Better identification of corpses reveals that 50% of viking warriors were women

[Deleted]

You can identify archers by the bone density of the arm that they used to hold the bow with. The bone becomes thicker and shorter (i think) as a result.

You can to some extend. However during the dark ages it is far more complicated because there have not been an archer society yet.
To have these physical changings in your body that allow you to identify this person as an archer, you have to specialize in it. Something that has not been done in the dark ages to the extend the british did during the middle ages.

It was more commo that a normal warrior had a bow as a backup weapon with him rather than being a totally specialized archer.
Field warfare was not used in those times, wars have been brutal skirmishes with fewer numbers. Tactical and field military such as cavalary and archery troups were reinvented later again.

[Deleted]

While this, of course, does not indicate that they were allowed or accepted as warriors, it does however makes it possible.
A woman there had extensive rights and the mindset of the vikings weren't that sexistic as other cultures have been, so if you turn it around there is nothing against the possibility of women being warriors.

In fact if you have a very liberal society for that time and you were off to raiding some country, why would you not take accepted and proven women as warriors with you? You have one warrior more in your ranks and nothing to lose anyway, because otherwise this spot would have been empty anyway.

To make it more clear: If you have a tribe with around 50 male warriors and 50 women and you're going to raid someone, you could go with 50 warriors.
Or you could go with 75 warriors, 50 males, 25 female with makes your army bigger and more powerful with no real tradeoff against it.

The only reason why women were not used in war during the ancient and medieval times were the sexistic mindsets of the male dominated society back then.
Vikings however didn't have that mindset and thus the possibility is there.

To effectively fight against someone, body strengh is far less important than skill. A woman is perfectly capable of aquiring enough strengh and stamina to battle a male because all were using weapons.
Weapons are equalizers, they make up for physical differences and replace them with skill. Skill however is something you can learn.

I agree. We're coming from a very different mentality right now, from a male-dominated world view that doesn't and hasn't always applied to other cultures. Women were given a great deal of freedom in Norse culture, similar to Spartan women, for example. Spartan women also knew how to fight, in fact their ceremony for finding a man included fighting them off!

Women were limited biologically by child bearing and raising, but other than those it is just socital limits. If the society doesn't have those limits, then there is no reason to think women would not join the men. More warriors are better than fewer.

[Mihalik]

While this, of course, does not indicate that they were allowed or accepted as warriors, it does however makes it possible.
A woman there had extensive rights and the mindset of the vikings weren't that sexistic as other cultures have been, so if you turn it around there is nothing against the possibility of women being warriors.

In fact if you have a very liberal society for that time and you were off to raiding some country, why would you not take accepted and proven women as warriors with you? You have one warrior more in your ranks and nothing to lose anyway, because otherwise this spot would have been empty anyway.

To make it more clear: If you have a tribe with around 50 male warriors and 50 women and you're going to raid someone, you could go with 50 warriors.
Or you could go with 75 warriors, 50 males, 25 female with makes your army bigger and more powerful with no real tradeoff against it.

The only reason why women were not used in war during the ancient and medieval times were the sexistic mindsets of the male dominated society back then.
Vikings however didn't have that mindset and thus the possibility is there.

To effectively fight against someone, body strengh is far less important than skill. A woman is perfectly capable of aquiring enough strengh and stamina to battle a male because all were using weapons.
Weapons are equalizers, they make up for physical differences and replace them with skill. Skill however is something you can learn.

If you have a 50 men and 50 women the reason why you won't take 25 of the women along is because it means next year you'll only 25 kids, instead of 50. You won't take pregnant women campaigning.

You don't really understand the importance of giving birth to children, as you look at childbirth from a modern perspective. Today pregnancies success rates are very high as is child mortality rate very low.

This wasn't the case back then. Few of the children born actually survived into adulthood. A woman would have on average around 7 children (sometimes more) through her life. Many of those would never get past age 12. And some wouldn't ever get the chance procreate themselves.

Losing 10 women out of 50 in a community of 100, would seriously endanger the survival of the community itself. Men on the other hand...you can lose 25 of the 50, and still have 50 pregnant women next year.

The other thing again that you are ignoring is that you have to eat during the long winter seasons (when Vikings would sail home and not campaign). That meant agriculture. Which at the time was very primitive and very labor intensive. There is nothing wrong with the division of labor and roles in the context of that era. It wasn't "sexism" it was the requirements of the environment.

[Jackmoves]

because documentation during those times is spotty at best and our only available sources are anecdotal, namely from the perspective of those being invaded.

There are lots of runestones, one of the best told stories to my knowledge is that of Ingvar the Far-Travelled, there are 26 stones that tell the story of his groups traveling.

This expedition was launched from Sweden by Ingvar the Far-Travelled, who went down the Volga River into the land of the Saracens (Serkland). While there, they apparently took part in the Georgian-Byzantine Battle of Sasireti.

There are no less than twenty-six Ingvar runestones, twenty-four of them being in the Lake Mälaren region of Uppland in Sweden, referring to Swedish warriors who went out with Ingvar on his expedition to the Saracen lands, an expedition whose purpose was probably to reopen old trade routes, now that the Volga Bulgars and the Khazars no longer proved obstacles. A stone to Ingvar’s brother indicates that he went east for gold but that he died in Saracen land.

[Zoranon]

I agree. We're coming from a very different mentality right now, from a male-dominated world view that doesn't and hasn't always applied to other cultures. Women were given a great deal of freedom in Norse culture, similar to Spartan women, for example. Spartan women also knew how to fight, in fact their ceremony for finding a man included fighting them off!

Women were limited biologically by child bearing and raising, but other than those it is just socital limits. If the society doesn't have those limits, then there is no reason to think women would not join the men. More warriors are better than fewer.

The principal reason of men fighting and women staying behind is reproduction. Women in those days frequently had up to 10 or even more children while living less than 40 years and that simply does not leave a lot of time to go off and raid. Besides you not only need to give birth to children, you also need to watch over them and raise them.

Besides if you took your entire village to a raid, if that raid goes wrong and most of the raiders die, the village is effectively wiped out, whereas if you only take men, well one can can have children with multiple women, but it does not work the opposite way - see for example the relatively swift population restorations after WW1 and WW2.

So while there may have been a few women raiders, I would say it is fairly safe to say that most Viking women would only fight to defend their homes. This assertion is further supported by the fact that the materials concerning Viking raids never mention women raiders.

[Simulacrum]

"Of 14 immigrant graves in eastern England, 7 of the 14 burials were of women, 7 were men, and 1 was indeterminable" turns into "50% of viking warriors were women!"

Making assertions so baseless and sweeping that they can't be called anything but bullshit is becoming a trend for you, Erin.

[Deleted]

If you have a 50 men and 50 women the reason why you won't take 25 of the women along is because it means next year you'll only 25 kids, instead of 50. You won't take pregnant women campaigning.

You don't really understand the importance of giving birth to children, as you look at childbirth from a modern perspective. Today pregnancies success rates are very high as is child mortality rate very low.

This wasn't the case back then. Few of the children born actually survived into adulthood. A woman would have on average around 7 children (sometimes more) through her life. Many of those would never get past age 12. And some wouldn't ever get the chance procreate themselves.

Losing 10 women out of 50 in a community of 100, would seriously endanger the survival of the community itself. Men on the other hand...you can lose 25 of the 50, and still have 50 pregnant women next year.

The other thing again that you are ignoring is that you have to eat during the long winter seasons (when Vikings would sail home and not campaign). That meant agriculture. Which at the time was very primitive and very labor intensive. There is nothing wrong with the division of labor and roles in the context of that era. It wasn't "sexism" it was the requirements of the environment.

Fair enough, however some of the facts here are not right.

Firstly child mortality was way lower in the dark ages as oddly as it seems. It increaed during the middle ages because of the catholic church was baning knowledge and spreat false knowledge about health and medicine.
In fact the tribes in germania and skandinavia that were living as they did before christianity was adopted, were very healthy and mortality rates were extremely low.

Secondly vikings used slaves.
agricultural work has been done nearly solely by slaves, which left the males capable of raiding for month.

Thirdly my calculation was purely made up, just to explain my point of view. In fact not every woman has been a warrior and not every man has been.
There were the old and sick, the wounded and crippeled, the pregnant and those who were too young. If you count all those in which were not able to fight, but still able to work, you have enough people eft in your homeland.

This however does not speak against my view:

If your tribe has 50 members, 10 of them battle ready warriors, and out of these 40 left men and women 10 women that could fight aswell,w hy wouldn't you take them with you in battle? It increases your chance of winning and getting back home alive and you still have 30 people at home to do the work there and produce childen.

[Mihalik]

I agree. We're coming from a very different mentality right now, from a male-dominated world view that doesn't and hasn't always applied to other cultures. Women were given a great deal of freedom in Norse culture, similar to Spartan women, for example. Spartan women also knew how to fight, in fact their ceremony for finding a man included fighting them off!

Women were limited biologically by child bearing and raising, but other than those it is just socital limits. If the society doesn't have those limits, then there is no reason to think women would not join the men. More warriors are better than fewer.

Spartans never trained their women for warfare. Spartan women focused on physical fitness and nutrition because Spartans understood how that contributed to successful pregnancies and healthy children.

The reason beyond that of childbearing why women weren't seen on the battlefield wasn't one of sexism, but rather that you didn't really want someone who has 50% less upper body strength then you, in your Shieldwall or Phalanx.

[Simulacrum]

Should focus on the ancient germanic tribes instead. Those guys took their women with them to the battlefield!

Then they were all genocided by the romans... because they took their women with them to the battlefield. Turns out it's not such a great idea.

[Jackmoves]

Gender roles were pretty specific btw, women did have many rights, but men and women did have quite gender specific roles which is evident from the things found in the graves of young scandinavian children(for example the birka girl grave).Girls got buried with needles, pearls, etc, things typical for grown women, boys were buried with things typical for grown men. So from an early age, boys were boys and girls were girls.

[Ratyrel]

"Of 14 immigrant graves in eastern England, 7 of the 14 burials were of women, 7 were men, and 1 was indeterminable" turns into "50% of viking warriors were women!"

Making assertions so baseless and sweeping that they can't be called anything but bullshit is becoming a trend for you, Erin.

As usual this has been blown waaaaay out of proportion. The archaeological evidence may attest a couple of female skeletons in conjunction with "male" items. This tells us next to nothing about the cultural significance of the practice, let alone whether these women were "warriors" in any sense other than home defense - remember settling in England was dangerous.

[Deleted]

Should focus on the ancient germanic tribes instead. Those guys took their women with them to the battlefield!

Then they were all genocided by the romans... because they took their women with them to the battlefield. Turns out it's not such a great idea.

What?
Do you even know what you're talking about?

The romans conquered all of europe except for Magna Germania.
They never got past the rhein and what they did was building a huge wall (The Limes) to fight invading german tribes off that were pillaging roman villages.
Once they tried to end these pillages and sent 3 Legions into the country, all of them were destroyed. Google for Varus battle.

Later the germanic tribes conquered the falling roman empire and established their righn which then led to the middle ages we know.

[Deleted]

Spartans never trained their women for warfare. Spartan women focused on physical fitness and nutrition because Spartans understood how that contributed to successful pregnancies and healthy children.

The reason beyond that of childbearing why women weren't seen on the battlefield wasn't one of sexism, but rather that you didn't really want someone who has 50% less upper body strength then you, in your Shieldwall or Phalanx.

Spartan women did not go to war, but they knew how to fight and were physically able to do so. I didn't suggest otherwise. Spartans, though, did not lead the kind of campaigns the Vikings did. For the Vikings, having a few extra people in your raiding party would be more beneficial than not. Not every woman can have children, so what use was there to leave them at home?

[Mihalik]

This however does not speak against my view:

If your tribe has 50 members, 10 of them battle ready warriors, and out of these 40 left men and women 10 women that could fight aswell,w hy wouldn't you take them with you in battle? It increases your chance of winning and getting back home alive and you still have 30 people at home to do the work there and produce childen.

That is mostly conjuncture. Not all Viking men were warriors, and they didn't need to be. You still needed craftsman, fisherman, sailors, merchants etc. Most of those roles could not be filled by slaves.

The spike in child mortality rates during the 14th to 17th century had nothing to do with the suppression of knowledge by the Church, because there was no such thing. What it had to with were climatological changes. During that period Europe went through something known as the Little Ice Age. Crops were terrible often for decades, causing widespread famines and poor nutrition. This was somewhat alleviated by the introduction of potato cultivation in the 1600's. A notable exception to the adoption of potatoes was France. The following years of bad crops and the famine brought on by it was one of the leading causes to French Revolution.

[Deleted]

Should focus on the ancient germanic tribes instead. Those guys took their women with them to the battlefield!

Then they were all genocided by the romans... because they took their women with them to the battlefield. Turns out it's not such a great idea.

In Briton, the women were not generally on the front lines, though. They were massacred due to their tactic of circling the army in, thus preventing them from escaping. Women were at the back to kill any who fled. Furthermore, I'm sure you've heard of Boudicca, who led one of the most successful campaigns against the Romans in Briton? She was both fighting with her army with her daughters (in chariots) and commanding them. It wasn't the genders that let them down, it was the 'no escape' policy.

[Deleted]

That is mostly conjuncture. Not all Viking men were warriors, and they didn't need to be. You still needed craftsman, fisherman, sailors, merchants etc. Most of those roles could not be filled by slaves.

The spike in child mortality rates during the 14th to 17th century had nothing to do with the suppression of knowledge by the Church, because there was no such thing. What it had to with were climatological changes. During that period Europe went through something known as the Little Ice Age. Crops were terrible often for decades, causing widespread famines and poor nutrition. This was somewhat alleviated by the introduction of potato cultivation in the 1600's. A notable exception to the adoption of potatoes was France. The following years of bad crops and the famine brought on by it was one of the leading causes to French Revolution.

The little is age happend hundres of years after the end of the viking times.
No what the reason was, was the establishment of the feudal system and this led to poorly fed farmers and villagers. Before that, people lived way healthier, there were fewer people, they went hunting (something that has been prohibited for common people by law later) and out of big woods. They just lived a health life while in the middle ages they were no longer allowed or able to.

It is a proven fact, that people in the dark ages in northern europe were extremly healthy and well fed. All the propblems with sickness, starvation and so on were developig after the end of the viking era.

[Deleted]

"Of 14 immigrant graves in eastern England, 7 of the 14 burials were of women, 7 were men, and 1 was indeterminable" turns into "50% of viking warriors were women!"

Making assertions so baseless and sweeping that they can't be called anything but bullshit is becoming a trend for you, Erin.

Wowwwwww okay, what am I asserting? Like, do you actually just hate me? I just linked a fucking article and said over and over how little I knew about it. Hell, when cybran pointed out that it's probably bullshit I didn't even disagree. How is this blowing anyhting out of proportion or making assertions or anything? Like are we not allowed to talk about anything we think is cool unless there are multiple peer reviewed studies backing up it's authenticity? What the fuck, man?

[Mihalik]

Spartan women did not go to war, but they knew how to fight and were physically able to do so. I didn't suggest otherwise. Spartans, though, did not lead the kind of campaigns the Vikings did. For the Vikings, having a few extra people in your raiding party would be more beneficial than not. Not every woman can have children, so what use was there to leave them at home?

Help raising children. Overseeing workers/slaves. Making textiles. Processing meat (preserving). Making dairy products. Trade. Caring for the elderly and the sick etc. Again division of labor.

Vikings used to fight in tight formations of overlaying shields known as Shield Walls, this and sailing (rowing) require significant upper body strength. Men being more suitable for the task.

I'm not saying women never accompanied men into battle or on campaigns. It just simply makes no sense to drag women along, when they literally have better things to do. Thus throwing out a statistic like 50% or 10% of viking warriors being women makes little sense especially because we have no archaeological or historical evidence suggesting they did such a thing, besides the vague clue of them burying women with a shield and sword, which could have been done for a variety of ritual reasons.

Egyptians used to bury their dead with jars of food. Does that mean they were all cooks? Chefs? Or its a reference to Egyptian belief that in the afterlife one still needs nourishment.

[Deleted]

Help raising children. Overseeing workers/slaves. Making textiles. Processing meat (preserving). Making dairy products. Trade. Caring for the elderly and the sick etc. Again division of labor.

Vikings used to fight in tight formations of overlaying shields known as Shield Walls, this and sailing (rowing) require significant upper body strength. Men being more suitable for the task.

I'm not saying women never accompanied men into battle or on campaigns. It just simply makes no sense to drag women along, when they literally have better things to do. Thus throwing out a statistic like 50% or 10% of viking warriors being women makes sense especially because we have no archaeological or historical evidence suggesting they did such a thing, besides the vague clue of them burying women with a shield and sword, which could have been done for a variety of ritual reasons.

Egyptians used to bury their dead with jars of food. Does that mean they were all cooks? Chefs? Or its a reference to Egyptian belief that in the afterlife one still needs nourishment.

Other men (who couldn't fight), women who were raising children and slaves could cover all of those roles. If someone was able bodied and you needed people from your small town to fight, why not? The legends of Shieldmaidens likely didn't develop from nothing.

I agree men would be more suitable for the task, but having fewer warriors would be more detrimental than having women. I haven't thrown any statistics out, It is just my opinion that women may have been taken on raids. Or at the very least, knew how to fight and defend themselves in such a way that they wanted to be buried with their weapons. Having female warriors is not unheard of in Germanic and Norse culture, it is just not as likely as men due to the biological constraints of children.

Furthermore, given the in-fighting between different Viking communities and the regular raids, it would make a huge amount of sense to have a force of battle-ready people back at home. So even women raising children would have likely been combat ready.

[damnature]

So that's cool. Here's the article: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/09/fem...s-proof-swords

In a nutshell, they originally thought that buried corpses were male because of the things they were buried with but now it turns out that like 50% of them were ladies. Which is cool as fuck and thinking about a bunch of scary as fuck lady vikings jumping out of a boat on british shores to take what we've got makes me happy on the inside. Butttt....

It also raises questions about the "rape and pillage" nature of viking invasions apparently. I'm not really sure how, but they seem to think it does.

This is cool and pretty interestings but I kind of have to wonder like... Presumably soldiering was more physically demanding back then than it is now. Like, I don't know much about modern day soldiering but I understand it's physically difficult because of the weight you have to carry and so on, though I sort of imagine that they had to carry lots of weight too back then, and like because swinging a sword or axe and blocking with a shield or whatever is pretty physical, doing that with a ton of weight carried too is like... Gotta be difficult right? And if they are coming over on their boats, they are only going to have limited space on the boats so you would assume they're only going to send capable people (unlike if you were defending your own lands from an invasion where like, everyone who can hold a sword may be useful)... How come so many of them were women compared to nowadays? Like, did they just train like motherfuckers till they were like ripped or were the standards just lower then? I mean the average woman is less physically like... built, you know, than the average dude, so...

like you know like