|
Post by xtremetrainer on Nov 10, 2023 20:40:23 GMT
I believe knights did some training in unarmed combat. It makes sense that most combat training that knights did would be with weapons such as the sword and the lance since that's what knights would use when going into combat, but I also heard they did have forms of unarmed combat, most notably boxing, which is what American boxing originated from, and wrestling. So is it true that knights trained much in unarmed combat?
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on Nov 10, 2023 21:16:57 GMT
In armour I think they did some grappling, to wrestle the opponent to the ground and create openings in the armour for daggers. Remember, they wore padding underneath to cushion heavy weapons blows. Better to grab the other guy and lock him down. Though they likely did learn some other stuff for unarmoured fighting, that stuff would probably be more useful in civillian life. How much they learned is probably quite individual, but there are some treatises for unarmed fighting for sure.
|
|
|
Post by takitam on Nov 11, 2023 15:44:06 GMT
Yes they did They practiced all kinds of relevant martial arts of the period (which were constantly evolving). To varying degrees, depending on local needs and martial culture. Including hunting, dancing, horse riding and others. Actually, a modern ballet dancer is probably the closest modern people are to a well trained swordsman/knight from the past when it comes to fitness ability and movement Combine that with a judoka or a classic wrestler. Which means miles above any modern sword nerd. Presently you can observe the remains of old training in Cossack dances. But the most important training knights had, which everyone seems to ignore, was being a successful businessman and a local politician/leader. Their duties included logistics, planning, financing, propaganda, sales of products and last but not least commanding groups of retainers of different professions in times of conflict. This is who a knight was most of the time. Wars only happened occasionally and battles were even more rare. I find it funny that my childhood vision of a knight lasted for so long into my adulthood. A knight is not a guy with a spear or a sword. A knight is a successful businessman who is also a local leader with a strong sense of social responsibility. Being a knight is not a thing of the long lost past. You can still be one nowadays. And you don't even need an established order. That can always be created from the ground up. I regret that I understood this so late in my life and spent so much time on idle fantasies instead of building something of value. Well, better late than never
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on Nov 11, 2023 16:08:15 GMT
Learning about the robber barons/knights that terrorized germany left such an impression that I didn't have such a noble picture of knights. To me they were noblemen living a lavish lifestyle on the backs of the townsfolk, squeezing everything out of land and people they could. But that's probably because the castle ruins around where I was born were inhabited by exactly this type of knight unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by takitam on Nov 11, 2023 17:04:55 GMT
Even robber barons had many social responsibilities that got lost later on. Like feeding people asking for food and letting travellers sleep on the castle grounds for free if they asked. A lot of them were economically disadvantaged. Robber barons are the example of a desperate cry of an old order being replaced by powerful aristocrats and by cities and their councils. Some of these specific knights adapted, a lot of them lost and became a thing of the past. Some became murderous lunatics, exacting their vision of revenge on people who 'wronged them' in their privileged eyes. This is a super simplistic view ofc. I'm not a well educated man Robber knights were a very time and place specific group. But their greed was pretty unversal And you are obviously right that my first post is idealistic to the point of being useless. I simply wanted to point out something that is commonly ignored when we talk about 'knights'.
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on Nov 11, 2023 17:32:07 GMT
Didn't mean you were wrong, some knights surely were good people, just meant to say the lens through which you view knights depends where you are from. As an Austrian, where there is a deep distaste for nobility, even going as far as to abolish any titles and making them basically illegal, we probably see a darker picture of the knights. Living directly below the ruins of a castle which housed someone that did feud, rob and try to hold on to power with all his might didn't help either I guess. Looking back schools did paint quite the bad picture of knights, using him as an example.
|
|
|
Post by takitam on Nov 11, 2023 17:40:30 GMT
I understand.
The funny and tragic thing is - even though they lack titles, modern financial nobility is more powerful than any landed nobility of the past ever was. And they are living off the labour and taxes of the common people to a degree that old aristocrats could have only dreamed of.
We are silly creatures.
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on Nov 11, 2023 17:47:39 GMT
At least the knights (non robbing kind) back then used the free time they had, because they got their subsistence from the people, to become incredible fighters by learning fighting styles, staying in shape etc and protected the people in times of need. Can't say the same nowdays about our overlords.
Back to the topic though, something like this would have probably been basic training. (open the grappling section, you can see a few illustrations)
|
|
|
Post by xtremetrainer on Nov 13, 2023 3:31:48 GMT
Yes they did They practiced all kinds of relevant martial arts of the period (which were constantly evolving). To varying degrees, depending on local needs and martial culture. Including hunting, dancing, horse riding and others. Actually, a modern ballet dancer is probably the closest modern people are to a well trained swordsman/knight from the past when it comes to fitness ability and movement Combine that with a judoka or a classic wrestler. Which means miles above any modern sword nerd. Presently you can observe the remains of old training in Cossack dances. But the most important training knights had, which everyone seems to ignore, was being a successful businessman and a local politician/leader. Their duties included logistics, planning, financing, propaganda, sales of products and last but not least commanding groups of retainers of different professions in times of conflict. This is who a knight was most of the time. Wars only happened occasionally and battles were even more rare. I find it funny that my childhood vision of a knight lasted for so long into my adulthood. A knight is not a guy with a spear or a sword. A knight is a successful businessman who is also a local leader with a strong sense of social responsibility. Being a knight is not a thing of the long lost past. You can still be one nowadays. And you don't even need an established order. That can always be created from the ground up. I regret that I understood this so late in my life and spent so much time on idle fantasies instead of building something of value. Well, better late than never From what I know, it depends on the time period. The medieval times started roughly around 300 AD to 500 AD, at the fall of the Roman Empire. In early medieval times being a knight was much more geared towards combat and fighting. When medieval times ended, roughly from 1300 AD to 1500 AD, and the Renaissance started, being a knight was a more social thing, at least compared to what it was like during early medieval times. So it would've been in later medieval times when knights were more along the lines of being businessmen. Yes we still do have knights today but now it's entirely a social thing. Most knights today don't wear armor or use swords, much of the time you become a knight today if you're a famous entertainer such as Sir Paul McCartney or Sir Rod Stewart.
|
|