Viking Women on the battle field?

In summary: but I would think it would be difficult for women to fight on the battlefield if they were not heavily armored. I mean, if you're wearing a skirt and a blouse, you're not going to be packing any armor.
  • #1
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2023 Award
21,868
6,259
Apparently more women accompanied their husbands or families during Viking journeys/migrations than previously thought. Some apparently fought on the battlefield, or at least wielded swords and possibly wore armour.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...11/07/invasion-of-the-viking-women-unearthed/
Overall, McLeod reports that six of the 14 burials were of women, seven were men, and one was indeterminable. Warlike grave goods may have misled earlier researchers about the gender of Viking invaders, the study suggests. At a mass burial site called Repton Woods, "(d)espite the remains of three swords being recovered from the site, all three burials that could be sexed osteologically were thought to be female, including one with a sword and shield," says the study.

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/09/female-viking-warriors-proof-swords#470354
The bad news first: while many women have been found buried with weapons, the evidence doesn't support the claim made in the title of equal gender representation on the battlefield. The 2011 study that the article cites concludes: 'Although the results presented here cannot be used to determine the number of female settlers, they do suggest that the ratio of females to males may have been somewhere between a third to roughly equal.' The key thing to note is the word 'settlers': the article is arguing that women migrated from Scandinavia to England with the invading Viking army in the 9th century. Several of these women, the article notes, were buried with weapons, but they are still far outnumbered by the armed men. Most of the women settlers mentioned in the study were buried with 'traditional' female outfits: brooches that held up their aprons.

The good news, though: while women buried with weapons are rare, they *are* being found, and this is in large part thanks to an increased willingness to trust the bone specialists. Archaeologists have been using bones to identify the biological sex of skeletons for the past century, but when burials were found which didn't fit their notions of 'normal,' they tended to assume that the bone analysts had made a mistake. This is not entirely unreasonable, because bones are often so badly decomposed that it is impossible to tell the sex of the person. But I can point to cases where the bones clearly belong to a woman, and the archaeologists insisted that it had to be a man because only men were warriors. That's modern sexism plain and simple, and bad archaeology. But thankfully, archaeologists in recent decades have become aware of this problem, and as a result, more and more women are showing up with weapons!
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #2
That is really interesting. I have read how the narrow Viking ships could sail or use oars. They were the perfect vessel for the European rivers. The bottoms of the ships were even shaped to enable them to land on sandy beaches.

We have see so may artists paintings of Viking ships full of men, now to think that half of them may have been women is incredible. It makes me wonder if perhaps they were going along to help establish permanent encampments and supply bases.

Here is another link

Researchers at the University of Western Australia decided to revamp the way they studied Viking remains. Previously, researchers had misidentified skeletons as male simply because they were buried with their swords and shields. (Female remains were identified by their oval brooches, and not much else.) By studying osteological signs of gender within the bones themselves, researchers discovered that approximately half of the remains were actually female warriors, given a proper burial with their weapons.

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/09/female-viking-warriors-proof-swords
 
  • #3
Why is it sexist to assume that warriors were all men? Your average woman is physically weaker--significantly so-- than your average man, so it is not a good idea in general to have women fighting in face-to-face combat. Would you likely hire your average 5'3'' , 130 female bouncer for a rowdy bar, to deal with your average 5'9'', 180 lbs male? It is a different issue nowadays, in the way fighting is done. The man-hating far-left feminists can be as absurd as the far-right anti-government, anti-women nuts.
 
  • #4
Now in Viking marriages, the new wife is given her husbands sword, so there's sentimentality to the thing. So a sword buried with a women could mean it was special to her, or that it was a status symbol, not that she was a warrior.
On the other hand, there were warrior women types in Conan and Lord of the Rings. These being my principle historical references.
 
  • #5
edward said:
That is really interesting. I have read how the narrow Viking ships could sail or use oars. They were the perfect vessel for the European rivers.

Indeed. Repton is about as far away from the sea as you can get in the UK - 85 miles in a straight line to the east coast (it's actually closer to the west coast), and I would estimate 120 miles by boat up the Humber estuary and the river Trent.

I haven't followed all the content of the links in this thread, but Repton is well documented as the overwintering camp of the Danish army in 873/4 AD. The Danes commandeered and fortified the church as their headquarters, and built a grave and cairn for a mass burial of about 250 people, of which about 25% were female. But it's more likely those deaths were from an outbreak of disease than from combat.
 
  • #6
There is no hard evidence that of female warriors-female vikings. Women that made a significant influence were buried with certain items of respect.

"Some women made their mark through exceptional status or achievement. One of the richest burials of Viking Age Scandinavia is that of the Oseberg 'queen', buried in a very grand style with a richly-decorated ship and large numbers of high-quality grave goods in 834. Later in that century, Aud the 'deep-minded' lived a veritable Viking Age odyssey. The daughter of a Norwegian chieftain in the Hebrides, she married a Viking based in Dublin and, when both her husband and son had died, took charge of the family fortunes, organising a ship to take her and her granddaughters to Orkney, Faroe and Iceland. She settled in Iceland, distributing land to her followers, and was remembered as one of its four most important settlers, and as a notable early Christian."

the source and interesting full article about life of Vikings is here : http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/women_01.shtml
 

1. What evidence do we have of Viking women participating in battles?

There is historical evidence from Viking sagas, Norse mythology, and archaeological findings that suggest women were involved in battles. For example, the female Valkyries in Norse mythology were known to choose who would die in battle and bring the souls of the fallen to Valhalla.

2. Did Viking women fight alongside men in the same way?

There is evidence that Viking women did fight alongside men in battles, but it is likely that they played different roles. While men may have been on the front lines as warriors, women may have served as shieldmaidens, carrying weapons and protecting their communities during raids. Some women may have also served as healers or leaders in battle.

3. Were there any famous Viking women warriors?

Yes, there are a few famous Viking women warriors mentioned in historical sources. One example is Lagertha, a shieldmaiden and ruler who fought in battles alongside her husband Ragnar Lothbrok. Another is Freydis Eiríksdóttir, who is said to have fought off a group of attackers while pregnant.

4. Were there any societal expectations or restrictions on Viking women participating in battles?

While there is some evidence of Viking women participating in battles, it is important to note that their participation was not the norm. Society during this time was largely patriarchal, and women were expected to fulfill traditional gender roles such as managing the household and caring for children. It is likely that only a select few women were able to participate in battles, and it was not a widespread practice.

5. How did Viking society view women who participated in battles?

It is not entirely clear how Viking society viewed women who participated in battles. Some sources portray women warriors as respected and feared, while others suggest they were looked down upon or seen as exceptions to societal norms. However, it is clear that female warriors were seen as a symbol of strength and bravery, and their actions were often celebrated in sagas and other literature.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
Back
Top