How would melee weapons be if designed from the very beggining by women?

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Ok, we know that the most common weapons in all cultures around the world have strong phallic connotations, from the allmighty spear, to the penetrating dagger, and the more symbolic sword. Obviously this were weapons that men designed.

If women would have been in the past (the very long past of course, I'm miles away from being sexist) the fighting gender instead of men, what weapons do you think they would have designed? Everybody is encouraged to participate, but of course, female melee weapons ideas shall be welcomed.

EDIT: This is not a scientific discussion. Of course I know men didn't design weapons thinking: "Hey you know, we have a great tool to have fun, why we don't just design a similar weapon to kill stuff, wouldn't that be cool?". So you should just write some crazy and funny ideas about how would be a melee weapon designed by women who had their reproductive organs as center of their universe, some other funny reason or whatever . :smallwink:

[FirebirdFlying]

Phallic or not, they're practical. A stabby thing works. It probably works better if it's, well, long and straight and hard.

I doubt women would design weapons much differently.

[ghost_warlock]

Duh, mancatcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancatcher). :smalltongue:

Seriously, though, FirebirdFlying hit the nail on the head, here. Weapons are shaped the way they are because those shapes are effective at accomplishing what the weapons were designed for. Resemblance to genitalia is coincidental or, rather, convergent.

[FirebirdFlying]

Duh, mancatcher. :smalltongue:

That's awesome.

…I don't suppose there are any stats for that in D&D 3.5?

[Jibar]

They wouldn't be anything.
Women would invent guns first.

[Blas_de_Lezo]

Lol, this is it:

http://warandgame.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/im_0649_zp.jpg

[BisectedBrioche]

I, at the risk of sounding somewhat rude but never-the-less with all confidence, believe that you are, communicating from within your posterior.


You have no evidence to back up the idea that the "original design" was invented by a male hominid in the first place.
Maces, axes and shields. Consider these proof of your phallacy (:smallbiggrin:)
Not everything longer than it is wide is supposed to be a phallus.
Like most technology, weapons are derived from earlier technology. Case in point; almost all cultures, regardless of gender hegemony, developed swords as a martial weapon, found pole arms useful for untrained soldiers and bludgeoning weapons useful against armour.


No one thought "hey, I'll make this weapon look like my ****". Someone thought "If I sharpen this rock it'll cut better and save the hassle of finding a sharp rock". Then someone thought "If I add a handle, I'll have more leverage" then someone discovered metal. And so on until you finally have a sword; a blade made to give as much range and leverage as possible (since swords cut rather than bash, like a mace, the active part can be much larger than the handle since less momentum is required. This puts the emphasis on precision, aiming for an opponents vitals, rather than force, and simply landing stronger but hard to aim blows).

[Eldrys]

That's awesome.

…I don't suppose there are any stats for that in D&D 3.5?

It's in complete warrior.

And yeah, I don't think women would have designed weapons any differently than men.

[Samuel Sturm]

Speaking as a historian and a martial artist, it would have been the same. Melee weapons are the way they are today because of thousands of years of evolution towards a simple goal: Kill quickly and efficiently. Just changing genders of the main weapon users isn't going to change a thing, IMPO. Heck, you could make us all have 5 arms and 3 eyes and melee weapons wouldn't change a bit. Simply put, a sword is one of the most efficient ways to put down an opponent, and nothing is going to change that.

Now, as a man who enjoys wild speculation, I would say that there would have been more weapons like the Kukri. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kukri) Wonderful knife/sword for many things, and used correctly you can chop off a water buffalo's head in one swing. (Seriously, there's at least one tribe in Africa that does this to determine whether the tribe will have good luck next year.)

Also, more chain weapons. Like the Slungshot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slungshot), or the Rope dart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_dart) and it's cousin, the Meteor hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_hammer).

[Jack Squat]

They'd be pretty much the same, but there would be more color options, endless accessories, and they'd cost twice as much :smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

Welp. The first weapon was probably the blunt rock. Then eventually the jagged sharp rock. These would likewise probably have been discovered fairly early on by women as well. Tying something pointy on to the end of a stick so that one can cut something without being up close to it, likewise, is going to be fairly basic, unless stone is never discovered in which case it'd be, well, sticks. Pointy sticks. I'm not well versed in aboriginal weaponry though, so I might be misremembering them as pre-lithic.

Most weapons have their origins in hunting implements or tools. The first weapon that was designed to be a weapon to kill other humans was the mace, near as we can tell.

...It's not like you can change what sticks are, even if you change the dominant sex of the planet. You're not going to get a labial mace without some rather complex carving of the head, which may or may not either serve to give a striking channel or just weaken the head's ability to withstand the blows it delivers.

Now if you're also positing that women are developing weapons without being hunters, well, then weapons would probably be slimmer, smaller, more easily concealed, or something like copper laundry rods from Monstrous Regiment, really dangerous to be whacked with, but mostly stuff that actually is used for, well, useful work.

[Gaelbert]

I'm going to inject a voice of dissent here. I'm not a weapons expert, but it seems like most original melee weapons were designed using men's strengths in mind. Traditionally, women haven't had as much muscle mass as men. They aren't built the same. I assume different weapons would take advantage of that, perhaps closer in design to whips than swords. Something of that nature.
Of course, this is all pure conjecture with very little to back it up.

Frying Pans would work quite well. Tika from Dragonlance perfected the use of them in fighting. It's a glorious sight to behold, I'm sure.

[Rutskarn]

I agree with Coid. If we're going to accept the conceit of this question, that there'd be a difference, the difference would probably lie in being more lightweight. I'm thinking stabbing weapons more than slashing weapons, with a greater emphasis of spears than blades.

[Syka]

As a woman...I wouldn't change too much about weaponry. Weapons are weapons. What is efficient now would be efficient if women were dominant. So..yeah, not much change.

[Cuaqchi]

It also begs the question as to what society would have the women fight while the men stayed home. The most basic reason that it was the man that hunted and fought was not a predetermined value of strength or durability but the need to continue the race.

It does not matter how many men die in battle so long as one remains to spread the seed of life and extend the need for survival, however no woman could possibly repopulate a tribe or clan alone and any that fell would be irreplacable for many generations if the people even lasted that long.

Before the dawn of modern medicine and preserved foods it was also considered an ill omen to be a twin, and a curse of dire proportions to be part of even larger multiple births the reason for this is that the means to feed a child comes from the woman's body, and though she may if well endowed or given sufficient food herself be able to feed two infants any more and they would all starve.

As such it was not originally a sexist view that deemed men the warrior class but a basic instinct. Man fights because man is expendable, not because he is any stronger, however because man is expendable and required to fight he did eventually evolve into a position of greater physical strength and durability to survive the rigures of combat and pass the stronger dominant genes to all his progeny.

This does not mean however that women would not learn to at least defend themselves, and the weapons that evolved for this purpose were all intended to keep one's distance from an aggressor. Missile weapons and polearms were the favourite and in some cultures the use of such weapons even became specifically designed for women.

[reorith]

the naginata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naginata) is a melee weapon primarily used by women to roflpwn their opponents.

[BisectedBrioche]

I'm going to inject a voice of dissent here. I'm not a weapons expert, but it seems like most original melee weapons were designed using men's strengths in mind. Traditionally, women haven't had as much muscle mass as men. They aren't built the same. I assume different weapons would take advantage of that, perhaps closer in design to whips than swords. Something of that nature.
Of course, this is all pure conjecture with very little to back it up.

Frying Pans would work quite well. Tika from Dragonlance perfected the use of them in fighting. It's a glorious sight to behold, I'm sure.

A whip would not be used in combat. At all. The purpose of a whip is to cause pain (they can't do much more than draw blood). Not to mention they still take a bit of muscle to wield (indeed the whole point is they reduce the effectiveness of the users strength to avoid harming the target too much). The purpose of a weapon is to project the user's strength and the method's the same regardless of how much strength the user has. If you're weaker you just use a bow with less draw, or a lighter sword. In fact many weapons were designed to allow someone to wield a much heavier weapon than they would otherwise (for example, Thor's hammer Mjolnir in Norse mythology was only able to be wielded by him because it was essentially a two handed weapon with a one handed handle, if it had a longer handle, others could use it).

Frying pans actually need quite a bit of strength to wield effectively, BTW. Their shape makes them a lot less usable than a club that was designed to be one.


the naginata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naginata) is a melee weapon primarily used by women to roflpwn their opponents.

That use is mostly cultural, however (they were rendered obsolete by later developments and given to the wives and other female relatives of samurai as self defence weapons).


I agree with Coid. If we're going to accept the conceit of this question, that there'd be a difference, the difference would probably lie in being more lightweight. I'm thinking stabbing weapons more than slashing weapons, with a greater emphasis of spears than blades.

Polearms need just as much strength (or rather, more strength is just as useful) as a sword to wield. They just require less training.

[KuReshtin]

for example, Thor's hammer Mjolnir in Norse mythology was only able to be wielded by him because it was essentially a two handed weapon with a one handed handle, if it had a longer handle, others could use it.


Not the best of examples, though, since Thor himself couldn't use Mjolnir witout the belt of strength he also owned. And the short handle wasn't a design feature, but rather a flaw brought on by Loki trying to sabotage the production of it by transforming into a fly, and biting the eyelid of Brokkr, causing him to fail in fanning the fire in which Mjolnir was being created.

[Rutskarn]

Polearms need just as much strength (or rather, more strength is just as useful) as a sword to wield. They just require less training.

I'm not talking a longspear, I'm talking more like javelins and shortspears.

[Pika...]

They'd be pretty much the same, but there would be more color options, endless accessories, and they'd cost twice as much :smalltongue:

What he said.

Also, someone would have discovered a way to make metal pink during the forging process.

[Solaris]

I'm going to inject a voice of dissent here. I'm not a weapons expert, but it seems like most original melee weapons were designed using men's strengths in mind. Traditionally, women haven't had as much muscle mass as men. They aren't built the same. I assume different weapons would take advantage of that, perhaps closer in design to whips than swords. Something of that nature.
Of course, this is all pure conjecture with very little to back it up.

Frying Pans would work quite well. Tika from Dragonlance perfected the use of them in fighting. It's a glorious sight to behold, I'm sure.

Like the other folks said, you're so very, very wrong.

Women being weaker than men is more cultural than it is physiological. Men are bulkier, sure, but a woman is capable of training to the same strength as a man is with about the same amount of effort. Examples can be found in Basic Combat Training units. The upper end for men may be higher, but on the whole they're actually a lot closer than people think.

I haven't exactly fought many girls, what with the taboo and all, but I imagine a successful fighting style for a female is pretty much the same as it is for a guy of her weight class. Speaking as a man who weighs about a buck-forty soaking wet (for the Europeans in the crowd, that's approximately 64 kg, or the weight of your average adult female), that generally goes into the making use of speed, agility, and don't let the big guy grab you. It sounds cliche, I know, but sometimes that stuff has origins in reality.

[Coidzor]

Well, yeah, it's just good sense to avoid being grabbed by an ogre.

[Solaris]

Well, yeah, it's just good sense to avoid being grabbed by an ogre.

I've seen this guy take on ten trained soldiers in unarmed combat and win. Darn tootin' it's good sense to avoid his grabbing.

[Helanna]

Honestly, it really irritates me when people assume that just because something is long and thing, it's 'phallic'. It's like they assume that nature is entirely modeled off the human penis, rather than the other way around. It's just a shape, people, it's used for a lot of things.

So . . . yeah, they'd pretty much be exactly the same. I'm really not entirely sure how they could be different. Weapons were never made to be phallic in the first place.

[Thatguyoverther]

They'd be more colorful? With additional pretty pink ribbons to absorb blood?

Since most weapons are based around practicality I don't there there would be any real discernible difference.

[_Zoot_]

A whip would not be used in combat. At all. The purpose of a whip is to cause pain (they can't do much more than draw blood).

Having seen what a good flogging will do I'm prepared to argue that point, but in combat your correct, they wouldn't be all that much use.

[Coidzor]

it's used for a lot of things.
hur, hur, hur. *crude laughter*

So . . . yeah, they'd pretty much be exactly the same. I'm really not entirely sure how they could be different. Weapons were never made to be phallic in the first place.

Now, towers on the other hand. Well, just look at San Grimgiano from Assassin's Creed 2...

[BisectedBrioche]

Not the best of examples, though, since Thor himself couldn't use Mjolnir witout the belt of strength he also owned. And the short handle wasn't a design feature, but rather a flaw brought on by Loki trying to sabotage the production of it by transforming into a fly, and biting the eyelid of Brokkr, causing him to fail in fanning the fire in which Mjolnir was being created.

Actually that proves my point perfectly; warhammers would be unusable by anyone of normal strength if it weren't for the fact that they were made to enhance the force being applied to them by giving them a long handle that provided more leverage.

[KuReshtin]

Actually that proves my point perfectly; warhammers would be unusable by anyone of normal strength if it weren't for the fact that they were made to enhance the force being applied to them by giving them a long handle that provided more leverage.

Oh, I wasn't trying to disprove your point, just thought it was a slightly bad example to use Mjolnir to prove your point since the shape of Mjolnir was a mistake rather than by design.

[Force]

Having seen what a good flogging will do I'm prepared to argue that point, but in combat your correct, they wouldn't be all that much use.

Whip's useful because it delivers pain without necessarily killing the subjects. When you're in melee combat, you want to fatally wound or disable your opponent as quickly as possible. A whip can be cut; it can also be blocked fairly easily by armor or shield. It's also got a minimum range. Basically a polearm without a polearm's advantages.

[BisectedBrioche]

Oh, I wasn't trying to disprove your point, just thought it was a slightly bad example to use Mjolnir to prove your point since the shape of Mjolnir was a mistake rather than by design.

I wasn't trying to say your were trying to disprove my point. I was pointing out it was a good example. The whole point of my point was in fact the point you raised (¬_¬").

[Trog]

Wow. This thread... makes me cringe a little. :smalltongue:

First an educational and somewhat related link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6387611.stm) about early weapon making - really early.

As to the penis resemblance to weapons I find the whole thing ridiculous. Yes, many are longer than they are wide. So are your arms, legs and fingers which in any given pair of a male and a female outnumber the trouser titan 28 to 1. Not everything is about the "weapon of choice" and certainly not this. This is merely about reach and, in the case of projectiles, streamlining the form for less wind resistance.

[Em Blackleaf]

Women would be men and men would be women if women were the dominant gender. Men evolved the way they did and women evolved the way we did for the purpose of the survival of the human race (all of this prior to more modern technology, of course. I'm talking about way back in time, to cavemen).

What I'm saying is, we're great the way we are. Women would have been different, had we been the dominant gender. Men would have evolved differently as well.
Women would not be the child-bearing, weaker gender. Our muscles would have developed similarly to man's, and men would be the child-bearing gender. With this, men would also have breasts with which to nourish their infants. Many mammals are like this, you know.
That is to say that the dominant gender only goes hunting and fights in battles while the other gender only stays home and raises the kids.

More to the point, weapons aren't the way they are because guys wanted a sword to look phallic, as everyone has said, they are the way they are for the purpose of efficiency. Even if women, as we are, designed and used all weapons, they would probably be quite similar if not exactly the same as the weapons we have today.
When it comes to weapons, practicality and efficiency often come before, "Let's make it look like a penis! :3"

The course of evolution happened, both to humans and to weapons, to allow them to suit their environments better.

[Anuan]

Speaking as a historian and a martial artist, it would have been the same. Melee weapons are the way they are today because of thousands of years of evolution towards a simple goal: Kill quickly and efficiently. Just changing genders of the main weapon users isn't going to change a thing, IMPO. Heck, you could make us all have 5 arms and 3 eyes and melee weapons wouldn't change a bit. Simply put, a sword is one of the most efficient ways to put down an opponent, and nothing is going to change that.


This, basically. Long and pointy -works.-



Now, as a man who enjoys wild speculation, I would say that there would have been more weapons like the Kukri. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kukri) Wonderful knife/sword for many things, and used correctly you can chop off a water buffalo's head in one swing. (Seriously, there's at least one tribe in Africa that does this to determine whether the tribe will have good luck next year.)


That's using an oversized and combat-impractical version of the Khukri, though, not your regular-sized Khukri, which was also used for cutting wood and vines etc. Also, to my knowledge, it's a traditional Gurkha manhood ritual, not a luck ritual for an African tribe. Not to devalue the Khukri, of course. Wonderful weapon, kind of similar to the Falcata. Very good at hacking off limbs.

[QUOTE=Blade 7;7717004
Also, more chain weapons. Like the Slungshot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slungshot), or the Rope dart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_dart) and it's cousin, the Meteor hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_hammer).[/QUOTE]

I. Love. Soft weapons. Two-ended meteor hammers ftw.

[Thajocoth]

What, you've never seen a spiked shield (http://www.culdceptreborn.com/card_images/spiked_shield.jpg)?

-----

I think people are taking the topic too seriously. I see this happen too often, so I'm gonna mini-rant about it:

One who starts a topic is like a DM. They give a premise for the topic to be about. It usually doesn't have perfect historical accuracy, if any at all... They're providing a sort of situational mini-universe. The question here is better raised as "If swords and other long weapons were made phallic because they were invented by men, then what sorts of weapons would women have invented instead?" Instead you're all saying "But they weren't!" Yeah, we all know the premise is not historically accurate. But just as you accept that wizard can cast a fireball in a fantasy setting, you can accept an obviously meant-to-be-silly topic's premise.

[Vizzerdrix]

I'll say that it would have ended up almost the same. I'm willing to bet that things like hammers and maces wouldn't have seen much use when armor started showing up, but weapons made for getting around armor (dirks, rapiers, pointy harhammers, etc) would have been implimented sooner.

[CrimsonAngel]

You mean the world wouldn't be painted pink and we wouldn't have a kind, pillow fight having race?

[RobotPerfomance]

weapons are weapons women would want long weapons for the same reason that men do. If you can stab the other person first you don't get hurt

[Force]

One who starts a topic is like a DM. They give a premise for the topic to be about. It usually doesn't have perfect historical accuracy, if any at all... They're providing a sort of situational mini-universe. The question here is better raised as "If swords and other long weapons were made phallic because they were invented by men, then what sorts of weapons would women have invented instead?" Instead you're all saying "But they weren't!" Yeah, we all know the premise is not historically accurate. But just as you accept that wizard can cast a fireball in a fantasy setting, you can accept an obviously meant-to-be-silly topic's premise.

I believe that the general consensus is, rather, that the melee weapons as designed by women would share a very close resemblance to those designed by men, simply because said men designs are simply the most effective that we know of. Women in the fighting role of men would have a slightly shorter reach and wouldn't be able to hit quite as hard, but they're still human and thus what works for men works for them as well.

[Katana_Geldar]

For some reason I think that there would be more weapons that disable and capture rather than kill as well as weapons that have more than one use.

[Samuel Sturm]

That's using an oversized and combat-impractical version of the Khukri, though, not your regular-sized Khukri, which was also used for cutting wood and vines etc. Also, to my knowledge, it's a traditional Gurkha manhood ritual, not a luck ritual for an African tribe. Not to devalue the Khukri, of course. Wonderful weapon, kind of similar to the Falcata. Very good at hacking off limbs.

And a manhood ceremony makes more sense than what I had heard. I bow to your superior knowledge. Yeah, I meant to imply that it was a great "camp" weapon. Cut your way through the jungle, cut up your tiger steak, and cut off your opponent's arm! One tool, near infinite uses! Call today! :-P




I. Love. Soft weapons. Two-ended meteor hammers ftw.

I'm currently training myself with a 5' single end meteor hammer. Chain, not rope. Once I get that down I'm planning to learn the rope dart.(With rope, not chain.) Any suggested reading?

[RandomNPC]

I remember hearing about a weapon much like the kukri while at the mideval fair, it was slightly bigger and hat a ratcheting joint in the middle.

So heres how it worked (according to the saleslady trying to impress me into buying something) a group of women would scout out the location of an enemy city, begin the charge on the other side of the horizon (usually close by behind a hill) they would flip the blades open, and the mass sound from all the ratchets moving out would alert the town to the raid. According to saleslady entire cities would evacuate leaving behind anything they couldn't grab on the way out, because the female raiding partys were just that bad.

but again, thats from a saleslady trying to impress me into buying something.

[Anuan]

I'm currently training myself with a 5' single end meteor hammer. Chain, not rope. Once I get that down I'm planning to learn the rope dart.(With rope, not chain.) Any suggested reading?

Not specifically, but you can find a lot of good videos, instructional and demonstrational, along with reading, online. You have to sift through the crap, though. Remain educated. Check things against each other. Think.

A lot of martial arts suppliers have training dvds for purchase, too.
I wish I could get a soft-weapon and train with it D: I'm poor, though. Also kinda scared of'em. There's an old Chinese martial saying: "Most would learn sword or sickle over chain or whip." Because a lot of people trying out soft-weapons killed themselves early on. Because they're hard to use. Because AWKWARD.

[Kneenibble]

If you insist on making an essentialized gendered reading of weapons as phallic, then you have to extend the reading of a stab to a synecdoche of the whole performative discourse of entering an other violently with an object, be it a body with a weapon, a nation with an army, a forest with hunters, all construed with the baseline image.

The very performance of violence and warfare under that kind of critical lens is essentially masculine and phallic: one could only ask what a consciously feminine re/performance of that male text might look like, but not try to construct a prior female text.

It wouldn't be weapons, it wouldn't be war.

The mancatcher is hilarious though. v.dentata

[Samuel Sturm]

Not specifically, but you can find a lot of good videos, instructional and demonstrational, along with reading, online. You have to sift through the crap, though. Remain educated. Check things against each other. Think.

A lot of martial arts suppliers have training dvds for purchase, too.
I wish I could get a soft-weapon and train with it D: I'm poor, though. Also kinda scared of'em. There's an old Chinese martial saying: "Most would learn sword or sickle over chain or whip." Because a lot of people trying out soft-weapons killed themselves early on. Because they're hard to use. Because AWKWARD.

Right, thanks. I'll keep that in mind. (think think think):smalltongue:

Yeah, I'm a poor boy to. I got the chain for my meteor hammer out of a very broken grandfather clock. Normally I'd feel bad about that, but half the gears and the face was missing. And the box was in horrible condition. Three very nice 5' chains though! I'm currently using a rather strange weight for it. It's a teardrop shaped piece of rubber, about 1.5 lbs. When I finally step up to the Rope Dart, there's a surplus store here in town where I can get about any rope I want for at most 10 cents a foot. Actual military parachute cord runs at 5 cents a foot. Rope is cheap. :smallsmile:

Yeah, I consider myself at least component with every type of sword or staff/spear I've been able to dig up. :smallcool: I've been working on that for several years now. :smalltongue: I was looking for my next weapon to learn, and didn't feel like the axe or mace types. And chain weapons look really cool. So yeah.

/end derail

I'm going, for convenience, to assume that body type evolution left men and women unchanged in this roughly parallel universe compared to ours. I.E, women tend to be slightly smaller and less muscular in this universe.

Now, weapons work best when they kill quickly, and with the least amount of energy input. This is why the slashing and piercing weapon types evolved. Crushing types evolved because they're simple to make, cheap and require almost no training to use. Also, they can deal with most armours better, but that's a much later development. However, crushing weapons tend to require more strength. (Or time to build up some momentum, which tends to be rather impractical in a large scale battle.)

So, what we would probably end up with is a stronger focus on slashing and piercing weapons. So, there would probably be a noticeably faster evolutionary cycle with these weapons. So, what is the ultimate piercing and/or slashing weapon? The short answer is that there isn't one at all. Each one is better at different things, and there isn't one that is the best at everything.

The long answer? In this context, we'll assume the the heavier stuff is more rare. Probably not to many true Great Swords or O-Katanas out there. Staff and spear type weapons are probably a little rarer, although not as much difference there. Definitely a little shorter, though. I can't imagine there would be many light weapons. That kind of stuff is fine for duels and carrying to royal court every day, but you try blocking a longsword with a rapier and see how well you can do. I'd be very surprised if anyone could successfully do it. Deflect it, maybe. But that would still be hard to do. It's a question of weight and momentum, not skill. So really, I'd expect things to be pretty much the same, all told.

In the end, I would expect less crushing weapons, and slightly smaller slashing and piercing weapons. Maybe a few more flexible weapons, as they generally don't take as much strength to use. But I wouldn't expect to see those on a battlefield. To easy to get your chain or rope wrapped around your buddy next to you when he tries to dodge something and dives into your chain's path.

In the end, this is all IMPO. So yeah.

IMPO = In My Professional Opinion.

[zeratul]

Just to set the record straight, in the middle ages dark ages and prior, the spear was (for the most part) the most prevalent weapon followed by the axe. Traditionally swords were only used by people who had enough money to afford them which was not the majority of society. Besides that, long pointy weapons just happen to work really well, that's why they developed that way, as other people said it has more to do with practicality than with a desire to have a phallic weapon.

[Gaelbert]

A whip would not be used in combat. At all. The purpose of a whip is to cause pain (they can't do much more than draw blood). Not to mention they still take a bit of muscle to wield (indeed the whole point is they reduce the effectiveness of the users strength to avoid harming the target too much). The purpose of a weapon is to project the user's strength and the method's the same regardless of how much strength the user has. If you're weaker you just use a bow with less draw, or a lighter sword. In fact many weapons were designed to allow someone to wield a much heavier weapon than they would otherwise (for example, Thor's hammer Mjolnir in Norse mythology was only able to be wielded by him because it was essentially a two handed weapon with a one handed handle, if it had a longer handle, others could use it).

Frying pans actually need quite a bit of strength to wield effectively, BTW. Their shape makes them a lot less usable than a club that was designed to be one.


I didn't necessarily mean a whip would be used, I just meant something that is considered unconventional. And clearly a frying pan would not be used, that was more of a joke than anything else.

And I realize that women can be as strong as men. I'm just saying that from personal experience, most aren't. Yes, it's a cultural thing. However, for the purpose of this experiment in history we have to assume the culture is the same, even though it clearly isn't. To be otherwise is to inject multiple variables, which is never good.

[Kallisti]

The fact that many weapons are long and pointy would seem to indicate that the shape works very well for sharp objects intended to non-surgically rearrange people's insides.

The kind of people who build weapons with "looks like a giant penis" in mind over "will kill the other guy before he kills me" are not the kind of people who survive wars.

[golentan]

Plasma beams and hydrogen bombs would have scoured the earth clean circa 4000 B.C. Take that as you will.

Honestly, as has been pointed out before, this is a ridiculous question on so many levels. All I'm going to say is that if weapons were really intended as phallic demonstrations, well, I think there would have been a lot more 40 foot spears.

[Randel]

not so serious answer:

Women wouldn't invent melee weapons, they would quickly develop superior diplomatic skills to eliminate all conflicts before they turned violent, unite all the primitive human tribes together and generate a near psychic ability to communicate!

Thus, no wars would have been fought and all animals would have been domesticated peacefully through telepathy.

But noo... some jerk had to invent the pointy stick and solve his problems with violence. This is why we can't have nice things.

[reorith]

The kind of people who build weapons with "looks like a giant penis" in mind over "will kill the other guy before he kills me" are not the kind of people who survive wars.

i have a friend that dropped cash on a c mag and a muzzle brake to make his AR look more phallic

and now, back to your previously scheduled thread

[Anuan]

O-Katanas

Psst. It's an Odachi or a Nodachi.

[Adlan]

not so serious answer:

Women wouldn't invent melee weapons, they would quickly develop superior diplomatic skills to eliminate all conflicts before they turned violent, unite all the primitive human tribes together and generate a near psychic ability to communicate!

Thus, no wars would have been fought and all animals would have been domesticated peacefully through telepathy.

But noo... some jerk had to invent the pointy stick and solve his problems with violence. This is why we can't have nice things.

Not so Serious Rebuttal:
I agree, open War would be completely avoided. Instead, the weapons developed would be posions, daggers, blowpipes, and other methods of assasination, along with gossip, back stabbing and social bullying. Animals would be nagged into domestication and the pointy stick would first be developed for cleaning under your finger nails. To remove blood from all the catfights.

[hamishspence]

What I'm saying is, we're great the way we are. Women would have been different, had we been the dominant gender. Men would have evolved differently as well.
Women would not be the child-bearing, weaker gender. Our muscles would have developed similarly to man's, and men would be the child-bearing gender. With this, men would also have breasts with which to nourish their infants. Many mammals are like this, you know.
That is to say that the dominant gender only goes hunting and fights in battles while the other gender only stays home and raises the kids.


For some mammalian species (marmosets?) the male does most of the childcare.

For others (hyenas) the female is larger and dominant.

Yet its still a case of females bearing and suckling the young- the difference is, they do a lot of the fighting too.

"Dominant gender" does not equate to "Gender that does not bear the offspring"- things can be more complicated than that.

it might be interesting to imagine a world where humans evolved like hyenas- with the female gender being larger, stronger, and dominant, over the male gender- would it have made much of a difference?

[Killer Angel]

They'd be pretty much the same, but there would be more color options, endless accessories, and they'd cost twice as much :smalltongue:

I can't resist... (http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/gundam-meets-hello-kitty.html) :smallbiggrin:

[Blas_de_Lezo]

One who starts a topic is like a DM. They give a premise for the topic to be about. It usually doesn't have perfect historical accuracy, if any at all... They're providing a sort of situational mini-universe. The question here is better raised as "If swords and other long weapons were made phallic because they were invented by men, then what sorts of weapons would women have invented instead?" Instead you're all saying "But they weren't!" Yeah, we all know the premise is not historically accurate. But just as you accept that wizard can cast a fireball in a fantasy setting, you can accept an obviously meant-to-be-silly topic's premise.

Ok, that's it Thajocoth, I think you're the only person here that got it . Maybe I worded the thread and message in the wrong way, but it wasn't supposed to be a scientific discussion.

Of course I know men didn't design weapons thinking: "Hey you know, we have a great tool to have fun, why we don't just design a similar weapon to kill stuff, wouldn't that be cool?". :smallamused:

Anyway, my bad I suppose for not clearing it out. :smallbiggrin: (I'll edit the starting message now)

[PhoeKun]

I don't know how to even begin answering that question. You... want to know what? What weapons would look like if women designed them to look like ovaries?

I weep for the universe where this happens.

[SurlySeraph]

Um... a meteor hammer could resemble an ovary and very long Fallopian tube, if you held it the right way.

I guess "More emphasis on shields, swordcatchers, parrying daggers, maces, and defensive weapons in general, with more bludgeons used than blades" is the closest thing I have to a serious answer.

[Faulty]

Probably in whatever way effectively kills thing. Like, say, a spear.

[Force]

(various thoughts, long quote)


I presume we'd also be seeing as much or more of an emphasis on ranged weapons?

[Samuel Sturm]

Psst. It's an Odachi or a Nodachi.

Serves me right for trusting the Internet to give something the right name. Thanks.



I presume we'd also be seeing as much or more of an emphasis on ranged weapons?

Yes, but the title of the thread is Melee weapons, so...

But yeah, I would expect more use of ranged weapons, and probably more emphasis on skirmishing and small battles. I wouldn't think there would be many large scale battles.

[Perenelle]

They'd be pretty much the same, but there would be more color options, endless accessories, and they'd cost twice as much :smalltongue:

too true. :smallamused:
and they'd come in a million different sizes depending on where you got them. :smallannoyed:


I can't resist... (http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/gundam-meets-hello-kitty.html) :smallbiggrin:

.....I think I just lost brain cells.
Its like a "My Little Pony" threw up on it. >.<


For some reason I think that there would be more weapons that disable and capture rather than kill as well as weapons that have more than one use.

Thats what I was thinking. I think that women would be more less likely to kill then men. I'm not saying that women cannot kill, I just think they'd be more likely to have a different way of dealing with enemies than men.

As for the muti-functional weapons, dont a lot of weapons that were made a long time ago, like knives and such, have a lot of uses? pretty much everything that can cut can have multiple uses, so I dunno how much more multi-functional weapons would be if women had created them.
Maybe a club that could be used to hit people as well as heated over a fire and used to cook on? ancient frying pan? :smallamused:

[Flickerdart]

Would defensive weapons ever actually appear without a prevalence in offensive weapons? If your enemy is using light weapons, you don't really need to develop shields or whatever as much as you do when your opponent is coming at you with swords that can take your head clean off. Weapons geared for defense don't make sense to develop, since weapons are first and foremost meant to kill things. Turtling isn't a useful tactic if you're not getting any kills.
The first weapons, I'd say, would have been developed for hunting, and most things that you hunt don't have much offense. So defensive weapons would make no sense. How many deer can you kill with a dagger versus, say, a bow or a spear?

[Isolder74]

Defensive weapons exist in order to make the use of an offensive weapon more useful.

shields were invented to allow you to attack with out having to be constantly watching all others on the battlefield. Also almost all shields are built to allow them being used to strike at opponents unseating their feet making killing them easier. A shield is not about turtling it is all about keeping your options open for counter attacks and to make your own offensive movement easier.

For example an integral part of the Greek Phalanx includes a battle formation that marches together all with their shields interlocked while the multiple ranks of spearmen in the formation can make pincushions of enemies who attempt to attack them head on and to provide a large offensive punch at they march towards the enemy.

[BisectedBrioche]

Where has this bizarre idea that ranged weapons need less strength to use come from?

My brother practises archery and he has shoulders that dwarf mine, even though my shoulder bones are much broader than his, and I can barely pull back his bow.

While some ranged weapons rely on dexterity more than melee weapons, you still need the muscle to back them up (or you did until the invention of firearms). Prior to gunpowder, the energy still had to come from the user (even a light throwing knife needs some force behind it to back up technique if it is to do any sort of damage).

[valadil]

For the most part they'd be similar. The object of a weapon is to wound people from a distance where they can't wound you. Edges or points attached to a stick would be popular with anyone.

The only different I can think of would be size based. Women are the smaller sex. They weigh less are are often less bulky. I'd speculate that there's a chance weapons would be lighter weight to accomodate this, but I honestly don't know if that would be a factor. Armor might also be lighter, in which case you'd probably see fewer weapons designed to break through armor. ie, a lucerne hammer might never have been invented if full plate was too heavy to be used. That said, I don't actually have a clue if women are inherently weaker than men. I imagine that if they were part of the warrior class they'd be just as strong.

[Flickerdart]

Defensive weapons exist in order to make the use of an offensive weapon more useful.

shields were invented to allow you to attack with out having to be constantly watching all others on the battlefield. Also almost all shields are built to allow them being used to strike at opponents unseating their feet making killing them easier. A shield is not about turtling it is all about keeping your options open for counter attacks and to make your own offensive movement easier.

Yes, but you still need an offensive weapon in order for this development to happen. Which was my point.

[Force]

The only different I can think of would be size based. Women are the smaller sex. They weigh less are are often less bulky. I'd speculate that there's a chance weapons would be lighter weight to accomodate this, but I honestly don't know if that would be a factor. Armor might also be lighter, in which case you'd probably see fewer weapons designed to break through armor. ie, a lucerne hammer might never have been invented if full plate was too heavy to be used. That said, I don't actually have a clue if women are inherently weaker than men. I imagine that if they were part of the warrior class they'd be just as strong.

Comparing men and women's Olympic weightlifting scores, there's a difference of about 146 kg between the highest male and the highest female weights, in favor of men. As I recall from when I looked into it prior, men are generally stronger than women, though the disparity is small at first.


Where has this bizarre idea that ranged weapons need less strength to use come from?

My brother practises archery and he has shoulders that dwarf mine, even though my shoulder bones are much broader than his, and I can barely pull back his bow.

While some ranged weapons rely on dexterity more than melee weapons, you still need the muscle to back them up (or you did until the invention of firearms). Prior to gunpowder, the energy still had to come from the user (even a light throwing knife needs some force behind it to back up technique if it is to do any sort of damage).

What poundage is your brother's bow? Longbows required about a 200-lb pull to draw; this is something that a woman could accomplish if trained according to what English longbowmen did (semi-weekly, from early childhood). It's worth noting that the longbow was this difficult to draw simply because it had to penetrate chain or plate armor. Women may not be able to wear as thick armor as men; ergo, bows would have less draw-weight.

------

The idea that women would develop weapons that are less likely to kill, or multi-function weapons, is flawed. Weapons are designed, at their core, to hurt people. It's very difficult to build something that is both effective and non-lethal; if you focus on the non-lethal part, your opponents can build weapons that are lethal and beat you on the field because they can use their weapons to their full potential, while you can't use your weapon or skills to their full potential because you're trying not to kill them.

Multi-function weapons also don't work. You can have a weapon that does one thing well, or does two things poorly, as a general rule. You can have a sword that's good at cutting and not that good at thrusting, or vice versa. Attempting to build something that will do both equally well will end badly, because both goals need totally different design philosophies. To better answer this idea, though, I'd need to have an idea of what you meant by 'multi-function', because some weapons can have multiple functions.

[BisectedBrioche]

What poundage is your brother's bow? Longbows required about a 200-lb pull to draw; this is something that a woman could accomplish if trained according to what English longbowmen did (semi-weekly, from early childhood). It's worth noting that the longbow was this difficult to draw simply because it had to penetrate chain or plate armor. Women may not be able to wear as thick armor as men; ergo, bows would have less draw-weight.

No idea what poundage it is (I recall him mentioning that he decided not to get it's draw increased though).

And that was my point (good lord I've been saying that a lot lately, am I really that bad at explaining?). Bows still need a lot of strength to be effective. Even a low draw bow takes a great deal of effort to fire repeatedly (the longbow training they had in times gone by over here was in technique, just for the record, shooting a bow accurately is even harder than a gun, after all).

I would also like to add that the limit of armour isn't the strength of it's wearer (even a full suit of plate distributes itself evenly), the whole point of armorsmithing is to keep it light in the first place. Your average female human can wear just as heavy armour as your average male human (a smaller frame means less armour anyway). The main issue with heavy armour is dexterity (the strongest armour is going to, inevitably, be made of solid plates, requiring some cleaver engineering to avoid getting in the way of joints).

[RandomNPC]

for the multi-use arguements here are a few thoughts.

An axe is acceptable to chop wood.
A knife is often used to cut large chunks of food to make them smaller.
Hammers are often used in carpentry.
Indiana Jones showed the world how to cross gaps with soft weapons.

But a sword? It is for the murder.

[chiasaur11]

for the multi-use arguements here are a few thoughts.

An axe is acceptable to chop wood.
A knife is often used to cut large chunks of food to make them smaller.
Hammers are often used in carpentry.
Indiana Jones showed the world how to cross gaps with soft weapons.

But a sword? It is for the murder.

Sam Vimes and JC Denton both disagree with your assessment of swords.

[Anuan]

for the multi-use arguements here are a few thoughts.

An axe is acceptable to chop wood.
A knife is often used to cut large chunks of food to make them smaller.
Hammers are often used in carpentry.
Indiana Jones showed the world how to cross gaps with soft weapons.

But a sword? It is for the murder.

Axes used in combat (many of them, anyway) were mostly unsuitable for chopping wood. They had more in common with a meat-cleaver than a wood-axe.

[czisan]

ok... well, weapons won't change, probably less crushing weapons as heavy infantry and cavalry will likely be rarer... also, as to the whole 'women are just as strong as men stuff'

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=136529&hilit=women+strength.

Men are generally taller then women, and still tend to have more physical mass then women of the same height, testosterone allows for greater muscle development and increased aggression. Men also seem to be faster in general

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_owns_the_fastest_mile_run

Note the woman took more then 4 minutes to run that mile, I knew guys in my gym class in high school who could run a 4 minute mile... plus men usually have superior hand-eye coordination (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=136529&hilit=women+strength) which makes them more dangerous fighters.

and before anyone says anything, no, I am not a sexist, like racism it's not compatible with my socialist world view, but men and women are different, women are generally better at social situations, have a much more sophisticated grasp of social politics, and are usually better readers and communicators... it's just that all this 'men and woman are no different its just unfair chauvinism!' pisses me off almost as much as 'I'm only in prison cause whitey is holding me down'. They are both things that just irritate me to no end.

[Killer Angel]

.....I think I just lost brain cells.
Its like a "My Little Pony" threw up on it. >.<


I'm glad you joined my fate. :smallbiggrin:

But don't worry, I can do even worst (http://www.exlibrismortis.org/ExLibrisnewSistersArmy.html).

[RandomNPC]

I'm glad you joined my fate. :smallbiggrin:

But don't worry, I can do even worst (http://www.exlibrismortis.org/ExLibrisnewSistersArmy.html).

worse, or BETTER!

seriously, now i want to get into warhammer, just to mess with others.

[Gamerlord]

Why would women design something different?

I have a feeling women have as much common sense as men when it comes to stabbing stuff.

[Voldecanter]

I'm Thinking Nets or Net like Devices that focus on small blades being placed in it so when you catch someone inside the net they are horribly sliced apart .

On a more serious note : We all now women would just develop magic anyways . :smallbiggrin: