Yeah, goes back to the saying "an angry Mama bear".

Obviously, if there is a better solution than "fighting to the last man"/woman, the people should take it. But if their alternative to battle is imprisonment, slavery, or execution, I'd rather fight to the death "for King and country".

Exactly.



I was actually thinking of the similarity between those women and angry mother bears.



Not to mention family...yeah, I think if they'd surrendered the guys (most if not all) would have been massacred and the others (if lucky) would be slaves or put into "the ring" to get killed.

Well, "family" is kind of included in "country". *tries not to sound like she forgot to mention family*

I suppose so...

*Laughs* Totally what I was thinking, Airi!!

Great minds think alike.

My friend Jordan has a better saying: BRILLIANT minds think alike. I think I like it more.
Wolf compared one of my posts on this thread to a verse of the song I wrote (or was it the poem? I forgot). Either way, I posted

I mean, if (I'm gonna make up a country and pretend we all live there so as to not show partiality to any country represented here) Eruwan (where we all live now [that would be amazing, a whole country full of HWers ]) were invaded by all the other countries on Earth joined together, and there was no chance of winning, only execution, I would consider it foolish not to fight to defend my country if I was going to die anyway. Wouldn't you?

Definitely.

Yep. *nods*

*Nods in agreement*

Here's another thought, "Are there better places for women to fight?" For example archery, leading a small group of assassins, I-don't-know-what-else... But is there a better place than the front lines?

Yes, I think there are, if possible. Archers are probably safer, usually on a high rampart or shooting over shielded soldiers' heads. Assassins, I don't know. I think women would be better assassins than most men, but the reasons I'm thinking are slightly rated "R"-as in seduction. But also, they are generally smaller than men, so this allows them to be more stealthy.
Archery is a good place for women, I think, no matter what the situation. If there are women, and there is need of archers, and the women can shoot, let them be the archers. The men are supposed to protect them anyway, and by fighting in the front lines, they are blocking the enemy from reaching the archers.

And by the way, Aleena, thanks for "resurrecting" this thread! I know it doesn't belong to me, but still. We were running out of things to talk about.

I love this thread even if I don't post here.
You're right, assassins do pose an "R" rated issue. Another reason to have women in battle (as in fighting against these assassins), they can remind men to stay on track. I believe God did create women to fight, simply in different ways.

Actually, I would have to disagree with this. I think in a battle women would be more of a distraction to men. That could just be my opinion, but I think that, for example, if one of my brothers were in a battle and if there was a woman that they cared about there, they would do their best to protect her. I think that can provide multiple issues....

Dittos what Eliz says about assassins. For example, look at how Black Widow dressed....need I say more?

I agree about female assassins, men are used to being the protector (or predator) and would not suspect a female of such a thing (unless they had some experience that bade them to). *doesn't know who black widow is, but decides not to look it up*

Black Widow's the female Avenger.

Ok thanks.

You're welcome.

Yeah. I mean, a woman can be an assassin without doing things like that... But it would be much easier with the "R" things. Anyway, yes, any decent man would endanger himself to protect women, any women.

Just something I heard about the archer idea: there was a man we talked to who had studied a lot of interesting things about archery in history, and one of the things he said was that the archers were often the front line of medieval battles, and were very exposed (for instance, they had no armor). There were also horseback archers that would ride into the enemies ranks. The archers who would use the great bows would also become terribly deformed (the man showed us a way people had developed more recently to pull a large bow without becoming deformed).

But of course for some one to keep further back in a fight and still participate they would have to be archers or with some sort of artillery. But if the army is surrounded, ambushed, or put to flight, the only place far enough back for women and children would be off the battlefield entirely.

Those are good and interesting points, some of which I'd never heard of before. That's interesting that people were deformed from using a large bow; did that happen with the...um...I forgot what it's called...compound bow? The one that looks a bit like this before you even bend it: > (though of course a wider angle)?

I agree about the light armor and such, it'd be very hard to provide the women archers with support to protect them, or a safe place from which to shoot without taking out their own troops.
Since this is fantasy though, you could establish some kind of cobha that could help, whether it be some kind of power that women (or some of them) have, or a way that they could fight from farther away (phoenix arrows like in LWW movie, for example).
That's also true, they could help with artillery farther back, or in a fortress' battlements where all will die (or be taken captive) if they lose anyway.

That's odd, I don't see how an archer could become deformed by using a bow... Unless the repeated action got their arm stuck in a weird position or something.
And I didn't know that about archers being the front lines, I don't think that's a good idea if the archers are female.
If it's just a flat battleground, the women could be protected behind (I may have said this already) a row of male warriors with shields. Once the battle actually began, though, it might be hard to get them out of harm's way.

That's the thing, and men that are on their side would be falling over eachother to help them (at least somewhat and in some cases), and the whole battle could go wrong because of it.

If your thinking is that women should be archers and never fight, then, perhaps the women should only participate at all when there is a high rampart to shoot from.
(Off topic) I find it funny how the creator of this thread hasn't posted anything, at least not in a long time...

I'm not saying they should only be archers, but I thought we were talking as if that would be what they'd do in most cases.

The repeated draw of the bow deforms their collar bone, I think, from repeated drawbacks, especially the English longbow.

It's strange, it seems to be drifting from theology to warfare.

As you all know, I'm a military brat. I can confirm that this is very true, but at the moment I can't expound on it.

Do I sense an Airi Monster Post? *Rubs hands together in anticipation*

Hmm, I've never heard that before, Tsahraf. Very interesting.

God bless,
Bethany

I thought Airi already did a post about that a few pages back... I'll go search for it. If I find it I'll quote it and bring it up here for y'all...

Edit: Nope. I was wrong... she just mentioned it a little... *awaits for what might be a brilliant monster Airi post*

*chuckles * You girls do my heart good.

I'll think about a monster post... at the very least I will expound further when I have a free moment.

Either way is good.

Hence what I said: If that is your thinking (point of view).
*wants a monster Aeri post as well*

Oh. I see.



Good! I have some thoughts on the subject, but I think they are sorta vague, so I'd love to see other's thoughts on it.

Then again, the wall might be blown up like at Helm's Deep... That wouldn't be too pleasant.

*Nods* Yeah...although it might be very needed in a situation like that.

Hmm...I never thought about it before, but I wonder if Tolkien was trying to specifically point out what most of us have come to agree on by not having the human women fighting in that battle even when they had to use little boys.

Hmm...I don't know, but good point. Maybe he wasn't consciously doing that though, it may have just come out as sensible to him (like it does me). Even supposing there are women in a given village that are strong fighters, their first priority should be their family/community (someone has to do that, too you know), plus if invaders did come there would be some fighters there too.

Yes. And... I forgot what I was just going to say, I just got home from a 12-hour overnight shift at work.
Aren't we in the Theology room forum thingy? Maybe we should be talking more about the theology of it..? Unless we're not. Then I don't know. And I still don't know what I was going to say.

One thing to keep in mind is that the kids usually considered too young to fight still probably have at least some training. Whereas the women might not. Although boys or women, either way, the Uruk-hai would have them outmatched, I think. Although I'm not sure the books actually had any boys fighting at Helm's Deep. In the books, they go there as an army to assist the Rohirrim already there.

So, with all of these thing that y'all have observed in real life, which are very substantial and make great points, how does the Bible tie into these observations? And then, how does all of this translate into our writing?

Well, didn't God send the female judge Deborah to lead an army into battle?

No, actually. She didn't lead the army at all. She just went with the army, and only because the general at the time, Barak, is it? I forget. Anyway, he wouldn't go fight unless she came along. So it's not exactly like God sent her along, either, although I assume He did tell her to go along. But as far as we know, she wasn't initially going to go along, even.

I haven't read that story in a very long time.
Does anyone know of anyplace in the Bible where it says that women should not fight? If so could you quote the exact verse(s) please?

Well, it certainly sounds like a woman like the one described in Prov. 31 would fight for her family should the necessity arise, she certainly did not seem to be afraid of hard work or demanding physical labor. But of course she would not leave her family to go to war, but if there were invaders it definitely does not sound like she would go cower in a corner either, if she could help it.

I did not think so, but I checked for any chance, passing mention. It was a good excuse to read the battle of Helms Deep again. This was all I found on the matter:

"But most of them have seen too many winters, as I have, or too few, as my sons son here.
...
Behind us in the caves of the Deep are three parts of the folk of Westfold, old and young, children and women..."

Eowyn was not there.

I posted about Deborah, and the restrictions on who goes to war (not on who learns to fight, mind you) on page four of this thread.

*goes back to look*
Also, how does this relate to women in the military today? I have a female friend in the Marines. If that's not a woman in battle, I don't know what is.

I went back and got caught up in reading the whole thing... I agree with your arguments, Tsahraf, that women can fight and should in special cases, but that they were not given the same role as men were, and therefore shouldn't do all the same things (in this case, go to war).
I also agree that they should know how to fight, there are times they will likely need that knowledge and ability, especially if they are members of a small nomadic tribe or group of settlers that are a good target for bandits, etc. or have lots of enemies.

But how do we apply this in our writing? How should we portray women in battle through what we write in our stories?

Um...good question. I intend to have women that are in battle simply because I think that would happen given the state some of the societies are in, where women do become effective warriors in their own ways (I'll need to research things to make this happen anywhere near realistically, and think), but that will be seen as wrong, and will likely show ill consequences.
Also I will show them fighting in the cases I believe would be proper for them to, when there is no other option aside from death, being raped, or seeing their family destroyed in such manner.
I hope that makes sense and that no one misunderstands me...and I hope that helps answer your question, Nemo. If you're asking just to get opinions I think you have mine, if you're asking for help, I hope I did, and if I didn't you might ask more specific questions, maybe? I feel like that last paragraph was really messed up, but anyway...