Marco de Wit 18 helmikuun, 2020
Jaa artikkeli
Share on VK
VK
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook

 

Everybody knows that Youtube promotes ignoramuses by giving them a huge audience. However, even more dangerous is the fact that at the same time Youtube actively discriminates against true experts.

 

This is because Youtube does not accept ”hate facts”. If you are really educated and an expert your channel will be deleted if you dare speak politically incorrect truths.

 

Thus only the channels of the politically correct ignoramuses remain and people are fed politically correct lies.

 

Nowdays it is politically incorrect to say that women are much weaker in battle than men and thus are a real hazard in army combat troops. This is obvious even now with firearms but it was even more obvious in the Middle Ages.

 

Andrew Klavan from the Daily Wire has been savagely attacked for stating this obvious fact.

 

 

And now the Shadiversity has also attacked Klavan. That would be inconsequential except this ignoramus has had half a million views for his politically correct video which Youtube massively advertises.

 

First, Klavan is right to say that in Medieval conditions a professional male soldier will win a female soldier in battle with 100% certainty.

 

This is true in two ways. First, the top male soldiers are much better than the top female soldiers. This was even more true in the Middle Ages. So in practice the male professional soldiers win females with near 100 % certainly.

 

Even more importantly, Klavan was speaking about war time conditions. This implies armies and military campaigns. The fact is the female soldier could not keep up with her fellow male soldiers. She would collapse or become sick before she could even take part in the battle.

 

A female soldier would be just too weak both physically and mentally to spend months – not to mention years – marching and fighting in Medieval conditions. This is also why there were no real female viking soldiers, i.e. shield maidens except in sagas and Hollywood movies.

 

The one thing where Klavan is misleading is how heavy the swords were. Of course it is true that there were also very heavy longswords that did weigh 5-10 pounds. However, ordinary swords weighted between 2-4 pounds.

 

The Claymore sword. Link to medieval shop.

 

Klavan’s mistake about the average weight of swords is not crucial because duels and battles are two very different things. Furthermore, it is true that in average women are much weaker especially compared to professional soldiers. On top of that the grip power of females is in average about 30-50% weaker. So obviously females would also have a great disadvantage in medieval duels.

 

 

Also many commenters reveal Shadiversity’s logical fallacies but he has not had the courage to admit he was wrong. So lets see some of the comments he chooses to ignore.

 

Igor Crous:

So, your whole premise was ”he said `100%` then changed it to `there are exceptions` ” – weak argument.

Having to say ”there are exceptions” every 2 seconds is super condescending and you have to be very stupid to not just assume what he meant. This is a non-issue and you’ve spent *20 min committing ***every logical fallacy in the ***book trying to prove him wrong.

* not exactly 20 minutes (disregarding time it took to film, edit, upload and actual length of video)
** not every logical fallacy, but a couple (couple refers to more than one, but not necessarily two)
* not an actual book

 

Wee Jock Poopong MacPlop:
I’m going to have to agree with Andrew here, he’s talking about battles, not duels. Imagine a woman in a scrum, now add lots of armour and horses, and she’d be knocked on her bum in 2 seconds no matter how skilled with a sword she is.

 

Ben Whiley:

The nearest thing we have today to a battle is American Football or Rugby.

If you want to claim that skill is enough to offset the difference in sexes in a battle, then you must do the same for AF and Rugby. I suspect you would fail.

Skill is not the most important factor of swordsmanship because armour. The armour greatly negates the impact of skill, it puts all the impetus onto physical power.

You are correct in that in an honourable duel between unarmoured opponents, where the woman is more skilful than the man, the woman would win.

This is an occurrence that never really happens and is thus almost completely irrelevant.

Unarmoured combat is avoided at all costs because who wants to die? Weapons are incredibly deadly as you say, mitigating skill and luck with armour is a no-brainer.

In almost all circumstances, where both parties are knowingly fighting each other to the death and not holding back, the man has an overwhelming advantage over the woman.

Klavan’s exceptions are those of Brienne of Tarth, the proxy man. She has the characteristics of a man, the ones that are relevant to this discussion.

But she’s an absolute freak of nature, to account for her when describing women (which means the general woman) is absurd.

The 100% of the time statement is clearly talking about the average man and the average woman, to think otherwise is to become semantically obsessed.

 

Bobbymozza:

When he says average male and average female, it makes it sound as if the diiference is small, and understating the physiological differences. A great many of the males who are below average in height and strength are still stronger than the average female and many of the above average females. If the average height is 5’9 for males and 5’3 and a half for females (Australia average heights), the vast majority of males are taller or the same height as females. Males have more muscle mass than a female of the same height and will also generally have a larger sketetal size. There’s also body shape differences and psychological differences which may make males more suitable for combat.

 

Jinxed Swashbuckler:

Women already serve in a ton of different roles in the military. However, according to research, they just don’t have notable advantages in combat roles, not even marksmanship or piloting because according to extensive Marine Corps tests, all-male teams outperformed both all-female and mixed teams in every facet of combat, including marksmanship, and men also have faster reaction times (on average, #NotAll), giving men an advantage e.g. as fighter pilots. Other than combat roles, I don’t see any roles the military is (or should be) barring from women.

 

Punishedgoy:

”Stories in the sagas” are fictional mate, the Valkyries and Amazons weren’t real, and your ”queens that commanded armies” didn’t exist apart from one or two examples in Scandinavian countries. They almost always had male commanders lead because the men would never listen to some uppity chick.

The ”female vikings” were just noblewomen high in status given a ceremonial burial. There was no evidence that they had actually ever fought in their entire lives, (fractures, scarring, wounds, etc. Those archeologists lied, there were no female vikings/warriors.

The only roles women served, on any side of the war, was in the factories, as nurses, or in extremely rare cases, as pilots or tank operators far from the fight. They were never trudging through the mud with the men and fighting it out however, this is just fiction. Plus, even if there were one or two examples, comparative to the men that served it’s still too insignificant a number to even recognize! I mean we’re talking tens of millions of men to what, 10 women max as frontline combatants, with all of them dying brutally anyways? Even if they existed, and that’s a big if, they made no real difference whatsoever.

 

Churble Furbles:

People talk about women in battle as if it were normal when it was pure desperation, in the case of soviets, they had cities where people were eating each other, literally. That’s how far gone you have to be before you resort to female soldiers because of how ineffective they are, there were some decent snipers, but still, it broke their minds after the war, women lack the power of testosterone which creates focus when stressed, they just kind of freak out.

Beyond the tokens for propaganda you weren’t going to see women on the front lines because its an irrational and wasteful use of resources. Even when physical strength in theory doesn’t matter, women’s stamina and reflexes are slower, their brains are just smaller, its why they don’t win even in video game tournaments, never mind chess. Studies even show that women age faster in blue collar jobs than men who actually derive a health benefit, they are just not suited, and things like war time.

 

Heisenberg:

In reality beyond weapons and training, physical fitness and athleticism had and continue to have a massive effect on armed combat. A highly skilled and well armed frail old warrior would be at a disadvantage against a moderately skilled and armed but physically fit and athletic young warrior in real-time battlefield conditions.

 

Good tools and good skills are best when laid on a foundation of solid physical prowess. That’s why great modern combat units such as the Marines, Seals, Berets, Rangers have to be extremely physically fit and capable and not just good at shooting and handling weapons. And that’s why women have much higher attrition rates when attempting to get into any of these physically rigorous and demanding combat units. In fact, very very few women do make it (only maybe a dozen Rangers, no Berets & Seals). In fact, some women have been pushing for the lowering of fitness and training standards for some of these units to make it EASIER for them to get in…

 

Furthermore, your firearms statement makes no sense. It has been shown repeatedly in Army reports that all-male combat units greatly outperform mixed combat units let alone all-female combat units, which are the worst performance-wise. So, NO, biological differences don’t magically ”disappear” because firearms and feminist reasons..

 

As for the whole medieval debate, it’s the same issue. I’ve read in various places that knights were not just well trained and equipped but in peak physical conditioning to the point of being ’athletic’. Examples include, leaping onto their horses without stirrups, hauling 70+ pounds of armor, weapons, etc in long journeys, in brutal campaigns, environments and conditions and fighting continuously for hours at a time. So Klavan is 100% correct, assuming equal skill sets & tools, a medieval male knight will easily kill a ’female warrior’ opponent. (not that the latter really existed all that much, except in modern Hollywood movie fantasy)

 

If you want to make a logical comparison you would have to look at equally armed, trained and skilled male and female opponents.. But then here the physical prowess and athleticism will come into play and provide a massive edge to the one biological sex with all the inherent advantages. Biology, military history and sports all bear witness to this biological reality.

 

PS Oh and Julie d’Aubigny is a fanciful historical ’story’ at best. Details and sources are murky and we have no idea who she really fought (for real) and how strong her opponents were.

 

However, I do know that Olympic level male fencers easily best Olympic level female fencers according to the testimony of professional female fencers themselves. And it’s why physical sports are segregated by gender, especially contact sports..

 

 

Eidetic:

So, I have something to say on this, and this is a super rare occurrence, because I NEVER write on anything, and keep to myself a lot; so please excuse the length of this response my friends; but I do enjoy commenting on this topic when it is brought up in conversation usually, because I have a very unique perspective on the topic, in regard to cultural heritage and practice.

 

So, first off, I come from a very rare living situation in North America. I was raised in one of the very rare Norse enclaves in North America. It is just north of a Swedish Village. Very traditional in its upbringing, and there aren’t many of these villages and enclave combinations left in the US anymore.

 

In my culture the boys begin training at around six to eight years old. We spend our youth outdoors. Not playing video games and jerking around. We train in weapons of opportunity, and old world weapons. Hunters bow and crossbow. Maul. Quarter staff. Short blade. Knife. Hand axe and hatchet, and unarmed. We also learn to hunt, trap, track, fish, and farming techniques. It’s a very busy youth and teenage upbringing that starts almost every day at 5Am even on school days and ends when the sun goes down.

 

Women are allowed to train alongside us, but typically the women do not continue training past 13 because training with men HURTS. They DO get injured, and it can be frustrating for them when there is a constant sense of losing to their childhood counterparts. Its just the nature of it.

 

NOT SAYING they don’t win a match sometimes, or show better technique often… they just don’t typically win consistently.

 

Now, the issue with this argument in the video and the modern public is the need for modern society to recognize that one in a million girl. I will admit that I have in my life witnessed one woman win a fist fight who was a professional body builder… and I watched her knock a guy out in fight. But she was jacked up on steroids, fresh in the middle of her workups for competition, and she was NOT natural.

 

Which brings me to the next very interesting point:

 

During my time in the US Marines during the wars there were studies being done on many of our combat units regarding the inclusion of women in combat roles. Mostly due to the huge push by women in the US to open up combat jobs to females. And there are TONS of modern examples of females in conventional gun warfare; guns being another great equalizer… and I am not here to overtly discuss the pros and cons of conventional warfare.

 

I can say this… as a man of direct Scandinavian decent (with a hint of English in there). 121kg and 196cm tall, with 22 inch arms and a sixpack; I have watched women get obliterated in hand to hand both in practice against me, and against other men in ACTUAL combat situations. I am talking about modern women who are combat trained, uniformed soldiers or private military contractors…
Are they affective in hand to hand and CQB? Ultimately, no. They get thrown around, beat to hell, and generally are traumatized by the violence of a situation where a much stronger man is going to kill her by beating her to death unless one of her team is there to back her up. My female police officer friends will tell you the same… they will fight to the death if needed, but death is death in the end… and they definitely are approaching any situation against male suspects with backup if at all possible or talking the suspect into a vulnerable situation.

 

In knife combat, hand axe, quarterstaff, and short blade I have seen mixed results over my years; but still, statistically, a human male has superior upper body strength, height, and leg power. Which creates a vast difference in the number of wins to losses one on one. And I must say this, I am not talking about such things as rapier combat, where reflex and speed skill to the thrust or repost are key and can add in an element of chaos theory to the topic. I am talking about Witcher style era, ancient and medieval combat with shield and axe, spear, or sword.

 

In the US military’s studies during the war, women consistently shot better. That’s absolutely true. They have better eyes. Almost five percent better I think it was. But in melee combat they fell far short. They did better in group exercises, but they were slower to complete group combat tasks in the field in mixed male/female units than the all male units.

 

Women were allowed into combat roles eventually… BUT they had to pass the exact same test as the men; and the reality is only a few dozen out of those who went into complete it have actually passed those benchmarks even to this day…. And we are talking MODERN combat.. right? Which is stressful, but has nothing on armor wearing, hours of sword swinging, exhaustive battles in the field of ancient Europe.

 

So, there was a piece of the study that can explain a lot about the subject we are addressing here as far as, ancient and medieval combat for men and women. And it has nothing to do with sexism, or even the combat itself.

 

It had to do with body mass loss. And I think this is the reality as to why ancient and medieval culture in reality had less women fighting in combat.

 

In ancient wars, armies would march around for long periods of time in difficult environments with insane stresses. Often years.

 

The modern studies found that when in the field for prolonged periods of time; marching, fighting, subsisting on diminished diet, stressed out, no sleep, etc; women saw an increase in body mass loss SIGNIFIGANTLY higher than their male counterparts. Overall, their body’s simply do not handle the heavy pack load consistently with the other aforementioned physical hardships.

 

As such they were far much more prone to injury, brittle bones, menstrual issues, mental breakdowns, sickness; and of course if you were in medieval sword and hand to hand combat (as we are addressing in this video), both men and women are going to lose muscle mass and therefore gain more hardship to fight.

 

In the case of females you are pretty much guaranteed to have to rely on your body mass to assist in your (hopefully) greater level of skill in bladed combat to defeat a male opponent. At least you rely on this logically a bit more than men; meaning relatively, its simply more important for you to have increased body-mass, since you are more than likely going to be shorter, have less reach, weaker overall strength, and not be as tall as your male opponent…

 

Also, men on average contain something like 70 percent more muscle mass in their upper body than women. Which no matter how you look at it, unless the skill strike pays off, you are at a SERIOUS disadvantage walking into a fight. If you were to put a blind bet on a fight between any two male and female competitors, you’d be risking your money far more to bet on the female blindly.. thats not sexist, its just statistical outcome by removing outliers from the equation. And THAT is the principal of the issue here… the gamble of the physical and biological reality.

 

And you have to remember that, stepping back from modern medicine and modern meals, and such… in the old times, a simple blade cut or deep gash even less than an inch in length could mean death for a healthy person; let alone a person after a 250 mile march in the cold or heat, with half rations of water and half rations of food, and the weight of armor, no bath for months, and severe exhaustion. And that very issue is exacerbated for a female combatant by biological reality.

 

It’s not like everyone took an SUV caravan to the battle and had it out in the controlled HEMA event, after morning coffee and a six month training workout with a HEMA fight manager…

 

I did the 350 mile march to Baghdad, and other difficult operations and fights. I carried my combat hatchet and KBAR, and lived hand to hand…

 

Ive come as close as a modern warrior can to his ancient ancestors… and of all my experiences, I think that the study from the military is the closest logical reason as to why typically you didn’t bring your wives and women with you into old world combat. Even in ancient Scandinavian culture where women definitely fought alongside men from time to time, and were welcomed around the fire; once she had kids, she would stay and wait out the raids until the children were old enough to hold down the house and farm. But by that time, 7 years later typically, she may be to old to live out those kinds of physical hardships… (and lets remember the life span differences between when we are talking: now and back then; along with the fact that women were married far younger and reproduction was a key to society, and much more dangerous and damaging); and most likely at that point she is DEFINITELY out of practice.

And let me tell you, if you stop practicing melee and blade combat even for a month or two… its noticeable.

Anyway, it’s a fun topic. Solid video brother.

Again as usual. I don’t typically post much on anything. Don’t even have social media. But I enjoy your rants and videos.

In my experience alongside female pmc’s after the war, and in my own home culture, and after reading some of the studies, its just simple pathology and biology. The very large mass index increase of muscle in men at puberty simply means a hardier body that can better withstand the extreme conditions of forced march and exhausted, starved, stressed battle. A perfectly healthy woman can definitely use a blade, but battle is different than a duel or home defense. And in a soldier’s lifestyle, women are simply hit harder by the realities of combat and war environment.

But if a girl wanted to fight by my side, i wouldn’t turn it down.

Kind of hot actually.

And Id rather die with a beautiful shield maiden standing next to me, than one of you smelly bastards.

 

 

 

 

Jaa artikkeli
Share on VK
VK
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook

1 thought on “Can women defeat men in swordfights? Shadiversity vs. Andrew Klavan

Leave a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*