so nice to hear a discussion about this without all the needless politically correct bullcrap that muddles everything. I actually heard a presentation back in college from a woman who, I believe, was in the military or somehow associated, wrote her paper about why women are less equipped for things like long tours in deployment. For these same reasons, periods and pregnancy, and general higher standards of cleanliness or along those lines. She also said a number of women in this mentioned unit came back pregnant. When you're fighting away from home and everyday could be your last, it must be hard to resist temptation.

[@tarrantwolf]

Especially since people, after being in a deadly situation, being around death, tend to feel a need to reaffirm life. Basically, people tend to get horny after surviving dangerous situations.

[@Blind0062]

And according to the U.S. Armies reports women are 30x more likely to develop PTSD.

[@DoctorM42]

@@Blind0062 although women are several times more likely to get over PTSD and recover than men. Still 30x is a massive difference.

[@gabesd6697]

@@Blind0062 That's got to be because men are underreporting due to the "weak" "unmanly" stigma of PTSD or perhaps some mental thing like on average not really reflecting on mental health, and not just standard psychological resilience taken on its own.

[@BrennanCh06]

Also they're substantially physically less capable

[@andrewlaporte5477]

In the Poppy War by R.F. Kuang this issue is actually addressed in a similar manner to how Shad describes it. The main character, who is female, is training to become a soldier when she gets her first period, a severe one. She chooses to take a concoction that ends her menstrations and makes her sterile. I just wanted to throw that out there.

[@grey1916]

Hey, I'm glad to see the Poppy War getting some love! Amazing book.

[@anon_laughing_man]

Upper body strength. End of.

[@andrewlaporte5477]

@@anon_laughing_man So you don't like Rocky, huh?

[@miketheskepticalone6285]

@@anon_laughing_man , I know personally at least five women you do NOT ever want to meet, unless you are built along the lines of Dwayne Johnson or Jason Momoa, AND TRAINED. Verlynn in particular ... six feet tall and change, and she threw square bales around one handed as a joke. Were they common? No. However, women that can not only stand with men in physical contests but actually BEAT them are not the mythical creatures you seem to be thinking them.

[@ABaumstumpf]

@@miketheskepticalone6285 And nobody says (or at least no sane person) that women can not beat men. But on average and in general they Are weaker. In an army you are most likely not looking at a representative selection form the population but rather the fit and strong individuals - the upper part of the distribution. A fit women in her 20s at the upper end of women's strength is still not stronger than an average 60 year old guy. So while there are (and were) some women that are better suited for fighting then men, the vast majority can not come even close.

[@JustSumGuy01]

I think what people take issue with isn't women in fighting roles in fiction but the intention behind the writing. Is the purpose because the writer is pushing a social agenda or is it for simply that women fighters are awesome and how they want to portray said women. Does she have her own strengths and flaws that's parallel to a man or is she just taking place the role of a man?

[@epiccthulu]

Excalibur01 Political agendas have always been in works of Art, only political climate has changed. No one looks at a male action hero, like hobbs and shaw, and associate it with political agenda whenever they break physics in a fight. But if you happen to not like Rey, I myself prefer her over Luke, you would more likely associate her with Feminism/SJW. Someone could link the character arc of the female lead in Shad’s book with the metoo movement even if it was not Shad’s intention. I believe this is called Death of the Author

[@elainewalter8685]

That is a very good point. I always keep that in mind when writing my female characters. The way i see it you shouldn't write strong female characters you should write strong characters who happen to be female By that i mean that the thing that makes them special isnt the fact that they are a women. And never write them with the attitude of "women can do everything men can" because they cant

[@JustSumGuy01]

@@epiccthulu several years ago, no one really made an issue when they gender and race swap classic characters in a remake, especially if it's done well. Nowadays, there's a forced agenda about it. It's in our faces. That's my problem. Back then, it's a "why not" mentality. Today, it's "because diversity and representation" is both disingenuous and lazy. Rey is a lazily written character who didn't earn her place in the story.

[@JustSumGuy01]

@@elainewalter8685 I think currently the best examples of portraying women as not just fighters but good characters without the influence of western social agenda is anime. They have all the ranges of women that western media us trying to do. Strong, talented, in positions of power, can be see as equals to their fellow Male characters but it never feels forced at least to me. Most shows have personalities and a sense being genuine and entertaining

[@ianlilley2577]

@@JustSumGuy01 major Armstrong's sister and the Asian girl come to mind

[@sophiearcher6153]

as a girl i allways find these kind of videos interesting, and i can allways say you handle the topic respectfully shad!

[@BlameTheController]

Was Army for 8 years, on every single long march with gear and weapon, all the female soldiers fell way WAY WAY behind. These are women at the top of physical fitness and are still lagging well behind male soldiers. Any medieval army would likely do quite a bit of marching, unless under siege themselves. The distance traveled per day would be far less making the army much less mobile.

[@shadiversity]

Hi mate, thanks heaps for your input. I don’t dispute your experience at all, but I’ve looked into the experiences of others and found enough cases of more physically fit women being able to keep up. Regardless, one of my main points is that even soldiers who can’t march as far as others can still hold military value and be employed effectively.

[@misscandy5410]

In medieval times soldies wouldnt wear their armor while traveling, exept of course if they were between battlefields and i dont think those marches would last for days.

[@susanmaggiora4800]

Blame The Controller - Overwatch I was in the army & was a skinny guy (130 lbs in basic). When we did full gear road marches, anything over around 8 miles was really a grind for me to not fall behind. I was generally carrying around 55-60% of my body weight, compared to someone who was 175-200 lbs carrying 30-45% of their body weight. In combat conditions, it would be even higher. I’m absolutely certain there are women who can, and do, kill it in road marches. But I’d guess for the majority who weigh around what I did, it’s gonna be a tough slog.

[@birdlaw1019]

@@shadiversity So you are discounting 8 years of military service and first hand experience, for the anecdotal evidence you found on forums while sitting behind a keyboard? Sounds legit!

[@Erowens98]

I was also in the military, admittedly for far less than 8 years. And i agree with your assessment. The few women in our unit where always at the back of the back without fail during marches, be they 5km or 50km even when they started mid pack. The endurance issue is a serious concern. I'd even wager, it is the greatest concern. Given that marching is 90% of a soldiers job. The Finnish army accounts for this by giving the handful of female volunteers roles that involved mobile machines. Jeeps, atvs, trucks, etc.

[@ThibautVDP]

"Every guy from the dawn of time has thouight a girl with a sword is hot". Amen

[@gunarsmiezis9321]

No.

[@forlife-sv8hr]

what kind of sword we talking about

[@randomperson4198]

@@forlife-sv8hr probably the pummel

[@forlife-sv8hr]

@@randomperson4198 I mean I'm more of a handle guy

[@thelast4646]

No

[@shadfacts6465]

Shad Fact: Shad works on his speed with his swords by splitting apart tachyons particles.

[@gilgamesh310]

Does he go back in time to chop them apart?

[@revantobias8567]

Shad Fact: MauLer came to Shad for a Power Mace as he waged war against Cinema Roberto.

[@scarcevoyage4079]

Hmm interesting I wonder how tachyon particle react to this interesting

[@gilgamesh310]

Scarcevoyage407 They don’t actually exist.

[@DragonGunzDorian]

Shad facts whoever you are, you are a blessing. Always enjoy seeing your comments.

[@jordanneedscoffee]

This topic seems so straightforward and obvious to me it's so weird that it's commonly misconstrued and misunderstood. We have one side saying women are completely equal to men physically in every respect besides genitalia and the other side saying a woman could never compete with a man. Per usual, the real answer is somewhere in the middle. I will say though, the differences in men and women don't show up in the averages, not much anyway, it's the extremes that they show up at. If we say that in a physical contest the average man would beat the average woman 60% of the time, that's not that crazy and not that different. The difference is the most skilled man in a type of physical contest would beat the most skilled woman 99% of the time. For example, Serena Williams, widely known as the best female tennis player ever or at least in her generation, lost to the 203rd ranked male tennis player at the time while she was in her prime, and it wasn't close. A woman has never thrown a baseball 80mph or faster, and the US National Women's soccer team lost to the Dallas FC 15 and under boys team in a scrimmage. My biggest problem with this topic is that people can't seem to just accept biology in this case. Because as it turns out women are a lot better than men at some things too, but for some reason we disregard that and don't seem to care, because how dare men and women not be exactly the same or something.

[@jordanneedscoffee]

@Catarina Vergueiro Thank you :) I'm glad to know there's still some reasonable people left in the world

[@deathdog1392]

Ya know what really the only thing that women are better than men at? Being mothers. Modern feminists don't value that, and it seems more and more of society doesn't either. I mean can you think of any activity, more likely to cause reproductive problems or baroness in women other than regularly engaging in fights? Or other combat sports like MMA, Boxing, or in this case sword fighting? What good would a society of barren women headed off to war be? How long would that realistically last?

[@fakecubed]

The bell curve on men is wider than for women, that's absolutely true. But men are physically stronger and tougher even at the average, and significantly so. You could argue that men and women, on average, are closer mentally (and the same bell curve width differences is readily apparent when it comes to intelligence). But physically, the man's bone structure, and capacity to grow large muscles, is so much beyond that of a woman even in the middle of both of their bell curves. You have to go way, way back in the evolutionary record of fossils to find less sexual dimorphism in the human species, but the sexes have specialized quite clearly when it comes to physicality. It's not 60%, it's probably well over 80%, maybe over 90%.

[@scottdean2199]

I did some heavy fighting with the SCA years ago. I was never skilled enough to compete one-on-one, but performed well in "Wars" where formations and tactics played a role. Team players aren't always the best solo fighters, and vice versa. Group fights allow you to use tactics to cover individual flaws.

[@ObjectiveZoomer]

On another topic, can we just petition Netflix to make Shadow of the Conqueror a 10 part mini series already? That'd be great thanks.

[@lordofthepizzapie9319]

As long as they aren't allowed to fiddle with it. I wouldn't want to see Shad's story bastardized for political back pats.

[@RitsuCurisu]

I can't wait to see Shad's blue sword get the nutsack-armor treatment!

[@paulsciria8921]

I’d sign it

[@valleyrover4958]

Ah, Battle for Wesnoth mage profile pic! A man of culture, I see

[@yurineri2227]

I’d sign it

[@headmetwall]

Me: 'Oh a new Shad video!' -It's a part 2 to a video I missed somehow 'TWO new Shad videos!'

[@micfail2]

Yeah, he got a lot of flack in the comment section of the first video because people don't seem to understand that nuance is a thing. I had a feeling that we were going to be seeing a follow-up

[@brotherandythesage]

My question is, "where are all the normal looking women?" Not all women are hot!

[@MrCmon113]

Most women are hot to most men (of the same age).

[@uummmnocoolnames]

Re: Marching - I remember skimming a report of a trial the USMC did regarding the performance of woman v. men in combat. One thing that stood out to me was the greater rate of injury, and the greater rate of serious injuries (ie broken bones) the women in question sustained over long marches. I'll fully admit I've no idea how much a medieval soldier would be tasked to hump around on a march, although I highly doubt it was anything like the 45 - 70 lbs of equipment modern soldiers need to carry, but the point still stands: Long distance marches aren't just about cardio, but about how much abuse your body can take before breaking down. On a completely different side note, I absolutely loathe how modern conversations have broken down to the point where you have to explain the idea of an "average" to everybody anytime you use a statistic. Math was easily my worst subject in school, yet even I can grasp the concept quite handily, as well as the notion that anecdotal evidence doesn't impact as statistical norm, but it seems depressingly few people are able, or even willing to apply a highschool level understanding of math and language to a conversation. /rant.

[@BrennanCh06]

The Roman military was well known for carrying a substantial load per soldier and moving significant distances every day. Now they were also a logistically advanced non tribal army, But the point is that it was still quite a consideration even 2000 years ago

[@fookinaye8277]

I'm just wondering about the weight. A big portion of 70lbs could be made up of just what a medieval soldier would wear. Shield, plate, mail, several weapons etc etc plus day to day gear, food, tools, sleep systems etc. Not touching on the marching aspect, only the weight carried

[@uummmnocoolnames]

@@fookinaye8277 See, the thing is I don't know how much an average soldier would be tasked to carry vs. what would be carried in a wagon train. From what I understand, battles weren't often spontaneous things, and therefore there's no reason to march around fully kitted out for battle if you can chuck some of the heavier armor and weapons on the back of a wagon until you think your within a days march of the enemy. I imagine it also depends on how professional the army is vs how conscripted it is, as well as the question of who owns the equipment. The poorer or more expedient the army, the less equipment I would expect the average spearman to have, down to a basic gambeson, a sack full of trail rations, a helmet, and a pointy stick, some of which was lent to him by the crown. On the other hand, IIRC, an English archer would be expected to own all his equipment, so he'd have his bow, a sword, something like mail or brigandine and helmet, a bedroll, and some trail rations - and maybe he'd be more reticent to put the expensive stuff in the back of a wagon where it can...wander off. The really thicc bois though, with half and full plate, all would've been rich enough to afford at least one horse to help them schlep their stuff around, even if they fought on foot like the English or Danes.

[@wendygoerl9162]

@@BrennanCh06 Yes, but in Roman times "runners" would carry messages for dozens of miles every day. Today we make a big deal out re-enacting the last 8% of Pheidippides' running during the last days of his life. Even in the 19th century, it was common to carry 90-lbs loads (and in Asia, little women carried 100-lb loads ON THEIR HEADS!), but today, OSHA will get on any employer's case if they make employees regularly lift over 50-lb unaided.

[@wendygoerl9162]

@@fookinaye8277 You do know that medieval vendors would carry their entire inventory on their backs in order to avoid the extra toll for using a cart or wagon when going to fairs and festivals, right? I know it was over 100-lb, probably pushing 200, depending on what his merchandises was.

[@EricJacobusOfficial]

In the 80s, Samus took the helmet off in Metroid, and she was a woman. All the guys said, "Cool." We identified with her because she shot missiles and flipped. Then some time later, people said, "Stop having a problem with Samus being a woman." We've all been very confused ever since. Thanks for lending some sanity to the "conversation", even though these people don't want a conversation.

[@liwendiamond9223]

Pretty much this. We never had problem with strong female characters, or women being awesome in general. The crazies invented the problem so they could reprimand and ostracize us from polite society. And then they insisted on forcing Mary Sue female characters in every show and movies and ordered us to simultaneously like them and stay clear of them because they aren't meant for us cave men with -triggering- traditional values. In their foolish quest for ever greater social justice, their are ruining societies themselves. Thankfully I think the movement is dying down nowadays. People have grown wise to their bullshit and are fighting back with logic, facts and a generalized sense of wisdom. It turns out, the vast vast majority of men are no racist, misogynist pricks hell bent on murdering/raping everything on sight. We're mostly flawed yet ultimately decent people trying their best to improve themselves, find love and live an honest life. The truth is simple : Women can fight, but they aren't the optimal choice for a soldier's life. Between inferior average strength and endurance, periods and pregnancies, and their lack of killer instinct, most of them would make for mediocre fighters. And since armies are expensive to train and maintain, you want every member of it to deliver the best possible results. (I mean training a single navy seal costs millions of dollars. Do you really want to spend that money on a sub-optimal candidate who's liable to die during the training?) Last but the not the least, if a human population losses a significant portion of their men in battle, it's not a big deal. It can recover in one of two generations without much issues because, if push comes to shove and pardon my crudeness, a single man can theoretically impregnate as fast as he can cum, but if we lose a significant portion of our women, we're fucked. Like extinction event fucked.

[@mrfreeman2911]

See I was an actual gamer in the 80 and 90s when it was normal to be mocked for it. This means I remember that games were gender neutral. Capitalism. The NES was sold as a FAMILY entertainment system and had mommy, daddy and brother and sister on the box. Games? Either animals, or male or female. Some of the best games had female leads, just one example being phantasy star and they ALWAYS had strong females. SO yes your Samus point is spot on and it is only people who never liked video games who claim it is sexist and never had women.

[@bluedragon8417]

@@liwendiamond9223 Yeah the worst thing about it, is often these crazy people that shout out your sexist or your racist or some other buzz word for not liking a poorly written character. Have no bloody knowledge about media history. Yep black panther was totally the first black marvel character to get his own movie. Not like Blade existed befor.. Oh wait he did. That and heck even in star wars, you can point to Mara Jade and other characters female characters in star wars who are better than Rey. Yet you are a bad person for not liking this one single female character. It logic that just drives the mind insane. How is disliking a single fictional female character mean you hate all women both fictional and real or have something against them? I have never seen this logic use on male characters before, unless it had something to do with their race rather than gender. Which heck they are normally so eager to call you a bad person, they don't even take the time to ask themselves one question. Is this character poorly written or maybe they have some traits that some might find annoying or dislike? Since even if a character is well written, on a personal level someone might not like them for one reason or another due to their own personal taste. Since some character are villains after all. Which on a level of is this character well written or not, would of course be a different story. Yet be it for personal reasons or due to legit being able to prove this character is bad. The crazies don't want to take into account this but just call you bad for disliking a character. Which in the case of Rey, cw batwoman and others. Can legit be proven to be bad characters, like having a lack of consistency on their powers and abilities. Batwoman can only live due to her batsuit that can do better anything but than suddenly can get hit while on the road without it on and still be perfectly fine. Since be it aliens or some other ip, people are simply used to much better written female characters. You can't put out trash after giving someone a god tier experience and than claim it on the same level as what you were given before. People can clearly tell the difference and that your lying through your teeth, to try and act like this a well written character when it not. Yet the crazies seem to not want to or lack the ability to understand this. @Mr Freeman Yeah Anita lied through her teeth countless times. You ask anyone who played the game she talked about aka making them out to be the devil. You would find out she is lying to you. By making things up, not revealing all the details or cherry picking a fanservice game and acting like that speaks on the behalf of every other game that has ever existed. That and heck rpgs and even monster hunter like games have allowed you to pick your gender for ages nows. Treating them as equal in terms of gameplay. So go ahead and make your character the way you want. Thankfully Anita is no longer a big thing and she has been reveal to be a cold heartless person again recently. With not offering any help to a former female co-worker of hers while she is stilling on golden bricks. Which yeah in general. Alot of people who claim video game are sexist, often ignore real life women who help to create gaming history. Just so they can spin their lies. Roberta Williams, help to create king's quest. Yet her work and deeds in gaming history are often ignore or overlook by these claiming to be the champion of women. So they want to promote more women in gaming but at the same time refuse to aknowledge the great things women already did in the gaming industry? Like how do some of these people have any leg to stand on it when it comes to calling others sexist? When they are the ones ignoring the deeds and history of women in the gaming industry?

[@JanetStarChild]

@ Eric Jacobus You're being very disingenuous. I've never heard _"stop having a problem with Samus being a woman"_ ever uttered by anyone in all my years. The problem with video games is the lack of female representation as well as the way they're represented. The industry was very sexist and still is, whether you all want to admit it or not.

[@lukebytes5366]

@@JanetStarChild the only reason you didnt hear that phrase is likely because you said it.

[@constc6721]

The compilation of strong female roles killed me.😂 Best argument enhancer ever.👍

[@whitewolf3051]

The whole montage was darn epic when it ended with the Eowyn's "I am no man." Of those women shown, I know of and like Xena, Selene (Underworld), Buffy (Vampire Slayer), Wonder Woman, and the 80s She-Ra.

[@Spectrulus]

That was fantastic video editing. What an emotional ride.

[@muhammedPies]

Women fail: Elk have antlers. Rams have horns. In the animal kingdom, males develop specialized weapons for competition when winning a fight is critical. Humans do too, according to new research from the University of Utah. Males' upper bodies are built for more powerful punches than females', says the study, published in the Journal of Experimental Biology, suggesting that fighting may have long been a part of our evolutionary history. Source: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205132404.htm

[@Spectrulus]

@@muhammedPies well yeah, but when you add in a physical force multiplier like a dagger or a bec de corbin, anyone can be lethal. People get very nervous if they see a child running with scissors, as even someone that small moving at a moderate pace can inflict serious damage with an improvised weapon.

[@muhammedPies]

@@Spectrulus You can't exactly add muscle power equivalent to men, and testosterone though...to make it the deadly combination to all that is mentioned🤷‍♂️

[@laurelanne5071]

Thank you for such a well thought out video that doesn't devolve into either wishful thinking or flat dismissal. One thing missed on the subject of menstruation is how physical training and nutrition affect it. Serious athletes have been known to stop menstruating under intense training, and poor nutrition can cause the same result.

[@SingingSealRiana]

My thought exactly, it does not work for everyone the same, but for some at least it would compleatly sidestepping the mentioned issues! Not enough to have causal equal parts armes, but it would absolutly allow outlyers and acceptions, maybe a "special force" or culture that facilitates that effect (amazones)

[@Luke-jo4to]

Where Klaven is wrong is in his assertion of “100% of the time.” Honestly it’s not surprising that he made this mistake. He’s a Hollywood writer and a political commentator, both involve the most hyperbole of any job in the history of humanity.

[@FuelDropforthewin]

*laughs in politician*

[@SouzaNZ]

There are no E's in Klavan.

[@yiklongtay6029]

Anyone could make that linguistic mistake without meaning it. I think his actual moment of stupidity is freaking out and clamping harder on his stance. When you get caught like a deer in headlights, it is really easy to fall into that mental trap and hold on to your initial stance even tighter. It's wrong but understandable. Poor guy.

[@TheMegaOne1000]

CAN they fight? Yes. Do they have a natural disadvantage? Definitely.

[@Aquilenne]

Before watching, I'm going to guess that the answer is "Context".

[@honkeykong4049]

It's not though.

[@gunarsmiezis9321]

@@honkeykong4049 But it is. Women have no place in the army, they are to be defended not sent to the front lines. (in cases where the war is winnable and losing doesnt mean extinction, as defending the women and children helps recovery after the war, no point in doing that if after the war everyone is gona die anyway and there will be no recovery.) Women must fight if it is victory or death in a war that is not one sided in your favor. (for in that case you give the war everything you got, the losses mater not if it is the only way for anyone to survive)

[@marshmallowvampire8503]

Me too. I knew he would get into historical and modern examples, but all the examples were just fascinating and more than I expected. One thing that took me by surprise was all of the very interesting facts about culture and even biology I never thought I would hear. 😄 This was very insightful.

[@TheGenericavatar]

In the RL modern day American military, a LOT of women soldiers will work on getting pregnant to avoid getting deployed, even if the deployment is just to putter around the sea in a large ship for half a year. This was from a career soldier.

[@tylerdurden4080]

Don't bring reality into this fantasy land they're all living in, you'll shatter their worldview.

[@tylerdurden4080]

@Bread And Circuses even conservatives fall into this trap.

[@tylerdurden4080]

@Bread And Circuses because they do. No one in American society is really conservative anymore. How many "conservative" women do you know that work a full-time job? The conservative movement is in love with Tulsi Gabbard who is a veteran. The list is endless I don't feel like pointing all of them out. The point is, is that women are for the large part not traditional or conservative at all anymore. They're all empowered, strong, independent wahmen save a few.

[@tylerdurden4080]

@Bread And Circuses women aren't helpless they just have their place and it's not on the battlefield.

[@tylerdurden4080]

@Bread And Circuses yeah I spent 7 years in the army we'll just have to disagree ont that one. Women don't belong in the military at all from my experience

[@schwaaard]

Cheers for the application of historical context, bravo for an honest perusal of reality, and huzzah for daring to pose such a query in these perilous times.

[@sophiearcher6153]

i love when shad talks about topics like this, he does it Respectfully and honestly while also not avoiding the actual obvious issues women would have in these kinds of situations.

[@comYakowenko]

Oh, "these perilous times"! "daring to pose!" Such a words) The main point of Shard is that social, cultural and historical context determine the reality. such a thought is not possible before 1970`s and now) It is an academical mainstream now)

[@prepareforbattle2051]

Shad, I think you may have it mixed up. People never said that in HEMA you are only tapping each other, therefore it is not fighting or whatever it is they said. They said in OLYMPIC FENCING you are only tapping each other, because it was brought up by Matt Easton in regards to woman doing well in olympic fencing. Just wanted to make that clear, because people will be all over it.

[@Izunundara]

Nope I've seen the same thing and even from the same person that somehow Olympic Fencing is "more representative of real combat because one hit is one point" and to this day I wonder if they're an ex-HEMA practitioner that just took too many heavy blows to a light helm

[@prepareforbattle2051]

@@Vivi2372 my gosh, calm down. Relax, i am on his side, frigginghell.

[@peterheyes8552]

@@Vivi2372 do you have a screw loe or something? Read it again. He is not attackimg Shad.

[@historicvic2795]

@@Vivi2372 lmfao. What kind of reply is that? Are we reading the same thing here? Ffs mate, take your meds, Prepare for battle did not write anything in a bad way which warented that kind of reply. Calm down, take your meds, and read it again. Reading is fundemental.

[@perianudan-claudiu2495]

"People never said that in HEMA you are only tapping each other, therefore it is not fighting." Saying you're on Shad's side doesn't make this statement true, at all. Vivi2372 had a proper response, I'm used to more vitriolic ones.

[@Scouter5050]

Hard question simple answer yesnt

[@RebornVengeancex]

Periods could hold them back

[@syntaxusdogmata3333]

@@RebornVengeancex Semicolons, too. 😁

[@RebornVengeancex]

@@syntaxusdogmata3333 lol

[@dionjaywoollaston1349]

Michael Gillette not really hard because the medieval period lasted from the 5th to the 15th century and the Viking age lasted from the 8th to the 11th century so even if we were talking about Europe specifically the answer would still be yes

[@DrewPicklesTheDark]

It's not a hard question. The only reason it is "hard" is because the politically correct environment makes is so. The question itself isn't.

[@brendanmorgan109]

Shad, thanks for this honest, thoughtful look at a contentious topic that usually gets dismissed one way or the other based on worldview over any serious consideration. A few other things to consider. Disease was a horrible problem for pre antibiotic armies. Today, one of the major poverty pushes is getting pads for India for sanitation and comfort. Filling your camps with blood even before battles isn't great in cramped, unsanitary conditions. I also wished you expounded more on the physical differences between men and women. Men's bodies are optimized for strenuous physical exertion. Women's bodies make significant compromises to be able to give birth. Men have stronger bones, more sweet glands, and more stamina. If we are talking about winning wars, not just fights, withstanding blistering heat in armor, fighting throughout the day, and quick marches all play a roll. I also have to say, if our goal isn't just to win a war, but to continue our culture, someone has to teach and raise the children, keep food going out. Battles are singular events easy to record and write about. The countless women, who raised countless children, with countless small interactions, is what shaped the entire nation. Its hard to records because each moment is so diffuse, yet without it every nation would fade away faster than losing any war.

[@naneneunmalklug4032]

I love how you closed the compilation with Eowyn "I am not a man" 🤣 laughed so hard, really liked it

[@whitewolf3051]

That's the best part of the montage as a whole.

[@the_hope_of_balarat1109]

Came for the topic, stayed for the montage of awesome warrior women. 😀 Ok, I'd have stayed anyway. But the compilation was seriously badass. 👏👏👏

[@matsv201]

What i learned from this.. medieval magic, is just current day science

[@Loromir17]

That's what it's frequently used for as a worldbuilding device anyway. If you don't go into nuance a work can fall flat, but if you go, yet still want to attract the broader demographic, you employ magic as a way to level the tech dissonance. Few people wanna read about the implications of unprotected sex before modern medicine or the recurring struggle of making a full-on campfire just to boil some drinkable water.

[@ikagura]

Even Alchimy (which was mostly fake science) was the basis of modern chemistry

[@matsv201]

@@Loromir17 Yea... its like... the writer thinks "I don´t know how it would work for 1000 years ago... so.. well.. i just make it in away that it works today.. and just call it magic"

[@Kevin192291]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

[@matsv201]

@@Kevin192291 Well... its true.. and its kind of the same thing. but its not quite what i´m eluding to. My point is that magic is often use as a plot device to make medival stories more look like it is set to day. Kind of replacing cellphone will telepathy Replacing fighter jets with dragons Replace medecin with magic potions Pretty much all fantasy magic have sort of a modern day technological analog Or rather,.. its the other way around. The worst i seen of this is a move... cant remeber the name of it.. its set of sort of a fantasy 50-tys ...... And they just added cellphones in.. because they could not bother fixing the script

[@reneeweavel]

As a 32 year old woman, I can tell you with a good deal of data that the level of debilitation varies for me from cycle to cycle. I've never been bed ridden, but fatigue, pain levels, time frame, and other hateful factors have just been a rollercoaster from 13 years old and up. Usually middling to (rarely) severe pain is consistent. Also, something I think a lot of people don't talk about (or maybe I'm a rare case) due to the so called taboo nature of the topic, is that stress levels play a factor in timing. Higher than normal stress (whether bad or good stress) usually with trigger the beginning. Well, there you go, it may have been no news to you or TMI, but thank you for normalizing truly normal topics.

[@AkkadDaily]

Shad, no! That's *misogyny* !

[@skydancer1867]

Actually this video is feminism

[@skydancer1867]

And feminism is actually misogyny tbh

[@JMObyx]

Oh my, didn't expect to see you here!

[@huntervicari3486]

You did a video about warrior kings and rulers and the philosophy and beliefs behind their actions as a leader willing to fight on a battlefield, if I'm not mistaken. I thought that video was very good. Was shad the inspiration for that video? (The video was on akkad daily)

[@kv-2thekingofderp866]

and the term misogyny is a meaningless buzzword due to being used inappropriately by sjw's for 6 years now. No one should even give a crap about being called that, it means nothing.

[@She-Devil94]

Of course. A lot of warriors were just shortly trained farmers. I don't see an actually trained woman losing to those. Maybe not every woman but it's not impossible.

[@Masra94]

Complete rubbish. The people who fought in war were almost all landowners, mercenaries. Middle class and higher. You wouldn't go to war if you didn't have the time to train and if you couldn't afford your own gear. Especially in medieval times. Medieval armies were pretty small compared to roman era armies because they used a feudal system. Peasants work the land and the landowners go to war, which means the number of troops available was relatively low but they were all pretty well trained. The idea of the peasant being conscripted and sent to war is a myth perpetuated by the ignorant and by hollywood. Warfare for most of human history was fought by and for the benefit of the elite of society. People who had a vested interest in protecting their land and assets would fight. Roman velites, hastati, principes and triarii were all landowners or middle class types of their time. Feudal states had no interest in taking peasants to war, because peasants can't afford to equip themselves, they've got no time to train and they're needed to produce the food to keep the war effort going. As far as "shortly trained farmers", 95% of people were farmers, because the productivity of farms was really low and you needed a huge amount of farmers to sustain your own population. But the people who went to war would usually be the administrators and would usually have servants, serfs or slaves to do the most backbreaking labour on their farms, while they were mostly in charge of the organisation of their farming land.

[@willparry530]

@@Masra94 Then why was it actually common for the common folk to have some kind of weapon for self-defense in a number of areas? Shad covered *that* subject in another previous video. It's also a myth that common folk were forbidden weapons anywhere, and as a major example of commoners being levied to fight, I present the Battle of Agincourt.

[@shadiversity]

​@@Masra94 Wow there are so many inaccuracies with what you're so confidently proclaiming as the truth. There are heaps of examples of poorly trained peasants going to war, just look up the peasants revolt of 1381, or the army of Harold Godwinson in the battle of Hastings, the numerous farming implements re-purposed into weapons. No offense but so many historical examples proves you're spouting some serious rubbish here.

[@Masra94]

@@shadiversity I don't know where you're getting your info but it's blatantly incorrect. A peasants revolt is an obvious exception and it's kind of silly to bring it up, especially considering that they had about 1500 men and they lost. The army of Harald Godwinson at the battle of Hastings was made up of two parts. His personal Huscarl bodyguard, which formed about half his men and the Fyrd, which formed the other half. He could have mobilised more of the Fyrd but he didn't have time since he was rushing from one part of England to the other to repel both Hardrada and William. The Fyrd was almost certainly not made up of standard peasants. It mostly consisted of hand picked soldiers from different aspects of society. Thanes, minor landowners, local militia, hand picked farmers. The Fyrd was not made up of serfs and I have never found any evidence that serfs played any substantial role in the fyrd.

[@Goldenhawk583]

@@Masra94 You seem to me, to be the kind of person who would under estimate an enemy based on pride...not a good move :)

[@kai7692]

I dont see why anyone would want the weaker group of people in their army given the choice, now if there is no choice then yeah everyone picks up a weapon and fights.

[@jukahri]

I'd rather have the smarter group of people making the best mechanized weapons for the army.

[@Cajaquarius]

@Rafael Acosta No, he is right. Things like crossbows and guns reduce the importance of strength and endurance for effectiveness.

[@DrewPicklesTheDark]

@Drunk Pharaoh You need a lot of strength to use a crossbow, arguably more than a regular bow.

[@Ellastein]

I get immediately defensive when this topic comes up. But this was insightful, logical and respectful. Subscribed.

[@lauraw2526]

I like how logically you break this down and also give consideration to how these issues can be addressed. When I've written fantasy, it's rare that I have fighters who are human women in front-line combat, because I simply don't think it's realistic, though I am a feminist. They could be mages, or clerics, or be unusual/serve a specialized role, but the actual numbers of women medieval fighters in fantasy should be comparable, imo, to the numbers that would have existed in history(unless there's some other reason, ie, magic, for why it would be different). If the women aren't human, then I try to address what the biological differences are that make it more feasible.

[@lauraw2526]

@@vanivanov9571 Absolutely. It's not that I think that story shouldn't be written, but there should be a logical reason why it works in that fantasy world.

[@Xtopher822]

One thing that a writer has to be careful of is using strong emancipated female characters in a setting that otherwise reflects a world which is otherwise based on strong medieval basis. There would be many far reaching changes to those societies social structures before women would be tolerated, let alone accepted in these roles. However most authors simply insert their chosen women into their fictions and use a setting identical to a traditional historical setting without adressing the bizarre contradictions that the rest of the female background characters are living in. This leads authors to often concentrate too much on making their female character react to the world, rather than make a world that built that female character.

[@lauraw2526]

@@Xtopher822 That's a really interesting point, and it means that worldbuilding is a lot more simplistic(and lazier) than it should be. Basically taking a 20th century person and dropping them into the middle ages. And I think it'd be far more interesting to imagine how a 'strong emancipated female' could have been born in that time period(maybe she was from a wealthy family, or one with an unusually high degree of egalitarian views or desire for everyone to learn combat to some degree) - and interact with the world on its own terms, with the character knowing that sexist attitudes exist elsewhere, likely to the extent that she wouldn't think of them as sexist, but just the way things are. That, or create a medieval-type world that developed an entirely different culture and value system because of realistic historical events in their past.

[@sebastiancrenshaw851]

Utent notsoartsyart in her comment said that another aspect is that in many cases women in fictions are praised for showing manly features and there is no value in the traditional feminine roles. I think that this is true, many times, considering how already the adventurers are on the edge of society and they are exceptional characters, and because historically men, for various reason, probably biological, have been adventurers (merchants, explorers, mercenaries ' ...), women in fantasy stories tend to be more on the fringe of their "average stereotype". ' actually, some mercenaries tended to wander around with their families.

[@legatusconsta4910]

A feminist? So you basically want mem to have fewer rights

[@dorkatarmsetcetera9468]

this video proves why Shad deserves more love. Youre underrated, Sir Shad.

[@AnduNinicu]

Although i do agree with every point that Shad has , No problem , but i would like to add something regarding the monthly period of a lady, In compassion with professional athletes today and battles in the past , the effort that one is going is a sport competition today is much much lower than the physical effort that one would go through in a war , and over a shorter period of time . In a sport you run , fight , or swim for about 2-4 hours , but in a war ... you run and fight and cross country for days in a row with little to no rest . But still i`m just an average dude who has no experience with sports or fighting so i might be wrong.

[@Riceball01]

In war it's often said that it's long periods of boredom punctuated by brief periods of absolute terror. Battles can and often do last days, months for major ones but it's never non-stop fighting, 24/7. In a battle, you'll fight for a few hours or so, then you'll hit a lull and then the fighting will pick up again. The big difference between war and a sporting competition is that while the periods of activity will be about the same, in war you'll have multiple periods of activity where as in something like the Olympics you'll have a few at most and in between you get to rest in a comfy room with a bed, hot showers, and decent food.

[@TealWolf26]

I imagine that the stress of campaigning overall, lack of comfortable amenities and lodgings and physical stamina drainage over weeks would certainly take its toll, possibly affecting female constitutions...as well as plenty of males.

[@annasstorybox7906]

I assume that the lack of medical knowledge forced especially peasent women to overcome their period even more in the past since men probably wouldn't have understood why a little tummy ache renders someone unable to help with the harvest or whatever needed to be done. So I guess ignoring cramps and fighting through the feeling of weakness or tiredness wouldn't have been uncommon. I also consider that a medieval farmers wife was probably in good shape since agriculture required a high level of physical labor from every person available and the hole housekeeping was likely done by either elderly women or girls to young to be useful workers. In general most every day activities involved way more physical labor, walking long distances carrying loads, lifting stuff etc. than our modern lifestyle and living standarts.

[@Chasmodius]

Don't most Olympic-level athletes train intensively for hours every day to maintain their physical peak? Also, doesn't significant physical stress cause hormonal lapses and skipped periods?

[@MediocreSix]

So yes, life was harder for people who were living before the industrial era. That goes without a doubt. But a sports person of today isn't fighting off the spanish armada in the south seas, hoping for the weather to carry the team again. You're comparing the difficulty of a person doing a job today with a soldier of old, when the sports aspect is only drawn on for performance purposes, because sporting institutes keep really good and politically neutral data on human performance. Anyhooooo, the lives of medieval soldiers weren't hard because they were harder workers. There a chinese kids working on my shoes right this moment that work more hours a day than a knight ever did. For the same reason, their lives were harder because they lacked the technological/financial/political means to make it easier. Its not as though the British have some magical property in their genetics that made them work harder, they simply didn't have a spectre gunship overhead to re-write all the maps at Hastings. They didn't have our standards of fitness either, instead they had their mid-life crisis at 21 while surround by their wife/wives, and enough kids to make even the most staunch catholic of today blush. We are now (tragically), the best of humanity in terms of performance. Your average Roman legionary is believed to be 5'7, and would carry 90pounds 20miles per day in war times...so..basically they are about as fit as a US Marine or at least as fit as the USDF would like them to be, and i guarantee the Romans were probably not as well fed, medically sound, physically strong in terms of agility and overall power due mostly to the fact they had limited understanding of biology, medicine, health and nutrition. And then consider, most Marines today will live to be 70+ years old, and thats in the USA - the only place in the developed world where the lifespan is declining. All in all, the difficulty of their lives as soldiers is owed mostly to their inability to 'git gud' and master electricity, combustion engines, machinery, space flight, air travel and computer sciences, so they could win Agincourt with a couple of well placed drone strikes. Its owed to the trials of the time, not to the effort expended by the troops. If there is ever a future era where man has automated food production, farmers will appear in the same position as medieval troops, like clydesdale horses do whenever I think about my car.

[@salmanmahyuddin8384]

I just want to appreciate that he included Ashoka decapitating four Mandos in one attack

[@CJthedragon8]

Ahsoka is the single greatest Star wars character ever!

[@fakecubed]

@@CJthedragon8 She's a Mary Sue.

[@CJthedragon8]

@@fakecubed you have either not watched clone wars, or your media literacy skills are worse than the average 8 year old

[@toxicdermyillunary4103]

That moment when you realize men are being recruited for combat because they can't give birth to a future soldier or worker, something women can do.

[@fmsyntheses]

For some reason people never talk about that. It's the reason men are willing to die to protect women.

[@Sebomai-b8i]

That moment when you realize literally every combat role a woman can do a man can do better.

[@joaosoares-rr5mj]

@@fmsyntheses is one of the reason, we have many reasons that make we want to protect woman, one of them, being to the fact that they are the mother of our spawn, and different from some people today want to belive... MEN LOVE THEIR CHILDREN AS MUCH AS WOMEN!

[@emilyfouquettehoffman7886]

@Ace Ambling Doesn’t mean we can’t push a guys dead body outta the way and get the job done, baby

[@emilyfouquettehoffman7886]

@Larry Kenobi Lol oh calm down

[@alicedubois1348]

I have been listening to the audiobook of "Shadow of the conquerer" for the past week! I have gotten to the part where Daylen's and Ahrek's true selves have been each revealed to each other. It is a very gripping and edge-of-your-seat moment! The readers of the audiobook are very fantastic, and for my first audiobook, I do not regret it one bit! Thank you for making this book! It is truly a very different genre than what I am used to (classics), I am eagerly waiting for the next installment! ❤

[@shadiversity]

So glad you liked it, means a lot ^_^

[@Marcelo_M.M.]

They can, sure, but *are they efficient?* A woman and a man, both with the same *height, weight, age,* and, *the same level of training,* in equal conditions, males win. Cause most effective musculature, breathing capacity, etc. The champion bodybuilder man is like 2/3 stronger than the champion bodybuilder woman. The same with the champions in speed, strength, and fight (karate, box, etc). Put the best pugilist woman against the best man, and I doubt she has a chance. And... that is in current time, when women has access to drugs that increases their testosterone and many more improvements, in middle ages we have 'natural' women.

[@SysterYster]

What? If a woman is the same weight and height, strength and training as a man, she has just as big of a chance to win as the man. The thing is, most of the time the woman is smaller and weaker. The reason the man more often wins is just because of that. They are generally bigger and stronger. You're arguing that if they were equal, the men would still win. But then you give inequal examples. The best MMA man against the best MMA woman will not be of equal weight, height, training, etc. So they're not comparable. If you had actual equal man and woman competing, they'd be at 50% chance of winning. This is, that's very rare in real life.

[@Marcelo_M.M.]

@@SysterYster You misunderstood my example. Of course with equal strenght, height, and level of train, they will be matched. What I mean is the 'base', when they start training. Take a man and a woman, both 15 years old, with the same height and weight, and both with the same health (we will assume they never will get sick the next years). Ok, they both start training with the same instructor, the same hours at day, and at 18 years old the man will have a better shape. For that reason I took the bodybuilder example, both training at best and maximum capacity, and men ends up 2/3 stronger.

[@Sebomai-b8i]

@@SysterYster except its never equal, if you have a man and woman with the same height, weight and body mass index the man is still better equipped for fighting because he has denser muscles and bones, quicker reaction times, and better body shape leverage (wide shoulders vs wide hips), and while studies have shown that women experience less pain feedback from their nerve endings main are better able to endure pain, essentially the pain tolerance thing is a myth, women literally experience less pain than men. Thats without getting into psychological differences. At the end of the day men and women are not a level playing field no matter how you slice it.

[@SysterYster]

@@Marcelo_M.M. Oh, I see. It wasn't clear from your comment. But yes, I agree with that. Obviously, nothing to debate really. :P There are a few exceptions of course. The guy could be a small guy (didn't grow as expected for whatever reason) and the woman could be an unusually strong, well-built woman. But in general, the guy would become bigger and stronger.

[@seanseanston]

@@SysterYster Still, a 160lb woman is not the same as a 160lb man and will not have the same strength potential. e.g. Women have naturally higher levels of bodyfat and lower muscular efficiency with 1RM lifts, and this before any concerns about their body structure being less suited to athletics and more prone to injury (e.g. the much greater rate of knee injury in women's soccer).

[@KingLeek86]

Another factor about the women's cycle is if the women are kept together in a separate unit. An example of what I am speaking of is when I was going through Air Force Basic Training. We had a sister flight (all female unit). One thing that the females are told is that more than likely...all of their cycles will sync-up where they will go through their cycle at the same time just because of how long they are housed together. That's another thing that needs to be taken into consideration as where, yes each female is different when it comes to the severity of their cycles, is how many of the unit will become incapacitated due to the severity of their cycle. This also happens on deployment since women are housed together.

[@markfergerson2145]

Great general coverage of some of the details. I'll add that the chart of Army test failures demonstrates that women are actually equal to men in several tasks, and as you pointed out, not everyone in a Medieval army (or any other army) did the same things. Women are simply not built to be archers for instance- statistically less overall upper body strength, but carry a spear/sword and shield into an enemy formation? Sure! Also there's the other fundamental biological fact that men can *not* have babies, and if you're a General who wants your nation to survive a war, you probably don't want to risk the *only* source of replacement soldiers on the battlefield (gaining citizenship without being a native-born was far more difficult then). Hence if faced with two possible recruits, one male and the other female, both with equal physical ability, you're still more likely to pass on the female. I'm not sanguine that birth control would change that much. In fact I can see a lot of resistance against it, *unless* the mortality rate for both mothers and babies was far lower, allowing the loss of more "baby makers" without risk of a critical loss of overall population. This would be a major consideration in the days of "increase the tribe" in order to "out-populate the enemy". DISCLAIMER: Modern sensibilities DO NOT APPLY four-five hundred years ago.

[@MisterCoolaidMan]

Except women can make fine archers and can do it from Horse back. Thats why Scythians had large groups of women who fought alongside men, and Archeology supports this as more and more graves are discovered.

[@arkhamknight5801]

hey m8 i disagree with you on"women are simply not built to be archers" it is simply false ... the biological determinist assumption you make here is as false as the "women can't fight with the spear and sword cuz strength" what you fail to mention is that the operative word that you should say is "on average less upper body strength" which means that women who have enough strength to use a bow can competently do it this is of course proven by women being archers in modern day sports and even throughout history like the Scythians and the moguls to mention a few.

[@markfergerson2145]

@@arkhamknight5801 I wrote "statistically", you wrote "on average". Poh tay toe, poh tah toe. How many modern woman archers draw war bows?

[@arkhamknight5801]

@@markfergerson2145 many enough can just like they did in history buddy and its not potato potato these terms are kinda specific so careful when using them have a nice day

[@arkhamknight5801]

@Panda Banana yeah yeah buddy those standard are hight but not impossible also nice assumption there you made with unarmored folks... yeah no the Mongols fuckin famous for being by far the best army of their time not for "strafing in skirmishes against unarmored folks" lets assume that 95% of women cant meet the requirements that still makes 5% of able to and its a far cry from "no women can lift heavy shit " argument you're making

[@blackcat7k]

11:40 In your 2 mile run analysis did you look at how much time women are given to men? Women can literally WALK the 2 mile run in the Army because it's such a damn joke.

[@ericglasgow7087]

No kidding plus there are more men partispating then women so that stat that show a bigger percantedge of men failing more then women isn't an accuate statement.

[@UncleMerlin]

Nobody: The Air Force: *walks*

[@Washeek]

Yeah the data from the training fitness thingie didn't seem very convincing for Shad's arguments a shame really.

[@BrennanCh06]

Yeah I don't think he realizes that the fitness tests have different scoring for different tasks or times accomplished

[@honkeykong4049]

It's because he has to literally lie to try to make this bullshit point. If women were actually all he says they can be in combat, then it would be common knowledge. Literally. You don't have to pull a bunch of garbage out of your ass to try to convince people when what you're saying is clearly true. When what you're saying is clearly false, then you have to find ways to talk around that. This entire video, as well as the last one, is the latter.

[@edi9892]

Is it just me that cringes hard when he sees women in armor, or wielding heavy weapons, but being skinny with noodle arms and legs? 1) if you wear armor and if you're used to do hard labor, then you never look like this! 2) you need some strength and mass (and height) to be effective using some weapons or tools. Otherwise it's _you do not swing axe, axe swings you..._

[@oinkleberry]

Yeah me too, I hate when the entertainment industry gives skinny women stuff they shouldn't be able to use. It's unrealistic and honestly it promotes a bullshit body image. Women and girls shouldn't be made to believe that being swole is bad or gross. We need more chicks with chiseled abs to be the ones using big weapons and armor.

[@Pedro_Colicigno]

To be fair, I have noodle arms and fight light weight HMB Profight. I use a very light german armor (made of brass and steel btw, and that is the historical metal on the armor), it is not full plate in the legs. I will say I don't have as much strengh as it would be perfect for the fight tho, and in a battle that can drag for hours, I would be fucked.

[@edi9892]

@@oinkleberry I don't need a woman with a six pack, but I do admit that I'm attracted to women of above average size, strength and fitness. Being close to 7ft and above 200lbs, dating a girl of 5ft and 90lbs would make me look like a freaking pedophile. Plus, my childhood was tough and thus I'm attracted to women who can survive tough times and don't become a dead weight.

[@edi9892]

@@oinkleberry as a funny side note: I had a weird dream not too long ago about primitive people being teleported into a city park at lunch time. The guys were freaking ripped and the girls hot (very athletic and yet feminine with every Gramm of fat at the right place). The modern people didn't stand a chance neither running nor fighting. The wild ones looked also pretty weird and intimidating.

[@mal2ksc]

@@edi9892 If you're close to 7 feet, I'd _hope_ you're over 200 pounds. 200 pounds is average for what, 6'4"? That said, I knew a guy who was 6'6" and about 160 pounds soaking wet. As his real name was Gordon, we dropped the final "n" and called him Gordo for the same reason you'd call a bald guy Curly.

[@edwardsallow8931]

2:43 Katniss with the bowstring on her nose, oh nonono.

[@Ignisan_66]

F in the chat for her nose.

[@michaeladams3762]

she boutta get a impact induced nosebleed

[@abbiejo6822]

Could be worse - I’ve seen movie promos with a recurve bow strung backwards, and I thought it pretty ridiculous in a newer Lara Croft movie that her bow was insta-killing and I think even knocking men backwards, and yet she can keep it drawn for something like a 5 minute conversation.

[@gunchar06]

@@abbiejo6822 To be fair, Lara Croft is technically also a superhuman who can push huge boulders and fight a T-Rex XD.

[@abbiejo6822]

@@gunchar06 lol fair point, I think she was only supposed to be a normal teenager in that one though but I could be wrong

[@notsm]

The sign of a good youtuber: talks about a video AND links it in the description. Such an easy thing to do and yet too many don't. (And I haven't even seen past 30 seconds yet.)

[@theviewer6889]

The magical plant can actually just do both at once. I'm currently on the pill for the sole purpose of regulating and lessening my period. It still works as a contraceptive, I just don't use it for that purpose.

[@yeoman588]

I was gonna mention that if someone else hadn't. Another thing to consider, especially if magic is involved, is that many of the worst effects associated with severe periods come from medical problems like endometriosis, and if magical healing/contraceptives can deal with things like that it would make periods even less of an issue!

[@richard6133]

@@yeoman588 Another aspect to consider: Magic healing inadvertently _deactivating_ a hormonal apothecary contraceptive...

[@yeoman588]

@@richard6133 Mmm, that'd depend on the specific mechanisms of the healing and the contraceptive. Modern contraceptives work by changing the hormonal balance, so for healing to interfere you'd need to either have the healing magic undo the hormonal changes or have the fictional contraceptive work differently than our real ones. If you wanted to have the plot point that "if you get magical healing you might suddenly go back to ovulating and heavy menstruation", you'd also have to have a reason why the healed person couldn't just re-take their version of The Pill as soon as the medic is done. If you've got enough free time to have sex, you should have MORE than enough time to drink your pregnancy-preventing herbal tea or whatever.

[@Peecamarke]

There's also the fact that period system vary for many different women. I know some who dont get cramps and some who barely bleed

[@Tennouseijin]

I was about to comment the same thing, that medicine/magic that causes hormonal changes would likely have both effects at once. Pregnancy relies on a number of hormones, and changing even one of them would either reduce chances or prevent pregnancies. However, this rises a few questions: - Are there any other side effects? - If the woman wanted to have children after retiring from the army, would she be able to regain fertility? For example, I've heard that female athletes who use testosterone injections to speed up muscle growth, may end up infertile, developing masculine physique and losing feminine traits, since it is sort of like a hormonal sex-change. Therefore, a fantasy plant or an application of magic that works like a testosterone injection could have the desirable effects of allowing females to serve in an army more effectively, preventing pregnancy, lessening/stopping the period and even increasing muscle mass, but would effectively result in masculine females. Most likely, many women would not want to join the army if it meant becoming permanently infertile, and becoming masculine, because of consequences persisting even after retirement from the army. Unless of course there are plants / magic that reverse the effect. (this in turn could provide fiction writers with another interesting topic - the lengthy resocialization of ex-soldiers, including reverse hormone therapy. Of course, this would be desirable but not always available, so it could be used to add depth in a novel)

[@DoctorM42]

Also about pain tolerance. Women at average have it higher alright, but men have higher pain endurance (ability to act despite the pain, as opposed to ability to feel the same trauma as less painful).

[@Sebomai-b8i]

And that biological fact is compounded by the fact that most cultures teach men to endure pain in silence whereas women are taught to complain and express discomfort in exchange for reward and sympathy.

[@ericglasgow7087]

It's about motivation they did a test where they give a dollar to keep your hand in ice water for as long as you can then they offer 20 to do the same the women performed the same regardless of the rewards but the men varied for men 1 dollar motive was half the time of women but the 20 dollar motive made them last almost twice as long as the women.

[@arbiterprime2145]

@@ericglasgow7087 the mythbusters episode where they did the hand in the ice test they found that women who had given birth naturally actually on average had a higher pain tolerance than men, but the women who hadnt tended to have a lower tolerance. so prior pain experience can also play a big factor.

[@ericglasgow7087]

@@arbiterprime2145 women have an advantage when it comes to the cold for they have a warmer core then men but men body heat is more spread out evenly then women. But men naturaly power through it better then woman. While woman have a higher chance of survival but this still doesn't make them good soldiers .

[@hannahhester8376]

High pain endurance? Yeah, every woman before the invention of the epidural had more.

[@Gabbafoo]

I mostly agree - but I want to add that letting women fight in a war scenario has even more disadvantages. You basically throw away the society ... or at least the future of this society. The future of every society is in the upcoming generations - therefore in a war scenario women are long term more important than men. If we would have 2 tribes competing for dominance/survival and one tribe is using women/men 50/50 within its army whereas the other tribe uses 90-100% men - I would assume that generally it would be most likely that the "mixed tribe army roster" would be conquered in a couple of generations

[@theMindwalker]

You know, part of what makes female characters intriguing and more interesting to read about/watch--is that they are at that disadvantage with physical abilities. (Or rather I should say, CAN make it more interesting). To see them triumph in spite of not being on the same level as a guy in physical prowess is enjoyable to see. Most generally will route for the underdog. If the woman realizes she is far smaller--anyone would be intrigued to see how she would compensate for that. (The girl learns to be like Sherlock Holmes and outsmarts her adversaries, or specializes in small firearms, or poison, or anything that doesn't rely on muscles and size to give her the advantage.) But when they say a woman is just as strong (but it is implied they are stronger) as a man, or they can do anything a man can do (but it's implied they can do more)...it takes that victory and sense of triumph away. Think about it, when you put two opponents against each other and you know one side clearly outmatches the other--there is no anticipation or curiosity to see who will win. It's boring. That's what TV and the movies are like now. EVERYONE knows the woman is going to outbest the men. So what? How is there any sense of accomplishment with no challenge? That's like acing a test you already know the answers too. Why should anyone be impressed or care? it means absolutely nothing when they brag or gloat about doing things in spite of being a woman. If anything, it makes them look weaker. When the woman is aided with something like the Force/Magic/Deity--then there is no question to this. Men and women are on the same playing field. Fantasy/Sci-fi to me--get this balance right where it is both believable and enjoyable to see play out.

[@joaosoares-rr5mj]

in a way i agree with you, but that doesnt have to be just with women. usuly, there is a big disparity in ability from a regular person to a skilled warrior, so, both men and women, an go trough the harshness of facing enemies far superior than them. but i 100% agree with you, that seing a character strugling, failing, needing help from others, to overcome dificulties, is the best thing. one of the things that i like to implement in my stories, is that very unlikely the hero will defeat the stronger vilain, by only using his figthing skills, usuly my heroes must find a clever way to defeat the stronger foes, yes sometimes one manage to win in combat, but is far more itnneresting when the hero acctuly have to find a clever way to win. another thing i like to do, is that usuly, when i have one big baddy, i tend to put more than 1 hero to fight that baddy, this way, hen they defeat the vilain, it still can mean that he was the strongest around, but the combined power of the 2 heroes managed to defeat him. if i were to write the star wars sequel trilogy... snoke would be plaegus, and in order to defeat him, rey and luke sons (2 boys, is a long story, i wrote it all in my mind) would fight him together, and they would only win because one of them sacrifice himself for the victory, and plaegus spirit would survive, if not for the jedi spirits comming after him being killed and destroying his dark essense.

[@joaosoares-rr5mj]

@@vanivanov9571 tis always remind me of jill valentine, many times in her story, Barry save Jill's life, Carlos also save her life in resident evil 3. meanwhile, even tough chris need sometimes people helping him, not as much as jill does, and this is one of the main reasons, why jill is such a better character than chris! while chris is booring, jill is acctuly interesting! same thing with leon, he is the good hearted paladin gentle boy, and ada have to save his life many times, but he also save hers, he is naive, and this is a flaw, but is this flaw that makes ada fall in love for him, Leon is good, gentle and heroic, and she saw that boy, and even tough she found him realy naive, she couldnt help but fall n love for that kid. as we can see, most of the times, the characters who need help, are the most interesting ones!

[@clinicallyinane8098]

Luke Skywalker looked awfully small and weak standing against Darth Vader. That's what made the conflict so compelling. People root for the underdog. And like you said, now women are never allowed to be the underdog. They just automatically win, every time. Captain Marvel doesn't even fight, she just destroys whatever's in front of her.

[@joaosoares-rr5mj]

@@clinicallyinane8098 exactly!

[@benkalem]

Also, another thing they don't often show happening in fights is everyone getting hurt, and having to deal with that injury for a while. A skilled fighter can outplay others, but that doesn't mean it's a cheat code. Getting hit, kicked and generally shaken about will cause some damage. Sometimes the better fighter can even lose, and that is rarely seen. One of the reasons I always liked Indiana Jones. He wouldn't always win every fight, and you could see and feel him getting knocked down. Quite often he was saved by other people, or sheer dumb luck.

[@BriarCrawford]

Your talk about pregnancy reminds me of a story about the pirate queen Grace O’Mally who helped fight off an ambush an hour after having a baby. Now I know not everyone can be so hardcore, but thought I’d share anyway haha. In regards to your period questions, it’s again dependant. Some women get cramps, some get none. Some women need supplies often, other need almost nothing. So, yes it would bug some women, but also yes it would not bug some women lol. Interesting fact, though, if women do physical activity without enough energy their period can sometimes stop. Same with high-stress. It’s not healthy, though, and once again, it does not happen to everyone. Now you know the secrets of women lol

[@beth7935]

Hooray for Grace O'Malley! I dressed up as her for a "Rogue's Ball" recently :)

[@BriarCrawford]

Tracey Bethan F. That’s awesome! Great idea 🙂

[@tompatterson1548]

but can it make you better at bowling? kzbin.info/www/bejne/jpKcgml9q7lgh9U

[@BriarCrawford]

tatum ergo she sounds like the coolest lady ever!

[@nurainiarsad7395]

I think it depends on the relative hormone levels. I'm much softer and yielding (i.e. feminine) in my current mellow phase than I used to be when I was younger, in the navy and an equestrienne, and in early corporate life. Now is also when I have more cramping than in the phase of my life when I was the most aggressive. I wonder if those activities lowered my estrogen levels, and incidentally, resulted in less painful periods.

[@piwright42]

"Women have a pretty decent pain tolerance..." All things being equal this point has more graduation than Shad Shad implies. To be more specific, women have higher pain tolerance for internal pain and injuries, this applies primarily to the core, specially to the body cavity. On the other hand men generally do better with external pain such as injuries to the appendages.

[@palladin9479]

That myth was dispelled a long time ago, men have far higher pain tolerances then women due to testosterone. The source for the whole "women have high pain tolerance" was a single man who wrote a single report that was entirely his opinion with no study and factual basis behind it. One man wrote "well since women have babies they must have higher pain tolerance" and that somehow became fact. In reality testosterone and adrenaline are the closet thing we have to super-human drugs and both are far more plentiful in men then in women.

[@Ninjaananas]

@@palladin9479 You cannot disprove something by inventing an argument for it and disproving that argument. That's called a strawman fallacy. And adrenalin is no sex hormon. Women produce plenty of it. I never heard of testosterone reducing pain. Which study proved that?

[@vikingraven4758]

+Ninjaananas Pain is purely a psychological response, that can't be turned on or of manually. What it reacts to can be quite random, both in cause and in intensity. Some people have intense chronic pain for no observable reason, while others feel pain in a limb they don't have. The reason we feel pain is to alert us that something is wrong, so you or your body can work on how to fix it. Having a high pain tolerance towards something basically just means your subconscious brain don't make as big of a deal of that kind of injury, which is usually because it easily knows how to fix it(which depends highly on your bodys repair system), or less often because it failed to register the seriousness of the injury. The pain system sometimes malfunctions too, making you feel pain when you should not, not sending pain signals at all, or perhaps making your toe hurt when you hit your thumb. news.psu.edu/story/141291/2008/11/10/research/probing-question-do-women-have-higher-pain-threshold-men

[@pepsilove6306]

@Justin Halladay I got no scientific proof to back you up, but from my personal experience. I am transgender. T to E and having been in two motorcycle accidents, one pre-HRT and one after 5 years HRT. First motorbike accident. I was on the side of the road barely able to move and trying not to scream cause it made it hurt even more. Lots of Fractures but no broken bones After HRT. I was on the ground more angry and in pain, but no where near as much pain as the first time. So much less pain than the first time, lots of fractures this time as well. I had to wiggle everything and do the dieing cockroach just see if anything was broken before I tried to get up. Cause I didnt Trust how little pain I was in. EMS showed up to me smoking a cigarette sitting on the side of the road and pissed cause I had to waste money on a ride home.

[@11magic1man11]

@@Ninjaananas you're incredibly ignorant and sheltered if you don't know adrenaline reduces pain. Have you ever had a horrible injury? I've been in an explosion and got 3rd and 2nd degree burns on 21% of my body and didn't even start feeling much pain until almost an hour after. I've heard the same exact things about people who have been shot, cut, etc. If you know any other hormone that makes you not feel the pain from having a literal hole through your entire body please do tell me.

[@olhristov]

The moment you talked about birth control enabling a bigger role for women in armies I remembered something that made a lot of sense in Farscape and I was amazed by the attention to detail the first time I watched that episode. Basically, they had a way of delaying pregnancy. I was like "that makes so much sense!!!".

[@grizenator4836]

Some very good logistical points raised, however im still curious about how they would fare in heavily armoured combat? Considering the lethality of a weapon is much lower while you are armoured and the main way you would kill another heavily armoured opponent is getting them to the ground and then rondelling them in a joint/visor slit

[@jwrine3631]

Not sure why, but "rondelling them in a joint / visor slit.". Is the funniest thing I've read all week!

[@Sebomai-b8i]

Physical strength plays a huge part in that kind of combat. Most of the men in that scenario would be using heavy anti armor weapons (hammers, maces ect), so not being able to effectively wield a weapon of that caliber already places you at a disadvantage. Then the grappling comes into play, how do you get someone on the ground so you can put a rondel through their visor? Grappling, wrestling, I don't think I need to explain how poorly that would go for the weaker female.

[@wulfheywood1321]

but the majority of the armies aren't that heavily armoured. long pointy sticks in the leg hurt and it's always the leg armour that gets dumped first.

[@wulfheywood1321]

@@vanivanov9571 or schiltroons where the sheer mass of pointy bits can stop even the heaviest armoured person even if they don't find a gap

[@wulfheywood1321]

@@Sebomai-b8i re reading this I remembered how the Welsh were despised by the French men at arms because they had a habit of 'rondeling through the visor' with a method that used barely any grappling other than to hold on whilst you did it . They would leap astride the horse behind the man at arms and have to.

[@matthewconnor5483]

Over all a very balanced video! I did two tours in Iraq in a light infantry company and there was so much less drama in an all male unit then on my third deployment when I was a non infantry unit and 3/4 of my team was female. I've had great females on my team but they couldn't have dragged me back to cover, or at least not quickly enough to avoid becoming a causality themselves, if I every went down. I'm easily 20-30kg heavier then most females without gear on. Being a big guy I often ended up carrying extra gear/ammo/radios which further compounds this size/strength difference. You mentioned the differences in the US Army's new PT test scores. Be interesting to pull the stats from the VA/DoD and see the totals/types of injuries men and women have been treated for and the reasons people were medically removed from a combat theater by raw totals and percentages. I know I lost a lot more females (by percentage) to fairly minor injuries then guys, who short of getting shot/blown up generally could take a fall/hit/get stitched up and would be back on patrol the next week vs having to be flown back for treatment or would stay but would be put in a cast/boot and assigned to light duties.

[@b1laxson]

Imagine a fantasy setting where women's monthly cycle had "berzerker week".

[@joaosoares-rr5mj]

we could add this to a barbarian women character, doring a week in a month, she get one more beserk use XD hahaha

[@emilyfouquettehoffman7886]

You’re my new best friend 🤣

[@jgr7487]

fantasy?

[@joshuarichardson6529]

Slayers discussed "female biology" and how it would affect magic power. It was used as a joke, but it's the only mention of such issues I've seen in fantasy.

[@pedroivantaveraferreira3037]

Yeah the protag, that really powerful mage in red, loses her powers for a couple days (a whole week in the first time but later on it is shortened). It is adressed only twice throughtout the whole series if I recall right, which is a pity

[@HontounoShiramizu]

Many good points with two small caveats: - In warfare 'the more the better' isn't always a thing and many armies did reject recruits that were deemed unfit. Both because a strong formation was, for most of the history, a key component of victory and a single weak spot in the formation could break it entirely. Then there's also the psychological aspect if the less combat ready parts of your army start fleeing and this causes general rout. There are cases in history where everyone willing (and unwilling) got sent to fight, but this was more out of desparation then utility. - HEMA is the closest we can get as far as medieval combat goes, but breaking somebody's arm or causing any serious and/or permanent injury is strictly forbidden as it was (for the most part) in medieval sparing, but not in medieval combat. You can find plenty of cases of medieval martial arts with techniques realating breaking of your opponents bones, jaw, gouging their eyes, etc. which no sane person will allow you to do in HEMA. So saying it's a 'perfect' representation of medieval combat is wrong. What it is, is the most reasonably possible representation of medieval combat.

[@ronaldmacdonald8667]

I can imagine a bunch of peasant women in a single unit equipped with spears or modified scythes (informal war scythes?) And I wouldn't be surprised if in terms of proportions, European peasant women were stronger than your average western woman (edit: Average western woman of today).

[@flatebo1]

Well, your average citizen in Periclean Athens was definitely stronger and fitter than the average modern western man. But he also spent his professional working life manually rowing warships around the Aegean, not just hitting up the gym for an hour a day. So yeah, the ones who survived that long would be in better physical shape, barring the occasional disfiguring or crippling injury. But a much smaller proportion would be surviving that long in the first place.

[@paigecoolest]

Humans were shorter and less nourished in medieval times, so I think women like me would be pretty impressive in comparison to the average woman back then. I think farm scythes don’t actually make good weapons. I like where you’re coming from though. Men definitely were weaker than the men there are today as well.

[@emperorpigbenis8766]

Another issue about doing this with a lot of women is that it's been documented that women putting themselves under a lot of stressful sports training or even stressful jobs can make them infertile temporarily or permanently. Any country that did this would lose in the long run because they would be outbred because their enemies would be having a lot more kids even if they were trying less just do to the amount of infertile women their are.

[@ericglasgow7087]

That's why patriachal societies are the dominant ones.

[@edgarbm6407]

Also, remember Andrew Klavan is a satirist. He IS going to exaggerate for effect.

[@123cappadocia]

Dear shad; woman where banned from the battlefield in the 7th century due to the law of the innocent through the church before that women did fight both in ancient dual and in great Britain. . in Europe women in camp ( being followers)did at times indeed take up arms to defend the camp. this was also common in early Arab expansion see the battle of yamuk.

[@jacopoarmini7889]

(before watching the video) yes, not as effectively as men perhaps, but whether a man or a woman disembowels you with a spear or splits your head with a warhammer is indifferent. What changes is that men have a natural advantage (and aren't as necessary for reproduction), supposing equal training.

[@vraska8799]

Éowyn: "i am no man!" 40K ecclesearchy: *EXACTLY!* :D

[@joaosoares-rr5mj]

it was merry who did all the hard work tough lets be honest XD have not been for him, she would be dead XD

[@Deridus]

Um... What? Surely the DKOK could have done it. Those troopers aren't men... they're just fully grown children!

[@marialuisasvabvalerio7177]

The brazilian army asks female soldiers if they have endometriosis (uterine condition that causes incapacitating pain during period), so is absolutely relevant to put that in the medieval scenario. Also, some anemic women take pills to completely stop menstruating because of the risks and the loss of blood, I assume medieval average women would live with some food insecurity, so that should be taken into consideration. Nice video bro.

[@Duoraven]

10 years in the service has granted me some insight on differences between men and women so I thought I would share some input: Women break more often than men: physically break, I mean. There is no shortage of determination or courage among my sisters in uniform, but having served alongside hundreds of men and women where women represent about 15% of the force, the reality is that females break more often. The majority of male Soldiers I have known with permanent physical profiles usually had them as the result of combat related injuries; the majority of females with the same were more often non-combat stressors. One of the activities that causes a lot of injuries is ruck marching: not only are females more likely to be smaller and need to carry near the same amount of weight as men, but their bodies are built differently. Female bodies are built to carry weight focused more on the hips whereas men carry it more on the shoulders. Guess which frame the rucksack was designed for? I want to make it clear that I am not saying women are incapable or should not be participating--I am simply making an observation based on raw numbers. I have always stressed with my female Soldiers the need to pack the ruck properly and adjust to better have the weight centered for them. And simply pretending a 110 lb female and a 220 lb male can equally carry a 45 lb ruck is foolish.

[@mamavswild]

As a paratrooper in the 82d ABN, I completed a 18 mile hump with a 50lb ruck AFTER A JUMP- zero problems. And the next day wore a hot dress out on a date! (Meanwhile, my male buddy ended up with a soft shoe profile for a week) So...everyone is different.

[@florindancaci6678]

@Reggie Jackman Are you saying you expect a "million strong" to give specialized equipment and preferential treatment to a few individuals? Really?

[@florindancaci6678]

@Reggie Jackman Indeed, i must be the idiotic one here, as opposed to the moron who'd rather blame "the patriarchy" rather than capitalism. Everything sounds idiotic from atop a white horse.

[@oraora8214]

Imagine for a second that you have a dying comrade that you need to retrieve from a battlefield. You will have to use your shoulder and your back to carry them, not your hips, right? And if you fail to do that - he will die. So, even if you design a backpack differently it will still not change the need for male-level physical strength.

[@cecilev5632]

@@oraora8214 Bridal Style Carrying, The Weight is focused on your core not your shoulders, problem solved.

[@johannesdolch]

One thing: Hema does NOT measure the "Killer Instinct" which is the true hurdle you have to overcome to be effective in combat because tapping someone on the shoulder and scoring a point is not the same thing as driving a Dagger into someones Throat and then looking into their eyes as they die, gurgling blood into your face. And as you can see in the Book "On Killing" by Lt.Col.Grossman, even most men don't naturally have that "Killer Instinct" (in fact: Naturally having it makes you psychopath.) That was a HUGE problem, at least up to WW2 and advances in Psychological Indoctrination and Desensitization. It's a good book really, worth reading for anybody studying Martial Arts. So the question is: Do women have a higher natural aversion to cave someones skull in than men? And the crime statistic is pretty clear on that.

[@jeangentry6656]

almost everyone has an aversion to killing, you have to train someone to overcome that. While women are less likely to commit violent crimes, the ones that do are just as vicious as the men, if not more so. I have read accounts of female murderers, chills you to the BONE what they can do.

[@johannesdolch]

@@jeangentry6656 There are psychopaths among both genders. But Killing on a battlefield is very different from killing through poison or from a position of invulnerability (for example by drugging the victim). Also you can't really take modern people as an example, because through television and Computer Games we are all desensitized. Now that doesn't mean we are all psychopaths. It means the blockade in the brain to actually doing it is lowered. Whether or not you then do it is a free decision. Thankfully most people aren't murderers. But when you compare the kill rate from a soldier today and a soldier for example in the civil war, its night and day. Again: Read the Book. Highly recommended.

[@jeangentry6656]

@@johannesdolch I have the book on my read list. Most female murderers on death row however, didn't kill via poison or something of that nature- their crimes were brutal and violent. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_on_death_row_in_the_United_States

[@miken4591]

In WW1 & 2, most soldiers didn't kill anyone unless it was urgent. Most killing was done by a small %. Checks of rifles often showed they were so filled with dirt that they'd be dangerous to fire.

[@summanus4437]

@@JohnSmith-ty2he Totally not a bigot at all.

[@barthartogsveld4105]

You have to remember that both missile weapons and horses are enormous equalizers. Both played a huge role in medieval armies throughout the centuries. Stamina can of course play a role, but for example crossbows with a windlass don't have that problem. And if you're mounted, almost all of the energy is coming from the horse. As long as you're strong enough to wield a lance, you can participate in a cavalry charge. The force upon impact will be the same regardless of gender.

[@peterwebb8732]

Not really. Check out the average draw-weight of medieval bows, then consider that the medieval archer was required to fire a large number of arrows in a short period. If your range is reduced because half your archers need lighter bows, then you enemy is able to kill you, while you are still out of range from him. Range and effectiveness usually translates into heavier weapons and ammunition. If your soldiers are weaker and slower to manoeuvre, then your enemy makes it to the advantageous terrain first, and you lose. That applies to gunpowder weapons just as much as it does to bows and crossbows..... and once you start adding armour to the mix, the ability to handle weight is an even greater advantage.

[@barthartogsveld4105]

@@peterwebb8732 Smaller persons need less plates to protect them, and so the armour will be lighter. 20-25kg of weight is no problem for women to handle, especially when it's distributed properly on the body. I know a lot of women that fight in accurate 15th century harness, they have no issue handling the weight. With draw weights it's difficult to say whether e.g. the Mary Rose were at the upper end or average, or representative of the 15th century and earlier. Those 16th century bows are the best extant ones we have. Also a lot of the depictions and modern archers that shoot high poundage bows are not massive buff dudes, it's a lot of back muscle strength that's involved, I know also a few women that can manage that poundage.

[@peterwebb8732]

@@barthartogsveld4105 ... It doesn’t work that way. Surface-area per unit of mass is greater on a small body than it is on a larger. Mathematically, volume and mass increase on a cubic ratio while surface area only increases on a squared ratio. That’s why larger bodies are less efficient at dispelling heat, because they have less surface area per unit mass. Likewise, men do “wirey” muscle better than women, too. Pound for pound, men have more lean muscle than women, and an even greater disparity in upper-body strength. And FYI, I work in an industry in which manual handling is still a thing. A 25yo female will routinely step aside and let a 60yo male handle standard 400lb bales. It’s not a macho thing, it’s just reality.

[@barthartogsveld4105]

@@peterwebb8732 Sorry, meant less weight, not plates. Still 20-25kg is really not a problem. Surely a simulated situation (i.e. women actually wearing armour and shooting high poundage bows) is a better predictor than an example of a more unrelated activity/industry?

[@peterwebb8732]

@@barthartogsveld4105 .. We see similar examples in combat today. The weight of body-armour is dictated by its need to protect from impact. The combat load is dictated by the need to carry an effective weapon and enough ammunition to fight effectively without running out. Your opponent is not going to carry less ammunition or use less-powerful weapons just because you are wearing less-effective armour. Archers were effective in battles like Crecy and Agincourt because they were able to fire a lot of arrows in a very short period, at considerable range. When your range, rate of fire and available ammunition are less than those of your enemy, he is killing you while you are not able to kill him. Women are already 3-4 times more likely to suffer injury at any given level of impact. Armour does not merely protect from penetrating wounds, but absorbs impact from weapons, whether projectile or hand-operated. Your theory that smaller, lighter armour works equally well against maces, hammers and axes ignores basic physics.

[@jospargo8417]

Just quickly on the pill aspect, you can also control when or if you are going to have a period. Sports medicine has also found that women are more resistant to sports related injury if they do not have the hormonal surges that happen during a regular cycle which can affect tendons and ligaments. Newer implants, injections and IUDs can also be employed for years. A real game changer for active women. Sensitively handled Shad! 👍🏻

[@jessegitchell8114]

Thank you for ending that montage with Eowyn.

[@Dfd_Free_Speech]

*@**9:00* The issue is that even more than in skill women suck in military tactics. It's just neither something that they have talent nor something that they are interested in. Besides this it has also been shown (in scientific studies) that women's pain tolerance is a lot worse than that of men.

[@1IGG]

As a wise man once said: "a small skilled man will most likely lose to a big (taller, more muscular) equally skilled man". So skill being equal, of course the stronger, fitter, fighter with more range will lose. Has nothing to do with gender. So a stronger, equally skilled woman will usually beat a equally skilled weaker man.

[@senselessnothing]

To find a man that is weaker than a women you need to find a malnourished man and put him against a well trained and fed woman.

[@mattbowden4996]

@@senselessnothing Rubbish - men women come in all shapes and sizes and the normal distribution of male and female size and strength overlap. There isn't much gap between a below average strength man and above average strength women so you would not need it take it to the extremes of a malnourished man and woman in peak physical condition to attain parity.

[@emperorpigbenis8766]

@@senselessnothing HOW DARE YOU? Women are *just* as strong as men. My mom can bench press 141 lbs, my little brother can only do 75 lbs. Therefore women are stronger _Incel_

[@AM-os4ty]

Except women are weaker as a group. It takes an elite woman to equal the strength of average man. If you don't believe me, watch the Ultimate Beastmaster on Netflix.

[@AM-os4ty]

@@senselessnothing - Exactly.

[@AhmNee]

Man, am I glad you mentioned the non-skilled opponent thing. I'd been practicing with a friend for years and a kid flailing wildly with a blade broke my defense. I had a good think on that one.

[@finvodahmindovahkiin1875]

2:31 ... Hmm... I don't see Alita... 2:33 ... Shad... Do not betray me... 2:34... Natasha.. alright... But... 2:36 wh- who even is that? WHERE IS ALITA. 2:39 YEEEEEAAAHHHHHHHHH

[@alexandermilner4248]

I think she was there for a split second

[@boyanpenev9822]

Alita was a cyborg, if I remember the Manga correctly. Having a constructed body throws any issues related to hormones, physical strength etc out the window. It was an issue also hinted at in Ghost in the Shell. The protagonist saw herself as a woman - but was also aware that her body was entirely artificial apart from her brain (and in fact wasn't quite sure about the brain, too). There was a moment where she was examining her femininity.

[@Doons]

Hey Shad, have you ever thought about making a video on modern "castles". I know these aren't technically castles but there are a bunch of people especially in the United States that are attempting to build their own castle replicas. There are a decent amount of people trying to do it and i believe viewers could find the topic interesting. As always, your content is entertaining and keep up the great work! Cheers.

[@edi9892]

I guess some buildings could count as modern castles in a tactical sense. This includes ambassadies, palaces, and military camps.

[@Doons]

@@edi9892 i meant castle replicas like kataryna castle which was built in the US by a man

[@edi9892]

@@Doons I know, but the concept has oddly enough survived into our age as well, especially considering that many threats are not full blown war, but rather terrorists and militias...

[@Doons]

@@edi9892 fair point, i guess those are mainly 2 categories: people building replicas and people building defesnive forts.

[@theforcedmeme]

"It depends on the context. In real life, no. In dark souls, yes.".....--- Doctor Who, probably

[@SneakyBadAssOG]

Doctor who "What's women anyway"

[@kylereese5841]

Thats not actually true.

[@laszlovarga6953]

@@SneakyBadAssOG A miserable little pile of secrets

[@kylereese5841]

@Nw2343 Yes, but your leaving out a lot of factors. If your talking about a male vs female army, how skilled the different forces are in comparison to each other and their tactics, would play a huge difference in who wins. If were just talking about a both gender army against a male army, and the woman had to meet the same physic and skill level as men, well their wouldn't even be much of a difference if any at all.

[@josescalcagno]

@@kylereese5841 Correct Tactics and Strategy rule the battlefield, the greatest warriors in the world would be useless if they are sent to the wrong hill. Or if they disobey orders and climb the wrong hill.

[@danbeck1593]

I am pretty inexperienced with hema and have never done actual sparring with a sword. However, I have seen a woman beat a man in hema sparring once. I've had my ass kicked by females in muay thai and taekwondo sparring on multiple occasions, and especially in jiu jitsu. My first bjj class I got submitted five times in three minutes by a girl I 40lbs on. However that's not the norm. The women that have whooped me have been high level martial artists. My coach's wife is a top 20 pound for pound mma fighter in the US and she can damn near man handle me. The girl who submitted me repeatedly despite my huge size/strength advantage and having been a wrestler is also an accomplished amateur mma fighter and purple belt in bjj. In tkd the women that beat me were a former national and a world champion in the ATA. I also worked as a kickboxing fitness trainer for casual fitness type folks for a few years and I'll try to briefly describe what I saw. Most women had a very hesitant approach when learning how to throw punches/kicks. They often seemed like they felt out of place even though the gym was almost always primarily filled with other women. Often even nervous when working the heavy bags for the first few days or weeks. Men in general seemed much more confident with learning/performing the techniques at first. Even when they were doing them quite badly, they usually were more enthusiastic. And I think that higher level of confidence, even if it's a little misplaced, makes it easier to learn and do things properly eventually. Now, the end result was basically the same. Men and women who had been there for awhile generally ended up with okay form, seemed confident while doing it, and honestly the top performers were all women. But the gym was primarily women, by far, so that's to be expected. I just think the men had an easier time at first and had a more confident/enthusiastic approach. I think the cultural norms we have probably have a lot to do with that. We don't really view martial arts or hitting heavy bags as feminine things. Adult women now weren't exposed to women doing things like that like men were and for many of them, I assume it can feel like something contrary to how they were raised to be. So, perhaps that's why it took a little longer to get used to for them compared to the men. I'm not sociologist, just some guesses. lol

[@oolooo]

That is my theory .Maybe our cultural conditioning has affected Women to be unable to do certain tasks .Hell , it might have had a subconcious effect on Female muscle mass .

[@benjamintherogue2421]

It's not just cultural. Women sustain injuries at a much higher rate than men do in physical conflict or heavy physical conditioning. There's likely to be some biologically ingrained sense of caution in most women when it comes around to physical conflict. This is just a hypothesis of mine, but I've started developing it from my time in the military and seeing the same difference as you between the sexes.

[@benjamintherogue2421]

@@oolooo That's biological, not cultural.

[@kiraleshoth]

@@benjamintherogue2421 Surprisingly, while there are obviously biological differences, there is evidence that subconscious can affect health and other aspects of your body in both the best and worst ways, so it's possible that it *aggravates* the effect for some people. A sort of placebo effect that acts in a very awful way.

[@benjamintherogue2421]

@@kiraleshoth People's states of mind can definitely affect their physical well-being, but no amount of subconscious conditioning is going to get you to overcome pelvis or femur fractures, which were two injuries popping up in military females at a much higher rate than in males. I don't know anyone giving themselves those sorts of fractures through negative attitudes.

[@benkalem]

There actually was a plant used as a contraceptive. In Ancient Greek they had this plant called Silphium, a fennel of sorts. It was so popular, that it became extinct by the early first century AD. The seed of the Silphium looked pretty much like the modern heart symbol, which is one likely origin of why the symbol doesn't look anything like the actual organ.

[@Sairagna]

Whoa boy its everyone's favourite topic again...😐

[@fatalblue]

I had mentioned in your other video, the response one that there is an anime (based on a novel) that eliminates the issue of childbirth by setting it in a world where women didn't have babies. Babies were granted to couples by the God via special trees. Consequently, since women didn't have babies we can presume too periods weren't a thing either. Pretty cool series called The Twelve Kingdoms. Anyway, Great video! I really appreciate how you provide reasonable ways to circumvent certain real issues in fantasy/fiction and the effort you put into dispeling misconceptions without denying cold, hard facts. Truely a valuable combo for story creators like myself. (I do giggle at the way you have to reiterate certain things though. Things that should be clear and obvious in principle tbh but I degress)

[@bluedragon8417]

Which reminds me of dungeons and dragons. If i recall in at least one of the editions of it, drow elves, their women are the stronger ones. The men are the weaker ones when it comes to physical strength. Which is funny enough a thing that often get overlooked. Is not every race is going to be the same. Not every race is going to be human or human like. Since orks from warhammer 40k, they have no gender. They are more like a living Fungus. Since when a ork dies, they release spores, that ended up creating more orcs.

[@bluedragon8417]

It's possible they did change things in the newest editions. For i recall Driders once being a curse and than that got change in a different edition, to be seen as more of a blessing.

[@avatar25001]

In that military report. "The Marines created a battalion of 100 female and 300 male volunteers. During the past year, they trained in North Carolina and California, taking part in realistic combat exercises. "All-male squads, the study found, performed better than mixed gender units across the board. The males were more accurate hitting targets, faster at climbing over obstacles, better at avoiding injuries. "The Marine study says its main focus is maximum combat effectiveness, because it means fewer casualties. " I would think this would matter to military commander more so in medieval settings.

[@arkhamknight5801]

what's your conclusion here buddy? bcuz the study doesn't really say what you want it to say there have been successful battalions on the ground that had females in them all the study you mentioned suggests is that maybe the women volunteers in the study weren't as good ON AVERAGE as male ones and this could be bcuz of many reasons other than an extreme appeal to biology

[@avatar25001]

@@arkhamknight5801 What I am saying is that on Average a male unit will perform better then a mix or all female unit in the modern military that does not require as much physical exertion as in medieval times. That is the defense departments study. Now this was done during the Obama administration so one can argue that the result are skewed or written to favor women. Or the opposite way that the Marines did not want to open the combat roles to women so they had them do certain tasks that the women would not perform as well. Including that during medieval warfare the application of physical force was more necessary then in today's time. In terms of physical force mass time acceleration equals to force. So biology plays a huge part in the application of force. I think that plus other duties that needed to be performed by the women that lead to a very small number of women in medieval warfare. I would say it would be the women nobility that would engage in medieval warfare more then the common folk in this time. Famously the battle of Sparta against Epirus included the mobilization of women, that should be studied more in regards to this.

[@fakecubed]

@@arkhamknight5801 Choosing to deliberately perform at a lower level is not a winning strategy in war.

[@Spare_Time_G]

Granted, saying 100% and then adding that there is an exception do contradicts each other, but I don't think it is a big deal and to say he changed his mind and so on is too rough. The amount of Women warriors (IMO) I believe were there, should be one in thousands or maybe even more, so mathematically chance of an average selected woman being a soldier in medieval fights should be less than 1 % (0.1% in my assumptions) leaving more than 99% (99.9% in my assumption) which can be granted as 100%. Being a bit of the Devil's advocate here :D

[@perianudan-claudiu2495]

That was not the argument.

[@ChickenBiscuits]

People with the ability to comprehend a conversation would understand what he is saying. Everyone one knows there are exceptions to everything and saying 100% of something is called being hyperbolic. And to be honest, screw the exceptions. I couldn't care less about what less than 1% of people can do.

[@Spare_Time_G]

@@ChickenBiscuits agreed!

[@Serahpin]

So what you are saying is that the number of women is statistically zero. I see.

[@Pedro_Colicigno]

@@ChickenBiscuits Okay, then lets do one better. Well given that the volume of the universe is infinite there must be an infinite number of worlds. But not all of them are populated; therefore only a finite number are. Any finite number divided by infinity is infinitely close to zero, therefore the average population of the Universe is zero, and so the total population must be zero. But there are exceptions.