×
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]PartyMoses19th c. American Military | War of 1812 1064 points1065 points  (64 children)

Unfortunately, we can't say for certain, but we can speculate a bit. My answer here will focus on depictions of fencers in the late 15th century through fencing treatises, and some other medieval depictions. It's a lot of guesswork and extrapolation, and I'll point out the precautions we should be aware of with each type of evidence. Hopefully, someone with more pointed knowledge of this specific subject will come along.


I'm going to take some time to talk about a man named Paulus Kal. Kal was a fencing master who wrote a treatise on the knightly arts, and had a long career as a knight in various capacities, served some civic functions for Nuremberg, and was sworn in service to a couple of dukes. In the 1480s (probably), he wrote his treatise, which contained a fair amount of art.

We think Kal depicted himself in the middle here, wearing the red/pink suit. He's helping a knight (right) prepare for a duel. Take a look at Kal and a look at the anonymous knight for a moment. Kal doesn't look the way we think of as "fit" today. He has a noticable belly, no definition of arm muscles, stout legs. He looks very similar in other images, even from (possibly) different artists. Now take a look at the arming knight: again, no muscle definition, the man in fact looks quite thin. It's the same in most of the images throughout the treatise.

This could obviously be artistic convention, a simplification of figures to make them easier to depict, or even a visual code to help identify aspects of their fencing. Certainly, Kal's fencers are depicted similarly in other fencing treatises, like this image from Hans Talhoffer. Here's another. These images are much more richly detailed, the quality of the art is clearly much higher. There's more textural quality in the depictions of the clothing, of the fingers and details of the joints. WE see obviously muscular calves and glutes. We also see exaggerated waists, even of men in armor.

Fencing takes fitness. Medieval writing often suggested a fitness routine that was summarized by fencing treatises as supplemental not only to fencing, but to the education of young knights. Jorg Wilhalm Hutter, writing in the early 16th century, summed it up as:

Throwing stones, pushing staves, fencing and wrestling, dancing and jumping, stabbing and jousting...

An Italian manuscript from the 15th century illustrates some of these. Notice, again, the cinched waists, the general thinness of the figures, the muscular detail concentrating on the legs. The sun, above them, is ripped, though nott shredded to the degree of hollywood stars, he is noticably more muscular than any figure we've looked at so far, with defined abs and chest, and detailed musculature of the arms and legs.

This particular image is part of an astrological concept called "planetenkinder" or "planetary children," a way to categorize people as taking personality traits from the various planets. Both the image above and this one depict "children of the sun," and show the men there partaking in some of the exercises listed by Hutter. By now, you should be able to pick out the important details.

Back to Paulus Kal. He obviously wants to depict the ideal of the fencing and fighting man in his treatise, because these treatises are, in some part at least, meant to promote his own skills and knowledge. He makes sure to place himself in the lineage of "The Society of Liechtenauer," a group of men whose knowledge of fencing, wrestling, and other martial skills descends, like the men exercising under the light of the Ripped Sun, from a possibly legendary fencing master of old. It's safe to say that Kal had an interest in depicting the figures in his treatise as ideal, or close to ideal. Same with Talhoffer. What's Kal's ideal?

He gives us what we call "Kal's birdman."

The writing says:

I have eyes like a hawk, so you do not deceive me.

I have a heart like a lion, so I strive forward.

I have feet like a hind, so I can spring to and fro.

Obviously the ideal man is not an exquisite corpse or a nightmarish fusing of animal with human, but we are supposed to understand the animal-like features of the ideal fencer. Eyes that can't be deceived, courage that won't falter, quick feet. But look at the body of this ideal man. No muscle tone, nearly anywhere. An exaggerated waist even with a bit of a gut, thin arms, tapering legs. And just so you know this isn't just one artist's version, here's a copy of Kal's treatise with the same figure, similar in all details. This is similar to that way a Talhoffer manuscript showed an arming knight, as well: skinny, an impossibly narrow waist, little definition of muscle.

Another Kal figure, this time from the mid 16th century. This one differs in that the arms and legs are thicker, and there's obvious muscle in the core and chest, which maybe argues for changes in the idealization of the male figure during the 16th century.

Certainly, at least by the early 16th century, depictions of the male body at least got more sophisticated and detailed. The "Goliath" fechtbuch, a compilation of various earlier fencing treatises likely published between 1510 and 1520, is notable for its beautiful illustrations that give incredible detail about the fencer's bodies.

So what would the average body type of a medieval fighting man be? We don't know for certain. We can say that, at least in the late 15th century, the depictions commonly emphasize a narrow waist more than any other feature, but also emphasize strong legs and glutes. By the 16th century, we start seeing more consistently muscled men, but the small waist is still highly emphasized, not only by figures that show the body unclothed, but also by the clothing itself and the armor. Fitness was emphasized as a whole-body affair, and young knights were encouraged to engage in a wide variety of activities that would encourage suppleness, dexterity, and strength in equal measure.


Sources Most of the fencing images came from Wiktenauer, an online repository of historical fencing treatises. The main ones here are

Paulus Kal

And our sources on Kal's career largely come from this blog, which is well cited.

Hans Talhoffer

Goliath

[–]billetea 330 points331 points  (18 children)

Could the lack of muscle defintion in the pictures be more like being "blue-blooded" and overweight which signifies a sedentary, indoor (and so wealthy) lifestyle. I.e. the painters / drawers understood that muscle tone, tan and athletic build was associated with being a peasant in a field and so adjusted the pictures accordingly lest they paint their patron like a labourer.

The basic ability to fight for a number of hours in a suit of armour which could weight up to 50kg used up a lot of calories.. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/15128-armor-drained-medieval-knight-energy.html

Let alone being able to scale a siege ladder..

My guess is the paintings are driven by social norms not realities on the ground.

Thoughts?

[–]PartyMoses19th c. American Military | War of 1812 250 points251 points  (7 children)

My guess about the muscle, or lack thereof, is that it was some sort of artistic convention, for sure. It was supposed to represent an ideal, and obviously the ideal of a knight, especially in aesthetic qualities, will be quite different than our ideal fighting man today.

But there are differences, even in contemporary depictions. Compare this version of Adam and Eve, made somewhere between 1465 and 1475, with these: one by Albrecht Durer in 1504, and another by Lucas Cranach in 1509.

Compare Cranach's work to another of his, Apollo and Diana from 1530. This latter seems to resemble the earlier figures from the Fechtbucher, rather than the ultra-realistic woodcut depiction. Clearly these choices are intentional. I'm unfortunately not expert enough in art history to really go into why. I don't know.

As for the class relationship, I'm not sure it was that stark or important. For example, another fechtbucher, the Codex Wallerstein, has one image in which the writer gives advice to his reader that starts with: "So you want to rob a peasant..." and then gives this image. You could reverse the two men and know almost no difference in clothing or even armament. But it's possible that the relative thinness of the men could represent class features, sure. It's also possible that they're trying to depict extreme youth, or that the artists were more interested in other aspects of the images.

I'd like to stress, to your latter point, that "fitness" is relative, and even modern athletes have wildly different body types (possibly NSFW). There's no reason a thin guy couldn't climb a siege ladder, as long as their armor fits well and they've practiced in it. I've seen that study floating around, and while we can nitpick its methodology all day, its conclusion is simply that "armor makes people tired faster than no armor" which is a conclusion so broad as to be more or less useless. Fechtbucher and other advice books recommend fitness routines both in and out of armor. And remember, too, that being a knight or even a fighting man didn't stop on the battlefield, knightliness was a cultural expression and had as much to do with courtly manners and politics - and riding and hawking and hunting and dancing and all that came with it - as it did with slugging it out at a siege.

The tl;dr here is that yes, I think that artistic convention and an eye for a 15th century audience is more the goal in Kal and Talhoffer's images of the "ideal" man than depicting an individual or even representative knight. But that doesn't necessarily mean that your average knight was more muscular.

EDIT fixed the link to Apollo and Diana

[–]xizrtilhh 50 points51 points  (5 children)

Would the wearing of armour caused premature wear on joints such as knees and hips?

[–]jschooltigerModerator | Shipbuilding and Logistics | British Navy 1770-1830 81 points82 points  (0 children)

There are a lot of skeletal markers that we can see that show certain types of wear. I've written about this before, but people who examined skeletons found aboard the Mary Rose were able to distinguish soldiers (lognbowmen) from sailors, as the use of the bow left marks on their skeletons that can be discerned by modern forensic science (osteological analysis).

The Archaeology of the Mary Rose devotes a chapter to the skeletal remains found on the ship, which included some number of skeletons that showed the marks of bow use. (The Mary Rose was a large carrack-type ship of Henry VIII's navy that sank suddenly in the Solent in 1545, and was salvaged in 1982.)

There were also many skeletons that showed healed fractures, ossification, and spinal fusion, probably from normal events at sea, and some evidence of childhood disease. There's also an interesting chapter on this in Fury (ed) The Social History of English Seamen, 1485-1649

[–]PartyMoses19th c. American Military | War of 1812 106 points107 points  (1 child)

I'm not sure there's enough evidence to say one way or another. On the one hand, knightly activities like riding, fencing, wrestling, leaping, and throwing stones, etc., are activities that still stress the joints of people today, and adding weight to the body is likely to increase those risks.

On the other hand, the suspension systems of armor and the custom-tailoring distributed the weight of all that armor through the body in a way that put weight where it was most comfortable and kinesthetically "safest." It did this by essentially letting the natural waist carry the burden of the lower body armor and support the upper body armor.

This might make for a good top-level post, by the way, and attract armor experts much more knowledgeable than me.

[–]Shanguerrilla 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Could that be related to why the artists have their unique convention for knights? (considering the specific thin waists for instance)

[–]ExiledToTerminus 16 points17 points  (3 children)

He looks very similar in other images , even from (possibly) different artists.

This is a complete divergence from the main point, but why do historians believe these first two pictures were done by different artists? To the untrained eye, i.e. my eye, they appear very, very similar.

[–]PartyMoses19th c. American Military | War of 1812 25 points26 points  (2 children)

No, it's probably the same guy. Kal does have an umber of copies, though, and they all depict him similarly.

[–]Goregoat69 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Kal does have an umber of copies, though, and they all depict him similarly

Could the belly be a sign of him being "retired" from competition and being a trainer/coach?

[–]monsieur_bear 35 points36 points  (25 children)

What is happening in this picture? Why is the swordsman seemingly holding the blade of the sword like that?

[–]PartyMoses19th c. American Military | War of 1812 121 points122 points  (20 children)

I assume you mean the guy on the right?

That's the "Mordschlag" or "murderous blow." The idea was that, since armor more or less nullifies the use of the sword's edge, in some circumstances you can reverse the sword and use the pommel and crossguard as an ad-hoc polehammer. The concussive damage might stun your opponent, and the crossguard could be used to hook on pieces of the armor or manipulate joints.

Talhoffer isn't the best treatise in this respect, because unlike a lot of other treatise writers, he doesn't gloss these techniques in depth, he just gives loose descriptions. But we can look at another depiction and see a brief sequence:

The initial mordschlag lands with the crossguard past the opponent's sword, and the fencer yanks it back, presenting the pommel to their opponent's face. Even in armor a hard blow to the face plat like that would at least open them up to further attacks, such as "the throw from the mordschlag, depicted thusly.

It was, as you can imagine, not meant to be an ideal technique, at all, but more of an example of making do without better options.

[–]dookie-boy 24 points25 points  (12 children)

since armor more or less nullifies the use of the sword's edge

I guess I never thought about this too deeply. So what would two knights fighting in full armor do if landing an attack does nothing to their opponent?

Also, I don't see any shields on those pictures. Was it considered a hindrance to the fencing? Shouldn't it give the fighters an advantage over an enemy with no shield?

[–]PartyMoses19th c. American Military | War of 1812 79 points80 points  (9 children)

The methods of fighting with a sword in armor, or against an opponent in armor, are totally different than fencing someone without armor. There would be more wrestling and work with thrusts, attempting to get the point in gaps with armor. You'd also likely "halfsword," using the sword with one hand on the edge closer to the point and one on the grip.

In armor, the sword is more useful as a lever than it is as a sword.

And ideally, in armor, you'd use a lance, pollaxe, or other polearm.

And more or less by the mid 15th century, no one is using shields anymore. Why bother, when you have armor covering you head to foot? Your primary knight-defeating weapon must be wielded in two hands, and even the sword, your backup, would only be useful in the "halfsword" style. A shield would make it impossible to use either of those.

[–]dookie-boy 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Thanks! That was extremely interesting.

Could you recommend any interesting book covering the Middle Ages, lifestyle, warfare, etc? I'd like to get a better understanding of that time period.

[–]PartyMoses19th c. American Military | War of 1812 26 points27 points  (1 child)

A Time-Traveller's Guide to Medieval England is a good place to start, but it's a very broad question. You can check out the book list compiled by the historians here on this sub.

[–]ElementallyEvil 1 point2 points  (1 child)

And more or less by the mid 15th century, no one is using shields anymore.

In terms of the rich elite, sure - but surely most could not afford total armour coverage?

Edit: This was not meant as a rebuttal. I'm asking a genuine question.

[–]FolkSong 2 points3 points  (5 children)

They appear to be bare-handed, wouldn't this cut up their hands terribly?

[–]PartyMoses19th c. American Military | War of 1812 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Not necessarily. You can grip the blade in a way that prevents it from sliding and slicing your hands, and in a way that keeps the edges from your palms, essentially pressing your hands against the flats instead of gripping it like a hammer.

This was not a way you'd fence for more than an action or two, at most.

[–]PokerPirate 14 points15 points  (2 children)

Do we know why the fencers are wearing such long, pointed shoes? Do those shoes serve any martial function? Was it a fashion of the time? Or a stylistic choice of the artist to show which direction the feet were pointed?

[–]PartyMoses19th c. American Military | War of 1812 38 points39 points  (1 child)

Those are called Poulaines, and were a popular style of shoe for aristocrats in the mid to late 15th century. There is some discussion that pointed sabatons, armor for the foot like you can see in this pair, owned by Emperor Maximilian I, would help a knight find and slide his feet into stirrups, but that is, at best, a guess.

But we know that poulaines were a fashion trend, and men would stuff the tips so they'd curl upwards in a suggestive way. You're right that in the depictions of Talhoffer they help the viewer see the direction of the feet, which is important to understanding the movement mechanics and footwork of the fencing, but I think that is incidental; these are just the shoes the models were wearing.

[–]blueocean43 2 points3 points  (1 child)

How does the silhouette seen in the pictures compare to surviving examples of clothing and armour we have?

[–]PartyMoses19th c. American Military | War of 1812 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Armor influenced fashion and fashion influenced armor like infinity mirrors, so much so that it's difficult to tell if the fashionable use came before the practical or vice versa.

But in any case, the cinched waist was a popular silhouette in male fashion outside of armor thanks to the popularity of the pourpoint, a garment that mimics many of the features of the cloth arming coat, and may have been used interchangably with them. This site has a number of good images and discussion about the pourpoint, though it isn't scholarly.

In armor, we see continual efforts to make the waist as narrow as possible, even for men who were obviously quite big. This is the harness of Gotz von Berlichingen, a German knight with a long career in the early to mid 16th century. He was obviously a big man, but due to practical and aesthetic reasons, the waist is pulled quite tight. Later, by the late 16th century, the "peascod" shape of breastplates reflected the shape of unarmed doublets of the time. It's a long relationship.