Did female warriors, like those often depicted in modern medieval fantasy, actually exist?

No.

I’ll try to cover several things misconceptions about women’s role in the military as they are portrayed in fantasy. Here we go!

Armor.

This is more of a general movie issue, but I think it’s more prominent in depictions of female warriors. They never wear a helmet or armor. In some sillier instances, they don’t even cover their abdomen and leave some cleavage. It may sound crazy, but armor did indeed serve a purpose. It saved lives.

Sure, most media has a visual element to it, even books. But it’s silly to think that anyone ever went into combat so unprotected and didn’t get massacred immediately.

Fighting.

Actresses in fantasy media are usually chosen for their good looks. While this makes them more pleasing to watch, it’s odd when a woman who’s 50 kg somehow beats up a man twice her size and twice her weight. Somehow a light swimwear model can hack into multiple armored soldiers without breaking a sweat. Humans aren’t made out of jelly.

Practicality.

Battle equipment is heavy. Let’s look back at Brienne from Game of Thrones. Many point at her as being one of the more realistic examples of a warrior woman given the height of the actress. And yet, it’s still rather silly. That armor would be pretty damn heavy, and I guess her tall and slender frame will make it harder to support the weight.

Knights were strong, but in reality, they didn’t carry their own armor. They employed a squire for that job, especially aristocrats like Brienne. I think there’s this segment in GoT where she wears her armor for a week while trekking across country with a hostage.

Now, how much sense does this make exactly? Real knights usually didn’t wear armor all the time, as it will get exhausting. Brienne doesn’t care. Is that because she’s a superhuman who can haul 15–20 kilos of armor for days and weeks? Or is it because she’s an actress in a fantasy show with little regard to realism?

Now let’s cover the whatabouts!

What about Joan of Arc?

Unlike the female warriors in fiction, Joan of Arc didn’t fight. She didn’t swing weapons at people or fire arrows. She was a symbol and a morale booster to the troops.

What about Boadicea, Artemisia, and so on?

You may hear that some queens or aristocrats had giant armies that were very effective in the field. This, however, doesn’t mean that they personally led troops. There are no accounts of women leading armies in the same way as a conventional military commander does. And even if they did, the role of a military commander isn’t always to directly fight in the battle, but to provide strategy and organization.

More often, the goal is to provide soldiers. Aristocrats have the duty to gather troops and serve the state. A soldier can be part of an army that technically fights in the service of a particular person, but said person doesn’t need to be the commander of that army. It’s similar to the President of the USA. The Donald doesn’t lead the US military or even give direct orders to the troops, yet he’s the commander-in-chief.

But what about the Onna-bugeisha ?

True enough, there was a practice to train women to use and maintain weapons. The onna-bugeishas, however, were support units which served as replacements in situations where there were no men. They had to defend their homes from bandits and troublemakers rather than fight in battles.

Nakano Takeko - Wikipedia

“Nakano had a kill count of 172 samurai.”

So, you expect me to believe that this 21-year-old woman killed more people with a spear than John Rambo did with a machine gun? Yeah, right. All we know about her is that she went off in the field, got overwhelmed, and kill herself. Hardly an effective warrior.

The Onna-bugeisha, just like the vast majority of women in combat, had supporting roles.

But what about viking shield-maidens?

There’s really no historical proof to back the existence of Norse female warriors as regular fighters. Most of the sources are from the sagas, which are heavily fictionalized and mythological stories. Citing them is equal to citing a Hollywood movie as historical proof.

The one convincing historical source of “Viking” women fighting was during the Battle of Dorostolon (present-day Silistra, Bulgaria), when the Byzantine army reportedly found female corpses among the defeated troops. But this battle happened after a severe siege and heavy fighting between the Kievan Rus’ vikings, their Bulgarian allies and the Byzantines. The battle was a last-ditch effort to break a siege before everyone starved to death, and that includes women.

In other words, it was a rare occurrence forced by a specific circumstance. One funny thing is that the dead female “Vikings” found in that battle could’ve been local Bulgarian women from Dorostolon rather than Norse Rus viking shield-maidens. I first heard of this story from my elementary school teacher who claimed it was proof that Bulgarian women were used in war just like men. 8-year-old me was skeptical.

But what about the Amazons of Dahomey?

I think I got at least 10 comments referencing them as a sort of “gotcha” moment, but it’s really not. We were talking about the female warrior archetype in medieval fantasy, which doesn’t include firearms. The Amazons of Dahomey existed from the 17th to the 19th century. And they were pretty ineffective, to be honest:

“Despite the compliments given to them by the Europeans, the Amazons were decisively crushed, with several hundred Dahomey troops being gunned down while 129 Dahomey were killed in melee combat within the French lines. The French lost 5 men killed and a few dozen wounded.”

From Wikipedia.

If anything, this example only proves how lacking women are at melee combat, only reinforcing my point further.

Another point is that many Amazons couldn’t integrate back into normal society, remaining loud “warriors” for the rest of their lives. It may prove that women have a harder time coping with stress of combat, though that’s hard to determine given how few women fought and survived actual war.

But what about the female snipers during WW2?

That’s hardly related to fantasy combat, which is mostly medieval melee, but still, the female soldiers in the Red Army are often an example that women can be just as effective in war as men. This is a bit of different animal, as Soviet snipping doesn’t rely on physical combat prowess, but on stealth and good shooting.

And even then (again), there’s a strongly distorted element to this. The Soviet Union wasn't exactly known for its honest press. Belarus, the Ukraine, and Russia lost so many men that the leadership had to look to draw recruits from women. Still, women in active combat positions were few. Their efficiency is doubtful and highly overstated by Soviet propaganda.

What was a desperate measure to pad out troops, similar to the Battle of Dorostolon, was presented as a fight for gender equality. It really wasn’t, as women still faced a lot of sexism and internal conflict within the Soviet military.

How did women participate in war then?

Make no mistake, women were essential for every single war effort in human history. First of all, they replenished soldiers:

"Why are you Spartan women the only ones who can rule men?"
"Because we are also the only ones who give birth to men."

(Also because Sparta was a hereditary aristocracy where your worth was based on your lineage rather than on merit, but that doesn’t sound as cool.)

One woman is worth much more than one man.

Practically speaking, it’s much more efficient for a war effort to let women stay at home and give birth to men, as Queen Gorgo states above. In the 25 years in which a man served in the Roman army, a woman could have 5–6 sons. That’s almost a contubernium, the smallest military unit in the Roman army. Much more formidable than a single woman, however well-trained and strong.

She’d also give birth to some daughters, who’d then give birth to more men, thus providing more troops. Women have the means of reproduction. Getting them killed in a war only means you’re losing dozens of potential soldiers in the long run.

Example:

• Tribe A - has 10,000 women. They stay behind in the settlement. On average, they all give birth to 3 sons. In 25 years, that tribe has 30,000 male soldiers.
• Tribe B - has 10,000 women. They use them in battle. Many die, the other ones don’t have time to give birth, as pregnant women aren’t fit to fight. In 25 years, they’ll have close to no new recruits. There’s nobody to take care of children, run households, cook, and so on, the society is barely functioning. Tribe A attacks with its 30,000 soldiers and kills Tribe B’s amazons, enslaves their surviving populace and so on.

Medical personnel.

This is an important task that was often carried out by women. Nursing soldiers back to health is just as crucial as fighting directly. These women kept armies functional and stocked with fresh meat for the war effort.

Aristocracy and troop command.

Chaaarge?

Going back to Sparta, Boadicea, and the aristocracy, many women who are seen as generals did indeed have armies under their names. But they didn’t command those armies directly. An aristocrat had to have some troops under his or her name, but the task could have been handled by a captain or a general in the case of the higher aristocracy. Many male rulers did it the same way.

Leading an army is demanding, especially in the ancient world. There’s a lot of shouting, riding, and frustration involved. It’s not a fun thing to do in most cases, and you can still get killed by a stray arrow or if your army loses.

Many of the female “commanders” in history inherited their posts after their husbands were killed and there was nobody else to take the mantle. In that case, the woman’s hereditary position is needed as means to gather up the troops. They are still under her command by right, as she still represents her husband and his family.

That’s what happened to Boadicea. Reportedly, her husband died and she had no male heir. That’s why Boadicea had to rule her kingdom. Her husband’s will was ignored by the Romans and she protected her title by rebelling. If she didn’t the Romans would have simply disposed of her.

Next time you see the word “female warrior” ask the following questions:

• Was she some sort of an aristocrat?
• Did she inherit her position?
• Is her existence based on myth or legend?
• Did she fight directly?
• Was it some last-ditch effort/last stand?
• Is there actual convincing proof of it happening?

If you answer these questions truthfully and with a critical eye, you’ll see that the female warriors of fantasy are just that - fantasy.

That’s all!

FINAL EDIT: Armor weight

I got another “but” in my comments about armor. I think that the critics assumed I thought armor was somehow impossible to wear for extended periods of time, which in my opinion was sort of a projection about common misconceptions of armor weight.

Yes, armor doesn’t limit mobility as much as some people expect. A knight can sprint, jump, fight, do the dishes, all without getting out of their full plate armor.

However, moving around with 10–20 kilograms of armor will wear you down, no matter well-placed the weight is. No, knights, especially nobles, didn’t just stay in armor for weeks like Brienne does, and certainly didn’t do it while crossing an entire continent and dragging a tied prisoner.