"Should women be allowed to participate in armed comat in historical reenactment groups".

I'll stick my neck out first and say "NO". This position assumes a few things-

1) The group is trying to portray real European history as factually as possible.

2) They are not reenacting the life of a famous female warrior like Boudicca, Joan of Arc or Margerite d'Anjou.

My position is based on the understanding that while women certainly participated in battle in extreme circumstances, females were not routinely conscripted for battle. There are no female "knights" on record having made the tournament circuit, or records of bands of "warrior women" hired as mercenaries. If what we seek to portray is the usual, rather than the exceptional, allowing women to fight in battles staged for reenactment of historical events is perpetrating a lie.

That having been said, I think it sucks that women in groups like the Red Company never get to wear pretty armour, tilt or do any of the other cool stuff the guys do. However, it's a matter of doing something using the best information available, or ignoring that information when it suits us in order to do what we want. In the latter case, I daresay it puts us right back into the same category as the ....well, you know what I mean.

Anyone else care to express an opinion?

Gwen

"Should women be allowed to participate in armed comat in historical reenactment groups".

my philosophy has always been "fine, be a boy, but you better be a convincing boy". that means no changing your mind half way through when you realize that boy clothes are way warmer in the hot sun and you want to wear a dress. No five foot rule...I am routinely far less than five feet away from my campmates. I shouldnt know you're a girl until its close enough to be embarassing, you know?

They burned Joan of Arc for a heretic, in part because she insisted on wearing boys clothes, and acting in a generally unseemly manner.

it all comes down to "why are you in re-enactment"? if you're into it for re-enacting history, than its only appropriate for you to re-enact a role that you have the kit and skills to fill.

I do not have the kit or skills to be a boy. If some random person showed up in boys clohtes, acted like a boy, had boys skills, walked and talked like a boy, what they have under their braes is none of my business.

BUT
If some girl shows up and wants to pretend to be a boy sometimes, that infringes on MY ability to get into the medieval mindset and I wont stand for it.

We all have our own bars set at our own levels in this wierdo hobby we've picked . there are plenty of groups out there for women who want to play knights. There are relatively fewer groups for us who want to do real medieval stuff.

I DON'T believe it should be an emphatic NO, even from a historical POV.

1) a group portraying real medieval history (assuming that you have some evidence to back you up) cannot summarily dismiss the notion that there were some, though extremely rare, instances of women taking up arms, though not as knights.

However, there was a female Templar. "Clothes Make the Man: Female Cross Dressing in the Middle Ages". I am not certain of her age, but she was a messenger for her order and was involved for about a year and a half or so.

As Gwen usually says, "we portray the typical not the exceptional".

2) Most of us do not portray famous female warriors. (I don't count Joan of Arc as one of these). Unfortunately, documentable accounts of woman taking up the sword and donning armour with the exception of Joan, were usually noblewomen or woman participating under extreme circumstances, but war is extreme.

You have to be extremely careful in regard to battles. I do not believe that you would find any "cross dressers" on an English battlefield, on the Continent things can be quite different. It was in Diebold Schilling's Chronicles that he speaks about a battle between the Swiss and the Burgundians in which a lot of women were dressed as soldiers and when things turned ugly, they fled and basically exposed their chests to show that they were woman so as not to be cut down by the Swiss (who had a thing about not taking prisoners).

I think it all depends on "when and where" a battle takes place as to whether or not it would be "perpetrating a lie". It also depends on your groups activity. If you are doing a camp with no conflict, then I would probably say break out the camp dress. However, if you are re-enacting a battle, then I would say "that this is one of those extreme circumstances that have been recorded". Defending a city wall, "wo"manning a canon, etc...

I think if you are going to do it, you need to have documentable evidence in relation to the common woman, not the noble woman. You should have the proper kit and be convincing in the role. I agree that fantasy armour is right out and that the information should not be put aside when it suits us because it conflicts with what we want to do rather that what should be done.

And don't you dare call me that "w" word or any other varient, Gwen. That goes for you too AM.

I yield the soap box.

Jenn

I've been meaning to address this thread for some time, but have only gotten a chance to do so now. I agree totally that the fields of re-enacted Towtons, Grandsons, or military encampments should not be thronged with women portraying female knights or soldiers. I also believe that the role of women who followed armies should be examined - you will find some circumstances where women disguised themselves as males, primarily in order to not be separated from their husbands or lovers. I have been studying Military History, and the social aspects of the military through the ages for more than half my life. I find that as you examine eras where more detailed evidence is available, you find documentation of these cases - right up through the Mexican Revolution, The Spanish Civil War, and the Second World War.

I think the first thing necessary to do is to examine the role of women in 15th c. re-enactment in general, and how they compare with a womans role in society in the 15th c. in general.

What I am about to write will no doubt be unpopular, but most roles for women in typical re-enactments are representing women on the margins of society - not women who are readily accepted members of society. In the US, due to site constraints (we don't have any appropriate viliages, castles, or towns for back-drops), most women portray followers of an army, a role that would mark them to 'respectable' women as being nothing better than the inhabitants of a Southwark stew - regardless of their being married to the soldiers they followed or not. This would obviously prove a source of friction between soldiers wives and the inhabitants of any town they were garrisoned in.

In reading all I can find written in English about society on the continent, I have come across quite a bit of interesting information in two books I highly recommend "Medieval Prostitution", by Jaques Rossiaud, and "Dijon under the Valois Dukes". The second chapter of the the prostitution book is titled "Sexual Order and the Subversion of Youth", who's main theme is the social tensions caused by economic realities and the apprentice system that prolonged the adolescence of urban males, and prevented their marriage until they had established themslves economicaly well into their middle age.

These tensions caused the position of women in society to be very fragile, dependent on the social position of the male members of the family to which they belonged. The book is replete with details of court cases (collected in the Somme towns, and the Duchy of Burgundy) in which respectable younger wives of older established men are victimised by gangs of young males frustrated by what they preceived as their rightful potential spouse/partners being usurped by the leaders of town society they found themselves in conflict with on many levels.

In short, it wasn't easy being a woman (if it ever is/was) - women didn't have the protection afforded by groups of their peers that young males had, and it was extrordinarily easy for a woman to find herself transitioning socially from a position of respectability to a woman on the margins of society.

Keeping this in mind, a woman would be very reluctant to leave the protection of the family unit when her soldier husband was forced by circumstances to leave their established household. The case of families following their soldier husbands on campaign is readily documentable, glimpses seen through primary sources such as contemporary painting, and army ordinances.

In the case of the Burgundian companies of the Ordinances, two events occured which probably encouraged (I'll get to this later) this reaction from the soldiers women. Firstly, during the Siege of Neuss (1474-75)a brawl occured between English archers of Charles the Bolds army over a woman. Charles (unarmed) was nearly killed in the incident - he faced down a number of armed and exited bowmen, and as a result, he shortly thereafter published an ordinance forbidding soldiers of the army to keep any woman to themselves "as if a wife" - rather, they were to be fairly shared between them. Prior to this, Charles had reluctantly accepted the presence of women with the companies (he always considered them a discipline problem), and he had even organised the women of the army into a seperate corps for the siege of Neuss, giving them their own banner and trumpeters to relay orders - they were used as a labour corps, erecting fortifications and doing that sort of labour.

Late in 1475/early 1476 Charles completely forbade the presence of women in his army, yet there were women captured at the battle at Grandson later that year. These women are alluded to in Swiss sources, and fell into two catagories - the high class courtesans of the great lords, and a reference to women who had been under arms, who cast them away in flight, and exposed their breast to prove they were women and beg mercy. My contention is that the later women are following the classic role of the disguised women that we see occuring in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, forced to do so by a combination of fear of abandonment and emotion for their spouse/lover, and the extrordinary ordinance of Charles earlier that year. Extremely exceptional women have persued an adventurous role through the ages - this is such a minority of the population that thay should be as rare as a royal personage at a re-enactment, and I have yet to see documentation of a common woman pursuing this role in 15th c. sources - the exception to this being women involved in the defence of their home/town. The number of aristocratic ladies documented as forced to do this through circumstance (Countess Joan of Brittany, Countess Matilda of Tuscany, Berta bigfoot - wait, she's middle class! etc.) are few enough to be able to count on the digits of your hands in a 400 + year span.

As this topic regards Co. Wolfe Argent - I do not allow women to wantonly portray the fictional role of a female knight or soldier. We do allow a solitary example of the disguised woman - not the active soldier, rather the woman who's love compels her to stay with her mate at all costs - readily documentable in later ages, but sparse on the ground in ours. I believe the sparsity due to primary anecdotal sources being scarcer in our era rather than human behaviour being different - human behaviour is the one constant throughout history.

I also use this solitary example in a pre 1475 context as an example of the chicanery practised by commanders of companies who fraudulantly collected pay of non - existant or otherwise defective soldiers, but that is the topic for a different thread.....

How does everybody feel bout THIS, though: It's more common in re-enacting later periods (I'd guess cause it's easier to get away with), but what about women playing the role of men w/o actually pretending to be a woman pretending to be a man?

My feeling is that I'd prefer all the men to portray male roles and the women to portray females roles. If there was no way to disuade a woman from adopting a male portrayal, I would cope, but only if I was convinced that that person was a man, and they interacted with the group as a man in all respects. In for a penny, in for a pound, I say. If I can be fooled, I'll deal with it. If I'm not fooled, it will take away from my experience the same way having an ice chest covered with a blanket in camp would.

------------------
Cheers,

My point is, though it may be "exceptional" and not the standard, it should not be summarily dismissed out of hand just because it is uncommon. IMHO-I think it is as valid a point as any other historical discovery and one that the people should be made aware of with the stipulation that they be informed that this was not the common role of a woman in the middle ages and I would not hold Joan of Arc up as the example for my evidence. She was more like a team mascot rather than a "fighter" unless you wish to count it on a spiritual battlefield.

As I indicated in another thread, Wolfe Argent does NOT condone 50% of a group being comprised of women "fighters" and this sort of thing should be governed so as not to end up going from LH group to a Fantasy group in one fell swoop.

If we have one female disguised, this does not lower our "bar" by any means. It simply makes the statement that it did happen. Other groups may disagree, but that is their option to set up their rules for allowance.

Who knows, we may never have anyone who takes up the sword as a "cross dressing" woman, but the option is there if that person can pull it off and it only stands for one not matter how big the group gets.

Who knows, we may never have anyone who takes up the sword as a "cross dressing" woman, but the option is there if that person can pull it off and it only stands for one not matter how big the group gets.

Cheers

and who decides who that one person is? and how big does the group need to be for that one person to be statistically accurate? One person in a two person group is still 50%...

its all really romantic and all, but I still wonder if it happened often enough to be in the middle of that bell shaped curve we all talk about.

our group doesnt have this problem...we're all a bunch of household servants, and mostly female ones at that. We actually have more problems finding appropriate roles for our boys other than scullery....

“We are riders; our business is with the Bow and the spear, and we know nothing of women's work' —Herodotus I V, 114

As a contemporary woman Warrior/Knight I am often I asked if there were women Knights that Jousted during the days of Chivalry? At this point in time I have not had the opportunity to research the 'Jousting" part of the question.

However, I have been told by people involved in the sport that indeed there were women jousters and Knights. That not much is written on their behalf. This being a reflection of the male dominated world for which I they lived. Therefore, recognition of these women was not encouraged or supported. However, there was the one and only “Joan of Arc" who led France into battle. Although it is not reported that Joan did any Jousting. Claims reveal that she pursued her action because “Voices" in her head told her to do so. What was I saying in an earlier article I wrote about those “Unbalanced Knights”? Anyway, it is written that the British soldiers were said to have expressed that they would rather take on one hundred French soldiers than to face Joan on her own. now that's quite a reputation to attain as a I woman warrior! Joan was put to death by burning at the stake for reasons that included that it was against the law for women to dress in men's clothing. Her executioners considered her Battle Armour as men's clothing or at least used it to their advantage to eliminate this so called “MAD Woman” that fought for her cause.

At about 61 AD there lived a Celtic woman warrior by the name of "Boudicca". The name means "Victory”. Boudicca lived in a small empire with her husband, who was the ruler, located in what is now known as the Sussex area of England. The Empire was known as Icena. When her husband died he left his empire to Nero. Nero's soldiers then took it upon themselves to ravish their new found realm and rape and pillage the members that already existed including Boudicca and her two daughters. "Sorry Boy's, wrong thing to do".

Boudicca then took it upon her self to form a revolt against these "thugs”. She did so and burnt the place to the ground as well as fighting her way into history. However, her purpose and troops were defeated and rather that face retaliation she is believed to have committed suicide. Her description is as follows: 'In stature she was volatile, in appearance most terrifying, in the glance of her eye most fierce, and her voice was harsh, a great mass of the tawniest hair fell to her hips’. Boudicca would seek guidance from the Goddess of War "Brigantia" and claimed that she could have a woman to woman communication with the Goddess.

Warrior women are sometimes often referred to as "Amazon's". The word Amazon really has nothing to do with the size of a women. The word is an ancient Greek word meaning “without breast". Frozen remains of warrior women have been found near arctic regions and concluded that these warrior women of the past would voluntarily have one breast removed as this enabled them to carry their weapons sack and the strap for which would lie flat against their chest therefore making it easier and more comfortable for them. Is having a removal any more comfortable?...PLLLEASE!

These remains also included a 13-14 year old girl with bow legs that suggested to Scientists that she had lived a short life on Horseback. Another adult woman's remains have revealed an arrowhead within the body cavity and suggests that she had died from battle.

Contemporary women warriors include the popular "Xena”. Or is she an actress? Oh yes, that's right. Well the American Jousting Alliance includes their very own Xena. Except her name is “Brella the Barbarian" aka Brenda Zoppe. Quite a horsewoman as well. She retains an impressive collection of various equestrian awards including her latest conquest of 1997 mounted spear throwing Champion for AJA Colorado Tournament. Oh yes, and then of course there is yours truly ~Lady Bold Wolf-, 1999 American Jousting Alliance USA/international Women's Champion. Yes, Femme' Chivalry Lives !!!

“ALL women die, but not all women REALLY live!!”

CL. Morrison - Lady Bold Wolf www.geocities. com/Colosseum/Dome/40S4
----------------------------------------------
(Article appears in the latest issue of Renaissance Catalog magazine)

“Battle on: Playing Xena is harder than it looks. A close-up look att he Seattle Knights”
When I asked my seven year old son, Skye, what he wanted to be when he grew up he answered, A knight.-- Not a doctor, or a lawyer or a policeman -- a knight. He was dead serious about it, as though it were a perfectly normal occupation to pursue. Like any parent, I hated to think of the day when his bubble would burst, when he’d realize knights weren t exactly what todays universities were turning out. But Saturday afternoon would come and we’d find ourselves in front of the TV, escaping to worlds where mystical knights carry magical swords or Hercules battles the Gods and Xena defeats an entire army with the help of a few frightened villagers. lt's powerful stuff. And it s weaving itself all across the planet in the form of entertainment, both participatory and passive. Theme parks, Renaissance Faires, Medieval Markets and period movies are cropping up all the time.

Our motto is “Education through Entertainment”

Willich started training people in 1988, but didn t start the Seattle Knights until 1992. Today the seattle Knights combine excellent equestrian shows, high energy acting, and choreographed stage combat using real steel weapons. Knights wear a variety of armor, including chain mail, leather, and full plate; and display a variety of weapons including broadswords, axes and staves. The fifty person show troupe is 60% female, unique in itself. In addition to performing with knights in armor and damsels in distress the Seattle Knights have a full array of alluringly-clad male and female warriors, elves, trolls, unicorns and other creatures of fantasy. The Seattle Knights have performed in movies, television, charity events, schools, faires and festivals, science fiction and fantasy conventions and parades.
www.seattleknights.com

Cynthea Cameron www.Renaissance-central.com

I am not quite sure where to begin. First off, Monsieur Geoffrey (not to pick at you), Wolfe Argent is a living history group, not a Renn Faire act. If I am to be reduced to sensationalizing and fictionalizing History for the entertainment of the lowest common denominator, I shall hang up my spurs and pursue a more profitable and enjoyable hobby. The WWF and Hollywood do a fine job of entertaining them and don't need us.

I sometimes wonder if anybody acually reads the complete text of what I write and thinks about it (as an example AM quotes Jenn and attributes it to me) .

I give evidence for my viewpoint in the form of a first hand witness to events, and then a series of previous factual documentable events that may have led to the incident witnessed, and my documentation is dismissed. Is the only good documentation that which backs up a preconcieved notion?

Heaven forfend that the Burgundian companies of Ordinance would ever knowingly enlist women as soldiers, or that their revealed presence in that role would be tolerated. Charles the Bold was nearly completely Mysogynistic in his attitude to the presence of women _anywhere near_ his army in the last year and a half of his life.

We as a company do not have women openly in the role of a soldier. The role we leave open is for the disguised woman. This woman would not be pointed out, rather, if a member of the public were to notice that she were a woman, we would deny that she was. If the member of the public pressed, then we would leave the first person role and explain in a pre 1475 scenario that she was not a soldier, rather , a dodge for the officer to collect the pay for that soldier (it being near muster for pay day). In a post 1475 setting the role becomes that of the woman disguised as otherwise she would be expelled from camp and cruely seperated from her husband, she having no other means of support.

The role of the disguised woman is documentable throughout European history , documentation being more readily available from the late 16th c. onward (as is documentation for _any_ subject).

I will grant you this - the woman who chose to follow her husband or lover in such extreme circumstances was rare. That said, she was not a fictional character, like trolls, elves, and sprites (I thought that was a bit unkind Gwen).

Jamie, first off, your point about propaganda is well taken. I trained as a Historian, and I do take bias of source into account. As to Diebold Schilling, he was a petty captain present at the battle on the Confederations side - you can't get a better horses mouth, so to speak. However, your point about the Swiss possibly looking at this as a means of belittleing their foes - I don't think this was the case for two reasons.

1. At the time Burgundy was seen as arguably the first power in the West (The Duke of Burgundy was styled "The Great Duke of the West" or "The Grand Potentate of the West" in the Ottoman court by the Ottoman Emperors) - it was a case of Jack slaying the Giant, and Jack could hardly believe his luck (or his newfound wealth - it nearly ruined the Swiss economy with spiraling inflation). Perhaps at Murten or Nancy the Swiss would have looked contemptuously at the Burgundians, but I doubt it. Charles faced the Confederation and their allies at Nancy, and army of 20,000 combatants with a little over 2000 rank and file, and the Swiss always admired guts. They certainly didn't feel contempt at Grandson - Berne had to muscle the rest of the Confederates into their anti-Burgundian policy as the other members had doubts about the prospects of such a conflict.

2. The Swiss custom was to send a number of unmarried girls off with any Confederation army (Jumpfen - sp?) to act as auxiliaries, taking care of the wounded, cooking, etc... . There is an intriuging miniature accompanying the Great Chronicle showing two obvious females mixed in with the male soldiers. One carries a halberd, the other a handgonne and all the acoutraments for it. What could this imply? Perhaps they are carrying gear for their boyfriends, perhaps they are not.

Anyhow, more points to ponder.

------------------
Bob R.

The article showed a certain amount of ignorance on the part of some of the participants who looked at jousting more as a game and entertainment rather than having any knowledge of history. Even the person being interviewed said that they didn't know, but were told by someone else...blah blah blah...

We all agree that XENA is a Flat Earth fictional heroine that hails from a world with a seriously bastardized timeline. She is hardly a knight and she vaguely resembles a Greek. She is certainly not a real Amazon, she comes from the wrong part of the world. check out the URL below if you want to see some archaeological information on the "REAL" Amazons.

http://www.csen.org/WomenWarriors/Womens.status.html

As for Boudicca, she wasn't a knight either. She was a CELT. She was Queen of the Iceni who lead a rebellion against the Romans after they did unspeakable things to her daughters, not to mention to her own person. (Very brief synopsis as this is WAY out of the 1300-1500 time frame of this board).

Faeries, trolls, and the like belong to the realm of myth and legend or the local LARPG.

The woman taking up arms is NOT a mythical figure and in our group is not done for sensationalism. If a visitor at an event (and whether a female member is dressed as a man or not) asks if women fought, I am not going to tell them 'NO'. That would not be correct. I would tell them that it was rare and nothing like the hollywood heroines we see on the big screen today. I would probably have my list of sources that they could check into if they wanted to learn more.

Who decides who gets to the play the role?

It is up to the individual group to decide how they wish to handle it internally. Primary consideration, the person has to have the "kit" and the capability to pull it off so as not to ruin the experience of others.

Two person groups and statistically accurate?

I don't know about 2 person groups, but I am sure they can work out a solution. If we use this hypothetical group of two as an example and expand on it, I don't believe any of our groups is statistically "correct". I do not think that based on the current numeric size of any of our groups usually 20 or less, that this is accurate for many of our portrayals. We don't have the numbers in people, horses, or the baggage train. We are all like a vinette out of much larger woodcut.

Going back to the women as DISGUISED man, there is a historical precedent for women fighting, disguised or not, so I don't really understand why everyone is getting their braies in a twist if one or two Living History groups wish to allow a "disguised" woman NOT a woman fighter as woman fighter. None of the groups that do are condoning fantasy armour with cleavage, woman knights, or forming a band of fictious female mercenaries.

The last few exchanges here exemplefy the difference between the living history folk trying to give a correct view of history and the entertainment groups that make it so much harder to do so.

Excellent joke, Gwen, posting the articles from the "Herald". Not the usual standard of historically accurate reference usually seen on this forum, but good for a laugh.

Anyway, to the topic at hand. My humble opinion is that there shouldn't be any cross-dressing in camp. However, if the person really does her homework and can pull off a top-notch male impression, well, maybe. I like Bob's approach of eventually fessing up with a good explaination. Even then, they should be an extreme rarity.

As for dressing as a woman in camp and arming up (in a closed tent) to fight - she should pass as a man with all of the rigorous attention to detail applied to everything else the group does. A breastplate can hide... many things. And she shouldn't do any battle cries! Face it, we can use all of the "men" we can muster, and if she can do it well, what the heck.

Methinks that a woman "discovered" to be in combat dressings -- whether or not it was for combat purposes -- would provide a great opportunity to disclose to those of interest (the audience) the various reasons/scenarios where this might have occured.

After all, this is of HIGH human-interest value. There are lots of "stories-to-tell" (witness the possible explanations put forth by Bob) for certain, all of them interesting to hear about.

Finally, this is all for an audience -- is it not -- to educate those with interest about those times? People WANT to know about the role of women in combat.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir GadFly:

If it happened at all, then it should be fair game for consideration within the framework of an accurate portrayal of this time period.[/B]

---

hey all, AM here
I think its very important to keep in mind that we're attempting to recreate not only WHAT happened, but to create a window on the medieval mindset as well. Why else go to all the trouble of limiting conversation to medievally appropriate topics? Why go to the trouble to wear medieval underwear and other things that the public wont see?

Even if there were occasionally women who dressed as men, if the MEDIEVAL people ever found out, they'd put an end to it quickly.

FOr us up here in Seattle, its not enough to just LOOK the part, but we go to great lengths to FEEL the part as well. WE dont do it for "the audience" we do it for ourselves (we arent a demo group up here). Having a woman in mans dress who's still obviously a woman (ie "revealing herself" at will) is NOT something that a medieval woman would have done.

according to my reading, the idea that a woman would dress in mens clothing was VERY shocking. Joan of Arc was burned in part because of this very habit. (I know, there was lots of other stuff too, but that was one of the reasons the Church gave, ie it was not acceptable behavior in their eyes)

If a woman is dressing in mens clothing to be near her lover, I dont believe she EVER would reveal her true sex to anyone but her lover in the privacy of their tent. And of course, we would all make snyde comments aobut her lovers choice of "friends". How French! we'd say sniggering

If a woman is in armor, fighting, it is my considered opinion that she would have cut her hair, dressed in mens clothing and pretended to be a man 24/7. No revealing her true sex to amuse the crowds. No more than I take off my headrag, put on my glasses and start talking about my job as a research scientist to amuse them.

again, your game may vary....we all are in different groups and I fully support your right to play whatever game you want. But please dont say its typically medieval for women to fight in armor as a matter of course.

Bob, I think you have stated your case several times, and I do think people have been reading your posts and understand your position. I just think people disagree with you and are making some valid points. You are not being attacked personally, your position is under fire. This is scholarly debate at its finest.

Jenn, I think your comparison to the flame wars on the AA is off base- everyone is sticking to the facts as they are presented, and I have not seen anyone being rude, attacking you personally or being otherwise out of line. I don’t think you are being “shouted down” or “summarily dismissed”. Quite the contrary, your position is being intensively and intelligently grilled. I would expect this for a rhetorical subject open to subjective interpretation. It’s also a very important subject to defining where we draw the line between being sensational RenFaire entertainment and being serious educators.

Bob said:
it was extraordinarily easy for a woman to find herself transitioning socially from a position of respectability to a woman on the margins of society.

and my research confirms this. Cross-dressing would instantly marginalize a woman and is an act of desperation, as Bob states. If it was done routinely, we are left with a question that has not been addressed: if a soldier’s spouse did an effective job of disguising herself as a man, and that soldier was suspected of buggering one of his mates on the line, where does that leave him? In this case, if it was thought that the Chef de Chambre was buggering the Coustillier, what would the reaction be from both Charles and the general soldiery?

We do several encampments and LH presentations a year, and I can pretty much expect some of the same questions to pop up-

*”Are you a prostitute? I thought only prostitutes followed armies.” This is a prime place for me to explain a woman’s role in camp.

*”Do you get to wear armour and fight?” This is the place where I explain about women in combat, citing many of Bob’s references.

*”What about Joan of Arc- she was a woman knight and she fought”. Well, factually, Joan of Arc was a mounted man at arms at best, and there is sketchy evidence that she FOUGHT. Yes, she led the army, but her voices told her to do so- she didn’t have to be anything but fearless to stand in the front of the army and hey, if I thought God was telling me it was what He wanted me to do, I can’t say I wouldn’t be fearless in the same situation. Joan was a peasant girl and had no military training- just because she was shot in the shoulder isn’t proof that she “fought”, just that she was in harm’s way. Many people don’t realize that wearing men’s clothing was *so* out of line as to be cited as a reason to put her to death, and I always cite that.

My experience is that the public asks the questions they want answered, we don’t have to present something like a woman in armour to prompt the question. Unfortunately, we are often denied the opportunity to explain everything we do at a display because of time or logistics. We must consider that someone may see a woman in armour at a display, not have the opportunity to talk to her about it and go home with the impression that women in armour were historically common enough to warrant a representation of such in a group of 6 reenactors. This is the choice that Bob and Jenn have the right to make for their group, just like the rest of us.

JeffJ, as laughable as they are, I didn’t post those articles to be funny, or to prove/disprove the “warrior women” scenario. I posted them to underscore the point M. Geoffrey was making about “what the public expects”. **This** is what the public expects when they see a woman in armour- fantasy. I believe the public is so conditioned to associating a woman in armour with a fantasy scenario that putting a woman in armour in a reenactment setting invites the easy assumption and puts the historical fact at risk. But that’s my personal opinion.

My personal belief is that Bob and Jenn make valid points in their posts for women in armour. Based on the information they have presented, I also think they are aware that it was NOT common- Bob states such instances are “rare”. However, a great amount of effort is being expended to use a small amount of evidence for women in armour to outweigh the bulk of evidence against women in armour because it appears to be important to them - for reasons unstated - to see an example of this in their group.

To this I quote AM-
again, your game may vary....we all are in different groups and I fully support your right to play whatever game you want.

That having been said, they seem to have the unpopular position in this debate and as such feel they are being “picked on” by the group. Perhaps at this point we should agree to disagree and move on before things turn ugly.

Gwen, I don't personally feel I was being picked on, and I don't mind my position coming under fire, but as a hero of mine once said "I am too old a soldier to give up a place of strength without bloody noses". You would have to ask my fiery tempered Celt her feelings on the subject. I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone else - ask some of my friends! I always keep in mind that we are all friends here - you guys are my buddies, but that doesn't mean that we always have to see eye to eye with each other on everything. If we were always marching in lock-step, somebody would no doubt accuse us of being cultists.

I specifically use the example of Grandson, and the events at Neuss as they bear directly on what we (Wolfe Argent - Burgundians) depict, not from a complete lack of other examples. I have never said that it (the woman in disguise) was commonly done - just that it did happen.

That new book on Women cross dressing in the Middle Ages(unfortunatly at home - I'll get the ISBN and title ASAP) we got did have some interesting examples, although from the 12th and 13th centuries - one specifically was rather well documented, a woman in disguise who joined the Templars (her father having had her dress as a boy during their travels in the Holy Land to avoid rape). On her Fathers death, she maintained the disguise and joined the Templar order. She was used as a Papal messanger for the Order, and eventually tried to make her way back to her home in Germany. Unable to pick up her old life, she maintained her disguise, and joined a monestary as a novice, where she died after a years residence, her sex not being revealed until her body was cleaned for burial. It is a rather interesting incident, with some first hand witnesses testifying to her identity, as the monestary claimed she enacted miricles post mortem (the author suspects to white-wash the embarrasment of finding a women amongst the bretheren), and had her beatified, with all the attendent Papal paperwork surviving.

We as different companies actually agree on most things - even that this was not commonly done, and certainly not accepted by society. Where we disagree is in that Wolfe Argent thinks it a worthwhile portrayal if carefully done, and with all the attendant explanations given to the public I outlined. As you pointed out before, we are playing in the same ball park, but are standing on different bases.

In regards to the buggery question. It would certainly not look at all unusual for the coustillier to sleep in the Chef de Chambres tent if the Coustillier was a personal servant of the officer, a valet de chambre. People of rank did not sleep by themselves in the 15th c., they would have servants in attendance. It would look funny if a person of my rank did not have a servant. On the other hand, if funny noises started emanating from the tent in the middle of the night, questions might well start being raised - buggery being a serious crime, and only overlooked if the person was of sufficient social standing.... . The men of my lance would know her for what she was, but if they felt personal loyalty towards me they would keep quiet about it (not to mention they would have some leverage over me).

Well, I hope that clears the air here, it is so easy to read into postings emotions that aren't there, or misread intent.

As some have already said, I don't think that living history is ABOUT an audience; it's about the participants. The ability to share a bit of knowledge about the era is simply a very fortunate and handy side-effect of what living history groups do. I think revisionist history has reached the general public, so not only do that want to know about the role of women in combat (in the medieval era, often negligible at best statistically speaking), but they EXPECT to hear about how women were as brave and strong as men, if not more so. They expect to hear how the "chivalrous" knights couldn't get up in their armour, etc. Maybe it's the pessimist in me, but I think a very important but implicit part of the job of living historians when dealing with the public is to burst a lot of their bubbles, bubbles that have been created by movies, renfairs, etc. It can, has, and will be called sexist, racist, elitist, overly religious, etc. but that's the way things were, and I think we should gently but firmly express to the public "deal with it."

This has gotta be quick as I'm off to work. Glenn, I agree with you, but the role is not an "empowering" role, it is a role that shows the ultimate vulnerability and weakness of a womans social position (in the 15th c.).

How could I fail to point out that there are no records in this instance of "strong woman fighters", but that they only appear in the record fleeing, exposing their gender, and begging for mercy ? That is sure NOT to please the modern PC mindset.

Then again, the public is so mis-informed that for many, seeing ANYONE in armor puts them in that mind-set! I think I'll post a new topic...

[This message has been edited by JeffJ (edited 06-08-2000).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glen K:
As some have already said, I don't think that living history is ABOUT an audience; it's about the participants. The ability to share a bit of knowledge about the era is simply a very fortunate and handy side-effect of what living history groups do.(snip & tuck) . . . I think a very important but implicit part of the job of living historians when dealing with the public is to burst a lot of their bubbles\

---

Ah, a paradox.

Yet "a rose by any other name is still a rose" . . . in this case "education" of the public.

Without this objective, you are left with the questionable mission of gathering research information to be shared/portrayed only with other "group scholars." Kind of like the teachers showing up at school and sharing info in the faculty lounge, and not with the students.

This could be oh-so-very-confining, boring, and parabolically incestuous, unless . . .

Unless there was a Woman-In-Armour among the group to deliver a well-placed cut & thrust followed by an flawlessly executed Mace-to-the-Face!

The cross-dressing item is a hot one in all living history and re-enactment groups in Europe. Everybody has their own solutions to the wish of ladies to be 'knights' or at least 'soldiers'. We, as a living history society in Holland also have our problems with this. As a rule we're not so military in character, but among the more military groups there are indeed a few girls who brandish the sword, axe or saex; the last as Viking warriors. In my understanding female fighters among the scandinavians have been documented, although they were rare indeed. There is one female 13th c knight in full kit (a.o. a great helm) and when she dons this, nothing suggests that she's female at all. It still makes me unsure, though, what to think of this. I've known her for ten years now and she's a good friend and it's not easy to snub her and say: sell your gear and dress appropriate to your sex. In fact I think it'll ruin our friendship.

On the other hand our society has started a re-enactment branch which is portraying a civic army group of the year 1300 with pikemen, 'goedendag'carriors and bowmen in a camp with tents, kitchen and craftmen's shelters, etc. In this group there will be women, as it's known that some of the wifes of the more simple citizens went along on these relatively short expeditions (mainly to lay siege to the castle or town of one of the count's enemies) to cook and wash and sew for their husbands and neighbours. There are stories that at sallies from the besieged places reaching the camp, these women fought the attackers as fanatically as the men did. They were not armoured (most of the men were lightly armed as well) but grabbed arms laying around to defend themselves and their possessions (including men and sons).
It's also known that feudal armies of the 11th to 14th c., that did not go too far from home, had large civilian trains, with among them female relatives of the fighters. The differences with the more sophisticated armies with payed soldiers, be it mercenaries or indentured men, is that they were more professional in character. Trains were composed of 'professional' men and women as well, who were even getting payed a fixed rate for every 'profession' in it. And what about the 'washerwomen' of the crusades? They were not to be messed with either.

In short; there were almost always women connected with armies in one way or another. Sometimes they fought as well or helped with the siege or the equipping of the men, but an important aspect always was, that they did not dress like the men and hardly ever armed themselves except for mayby donning a helmet or shield to protect themselves, or grab a pike or sword at times to defend themselves at a raid on the camp. I for one look upon this aspect of warfare as a worthwile part of an educational occasion, but shudder at the sight of women obviously dressed like men in a similar position. But this is personal, and my friend feels perfectly male in her knight's outfit.