No one said they were as strong. We addressed that game above. New castle jets an A level team. Two highly trained teams. Was Australian.
Skill plus force is awesome. Combat was and is primarily skill. There just weren't and aren't manys situations where Max strength was needed.
Most of the armor wasn't heavy. Short swords were a few pounds as were short bows. Heck even a full suit of armor was about 50 lbs. Less than many modern armor and less than fire fighter great.
Long bows did have huge draws but most units didn't wield them. Those units were specialized.
A baseball bat only weighs about two pounds. A baseball weighs less than 1/3 of a pound. Even six-year-old children can swing a bat and throw a ball.
But that didn't stop world-class athletes from taking steroids to enable them to swing a bat harder and throw a ball faster. Sometimes physical strength matters a lot even when the instruments you're dealing with aren't very heavy.
You can't get any more elite then the best in the world taking enhancements. Far removed from most situations including most combat.
Your argument was that you didn't need to be strong for combat because weapons and armor were light. My argument is that baseball gear is lighter, but being stronger is still a huge advantage, from the professionals all the way down to little league. I'd bet that being able to swing a sword harder is quite an advantage in a swordfight, too.
Combat isn't purely about brute-force strength, of course. But it's still a clear advantage. Unless you can cite something else that is important in combat where women tend to have a considerable advantage over men, that's going to tend to make men better at fighting wars, at least on the front lines of combat.
Or one could just look at the historical record. There have been many wars throughout human history, all over the world. Many successful armies have had exclusively men for their front-line combat. Can you name any successful army ever that relied heavily on women for front-line combat?
Anyone old enough to remember Arnold Shwarzneggers conan movies, The cartoon movie heavy metal, or just high fantasy and nerd stuff from the 80's? Yeah so do I, Don't you hate this generations politically correct whiny bullshit lol
Even the kids movies back then dealt with more adult themes, be it in moral lessons or straight up crudeness, from ET to The Goonies, The Never Ending Story and beyond. They were much more real, not showing some lolipops and unicorns everyone be happy alternate to our reality as movies (especially kids entertainment) do today.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Not in most combat situations. Max strength just didn't help in most situations. A duel possibly yes.
Most armies in general were exclusively men but not because of lack of ability. But due to stereotypical and societal norms. Most women were not even allowed to have a weapon and were themselves property. Even today people are still uncomfortable with women serving on front lines. The US only started allowing this in in 2015.
India allowed women as archers in chariots. Dahomey in West Africa had a long standing female combat unit the Amazon corps. Even the Soviet Union in WW2. Women fighters are pretty common on geurilla units. Libyan mercenaries wielding Shields and axes on Chariot or horseback fighting in Carthage. Khutuluns renowned Mongol warrior. Yes even the Mongols allowed women in the military.
Then of course there are many female military leaders who distinguished themselves on the field and in tactics. Anhotep, fu ho, chrysame, pantea, telesilla, tomyis who beheaded Cyrus the great, yueno a Chinese warrior hired to train other warriors, and hundreds more.
In the Roman legion brute strength wasn't needed to lock Shields and stick a short sword out. Cooperation and tactics were needed. Someone who could lift 200 lbs wasn't better off than someone that could lift 100. And yet the Roman military was exclusively male.
Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
There was recently a football match (soccer) between the americans professional womens soccer team, and an under 15's team, school kids basically, the womens team lost. Its not the first time something like that has happened though, the Australian national womens football team played against 15 year old boys last year too, and were trounced 7- 0, basically when it comes to sports, women and men cannot compete on a level playing field, they are at too severe a disadvantage physically, while some people may try to pretend that women can be as strong as men, reality refuses to play along. O.o
Maybe you are severely disadvantaged physically; how many hours do you spend commenting vs. time working out? The point is, there will always be someone stronger than you; whether it is a man or a woman. This thread started with talking about women's armor in an MMO, and it was hijacked.Your logic is weak; you used two examples, women vs. 15's in America; women vs. 15's in Australia. These could be soccer moms for all we know and not professional athletes. You just gotta love how insecure some men are. I'd suggest that you stick to gaming.
P.S. I did my research, for the Australian team Matildas. They said, "Matildas are often forced to play boys' teams because there is not enough quality female opposition in our part of the world", and "The Matildas are not in a position to play regular games so I'd suggest all and sundry were a little bit rusty." Exactly, they are hardly "professional" athletes.
"I have found a desire within myself that no experience in this world can satisfy; the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." ~ C. S. Lewis
Roman Shields weighed between 10 and 22 lbs. Short swords we a few pounds. Any woman could use those with ease. Even with men the soldiers behind the shield man supported and provided strength to prevent the lead man from moving. Again a woman could easily do those.
Yes a small amount of strength was needed. Women easily have that.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Roman Shields weighed between 10 and 22 lbs. Short swords we a few pounds. Any woman could use those with ease. Even with men the soldiers behind the shield man supported and provided strength to prevent the lead man from moving. Again a woman could easily do those.
Yes a small amount of strength was needed. Women result have that.
Maybe if the battle lasted 10 minutes. That just isn't how it is.
They could do that for hours on end. Even today women lift and carry that much for solid 8 hour days in Warehouse and manufacturing jobs. Women back then were even tougher.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
It's not like they are holding them at arm's length. And when locked the Shields were resting on the ground reducing the amount of strength needed even more.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
They could do that for hours on end. Even today women lift and carry that much for solid 8 hour days in Warehouse and manufacturing jobs. Women back then were even tougher.
So, I did not misquote you, you edited afterwards. Where is the little thing that says someone edited? That is like... super important in a world with dishonest actors (not you).
Anyway, there are two ridiculous things you just said. The first is the minor offense. The second should be obvious.
1) But more importantly, you are making a claim that may be true in a general sense, but specifics are important here. Does "brute strength" play a role in the success of a warehouse worker? Of course. Is a person with more brute strength going to be more successful (whether male or female)? Of course. Are males more likely to have more brute strength? Of course. So your brute strength argument is silly, really.
2) Lifting boxes in a warehouse allows breaks. Battle does not allow breaks and you are not just locking shield while poking a sword out. 8 hours of battle is more exhaustive, by far, than 8 hours in a warehouse. Another thing I think you don't understand is just how heavy 22 pounds is if you are carrying it in your hands for 8 hours. Brute strength does matter. It's not the only thing, but in actual battle, it matters.
I disagree. I don't think males could do that hours on end (depending on how many hours you are talking about).
You have to consider conditioning. That said, battles could rage for hours in roman times depending on which battle and era you're talking about. Some could last little more than minutes, others several hours (Cannae as an example) Julius Caesar said Pila lasted five hours before his men broke rank. . Some battles had losses in the upper thousands in hand to hand combat, when both are professional armies in full heavy armor/shields, that must take quite a bit of time to come to an end.
Post edited by Distopia on
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I disagree. I don't think males could do that hours on end (depending on how many hours you are talking about).
You have to consider conditioning. That said, battles could rage for hours in roman times depending on which battle and era you're talking about. Some could last little more than minutes, others several hours (Cannae as an example) Julius Caesar said Pila lasted five hours before his mean broke rank. . Some battles had loses in the upper thousands in hand to hand combat, when both are professional armies in full heavy armor/shields, that must take quite a bit of time to come to an end.
Yup, it's conditional. Certainly in long battles, brute strength matters.
No brute strength isn't more important in the warehouse worker. Brute strength slows you to lift more but the warehouse worker requires enough to do the job and then stamina to continue. Women are very successful in those fields.
They lifted the Shields and or then down to lock them supported in the side and behind from their mates. The Roman soldier carried 60 in gear weapons and food. And yes women can lift and carry that for 8 hours a day.
And yes I do edit mostly for spelling mistakes but often cause I thought of something else.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
No brute strength isn't more important in the warehouse worker. Brute strength slows you to lift more but the warehouse worker requires a minimum admit and then stands to continue. Women are very successful in those fields.
They lifted the Shields and or then down to lock them supported in the side and behind from their mates. The Roman soldier carried 60 in gear weapons and food. And yes women can lift and carry that for 8 hours a day.
And yes I do edit mostly for spelling mistakes but often cause I thought of something else.
I don't mind editing. I don't like that you no longer see the red thing that says someone edited.
If you think brute strength doesn't matter in a warehouse worker, then we just disagree. You can believe whatever you want, but I think you just go too far.
In the Roman legion brute strength wasn't needed to lock Shields and stick a short sword out. Cooperation and tactics were needed. Someone who could lift 200 lbs wasn't better off than someone that could lift 100. And yet the Roman military was exclusively male.
It was bad enough when you thought a 125 lb movie star could defeat a heavy weight world champion who literally beat people unconscious for a living, but this is just hopelessly uninformed.
Size and strength in heavy infantry combat were immensely important. You had to be able to hold a tight formation or you would be slaughtered, and being a small weak person makes it really easy to push you around, rip your shield from your hands, or just beat your weapon out of line to kill you. There's a reason NFL teams pay tons of money to 6'7 350 lb offensive tackles. They're really hard to move out of the way and they move smaller opponents out of the way with ease.
In your example of someone who could only lift 100 lbs vs an opponent who can lift 200 lbs... you're talking about someone who is twice as powerful. Have you ever been in a shoving match with someone twice as strong as you? It doesn't end well.
They could do that for hours on end. Even today women lift and carry that much for solid 8 hour days in Warehouse and manufacturing jobs. Women back then were even tougher.
In many jobs where being stronger is intermittently useful, you can get by going a little slower for that part or occasionally getting help from someone else. In the heat of battle, going slower or waiting for help can mean you die. Boxes can wait, but competent enemies in a war will take advantage of the opportunity to kill you if you offer it.
When you are supported from the side and from behind that person who can lift 200 lbs is only using a fraction of the force they can produce. The guy that can lift 100 lbs is just as effective in that situation.
Alone it may be a different story. In a unit one guy pushing substantially more will likely weaken the unit.
Lifting hundreds of pounds was not required for holding tight formation. They never even trained with that weight.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
When you are supported from the side and from behind that person who can lift 200 lbs is only using a fraction of the force they can produce. The guy that call lift 100 lbs is just as effective in that situation.
Alone it may be a different story. In a unit one guy pushing substantially more will likely weaken the unit.
I disagree. I don't think males could do that hours on end (depending on how many hours you are talking about).
You have to consider conditioning. That said, battles could rage for hours in roman times depending on which battle and era you're talking about. Some could last little more than minutes, others several hours (Cannae as an example) Julius Caesar said Pila lasted five hours before his mean broke rank. . Some battles had loses in the upper thousands in hand to hand combat, when both are professional armies in full heavy armor/shields, that must take quite a bit of time to come to an end.
Yup, it's conditional. Certainly in long battles, brute strength matters.
Brute force strength is not the same as longer term endurance. Great sprinters aren't great marathon runners and vice versa.
Oh look, someone figured out that Humanity is a Sexually Dimorphic Species, how quaint. Thank you very much for who ever felt the need to state the obvious.
That being said, Lets return the scheduled bickering about Armor in a Fantasy Game.
I disagree. I don't think males could do that hours on end (depending on how many hours you are talking about).
You have to consider conditioning. That said, battles could rage for hours in roman times depending on which battle and era you're talking about. Some could last little more than minutes, others several hours (Cannae as an example) Julius Caesar said Pila lasted five hours before his mean broke rank. . Some battles had loses in the upper thousands in hand to hand combat, when both are professional armies in full heavy armor/shields, that must take quite a bit of time to come to an end.
Yup, it's conditional. Certainly in long battles, brute strength matters.
I think it's important to note Shield Maidens in the dark ages and Boudica's army of brits in the Roman era (which won a few battles against Rome and had woman fighting in it's ranks, it was even led by one). Which they did so by forcing Romans into making mistakes and fighting in ways they weren't effective in.
Ancient Battles weren't about brute strength as much as they were about applying the proper tactics. Shields and heavy armor are of little use against a calvary's flank attack as an example, which there were plenty of armies in those times and later that used women for calvary to great effect.. Others used them as a shock tactic which did work against more professional armies. Some armies fought completely naked (male and female) for the same reason and it was effective in the right situations. Roman's feared spirits and shit so...
Many cultures have embraced the female warrior over the years, to great effect. It's been mostly the imperial cultures that have shunned the idea. Yet have learned the hard way not to discount those armies, women in the ranks or not.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I disagree. I don't think males could do that hours on end (depending on how many hours you are talking about).
You have to consider conditioning. That said, battles could rage for hours in roman times depending on which battle and era you're talking about. Some could last little more than minutes, others several hours (Cannae as an example) Julius Caesar said Pila lasted five hours before his mean broke rank. . Some battles had loses in the upper thousands in hand to hand combat, when both are professional armies in full heavy armor/shields, that must take quite a bit of time to come to an end.
Yup, it's conditional. Certainly in long battles, brute strength matters.
Brute force strength is not the same as longer term endurance. Great sprinters aren't great marathon runners and vice versa.
Of course both brute strength and endurance matters. Given equal endurance, can you agree brute strength matters?
Comments
Your argument was that you didn't need to be strong for combat because weapons and armor were light. My argument is that baseball gear is lighter, but being stronger is still a huge advantage, from the professionals all the way down to little league. I'd bet that being able to swing a sword harder is quite an advantage in a swordfight, too.
Combat isn't purely about brute-force strength, of course. But it's still a clear advantage. Unless you can cite something else that is important in combat where women tend to have a considerable advantage over men, that's going to tend to make men better at fighting wars, at least on the front lines of combat.
Or one could just look at the historical record. There have been many wars throughout human history, all over the world. Many successful armies have had exclusively men for their front-line combat. Can you name any successful army ever that relied heavily on women for front-line combat?
Even the kids movies back then dealt with more adult themes, be it in moral lessons or straight up crudeness, from ET to The Goonies, The Never Ending Story and beyond. They were much more real, not showing some lolipops and unicorns everyone be happy alternate to our reality as movies (especially kids entertainment) do today.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Most armies in general were exclusively men but not because of lack of ability. But due to stereotypical and societal norms. Most women were not even allowed to have a weapon and were themselves property. Even today people are still uncomfortable with women serving on front lines. The US only started allowing this in in 2015.
India allowed women as archers in chariots. Dahomey in West Africa had a long standing female combat unit the Amazon corps. Even the Soviet Union in WW2. Women fighters are pretty common on geurilla units. Libyan mercenaries wielding Shields and axes on Chariot or horseback fighting in Carthage. Khutuluns renowned Mongol warrior. Yes even the Mongols allowed women in the military.
Then of course there are many female military leaders who distinguished themselves on the field and in tactics. Anhotep, fu ho, chrysame, pantea, telesilla, tomyis who beheaded Cyrus the great, yueno a Chinese warrior hired to train other warriors, and hundreds more.
In the Roman legion brute strength wasn't needed to lock Shields and stick a short sword out. Cooperation and tactics were needed. Someone who could lift 200 lbs wasn't better off than someone that could lift 100. And yet the Roman military was exclusively male.
Maybe you are severely disadvantaged physically; how many hours do you spend commenting vs. time working out? The point is, there will always be someone stronger than you; whether it is a man or a woman. This thread started with talking about women's armor in an MMO, and it was hijacked.Your logic is weak; you used two examples, women vs. 15's in America; women vs. 15's in Australia. These could be soccer moms for all we know and not professional athletes. You just gotta love how insecure some men are.
Yes a small amount of strength was needed. Women easily have that.
Maybe if the battle lasted 10 minutes. That just isn't how it is.
I disagree. I don't think males could do that hours on end (depending on how many hours you are talking about).
So, I did not misquote you, you edited afterwards. Where is the little thing that says someone edited? That is like... super important in a world with dishonest actors (not you).
Anyway, there are two ridiculous things you just said. The first is the minor offense. The second should be obvious.
1) But more importantly, you are making a claim that may be true in a general sense, but specifics are important here. Does "brute strength" play a role in the success of a warehouse worker? Of course. Is a person with more brute strength going to be more successful (whether male or female)? Of course. Are males more likely to have more brute strength? Of course. So your brute strength argument is silly, really.
2) Lifting boxes in a warehouse allows breaks. Battle does not allow breaks and you are not just locking shield while poking a sword out. 8 hours of battle is more exhaustive, by far, than 8 hours in a warehouse. Another thing I think you don't understand is just how heavy 22 pounds is if you are carrying it in your hands for 8 hours. Brute strength does matter. It's not the only thing, but in actual battle, it matters.
You have to consider conditioning. That said, battles could rage for hours in roman times depending on which battle and era you're talking about. Some could last little more than minutes, others several hours (Cannae as an example) Julius Caesar said Pila lasted five hours before his men broke rank. . Some battles had losses in the upper thousands in hand to hand combat, when both are professional armies in full heavy armor/shields, that must take quite a bit of time to come to an end.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Yup, it's conditional. Certainly in long battles, brute strength matters.
They lifted the Shields and or then down to lock them supported in the side and behind from their mates. The Roman soldier carried 60 in gear weapons and food. And yes women can lift and carry that for 8 hours a day.
And yes I do edit mostly for spelling mistakes but often cause I thought of something else.
I don't mind editing. I don't like that you no longer see the red thing that says someone edited.
If you think brute strength doesn't matter in a warehouse worker, then we just disagree. You can believe whatever you want, but I think you just go too far.
It was bad enough when you thought a 125 lb movie star could defeat a heavy weight world champion who literally beat people unconscious for a living, but this is just hopelessly uninformed.
Size and strength in heavy infantry combat were immensely important. You had to be able to hold a tight formation or you would be slaughtered, and being a small weak person makes it really easy to push you around, rip your shield from your hands, or just beat your weapon out of line to kill you. There's a reason NFL teams pay tons of money to 6'7 350 lb offensive tackles. They're really hard to move out of the way and they move smaller opponents out of the way with ease.
In your example of someone who could only lift 100 lbs vs an opponent who can lift 200 lbs... you're talking about someone who is twice as powerful. Have you ever been in a shoving match with someone twice as strong as you? It doesn't end well.
In many jobs where being stronger is intermittently useful, you can get by going a little slower for that part or occasionally getting help from someone else. In the heat of battle, going slower or waiting for help can mean you die. Boxes can wait, but competent enemies in a war will take advantage of the opportunity to kill you if you offer it.
Alone it may be a different story. In a unit one guy pushing substantially more will likely weaken the unit.
Lifting hundreds of pounds was not required for holding tight formation. They never even trained with that weight.
No, just no.
Brute force strength is not the same as longer term endurance. Great sprinters aren't great marathon runners and vice versa.
That being said, Lets return the scheduled bickering about Armor in a Fantasy Game.
I think it's important to note Shield Maidens in the dark ages and Boudica's army of brits in the Roman era (which won a few battles against Rome and had woman fighting in it's ranks, it was even led by one). Which they did so by forcing Romans into making mistakes and fighting in ways they weren't effective in.
Ancient Battles weren't about brute strength as much as they were about applying the proper tactics. Shields and heavy armor are of little use against a calvary's flank attack as an example, which there were plenty of armies in those times and later that used women for calvary to great effect.. Others used them as a shock tactic which did work against more professional armies. Some armies fought completely naked (male and female) for the same reason and it was effective in the right situations. Roman's feared spirits and shit so...
Many cultures have embraced the female warrior over the years, to great effect. It's been mostly the imperial cultures that have shunned the idea. Yet have learned the hard way not to discount those armies, women in the ranks or not.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Of course both brute strength and endurance matters. Given equal endurance, can you agree brute strength matters?