Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Fellfrosch on February 14, 2005, 10:09:14 PM
-
To continue our parlance from elsewhere on the board.
-
I personally like neither Belle nor Cinderella. Jasmine is pretty cool, but Mulan is definitely a much stronger character.
-
I think Belle is a little creapy because of her love of Furries.
-
Diney?
Hahahahaha.
For some reason that makes me laugh and think of dinosaurs.
-
It should be noted about mulan is based on a chinese poem and legend...
http://www.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/elejeune/mulan.htm
-
I know that. The legend makes Mulan even COOLER.
-
Yeah, I think Mulan was a way for them to branch out culturally in their revisioning of fairy and folk tales. Pocahontas was an attempt at that, but received quite a bit of backlash after a time, and I think Mulan was more well-done in reflecting the culture of the time and the legend it's referencing.
One thing that we talked about in folklore class last week after watching Cocteau's version of Beauty and the Beast is that though it's quite popular in the folktale scene right now to protest "Disneyfication," Disney actually does a pretty good job of sticking to the spirit of the tales. I wish I could remember what my friend Laura said about that, because it was good. It was in the context of the form of the tales--we've been studying Max Luthi, who argues that one of the main reasons folk tales are so fascinating is their structure. Folk tales have a definite form that's different from any other style of storytelling--plot-driven, flat characters, etc. Luthi argues that it is this flat style that brings to life a number of things, that it's an abstract form of storytelling, outlining the characters in stark contrast from each other and their surroundings, with no past or future, externalizing all emotions and motives--goodness is shown in actions, not emotive description, if that makes sense.
I'm veering away from Disney, though. I forget how it relates to Disney. But it does.
-
The problem with Pocohontas is that they decided to veer away from the legend and create a new story, one that was poorly written and insipid. As a Virginian and a history buff it made me pretty mad
-
Mulan bugs me. Not so much the idea of Mulan, but how Disney subtly mocked Chinese culture and tradition in their rendition. As I see it, they trounced over Chinese culture, infusing western ideals into Mulan to make it more palatable for American audiences.
And I would have to say that I'm not a huge fan of Disney's Belle. She does come off as having a bit of an entitlement problem in my view.
So maybe I'm just not very underdtanding of modern feminism. Cause I think Cinderella is a great character. I don't see her as being passive at all. She's patient and enduring. She makes the best of a bad situation and when an oppurtunity comes for her to make things better she takes it without stepping on other people. I see her as being passively proactive.
-
The problem with Cinderella is that the only way she changes things in her life is by getting married. It goes back to the myth that you find a man and everything is happily ever after. It's simply not true, but a lot of girls believe it is.
Not that I think Belle or Mulan are the answer...they're kind of on the other extreme. I wonder if we couldn't have a heroine who hits the happy medium. Oh well.
-
Cinderella changes her life by having hope and faith that things will get better. She also optimisticly looks for the good in her situation. Yes she is abused, but she doesn't really give in to the abuse.
And to be fair, marriage (to the right person) does make things better for a lot of people (men and women). Getting married is suppose to be a happy thing, representive of bettering one's life.
-
Disney's Cinderella does have a great outlook. She stays happy even though things aren't going the way she would have planned. I like that about her.
And I'm not arguing that marriage isn't supposed to make you happy. It's the idea that marriage is the end of all your problems that bothers me. In the family life class I TA for we talk about how one of the top five things that cause problems in marriage is unrealistic expectations. Girls actually grow up believing that marriage means happily ever after, and so they throw themselves at men to save them from their lives. It simply doesn't work. You have to be able to solve your own problems, and then you can have a worthwhile, happy, life-bettering relationship.
-
Yes, what she said.
I actually have always loved the Cinderella story and most of the variants that have come out in recent years. Some of the movie versions haven't been so good, but a lot of the books have been wonderful. If you want a great Cinderella retelling, read Ella Enchanted. Do NOT watch the movie, however--ick.
Along with that, I've always loved Disney's Cinderella. I actually don't think she's completely passive--she is pretty good about actively subverting her stepmother, actually, with making her own dress. It's not passive to get locked up in an attic. What I do love about Ella Enchanted, though, that Disney doesn't do, is that all the way up to the end, Ella has to be a part of her own salvation. The prince is a part of it, too, but Ella is an active participant all the way up to the very end.
My beef with the passive protagonist is actually more with Sleeping Beauty and Snow White. Now, I don't know what's more passive than falling asleep till the prince wakes you with a kiss.
-
here's my problem with the "only way" argument.
If she had been able to escape the abuse and find a better life through some other method, say, running away and becoming a madame. Would you have argued that the films is saying "the only way she could improve her life is by becoming a madame?" Or if she had killed the ESM and blamed the ESS (Evil Step-sisters), would you say the premise of the movie is that crime is the only way to improve her life.
The film/story has to have SOME way for her to improve her life. They chose marriage. Because a) that has more appeal and is more child friendly than most other options and b) because in the middle ages, it WAS the only way to improve your situation. That's the way the social structure worked. Deal. However, just because her reward for maintaining her patience, cheerfulness, faith, and kind heartedness is true love, an increase in social status, and increase in economic status, and escape from an abused life, it does NOT follow that the film argues that marriage is the ONLY way to do so.
-
My beef with the passive protagonist is actually more with Sleeping Beauty and Snow White. Now, I don't know what's more passive than falling asleep till the prince wakes you with a kiss.
to be fair, at least in Snow White's case, the reason she's in a position to be rescued at all is because of her noble character, and her actively making friends and doing things that will earn her friendships. It's not directly related to her salvation, but imagine a Snow White who hadn't cleaned the dwarves home, but had simply taken their food and laid around. Would they have kept her in? Unlikely. Thus when the queen found her, she'd have died, having no protection.
Sleeping Beauty I have no argument for. She's nice and all, but she's pretty much a victim. Everything happens to her. Her salvation has little if anything to do with what she does, and likewise her predicament is the result of enmity her father earned. That story would be much more interesting, I think, from the prince's perspective, esp the Disney version. You can see him falling in love, hunting her out, fighting the dragon. Yeah.
-
They chose marriage. Because a) that has more appeal and is more child friendly than most other options and b) because in the middle ages, it WAS the only way to improve your situation. That's the way the social structure worked. Deal. However, just because her reward for maintaining her patience, cheerfulness, faith, and kind heartedness is true love, an increase in social status, and increase in economic status, and escape from an abused life, it does NOT follow that the film argues that marriage is the ONLY way to do so.
Hmmm arguing as Devils advocate...
that seems a little harsh Saint,... especially when your argument kind of falls down about the ways she could have improved her station. She didn have to be a criminal to beat the situation. Running a way to become a prostitute and muder were hardly the best examples to use. Cinderella can exert some independence and take steps toward her own salvation without becoming a criminal. This is where I think the movie Ever After improves on the Disney story,... turning Cinderella from a "mentally abused shut in" in to a whole girl who deals with her stepmother on her own or at least manuvers her into her own punishment. I think the reason the girls have a problem with marriage as a solution to problems is that the movie pretty obviously states that if you are perfectly good and kind you will be rescued by a prince. While I know you think a more willful Cinderella would have been bad, teaching a child that abuse needs to be confronted and not simply taken would have been a better lesson. What the movie leaves us with is a terrible lesson to teach young girls, take the abuse given to you and wait to be rescued.
-
note: Cinderella is only physically abused once. When she has her dress torn up -- she is ganged up on by 2 people, with more watching. She really can't do anything else. Where would she go? To the castle? Where they see hundreds of people in similar circumstances begging everyday. Live on the street? At least she has clothes, bedding, food, and friends where she is.
I don't find my examples harsh. I didn't mean for them to be an exhaustive list of all possible solutions, which was kind of the point of my argument. You would never argue those were her ONLY recourse, but if the solution is marriage, suddenly we say that the movie claims it IS the only solution. That kind of reasoning doesn't make any sense to me.
I also want to note that the protagonist of Ever After doesn't really do anything more than Disney's Cinderella does. If the prince hadn't decided he wanted to marry her, she'd still be screwed. Yeah, yeah, she got away from that creepy duke guy. HOw long would that last? He had a legal claim, and his lackeys would have been able to capture her before she was out of the courtyard if the prince hadn't shown up. It's just a different personality type.
I think you're too specific in saying that the message is "be good and your prince will come." Unless you take the prince metaphorically. I think the message is more: if you're good, ACTIVELY good, not just meek and obedient, then a way out will be created.
Cinderella was commiting an act of defiance just by going to the ball. She had no way of knowing that she wouldn't be recognized. In fact, she was very much in danger of being recognized if the ESM had gotten a closer look. It was only the change of clothes that made her not instantly recognizable. Had the ESM realized who she was, she would have probably been locked up a whole lot sooner. She was out there defying the abuse. Had she not gone, she would have not met hte prince, and thus no way out. I'm not claiming she's as active as others, but she's not sitting around on her butt taking the abuse like everyone seems to imply she is.
In fact, her only fault, that I can see, is that she's too trusting that others will keep their word.
-
I've always wanted to do a version of Sleeping Beauty from the Prince's perspective, because I think it's the most fascinating angle on the story. The discovery of the 100-year-old sleeping castle would be incredible. The problem with the Disney version is that they tell it from the fairies point of view, which turns every other character (including the prince) into a victim. Sleeping Beauty herself only has one scene with any dialogue--that's why I don't list her among the weak Disney heroines, because I don't consider her to be a heroine. They make her a side note to her own story.
-
I think it's interesting that in the Grimm version of Sleeping Beauty, many many princes try to get to the castle and die. The final prince just happens to be walking by when 100 years is up, and the thorns turn into flowers. He goes in, sees some hot chick lying there asleep, kisses her, and they live happily ever after. That's pure heroism.
-
But then, of course, there's Basile's version, which is the earliest known recorded version, in which the king (not a prince) rapes Sleeping Beauty while she's asleep, and she wakes up to find herself pregnant with twins to a man who's already married. Turns out his wife is an ogre who wants to eat the children of the mistress (gee, I wonder why she's mad?). Etc. etc.
It's called Sun, Moon, and Talia: http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/pentamerone/29sunmoontalia1911.html.
-
Yes, but that version was written as an adult story. Sort of like a thriller with botice ripping elements is today.
I don't think that Ever After is a good example of a Cinderella story. It's the best example I've ever seen of feminism out of control. What one thing did the prince ever do for Danielle? NOTHING. He was a helpless, whiney sap. That in itself doesn't bother me, but why would Danielle ever fall in love with him? He's like this lost puppy that she has to take care of. And that seems to be the message that femi-nazis are trying to put forth: Men are useless, and complete ancillary. It is entirely untrue. In a healthy relationship there is give and take on both sides. A husband is not just someone that you dress and feed and make babies with. He listens to you, he comforts you, he helps you be a better you than you could be without him.
Now I will agree that Disney's Cinderella doesn't really show any side of the prince, but I don't think that was the point of the movie. The point was to show children that selflessness is rewarded. Being adult means that we need to realize that those rewards don't come in the fantastic forms of fairy-godmothers. That's why it's called fiction. Not everyone in the world matures at the same rate they age, but you can't blame that on a movie. That type of individual is going to have unrealistic expectations with the movie or without.
If you look at Sleeping Beauty, it seems that the story is about the faeries (good and bad), not the humans. The battle between good and evil, with the humans as the prizes. So the fact that Aurora doesn't really do anything to affect her situation is not surprising, since the battle is being fought on a different playing field.
-
the only good thing to come out of sleeping Beauty is Malificent... a truely evil villain...
And MOD's avatar... :)
-
And I disagree that Ever After was an example of feminism out of control... male characters in it were very strong,... Take Divinci for example, and her father... the point isnt that the prince is kind of weak(which is a debateable point), but that she loves him for who he is, and he doesnt have to be a typical male stereotype, just like she doesnt have to be a helpless damsel.
Granted cinderella is a tough story to begin with, but still...
Im surprised that Disney never touched Rose Red with a ten foot pole... a story where the female character isnt obsessed with getting married.
-
Ignoring the whole cartoon girls angle...
What would you say would be a strong female protagonist who wasn't simply being male? I mean, obviously stuff like Eowyn - assuming the role of the man within the society and riding to war - is male, but what about using weapons? The ancient scythians had entire parts of their armies being women. Is it when they pretend they are a guy, wrapping their breasts and so on? (Like in the liveships series, by robin hobb.) I'm just wondering, since it seems that unless the woman spends her time staggering around acting weak or cleaning things, that she is trying to be a man.
Ian Irvine's series had a number of strong female characters, some of which were accomplished fighters. The difference between them and some of the men (the main male character was moderately pathetic outside of his limited abilities) was basically how they spoke, their reasons. But most of the discussion so far here has focussed on actions, either active or passive.
-
Entropy, that's something I've been trying to puzzle out myself. Even though I'm not partial to the Sleeping Beauty tale, I actually like the fairies in the Disney version because they are really good examples of women being heroines and women at the same time. They don't eschew their femininity to win. That's not a complete answer, though, and I'll have to come back to it.
On the subject of Ever After, I loved that movie when it first came out. It was our apartment movie, and we watched it over and over. The more I watched it, though, the more I've come to really be annoyed by the prince's character. I agree with MoD--he doesn't do a whole lot. Including listen to her when she's obviously all worked up and trying to tell him something important. And the whole "my father was an excellent swordsman, he taught me well" thing? Um, he died when she was eight. Some things in the movie just don't connect. There are a number of things that bother me about that movie, and the prince is just one of them. I do admire how he changes over the course of the story, learning to take responsibility for his princely duties, but as a counterpart to Danielle, they only have a few brief interludes, and the more I think about it the less I feel their relationship is very deeply grounded.
As far as Sun, Moon, and Talia being written for an adult audience, yes and no. Folk and fairy tales were considered either family stories for young and old, or they were, as you say, for adults. Fairy tales being the province of the young is a very recent phenomenon. You might be interested to know that even Grimm was not intended to be just children's stories--the name of the collection is "Tales for Young and Old"--Haus und Kindermarchen. But they did clean up the tales considerably compared to their predecessors.
-
and the more I think about it the less I feel their relationship is very deeply grounded.
but its not like cinderella and her prince have a deep relationship either...
-
However there are still enough blood and guts to surprise and perhaps even interest teenagers.
Malificent, in my opinion, is the coolest cartoon villian ever. She's also the best animated dragon I've ever had the priviledge of watching.
Ent, my feelings on the female fighting thing is that I can only stand so many stories where the female character must turn her back on being female in order to make a difference. I enjoy reading about female warriors where the society is structured in that way (Wrede's Cilhar are a good example). I have a hard time accepting a female weilding a Claymor (sp?), but there are other ways to fight that do not rely so heavily on straight muscle.
-
Claymores actually arent that heavy...
the real historical claymores in the royal armories in Britain only weigh 3 or 4 pounds... many even weigh less.
heres a good article about the really big two handers...
http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html
-
Just thought of another cartoon diva, but I am not sure if it was a "diney" character.
Jessica Rabbit from Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Any thoughts?
-
We can't blame her for anything Nicydamus, she's just drawen that way.
-
10 points to Spriggan
-
Just thought of another cartoon diva, but I am not sure if it was a "diney" character.
Jessica Rabbit from Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Any thoughts?
She should have won that poll.
-
Oh she did...
-
That doesn't change the fact that I have a hard time accepting a female character weilding one. They are long if nothing else and that takes more strength to swing than a smaller sword of the same weight if only because of the increased surface area and therefore air resistance.
Thank you for the article. I'm going to enjoy reading it.
-
The fairies in Sleeping Beauty are pretty strong female characters--I hadn't thought of that.
The strongest woman I've ever read in a novel, who stayed completely "female" the whole time, was in Mama Day. That had a few, actually.
-
and for more reason than that, actually, the length of an object means that the weight furthest from where it is held requires more strength to lift. Spinning weight is even more, and while that's not directly analogous to swinging it, the swinging certainly adds a lot more inertia.
I'm not a physicist or a biologist/physician, so I don't know how easy/difficult even a light weapon of that size would be to weild.
-
MoD, when swinging a sword the edge is tapered down to a point. In other words, they are aero-dynamic by default.
And remember women in the army will be expected to run around with 20, 30 pounds worth of equipment at least - their supplies and equipment plus a rifle if they have one. Tents, water canteens, cooking and survival gear - it all adds up. Modern soldiers carry a lot more than medieval soldiers did, since they carry the stuff that used to be taken around in the wagon trains.
-
I dunno, Ent, I'd still have to talk with someone who actually did it. Or else SEE a woman fight successfully with a Claymore. For several reasons.
1) swiging a large sword is a very different kind of muscle strength than the endurance of carrying a load. If you don't think so, I challenge you to do 50 reps with 150 pound curls. After you've rested, try carrying a 150 pound weight for fifteen minutes. Both will probably make you tired, esp if you're not used to it, but the reps will wear those muscles out more. You'll also find that the aches are in completely different parts of your body.
2) There's the whole going up against men thing. A claymore isn't a delicate, stylized weapon, whatever the weight. It's a club with a cutting edge. That means it's strength against strength. And as Skar has pointed out before most women will lost against most men in such a contest. The shock of blocking blows alone will wear them down eventually, leaving them less capable of blocking more. This is the sort of fight where women would be inherently less capable.
3) It's not as much of a factor as MoD pointed out, but because it's aerodynamic does not ELIMINATE air resistance. And as a bigger object, it's going to have more air resistance than a smaller object of similar design.
-
The article disagrees with your 'club with a cutting edge' thing SE.
And again: A woman who pushes to become physically fit could concievably have equal strength as many opponents.
-
But her time would be far better spent training to emphasize her inherent strengths(or rather equalities) rather than weaknesses. Such as speed and ruthlessness. I suspect that women can be just as fast as men...
Though thinking about the difference in 100 meter sprint times between men and women and the fact that women ping-pongers don't compete with men ping-pongers leads me to doubt it now that I think about it.
...and speed of hand carries a great deal of importance in all hand-to-hand combat. A speedy and skilled opponent can beat an unskilled and slow but very strong opponent. Of course, everyone knows this and if a woman were to go into battle expecting to fight only very strong, slow, and unskilled opponents she would soon be shockingly disabused of the notion.
-
except that she's up against opponents who have also trained, and therefore would also have reached higher levels of strength. Given the relative capacities for strength, my point still stands.
as for the article disagreeing with me "where they would hack paths through knocking aside poles, possibly even lobbing the ends off opposing halberds and pikes then slashing and stabbing among the ranks" sounds like they're mostly swinging it around.
The picture of the guy actually stabbing with it shows a man with no guard up. This technique would be used against a man who is not prepared to strike back soon. ie, it wouldn't be something used when fighting against an armed and mobile opponent. The opponent would have to be disarmed (or had his spear knocked aside, as in the above quote, then the attacker moving inside the spear's effective striking area) before the stabbing part could come into play.
The closest I can see to that article "disagreeing" with me is this quote: "the late 15th and early 16th century two-handed greatsword was not a crude excessively heavy bludgeoning weapon but a fairly agile and balanced weapon designed for close-combat in war and occasional duel."
Which it doesn't really. My comparison implies the crude and heavy bit, but that's not the important part of the comparison. What I was really saying is that it was used as a swinging weapon. You can argue about the skill and finesse it can be used with, but compare it to say, a rapier, and your argument is gone. Relatively speaking, it isn't as graceful or accessable to fighters with less strength.
-
it also says that they were used as pole arms too... so thats not club like either... but we're getting off target
-
The strongest woman I've ever read in a novel, who stayed completely "female" the whole time, was in Mama Day. That had a few, actually.
One of the things I liked about that book was that I don't think the male character was weak either, which is usually what happens when an author tries to write strong female characters. You end up with stereotype reversal rather than avoidance.
-
Such as what happened in Ever After. But I agree, Mama Day managed to have strong characters of both genders. I was impressed.
-
Gloria Naylor is just altogether awesome. What impressed me most about the book was the things she did with point of view. Amazing stuff.
Have you read anything else by her? I tried reading Bailey's Cafe, but couldn't get through it, cause the misery was just too graphic. I'm wondering if all her other stuff is so painful.
-
So you would never use a pole arm to bludgeon someone?
It is interesting to discover that a claymore ranged in weight between 5-7 lbs, it doesn't really affect my point. I don't see a woman carrying around a claymore as a strong female character, more like a male character with a female profile.
/me adds Mama Day to her list
-
3-4 pounds... :D
and pole arms are primarily stabbing weapons,... more reach and all that. You could use it to bludgeon, but you know.
-
stabbing with most pole arms doesn't make sense. Show me a reference if I'm wrong, but it seems that a halbard, having an axe head, wouldn't be stabbing. a lot had points added later, but why would it have an axe head if you were just going to stab with it?
-
They were often used to push people away with the side of the long haft, which is why they are often shown as fantasy cops weapons - easy to do crowd control.
And every halberd I have seen has 2 or 3 weapon edges/points, so I imagine it was used in a sort of mix of stabbing and chopping.
-
3-4 pounds... :D
and pole arms are primarily stabbing weapons,... more reach and all that. You could use it to bludgeon, but you know.
uhm... from what I read on that page, 3-4 pounds didn't sound very typical
"weighing something of the order of 5-8 lbs/2.3-3.6 kg."
"Dr. Lee Jones possesses a very fine specimen of a 16th century German two-handed great sword, that this author had the privilege of exercising outdoors with, had length in excess of five feet and a weight of 7.9 pounds (3490g)"
" this author also had the privilege of examining, as weighing only a little over 8 pounds"
"The fighting two-handed sword, weighed (on average) between 5-7 lbs. I give the following three examples, randomly chosen from our own collections, which I hope are adequate to make the point:
Two-handed sword, German, c.1550 (IX.926). Weight: 7 lb 6oz.
Two-handed sword, German, dated 1529 (IX.991). Weight: 5 lb 1oz.
Two-handed sword, Scottish, mid 16th century, (IX.926). Weight: 5 lb 10oz"
"This (a much larger sword all round) still only weighs a mere 7 lbs. 4 oz."
And many more. The vast majority of the swords int he example are over 5 pounds. A few go as high as 10 pounds. That means more than 3-4.
-
Ten is higher than four? No wonder I failed math!
-
I like to state the obvious for the second kind of math major.
-
except as I read this quote kind of mitagates much of that
"Note that unlike ceremonial specimens, none of the fighting weapons exceeded 4 pounds and the heaviest ceremonial was less than 11. The catlog of the famous arsenal in Graz, Austria, contains similar weights for its two-handed great sword specimen"
-
I wonder how much a longsword weights? I know that 2handers were made with thin, flexible blades so that they could be 'wobbled' around enemy swords, much like the chinese Tai Chi sword. But I don't think that shorter weapons, longswords shortswords etc, did that. That would indicate that the weight different wouldn't be that huge, but i'm no expert :)
-
Then the article is self-contradicting, because many of the examples were fighting swords, and almost all of them were over 4.
-
I think the part you were referencing was actually citing an example of someone talking about Victorian copies of 2 handers which are substantially heavier
othe examples in the article are like this one
ARMA consultant Henrik Andersson of the Livrustkammaren, Swedish Royal Armoury of Stockholm, provides a table with the following measurements on two-handed and greatswords in the collection there. The author and his colleagues have handled several of these pieces:
Two-handed sword. No: LRK 13639.
Swedish, c1658
Length: 1010 mm (39.7 inches)
Blade: 862 mm (33.9 inches)
Weight: 1735 g (3.47 pounds)
Ceremonial Two-handed sword. No: LRK 5666.
Swedish, c1658.
Length: 1025 mm (40.3 inches)
Blade: 933 mm (36.7 inches)
Weight: 1590 g (3.18 pounds)
Two-handed sword. No: LRK 12959.
Solingen, Early 17th century.
Length: 1350 mm (56.2 inches)
Blade: 961 mm (37.8 inches)
Weight: 3010 g (6.2 pounds)
Two-handed sword. No: LRK 16660.
German, 17th century.
Length: 1428 mm ( inches)
Blade: 1048 mm ( inches)
Weight: 2730 g (5.46 pounds)
Two-handed sword. No: LRK 16662.
German, Late 16th century.
Length: 1790 mm (70.4 inches)
Blade: 1250 mm (49.2 inches)
Weight: 4630 g (9.26 pounds)
One-and -a-half-handed sword. No: LRK 10972.
Southern German, c1550.
Length: 1252 mm ( inches)
Blade: 1019 mm ( inches)
Weight: 1500 g (3 pounds)
Two-handed sword. No: LRK 12947.
German, 16th century.
Length: 1185 mm (46.6 inches)
Blade: 954 mm (37.5 inches)
Weight: 1240 g (2.48 pounds)
Two-handed sword. No: LRK 12667.
German, 16th century.
Length: 1225 mm (48.2 inches)
Blade: 904 mm (35.5 inches)
Weight: 1310 g (2.62 pounds)
One-and -a-half-handed sword. No: LRK 12913.
Probably German, c. 1350
Length: 1170 mm (46 inches)
Blade: 829 mm (32.6 inches)
Weight: 1280 g (2.56 pounds)
Two-handed sword. No: LRK 12716.
German, c1500.
Length: 1340 mm (52.7 inches)
Blade: 955 mm (37.6 inches)
Weight: 1390 gr\ (3 lbs)
One-and -a-half-handed sword. No: LRK 12711.
German, c1475-1525.
Length: 1153 mm (45.3 inches)
Blade: 932 mm (36.6 inches)
Weight: 1320 g (2.9 lbs)
Ceremonial Two-handed sword. No: LRK 6362.
German (probably Passau) c1600.
Length: 1275 mm (50.1 inches)
Blade: 1000 mm (39.37inches)
Weight: 2330 g (5.1 lbs)
Ceremonial Two-handed sword. No: LRK 16370.
German. Late 16th century.
Length: 1422 mm (55.9 inches)
Blade 1029 mm (40.5 inches)
Weight: 2700 g (5.9 lbs)
Ceremonial Two-handed sword. No: LRK 6956.
Brunswick type. German. Late 16th century.
Length: 1893 mm (74.5 inches)
Blade: 1313 mm (51.7 inches)
Weight: 4830 gr (10.6 lbs)
Ceremonial Two-handed sword. No: LRK 6941.
Brunswick type. German. Late 16th century.
Length: 1817 mm (71.5 inches)
Blade: 1240 mm (48.8 inches)
Weight: 3970 g (8.75 lbs)
Ceremonial Two-handed sword. No: LRK 16371.
Brunswick type. Munich, c1550-1575.
Length: 1643 mm (64.7 inches)
Blade: 964 mm (37.9 inches)
Weight: 3500 g (7.7 lbs)
Two-handed sword. No: LRK 12706.
German. Late 15th century.
Length: 1473 mm (58 inches)
Blade: 1066 mm (41.9 inches)
Weight: 2720 g (5.9 lbs)
Two-handed sword. No: LRK 12715.
German, c1475-1525.
Length: 1382 mm (54.4 inches)
Blade: 1055 mm (41.5 inches)
Weight: 1550 g (3.4 lbs)
Two-handed sword. No: LRK 5480.
Germany, 15th century.
Length: 1375 mm (54.2 inches)
Blade: 920 mm (36.2 inches)
Weight: 1600 g (3.5 lbs)
-
yes, and if you read that list you'll see very many over 5 lbs and some of them around 10 lbs.
edit: I rechecked my quotes. Not a single one of them refers to replicas.
It's still not that heavy, but they are certainly on the average, more than 3-4 lbs.
-
I can't believe how amusing it is to read this pointless conversation.
-
yeah I double checked too... and your right... howeverl there are plenty of 3 lb 2 handers listed also so to say that it has to be a 7 pound sword is kind of lame too.
So this Disney Heroine... Lets call her Joan of Arc
(yeah like that'll happen) weilds a 2 handed sword it could still be light.
I guess it still doesnt answer the question of why people think its out of character for a woman to hold a sword, or why that has to be a feminist POV. While history may not be repleate with women warriors the few exceptions like the Real Mulan, Bonny Reed, Joan of Arc, and the army of Queen Boudicca of which The Roman historian Plutarch described a battle in 102 B.C. between Romans and Celts: "the fight had been no less fierce with the women than with the men themselves... the women charged with swords and axes and fell upon their opponents uttering a hideous outcry."
Romans may be our best source for the capabilities of women in combat
A Roman author, Ammianus Marcellinus, describes Gaullish wives as being even stronger than their husbands and fighting with their fists and kicks at the same time "like missiles from a catapult".
Howevr they are not our only sources...some examples of women in combat from the 16th century include
In 1568, two sisters, Amaron and Kenau Hasselaar, led a battalion of 300 women who fought on the walls and outside the gates to defend the Dutch city of Haarlem against a Spanish invasion.
Marguerite Delaye lost an arm fighting in the battle which lifted the siege of Montelimar in 1569.
In 1584 a group of Dutch and English volunteers recaptured the city of Ghent from the Spanish. One of the volunteers was Captain Mary Ambree.
Tomoe Gozen captured the city of Kyoto in Japan in 1584 after winning the Battle of Kurikawa. She was described as being a strong archer and excellent swordswoman.
While I cited a lot of 16th century examples, there are plenty of examples before and after that I could have chosen.
Women for instance made up a signifigant part of the Soviet Army of WWII and fought side by side with the men on many occasions.
-
And that, children, is the story of how Dutch Haarlem became Spanish Harlem.
-
sort of the other way around actually... since the Dutch won in the end and they were rebelling against the Spanish King.
Anyway I know your joking Fell but the historian in me feels compelled to explain that Spanish Harlem is a subsection of the old dutch settlement at new Amstradam (New York) where a lot of Cubans, Hispanics and Puerto Ricans settled in the early 20th century.
Edit...
although curse you and your humor because now I have a short story in my head about the Spanish Armada winning the battle of the English Channel and Invading Wales...
Itd actually be set in th 20th century and called "Spanish Harloch"
-
I don't like the sound of that story :|
-
I was gonna have Dylon Thomas as a freedom fighter in it.
-
You could also have Bob Dylan as a chicken who plays the mandolin.
-
And when the one character says Dylan, they'll get confused. Because neither one got no culture.