Interesting that in middle ages widows of craftsmen often takes their late husbands trade (and usually was accepted into guilds). So, while rare, female blacksmiths existed in middle ages.
- 2
Historically-accurate chainmail bikini?:D
- Thread starter sandro chronicler
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Interesting that in middle ages widows of craftsmen often takes their late husbands trade (and usually was accepted into guilds). So, while rare, female blacksmiths existed in middle ages.
Last one, guy needs more than just weapons...
- 3
After all these pics of women wearing armor, wielding weapons, and beating on hapless adversaries, I have to wonder what the heck was the fuss over Joan of Arc wearing armor and wielding weapons...
1) it should be noted that some of this are depiction of amazons and similar semi-legendary figures. Such stories was very popular at the time.
2) Thing is, there wasn't all that much fuss over Joan, except among english, obviously
Wasn't it "she wasn't born a noble"? (Can't have the peasants get uppity ideas, can we now?)
There was no problem, not directly. The biased trial made it one, because they couldn't find much else.
The basic idea is that men and women each have their roles in society, determined by the gender they are born with. Neither could enter the other's domain, that was against the order of the world and, well, thereby God's world order. Because the bible cleary states that God made men and women, two separate entities. Man's domain was war and politics, women's domain was children and housekeeping.
Those borders became a bit unclear when there was a shortage of labor, so women and children, regardless of gender, had to help with all chores and carry part of the workload on a farm for example. People were much more pragmatic back then than people today give them credit for.
People around Joan accepted that she wore male clothing and plate armor, because it was the practical thing to do when she was to ride and fight with the men in their own domain. Never did she pretend to be a man, nor did she try to be one. In fact, she was willing to return home to her life as a maidservant at her father's farm once her mission was carried out. At least that is what she wished for, because part of the prophecy to her was that she would pay with her life once her mission was over. So she kind of knew that once Orléans was free and Charles was crowned, her sun would begin to set and her life would be cut short.
When Burgundy captured her, they were allied with the English. And the latter wanted her gone. The trial against her went on for weeks, and without her having any sort of formal training in theology, they threw quite a few highly complex philosophical and theological problems and traps at her, to find something, anything, to convict her. But she evaded all those traps.
So, after all that they took whatever they could to frame her as a witch: that she violated God's laws by pretending to be a man, that she couldn't prove the voices she heard weren't demonic (burden of proof, anyone?), and after scaring her with a show of torture instruments and threatening to burn her, they made her sign a written confession that she admits her crimes. She didn't read it beforehand, of course. In turn they promised not to kill her and only imprison her for life (lol, sooo much better).
After three days she withdrew her consent to the admission of guilt, stating she didn't know what was on it, and that she isn't a witch and is infact innocent.
Well, they burned her afterwards as a repeat offender, and the personal aide of the English king is said to have stated after her execution, pretty much dismayed over the whole affair: "We really did burn a saint". That left no doubts that the entire trial and death sentence was a political affair, and her death was decided on before the trial even started.
To be fair, France had a vested interest in proving that she was a saint. Because well, she pretty much saved France, and having the entire nation built on the foundation of a demonic witch wasn't something they desired. It took only a few years to overturn the verdict against her, canonizing her on the other hand took a few centuries.
But to make it short, no, people didn't have so much a problem with women wearing armor and such. The problem was only when they (the women) tried to switch roles and "become male" so to speak.
One could even say that wearing feminine armor underlined their gender and made it clear that they did not rebel against God's natural laws.
Last edited:
- 1
I want to emphasize this point, since there is common stereotype about (supposedly) strict gender specialisation:
- 3
Speaking of Joan of Arc:
"Jeanne chases away the French army's camp followers (prostitutes)"
Mid 16th century, Portrayal of Louise Labé, French writer, in Joan of Arc costume.
She "was considered to be a highly emancipated woman at her time, she was not only educated in many subjects, but had also had taken riding and fencing lessons"
And, english should have know better, with their own queen (and mother of king who started hundred year war), Isabella of France, too lead armies personally while wearing armor -
"Jeanne chases away the French army's camp followers (prostitutes)"
Mid 16th century, Portrayal of Louise Labé, French writer, in Joan of Arc costume.
She "was considered to be a highly emancipated woman at her time, she was not only educated in many subjects, but had also had taken riding and fencing lessons"
And, english should have know better, with their own queen (and mother of king who started hundred year war), Isabella of France, too lead armies personally while wearing armor -
- 2
Interestingly, bay windows seem to be quite popular in fantasy and quasi-medieval architecture, yet most likely is relatively late invention (outside of temple architecture). However, it's unclear when exactly it appeared. Multiple sources claim thar this trend started in mid 15th century England. But...
... this fresco from Italy, painter are czech, and it's from last years of 14th century. On bottom left are clearly bay window. While painter imagination was a factor, it was most likely inspired by real building, which by that point could be decades old, if not more...
... this fresco from Italy, painter are czech, and it's from last years of 14th century. On bottom left are clearly bay window. While painter imagination was a factor, it was most likely inspired by real building, which by that point could be decades old, if not more...
- 2
Well, depends on what you're looking for. That one particular type of bay windows is said to date back to the 14th/15th century, but the bay with a window in it isn't exactly that new. For example, islamic architecture knows it as mašrabīya, and to this day you have existing ones from the 12th/13th century. Dating back another 600 years or so you'll find early examples of the Indian Jali, made of stone, although there is the hypothesis that earlier ones made of wood existed, just didn't survive time.
Bays with windows and other openings were known and used in early medieval architecture and probably earlier. A very early form of a bay with an opening was found to be Roman, with examples dating back as early as the 4th century. It's known as machicolation and you can see how it became a structure similar to the bay window that developed from it a thousand years later.
- 1
Well, probably yes.Hilarious
One Interpretation could be she wanted the soldiers for herself?
Inasmuch as she wanted them on the battlefield or at least standing near it looking scary, not busying themselves with carnal matters. [Edit: I.e. not distracting or discouraging the ones actually willing to figh by fooling around elsewhere.]
Last edited:
- 1