Yes, Women in Dragon Age Could Use Longswords

Plasticaprinae

New member
Jul 9, 2013
80
0
0
Abomination said:
ambitiousmould said:
All that being said (and true), keeping it within the context of Dragon Age (or fantasy games in general) it is a fictional society, wherein it is clear that women are often soldiers and fighters, and therefore them being able to handle swords is entirely fine and realistic.
I have found Dragon Age to, unfortunately, decide on irrational or contradictory social systems.

The whole Qunari believing you are what you were born as or born to be, women can't be warriors etc., that those who deviate will be "re-educated" and eventually, effectively, lobotomized... and then Iron Bull stating they're accepting of trans is just too jarring.

Then the women warriors all over the place, how does the economy function during war? How is the population maintained?

As a student of history I just can't see half the societies functioning... but then again I'm supposedly there to kill darkspawn, demons and dragons.
Iron bull did mention female qunari warriors, theyre just called something different. They were made assassins I believe. This might be a female inquis only dialougue. Qunari are tested to see what fits them the best. As long as they do their job, who cares if someone believes they are man, woman, or something else? Their duty to Qun is considered first and foremost. Also, if a woman does become a warrior, under special circumstances, she is then considered a male. Ironbull said that he considered Cassandra a male when she puts her armor on, but female when she takes it off.

Also, the population is maintained because everyone has sex with their colleagues on the battlefield ;)

Jokes aside, men and women equally go to war, you can also assume there are equal amounts that stay behind to rear children. Not every man in dragon age is a warrior!
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Women should stick to more traditionally feminine weapons.

You know, like the naginata- a five to eight foot long bladed polearm.

Just sayin'. ;)
 

Twinmill5000

New member
Nov 12, 2009
130
0
0
Topsider said:
There's a weird skein of revisionist history running through discussions like this that seems to have cropped up within the past few years. A lot of people seem to be thoroughly in love with the notion that, contrary to all contemporary accounts, all surviving archaeological evidence, women were just as or nearly as common on the battlefield as men, when in fact we know that female warriors were extremely rare.

I don't have a problem with women wielding longswords in fantasy games. I don't have a problem with women doing much of anything in fantasy games; the word "fantasy" is right there on the tin. I don't have a problem with admitting that, on the modern battlefield, in most roles, women are perfectly capable combatants.

But trying to square the circle of warfighting having been an overwhelmingly male pursuit throughout the overwhelming majority of human history with modern sensibilities about "gender equity" doesn't serve anyone. I mean, I guess it helps some people to believe that the "sexism" of the realities of sexual dimorphism is a modern conceit, but that sort of begs the question: how do you keep an equally powerful, equally martially capable parcel of humanity oppressed for thousands of years in every known corner of the globe?
I don't believe you've understood my post completely.

While you can tell alot about someone's lifestyle and nutritional choices through their bone structure, bones to very little to indicate muscle mass, and only accurately depict an individual's diet if they're recent. That wasn't the point of my original post; I know women weren't ever as numerous in battlefields (on a global scale scrapping isolated instances) than men. The point of my post was to point out that a woman can have a more 'manly' physique than most men, and that it's actually very likely to see that happen in coastal societies.

I brought up this point because you seem to be stuck in the notion that men and women today accurately reflect (in lifestyle and nutrition, therefore physique) the men and women of five or more centuries ago. That's simply not the case, thus, your points, while still points, aren't absolute, and your evidence is only slightly fitting. I had to point that out.

If I must point out the blatantly obvious, no, without excessive amounts of nutrition related to it, women, on average, have lower upper body strength than men. There. I said it. Yay. I never said otherwise. To deny that would be remarkably stupid. I thought I made that clear in my original post, but I guess not. I also have stated two times before, that this gap between genders and strength is narrowed when the aforementioned nutrition and lifestyle choices are added into the equation.

Another point to consider: hunter-heavy societies, especially well nourished ones, are also extremely rare, but that's going back to my original post.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
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.
 

Haerthan

New member
Mar 16, 2014
434
0
0
Lightknight said:
Really long snip
Thanks for the sources, really interesting. But your math is a bit wrong since 50% is not double. 100% is double, so your math is a bit wrong. Second I am thinking of the long sword that is depicted as a knight's blade, around 30-34 inches, used with a shield. So from say 1000 AD to 1500 AD. No idea why I mentioned the Zweihander, shouldn't have done that. So at most between 1 to 2 kg. Those were made as thrusting and stabbing as well. Only the Zweihander were used for slashing. Lastly I do understand the difference it does, but with proper application of thinking (former Tai Chi and Sword form practitioner-though I still keep in touch) weight has less issue. I saw grown men being thrown around by a waif of a woman. I did it myself. But thanks for the sources, it was insightful.

Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
snip once more
I don't know enough about the US military to have an opinion, but I would like a source on that. Personally I would do what the Communists in Romania did in 1960s, put a pre-military program for the high school students where attendance was mandatory for both men and women. Than the integration into the army units after the age of recruitment has been reached. Granted I would only do this if Romania still had a conscripted army. The conscription was dropped in 2004, when they joined NATO. To my knowledge, http://www.mpopa.ro/psihologie_militara/mil_09_femeile.pdf this shows an interesting thing. I know it is in Romanian, but at one point it says that while there are physical differences, research shows that women suffer from less PTSD incidences, that performance is not down, women put the same amount of work in as men. The conclusion for it says that women are able to deal with the large majority of the rigours of physical army life, that their integration into army units is mainly an issue of mentality and that lawmakers should not interfere in the integration.

Topsider said:
So we are just going to ignore all of the Byzantine records? The Danish ones as well?
John Skylitzes, a Byzantine historian attests to them when the Varangians (Greek name given to Vikings) were defeated in Bulgaria in 971 AD, female warriors were among the fallen. The Greenland saga, based on historical truth, has a pregnant woman fighting off Native Americans. Saxo Grammaticus, a Danish historian, has more shieldmaidens fighting in 750 AD on the Danish side. These are historical accounts. Not someone taking a look at a statue, coming to the correct conclusion that it was a Valkirye most likely, and than state that there were no female warriors in a warrior culture at all.
Furthermore archaeology in both the British Isles and Scandinavia has shown an equal distribution of male and female grave sites, leading to a belief of an equal distribution when it came to immigration into the British Isles. Furthermore some women have had weaponry with them in their graves. I am not even going to go into legendary shieldmaidens. I will only say that in that regards, legends have a kernel of truth to them.

Also you made the assertion of sexual dimorphism, which you sourced, so it was up to you to source, not me.

Edit: of course she is British. If there is one thing the Brits excell at is ignoring other sources with regards to other people.
 

Ariseishirou

New member
Aug 24, 2010
443
0
0
Lightknight said:
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.
I agree with your point overall, and not to be pedantic, but... that's actually not true. Arnold's personal record for bench press is 440lbs. The current women's powerlifting record for bench press is also 440lbs. The women's world record for squats is 100lbs more than he could ever manage. While you couldn't be as strong as the strongest man, if you're a woman, you technically _can_ be as strong as Arnold - in his prime, no less!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Powerlifting.2Fweightlifting

http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/raw/women-world
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,981
118
Ariseishirou said:
and not to be pedantic, but...
Oh come on, you meant to be pedantic and you know it. xD Otherwise you wouldn't put the "but..." on there. Just own your pedanticness if you're going to be pedantic. xD
 

Haerthan

New member
Mar 16, 2014
434
0
0
Happyninja42 said:
Ariseishirou said:
and not to be pedantic, but...
Oh come on, you meant to be pedantic and you know it. xD Otherwise you wouldn't put the "but..." on there. Just own your pedanticness if you're going to be pedantic. xD
It is still true what he said in the end. So in the end it is all about willpower and training. Cause no average male or female can bench press that shit.
 

Ariseishirou

New member
Aug 24, 2010
443
0
0
Happyninja42 said:
Ariseishirou said:
and not to be pedantic, but...
Oh come on, you meant to be pedantic and you know it. xD Otherwise you wouldn't put the "but..." on there. Just own your pedanticness if you're going to be pedantic. xD
Well hey, he seems like a historical weapons aficionado and I'm a gym rat. The least I could do is offer him the same helpful technicalites he's offering everyone else ;p

He's 100% correct about the averages, but some of the outliers out there are Brienne-tier beast mode Amazons that you would not want to mess with, man. Only the very strongest men in the world are stronger than they are, and if you're not one of them, you're not going to hack it.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,981
118
Ariseishirou said:
Happyninja42 said:
Ariseishirou said:
and not to be pedantic, but...
Oh come on, you meant to be pedantic and you know it. xD Otherwise you wouldn't put the "but..." on there. Just own your pedanticness if you're going to be pedantic. xD
Well hey, he seems like a historical weapons aficionado and I'm a gym rat. The least I could do is offer him the same helpful technicalites he's offering everyone else ;p

He's 100% correct about the averages, but some of the outliers out there are Brienne-tier beast mode Amazons that you would not want to mess with, man. Only the very strongest men in the world are stronger than they are, and if you're not one of them, you're not going to hack it.
Oh that's fine, I wasn't questioning his or your input on the subject, just being silly about you being pedantic, but then trying to say you're not trying to be pedantic. xD That particular quirk of communication always amuses me. "I don't mean to specifically correct a minor generalization you made with more precise data....but I'm going to anyway." xD

On the subject of women's strength, I had a similar discussion long ago with a friend, when that movie King Arthur came out. The one with Kiera Knightly in it. My friend was talking about how it was unrealistic to have Kiera using a bow, and he was like "The English Longbowman were insanely powerful, and trained all the time! Kiera has arms like spaghetti noodles! There's no way she could shoot like them!" To which I responded. "Well, 1. The English Longbowman were the crazy super specialists, whereas thousands of people used bows regularly. 2. The cultural group that she's a part of were not the English Longbowman. (I forget who they were, the Woads I think they were called? Blue tattood tribal nomads in England basically) 3. Bows are by design, built to help someone utilize muscle force to a greater effectiveness. So even someone with little muscle force, could shoot an arrow effectively. Could they shoot for as long as someone stronger than them, and use a stronger pull bow for as long? Probably not, but they could still use the weapon."
 

UsefulPlayer 1

New member
Feb 22, 2008
1,776
0
0
I think the more important conversation is the longbow.

Why is it typically only a dextrous weapons in so many RPGs?

I feel like bows require the strength of superman to operate.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Haerthan said:
Lightknight said:
Really long snip
Thanks for the sources, really interesting. But your math is a bit wrong since 50% is not double. 100% is double, so your math is a bit wrong.
Yes, sorry. You are correct. 50% is not twice as strong, it is 1.5 times as strong. Hopefully you can agree that this isn't a trivial amount though and that I wasn't just pulling numbers out of my victorian-age ass.

Thank you for the correction.

Second I am thinking of the long sword that is depicted as a knight's blade, around 30-34 inches, used with a shield. So from say 1000 AD to 1500 AD. No idea why I mentioned the Zweihander, shouldn't have done that. So at most between 1 to 2 kg. Those were made as thrusting and stabbing as well. Only the Zweihander were used for slashing.
Long Swords of that period averaged between 35 inches and 43 inches. So it's the size above the one you're thinking about.

Regarding the claim that they weren't used for slashing, as I showed in the picture, long swords were absolutely used for hacking and slashing. How you use them just depended on whether or not the person you were fighting was wearing armor. No armor? Cleave away. Fully armored? Pointy end applies the most pressure in the least area giving the greatest chance of puncturing. Look at the styles the sword master was portraying. Down and behind for the guy on the left, above the head for the guy on the right. These are clearly cleaving stances. If the individual was wearing armor and was fighting against someone wearing armor then you'd see stabbing and clubbing like I showed in the second image that I had to spoiler due to the size. Those images are from one of the most famous swordsmen of all time. Had I found images of his work contradicting what I am saying I would have quickly recanted because he's a sword master living in the time period this was actually happening. Even rapiers were occasionally used for slashing though much rarer due to the fragility of the tip.

Lastly I do understand the difference it does, but with proper application of thinking (former Tai Chi and Sword form practitioner-though I still keep in touch) weight has less issue. I saw grown men being thrown around by a waif of a woman. I did it myself. But thanks for the sources, it was insightful.
Right, skill will win against incompetence even over strength. For example, my first week in wrestling I was bested by a guy half my size.

However, with minimal training weight quickly becomes a huge factor. It's why you have to EXTRA good at what you do in things like boxing to fight in a higher weight class, why it's so rare, you know? It's not that the most skilled person can't be a light weight. It's just that weight matters in anything where force is applied.

So, this guy half my weight that beat me the first week? Within half a year I beat him and two smaller guys at the same time as a demonstration that our coach (a national championship wrestler in whatever the weight class close to 110 was) wanted to show us. A point he wanted to make. I wasn't the most skilled wrestler but I was at that point skilled enough to make my skill and weight absolutely conquer them.

Anyone with skill can beat a n00b. But just a little bit of skill in the hands of someone with strength can go a lot further than the same amount of skill in the hands of someone with less strength.

Ariseishirou said:
Lightknight said:
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.
I agree with your point overall, and not to be pedantic, but... that's actually not true. Arnold's personal record for bench press is 440lbs. The current women's powerlifting record for bench press is also 440lbs. The women's world record for squats is 100lbs more than he could ever manage. While you couldn't be as strong as the strongest man, if you're a woman, you technically _can_ be as strong as Arnold - in his prime, no less!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Powerlifting.2Fweightlifting

http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/raw/women-world
Ah hah! That's great! Hahaha. She even did that while only within 10-15 lbs of Arnold. She should be very proud of that weight.

However, I would recommend comparing April Mathis with Arnold Schwarzenegger (at the time he was lifting that amount) and come to your own conclusions:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-oxojpxADRdo/VDM5T5HDgtI/AAAAAAAAJvU/Ue4IDemUPGw/s640/April-Mathis-at-Port-St-Lucie.jpg

http://liberallifestyles.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/arn-49-Young-Arnold-Schwarzenegger-12.jpg

Do you see how much harder women have to treat their bodies to get to that level than men do? Do I think April (in her early twenties) hit the steroids? Sure, and hard. Really hard. She's still that strong though, regardless. I'd actually like to learn more about her but can't find so much as a wiki. Strange.

It's important to understand that the next closest record to hers I think are like 403. This is not at all a normal thing for a woman to do. This is like a one person thing so far.

The men's current record is well over 1,000 lbs. So perhaps Arnold would have been that strong had he grown up today. But from what he's said, he used steroids to maintain his muscles, not to get them. And he freely admits to using them so I'm not sure he'd lie about the why.
 

Haerthan

New member
Mar 16, 2014
434
0
0
Lightknight said:
Haerthan said:
Lightknight said:
Really long snip
Thanks for the sources, really interesting. But your math is a bit wrong since 50% is not double. 100% is double, so your math is a bit wrong.
Yes, sorry. You are correct. 50% is not twice as strong, it is 1.5 times as strong. Hopefully you can agree that this isn't a trivial amount though and that I wasn't just pulling numbers out of my victorian-age ass.

Thank you for the correction.

Second I am thinking of the long sword that is depicted as a knight's blade, around 30-34 inches, used with a shield. So from say 1000 AD to 1500 AD. No idea why I mentioned the Zweihander, shouldn't have done that. So at most between 1 to 2 kg. Those were made as thrusting and stabbing as well. Only the Zweihander were used for slashing.
Long Swords of that period averaged between 35 inches and 43 inches. So it's the size above the one you're thinking about.

Regarding the claim that they weren't used for slashing, as I showed in the picture, long swords were absolutely used for hacking and slashing. How you use them just depended on whether or not the person you were fighting was wearing armor. No armor? Cleave away. Fully armored? Pointy end applies the most pressure in the least area giving the greatest chance of puncturing. Look at the styles the sword master was portraying. Down and behind for the guy on the left, above the head for the guy on the right. These are clearly cleaving stances. If the individual was wearing armor and was fighting against someone wearing armor then you'd see stabbing and clubbing like I showed in the second image that I had to spoiler due to the size. Those images are from one of the most famous swordsmen of all time. Had I found images of his work contradicting what I am saying I would have quickly recanted because he's a sword master living in the time period this was actually happening. Even rapiers were occasionally used for slashing though much rarer due to the fragility of the tip.

Lastly I do understand the difference it does, but with proper application of thinking (former Tai Chi and Sword form practitioner-though I still keep in touch) weight has less issue. I saw grown men being thrown around by a waif of a woman. I did it myself. But thanks for the sources, it was insightful.
Right, skill will win against incompetence even over strength. For example, my first week in wrestling I was bested by a guy half my size.

However, with minimal training weight quickly becomes a huge factor. It's why you have to EXTRA good at what you do in things like boxing to fight in a higher weight class, why it's so rare, you know? It's not that the most skilled person can't be a light weight. It's just that weight matters in anything where force is applied.

So, this guy half my weight that beat me the first week? Within half a year I beat him and two smaller guys at the same time as a demonstration that our coach (a national championship wrestler in whatever the weight class close to 110 was) wanted to show us. A point he wanted to make. I wasn't the most skilled wrestler but I was at that point skilled enough to make my skill and weight absolutely conquer them.

Anyone with skill can beat a n00b. But just a little bit of skill in the hands of someone with strength can go a lot further than the same amount of skill in the hands of someone with less strength.
Yes, those 2-handers that you showed in the picture were for hacking and slashing, but I wasnt talking about those. I am talking of one-handed swords. The type I was trained with, well I was trained to use 1 1/2, but the form was definitely onehanded. Strength had nothing to do with 1handed forms. Yea 2h sure, those things are more based on strength, but I am not talking about those.
Lastly, yes armour was important, but weapons such as the estoc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoc) or halberds were designed to puncture mail. They had no point. So yes "the longsword",(langes schwert) was used that way. But those were mainly horseback. Furthermore the development of plate armour also ensured that those types of swords would be adapted to have a better thrusting point and smaller cutting capability.

Also yes the fact that if armour was present or not was an important factor. For a longsword, if armour was present, you would use the tip, meaning it was less a question of strength, but dexterity and an application of the principles behind levers. If armour wasn't present, the yea hack away.

Now if we focus on Japan, the onna-bugeisha used naginatas, in contrast with their male counterparts, who used the katana. But this was prior to the Edo period, when Neo-Confucianism heavily restricted women. They were trained in the use of naginata. So while there is some sexual dimorphism, clever application of training, willpower and normal physics can override said dimorphism. Only when we allow it to be entrenched in a culture it becomes an issue. Hence why we still need feminism. It is just a matter of using our brains.
 

Carrington666

Regular Member
Jun 21, 2009
24
2
13
UsefulPlayer 1 said:
I think the more important conversation is the longbow.

Why is it typically only a dextrous weapons in so many RPGs?

I feel like bows require the strength of superman to operate.
I can't say anything about the strength requirements for using a bow, but actual historical bow techniques seems to be way weirder than what we see in movies and games.


I've watched this video twice now and still think he is using magic ;-)
 

Robyrt

New member
Aug 1, 2008
568
0
0
Carrington666 said:
UsefulPlayer 1 said:
I think the more important conversation is the longbow.

Why is it typically only a dextrous weapons in so many RPGs?

I feel like bows require the strength of superman to operate.
I can't say anything about the strength requirements for using a bow, but actual historical bow techniques seems to be way weirder than what we see in movies and games.

I've watched this video twice now and still think he is using magic ;-)
Most medieval fantasy games are based on England, which is famous for its enormous longbows requiring lots of strength. These evolved into modern archery competitions, where you stand still and aim from long distances like a rifle. This video is using a horse bow or shortbow, which is smaller and requires high dexterity. These were used as medium-range fire support and harassment troops, often from horseback, like a pistol. They're way more common in the Near East: you can see the historical art in the video is full of Egyptians, Persians, Byzantines and Mongols.
 

ArcaneGamer

New member
Dec 21, 2014
283
0
0
Robert Rath said:
Yes, Women in Dragon Age Could Use Longswords

Recently a topic keeps rearing its obnoxious head: the idea that it?s ?unrealistic? for women in games to wield longswords. Women, the argument goes, don?t have the strength to wield heavy blades. These claims are total nonsense.

Read Full Article
I quite agree. This is came up recently? Why is this such abig deal? There were women in DA: Origins that wielded a longsword, weren't there? I distinctly remember Aveline from DA2 (Of whom was one of my favorite characters BTW) wielding a sword and shield, she was the (non-two handed sword) Warrior of the group. I also remember Merril pointing out Aveline's attempt at courting Donnic is a dowry tradition. It's funny because she's accidentally emasculating him by treating him as women were treated in Medieval times - as property and a burden. But I'm getting off topic. Why is this such an issue? Isn't Andraste and/or Leliana based on Joan of Arc? So, swords weren't that heavy, huh? Interesting. Is it weird that I liked Samurais a little more than I liked Knights growing up? I like the Knights a little more now, but not for their fighting styles, but for their code of honor. (Although, nowadays I like Ninjas more, but that's a different discussion.) Samurai had something similar called Bushido. I kind of saw similarities there. Now that I think about it, I wonder who would win? Knight or Samurai? But again, I'm getting off track.

(On Page 2) Well done, sir. I think I remember Cassanadra talking about her training, but that's about it. At least as far as I remember. Also, probably the whole sexism thing probably didn't help either.

(Page 3) Again, Joan of Arc. I'm...actually rather happy learning there were more women fighting wars. While when playing RPGs, I either go for the Mage or Rogue, (Mages, because having someone that isn't conventionally strong, suddenly use their intellect and power of the arcane to help people and/or defeat foes, & Rogues for their faster attacks, [and admittedly, cooler looking weapons] and [much like mages] using their cunning to either trick, rob, blow up with explosives, or just outsmart their enemies. A warrior is usaully willing to be fair in a fight, or might sterotypically try to beat someone with strength alone. But a Rogue would go about it differently, with speed and precision with either their daggers or bow and arrows, various tricks, or just cheat to win.) but a trope I enjoy as well is the Lady of War,or a female character that's a warrior. A lady took 5 arrows to the face and STILL kept fighting? That is cool!
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Lightknight said:
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.
Does it piss you off that RPGs basically make "longsword" synonymous with a one handed sword?