Haerthan said:
Ok I am going to ask you to back up your assertion that our sexual dimorphism has a huge strength difference. Through scientific studies.
Here's the fastest example to show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology#Skeleton_and_muscular_system
"Females in general have lower total muscle mass than males, and also having lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass;[26] males convert more of their caloric intake into muscle and expendable circulating energy reserves, while females tend to convert more into fat deposits.[27] As a consequence, males are generally physically stronger than females. While individual muscle fibers have similar strength between male and female, males have more fibers as a result of their greater total muscle mass.[28] Males remain stronger than females, when adjusting for differences in total body mass, due to the higher male muscle-mass to body-mass ratio.[29] The greater muscle mass is reported to be due to a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy as a result of higher levels of circulating testosterone in males.[30]
Gross measures of body strength suggest a 40-50% difference in upper body strength between the sexes, and a 20-30% difference in lower body strength.[31] One study of muscle strength in the elbows and knees?in 45 and older males and females?found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength.[32] Another study found men to have significantly higher hand-grip strength than women, even when comparing untrained men with female athletes.[33] Differences in width of arm, thighs and calves also increase during puberty."
So again, twice the strength is double. Not only that but men have larger organs such as the heart and lungs which factors into endurance. Men have a narrower pelvic angle which not only makes the mechanical motion of running easier but also distributes weight more efficiently. Denser bones not only make resiliency and resistance to breakage better, but also helps with the growth of muscle fibers that further add to strength. Add that to larger frames on average and additional aggression and males are far more suited for battle than women.
Have you really not wondered why women aren't hired in male sports if the difference wasn't significant enough to matter? Remember, women are allowed to try out for the male leagues but men are not allowed to try out for the women's leagues. Did you think it was just blatant sexism?
And second I am actually trained to use a sword, and believe me strength isnt such a huge factor. Longswords were made for thrusting and stabbing. Only katanas and broadswords were meant for slashing.
Fun fact, I worked my way through college as a professional blacksmith and sold a lot of blades. So sit back and enjoy if you like this sort of thing:
For you to make this assertion would mean that you have a specific time period and region in mind when you think about the term "long sword" when it's actually an incredibly nebulous term. About the only two things that are certain are the cross hilt and the fact that the sword is large. But not necessarily the blade, it can just be the hilt that is extra long but either way needs to be double handed to qualify as long sword.
If we're talking about medieval age usage then you should also be aware that the weapon was intended for people actually wearing a full suit of armor. It wasn't until after the middle ages that people started using it without armor. So you're talking about a woman wearing both full plate armor as well as wielding this beast of blades.
What I assume people are actually talking about here would be something like a claymore or Zweihänder and so I base my responses on those. Since people are talking middle ages then I'm going on claymore since the Zweihänder is what retired it after the middle ages. Now, you made the claim that only "broadswords" are made for slashing. The term broadsword is frequently used when discussing claymores and the two terms can be used interchangeably?
Broadsword if used properly though is referring to the basket hilted blade developed in the 16th century and is more akin to a broad bladed rapier than what most people think. They think broad and swords like the claymore spring to mind hence how the terms have become acceptable to use interchangeably nowadays even though that's not strictly correct. Now, in both instances you are correct that broadswords could be and were used for cutting.
Now, longswords were originally cutting weapons primarily. The use of plate armor caused them to migrate towards the thrusting blades you mentioned but the cutting and hacking ability wasn't ever really removed. In fact, most schools of fencing (with the longswords we're talking about made prior to rapiers) include both hacking and stabbing. As time progressed and got further and further from the middle ages the point became more and more the focus. But please understand that even many types of rapiers (another nebulous term depending on region and time period) had a cutting edge along part of the blade. Both to discourage grasping and to cut depending on the school of fighting they're using.
Anyways, I digress and wish to come to the point. Here's a depiction from the 1467 fencing manual of a longsword match by Hans Talhoffer, a renowned fencing master of the era who wrote about it while it was actually happening. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Talhoffer] Please note that his work is basically gospel where fighting styles of his era are concerned.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_025.jpg/1024px-De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_025.jpg
So, tell me, do you get the feeling that they're trying to stab each other with these long swords or are they maybe trying to hack and slash? To anyone with eyes, hack and slash is obvious. That is towards the end of the claymore's reign and yet they're still hacking.
See, the style changes according to what your opponent is wearing. If they're in armor, stab and hack when it makes sense to do so (armored styles still have slashing opportunities). If they're unarmored, hack and slash and stab when it makes sense.
A lot of armored fencing techniques actually boil down to wrestling and using a free hand. That really doesn't suit females in battle. Sorry, but it doesn't. The pommels were also commonly used as blunt instruments and could be turned around and used as clubs if you had gloves on.
<spoiler=click to view a depiction from the era of a knight using the pommel like a hammer>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Ms.XIX.17-3_16v.png/640px-Ms.XIX.17-3_16v.png
Three with proper training and diet, believe me, women can reach the same amount of strength that men can.
No, a woman can reach the strength level of an average man. They cannot reach the same level of strength that a man is
capable of reaching. A man pulling off the same feat of doubling his strength (like a woman has to just to reach average) would put him at four times the strength of the average woman.
This is why male on female violence is taken so very seriously. It isn't just stereotyping sexism. The average man hitting the average woman is someone twice as strong as the other taking a swing.
Also, as stated, hand grip is extremely relevant here and is something that female athletes can't even reach the average male's hand strength. It's just one of those things.
I'm sorry if you're a female and someone told you that you could grow up to be just as strong as Arnold some day. That was a lie you were told.
So your assertion that there is a strength disparity is nothing more than the left-overs of the Victorian era, a sad chapter in our history.
It isn't assertion. It is a medically researched and verified fact. Sorry. Testosterone is a hell of a steroid and any dismissal of scientific fact in order to believe what we want is a left-over of dark ages thinking, a far more sad chapter in our history.
Edit: swords also aren't that heavy. My sword weighs around 1.5 kgs. My sister's sword weighs 1 kg, and guess what she can slice and dice with that. Hell 8 pounds (those Zweihander) isnt even 4 kg. Actually read the article.
I don't think you understand the difference that just a few pounds make in a fight. Have you done any sort of grappling sport or anything like that? Hell, let's look at boxing. Just boxing will exhaust you even if you're not getting punched. A variance in weight is significant. That's why boxing gloves come in sizes that differ only in ounces and the ounces have to be agreed upon before the match. Heavier gloves tire you out quickly.
I know you and your sister have swords that don't feel that heavy. But in an actual fight against multiple opponents you'd likely rather have something on the lighter end if you're a female then something on the heavier end to last the whole time as detaching from the battle to rest may not be viable. Either way, you'd be at a tremendous disadvantage in the entire battle.
Thankfully, just as there are female boxers that could absolutely knock the average male on his ass, so too am I sure there could have been skilled fencers that could have dispatched opponents a lot more readily than the average man. Why not? Skill is thankfully not bounded by strength even if strength can compensate for lack of skill. It's just that if people are talking about claymores then we're talking about a much heavier weapon that was likely used while wearing plate mail and would have been particularly ill suited for females. If we're merely talking longswords as in rapiers then why not?
I think you and I can easily agree that a woman could at least wield such a weapon even if it would tire her out significantly faster than a lighter weapon whereas a male may not notice the difference as much. It's like this, a lightweight boxer could use an 18 ounce glove. They're fully capable of using it in a fight. But it is too heavy for their weight class and they would be far better suited to use the 8-10 ounce gloves of their class.
A woman could use a heavier sword, but it's a significant disadvantage. So, unrealistic? Technically true. It would be an extremely poor choice for a woman to pick a heavier weapon when given the choice of other options. It's still better than a pitchfork or dagger. The issue in choice of weapon isn't how much it takes to swing a weapon. It's how much endurance it takes to swing it over and over again.
But I can't stress this point enough. This is a game where women turn into dragons. Let them have long swords and whatever else they want. Not sure why it matters to people.
