[quote=“Nesrie, post:80, topic:129887, full:true”]
Well I don’t know that I agree with the comparison to Hunger Games as a whole but there seems to be this weird connection between a lot of people thinking “strong woman” and handing her a bow. I guess a question is though… if it had been a gun or throwing axes, would you have felt differently about it?[/quote]
It’s a common enough archetype down through history. Artemis of the Greeks was known for her bow and so were the Amazons, who reputedly cut off one of their breasts to assist them in drawing the bow. And there’s a certain logic to it. Women are not as physically strong as men and Hollywood movies not withstanding, are not likely to do as well in face to face combat, hence a bow toting female makes a lot of sense.
Females using bows is a trope that began in antiquity. You can find women archers throughout history, (Amazons, for example, with their infamous single breast supposedly allowing them to draw better than with both breasts, or Diana the huntress) but the feminine being applied to archery really got hot in the late medieval period when it was seen as kind of unchivalrous and unmanly to shoot someone with a bow or crossbow. Real men ran at their enemies and fought with hand weapons while cowards and wusses stood back from the line and shot arrows. Of course, once firearms hit the battlefield, that sentiment changed because guns and rifles were mechanical and chemical - ingenious devices made and used by men taming nature and physics in glorious battle. As guns became ubiquitous, any thoughts of cowardice flew from the narrative, while bows acquired the stigma of also being primitive and therefore inefficient. Bows were thus twice-damned.
Fast forward to the twentieth century and genre fiction and bows have become a staple of female characters. Of course, we deadly them up so they become fearsome and special effects heavy 3D trailer fodder, but they remain a convenience of writing female heroes.
Yeah I know why it started that way but let’s pretend it’s 2017… and maybe, just like not all women hang out in houses all day long vacuuming and putting on their make-up that we could… try something else.
Also, the idea of bows being thought of as cowardly by vikings and the like is not supported by anything. In fact, there are several icelandic sagas for instance of bow wielding man-heroes. The British longbow was a weapon used in medieval times to great effect by men as well. Samurai used bowmen as well.
There was a time in greek antique history were light troops, such as bow and spear throwers were looked upon with scorn, but that had less to do with the bow, than with the type of troop.
There is a story about the defeated spartans saying that bows were a womans weapon, but that was probably mostly due to the fact that they lost to a lesser trained army of light troops (Javalins, spears and bows). I’d imagine the French were saying something similar after their disastrous defeat at Azincourt.
If I recall correctly, that had everything to do with having to buy your own weapons and armor, and not being able to afford a sword. Then again, that may have been a different point in history. It has been a while…
Aye, that is how I remember this as well - Well, from reading, not personal experience ;-) The really rich had heavy armor, hoplite style, or even horses, and the poor, and lesser well-to-do people had to manage with less expensive equipment.
Except that using a bow in war takes more physical strength than just about anything. Warbows have pull weights above 100 lbs and most quite strong men can’t draw them correctly.
I’m not certain that a TV show is a measure of realism :)
With respect to the other video, It’s also not just about a sword vs a bow. Standing in the line of a battle with a sword, spear, shield, breastplate and helmet, is very different than just firing a bow.
People back then weren’t working in a office, especially if they were archers. It took years of work and they were big strapping fuckers who trained for it. A bow takes more physical strength to fire a bow capable of killing a person than… basically any weapon. It’s part of the reason crossbows were popular: it didn’t take years of effectively what was weight training to be able to use. You had mechanical assistance to overcome the draw weight.
That takes endurance, but we aren’t talking about wearing armor. If people are wearing armor and you’re fighting them, then you need even more strength and draw weight to even affect them at all.
200 teenage girls firing 40 lb draw weight bows vs a dude in plate armor wouldn’t be able to even phase him.
Historically, english longbows from medieval times had an estimated draw weight of 80-10lbs. Mongol composite bows had an estimated draw weight of up to 160lbs.
I’d hear nothing but the rain unless one managed to go through the eye slit. If I put my gauntlet over my face it would be like throwing softballs at a tank.
Seriously though: armor was armor. You didn’t penetrate it, especially once you get to plate armors. Mail was easier, but you still have to burst links. Even padding from a gambeson makes you nearly immune to most slashing weapons and light piercing weapons.
