Just Finished Reading: Amazons – The Real Warrior Women of the Ancient World by John Man (FP: 2017) [273pp]
Just like the Ancient Greeks, I have long been fascinated by stories of Amazons. Even today women in combat roles can seem odd or even wrong but to the Greeks they seemed positively bizarre. The norm of Greek society at that time was that women stayed at home – they were either daughters or wives. The idea of them riding horseback in armour, complete with bow or spear and (incredibly) not only fighting but besting male warriors was somewhere between obscene and deeply alluring. The word ‘Amazon’ was full of negative meaning and was not used in a positive way – quite the opposite. Yet, the Greeks kept coming back to the idea even incorporating Amazons into several of their founding myths.
We know now of course that the mythical race of Amazons were just that – a myth. But, the author argues, they did have at least some basis in fact. Several tribes in East Asia – most notably the Scythians – did indeed use female warriors on horseback to great effect. Why, after all, relegate up to half of your available force to the kitchen and the hearth when they can ride and use a bow just as well as their male counterparts? Such a practical use of resources was well outside the Greek experience. Archaeological evidence exists in abundance (once unthinking sexist assumptions about the gender of interned skeletons had been challenged) for celebrated female warriors throughout Asia. This idea was so powerful that the myth of the Amazons lasted long after the Greek civilisation that gave it birth had fallen. The land of the Amazons continued to be looked for and continued to remain just over the next mountain range or beyond the next forest. Both the Amazon River and the state of California bare the mark of the Amazon myth. Real-life ‘amazons’ have indeed existed though with examples of massed female troops in Africa, female fighter and bomber squadrons in Soviet Russia during World War 2 (the fabled ‘Night Witches’ amongst them) and the Kurdish female fighters in Syria and elsewhere.
Probably the most interesting chapter for me – especially as I am no fan of the present Superhero genre – was on Wonder Woman herself (that’s ignoring the short chapter addressing the ‘missing’ breast issue). I knew something of her comic creation but had no idea about the strange life of her creator and how his interests in both feminism and bondage produced the hero we know today. It was all very illuminating and so much about Diana Prince makes total sense now. I’ll be following up that particular thread in a book already on my Wish List – watch this space!
Overall, this was an interesting and often fascinating read of how a myth (or misunderstanding) became such a powerful idea in Western culture and survived largely intact to the present day. Although it wasn’t exactly what I was expecting – as it wasn’t exclusively concentrated on the Ancient World – this was still a fun and very informative read. If you’ve ever wondered about the Amazons or about Wonder Woman herself, this is definitely the book for you. Recommended and more to come on this intriguing subject.
[Labels Added: 0, Labels Total: 55]
6 comments:
Why relegate half your force? Because prior to rifles and the like, women were both far less effective in any combat scenario than men, being as men are literally sexually evolved for physical force, and because if a random man died, that was merely a man dying: if a woman died, so too did any children she might have borne. Sperm are cheap, eggs are dear.
That aside, armed & uniformed women are indeed attractive.
Sure, swinging a sword to good effect takes strength... but firing a gun or pulling a *reasonable* strength bow string? Anyone can pull a trigger.... or push a button/use a joy-stick. Certainly in modern times - say post-1918 and definitely post-1945 the sex/gender of the combatants is pretty much irrelevant.
Pulling a gun is easy peasy, but not a bowstring. Depends on the bow, of course. Medieval bowmen on the longbow would practice their entire lives long to built not only the aiming skill, but the requisite arm strength for the draw weight. Definitely disagree that sex is irrelevent to combat, even in the 21st century. Women in danger distract men, and they still have the operational liabilities of menstruation and pregnancy. Both can be countered with medications, but disruptions still happen with regularity. Putting women in combat is civilizational suicide, but that's the postwest's religion these days -- hating itself and willing itself to die.
@Stephen - Alexievich's The Unwomanly Face of War completely changed how I thought about women in combat and female strength. There was much in the book I disagreed with (e.g. the idolatrous level of patriotism), but I can't recommend it highly enough for an alternate perspective. Theirs was a war of self-defense, to be sure - but shouldn't that be all wars? Conscription and our constant stationing overseas, in places far from our borders, should be eliminated wholesale.
As for rape and pregnancy, staying at home is no sure safety - pretty much all modern warfare involves attacks upon civilians. This is why I don't have a problem with women electing to join combat, ideally in all-female units. Getting killed in combat could be no worse a fate than many civilian women of the past have had to endure.
@ Stephen: It does indeed depend on the bow. The Longbow is about 150lbs draw. Composite bows used on horseback start at around 50-80lbs. I've heard talk regarding male soldiers taking high risks to save female soldiers but there's probably equal evidence of soldiers taking risks to save friends. I don't think its significant enough not to allow women in combat. I also don't think periods preclude women in combat. Obviously pregnant women shouldn't be fighting but there's plenty of other roles they can take once the pregnancy is discovered. The spearpoint tends to be quite small in comparison to the supporting structure.
I'm really not sure how putting a very small percentage of women in combat situations can be viewed as anything close to "civilizational suicide". I would suggest that FAR more women would be killed in bomb or missile attacks on cities than would die on the front line. Even in a Total War the percentage of the population in combat units is very small in comparison to support units or the civilian population.
As to the "post-West's" religion of hate and death (I'm intrigued where you get *that* idea!) I think it's quite the reverse. The amount of self-love out there is staggering as is the cult of youth and staving off death as long as humanly possible.
@ Marian: I'll see if I can squeeze 'Unwomanly Face' in at some point this year. Conscription as an idea in peacetime seems very strange - especially these days. I can understand it during the world wars when millions of troops were needed to fight, but today? Apart from the fact that I don't think they'd need that many bodies I don't think a modern western population would stand for it.
Modern war means that everywhere is the front line. There are no safe spaces or safe places for anyone - including women. When missiles can reach anywhere - just look at Ukraine - you're probably just as likely to die in your bed as in combat (OK, not *just* as likely but its nowhere like being in danger *or* being safe). Apparently all female units work well - including having female officers in charge. They work really well in Kurdish areas and the women fighters have proven themselves repeated to be highly effective.
Post a Comment