Could Women Knights of theoretically beat Male Knights

>>2810739
No, physical strength still counts for something in melee combat.

>>2810739
>theoretically
I don't know who these people are.

>>2810739
Just try it

>>2810739
>Could of
Cmon man

No, the armor would block any attempted groin shots

>knight
Definitely not, there's a lot more physicality involved in a fight between two knights because of all the armor and what have you.

Now in an unarmored duel it's a different story, especially in later eras with smallswords and stuff since strength isn't as much of a factor.

In HEMA it's infrequent but common enough for women to beat men.

>>2810739
>they are using swords, so physical strength advantage that men have over women would be mute
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
GUNS is where physical strength matters less.
The first and last thing that matters with melee is physical strength.
In fact that is THE very reason men were the warriors and women were subjected in early history, because the men were the ones who could fight.

>>2810887
so are you saying the reason society became patriarchal was men had superior strength?

>>2810887
>women were subjected
Nice meme.

>>2810890
No its because women are stupid animals compared to men.

>>2810858
it would still matter much in an unarmored duel,stronger men would be able to swing the sword quicker than woman

>>2810890
Yes, that's how it starts, then the men make themselves tribal leaders, who become educators and educated, and it all diverges father and father part into divergent roles from there.
Not to over simplify, baby carrying for 9 months is a big deal and might be why way way back men evoled to be stronger anyways.
And lots of other stuff, but the martial class was going to be men, and the martial class became the leader/noble class over and over again in history
>>2810893
Don't confuse modern coddled women with historical mental maturity of women.

>... Knights of theoretically ...
>... would be mute
Fucking disgusting, OP, you illiterate millennial. Go back to grade school, learn how to spell words and what they mean.

File: hmm.jpg (32KB, 640x409px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x409px

>>2810739
>could (...) of
>this train of thought

you're looking for that other board, trust me

>>2810739
Yes of theoretically could beat of Male Knight, there is a kind of theoretically manuscript from Medieval Germany which shows man and women fighting in Duel of Honors where women wins. There is of also a picture of marriage duel where men is in a hole and women tries to beat a man with bag of rocks.

File: female-boxing.jpg (46KB, 426x312px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 426x312px

>>2810739
> Could Women Knights of theoretically beat Male Knights

While some woman can be sufficiently aggressive and physically strong enough to beat a man, the vast majority of women wouldn't stand a chance against even the average fat neckbeard here on 4chan.

>>2810739
Shitposting aside why is it that some people seem to think that someone who is something like 6 inches shorter and 40-60 pounds lighter than their opponent (before even getting into the advantages that having gone through male puberty and having normal male levels of testosterone) would stand any fucking chance in hand to hand combat?
Are we so divorced from physical activity and interpersonal struggle that people have lost all sense of perspective?

>>2811221
people think women and men are the same

>>2810739
Stamina is a big deal. Strength and reach less so. Relying on brute strength to overpower someone isn't highly effective, but it's incredibly unpleasant for the person taking the beating. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, go to the batting cages, choke all the way up on the bat, and hit a few balls at 70+ mph. There's a fair amount of women that do HEMA for fun, but I couldn't see many that would fight professionally when no matter how good you are, every person you ever fight can fall back to completely ruining your day. It's like going into nursing knowing that every single patient is going to shit their bed and you'll have to clean it up. Who would want such an awful fucking job?

>>2811231
But men are different physically. Playing any sort of team sport or just using your fucking eyes should be able to tell you just as much. Differences in strength/speed shouldn't necessarily lead to more or less rights or responsibilities, but ignoring them seems like a willful denial of reality.

File: art11.jpg (50KB, 482x600px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 482x600px

>>2810739
no you literal retard

A strong man swinging a sword will be more effective than a fucking woman

jesus Christ are you baiting or just fucking retarded

>>2810739
Having sex on the battlefield is a bad idea.

>>2811312
i don't understand what you are saying

>>2811314
Um no sorry we're equal to you, and in many cases superior. A society of all women would defeat a society of all mean in war. What you call reality is just the oppressive patriarchy.

File: 1479852970446.jpg (196KB, 733x826px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 733x826px

>>2811312
>It's like going into nursing knowing that every single patient is going to shit their bed and you'll have to clean it up

That is nursing though

>>2810739
They would just be raped

>>2810890
Strength is the basis of all power. That which can be taken by force generally will be subjugated by force. Any group which has more strength than another will dominate and enforce their will on less powerful groups. It's simply the path of least resistance.

Athenians:
>For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences- either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us- and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they canand the weak suffer what they must.

>>2811708
Yeah, no. It's like once a month. I'm talking about if it was twenty times a day.

>>2811499
Basically, being a woman in hand-to-hand combat is asking to have people shit all over you. It's not a good life.

>>2811534
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting

>>2810739

Okay, I'll take this seriously for a minute.

Are you asking 'would female knights have been a feasible concept', or 'could a woman with martial training kill a knight'?

If it's the latter, then yes, I suppose it's technically within the realm of possibility, though it would be very difficult. Kind of a boring question really.

If it's the former, then no. A medieval society that permitted girls to be trained as knights would be wasting a whole lot of time, blood and treasure on training a knight that will always be physically weaker. You can make the argument that a female knight would be no less pious, courageous or loyal, but it would be very difficult for a man to trust a female knight has the strength or stamina to have his back in a battle. Also remember that going to war involves a lot of physical activity such as riding for long periods or hunting and foraging for food.

That society would also be putting the next generation at risk. Having one or two children simply would not be acceptable in a time when it can be expected that at least a few of your offspring will die of disease or mishap. Whilst males inherit titles and the family name, it is the females that determine just how well that society is going to survive in future. It's all very well if you have a son to carry your name, but who will he marry if every noble's daughter in the land is becoming part of an increasingly over-represented statistic in female deaths by the sword? And even if a suitable match occurs, female knights are going to be viewed as very unreliable if they are often prevented from carrying out their martial duties due to pregnancy.

In short, female knights would be useless and nonsensical to a medieval society, and such a society would quickly disappear. You can debate all you want whether or not female knights could win a battle, but in the long run such a society would perish.

>>2811936
Indeed. Strength is Stamina spread out over time. Agility and speed are the reverse: Strength compressed.

>>2810739
We had another thread like this a couple of weeks ago. Is this going to be a meme now?
>women could theoretically win over men because of X
and then insert whatever possible reason for why men would be unsuitable/women would be suitable for combat

File: 33FF3E1000000578-3581954-image-a-33_1462847177540.jpg (58KB, 634x329px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 634x329px

Fighting in armor relies more on strength and stamina than skill at sword.

>>2810739
>could a blind soldier best a regular soldier
>they're using guns so vision would be mute