180 réponses à ce sujet

[Hadea]

It is true that men have greater upper body strength than women, so the strength advantage for men is there. Does this mean women have absolutely no role in combat? Combat isn't just about who is physically stronger, but skill and training as well. A well placed dagger can still do quite a bit of damage.

[Elcariel]

BobSmith101 wrote...

ReinaHW wrote...
For all we know woman have been fighting along side men for centuries, but kept it quiet, and when they were found out it wasn't written in the records because the men were embarassed, likely because the women did a much better job than the gender stereotyping says they can.
It seems flawed that a woman would just want to sit back and cower while the men go out and fight, a woman would want to protect as well and fight against anyone who threatened their home.  I know I would take up arms and fight back if anyone threatened my family.

Women like that tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Iv'e done reinactment with blunted weapons and a woman in full plate armour like Meridith wears, that's something that does not tend to work in reality. A lot of our female members have custom armour which is lighter or contains more chain than the more traditional "white" armour that we wear.

Technology and magic are great equalisers, but historically the battlefield belongs to men.

Most warriors have been men, no question. Men are, on average, considerably stronger than women, true. *But* there's a pretty wide variation. And the nutrition and medical knowledge of the time narrowed the range even more. Besides, strength is not the most important attribute -- fighting experience is. 

The best female fighters were no match for the best male fighters, but an above average, motivated female fighter was just as good as a rank and file male soldier, and that's all we're talking about. Besides, as much as it sucked to be a medieval peasant, it sucked way more to be a *female* medieval peasant. Don't underestimate that motivation -- plenty of women ran away to fight. A lot of them died, and a lot became camp followers (some of whom later became fighters themselves), but there were definitely those who succeeded.

I've also done the reenactment thing, and the only people in our troupe who wore the heavy armor were the horsemen, and the female horsemen did just as well as the men (ie great, as long as they could stay on horseback). Given the armor most soldiers had (leather coat, helmet, and maybe a shield), strength wasn't really an issue. 

The estimates I believe would put women at about 5-10%* of your typical mercenary company. (Considerably more if you include camp followers who sometimes fought.) And honestly, my understanding is that a bigger issue than not being good enough at fighting is that women warriors tended to be *meaner*, and were less likely to take and give quarter to their opponents. Which can be a problem when you're a merc.

*[Edit: 15% was a very unlikely number -- I shouldn't have thrown it out there. I personally believe 10%, but 5% is more supportable.]

Modifié par Elcariel, 26 avril 2011 - 06:34 .

[AkiKishi]

Hadea wrote...

It is true that men have greater upper body strength than women, so the strength advantage for men is there. Does this mean women have absolutely no role in combat? Combat isn't just about who is physically stronger, but skill and training as well. A well placed dagger can still do quite a bit of damage.

Very much depends on the era and the armour. The only place to get a dagger through white armour is the visor slit. Trying to do that while someone is in motion is not happening. Once you lose the armour and go more towards fencing then women can easily hold their own, in sport it's pretty much an even conteset since you are only striking not trying to pierce. Reach is still a bit of a factor, but not insermountable.

[Hadea]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Hadea wrote...

It is true that men have greater upper body strength than women, so the strength advantage for men is there. Does this mean women have absolutely no role in combat? Combat isn't just about who is physically stronger, but skill and training as well. A well placed dagger can still do quite a bit of damage.

Very much depends on the era and the armour. The only place to get a dagger through white armour is the visor slit. Trying to do that while someone is in motion is not happening. Once you lose the armour and go more towards fencing then women can easily hold their own, in sport it's pretty much an even conteset since you are only striking not trying to pierce. Reach is still a bit of a factor, but not insermountable.

So then we would trip 'em and stab 'em in the eye!

[Galad22]

Mr.House wrote...

There is only reason why DA2 is selling very poorly. It's because a malehawke is on the cover!

This confuses gamers and they think they have to be forced to play this beard man.:innocent:

I like this logic.

I think biowares reasoning for not putting female Hawke on cover is just absurd. Tomb raider has always woman on cover and that franchise sells millions, FFXIII had female and it sold millions. Bioware really should understand that having female as an iconic character for the game makes absolutely no difference for the sales.

Anyway imo female hawke is better character than male hawke, exactly like in ME fem Shepard is better character than male Shepard. Of course DA2 still wouldn't be any better game.

[Stanley Woo]

As this discussion has become less cohesive, ranging from physiological gender differences to women in combat throughout history to videogame marketing and dipping its toe into outright sexism, i'm going to shut it down here. Thank you.

End of line.