Yes, Women in Dragon Age Could Use Longswords

[sjard]

Having been a HEMA practicioner for nearly twenty years now, I believe most of the problem is simply hollywoodism combined with the incredibly horrible sword designs in games. A longsword, which is a sword about 48 inches long overall, two handed, and with a weight of 2.8 to 3.5 pounds on average, is not particularly hard to use. I've trained and trained with women of almost every physical body type.

Another misconception is that a physically strong person has to be bulky and bulging muscles. This is the exact opposite of the reality for useful muscle mass. Useful muscles tend to be long and thin, and yes, that means that most of the scariest strongest fighting people in the world look like they're beanpoles.

Parries are not what hollywood and games show. You do not, ever, get into that blade on blade shoving match. If you try against someone who is even halfway trained, you will lose. The term is bindun und windun, Binding and Winding, you have to tell, instantly at the bind, if they are soft or hard at the bind. This tells you how you should behave. But the idea is that you go around their blade, not through it.

Another common myth is that swords can cut through armor. They can't, Period. Dot. You may be able to thrust through some types, and through weak points.

If you really want to know what longsword work is like, look up ARMA on youtube or at thearma.org. ARMA in this case being the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts, one of the leading HEMA groups. Yes, John Clements is a bit of a jackass at times, especially in writing, but he does know what he's talking about.

Edit: And finishing reading after posting this, (I was posting for the commenters not the author), I see he already links to the ARMA website.

 

[Godhead]

Well if women weren't able to wield longswords because they were too heavy, then how in the world do they do anything? Longswords are like 5 lbs on average.

 

[Grace_Omega]

I do not get arguments like this. Even if it was literally impossible for women to wield two-handed swords (or do anything else a game might feature) in real life, that can be easily dismissed because Dragon Age allows players to make female characters and it would be Some Bullshit if the game restricted certain weapons or skills by gender. If we were talking about a game aiming for strict historical accuracy we could have a conversation about realism, but in a game like Dragon Age gameplay considerations have to take precedence.

Also: why does this conversation always revolve around gender? Shouldn't a really weedy male character with no muscles also be incapable of lifting a heavy sword? Or what about putting a movement penalty on overweight characters? If we're considering the idea that women swinging huge swords is an unacceptable break of immersion, shouldn't these be just as important factors?

The fact is, even the people making this argument completely overlook tons of "unrealistic" elements in the game they play. They're just fixating on this one issue for other reasons.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I've always wondered: has any RPG (either CRPG or pen and paper) ever made it so that choosing a female vs. male character actually affects anything beyond visual representation, voice, and romance options (Fallout's "lady killer" and "Black Widow" Perks notwithstanding)? Like choosing a female gives you -2 strength but +2 agility, or something along those lines?

Arcanum: Of Magic and Steamworks Obscura had different starting statistics for males and females. It also gave you different background options based on your gender as well. It also had quite a few effects during the course of the game. They weren't created equal but each played on their own strengths.

An underrated game marred by some bugs.

 

[GundamSentinel]

Being able to swing a sword is one thing. Having the strength to block an opponent's blows, drive a blade through someone's mail and having the stamina to stay in combat for a prolonged time are quite another. Using a sword in combat is quite different from swinging a laptop around. That comparison is hopelessly flawed. I will agree that the strength of the user isn't the only deciding factor in using a sword, but saying it makes no matter is nonsense.

Less than you think! You should never be blocking someone's blows in such a manner as to force a strength contest; it'll damage your weapon, leave you open to attacks from side-arms etc. etc. As with all defensive measure's, one wants to deflect, blocking at an angle and, importantly, guiding the weapon away from you using its own momentum. Blocking primarily with strength is a very low percent scenario beyond amateur level. It shows up a lot in the media because the actors are usually aiming for the other weapon, rather than the one holding it, and it just so happens to look really, really cool.

True. But then I have some other points:

Apart from the question whether or not most soldiers in history were more than amateurs (loads of peasants in the ranks), how about shields? They are made to block, and the same argument can be made against women using them as effectively as men. Also, when you're struggling for your life, I doubt you'll worry about your weapon getting damaged. On top of that, a battle is not a series of one-on-one encounters where you can professionally deal with your opponent as he comes at you.

Driving a sword through mail is an interesting one. Ultimately, a man at peak condition would be "better" at doing this than a woman, BUT it's not really that much of an issue apparently because there's a limit to how effective one actually needs to be. The peak condition woman would also be able to skewer people in a lethal fashion without much more trouble than the man.

Can be argued both ways. Fact remains that someone who is stronger will have an easier time pushing a sword through something. I'll never say women can't stab through mail (hell, a typical longsword's point will stick a fair way through mail without even applying force), but men will generally have an easier time.

Additionally, one shouldn't underestimate how much grappling and shoving would go on in a battle, with a sword being used more as a lever to apply force to rather than to stick someone with.

Combat stamina's importance varies GREATLY depending on the context and individual fighting styles. Individual melees (or duels) tend not to take a huge amount of time unless one or both of them are aiming to make it so. Fighting with swords is pretty dangerous I hear. Fighting in armies depends very much on the structure of the army and the exact nature of the battlefield: good armies tend to have a sort of shift system. Regardless, adrenaline tends to extend stamina to as long as necessary for either gender.

Adrenaline sure helps, but will only take you so far. As an example, the Battle of Hastings lasted some 12 hours. However you split your shifts, still comes down to hours of slogging.

Also, most time spent in an army is not time spent in battle. How about long marches with heavy equipment? How about raising siege lines or building defenses? There's more to being a soldier than just fighting and some of it can be even more fatiguing.

TLR; direct strength tends not to matter much past a certain level of competency. Overall body coordination, i.e. dexterity is far more important to swordplay. Ironically enough, archery relies waaaay more on strength, as has been mentioned in the thread.

That's what I found odd about all these recent movies with female archers like Brave and the Hunger Games. Even modern bows still require quite some strength to use properly.

What I don't get about the cretins who complain about women using big weapons because of "realistic physical limitations" is that they then see their male character hit solid ground, with a bladed object no less, so hard that it cracks and shatters and somehow thing that's within even a man's realistic physical limitation?
As for the boob thing; that's why you get people complaining about the ridiculous breasts all female game characters have and are pushing for more realistic tit designs. Oh, and one last thing on the female physique thing: women tend not to bulk out much if they're athletic so they're petite bodies aren't really all that far off. The complete lack of muscle definition however...

I will agree with you there.

 

[Risingblade]

I love women who know how to wield long swords.

 

[Ambitiousmould]

Joan of Arc used a longsword. Joan of Arc was a woman. Surely that's all that needs to be said.

 

[GundamSentinel]

Joan of Arc used a longsword. Joan of Arc was a woman. Surely that's all that needs to be said.

She owned a sword, yeah. But there's nothing to indicate she actually fought, much less killed, anyone in combat. She was a military leader, not a combatant.

 

[Nixou]

I've always wondered: has any RPG (either CRPG or pen and paper) ever made it so that choosing a female vs. male character actually affects anything beyond visual representation, voice, and romance options (Fallout's "lady killer" and "Black Widow" Perks notwithstanding)? Like choosing a female gives you -2 strength but +2 agility, or something along those lines?

The Fire Emblem series: usually female characters are a little bit weaker and a little bit faster than males. And since in the Fire Emblem, speed is more important than strength and swordsmen tends to be the fastest units around, it led to the series' Iron Law: Nothing in Fire Emblem is tiny girl waving a sword [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vda4U2ilFE].

 

[dreng3]

As someone with an interest in a broad range of martial arts and weapons I do see some problems with women using longswords, though it has nothing to do with physical strength.
If any of my female acquaintances were to ask for instruction with a weapon of my choice I would be far more likely to suggest a polearm than a sword, simply because it is a weapon better suited to women. In a melee women will often have to compensate for inferior reach and a lack of weight behind the blows, so instead I argue that taking advantage of having a smaller build and, in my experience, superior balance and hand to eye coordination, is the best option.
My suggestion is based off the notion that the practicioner will eventually face someone with natural advantages.
If a female acquaintance insisted on using a melee weapon anyway I would recommend either a shortsword or a dagger combined with a martial art as the weapons will lend themselves to the natural physical advantages by allowing the practicioner to close in and use the opponents reach against them.

So based off my experience;
Women using longswords? Fine, not ideal and likely to put her at a disadvantage, but in no way unrealistic.

 

[LetalisK]

There is one thing that this article, and thread, has taught me. We have not come as long of a way as we think. I think we don't give our ancestors enough (little) credit when it comes to women and ourselves too much credit.

It is really amusing that this longswordfighting champion is called Samantha Swords . I wonder if having such a surname inspired the choice to take up swordfighting?

That was the only moment where I went "bullshit!" I have an easier time believing she's a narcissist who changed her last name.

 

[Ambitiousmould]

Joan of Arc used a longsword. Joan of Arc was a woman. Surely that's all that needs to be said.

She owned a sword, yeah. But there's nothing to indicate she actually fought, much less killed, anyone in combat. She was a military leader, not a combatant.

Fair enough. I hope that I am correct in assuming that you aren't arguing against the idea of women using swords here, and merely trying to restore factual accuracy.
Because I cannot see for the life of me that a woman would be incapable of using a sword after given sufficient training, just as a man would need training. I mean I'm a lad and I couldn't wield a longsword to save my life (and it would be to save my life, I imagine).
Basically Person + Training = Person able to wield a sword, right?

 

[Abomination]

Joan of Arc used a longsword. Joan of Arc was a woman. Surely that's all that needs to be said.

She owned a sword, yeah. But there's nothing to indicate she actually fought, much less killed, anyone in combat. She was a military leader, not a combatant.

Fair enough. I hope that I am correct in assuming that you aren't arguing against the idea of women using swords here, and merely trying to restore factual accuracy.
Because I cannot see for the life of me that a woman would be incapable of using a sword after given sufficient training, just as a man would need training. I mean I'm a lad and I couldn't wield a longsword to save my life (and it would be to save my life, I imagine).
Basically Person + Training = Person able to wield a sword, right?

It's true that with sufficient training and practice a woman could best a man of similar situation. The problem is that in those societies women, on a societal level, were "more valuable" than men. If men were off to war someone still had to ensure the kids and home were taken care of. Not every soldier was a bachelor and the whole being pregnant/giving birth thing was not conducive to soldiering. Then there's the whole rape & pillage thing that many non-noble soldiers would sign up for.

Effectively, women in the age were ill-suited to warfare and thus were employed in less than 1% of combat roles. It'd be like having a hammer and a screwdriver. The hammer isn't as good at screwing screws but it can sort of get the job done if you've got no other option and the screwdriver isn't very good at hammering nails but it can get the job done if you've got no other option. In this analogy war is hammering nails and men are hammers, keeping the home in order and raising children is screwing screws and women are screwdrivers. Why would you send women to war? Why would you train women for war?

 

[WouldYouKindly]

You could make the argument for the large warhammers and battle axes as those did require quite a bit of upper body strength to swing around. Swords, even greatswords, were made to be balanced in medieval Europe that Dragon Age largely imitates. This makes them require less strength to use effectively.

I think the only real difference with the large swords would be that women, lacking a bit in upper body strength, would have a little less control over the blade and a bit less followthrough with the shoulder. They'd have a lower body advantage, as I think they can generate more power there due to the broader hips. I don't know, I haven't tested it. Either way, I don't want to be hit by a sword no matter who is swinging it.

 

[Tuxedoman]

What.

Okay. I've done Hema for nearly six years now. I've fought with Longswords, Daggers, Messers and Sabers, and played around with probably a dozen other weapons.

Funnily enough, we have women in our group.
Funnily enough, they're no better or worse than any of the doodebros.

Wielding a londsword isn't about strength. Hell, i'd argue most melee weapons aren't about strength. You only need to be strong enough to wield the weapon while staying in control of it; endurance is key. Not strength.

And although strength does play a role in any sort of swordplay, it is very easy to use too much strength in a blow. You're not trying to hew someone in two after all, as there are far less wasteful ways to kill someone with a sword.

Also, if you put your all into a strike, it is -very- easy for that blow to be deflected. If you're 100% dedicated to it, then you have no way to change course if things aren't going the way you planned, and any swordsman with any worth would -not- stand there and take a tough-ass blow, they would redirect it so that the force doesn't hit them.

I'm rambling though. Point is, no. If me being 57 kilos can fight and train for hours on end, I don't think someone more physically fit than me who is a woman will not be able to, simply because they are a woman. I'm also assuming that when people say longsword, they mean two handed dueling swords. Not big-ass thick greatswords that you can not wield with any level of finesse due to their size, and due to the armour you're in.

 

[Worgen]

Its odd how most fantasy games put women in the roll of archers, since using a bow requires much more strength than wielding a sword.

 

[balladbird]

With a name like Samantha Swords, she really had only two choices in life. She could be a swordmaster, or a Golden Age comic superhero. XD

I have encountered a few of the folks the OP mentions, though none who have written essays on the subject. I know that where the line for suspension of disbelief lies is a personal one, but some people will always strike me as silly about it.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I don't have any problem with the women in Dragon Age (or any Bioware game) being strong fighters, wielding swords, etc.

I think the only unrealistic aspect is that when playing as a human female in Dragon Age or as FemShep that the build of the character doesn't match reality. Femshep and the femhuman warrior DA:I characters are both really petite and skinny characters. To be realistic, both should be a lot more muscular and their bodies should reflect that.

For a perfect example: http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Vjp0gyp6--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/17g69x63n8gjtjpg.jpg

True, but honestly, realistic 'physique' is actually not what people think it is. To some extent it's one of those 'reality seems too fake to be believable' kind of things at this point. There's quite a few examples of stuff like that. For instance, a recent photo of a moon of... Saturn I think looked 'fake' and like CGI, because people expect to see 'atmospheric haze'. (ugh. Why is it when you don't need it you can think of dozens of examples, but when you do, you end up drawing a blank?)


I always find this of relevance when people start talking about 'strength' (or athleticism of any kind) and appearance.
http://www.boredpanda.com/athlete-body-types-comparison-howard-schatz/

Notice the various things where the real athlete looks like something quite different from people's standard conceptions?
(Often leaning towards the bodybuilder, whose body is basically all show, rather than a real athlete, for instance.)

Take note of the female athletes in particular.

Of note:

-weightlifters (one tiny and muscular, and one huge, and for lack of a better description, very fat looking. - Actually seems to be a common trend for weightlifters to look more 'fat' than 'muscular')

-The appearance of all the various gymnasts. (relevant to the especially acrobatic characters, such as say, Lara Croft)
-Long distance runners (anyone that needs considerable stamina)
-Hammer throw. (Not all that muscular. Largish, but not muscular looking), which is to some extent a feat of both strength and coordination
- Shot put (Similar story. This is again a feat of strength and coordination, and again we see someone that doesn't actually seem that muscular)
- Even consider a female boxer. Muscular, yes, but much less dramatically so than you might expect.

The reality is quite a bit different both from what you see in media, AND what people who tend to comment about 'unrealistic' character bodytypes think it should actually look like.

I wonder, if we used these athletes as a reference, and created a game with 'realistic' (strong) female characters, what would the reaction be?

(I'm guessing the weightlifters in particular wouldn't go down well... XD)