Any accounts of women being used as slingers in ancient or medieval times?

I know no pictures from the Middle Ages.

However, there are reports which women catapults served.

From the antiquity there are pictures

---

I would think it's be kinda hard to use a sling in a kitchen...  :-?

JK. AFAIK, women were more support personal than front line warriors.

They might have slung as a fun thing with their family or something, but I highly doubt any would be professionals.

There were female shepards, so there were female slingers.

Yeah, and the notion of "professionals" in a modern sense when related to slingers, well, dubious at best.  As for frontline warriors, that's another matter entirely, and all evidence shows that women served with their slings in Peru in the forts there.  They were herders, same as the men, so they knew their way around a sling.  They would have been used in the defense of the forts from invading forces.  This is a common warfare experience for pre-modern women, one we see mirrored in medieval castle defenses in Europe and Asia, and in all sorts of different primitive warfare contexts.  When people come to burn your house down, you don't cower, you pick up a weapon and fight back.  The notion that women couldn't or didn't engage in such behavior is rooted in horribly sexist Victorian mores, not in historical fact.

Sarmatian women were fighting alongside with men.What's known,they were mostly cavalry,and horse archers.
In earlier times they might have used slings also..
I guess many times,women were more likely to roll clay balls with the children and men were slinging the dried\fired clay ammo.Also they might have more often supply their man with baskets of stones,clay,then do actual slinging.
That's what i would imagine. During a fight there are less active activities,besides fighting,that needs to be done,women and children often took up those,during history.

jlasud wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 1:53am:

Sarmatian women were fighting alongside with men.What's known,they were mostly cavalry,and horse archers. In earlier times they might have used slings also.. I guess many times,women were more likely to roll clay balls with the children and men were slinging the dried\fired clay ammo.Also they might have more often supply their man with baskets of stones,clay,then do actual slinging. That's what i would imagine. During a fight there are less active activities,besides fighting,that needs to be done,women and children often took up those,during history.

That's kind what I was picturing too. In todays U.S. army there's somethinglike 10 support personal for every 1 soldier. I'd imagine you'd need similar ratios back then.

Dan wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 9:23am:

jlasud wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 1:53am: Sarmatian women were fighting alongside with men.What's known,they were mostly cavalry,and horse archers. In earlier times they might have used slings also.. I guess many times,women were more likely to roll clay balls with the children and men were slinging the dried\fired clay ammo.Also they might have more often supply their man with baskets of stones,clay,then do actual slinging. That's what i would imagine. During a fight there are less active activities,besides fighting,that needs to be done,women and children often took up those,during history. That's kind what I was picturing too. In todays U.S. army there's somethinglike 10 support personal for every 1 soldier. I'd imagine you'd need similar ratios back then.

Actually, in the book, "War Before Civilization" by Lawrence Keeley, a professor of anthropology/archaeology, he addresses the support personnel aspect of things.  In truly prehistoric warfare, IE before major civilizations developed, the level of support personnel is practically non-existent.  Every warrior is a self-sufficient entity and the armies have no supply trains or ways of maintaining themselves in the field beyond short raids, due to their lack of economic sophistication.  Only later, as we start to see civilizations growing, do we get supply trains and the ability to carry on extended campaigns.

Even so, earlier warfare required far fewer logistics and support personnel than does modern warfare.  It's a figure that has been consistently increasing as the technological complexity of our weapons systems and transportation systems have gone up.  The closest thing I can find to a support system in prehistoric warfare is the use of women on the frontlines of some Papua New Guinean battles.  They would wander around the battlefield picking up arrows that had been shot to resupply their warriors who were doing the shooting.  For whatever reason, the men didn't shoot them.  I guess it was against the rules in that context, though sparing women and children is by no means a typical feature of warfare there or elsewhere.

Anyway, it's helpful to think of it as a continuum.  The more economically organized a society is, and the greater their technological complexity, the more support staff you can expect.  This is a cool way of looking at it too, as it isn't necessarily chronological.  The armies of Rome, for example, under such a rubric, would be expected to have a greater proportion of support staff than those of the Norse, or of Early and even High Medieval Europe.  Since this is what we in fact see, I think the model holds.

Dan wrote on Oct 16^th, 2012 at 9:48am:

I would think it's be kinda hard to use a sling in a kitchen...  :-?

Oh Dan...

wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 11:56am:

Dan wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 9:48am: I would think it's be kinda hard to use a sling in a kitchen...  :-? Oh Dan...

Yeah I couldn't resist that one. Again, note the JK after the joke. Women from those anceint cultures were way tougher than most men today. And as Bill said, if there were female shepeards (which there were) there were female slingers.

Atlatlista, I was kinda thinking that with the more advanced and technical armies you'd require a lot more support personel. It's cool that someone actually wrote a book on it. I could see female slingers for agricultral purpose like scaring away birds from crops or tending sheep. But I kind of thought of things such as hunting and warefare as male dominated activites in ancient times. It might have varied culture to culture though, IDK.

wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 11:56am:

Dan wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 9:48am: I would think it's be kinda hard to use a sling in a kitchen...  :-? Oh Dan...

I'm guessing you're not about to call him wise for his years, again? ;D

Anecdotally, I remember being told of a law enacted in early medieval Ireland barring women from serving as warriors. This, if true, implies the presence of women beforehand OR pre Victorian sexism that only was codified at that point.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 11:56am: Dan wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 9:48am: I would think it's be kinda hard to use a sling in a kitchen...  :-? Oh Dan... I'm guessing you're not about to call him wise for his years, again? ;D

That's probably all he could type before he fell on the floor laughing.  ;)

I still have common sense, sometimes it's just necesary to have a little humor to break my normal stoic persona.  

Masiakasaurus wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 11:56am: Dan wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 9:48am: I would think it's be kinda hard to use a sling in a kitchen...  :-? Oh Dan... I'm guessing you're not about to call him wise for his years, again? ;D Anecdotally, I remember being told of a law enacted in early medieval Ireland barring women from serving as warriors. This, if true, implies the presence of women beforehand OR pre Victorian sexism that only was codified at that point.

Yeah, from the historian's standpoint, it implies there was a problem that the society felt needed addressing.  Women rarely engaged in warfare from a pre-modern standpoint for a whole host of reasons, some of which was based on sexism, and some of which was based on actual physical necessity/evolutionary pressures.  Most men, I think, assume there were no warrior women before (or very few of them) because women aren't physically capable of military service in the same capacity men are.  I think the actual truth lies closer to the idea that war was not beneficial for women in pre-modern societies.

To look back at Keeley's book, he mentions that in many of the most war-like societies, women stood to gain nothing from warfare.  War was fought to obtain land, to redress grievances in an era lacking modern judicial systems and treaties, and to obtain captives - usually women.  So, women stood to gain nothing from female captives.  They stood to lose a great deal because they themselves might be ripped out of their homes and enslaved or forced to become the "wives" of the conquering band or tribe.  The same holds true economically.  They tended to be the ones caring for the crops, and the crops could easily be burned or destroyed by enemies.  So their primary source of income and food security would also be put at risk.  This doesn't even account for child rearing, which was a huge portion of a pre-modern woman's job (and which is probably more directly the reason she wasn't the "hunter" in pre-modern human societies).  Having children around makes fighting wars very difficult, and it also heightens the risk, as the offspring are put into serious jeopardy.  So, for the most part, pre-modern women despised war, and didn't tend to participate in it.

That having been said, these things varied across cultures.  Tlingit women were expected to steer the war canoes of raiding parties.  Peruvian women, as I mentioned before, would have been expected to join in the defenses of hilltop forts, and women in medieval cultures tended to be the ones who kept up castle defenses as well.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Oct 17^th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 11:56am: Dan wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 9:48am: I would think it's be kinda hard to use a sling in a kitchen...  :-? Oh Dan... I'm guessing you're not about to call him wise for his years, again? ;D

Dan's a smart kid, no doubt there but as you know knowledge is not wisdom and like with all people young and old we sometimes find our foot lodged solidly in our own mouths. Not a dig on Dan at all, he's a good kid but it's a little like the parable of the old bull and the young bull.  

wrote on Oct 18^th, 2012 at 11:15am:

Masiakasaurus wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 4:34pm: wrote on Oct 17th, 2012 at 11:56am: Dan wrote on Oct 16th, 2012 at 9:48am: I would think it's be kinda hard to use a sling in a kitchen...  :-? Oh Dan... I'm guessing you're not about to call him wise for his years, again? ;D   Dan's a smart kid, no doubt there but as you know knowledge is not wisdom and like with all people young and old we sometimes find our foot lodged solidly in our own mouths. Not a dig on Dan at all, he's a good kid but it's a little like the parable of the old bull and the young bull.

Never heard that parable before so I googled it. It's a good lesson... kind of a weird delivery.

Yeah, it's not in the Bible.  ::)

wrote on Oct 18^th, 2012 at 4:18pm:

Yeah, it's not in the Bible.  ::)

lol, no. I read proverbs a lot when I was younger, still do. There's a lot of lessons to learn.

On average women are too smart to engage in combat. In some cases they might encourage their husbands to go off to war ("Maybe that lazy, abusive, beer-swilling bum will get killed and the next guy will be a better bargain").

HurlinThom wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2012 at 11:27am:

On average women are too smart to engage in combat. In some cases they might encourage their husbands to go off to war ("Maybe that lazy, abusive, beer-swilling bum will get killed and the next guy will be a better bargain").

On average, stereotypes are offensive, and don't have the positive correlation to reality they are often supposed to possess.

wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2012 at 1:00pm:

HurlinThom wrote on Nov 22nd, 2012 at 11:27am: On average women are too smart to engage in combat. In some cases they might encourage their husbands to go off to war ("Maybe that lazy, abusive, beer-swilling bum will get killed and the next guy will be a better bargain"). On average, stereotypes are offensive, and don't have the positive correlation to reality they are often supposed to possess.

Truth and wisdom there.

and the battle of the sexes rages on...

I admit I lol'ed when I read Dan's statement... more in anticipation of the roasting he was about to get as opposed to it being terribly original.  That being said, no roasting. Slinging.org, you have once again ever so slightly restored my faith in humanity.  

I thought it was really funny, sometimes this forum can be too serious anyway just lightening things up a bit.  :)

And just so yall know, I think women slingers- in whatever time period- are awesome. Nuff said.

Just heard it too many times I guess.  Spent too much time perusing youtube I guess.  ;D  

Regarding female slingers, the issue of female shepherds=female slingers is an important point but I have one to add as well as well as a few questions to pose.

I do recall there are Polynesian Cultures featuring Coconut fiber woven armor often decorated with sharks teeth wherein the men charge into battle for close range while women of their tribe give ranged support with slung stones. Notable in the design of such armor is the large headboard extending from the body armor to protect the back of the neck and head of men in melee from miss fired stones from the women behind.

Another is that Plato has been quoted as recommending slings for both genders as a form of productive exercise. Which brings me to my next issue... while great as exercise it also allows people otherwise not militarily inclined or equipped to contribute to the defense of one's home... including women. So they could do it... but do we have any accounts of women contributing to defense in this fashion?

Another example/question is iron age hill forts and the celtic societies therein. Considering that the sling was such a ubiquitous weapon in those cultures... as well as cheap, easy to carry, and so forth... I do know that children grew up with these weapons... and that they allowed such youngsters to productively contribute to their societies at low cost (say compared to giving them all bows) in terms of hunting small game and defending their fortified villages. In particular being included in the defense by standing on elevated positions, perhaps behind walls or ramparts launching stone or clay ammo into the enemy. Which begs the question... did females do this too? Were slings a toy and tool employed by girls as well as boys in celtic cultures (or which ones)?

I don't see why not, some Polynesian women were renowned front line warriors in their own right. One in particular was unbeatable.

But in later battles since men controlled the firearms mostly they did support kind of stuff and if courage faltered in the men they gave them the bash and sent them back towards the enemy. But they'd be right there at or just behind the front and do whatever they could.

Men can maybe run and survive but defeat would see the women and kids burnt alive if they're lucky, so defeat wasn't an option for them.

There was a city in late antiquity, the men have left for military service. When an enemy army arrived, the women and kids defended the city with slings. This was north Greece I think.
Actually I do not remember the exact reference though. If someone has heard of it also and remembers the reference, this would be great. ;)

Speaking on medieval military slinging only, you'd occasionally see women as slingers when a city was besieged (no direct slinging depictions I know of, but here's a one of a woman chucking a rock: https://manuscriptminiatures.com/4832/7940 ), or a ship was under attack (we have a record of Barbora of Svaty Jur who captained a galley during Sigismund's Nicopolis crusade and was rewarded with land for it), but that's about it. At least officially.

There probably were a scant few women in various mercenary companies under some kind of a vague don't ask - don't tell principle, but that firstly depended on the captain in question and secondly, there are absolutely no records one way or another, so meaningful discussion is not really possible.

As for civilian and self defence use, sure, as many as there were men, or maybe slightly fewer. If a medieval monk can teach a woman how to fight with sword and buckler...