From: kay@invalid.net   
      
   In article <9034fe72-efb7-4a22-a3d9-9996e811162f@googlegroups.com>,   
   ikonoqlast@gmail.com says...   
   >   
   > On Monday, August 11, 2014 10:04:02 AM UTC-7, David Friedman wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > > In _Harald_, with medieval technology, I had an order of women   
   > > warriors.   
   > >   
   > > I had no good historical warrant for it but I thought I made it   
   > >   
   > > tolerably plausibleï¿?they were light cavalry doubling as   
   > > archersï¿?and it   
   > >   
   > > provided a useful plot device.   
   >   
   >   
   > Uh, problem is that archers require great upper body strength...   
   >   
   > I have a hard time thinking of ANY battlefield role women could   
   > convincingly play. That's why historically they didn't. Controlling   
   > horses requires it too, that's why there are so damn few women   
   > jockeys, even though their light weight would be an advantage.   
   >   
      
   Go google "women horse archers". At a minimum, looks like they could   
   and did have female horse archers while the rest of the band tries to   
   deal with the ambush on foot.  Not all battles occur on the grand scale,   
   or involve wars.   
      
   And I suspect one of the biggest reasons you don't want large numbers of   
   female warriors on the field is that men don't get pregnant.   
   --   
      
   Kay Shapero   
   Address munged, try my first name at kayshapero dot net.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)