Physical state and historical fencing

[admin]

I was just pondering..

Sometimes people point out that historically (a broad term, I know..) people were more 'physical' than most of us. They spent more time riding, walking, lifting etc than those of us who are office workers. This may be true, but does it matter? I know lots of people who have very physical jobs, from mechanics to archaeologists and builders. I therefore have two thoughts to pose to you:

1) Is a modern person who has a physical job any less fit, strong or otherwise 'physical' than an original fencing/wrestling/boxing student or master might be?

2) Is there any evidence that modern people who have more physical jobs are any better at historical fencing/wrestling/boxing than those that have office jobs?

[Dave B]

Massively broad question there.

Firstly although people may have lead more physical lives many of them had poor diets and even those who were privaledged could have thier health badly damaged by disease. So some people would have a physical advantage over the modern fencer, but only a minority.

Second, as you say, there are plenty of people today who have physical active lives combined with good diet and healthcare, I suspect that they are pretty much as fit as your medieval fencer.

also now we have an understanding of how to train and how to teach that may not have been available coupled with training aids (I'm thinking of modern fencing masks in particular) that may allow the modern man to train harder without injury.

I see two main disadvantages for the modern fencer compared to one from some hundreds of years ago, neither of them really physical

FIrstly they had the generations of unbroken tradition and might have trained from a very young age with a master who had a 'mature' understanding of the art. I suspect that over the coming years we'll be making up for that disadvantage with more fencers who have grown up with it.

Secondly in a real fight our modern sensibilities and lack of experience with violence would put as at a disadvantage.

[Phil C]

It's truer for the earlier periods but a number of the C19th "learn at home" and "self defence" texts (especially in the French canon) make direct provision for the urbanite who travels by metro or drives to an office job and may not be as fit as his predecessors nor do other physical sporting activity besides fencing.

They also often have an implied cultural understanding that sport and activity in general is for the young man and batchelor, and that things will slide away when they get married or other social responsibilites come into their lives and leisure activities will be less of a priority or less accessible.

In short; fencing was a means to fitness in and of itself, can be done at whatever pace or intensity suits and doesn't require one to do aditional fitness on top- which pretty much sums up most of my students and fencing peers in the modern era.

[Dave B]

In short; fencing was a means to fitness in and of itself, can be done at whatever pace or intensity suits and doesn't require one to do aditional fitness on top- .

Still true today. The top fencers may do a lot of other training, but I know lots of pretty good sports fencers who think its silly to spend an hour in the gym if you could spend an hour doing a 'freindly' poule instead.

[scalawag]

I was just pondering..

Sometimes people point out that historically (a broad term, I know..) people were more 'physical' than most of us. They spent more time riding, walking, lifting etc than those of us who are office workers. This may be true, but does it matter? I know lots of people who have very physical jobs, from mechanics to archaeologists and builders. I therefore have two thoughts to pose to you:

1) Is a modern person who has a physical job any less fit, strong or otherwise 'physical' than an original fencing/wrestling/boxing student or master might be?

2) Is there any evidence that modern people who have more physical jobs are any better at historical fencing/wrestling/boxing than those that have office jobs?

I reckon No comparison.Those guys where machines. If they where fit enough to hold a sword probably meant they where immune to what ever disease that was killing off the rest of the population. Your 'average' modern day labourer smokes, eats pasties, works a 5 day week 7-3pm then sits in the pub all week end, but he is using his core muscles all day and probably fitter than the 'average' office worker.
I think I am one of the fitter in EMAA and one of Martin's better students. I don't eat pasties,smoke or get pissed at weekends(only in the evening )

[Phil C]

Your 'average' modern day labourer smokes, eats pasties, works a 5 day week 7-3pm then sits in the pub all week end, but he is using his core muscles all day and probably fitter than the 'average' office worker.

Sounds like average working week of a C17-19th labourer vs C17th-19th clerk too (take away the smoking and you can even go earlier in history) so that's no really a valid comparison.

It could even be said that the clerk has the nimbler fingers so can handle a cane or foil better whereas the labourer would be the better wrestler (Dubois even suggests this in his selfdefence book, and there is reference to such in Castiglione when wrestling the Lower Orders and Silver about Gents fighting Ploughmen)

[KeithFarrell]

One thing that occurs to me, off the top of my head, is that the average life expectancy is higher now than it has ever been before. So to that end, if we are to compare "middle aged" individuals, it would be someone in their 30s today but perhaps someone in their 20s a couple of centuries ago. A "middle aged" individual in his 20s would certainly be nearer his peak of physical fitness than a "middle aged" individual in his 30s. This might be a factor, or it might be irrelevant

[Phil C]

Certainly a factor in C18th arts- one was expected to get a "prosperous" figure in middle-age(late 20s) and indolence was a social statement of wealth, it was only the Dandy movement of the Regency era that blew all that away and brought a cult of masculinity that went away from the Macaroni's physical ineptitude towards the Classical ideal of sprezzatura in all aspects of life, physical culture being one of them.

[Michael S]

First of all - medieval diet. Are we talking before or after the Black Death? After the Black Death, everything that I've read seems to indicate that all but the chronically impoverished had really quite good diets. In many ways better than modern, simple-sugar filled ones.

Secondly - medieval life expectancy and medicine. As far as I understand it, 'death charts' have two peaks - one in infancy, when lots of newborn babies died, and one in old age. In the middle there's a trough when people die in accidents. That graph tends to level out when, for example, there's an epidemic. None the less, if a man in medieval times lived to be fifteen, he had about as good odds of living to fifty five as you or me.

Now, when it comes to physical fitness and lifestyle - I think that having a mostly sedate lifestyle seriously affects your fitness and how you move. For example, spend a day without sitting down. Merely standing up for hours and hours is knackering for most people, because they have relatively weak muscles around their hips. For example, in Nepal you have kids who do 'serious treks' (to Westerners) to get to school every day, and you're likely to be overtaken on mountain trails by great-grandmothers carrying loads on their backs.

Which isn't to say that there weren't fat and weak people in the past, just that I'd hate to have to wrestle a farm labourer from two or six hundred years ago.

Yesterday, I emptied two shipping containers of 20kg boxes in three hours. I needed a break at the end of it. I'm sure a late-medieval fencer, with all the physical training that they did, would have been in better shape than I am at the end of it. Equally, I think that there are lots of people who try and study fencing who aren't in that kind of physical shape.

We know that physical training was important to late-medieval fighters. If you look at, for example, GHFS or many of the Eastern European groups, gymnastics and strength training is a foundation in their training. They tend to do well under pressure.

So: 1) Is a modern person who has a physical job any less fit, strong or otherwise 'physical' than an original fencing/wrestling/boxing student or master might be?
Depends on context and task, but for what I do - probably. Certainly, I suspect that they would have better endurance and explosive strength than a roofer.

2) Is there any evidence that modern people who have more physical jobs are any better at historical fencing/wrestling/boxing than those that have office jobs?
Physical jobs? No conclusive evidence. Don't try and ignore physical fitness because it's tiring and takes effort? Certainly.

[admin]

In regard to point 1), it is all conjecture really. I personally think that there are many people around today who are fitter and stronger than an average 16thC person (for example), even if most modern people are below that level. In other words, I think there is a huge overlap. I have excavated a fair number of 'historical' people in my time and most of them were small, thin-boned (small muscle mass) and many showed signs of childhood disease (from which they did not die from, obviously).If you don't believe my experiences in that regard then you can search for a much larger cross-section by looking up the Museum of London studies on medieval-early modern population.

Point 2) I think it actually a more useful one, because we can actually access that data more directly. Is there any evidence that people with physical jobs are better at historical fencing than office workers? Just racking through my memories of who has consistently done well in competitions I have witnessed, I think probably the spread was even, with most of the best fencers being office workers because most people in HEMA probably are (so proportionate). Also, as hinted at above, a manual labourer might be horribly unfit because of smoking, drinking and diet (and injury!), whereas an office worker might exercise a lot and be in good health. Does health make that much difference to fencing ability though? Some of the best fencers I know are fat and old.

[Motley]

One thing that occurs to me, off the top of my head, is that the average life expectancy is higher now than it has ever been before. So to that end, if we are to compare "middle aged" individuals, it would be someone in their 30s today but perhaps someone in their 20s a couple of centuries ago. A "middle aged" individual in his 20s would certainly be nearer his peak of physical fitness than a "middle aged" individual in his 30s. This might be a factor, or it might be irrelevant

Why does this keep popping up? Yeah we live a bit longer on average now but by the time your figure in infant mortality the odds of reaching old age get much better the older you yet. There is a quote in the Fiore forum here I think about Galezzo Mantuva (I think) and being a youth at 30, John Hawkwood and William Marshal made it to their 60's and didn't exactly have 'easy' lives. There, and I unfortunately cannot find a quick reference to it on line, is also a definition of 'ages' in the Medieval period and contrary to modern popular opinion 'old' is much later than we think. Things took a dive in the industrial revolution which I think is partly what gives us this idea of 40 being old.

With regards to eating better now, well is that really always going to be true? Taking out peasants, which are not really what we are interested in, then middling class folks who were involved in BD's fencing guilds or fighting in the HYW and the nobility probably ate reasonable well, with perhaps greater risk of famine at times.

But lets look at what we each eat, these days we probably eat *much* more quantity but it is in general made up of a lot of processed food, Maccy D's being the obvious target to throw stones at even our 'conventional' food is not in the scheme of things conventional what with how our arable land and livestock at treated. At least everything they ate would be organic and free range or wild. There would have been a large proportion of fish in their diet due to fast days, really if they had enough it was probably pretty good.

As to exercise well I think they probably did have more active lives than us in general but it is probably not so much what we consider fit now, all that running around and such we do. It would have been much slower and steadier at a more sustainable pace. Perhaps not super fine tuned to make you better at a fencing match. We also know that they did see the value in more strength re Fiores guide to Abrazare and also we see the, rare but there, pictures of them doing supplemental exercise, accounts of using heavier weapons and training in armour. Then there was (whatsisname who I forget, Bouccuilt maybe?) who showed off climbing up ladders and dancing in armour. Where are other accounts of running jumping etc. So we know they did extra stuff. Probably not bench presses though.

I am not arguing one way or the other here my opinion is just guess work but some things that are questionable keep getting brought up as fact. When it is more a case of hmmm it depends.

Any way my guesses to Matt's questions:

1) I would think that this depends on the specific job and life style in both cases but I would suspect not really. But would be adapted differently.

2) I don't think there would be but I guess we would need to define what we are looking at elite athletes? Well they have been training since they were kids anyway. Club level? well in any modern sample there are such a wide range of body types that it is impossible to say. I look around my IT office and there is a full spectrum of fitness levels from over weight and wimpy little people to very strong and lean.

EDIT: I agree with Micheal S too!

[Motley]

In regard to point 1), it is all conjecture really. I personally think that there are many people around today who are fitter and stronger than an average 16thC person (for example), even if most modern people are below that level. In other words, I think there is a huge overlap. I have excavated a fair number of 'historical' people in my time and most of them were small, thin-boned (small muscle mass) and many showed signs of childhood disease (from which they did not die from, obviously).If you don't believe my experiences in that regard then you can search for a much larger cross-section by looking up the Museum of London studies on medieval-early modern population.

Point 2) I think it actually a more useful one, because we can actually access that data more directly. Is there any evidence that people with physical jobs are better at historical fencing than office workers? Just racking through my memories of who has consistently done well in competitions I have witnessed, I think probably the spread was even, with most of the best fencers being office workers because most people in HEMA probably are (so proportionate). Also, as hinted at above, a manual labourer might be horribly unfit because of smoking, drinking and diet (and injury!), whereas an office worker might exercise a lot and be in good health. Does health make that much difference to fencing ability though? Some of the best fencers I know are fat and old.

A little addition to point 2, Middle class office workers probably have more time to devote to training, not being physically knackered from a day's work.

[KeithFarrell]

Point 2) I think it actually a more useful one, because we can actually access that data more directly. Is there any evidence that people with physical jobs are better at historical fencing than office workers? Just racking through my memories of who has consistently done well in competitions I have witnessed, I think probably the spread was even, with most of the best fencers being office workers because most people in HEMA probably are (so proportionate). Also, as hinted at above, a manual labourer might be horribly unfit because of smoking, drinking and diet (and injury!), whereas an office worker might exercise a lot and be in good health. Does health make that much difference to fencing ability though? Some of the best fencers I know are fat and old.

The best fighters in my general acquaintance are those who fight cleverly. Strength and fitness help, don't get me wrong - you can't cut a person if you only tickle him with a sword, with fitness and stamina meaning you can train for longer and get better at fighting cleverly - but those who *only* fight with strength and fitness on their side can be beaten quite easily by someone who has a better knowledge and understanding of what is happening.

To this end, I actually think the modern office worker might have a bit of an advantage! Because modern office workers rarely have the strength and fitness of someone doing more a more physically intensive job, the only way to remain "competitive" is to fight cleverly and not to rely on strength. These people then have the motivation to learn skilful fencing instead of relying on strength.

This might have a weak case with sword fighting, but it is certainly my experience with unarmed fighting (karate) and wrestling. The clever fighters with the greatest understanding do best; those who rely on strength are consistently defeated. That being said, clever fighters who are ALSO blessed with a lot of strength and fitness are a nightmare to fight against!

[KeithFarrell]

One thing that occurs to me, off the top of my head, is that the average life expectancy is higher now than it has ever been before. So to that end, if we are to compare "middle aged" individuals, it would be someone in their 30s today but perhaps someone in their 20s a couple of centuries ago. A "middle aged" individual in his 20s would certainly be nearer his peak of physical fitness than a "middle aged" individual in his 30s. This might be a factor, or it might be irrelevant

Why does this keep popping up? Yeah we live a bit longer on average now but by the time your figure in infant mortality the odds of reaching old age get much better the older you yet. There is a quote in the Fiore forum here I think about Galezzo Mantuva (I think) and being a youth at 30, John Hawkwood and William Marshal made it to their 60's and didn't exactly have 'easy' lives. There, and I unfortunately cannot find a quick reference to it on line, is also a definition of 'ages' in the Medieval period and contrary to modern popular opinion 'old' is much later than we think. Things took a dive in the industrial revolution which I think is partly what gives us this idea of 40 being old.

I was actually thinking of my time studying history in school with respect to the industrial revolution in Scotland; particularly industries like coal mining and working on the railways. While I can't recall the numbers precisely, I seem to recall ages like 30-odd being a reasonable (perhaps even high!) life expectancy for the coal miners. Given their occupation one would expect them to be good at boxing or wrestling, if perhaps not so good at fencing.

[Motley]

This might have a weak case with sword fighting, but it is certainly my experience with unarmed fighting (karate) and wrestling. The clever fighters with the greatest understanding do best; those who rely on strength are consistently defeated. That being said, clever fighters who are ALSO blessed with a lot of strength and fitness are a nightmare to fight against!

Quite, so if you are a weak clever fighter then hitting the gym and lifting heavy things will probably make you much better. You won't suddenly become stupid cos you lift weights. The two are not by any means mutually exclusive.

[Michael S]

I'm not so sure about the importance of not being knackered Motley - yesterday I worked eight hours on my feet doing manual lifting, scoffed down some dinner and then drove up to Wellington to do three and a half hours of very demanding, but in a totally different way, Olympic Fencing. Further more you (in my period) have young guys whose jobs it is to pretty much manage their land, politick and train - it may be a different case in cities though. You also have people like students - whose job it is to get drunk and cause mischief.

I do think a difference in lifestyle is the working hours - I think most pre-modern people were up at the crack of dawn, and didn't stay up much later than dark. A meal and then stories, songs and sleep. It's pretty much the lifestyle you see in modern areas that don't have electricity.

(Although to counter biggin' up the medieval lifestyle. I love modern dentistry. It would have sucked to live with abcesses for most of your life.)

Oh, and I'm reminded of BJJ arguments: 'Skill beats athleticism?' 'But if there are two competitors, of equal skill, but one's far more athletic, who'd succeed?' 'That's not the point I'm making!'
I think that there's no reason to try and avoid physical fitness in HEMA. Only excuses for not doing it (some of which can be good excuses, like 'I don't care about getting better at this enough to make the effort'...)

[Motley]

I was actually thinking of my time studying history in school with respect to the industrial revolution in Scotland; particularly industries like coal mining and working on the railways. While I can't recall the numbers precisely, I seem to recall ages like 30-odd being a reasonable (perhaps even high!) life expectancy for the coal miners. Given their occupation one would expect them to be good at boxing or wrestling, if perhaps not so good at fencing.

From what I understand, and it is very limited, life for the average person took a much much larger turn for the worse in the industrial revolution. With the move to much longer working hours in very bad conditions, more cramped 'slum' lodging as more moved to the cities which made getting adequate food harder (even peasants int eh medieval period probably had their own garden to grow stuff in), more pollution etc. the list goes on. So yeah if we are looking at that period life was short and shitty.

I don't know that that goes for earlier periods so much though. Really the time spans we are talking about most cases could be argued from a time of plenty to famine and plague and we can call all of that Medieval! As I said I read a paper once that was looking at what they themselves in period considered 'old' and getting to 70 was not unreasonable. Basically your chances of getting to 70+ increased the older you got. So if you made it to 40 you were looking good for old age, barring accident.

[Motley]

I'm not so sure about the importance of not being knackered Motley - yesterday I worked eight hours on my feet doing manual lifting, scoffed down some dinner and then drove up to Wellington to do three and a half hours of very demanding, but in a totally different way, Olympic Fencing. Further more you (in my period) have young guys whose jobs it is to pretty much manage their land, politick and train - it may be a different case in cities though. You also have people like students - whose job it is to get drunk and cause mischief.

I do think a difference in lifestyle is the working hours - I think most pre-modern people were up at the crack of dawn, and didn't stay up much later than dark. A meal and then stories, songs and sleep. It's pretty much the lifestyle you see in modern areas that don't have electricity.

(Although to counter biggin' up the medieval lifestyle. I love modern dentistry. It would have sucked to live with abcesses for most of your life.)

Oh, and I'm reminded of BJJ arguments: 'Skill beats athleticism?' 'But if there are two competitors, of equal skill, but one's far more athletic, who'd succeed?' 'That's not the point I'm making!'
I think that there's no reason to try and avoid physical fitness in HEMA. Only excuses for not doing it (some of which can be good excuses, like 'I don't care about getting better at this enough to make the effort'...)

Yeah I can't argue with any of this. Being physical all day can keep you more energised. And thanks for bringing up the pay length that is probably important too.

I wasn't trying to argue one way or the other, sorry if it came across that way, I was just trying to caution that many sweeping generalisations we make are not really representative of the full picture.

[Motley]

Oh, and I'm reminded of BJJ arguments: 'Skill beats athleticism?'

I wonder dose it? Thinking about all the martial art stuff I have done, the skilful guys are also the fitter ones, I am not sure you can get that skilful with out also developing the level of athleticism needed. The problem with statements like that is they create a false dichotomy in peoples mind hence the argument that follows. The spirit is sound doing it right is what is importnant, but I think it gives the wrong message.

[KeithFarrell]

This might have a weak case with sword fighting, but it is certainly my experience with unarmed fighting (karate) and wrestling. The clever fighters with the greatest understanding do best; those who rely on strength are consistently defeated. That being said, clever fighters who are ALSO blessed with a lot of strength and fitness are a nightmare to fight against!

Quite, so if you are a weak clever fighter then hitting the gym and lifting heavy things will probably make you much better. You won't suddenly become stupid cos you lift weights. The two are not by any means mutually exclusive.

It seems we are butting heads a little here, and perhaps the fault is that I'm not expressing myself very clearly. I fully agree with what you say there, and I wouldn't dream of saying that strength and cleverness are mutually exclusive! What I mean is that in my experience of assorted different martial arts, people who start with strength tend to rely on that strength for longer than someone who doesn't have a lot of it to begin with. The person who is physically weaker has the incentive to start fighting cleverly before the stronger person, who usually starts fighting cleverly as soon as he realises that his strength is no longer enough to win every bout. There are of course exceptions to this rule, there are exceptions to everything, but this is how I have seen things happen over several years of teaching clubs.

There is nothing stopping a builder from fighting cleverly or a secretary from fighting with strength, but a stronger person is more likely to try and use strength and a weaker person is more likely to try and find a way round it. And that led to my somewhat tongue in cheek suggestion that the modern office worker might have a slight advantage over someone who does a physically intensive job today, in terms of having the incentive to fight cleverly from the very start.