Weapons for a girl

Yes and no. There were some pockets that survived as far as the 1100s unscathed. Some of the Basquelands even avoided the inquisition since they were so separated by various mountain peaks. It was hard to reach them. I'm going a hundred years past that point, I'm aware, but I'd like to work with the French court a little closer to what we know now. As for why I think it works...well...little place can be a mountain top kingdom that few people know of. LOL.

 

She would need to understand the purpose and function of each weapon and how to deploy them effectively, but she wouldn't need to learn to wield them herself.

From what I've read, there were a bunch (not many, though) of noble women in Europe who led armies although the way I understood it, usually they didn't participate in the battles, but called the shots when it came to military tactics. If I remember correctly, Matilda of Tuscany, Adelaide of Susa, Queen Thyra, Queen Æthelflæd, Aoife MacMurrough, Olga of Kiev, Tamar aka Queen regnant of Georgia, Elizabeth of Hungary aka Duchess of Bohemia, Blanche if Castile etc. all led armies.

There were also the shieldmaidens in the siege of Dorostolon who fought and died beside the men. Isabel of Conches wore a knight's armor and fought in battles while Sikelgaita of Salerno did both, i.e. led an army with her husband and rode into battle with their men as did the crusader, Florine of Burgundy and Joanna of Flanders.
Then there are characters like Walpurgis from the Royal Armouries Ms. I.33, the oldest European combat manual depicting Walpurgis, a female warrior training with the priest (the master) on the manual's last two pages, but I haven't found any definite proof of her existence (or proof to the opposite either).
And there were also orders like the Order of the Hatchet, the Order of the Glorious Saint Mary etc, as well as individual women who dressed up as men to conceal their sex and went to war or fought duels like Agnes Hotot Dudley.

Jeanne D'Arc was indeed a religious figure, but she was also a military leader and possibly the most famous woman of her time thanks to the accomplishments of the army she led, so I wouldn't consider her just a religious figure since, afaik, she was at least as much a military leader and a good one at that.

Disclaimer: I haven't verified the above information beyond all doubt because 1. I couldn't be bothered (not writing female-led hack'n slash right now) & 2. There's very little truly verifiable information out there about medieval individuals, especially women who were often either left out of history books altogether, or their sex was changed like was the case with "King" Tamar.

Dang, you're right: longswords arrived to the scene roughly around 1350AD, so if she carried or learned the sword, chances are, it would be an arming aka knightly sword (a one-hander).

 

Well, for starts, I'm having her learn two handed, just to build strength. Obviously, never having used a sword, she will need to build up to one handed slashing, thinking from a clearly muscular standpoint.

 

Yes, there might well be noblewomen who were warriors at that time. Some of those names actually ring (faint!) bells with me. I certainly wasn't saying it wasn't possible ...just that it needs to be researched if the writer wants to be historically accurate. It certainly wasn't the normal order of things, unless history books have all been warped or wiped. We all know of kings who led armies and died in battle. But queens? Or queens-to-be? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

The OP's original question began:
Time, middle ages.
Character, female heir to the throne.
Place, France and a made up kingdom nearby
What sort of combat training would a female receive during this time?

After that, many of the respondents started in about what kinds of weapons a young woman would be able to use, and what kinds of weapons were available at that time.

A couple of us were a little dubious, though, because we couldn't actually think of any historical examples of the kind of heroine this writer wants to create. Usually female heirs to the throne during the middle ages in France were very valuable as a means to unite kingdoms or forge alliances through marriage. They were not expected to personally lead armies. Their husbands usually did that for them. (Think Eleanor of Aquitaine ...a very powerful French-born English queen, who exercised a lot of political influence and who HAD an army at one point, if memory serves me right, which she used against her husband ...but she didn't lead it personally.)

My point is—and was— to make sure the initial premise is correct.

DID females receive combat training during that time (and in that place?)

If they didn't, of course, that doesn't mean a fictitious one couldn't. But the fact that it wasn't the normal way things were done would need to factor in very strongly, if the story's historical setting is to be believable.

My only point, and one I'm sticking to, is Do The Research. You may well uncover exactly what you're looking for.

 

I agree Jannert, to a point. And hence the questions. But if I am one generation out of a matriarchal society, things are going to be muddled. It's not going to be a clean transition. There will be acceptance that a female ruler will lead troops into battle, in spite of the rest of the world. This kingdom has only in the past 50-100 years acknowledged there even is a France, and who knows yet if they know of Spain.

The current king does have a French wife, who probably gets much more autonomy than she was raised believing she would get, but as the politics are established (and never officially changed with the conversion to Christianity) a female first born would be queen with all responsibilities and privileges that denotes the leader of a land.

Before the introduction of christendom, the nation was pagan, with women being leaders of the households. The only reason there is a king on the throne, is because he was an only child, but it does pave the way for things to start transitioning to what we are used to seeing, a patriarchal society. However, the timing is a muddled time line. So, my main, my little heiress needs to know how to lead an army.

 

In this case, it seems to me that "place" is definitely not France--it's a fundamentally different place that never existed. To me, the matriarchal society is the most important part of this question, so important that many things about real-world history don't count at all. When you asked what training a female would receive in this time, I thought you meant in a real-history place or a place with a strong similarity to real history.

I'm sorry to sound so argumentative, I'm just suggesting that it might even be worth adding a note to the original post, in case most people misunderstood the question in the same way I did.

To me, the question now sounds like: If all social objections to giving a woman combat training were removed, what would be the most effective weapon for someone of a female body type and strength level to use?

 

@BFGuru - Ha! You've got my story brain going now! Many women in past eras did fight in battles, enlist in armies, etc. However, they didn't just march into the recruitment office and sign on the dotted line and join the female barracks. They had to impersonate men. And this was NOT overly encouraged. A woman on a warship would have been at risk of being thrown overboard if she was discovered, as women on ships were usually considered 'unlucky.' I also seem to remember that one of the charges the establishment threw at Joan of Arc—and one of the ones that got her burnt at the stake as a witch—was that she was acting the role of a man. (She was also not a noblewoman, but a peasant girl who heard voices ...but that's another issue.)

So.... would there be any mileage in this scenario? What if the king of your small, fictitious kingdom is so worried about not having a male heir THAT HE PRETENDS HE DOES?

Maybe he is getting older, beyond the age where fathering children is easy? And his wife dies in childbirth. Because he is desperate for his male heir, he hides the fact that the birth is a girl from all but his most trusted servants and family—which could prove to be a weak spot in his plan, if some of these people aren't as loyal as he thinks? What if she is raised (in public) as if she is a boy?

She will know the truth, of course, and she would understand why, in order to appear strong, she needs to appear to be first a prince, then a king? She would then receive training as would any other prince, and the training would be tailored to her size and prowess. She could become very good at it, and also very adept at military strategy. As her father is old, he is likely to die while she is still pretty young—so she would get away with not having a beard, and not having a voice that has broken. If the public thought she was a male, she would get to keep her father's kingdom intact and ...she could lead her army without any bother? Lots of very young princes were made kings, and they were successful at it, especially if they had good advisors.

Of course there would be disadvantages, too. Not only her own personal inclinations, but the issue of HER children would come into it as well. And eventually her sex would become obvious to anybody who saw her. But maybe, once her kingdom is secure, she could 'come out' as the female she is, and marry, etc?

There might be some fun in that?

Moral of story: there is always a way to morph history to suit your plot!

 

Selbbin, THIS is closest to what I am trying to get at. And although the kingdom itself is fictional, it is in a real region, with a real history (of matriarchal paganism) and it interacts with historical areas. I have actually considered going earlier. And I may, in fact, do that as research compels me. The exact time should permit the princess to be able to take the throne. But the paganism is a very prevalent theme even once Christianity took over.

Now, if anyone can direct me to an expert on pre christian Basques...that'd be awesome LOL.

Right now, I'm working with small scenes, and haven't run into major historical figures, YET, so if I need to go earlier, I will. I may even rework this scene I'm working on a bit for more historic accuracy. I just need to be able to provide her with some training of some sort in order for her to be able to be an effective (even quasi effective) leader.

Which leads to another question, would weapons such as swords and daggers be made to "fit" the user? Would they measure the individual to get the best fit? I think I need to find a book on the history of black smithing now... adding that to the list of things to look up at the library Thursday.

 

Adding, also...because she is in France with her godfather, HIS version of training is needed. What HE thinks she will need is essential and that clearly comes from a French perspective. So, what you have all shared is still useable information for me.

 

Actually, while not wanting to derail this thread, a charge of witchcraft WAS leveled at Joan of Arc. Check the fordham university (Jesuit) website (www.fordham.edu) which gives a translated transcript of her trial. The intro :
Medieval Sourcebook:
The Trial of Joan of Arc, 1431
[Colby Introduction]: Joan of Arc is the most phenomenal and attractive personage of the Hundred Years' War on either side. Those whom she led to victory believed that she was inspired of God, and the English, not denying her inspiration, believed that it was of the devil. A full and authentic report of her trial remains, and from it is extracted the passage in which she answers questions relative to her Voices. She maintained that she raised the siege of Orleans in obedience to the divine call, and that all her important acts were prompted by a voice from heaven. Her trial for witchcraft at Rouen was conducted by Peter Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, to whom she had been handed over by the English for that purpose. She was little more than nineteen years old at the date of her execution.
............................

Oh, I do love research!

 

I wasn't contradicting you, just elaborating on the notion of medieval noble women leading armies and, in some cases, taking part in battles. Some of them were queens, but I don't remember any French queens (doesn't mean there are none since my knowledge on the subject is pathetically lacking). The women partaking in any military matters were certainly exceptions, whatever training they may have received, certainly wasn't the same as your average foot soldier's training or even a knight's (as far as I know) unless they went under disguise and, in case of the former, joined the commoners' ranks (but I haven't read of noble women doing that, just female commoners).

I took the question as something for a fantasy story because there was no matriarchal society there at that time, so of course all depends on the author: how closely does she follow the things that did exist (e.g. France, its laws and customs etc)? How realistic does she want to be with the fantasy side of the story?

Also, it would be good to differentiate between leading an army and leading troops into battle, riding in the frontlines: leading from the rear is common for a reason and something most queens and female commanders did. Some did participate in the fighting, but even those who led from the rear were either captured, killed, or both if they were defeated unless they managed to negotiate a less complete surrender. It all depends on what the author wants, but research is essential in any case because, just like it is with everything, even fantasy, like historically accurate works, can be done well or badly.

That being said, the kind of combat training the MC receives could be practically anything; a lot depends on how much power and influence she has, the individuals around her, whether she's required to train or wants to despite the disapproval of everyone around her etc, but even in a fantasy setting, if she does need to learn eg. the sword, the training itself should be realistic luckily plenty of HEMA manuals and experts exist nowadays.

That depends: the rich could afford custom-made swords specifically made for them, to fit their bodies, fighting style, and preferences etc. made by expert smiths Poorer people had to make do with what they could afford.
Also note that not all swords were made equal, and the more skilled and famous a sword maker was, the more he could charge. However, the quality of many famous swords have been greatly exaggerated, so there were never any magically superior blades, just some that were somewhat better than others depending on the raw materials, heat treatment etc.

 

@BFGuru Hm, so you are doing sort of Mists of Avalon in Pays Basque?

If you are trying to avoid anachronisms, there is a lot more to consider than when a weapon or a battle tactics was introduced. Not alone the fact that researching "medieval times" is as pointless as researching "ancient Greeks" or "Japan" (or "Pagan"!) - it's a very broad term that covers a 1000 years of European history, thus whatever happened to Joan of Arc is completely irrelevant in your case

The thing that might be interesting for you to research is the difference between mythological matriarchal societies and actual, historical possibilities of real matriarchal societies. And try not to confuse Matrilineality, Matriarchy and "The Godess", which is extremely popular (confusion) these days. They don't go hand-in-hand: an "extremely" patriarchal society can be matrilineal (conservative Judaism?), or have a de facto feminine deity (the adoration of the Virgin in Catholicism?). So just because a female could inherit something in a society (be it a throne or a flock of goats) doesn't mean there is any other social equality between men and women. (There certainly was among the Basque people, but all other thing's considered, it's far from a rule, but a local preference ) Also, gender roles seem to be very practical - they exist in every society ever (including Basque) - and don't call me a shovinist if I point out to certain biological differences as the root of it (and I don't mean shoulder width) So if you are to do any serious research of anthopological materials, don't expect to find democracy or gender or class equality as some sort of "golden age" default human condition that was only spoiled recently by big evil men that came overseas. It's a cute mystification of our modern society that only hides it's own flows behind the ever present big evil Other. Want to do something positive? Avoid putting the blame on the Other (be it another ethnicity, religion, social system, race, gender, person)

And I know it's not a comfortable subject to discuss, but I think it's important to remember that women did go to war with troops. See Mother Courage for two most common roles they played. The third "role" that women played in wars - that of being raped by troops - is also one of the reasons you didn't mix gender roles in warfare...

As a side note: "paganism" and feminism. They make a lovely New Age pair (put a grain of lesbianism in the mix for good measure), but still... Coming from a part of Europe where pre-Christian religion is still rooted in folklore and thought, I can tell you with fact that a pagan society can be as patriarchal, as cruel to women and as exclusively male dominated as any Christian Puritan. Burning witches? Depriving women of social rights and sexuality (and flocks of goats)? That happened very much in "Pagan" societies. That happens very much today in un-Christian societies. Even Marija Gimbutas' supposed "Europe of peace and harmony under The Godess" is resticted to pre-IndoEuropean, not pre-Christian times.

(But, all that said, I love the fact you are using Pays Basque as the setting - not only is it a relatively isolated region, but the Basque people, language and culture are pre-IndoEuropean. )

(And when I mentioned flocks of goats, I didn't joke. You would expect a society that has a hereditary ruler - king, queen, or a warrior-priestess - to have a well defined class system as well. Class system means economic inequality. In a highland culture such as Basque, especially in pre-monetary times, the richest family would certainly be the one with the largest flock of goats. And I know this might be an even more awkward subject than rape )

 

There was a book I read based somewhere near the medieval times that had a fan with a bladed edge. This was more of an early Japan sort of thing though. I've read many other novels where a noble lady would learn archery and they would usually carry a small weapon, like a knife that they could easily conceal. A lot of the noble women didn't participate in actual wars or get official formal training, but they were taught enough to defend themselves and they often helped with or made opinions on strategy matters.

 

Burlbird, thank you! These are toughts I've been toying with, and I actually didn't give thought to pre monetary! Thanks, that helps me a lot, even if they do have a currency already by this time. I'm thinking possibly with the other cultures that moved through the region, but maybe not. More things to study. But this sums up exactly what I'm trying to do. Piece together a realistic society on the cusp of transition. And your matrilinear/matriarchal comments gives me fuel to discuss with my friend who teaches women's studies.

Selbbin, thanks for the links. I actually did e-mail the university of Madrid, but I do not speak Spanish and never received a response LOL.

 

Ok...as I research this further, I'm leaning toward Charlemagne era. Much earlier, but it would allow for me to work with this societal transition. A lot is based off of the fears and superstitions of the deities I have been able to find from the pre christian era. Even down to some character names, so I need to keep things realistically pagan for the first part of the book.

 

If you're going for practicality and personal protection for a noblewoman (heir to the throne) then I'd say daggers and knives all the way! Easy to conceal, quick to draw, doesn't require much strength to be deadly. I have some mediocre knowledgable about history and I'm pretty sure that would be a very common weapon, even for men, in the courts and cities of the periods you're talking about. Now, if she was going to get actual military training and lead men to battle... a sword definitely. She'd probably be wealthy enough to have one made with the proper metal and balance to suit her. A sword/shield combo, especially something like a small round buckler, would be very effective for a woman fighter in my opinion. Also thought of something- being an able rider could be almost as useful as a weapon in a battle situation.

 

He's right in that era women often carried concealed daggers on diplomatic missions. A knife is a really fun weapon to write as it has a lot of versatility and has a certain dark past connotation. From a purely criminal justice point of view, they say poison is a women's weapon. Having her a poisoner could be interesting but that's pretty negative and hard to look on favorably. A Bo staff is a cool choice, just a polished piece of wood, which would make sense technologically. I know your going with the Pagan part so a hatchet would make sense. They were very common primarily used as tools, and when needed weapons. Since your story takes place during a transition maybe she could have some new piece of technology that makes her weapon vastly superior.

 

I agree: as an actual weapon, used for "personal combat". The most common use of the dagger by a (noble!) woman in pre-modern times would be for a preemptive suicide if ever threatened by rape, as a way to ensure her fidelity, so no harm would come upon their husband's/father's honor. Because, you might remember, women are not Men, and they don't have an honor to begin with.
[Which I really don't think is a bad thing at all, because, you know, you, me, and just about anybody else here, if we were to find ourselves in a feudal society, would almost certainly not qualify for the most honorable of the honorable classes. Women, pederasts, book-lovers and other degenerates? Not exactly a knighthood material! ]