New hard evidence of female Scandinavian warriors
- Thread starter Caddy
- Start date
Unfortunately, you can't reason with the unreasonable. Some people are idealists because they don't have the extra data. For most, only way to understand that nagging parental fear in the back of your mind is to become a parent yourself (ironically, parents think about an ideal place for their children where war and famine don't exist all the time, but that doesn't make the need for it, it being protection, to go away, any stronger). Otherwise, it's like trying to explain salt to someone who hasn't had salt before. "Well it's salty… it's not sweet or bitter…"
Shouldn't we move this thread to P&R?
I'd rather discuss Shieldmaiden badassnessendomeness like @Dez; pointed out.
Shouldn't we move this thread to P&R?
I'd rather discuss Shieldmaiden badassnessendomeness like @Dez; pointed out.
At this point I think you are moving into the realm of idiocy. There is defensive version of waging war and and offensive one. For example waging war with North Korea seems inevitable and is a defensive version of waging war, unless you are ok with North Korea killing millions of people with their nukes.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 4,388
Lucky Day
Daywatch
I find it shocking that Myrtheros, or any one agrees with him on this. I certainly don't.
But then I'm not sure exactly what we arguing about and wonder if we are just arguing for its own sake again.
But then I'm not sure exactly what we arguing about and wonder if we are just arguing for its own sake again.
N
NewDArt
Guest
I'm afraid some of you are arguing because you can't read and keep imagining that I, somehow, have a problem with parents wanting to protect their children.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
My point is not that complicated. I'm saying that if you go watch a boxing match - then you're supporting the concept of people who beat the shit out of each other. If you celebrate their capacity to do so, then you're indirectly supporting that it happens - and WILL happen.
Is that really so difficult to understand? I guess so
I understand that some of my opinions aren't particularly suited for the rigid black and white mindset, though. They tend to fall between the extreme left and extreme right that some of you seem to think of as the only points of view in the world.
My apologies for frightening you with nuance. I will now leave this thread alone.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
My point is not that complicated. I'm saying that if you go watch a boxing match - then you're supporting the concept of people who beat the shit out of each other. If you celebrate their capacity to do so, then you're indirectly supporting that it happens - and WILL happen.
Is that really so difficult to understand? I guess so
I understand that some of my opinions aren't particularly suited for the rigid black and white mindset, though. They tend to fall between the extreme left and extreme right that some of you seem to think of as the only points of view in the world.
My apologies for frightening you with nuance. I will now leave this thread alone.
zahratustra
SasqWatch
- Joined
- January 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,721
Well, I don't agree with DArt and Myrthos for the simple reason that they both (IMO) seems to think that protectiveness is something you can adopt or not depending on the circumstances. Protectiveness is an instinct and, like all our instincts, it will persist if there is a real need for them or not. Of course there are people who lack such an instinct but they are exception from the norm.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,721
Please move to,P&R!!
E
Eye
Guest
Annoying.
Protectiveness is not something that only parents do.
Your child, young or adult, when in life threatening situation will be saved by strangers, male or female, when they feel this 'urge' - I agree some feel this inner force stronger (no hesitation) than others: they rescue strangers by risking their own life, and sometimes pay heavily for it too. Others seem to be capable of taking some time to weigh the situation: what does it mean for me personally, will I put myself in any danger?
In this thread about a warrior 'protectiveness' was not the topic, imo, agression was, I think.
So I agree with both Myrthos and NewDart.
Protection from agression is not a male parent monoply btw, women and children have it in them too, they can be just as courageous, fierce and persistent. 'Men needing to save women and children'…. Plenty of men who are paralyzed when they are needed, just like women and children. Plenty of men who become wild when faced with an attacker that threaten their family, just like women and children.
lostforever
SasqWatch
New evidence of Viking warrior women might not be what it seems
https://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2...found-hard-evidence-for-viking-warrior-women/
https://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2...found-hard-evidence-for-viking-warrior-women/
:
Damn, I want a shield maiden!
Is that show worth a look?
lostforever
SasqWatch
yes its very good. I stopped around season 2 but I think they may have gone as far as season 4 now.
R
RPGFool
Guest
I read the Ars Technica article several times and didn't find the challenge convincing. Basically the challenge is based on poor record keeping with respect to one or a few other graves from the same grave site. But there was no evidence that this grave evidence, record keeping, or the like, was wrong or compromised.
Indeed this grave has apparently been viewed as unique and important for a very long time as it was, per National Geographic "filled with swords, arrowheads, and two sacrificed horses."
It's also noteworthy that Baylor University archaeologist Davide Zori said he was fairly confident in the original study’s results (per the National Geographic link).
Still the hard evidence is, at best, limited to a single woman warrior. If women warriors were indeed common why is there no additional hard evidence? Baylor's Zoria suggests this might be due to scientific bias. “[The new study] goes to the heart of archaeological interpretation: that we’ve always mapped on our idea of what gender roles were.”
The National Geographic article also cites literary evidence of women warriors ("Viking lore had long hinted that not all warriors were men. One early tenth-century Irish text tells of Inghen Ruaidh (“Red Girl”), a female warrior who led a Viking fleet to Ireland. And Zori notes that numerous Viking sagas, such as the 13th-century Saga of the Volsungs, tell of “shield-maidens” fighting alongside male warriors.")
IMO historical proof of women warriors being common in Scandinavian culture is nevertheless incomplete. Perhaps further hard evidence will emerge from reevaluation of existing archaeological evidence, or from new finds.
__
I imagine that if there was a threat of raiding to ye ol' village and the towns folk were training in defense to prepare for the future....
I don't see how anyone would think the women should not be involved in the self-defense classes in the townsquare. You want strong men and strong women! What else would they do while the men train? Practice hiding?! I'm sure they'd be out there. They just probably were not part of offensives because someone has to be left to repopulate after. Defense, shields, maidens. Sounds like a logical certain, to me.
I don't see how anyone would think the women should not be involved in the self-defense classes in the townsquare. You want strong men and strong women! What else would they do while the men train? Practice hiding?! I'm sure they'd be out there. They just probably were not part of offensives because someone has to be left to repopulate after. Defense, shields, maidens. Sounds like a logical certain, to me.
lostforever
SasqWatch
This site is also in question,
Ars Technica is basing their stuff from Judith Jesch (see below for more details) who is University of Nottingham professor of Viking studies and she doesn't seem convinced….
http://norseandviking.blogspot.co.uk/
Anyway the point is that, this not as clear cut as OP implied.
R
RPGFool
Guest
Agreed.
And I should have acknowledged up front your addition (on topic I might add) to the facts of this thread. My apologies and many thanks.
__
Yes, show is really good. Season 5 is coming out soon, and season 4 was twice as long as other seasons so they split it in two parts. While they've taken a lot of creative liberties, there's quite a bit of historical truth to a lot of things in the show, and the names and genealogy are all correct. Also, once you finish the show Vikings, you can continue watching The Last Kingdom on Netflix, as it's basically a sequel to what happens next chronologically.
R
RPGFool
Guest
I totally enjoyed Vikings.
Started watching first episode of The Last Kingdom but never gave it a chance... Will give it another shot. Thanks for the recommendation.
__