- Status
There seems to be a lot of discussion that takes an underlying assumption as given here. That underlying assumption is that the greatest possible physical prowess, taken to mean strength exclusively, is the chief attribute of the best soldiers. I do not believe that assumption is valid, and I wish to call it into question.
I would suggest instead that physical ability sufficient to carry out the demands of the position is a valid requirement but not the only one. One may have enough strength without having the finest muscle development in one's platoon. Other requirements, such as the ability to carry out orders under stress, are equally important. It is unproven that women lack these requirements, not because they lack them, but because they have been discouraged from pursuing them, are untrained in them, and are tested according to criteria that are better at excluding women than at predicting success as a soldier.
I would suggest instead that physical ability sufficient to carry out the demands of the position is a valid requirement but not the only one. One may have enough strength without having the finest muscle development in one's platoon. Other requirements, such as the ability to carry out orders under stress, are equally important. It is unproven that women lack these requirements, not because they lack them, but because they have been discouraged from pursuing them, are untrained in them, and are tested according to criteria that are better at excluding women than at predicting success as a soldier.
Exactly. While strength is by far not unimportant for soldiers, modern or Medieval, it's not the sole, or even the most important qualifier for the job. After a certain point, its significance wanes in comparison to other abilities, and women are quite capable of reaching that point, albeit fewer than average compared to men. If we're talking about Navy SEALS-level of physical peak condition, it's a different story, but few human beings in general are able to reach that point.
I'm not saying that women aren't physically capable of combat or warfare.. Heck, even CHILDREN have been used as soldiers at certain times throughout history, and even to this day in certain barbaric parts of the World..
What I'm saying, is that it's nonsensical to use women as soldiers when men are so much better.. History bears this out. Not a single civilization or society has ever relied solely on women for it's defense, unless the male population was severely diminished and they had no choice. And there has to my knowledge never been a case of a HIGH civilization, of which the fantastical nation Nilfgaard would certainly constitute.
And who's been arguing that this would be the case? Statistically more men than women are effective at combat, it's on the individual level that differences assert themselves. Clearly the majority of Nilfgaard's soldiers are going to be men. But the Empire recognises that some of the women do have the capacity for war and will not waste that potential resource; the women who are useful at the front will end up there if they so wish. In very much a minority, but still present, if the lore is to be followed.
You're right, it's not just about strength. There is also endurance, resistance to injury, reaction time, speed, bone density.. Men are measurably better than women in those aspects, and they are all very relevant to frontline fighting..
Being a good soldier is not about the ability of a person to kill, even children have fought in wars as soldiers and it's not a trivial amount either. The question is whether women make as good soldiers as men do in terms of endurance, strength and other factors.
Medical Science tells us they are inferior to men in these aspects.
Not quite. I personally would argue fiercely that the most important aspect of the bunch is endurance. Endurance to march every day for miles on foot while carrying heavy gear, endurance to fight a battle for hours on end without breaks while using heavy armor, endurance to ride into battle as heavy mounted cavalry ( which wore heavier armor then their ground counterparts ) and so on.
I also agree with the argument prince is making about density, reaction time and resistance to injury.
Ability to lead is very different, that said while Rayla and Toruviel were Commanders neither was part of an organized professional army and both of them were guerrilla/commando unit leaders.
Last edited:
That conversation made no sense. Elven women have always fought, even before the Scoia'tael existed. One of the first Squirrels we ever meet in the books is Toruviel. It doesn't even match up to how they were depicted in the first game.
Elven more smart than Emhyr? Or a millerany race is more stupid? Female elven with precarious reproductive rate, are stronger than female human? So it's unreasonable to think Emhyr, an intelligent strategist despises the potential to accept and use women trained to fight in his army? The women of the Middle Ages had no qualms when it comes to slay an enemy, they were physically stronger due to hard work outdoors. The Nilfgaardian population suffered no danger of recess because none of its cities were attacked. There even women abound and are easily expendable for the glory of the empire.
I'm not saying they're not weaker because we all know that they are (Thought not by that much). What I am saying is that the reason there shouldn't be many serving women is that it goes against the established gender roles in the world of the Witcher. You also need to remember the equalising effect weapons have. When you're wielding a sword it's all about experience and skill. Sure being strong helps you a lot, and if you're too weak you won't be able to fence or fight for that long, but once you've attained the requisite strength to wield a sword you can do quite well without ever moving out of your weight class so to speak. We have a few very talented women in my HEMA-club who could beat you and me with longswords despite being of smaller stature (I assume you're bigger than they are). Similarly I've beat people who were fitter, faster and/or stronger than me with rapier/dagger which goes to show that there's more to fighting than mere physicality. But, again, what this should be all about is whether or not it is socially acceptable for women in the world of the witcher to enlist, not whether or not women are capable of soldiering which we know they are.
Again you mistake being a soldier to it just being reduced with your skill with a sword.
Combat is only a portion of what being a soldier, even what a front line infantryman is about. Women are not inferior because of their combat skill, they are inferior because they fall behind men in other areas.
Combat is only a portion of what being a soldier, even what a front line infantryman is about. Women are not inferior because of their combat skill, they are inferior because they fall behind men in other areas.
OK, Strengh is not the one, not the main, leaving the training beside, which other areas? Courage? Discipline? Obedience? Determination? Personal Disinterest? Professional Competence? Humanity? Confidence? Loyalty? Delivery? Will? Energy? Firmness? Patriotism? Honor? Prudence? Justice? Integrity? Faith? Character?....
And please, anyone tell maternal instinct restrains the instinct to kill. Because the maternal instinct is what drives any mother to kill you.
And please, anyone tell maternal instinct restrains the instinct to kill. Because the maternal instinct is what drives any mother to kill you.
Last edited:
Men do in point of fact achieve a higher level of endurance then any woman can, why do you think there's categories for both men and women in Olympics? Why can't women match men in terms of running or why do women have such great difficulty in passing physical fitness tests?
I accept hard facts, you are just spouting feminist bullshit with nothing to back it up.
Costin please tone it down, though I am not the one suitable to request that.
I meant endurance as a trait not to be associated with speed and timing. Which might have been a wrong assumption, since speed is quite important in an army. I'd say women could keep up with the pace of an Army though.
I meant endurance as a trait not to be associated with speed and timing. Which might have been a wrong assumption, since speed is quite important in an army. I'd say women could keep up with the pace of an Army though.
Ouch... I won't to classify this reaction, you're absolutly wrong with me if you think so. So, full spot from me.
And I'd say you ignore hard medical data just because it doesn't fit your viewpoint.
In a lot of ways that matter yes.
When you are spending hours and hours on end every single day walking dozens of kilometers while carrying full gear that weights a lot of kilograms then yes.
When you have to spend half a day sweating your ass off decked in full armor before a battle and then go into battle for several hours, if not days then yes, especially since you will have little to no rest here.
When you have to carry wounded comrades to get them to safety while wearing full combat gear and they are as well then absolutely yes.
Being a soldier isn't one on one fighting, it's formation fighting, it's fighting in a team that has to work together. It also involves a lot of physically exhausting tasks that drain you significantly.
- Status