Ah I see what the problem is here, you misunderstood me, or I was not clear enough, apologies if so. Also apologies if i came off as aggressive.
Dude, this is a story. Casca and Guts fell in love because the author decided they would. You can shrug all you want and deny it as strongly as you can, but you are wrong in saying Casca didn't love Guts and just needed to "depend on someone", with Guts happening to "just be there"
Yes I know she loves him. Actually I never denied it, but due to how I phrased things I can see why you misunderstood me. I only ever argued in which way she fell in love with him. He was there as support, and they bonded. Technically she blamed herself because she thought she failed Griffith ( falling off cliff, fever, women's issues and what not ) and as such wanted to know why Guts always puts Griffith into danger with his recklessness right?
If we consider that she came to realise she'll never be able to be Griffith's woman, but supportive sword arm, is it that strange for her to turn to Guts, who not only risked his life for her personally, but is actually someone who she realistically can be with? I mean, I did use the phrase of switching from one to another but what i really meant was that, so I guess it came off badly to some people. I tend to be blunt honestly.
You're being disingenuous. You said "she collapsed with Griffith's capture", which implies that as soon as he was gone she couldn't function anymore. That was to support your argument that Casca, as a weak woman, needs a man to be able to do anything. Now that I've corrected you by reminding you that she led the Band of the Falcon alone during the hardest year of their existence, you're pretending that her eventual breakdown after a year's worth of combat fatigue is what you meant all along. But it's not and everyone can see that. She did not depend on Guts or Griffith to lead the band during that year. But beyond that, even when Griffith was around she did more supporting than vice versa. When he was hurting himself in the water after a night with Gennon, she was the one to provide him comfort. And at the waterfall, her argument with Guts revolves entirely around her intimate understanding of (and Guts' blindness to) Griffith's weakness and need for support, a support she could not provide anymore after Guts replaced her as Griffith's confident. Last example: when the Eclipse occurs and everyone panicks, Casca is the one who rallies them and keeps order. Guts then realizes that she is a much greater leader than he had previously thought.
Considering Casca basically grew up with Band of the Hawk, I've always seen her as more masculine and a tomboy than an actual female-female. I dont mean that as an insult or anything, but more as a measure of adaptation to a mercenary lifestyle. Obviously she had to be tough and what not, and given she was 2nd to Griffith, she was. But that doesn't mean she was able to go on her own without Griffith or without Guts, as we have seen.
She needed that stability. She needed both of them, as you say, she loved both in a different way.
Yet we both know that Griffith meant to her more than anybody else, and despite her initial hardships and heroics, she did start to crumble, which was further enhanced by Guts' departure, wasnt it. Besides, what's so bad about needing others to depend on? They're humans, which means pack animals. Its even more nicely portrayed in bonfire of dreams episode with the embers and her conversation with Guts.
It can be plainly seen by all that Berserk's world and setting borrows liberally from various cultures and time periods, ranging from Ancient Greece or India to the late Renaissance. You mention swords, but some of the swords shown in Berserk are from 1000 B.C. Others are from the 17th century. None of that is medieval, nor does it support your prejudices against Casca. Anyway, ending this discussion does seem to be the wisest move to me.
Mhm, quite aware of that. I was really just aiming for a generic all in one genre/keyword there. There's a lot of games/mangas that have diffferent weapons and what not from diffrent time periods but are still generally refered to as mediaeval-fantasy and what not. Its not that im not aware, its just easier to narrow it to one.
Technically, any sword/axe/halberd with castles, armours and bla bla what not is refered to as mediaeval. Unless its gothic architecture, then its usually thought of as Viktorian, with elements of macabre and horror, ne. ( Bloodborne )
THo for the sake of the argument, let's just call it Dark Fantasy and amen. I can see you're quite passionate and like everything to be " correct " but eh, im stubborn.