Firearms are, in fact, equalizers. I saw a news story in Brownzil where a woman alone killed three armed men, but the bow and arrow was the first equalizer in history. Change my mind - professional advice: you can't. There are records, whether archaeological or descriptive, from the ancient world and evidence in Bronze Age tombs in Western Europe. Women can be warriors.
https://youtu.be/1o9RGnujlkI?si=C2EOnrdpP9VnFJjm
>>18429847The first equalizer was throwing rocks. A woman can kill a man if she bashes him with a rock>But men can carry bigger rocksAnd they can also use stronger bows
>>18429847Moids BTFO again 3:>>18429849Wow! Based!
A bow is built to the strength of the bowman, or bow-woman, as the case may be. Women are not as strong as men, they cannot draw the same weight on a bow that a man can, this limits their range and the power of the projectile, but it is still an arrow capable of deadly force, at considerable range, at the end of the day. The primary limitation of the bow and arrow as a weapon is that it requires a lot of practice to be effective. This is the major way it differs from fire arms or even crossbows. Both firearms and crossbows are mechanical weapons that are less likely to fail to shoot a projectile due to the inexperience of the user. In fact they are so easy to shoot that accidentally shooting somebody is a real safety concern with them. Meanwhile, one cannot accidentally shoot a bow in the same way. A gun will fire reliably lethal projectiles in the hands of a person who has never fired a gun before. The same is not true for a bow.Firearms and crossbows still require practice to improve accuracy and speed, making them deadlier, but the weapons have a much lower skill floor for being effective in the hands of an absolute beginner because the mechanisms achieve lethal force on their own. Given this, bows are less of an equalizer than guns or even crossbows (the heavy weight of most crossbows is what made them less useful to women). Women usually had much less freedom to practice at arms in most societies, though, which limits their ability to be effective with most pre-modern weapons, including the bow. Warrior women were not the rule in any society, but exceptions. If a woman could practice at arms, though, a bow made sense because it is a weapon that could be calibrated to her strength for maximum effect, and let her fight in relative safety (at range). While melee weapons could also be calibrated to her size and strength, it would pit her in a more direct contest of strength against mostly male warriors, which she would lose. Decisively.
>>18429847Not really. Guns require no strength to use - all the energy is stored in the firing mechanism and gunpowder. A toddler can kill a 30 year old roided bodybuilder clad in plate armor with a pistol. Bows meanwhile require muscles to draw the string, which means that men can use much more powerful bows than women can, that shoot farther and with more force. The two are not comparable at all.
>>18429847>>18429849How many pounds does that bow weigh? If it's less than 50, it's irrelevant to your argument. And the Scythians were victims of widespread propaganda and deception.
>>18429869Chatgpt
>>18429875I wrote that post from scratch. Just because you're incapable of writing anything longer than a tweet doesn't mean other people are similarly incapable. I'm tired of dumbing down my posts to your level, just to avoid accusations of being a chatbot.
>>18429869Yeah. I mean, female warriors shooting bows could definitely help... a little bit... but it just makes no sense from a logistics perspective. They're far more useful in literally every other role. They can run supplies, tend to the sick and wounded, stay home taking care of the kids and harvesting crops, etc. etc. Putting them in combat is just a retarded waste, which is why almost no one ever did it. Imagine you put a 20 year old woman on the field with a stupid ass little woman bow and she gets struck in the neck and dies. She could have produced 8 more future male soldiers, but instead she's dead.
>>18429869Look how you put words in my mouth, but this part specifically>bow made sense because it is a weapon that could be calibrated to her strength for maximum effectThat's essentially the point of my argument, but it's been used more generally than you make it seemthe Sarmatians have been described using entire female flanks by various sources.
>>18429879>mean, female warriors shooting bows could definitely helpThank you
>>18429879It's not a matter of logistics, tard but of physical and mental capacity.
>>18429879>suppliesThis is retarded considering that the enemy necessarily aimed to attack and destroy these supplies to weaken the enemy. The caravans, for example, were guarded for some reason; putting women there would be useless for several reasons. Staying at home is useful enough.
>>18429879Right.>>18429888Which is why they should be part of those other roles, aka logistics.
>>18429847If I showed up to the field in a bronze age battle and the enemy had a bunch of women lined up with bows, I'd laugh my ass off and consider the battle already won.
>>18429869You ignore how different the physical capabilities of the sexes are and how weapons were designed, in the first place, by men for use by men.
>>18429869>Women usually had much less freedom to practice at arms in most societies, though, which limits their ability to be effective with most pre-modern weapons, including the bowAlso, not true.
>>18429904
>>18429905>>18429904I.e. it wasn't a biological issue, just a cultural one.
>>18429904That woman is clearly noble, which means she has lots of free time. And archery was not a common sport for even noblewomen.
>>18429904>shows image of a noble lady practicing archery as a sport>clearly this means all women everywhere practiced archery!Why are there no bows of size to be used by women anywhere in the archaeological record?
>>18429908>>18429910My point remains
>>18429902I clearly stated the differences in the sexes though? Men are stronger. Women couldn't use weapons designed for men. They'd have to use weapons made to their capabilities. This would make those weapons less effective, but it would still allow those women to fight if there was need. But we don't really see that happening in the historical or archaeological record. Mostly because being a warrior required dedicated practice at arms, which women were usually excluded from.
>>18429911What point? Nobles were less than 1% of society. A noblewoman's pastime is not indicative a broad cultural trend.
>>18429907Women being able to shoot small, weak bows sufficient for hunting small game in a royal park =/= women used bows in battle. Else, point me to the recorded battle where large numbers of female archers took part.
>>18429916that bows and arrows were an equalizer, and if the problem is a purely quantitative matter, we have Sarmatians and Scythians to compensate. Therefore, the argument was not refuted.
>>18429918>Else, point me to the recorded battle where large numbers of female archers took partThere are plenty of sources however, the Romans themselves saying how they defeated this contingent of cavalry and then they were surprised when they removed the helmets and found women among the opponent soldiers. Sarmatians, several population of the steppes, Indo Iranian people, Goths had them according to Historia Augusta, the Sasanid Empire had them according to Zonoras. >Women being able to shoot small, weak bows sufficient for hunting small game in a royal park I.e. not a biological issue
Hey, I need to get my nails done. I'll be back in an hour, but I promise to reply to everyone and maybe even share something new I find.
>>18429919Okay schizo.
I m back!>>18429960Nice argument
>>18429936What color?
>>18429879It just be way too much trouble dealing with all the rape
>>18429847No. The bow takes years of practice to actually be accurate enough to go to war. If you've never touched one you're at an immediate disadvantage against someone who has. You can learn to shoot a gun in a fraction of the time. It's also ergonomically feasible to use as a weapon of self defense in any situation. You cannot defend yourself with a bow in close quarters.
>>18430260>You cannot defend yourself with a bow in close quarters.I mean, you can, a bow stave makes a pretty decent blunt weapon.
>>18429919>that bows and arrows were an equalizerBut they weren't. Bows and arrows have been around for thousands of years, and women remained in a subservient position to men in virtually every society for thousands of years despite access to these weapons. At no point did anyone field large numbers of women archers.
>>18429923Name a single source
>>18430283A bowman isn't winning a melee fight with a dude in armor and a sword/shield. It just isn't happening.
>>18429847Bows rely heavily on the physical strength and hand eye coordination of the user. Women are at massive disadvantages in both areas.
>>18430286>>18430287>>18430313Why do you backtrack on every post? First you say that women had limitations in handling bows, which is false then you claim that women couldn't use bows simply because of the weight. And then you say there are no examples and that they weren't used, but again, we have several examples. The Parthians had female warriors, possibly the Huns, according to Procopius of Caesarea in Justinian's War, Book 3. Cassius Dio mentions the female warriors of the Iazyges people. Plutarch mentions women fighting among the Cimbri, the Teutons, and the Ambronae.
>>18429851SPBP>>18429869True also the bow has been a symbol of royalty, potency and power aka the male attributes since literally the first civilizations popped up
>>18429869>The primary limitation of the bow and arrow as a weapon is that it requires a lot of practice to be effective.This is a myth shilled by academics who have never actually shot a bow, as even a little kid can learn to accurately shoot a bow within a weekend. It's quite easy.
>>18429847>but the bow and arrow was the first equalizer in historyNo. And for one reason: You can actually block and deflect arrows. This is why the typical army was still primarily melee and not just archers like today's armies are just primarily gun men. >>18430397>This is a myth shilled by academics who have never actually shot a bow, as even a little kid can learn to accurately shoot a bow within a weekend. It's quite easy.Maybe with a 8 lb bow casually at a stationary target 5m away with zero stress and all the time in the world were mistakes don't matter and not a 100 lb bow at a targets 100m but rapidly closing the distance under the chaos of battle at a steady rate of about 6 aimed arrows per minute with fatigue from marching to the battlefield. Bows require more skill than guns, this is a fact , not an untested hypothesis.
>>18430387>male attributesSources
>>18429847HOWEVER-https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Vs8Z_5nNt-chttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/r9Q64HDwGNshttps://www.youtube.com/shorts/YCmdjVokTJYToo lazy to find good clips so bear with the faggots speaking over it
>>18430397>This is a myth shilled by academics who have never actually shot a bow, as even a little kid can learn to accurately shoot a bow within a weekend. It's quite easy.That bow is a toy not a weapon. Lol.
>>18429851This>>18429873And this.
>>18430362You're arguing with multiple people >Muh female warriorsSome may have existed >Equal to menThey'd be objectively inferior to men who invested the same amount of training time. >>18430397Not at varied ranges against moving targets, not if you're shooting many arrows as fast as possible , and not with a bow heavy enough to inflict serious harm or even penetrate clothing outside of 20m or so. Women and children typically shoot bows of 30lbs or less, which is a third the draw weight of a WEAK warbow.
>>18429847slings anon
>>18429879expendable females existed by whole human history(especially in farming societies)
>>18429847>Women can be warriors.They can but Bows ain't it. Or to be more exact, most bows ain't it. Composite short bows can be wielded by women fairly easily. European war bows not so much, They require a degree of upper body strength not found in your average woman. Women can be horse archers and use a lance from horseback quite well utilizing their on average higher lower body strength to position themselves on a horse. Slings are also equalizers. Requiring little upper body strength to utilize to their full potential.
>>18430970>They'd be objectively inferior to men who invested the same amount of training time.It depends on the skill and methods employed. As many anons mentioned slings don't really care about your upper body strength as the force is based on technique not actual strength. Kestros are similar though i suppose the weight of the dart might make one more effective than the other. Though that can be more of a mass vs velocity debate. Women may have an advantage in horse riding as well.
>>18431511>They canNo, they cannot
Also, Procopius of Caesarea in Justinian's War, Book 3. Cassius Dio mentions the female warriors of the Iazyges people. Plutarch mentions women fighting among the Cimbri, the Teutons, and the Ambronae.
>>18431511>LancesExtremely dependent on upper body strength to use effectively unless the opponent literally doesn't have a lance or arnor>Horse archersExceptional upper body strength is required to operate warbles. Recurves are not an exception to this.>Higher lower body strength Women have inferior lower body strength to men. They are simply LESS inferior in this area, which has somehow led to illiterates who don't understand math thinking they're stronger. The gap is still fucking massive. >>18431525>It depends on skillThey have objectively inferior hand eye coordination, depth perception, and visual spatial skills on average. Women who train for a month will be less skilled than men who train for a month. This ignores that they'll also need to use lighter bows. Campaigning is also known to have left archers unable to fully draw their bows due to malnutrition and sickness. This will be more pronounced with women. None of these will render them equal. They'll just get slaughtered slower than they would if they fought as infantry.
>>18431568>the lazyges were so lazy they got their women to do their fighting for themBased.
>>18431511Composite warbows regardless of compactness (not the hick town levy bow they rent out for policing actions) are easily in the 80lb to the 100lb range. The barebone scrub warbow was 80lb for the very lowest Chinese banner man in a certain province but it was much higher in places like Sichuan. For a super compact horsebow you had to pull atleast 120lb for a Korean men at arms to even pass the first entry test. You don't need lower body strength at all to pull a high poundage bow, but it does make it easy using certain pulling up techniques.
