 | | Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries |
October 4th, 2006, 07:13 AM
|
#1 | | Academician
Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 83 | women in the middle ages
Women fighting alongside the men in the middle ages is something that I've been wondering about alot since first reading accounts of the third crusade. How common was this. It clearly happened enough for the Muslim chroniclers to comment on it enough. Yet it wasn't common enough for women soldiers to appear in period artwork. Maybe it was limited to the crusades where the women could justify their martial contributions through religious arguments?
If this was common, what was its routes? Germanic tradition? I seem to remember reading an article once where a Roman historian described the Germanic people that "the women fought side-by-side with their men", although I can't for the love of me remember where I read it.
If it wasn't that uncommen during the period, when did it stop? During the victorian era? Or maybe before that during the renaiscance when standing armies became bigger?
Any thoughts?
PS. Off course I'm not referring to specific individuals like Joan of Arc, or to the camp followers wich I know would have been present at most campaigns.
| | |
| |
October 6th, 2006, 06:00 PM
|
#2 | | Lecturer
Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 275 |
Personally, I have not heard much about women in battles, exept for Joan of Arc, pillaging camp followers (usually only fight when enemy is being routed), or in the Celts.
I think that with the end of matriarchal society and the beginnnings or Feudalism are some times when women were not used/talked about in battle.
I think in the Celtic society, the women weren't equal, they were superior.
Is Joan of Arc really real? I just never have heard much about the authenticity of her, I didn't know if maybe she ws blown out of proportion like King Arthiur.
| | |
| |
October 6th, 2006, 11:26 PM
|
#3 | | Lecturer
Joined: Aug 2006 From: Waltheofshire Posts: 349 | re Quote: |
Originally Posted by Breth Is Joan of Arc really real? I just never have heard much about the authenticity of her, I didn't know if maybe she ws blown out of proportion like King Arthiur. | Yep, she definately was real, not 'made up' by anyone. Try reading more books about the Hundred years war.
| | |
| |
October 13th, 2006, 08:23 AM
|
#4 | | Dominus Historiae
Joined: Jun 2006 From: U.K. Posts: 8,651 |
Women Warriors appear throughout recorded history. In the Middle ages there are records of female knights "Chevalières". Joan of Arc was not unusual in that regard. Powerfull noblewomen led armies and fought, usually in sieges.
In Japan, during the Gempai wars of the 12th Century, there are records of a female cavalry regiment, led by the mistress of one of the protaganists.
The Order of the Glorious Saint Mary was founded in Italy in 1233, and approved by Pope Alexander IV in 1261. It was the first religious order of knighthood to grant the rank of "militissa" to women.
| | |
| |
October 27th, 2006, 09:58 AM
|
#5 | | Archivist
Joined: Jul 2006 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Posts: 195 |
Women certainly were not considered fighting alongside the man, but as have been stated before there were historical accounts. The women were also noted to have taken a side in figthing but no among the battlelines. Noble women especially would attend social functions and at home as well try to rhetorially rather others to the causes.
| | |
| |
October 27th, 2006, 03:38 PM
|
#6 | | Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Jul 2006 From: UK Posts: 6,114 |
Noblewomen defending their castle during a siege were not unusual during the Middle Ages.
During the Crusades women may have fought alongside men, females are the more religious and during that time of fanaticism I wouldn't rule it out.
| | |
| |
October 29th, 2006, 02:46 PM
|
#7 | | Dominus Historiae
Joined: Jun 2006 From: U.K. Posts: 8,651 |
At a more basic level, The Royal Armouries Yearbook 1997 (ISBN 366-3925) has an article by Thom Richardson on The Bridport Muster Roll of 1457. This is a record of the names of ordinary people who were called up to fight. Of the 174 names on the list 5 (2.9%) are women.
"Alis Hammel has her own jack, sword, buckler, salet, bow and arrows. Alis Gare has a bow and a coat of plates."Condefer Wife" has bow, arrows, sword and buckler."
Women warriors were more commonplace than is generally supposed.
| | |
| |
November 3rd, 2006, 11:40 AM
|
#8 | | Academician
Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 83 |
very interesting. thanks belisarius
| | |
| |
November 3rd, 2006, 09:25 PM
|
#9 | | Lecturer
Joined: Aug 2006 From: Waltheofshire Posts: 349 | re Quote: |
Originally Posted by Belisarius Women warriors were more commonplace than is generally supposed. | Hence the likes of Joan of Arc and the fearsome warrior-queen of weak King Henry VI- Margaret of Anjou (kind of a Mrs.Thatcher of her day?), both of whom inspired men with their formidable martial leadership.
| | |
| |
November 8th, 2006, 09:48 PM
|
#10 | | Historian
Joined: Jul 2006 From: Hellas Posts: 1,315 |
The place of the women in middle ages was very low, i can say maybe next to the mule, a mule sometimes was more useful than a woman. Examples like Joan of Arc were very rare. If we think that wars in that time were a part of daily life, hunger was not uncommon, then to have boys instead of girls was for a family more useful, you see working hands that could do harder jobs than a woman and warriors.
And most important girls when married must have dowry.
| | |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.
|  |