How fit were knights? I don't expect them to be bodybuilder fit, but I can't imagine them being flabby either

French knights at Agincourt managed to run uphill in the mud for about 1km with a 90 pounds armor on them before falling of exhaustion, so I'd say they were pretty fit

I recall reading about this - if you look up what a competitor in those "strongest man" competitions look like, you'll see that many of them simply look fat. But those are the guys who are capable of lifting much heavier things than "bodybuilders".

FUCKING ripped

I imagine something like cain velazquez.

Not ripped at all, but strong with endurance

very good link with great videos, thanks for sharing! interesting stuff

also there were no fast foods or chemicals in foods we eat today

Fuck off rei

Broscience at best.
Strongman is just a bodybuilder that didn't go through a cutting phase. Any differences in performance between equally developed strongmen and bodybuilders comes down to lack of muscle memory in the specific task.

Muscle is muscle at the end of the day.

youtu.be/xLWBTAlxLGg

This version is much better.

>Agincourt
>uphill

FFS...

a lot of "fat" athletes have a ton of muscle to go with the fat. e.g. NFL linemen, sumo wrestlers.

go look at the biceps of a boxer compared to that of a bodybuilder. The bodybuilder's biceps and arms in general will probably be much bigger but they probably can't punch half as hard as a trained boxer

What the hell are you guys talking about? Most "knights" were uneducated land-owning farmers with hereditary titles. They did "train" combat techniques and certainly not fitness until the 15th and 16th centuries. Most knights were at the level of physic of a modern day laborer...like a modern Tanzanian cattle herder or a Chinese rice grower.

"The *didn't* train combat techniques and certainly not fitness until the 15th and 16th centuries.

I said they would be fit from their lifestyle.

I also mentioned soldiers through the ages, knights still practiced combat routinely, hunted and held tournaments to test their skills in.

If they were unfit how would they be able to perform their job of soldiering?

Even a laborer of that time would be fit as fuck, if they are moving bales of hay every day for long hours and travel long distances they would be fit and strong. Knights even more so due to their better diet and healthcare.

I gave an academic source for my claim, now you give one for yours.

When did I say they were unfit? An average day laborer could kick most your nu-males no-grip-strength asses.
Whats so controversial about anything I said? Most knights never saw combat. FACT. Most knights were poor and/or lowborn nobles that didn't have the time or money to train or work out. FACT. Most "knights" were uneducated or poorly educated farmers.
Most knights could afford some manner of combat gear (in relation to tenant farming peasants and laypeople) because they collected a tithe from their tenants or were exempt from a tithe payed to their lords.
Medieval society was literally so uneducated, being able to read and write was literally legal proof that you were clergy because only the clergy were literate. (Benefit of Clergy). That law wasn't fully abolished until 1823. Do you think an uneducated person in an uneducated society would go to such lengths to learn combat fitness? No he's too busy plowing his field.

>BODYBUILDING IS A HUBRISTIC PRACTICE.
Thanks, wimpy.

His source is saying FACT.

>mfw no qt Plato to tickle your cave :(

Neck yourself, attentionwhore.

That's anecdotal evidence sir. Not only that it's barely verifiable anecdotal evidence.

Keep in mind I'm not making any claim, I'm merely professing skepticism to the very specific claim being made. A claim that has as of yet been defended with no concrete evidence.

>I don't expect them to be bodybuilder fit
>implying bodybuilders are fit

dude cardio kill gainz lmao

>How fit were knights

As fit as professional rugby players.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279306/Face-mystery-medieval-knight-finally-revealed-modern-day-CSI-skills.html

Arm wrestling is not just muscle based, it's also a skill based competition. Not only that but that video is also anecdotal evidence. That's one arm wrestler and one body builder, hardly universally representative of their differing disciplines.

You're forgetting about combat tournaments, pretty common at least in the Middle Ages. Even if a young knight never saw real combat they'd have weapons training in these tournaments

Have you ever done farm work? Even if they didn't work out they would still be fit as fuck from all of the back-breaking labor they did all day, everyday.

Nvm, I didn't read your post all the way and misunderstood. Disregard, I suck cocks.

This is extremely wrong. Strongmen perform a lot of movements very taxing on the core and legs (atlas stone, yoke walk, farmers walk) that bodybuilders do not have adequate strength to perform, at least at the higher levels. They also tend to be much faster and explosive,because ripping a giant thing off the ground is hard.

T. Training for strongman

post pics

Just wrestle, box, and do gymnastics and you will get a warrior's physique.

this is a strongman that went on a cut

looks like a bodybuilder to me

>most knights were farmers
>knights didn't have "time" or "money" (kek, what, they couldn't afford gym membership?) to work out

1. Nice sources, summerfriend
2. 6/10

Extremely. It's best to think of knights as being the Jocks of medieval society, they made their living on the strength of their bodies so they devoted a lot of time to staying in peak condition. No doubt they had all kinds of training methods, but afaik none have survived to the present, but there can be no doubt that any knight even halfway worth his salt would be a big guy for you.

I think that guys a powerlifter actually, but his muscles don't possess as much hypertrophy as a bodybuilder. He's cut, but he isn't hueg

No

Jean Le Meingre:

"Now cased in armour, he would practise leaping on to the back of a horse; user, to accustom himself to become long-winded and enduring, he would walk and run long distances on foot, or he would practise striking numerous and forcible blows with a battle-axe or mallet. In order to accustom himself to the weight of his armour, he would turn somersaults whilst clad in a complete suit of mail, with the exception of his helmet, or would dance vigorously in a shirt of steel; he would place one hand on the saddle-bow of a tall charger, and the other on his neck, and vault over him…He would climb up between two perpendicular walls that stood four or five feet asunder by the mere pressure of his arms and legs, and would thus reach the top, even if it were as high as a tower, without resting either in the ascent or descent…When he was at home, he would practise with the other young esquires at lance-throwing and other warlike exercises, and this continually."

I think that guys a powerlifter actually, but his muscles don't possess as much hypertrophy as a bodybuilder. He's cut, but he isn't hueg. A bodybuilder will do better in a strongman competition than your average Joe, but that's just because he's trained the big four lifts. Someone who does the big four and trains explosiveness, athleticism, endurance, and really works on his core and grip strength will excel. You're not wrong in that its learning patterns and muscle memory, but they take a huge amount of brute strength as well.

No

I imagine it depends on what place and time you're talking about. Knights didn't necessarily need to be that fit, given their superior equipment over the peasantry, and were the aristocratic class, so were likely engaged in less manual labor, and certainly ate more, or more desirable food.

I imagine their fitness levels varied greatly, since wealth and birthright went into making someone a knight, and not as much merit.

I would guess from reading the thead that a primary oversight here is nutrition. It's also (as it usually is) worth noting a spatial dimension to this question and a broad spectrum of experience across it.

Animal meat as a domestic foodstuff (read: protein) wasn't particularly prevalent for much of the Medieval period, and you'd think you guys would put that together knowing they were poor as fuck farmers. If you've ever wonderered why in English, the animals when living are called cow and pig, Germanic roots, and when prepared as a domestic foodstuff are beef and pork, Latin roots, it's because it wasn't until the Norman Invasion in 1066 that primary animal products, particularly meat, were especially prevalent on the British Isles. Even then, economic restrictions probably kept them out of the hands of the lower classes, where early knights came from.

Were knights at times high enough class that they probably were eating meat anyway? Sure. And of course there are other sources of protein. All things worth considering though. People who say they looked like Bear Grylls are kidding themselves.

But they are stronger, look at videos of Jay Cutler just repping with 110kg on the bench, just laying down and pushing out 11 like it's nothing, meanwhile the average man is crushed by that.

the guy's able to bench 700lbs. I'd call that hueg

And concerning how strong Ronnie Coleman is, calling bodybuilders weak is stupid

give him a break, he's probably english, they would call this a mountain

>Have you ever done farm work?
Have you?
In fact, did you ever even see a fucking labourer? I mean, I know what we have is a primarily service based economy, but labourers aren't some bygone unicorn of the past.

And no, an average labourer isn't "fit as fuck", in fact plenty of labourers or farmers I've seen are quite fat, because of the overconsumption of fatty meat and alcohol.
The difference is, they still have veiny muscles, strength and "specific stamina" (he'll be able to lift things all day long, but put him on a racing track and he'll cough his lungs out), just a huge beer belly to go along with it.

> knight

> farmer

Knights can't be farmers, idiot. They were part of the warrior class. Even the poor landless ones looked on farming as shameful to their condition. They would rather offer "protection" to farmers or simply become outlaws before they became farmers.

Read some fucking history.

Now this is just a single case, but one knight they dug up and analyzed turned out to have been pretty damn....I don't know what the correct Veeky Forums term is, so let me just say that they determined him to have been big, broad and full of muscle.

I read about it maybe ten years ago; can't find a source atm.

Yes, bodybuilding is not about strength, it's an aesthetic endeavor. Although I do think they are ugly as fuck

a boxing punch doesn't just come from the arm tho it's the whole body going through a series of movements.

>THEIR MUSCLEMASS DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO THEIR ACTUAL STRENGTH

You have no idea what you're talking about. Musclemass is directly related to strength. You can't have one without the other. Yes, there's more to strength, but musclemass is a big part of it.

Bodybuilders are very strong.

t. fatty who can't do a single pushup or squat

Everything is chemicals retard

You poor projecting fuck...

Stay salty fatty

Are you high?
Knights were trained to fight in full harness, which takes a hell of a lot of endurance.
Look up Boucicaut and how he trained and get educated you jealous peasant.

It's not that, its that Agincourt is a flat field that maybe slightly slopes down towards the English lines if you sort of squint.

Crecy is the battle where the French charged uphill. People constantly mix up the two.

ITT: Morons who dont know that those who fight are separate from those who work.