People dont seem to realise that both historically and now, the most effective soldiers are not the strongest guys, but the guys with the best stamina. Being able to smash a knight's breastplate with a warhammer is not much use if you collapse halfway through the six day march to the battlefield 😅

@nickleback3695

7 ай бұрын

This is why cardio is so stressed amongst special forces. You're 100% right.

@peezieforestem5078

7 ай бұрын

When you say that, a lot of people will understand it as strength being irrelevant. Strength is still definitely very important, you need to be able to carry around a full set of equipment and your buddy, if needed. It's best to think of it as a strength threshold, that, once you meet, you need to also be able to sustain for prolonged periods of time.

@sunder739

7 ай бұрын

​​​@@peezieforestem5078 there's obviously a hierarchy of what makes one person powerful, and strength is.... basically in the 2nd place, if not 3rd. If you think about it even further, foot soldiers had to march hundreds of kilometers just for a war, unlike today's warfare where you got picked up by AC-130 and fly across the ocean. It's not irrelevant, it's just not at the top priority for soldiers and even mercenaries. Endurance is what matters the most, combined with the soldier's morale.

@dfg7418

7 ай бұрын

@@sunder739 First is MIND, then STAMINA and then STRENGHT, because strenght and stamina don't have much use if you are a coward who tries to scape at first time or gets paralized by the horror of having your enemy running against you.

@toekneekerching9543

7 ай бұрын

@@nickleback3695 And the reason why they dont have bodybuilders in the army, theres a gym round the corner from me and its full of juice heads who sound out of breath just walking from the car to the front door of the gym, i mean some of the guys are massive but they are constantly the colour of a tomato, they look like they are about to keel over any moment.

Henry VIII actually was very athletic in his youth. He put on a bunch of weight after he was seriously injured in a jousting accident. Prior to that he was genuinely tall and muscular. There are a couple of his suits of armour which are just about the closest thing to matching the stereotypical He-Man physique you'll see.

@Philweasel

8 ай бұрын

Henry was just naturally quite robust, and he was a huge eater of course (and he could afford it). Also a wrestler, and certainly a man who liked to be the biggest dude in the room. I could definitely see him being considerably more bulky than the average knight.

@jonharker9028

8 ай бұрын

Yeah, Henry VIII was definitely an outlier prior to that athletic decline - being 6’2” (≈188 cm) when the average guy is 5’7 (≈171 cm) [like Skall mentioned] is a massive difference, and having the money to afford so many banquets and so much training + exercise puts him in a distinctly optimal position for that impressive body. He wrestled and fought mêlées and jousted to break lances (riding is definitely a physical exercise) until and even after the big injury. I wouldn’t be surprised if he looked like an MMA Middleweight or Light Heavyweight on a regular day outside of weight cuts. (If people want to look up examples, Jan Błachowicz or Luke Rockhold or Chael Sonnen come to mind.)

@Specter_1125

8 ай бұрын

@@jonharker9028 you might not realize it, but even today, being 6ft means you’re taller than around 85% of men.

@hellomate639

8 ай бұрын

There's a reason he was one of the core historical figures inspiring Robert Baratheon from GoT.

@thehermitthetower1126

8 ай бұрын

​@@Specter_1125worldwide isn't a useful metric in this case.

Edward IV was a relative absolute beast and clocked in around 6'4", which was incredibly massive in the 1400s. In his earlier days, say Towton, he was probably closer to the hulking knight trope, but he fattened up pretty quickly when he wasn't actively killing people in battle.

@tabby_cat

8 ай бұрын

his grandson Henry VIII seems to have taken after him

@Valiguss

8 ай бұрын

Literally just Robert Baratheon lol

@giulyanoviniciussanssilva2947

8 ай бұрын

I would say he was fat and would still beat us up.

@Bob-bs9ok

7 ай бұрын

P. Sure 6'4" is still absolutely massive

@calj6148

7 ай бұрын

@@Valiguss we can take that walk it further and say the whole Wars of the Roses is the War of the Five Kings because well George RR Martin did base it on real British history. The Andals are like the Romans/Angles and Saxons who worship the newer organized religion the Seven(Christianity), and the first men are the Celts who follow the old paganism. Aegon's conquest is an allegory of the Norman Conquest, Aegon's dragons are like William's mounted horseman. In the show and books the farther north you go the more Yorkish English and eventually full on Scottish highland clansy the culture gets(the uncivilized wildlings are similar to the Picts beyond Hadrian's wall) and obviously further south more posh capital city London folk of King's landing. Also the ironborn are literally vikings they pillage rape and steal for a living and once held the mainland until they were expelled(the Danelaw/domain of Harrenhal). We can dive even deeper about individual characters representing actual specific historical figures but people have already done entire videos on that in better detail

Just looking at gymnasts or even calisthenics practitioners shows that you can be strong as hell without looking like a bodybuilder. I'm sure historical warriors, generally speaking, looked more like Brad Pitt's Achilles than Arnold Schwarzenegger's Conan.

@anon4854

7 ай бұрын

You're kind of highlighting the problem there. Arnold is big because he has truly incredible genetics _but_ also because he abused the hell out of steroids. Is that a fair comparison to make? Is our modern standard of a juiced up meathead a proper analogue for medieval knights? Compared to people of the time knights would have been both stronger and more muscular simply due to more reliable and better nutrition alone.

@57WillysCJ

7 ай бұрын

If you look at American NFL players of the past, they were not as massive as they are today. I would say it started in the late 70s to early 80s these guys were constantly hitting the gym and even having nutrition specialist help them. Same with actors getting pumped up for movie roles. The hich school I went to got it's first weight machine in 77 -78. Yeah it wasa small school, but it encouraged most to spend spare time using it. Arnold's goal was to become what he is and pursued it with proper instruction the way a swordsman or martial arts person would. Heck even ice skaters train to an extent that few in the old days could afford to accomplish. You could see Roman Gladiators more like this as they had good diets and lots of training time. Even a wealthy knight couldn't spend that much time as part of it was taken up with riding, parties and chasing girls, same as college kids today without the riding unless it's motorcycles. I would say a motocross racer would be of the same size as would most rodeo contestants.

@cottagehardcoreultrasw3998

7 ай бұрын

​@@anon4854 well this is a wrong conclusion. they didbt have better food. knights ate a lot of meat and medieval diets arent super healthy. food was used in according to the 4 fluids and white food was perceived as neutral. i doubt that medieval knights ate better than nowadays bc we know what nutrians are. they didnt. read some medieval diet books they are really crazy.

@cottagehardcoreultrasw3998

7 ай бұрын

​@@57WillysCJhahaha you have no idea what a knight was doing! knights were training on a daily basis, if they were proffessional soldiers. in the early days they would also live and work in their estate, later on they would just manage their lands and delegate a lot of the bureucracy. most knights were in a retinue and had to be ready for war at all time, especially in the early days. they really didnt have the time for chasing after women or being drunk all the time. they were professional soldiers who had to train their retinue, hold together the family, fullfill their dutys as a vassal, engage in conflicts, lokk after their subjects and had to engage in roman catholicism. "partys" were social gatherings of nobles with strict rules of conduct. christmas maybe the only feast which could escalate into something we picture in our head if we think of a medieval feast. knights were working all the time and had a strict regiment. wasnt very fun to be one.

@anon4854

7 ай бұрын

@@cottagehardcoreultrasw3998 I never said they ate better than nowdays but the majority of people nowdays have atrocious diets so that point is actually more debatable than you seem to think. They ate better than peasants of the time and meat, i.e. protein, is a key component in muscle development. The important part of the comparison I made is that knights would have been bigger than peasants _of that time_ due to diet. Peasants would have struggled to meet the caloric surplus necessary to develop larger muscles whereas knights would have more reliably met that caloric surplus. Not only that but consistent caloric deficit in youth, which would have been widespread among peasants of the time, has a tremendous effect on both height and muscle development into adulthood. Knights were typically from wealthy or aristocratic families and as such would not have been in caloric deficit in childhood very often. If two people with identical genetics go to the gym and use identical workout plans but one party eats a protein rich diet and the other can barely scrape together their daily caloric requirements the one eating meat will have bigger muscles.

I’m surprised no one has made a reconstruction of the average body shape of knights based on historical armor dimensions. We do it with skulls why not armour.

@Nala15-Artist

8 ай бұрын

Because there is a size range there. How much padding do you assume a piece of armor had? Little? A Lot? Somewhere inbetween? And WHY, most importantly?

@phalanx8437

8 ай бұрын

​@@Nala15-ArtistWdym why to discern how Jacked, shredded, juiced, bladed, GONKED, and bodacious knights were you absolute brick

@duchessskye4072

8 ай бұрын

@@Nala15-Artist the answer is, little to none at all. Plate armour does not need padding and is often worn without any (or very little) of it, and is tight fitting.

@GameTimeWhy

8 ай бұрын

​@@Nala15-Artistyour comment comes from you not knowing anything about historical armour. It isn't some unknown as to what clothing or padding was or wasn't needed for different situations.

@dolsopolar

8 ай бұрын

@@Nala15-Artistlate plate armor (as were most common in museums) do have some liners under it and was worn under arming doublets with some maille patches between the gaps of plate, not under it. so yeah we do have a pretty good picture of how they were like

Could you imagine how much more expensive armor would be for a big and buff knight?

@greycatturtle7132

8 ай бұрын

True

@MrEilinis

8 ай бұрын

Feeding to

@m0-m0597

8 ай бұрын

Knights DID lift, evidence is on KZread "Knights in the gym"

@naherathe

8 ай бұрын

​@@m0-m0597 thats a classic!!

@marblemarble7113

8 ай бұрын

Same thing for someone who's 6'4"

there are quite a few tales of nobles from Germany being so big (tall and wide) that their horses could barely carry them, and they were often also quite effective warriors. But these tales probably exist BECAUSE they were extraordinarily large, considering knights of the time

@DeadXManXsXStare

7 ай бұрын

Other countries' nobles: You're not in the cavalry? Peasant. German nobles: You're in the cavalry? Filthy casual.

@anaussie213

7 ай бұрын

Germans are also just large. My dad got our German noble genetics and is a 6'4 tanned, explosive ubermensch. I got the Irish genes and am average height (5'10), pale, slow at sprinting and skinny.

@nicolaiveliki1409

7 ай бұрын

@@anaussie213 we might be related, though I'm not as explosive as I used to be 🤣

@halbkuppe4895

7 ай бұрын

the royal armoury in the tower of london also has a huge german knights armor something seemed to be up with medieval germans

@hawk992

7 ай бұрын

The horses were much smaller in the early Middle Ages. There's a bronze statue of Charlemagne on a horse. Check it out 😊

I like how you mentioned Link from Legend of Zelda at the end, and it’s very canon that Link is incredibly Strong, even though he’s quite small in his size. Zelda in fact, sometimes appears taller than Link.

@saveriocarro9399

8 ай бұрын

As a kinda short guy who loves TLOZ I really appreciate that everyone remarks how freaking strong Link is in proportion to his size or the size of the monsters he fights, gives some David vs Goliath vibes.

@Ninjaananas

8 ай бұрын

Zelda often is taller than Link. And I imidiatelly checked that in Tears of the Kingdom. Zelda is again taller, though that Link is pretty much tiny.

@none-ro9dz

8 ай бұрын

@@Ninjaananas 3d link has always been a tiny twinky prettyboy lol

@linkdx7079

8 ай бұрын

​@@none-ro9dz tp link is fairly tall compared to other hylians iirc

@vjohnson6557

8 ай бұрын

Zelda in Totk probably is taller, then again what you wear like shoes,boots or in totk sandals can make you look taller or shorter depending on what you wear.

A friend of mine has climbing and Taekwando as hobbies and another one is a firefighter. Both are extremely fit persons but far from the biggest guys I know. Especially firefighters might work well for comparison because they have to carry heavy gear, need a lot of stamina and sometimes they are even swinging axes 😄

@Skallagrim

8 ай бұрын

Firefighters are actually a pretty decent modern analog, yeah. And of course soldiers. They don't wear as much armor but they carry a comparable amount of weight in total gear.

@njalsand133

8 ай бұрын

It requires some really well trained shoulder muscles to endure it

@marblemarble7113

8 ай бұрын

​@@njalsand133shoulders, thighs, and back.

@butwhataboutdragons7768

8 ай бұрын

Not sure how common or widespread it is, but the fitness test I took when I went out for three different fire departments was way, WAY more about endurance and gritting your teeth over so-called explosive strength. It was called the CPAT, Certified Physical Aptitude Test, maybe just in my state, not sure. In addition to 1.25 miles (IIRC, it's been a few), which you had to run under a certain time of course, there was stair climbing, dragging a hose, throwing a hose, pulling a (relatively light) weight on a rope, that sort of thing. All while wearing a 45-pound weighted vest. Even the one part that was explosive, the Fireman's Carry, is basically dragging a 150-pound dummy, so just more endurance really.

@Galikes

8 ай бұрын

Some people who are deeply in reconstruction and served in army previously say that modern military equipment sometimes even less comfortable to wear then knight armor. Because of weight distribution.

The nervous system actually plays a major role in athletics and combat, not just muscle fibres. If you perform a movement you're familiar with, your nerves can get a large portion of the avalibe muscle fibres to contract. This is called muscle fibre recruitment. Whereas if you're doing something unfamiliar, the nerves will be less capable of getting the muscles to produce the desired contraction, partly to keep you from injuring yourself attempting something you have no competence in. Muscle size perhaps has a lot to say about the cap on how strong you _can_ flex, but in practice a large portion of your strength in a given task is determined by how well coordinated you are.

@helvete_ingres4717

8 ай бұрын

any reading material or YT videos on this?

@Amy_the_Lizard

8 ай бұрын

​​​@@helvete_ingres4717 The channel Jax Blade has a good video on it but I'm blanking on the title right now even though I watched it quite a few times since I trying to get stronger without bulking up (I don't want to outgrow my clothes because shopping is a pain, I like my current wardrobe...) Edit: Found it, it's called "Small, but Superhero Strong" and it has links to several other videos that also mention topic as well. Also, forgot to mention earlier, but the KZreadr in question makes primarily anime-themed fitness videos.

@jonharker9028

8 ай бұрын

Another relevant video is by the Bioneer, “Hidden Power: How to Get Strong Without Getting Big”. He’s done collaborations with JaxBlade and KneesOverToesGuy before, and has a great view on practical all-rounder athleticism. I’d also recommend videos on tendon training, because they’re important as the connection between your muscles and your bones. Sinews (both tendons and ligaments) are underrated in a lot of the modern world, even though they can protect you so much. You’re less likely to catastrophically tear a muscle with tendons that can keep up, but they take more time to develop than muscles alone.

@dirtpoorchris

8 ай бұрын

Bet you cant even do 10 pushups with all that science. :p (just razzing you bro)

@giulyanoviniciussanssilva2947

8 ай бұрын

I only remembered the best quirk in Boku no Hero reading your comment 🗿 Unfortunately, you will depend on being an Otaku and knowing what I'm talking about to understand the connection.

You can absolutely increase strength without increasing size. I used to be a mover for an auction house, and I'm only 5'8" 140lbs. The amount of weight I could lift at the time blew people's minds on a regular basis. I never got any bigger working there, just got ridiculously toned, "comic character ripped" as I like to refer to it 😂

@Endru85x

8 ай бұрын

I know some small gymnastics and calisthenics guys who beat a lot of people going to typical gym in terms of raw strength ( imagine a man who is like 160 cm and weighs 62 kg and can lift more than twice his bodymass in deadlift). Your muscles adapted to grow stronger, not bigger, because bigger means you would need more food to even preserve them. There are more factors to strength than just muscle size ( your fibers type, joints, how long are your limbs compared to torso etc.)

@ZombieWilfred

8 ай бұрын

@Endru85x Exactly. I used to dead lift over 300lbs when I worked there, more than twice my body weight. You do need to eat a lot more than usual, even though you're not getting bigger, though. I was on the Michael Phelps diet back then, eating 7-10k calories a day because of how much exercise I was doing. I miss that job just for the fitness and the amount of food I got to eat 😁 plus the antiques were interesting and beautiful as well.

@_Leafrin

8 ай бұрын

@@Endru85x Fiber density is also one factor?

@JimCarrey2005

7 ай бұрын

Toning isn’t technically possible, but what you described is a recoup. You gained muscle and lost fat, which is incredible (good job) but I’m not sure that it proves your point unless your factoring fat mass into “size”

@aggroelohim3537

7 ай бұрын

​@@ZombieWilfred dude stop lying you did not eat 10k calories a day good lord top strongmen that weight over 400lbs struggle to eat that much so unless you were a professional eater you ain't doing it

Good video. I've learned from my time in the Marine Corps that conditioning is way more important than size for carrying heavy loads long distances. Infantrymen who can hike 25 miles carrying 90 lbs of gear are not gigantic men, most of them are fairly small because running and hiking are easier done with less body weight to carry, and also they just burn a ton of calories so it's hard for them to gain weight even if they wanted to. Of course it's not completely comparable to medieval soldiers as from what I know they tended to carry most of their gear on supply trains to avoid undue fatigue and water consumption on marches that could last months. Still, they may be in battle under a decent load for hours or days.

@rosomak8244

7 ай бұрын

This is not true. You have to be rather a well built huge guy to have the endurance for this kind of lugging. Solders are not marathon runners. There is a reason historically people from the north turned out to be dominating on the battle fields.

@jorgejohnson875

7 ай бұрын

​@@rosomak8244How is it not true? I literally explained that conditioning can allow you to carry heavy loads on hikes. I have seen it myself and actually done shit in the field with skinny ass men and even women who could hump 80 lbs like it was nothing. Look a pictures of soldiers from World War 2 and Vietnam and tell me how huge and muscular they were. Look at medieval and ancient armor in museums and observe how tall and wide these men were. You'll find that you are completely wrong, I'm afraid.

@samarkand1585

7 ай бұрын

​@@rosomak8244Takes some impressive kind of unearned confidence to just go tell someone who actually was in the military 'uuuh no you're wrong because of my boner for Vikings'

@barahng

4 ай бұрын

@@rosomak8244 "historically people from the north turned out to be dominating on the battle fields." Which part? Because for a lot of history it was southern Europe (Rome) dominating the north.

@gorkacg8462

4 ай бұрын

@@rosomak8244 you are full of bullshit mate, I was in the spanish paratroopers and we walked long marches too and height or weight isn't a factor. Conditioning, cardio, and adujusting your gear is more important than that. The tallest man in our unit was strugling while a 5'3 woman wasn't

As a personal trainer and martial arts instructor, I'd like to add that you are correct. It is possible to train for muscle size, muscle strength, or both. In combat strength and size each have pros and cons. Strength could be more important when you have the protection of armor. Most professional fighters aren't as built as the Silver Era bodybuilders for a good reason.

@aristedes9449

8 ай бұрын

God, don't get me started on bodybuilding. The absolute state of the sport in modernity is a disgrace.

@LordReginaldMeowmont

8 ай бұрын

@@aristedes9449 It all went downhill after the Silver Era in my opinion. The introduction of steroids and focus on mass rather than athleticism ruined it.

@michaelknight6905

8 ай бұрын

Bless you, herald of truth. I came hunting for the "ackshyuwally" crowd IMMEDIATELY and found you instead. Thank goodness. Anybody who thinks you can't get stronger without getting bigger does not know about lifting.

@ReaperoftheWar

8 ай бұрын

That being said who can deny Conan the "giga chad" barbarian? Who doesn't want to hear the lamentations of the women?

@HeadCannonPrime

8 ай бұрын

@@LordReginaldMeowmont There is still the Classic Physique category started in 2016. It is MUCH better than the Open competition.

Heard in video of some historian that it’s interesting to look at Henry VIII’s armor collection. As king he was big fan of tournaments and could afford to by new armor often. And he was kinda athletic in his youth. So his body protection slowly transforms from fitted armor to a huge metal barrel.

@RorikH

8 ай бұрын

In a history class it also came up that he didn't just stop caring about his weight, he actually got wounded in the leg during ... I want to say a boar hunt but that might be Game of Thrones... and because it was medieval times it never really healed and forced him to give up on his more athletic pursuits.

@wardvos7925

8 ай бұрын

@@RorikH If it was Game of Thrones he would have died XD.

@arvintyree1109

8 ай бұрын

​@@RorikHI think his leg was injured during a joust and his wound never properly healed

@RorikH

8 ай бұрын

@@arvintyree1109 Also a great way to get a stab wound, and the one supported by 12 seconds of looking at Wikipedia. (Though apparently he had already injured that leg years earlier, which is why the wound didn't heal well.)

@Halbared

8 ай бұрын

Yeah, Henry 8 was a 6'2" wrestler, but he loved the high life, he thought he was god-emperor on earth.

It makes sense though for multiple reasons. -If you are bigger you are also a bigger target to hit. -If knights would be super muscular they would tire faster and if a battle takes the entire day it's very bad to be out of breath after 30 minutes. -A bigger knight requires larger armor, which would be more expensive and more difficult to produce. -Warhorses were relatively small and a large knight in heavy armor would be more difficult to carry than a leaner one. -In order to maintain large muscles you need to get your daily calories. Food was expensive and rations of dried meat and bread aren't exactly the best for bulking.

@Endru85x

8 ай бұрын

Also, i think in the old days people tend to got worms/parasites more often, eating in general came with more risks than we can imagine with all of processed foods, cooking, fridges, better medicine etc.

@gayusschwulius8490

8 ай бұрын

The last point isn't really valid for armored knights. They were, with very few exceptions, relatively rich noblemen who could definitely afford enough of the right food. Plate armor itself was so expensive that nobody but the extremely affluent was ever capable of buying it. Same goes for war horses. So that argument probably applies to the common foot soldier, but definitely not to armored knights.

That particular statue of Heracles is a well known example of the proportions of sculptures being meddled with to accentuate their apparent height and muscularity: for one thing, the head is reduced in size to make the figure seem taller.

@anaussie213

7 ай бұрын

What about the Trojan priest in the "Laocoön and His Sons" statue? The guy is ready for his super hero shirtless scene in a marvel film he's so jacked and he's meant to just be a priest.

@julietfischer5056

6 ай бұрын

@@anaussie213- That was the style. And it wouldn't have looked nearly as cool to show a dad bod.

I knew skinny knights were A thing but I never really considered how prevalent it actually was honestly. When Skall said most were actually skinny my first thought was "that may just be the artwork, could have been styilized or something for the time" but he was A step ahead and almost immediately addressed that 😂. Great video as always Skall!.

@corwinweber693

8 ай бұрын

I'm pretty sure that there is a fair amount of that going on. To an extent that was the artistic style of the era. But no, that doesn't explain the armor. As well, the Arnie build is a pretty modern thing. Even ignoring the influence of steroids on modern standards..... a big guy knight would have looked more like The Mountain from GoT. Barrel chest. Solid build. Not intensely cut. I know the wasp waist ideal for men goes back to the Victorian era, wasn't familiar with it going back further than that but it's tough to argue with those breastplates..... you'd almost need a Victorian corset (yes, men wore them too) to fit into those things.....

@Fankas2000

8 ай бұрын

When thinking of medieval knights, it best to look at professional fighters in low weight categories. They're all really skinny because having a lot of bulk slows you down and makes you tire fast.

@carrabosse

8 ай бұрын

@@corwinweber693 I'm quite certain it was the style at the time. "By looking at depictions of knights from that time..." sure, in the same way that future historians will look at drawn depictions of men and women from our time and assume that different people looked like that. Do anime characters accurately depict the average human form? Art is always idealised. As for the armour we have from that period, we mostly have high-quality pieces that would have been worn by high-ranking knights who didn't see much battle, or ceremonial armour that may have been donned for special occasions. Again, not accurate depictions of the men who would have been out on the field.

@jonharker9028

8 ай бұрын

“Ceremonial” armour, as in a plate harness that was never expected to even see a practice yard or tournament, didn’t really become a thing at all until the mid to late 16th century (ca. 1540s onwards, more so 1570s on). There were absolutely full suits of plate that were decorated and had additional pieces that were impractical or only used when jousting, but that didn’t mean the whole thing was ceremonial. And besides, armour had to fit perfectly, in most cases better than the most expensive modern black tie suit or tuxedo. Steel is only so forgiving. We have evidence and records of full-body casts being sent to armourers along with the other details of the order, so that there was no doubt about the client’s measurements (since not every nobleman went into an armoury to get all their necessary measurements taken). Some harnesses were even commissioned for boys as young as twelve, thirteen, fourteen years old, with at least one I know for a nine-year-old - the turnaround on such a precise purchase had to be fast for the boy to be able to wear it at all before he outgrew it. And don’t try to suggest to anyone that Francis I (King of France) or Charles the Bold (Duke of Burgundy) or Maximilian I (Holy Roman Emperor) or Henry VIII (King of England) "didn’t see much battle" - Henry was a huge fan of wrestling, with record of him trying to grapple Francis and getting reversed, and all four men fought battles and wars (ever hear of the Burgundian Wars? the Italian Wars?) and even rode in some of the most intense jousting tournaments. If you had a badly-fitted or flawed piece in your harness during a joust, it could fail and kill you. Hell, one of Suero de Quiñones’ closest friends on his Passo Honroso (passage of arms) had a lance head skip off his cuirass and spear clean through his armoured bicep - two layers of steel and the flesh between. This was written down by an observer! They knew this could happen! What do you gain from thinking that there’s some kind of lie here? Have you never seen a boxer, or kickboxer, or Nak Muay (Thai boxer), or judoka, or freestyle wrestler, or MMA fighter… or artistic gymnast, or ballet dancer, or firefighter, or somebody like Bruce Lee? Muhammad Ali? Have you ever seen the statue of the Boxer of the Quirinal? These are not bulky figures. Men-at-arms of any kind, and knights especially, were expected to swim, to dance, to ride, to wrestle, to wield a variety of weapons with definite skill. Look at Olympic swimmers, Olympic fencers, Olympic wrestlers. Even modern armoured fencers and jousting re-enactors: Daniel Jaquet, Dierk Hagedorn, Arne Koets, Tobias Capwell, Dominic Sewell - they are not enormous men and they move well in their armour. Jaqet and Capwell have even written important academic works on plate harness. You want more sources, look them up.

@calj6148

7 ай бұрын

@@carrabosse on this point of actual surviving examples yes the majority of museum pieces that were preserved were higher status ornamental pieces and ceremonial harnesses. We should instead judge from dug up armors from actual recorded battlefields like the archaeology at Visby where many coat of plates were found, of course the decomposable cloth fiber and leather rotted away ages ago but the metal plates still remaining and we find a more rectangular fitting garment like the modern day t-shirt. Of course this is the 1200s coat of plates we are talking about before it evolves later into the wasp shaped brigandine which emulates full plate shapes so it does not represent all armor but it is something I thought would add to the discussion.

In my past days at the gym I saw several big strong men but the one who surprised me most of all was a skinny little Moroccan who was helping with my move. He took a full size (old and heavy) washing machine, lifted it, carried it for 20 meters and raised it to the height of the truck floor: all with only arms and back, no "nonsense" like "you have to use your legs to lift". In combat I'm sure he would have tied me like a shoelace. In that case I learned: Don't judge by size.

@ranfan1820

8 ай бұрын

I know you put it in quotation marks but that part about lifting with your legs being "nonsense" is very funny. Generally speaking it's one of the better ways to lift things. Especially if you don't hunch your back.

@darkwraithraziel6362

8 ай бұрын

Man said "Can I clean here?"

@carlettoburacco9235

8 ай бұрын

@@ranfan1820 This is exactly the reason for the quotation marks: if a normal person had done what he did, his vertebrae could have been collected within a 3 meter radius. I have no idea to this day how he did it.

@matthewburrow3089

8 ай бұрын

The hips and ass are really important in ways many people forget.

@twistsnakeanklesvids261

8 ай бұрын

I threw my back out just reading that. Was he with a moving company or a buddy from that gym? I'm wondering if his strength developed from a regimen or just work.

At the Royal Armouries in Leeds they have a 'Giant' Armour that was worn by a 6'9" man (2.06 meter)! It is said to be John of Gaunt's it dates from 1540. The close helmet is of burgonet type, the skull with a low, roped comb, a pivoted peak with an extension underneath pierced with two sights.

Having studied calisthenics for over a decade, the Medieval body types depicted fit the kinds of different body types active people have. Real Crusades History put up a short about a princess' account describing Bohemond as tall, broad shouldered, and with a thin waist. Natty Life is a KZreadr devoted to showcasing strongmen and bodybuilders that existed before the widespread use of artificial steroids and they fit this description, including Indian strongmen who swung massive clubs to achieve massive gains. (Also just learned that Goliath is described by three of four accounts, including Josephus, as 6 foot, 6 inches).

@jonharker9028

8 ай бұрын

Definitely boosting this one even for Natty Life alone. That channel’s work is always a delight.

@gayusschwulius8490

8 ай бұрын

Regarding your last sentence: Are those modern feet and inches? Although it doesn't seem that implausible - Goliath was described as the tallest soldier of his army, and tall people existed at all times, so I can definitely believe that one guy among thousands could've been just short of two meters, even 3000 years ago.

@whodarboilebamnames3990

7 ай бұрын

Calisthenics is counter productive when it comes it's approach to fitness when it comes to strength. Also if you compare that to long bowman instead, you would find some big ol lads. If you go look at many indo Iranian people. Such as the Scythians, then later the Iranians, Pashtuns and especially Jatts. You'll find that being big was the norm for those who fought. European, especially English knights smaller stature was most likely due to poorer diet, less focus on archery, and also primarily defending themselves from peasants.

I like that you showed Bruce Lee, he's such a great example of the kind of physique you're talking about and I didn't have a good imagine of it in my mind until you showed a real-life human being with that exact body type.

@giulyanoviniciussanssilva2947

8 ай бұрын

My favorite body type in pop culture.

@cadethumann8605

8 ай бұрын

Didn't Bruce Lee have enormous back muscles which made him strong? I recall a scene where he flexes and those muscles were enormous.

@jonharker9028

8 ай бұрын

Yeah, we know Bruce Lee was roughly 170 cm (about 5’7”) and in the ballpark of 59-64 kg (≈130-140 lb) most of his adult life - not big for that size, but certainly impressive and well-balanced with how lean he was. And yes, he definitely trained his back muscles extensively, because those are important to any combat sport / martial art. You may have seen him emphasise those muscles with certain poses for his film appearances, which bodybuilders also like to do.

@pablobro5944

8 ай бұрын

bruce lee is way too lean, knights probably had all those muscles covered by a lot more fat than he has

@taylorfusher2997

7 ай бұрын

To Skallagrim: I do not trust the sources because it’s inconsistent. The sources are not consistent. The sources change their story a lot. Some people do not trust something that changes It’s story a lot.

Very good point with bruce lee when i see armours in museum i often think that muay thai fighters/mma fighters could fit them. Pietro Monte talks about overly muscular men being a witness to medieval age transition to renaissance. He says that the overly muscular men often shown in modern painting(renaissance paintings) are useless for war since they are too slow exhaust themselves too quickly and lack overall strength. I remember other sources talking about them as well. Vegetius mentions that men should not be too fleshy in the context of men having muscles. So he means probably too muscular. Im not sure if the greek statue you showed is actually from this period but rather later neoclassicism. I would suggest the "boxer at rest, terme boxer" statue since thats a real one. Slim yet still muscular. Great topic, also warrior cultures from other places of the world also seem to have similar builds. Some 19th century photos of indian warriors or others seem to prove this.

@odinsrensen7460

8 ай бұрын

I think it depends a bit on the kind of war we're talking about. I hear Roman legionaries deliberately put on fat in preparation for campaigning - for all that marching. Whereas the amount of equipment modern "light" infantry has to carry around means that you want as much strength in whatever shape and with whatever exercise and steroids gives you the most carrying capacity. And the extra weight helps in kicking in doors. But my opinion is in no way professional on this matter...

@superrobotmonkeyhyperteamf3194

8 ай бұрын

@@odinsrensen7460 Do you have a source for this? I have not found that in some of the sources though i must admit romans arent my main focus. At least Vegetius doesnt write anything about it as far as i can see. For maching you would simply have supplies. Modern light infantry has different kind of diet and circumstances. They dont need to march as many hours as people in the past did. I dont even know if they are this muscular nowadays? The few i know aren't. Like they are well trained but not bodybuilder/gym stature. For the rest you have tools or weapons. Same as in the past weapon and armour do the most so its better to have good stamina than having big muscles but sacrifice stamina.

@odinsrensen7460

8 ай бұрын

​@@superrobotmonkeyhyperteamf3194 "Do you have a source for this?" What "this"? The legionary thing? Can't remember where I read that. And I didn't say light infantry go for large, bulky builds, I said whatever sort of strength lets them best deal with carrying all that weight, whether that be bulky or slim.

@Warriorcat49

8 ай бұрын

@@odinsrensen7460 ​​⁠I don’t know about elsewhere, but here in the US Army performance enhancing drugs like steroids are generally illegal, and if you get caught on a urinalysis, you can get kicked out. Strength is important, but we’re mostly average build with a focus on cardio/endurance. When we see a ripped guy, everyone notices because it’s rare.

@odinsrensen7460

8 ай бұрын

@@Warriorcat49 So cardarine, testosterone or whatever for endurance - I'm basically using "steroids" as a catch-all term for performance enhancing drugs here. Seriously, why wouldn't you use whatever tools help improve performance (if the side effects aren't too bad)?

I would say Game of Thrones depicts the knights quite realistically. Slim,smaller but very fit and agile ( Jaime, Dayne, O.Martell) . And some giants like Clegane bros, Strong, Hightower.

@josiasarcadia

6 ай бұрын

Honestly correct. They actually did a half decent job at that

I'm a bodybuilder (I'm doing my first show next summer), looking at the olympia shows from the 40s I would dominate. Putting on large amounts of muscles is something we learned how to do very recently.

@mr.joedirt8583

6 ай бұрын

They also didn't have the secret sauce that professional bodybuilders today use.

Our modern perception of ideal bodies has been influenced by bodybuilding, Action- and Superhero movies to the extendthat we expect these bodies for people in the past. The thing is you not only need to eat very well, which was quite possible for knights but you also have to train hard all you muscle groups and knights trained to fight not to show off muscle. One should rather look at serious martial artist.

I figure this is mostly like modern infantrymen, tbh. They train hard and are in good shape, but most of them are pretty lean. If you look at like, former SF or Seals they tend to be pretty cut and can run a 10k without stopping or getting winded, but the kinds of tasks they need to do kind of precludes being bulky. However if you've ever hung out with dudes in an infantry platoon there is almost always one or two dudes that is built like a tank. I think that the "big guy" among knights was probably pretty common, like maybe 1-5% like it is today in modern combat arms. On the other hand there's probably the 5-10% that are tiny af, like weigh 110 but can hump a 60 pound pack for 10 miles without a problem.

@bolieve603

8 ай бұрын

Modern infantrymen are squat and muscular

@p_serdiuk

8 ай бұрын

The big guys in the infantry usually haul machine guns and they kinda need the body weight to manhandle the gun and absorb recoil. Maybe in the medieval times such dudes would also be somewhat specialized, because they can have an impact on the battlefield but tire out quicker.

@maxreebok8915

8 ай бұрын

@@p_serdiuk in the 17th century grenadiers were recruited for their physical size, so it's entirely possible medieval times had similar things

@rodrigosantoscienceros

7 ай бұрын

​@@bolieve603 That's body armor and a 30 pound ruck sack. Soldiers are usually really skinny. Look at WW2 photos

I've said that gladiators were the equivalent to Attitude Era Pro Wrestlers before. Huge, chonky dudes that did a dangerous and bloody preformative job to entertain, and behind the scenes there was a shitload of time and effort put in to create the physiques and skills to do the job.

@wingedhussar1453

7 ай бұрын

All of that was a job in itself.back then. Regular soldiers didn't have that time along with the extra work

@anaussie213

7 ай бұрын

@@wingedhussar1453yeah but judging off some of the statues even regular guys had pretty insane physiques in ancient times.

@wingedhussar1453

7 ай бұрын

@anaussie213 regular farm work cam make people ripped

Super muscle-bound physiques were incredibly rare pre-20th century. I think a lot of people seriously underestimate just how much relatively recent body-building and especially steroids influenced popular conceptions of the masculine physique. Even the ancient Greeks, who had a conditioning/ideal body standards much closer to our own than other civilizations of the era depicted even their most cut heroes as rather twinkish by today's standards.

Its not just about strength on the battlefield or hand to hand fighting. There is a lot of marching, a lot of equipment. A lot of moving. Standing for hours to days. A bigger person might tire themselves out quickly from this because a bigger person needs more energy. So its not always about height or strength, Resilience plays a big part too.

@LordReginaldMeowmont

8 ай бұрын

Agreed. You also have to feed them and food wasn't always plentiful.

@alexconn7473

8 ай бұрын

Stamina and endurance are what seem to be more important rather than strength although I'm sure strength was important too

@bosknight7837

8 ай бұрын

I mean,it’s not that different in modern armies. Most soldiers aren’t these huge bodybuilder types (although they exist too,of course) because that much mass is detrimental for endurance- not only are you carrying around more weight overall,large muscles also need a lot of oxygen.

@spades9681

8 ай бұрын

@@LordReginaldMeowmontWe’re talking about knight tho, they’d almost certainly be wealthy enough to feed themselves (and they did)

@LordReginaldMeowmont

8 ай бұрын

@@spades9681 at home, yes. Once you're on campaign you don't have supply trains to feed everyone and muscle mass becomes a liability. I'd argue disease and hunger have defeated as many armies as soldiers.

First thing to be wary of - any manuscript of Lichtenauer tradition, and most from the HRE, aren't actually showing us knights, they are showing us (martially minded and sometimes well equipped) burghers, i.e. somewhat wealthy citizens of cities. That means these are people who have something other than being a knight for a day job. This even carries over to actual knights, those that had more administrative or judicial duties would train a whole lot less - it is only them that can actually make them to train, after all, so if they don't have an incentive... But let's look at the twinks. It's not a coincidence we see knights as those - here's a look at what Anna Komnena thought was the hottest guy around (quote from Alexiad): "His stature was such that he towered almost a full cubit over the tallest men. He was slender of waist and flanks, with broad shoulders and chest […] he was neither taper of form nor heavily built and fleshy, but perfectly proportioned". Yeah, the medieval height of beauty for men is, for all intents and purposes, a tall twink with a bit of muscle on. I guess that one thing modern and medieval fangirls would bond over is lusting after Sephirot.

@arvintyree1109

8 ай бұрын

Or god forbid the ladies swoon over a man like Griffith instead of a man like Guts

@davidmason4244

8 ай бұрын

​@@arvintyree1109griffith did nothing wrong.

@slayeroffurries1115

8 ай бұрын

​@@davidmason4244🤓

@Hell_O7

8 ай бұрын

@@davidmason4244 When everything he did is wrong, nothing seems wrong anymore.

@AlekseyMaksimovichPeshkov

8 ай бұрын

What about square jawlines? Or did those not exist back then (assuming from there artwork and really all artwork and even photographs and films and sculpture before the late 20th century and early 21st century Square jawlines didn't seem to exist and everyone back then only had small round or oval faces)?

I imagine a lot of knights would have similar physiques to modern active duty soldiers. There's obviously power in their build, but it's mostly focused on endurance and stamina and carrying heavy equipment over long distances. Too much muscle and you'll start to lose agility and speed.

@taistelusammakko5088

6 ай бұрын

The active duty officers i know arr just regular dudes

@dud5606

5 ай бұрын

I don't think so. The diet and style of training is completely different to those in medival times. The closest you can get is probably fencing competitors, which is kind of duh. All of them focus on agility and speed. Theyre all on the smaller size, toned and slim. And that is probably the type of physique average soldier or knight would have during those times.

I wonder if this could also be related to how we see archers as lean, dexterity based types today, despite it requiring substantial upper body strength.

@julietfischer5056

6 ай бұрын

There's a fellow on KZread who's pretty lean and can use a bow.

@hungariangiraffe6361

4 ай бұрын

​@@julietfischer5056are you thinking of Blumineck? Even if you are talking about someone else, he's a great example for your point. He's slim but he's a great archer (and pole dancer).

My older brother was into football, weight lifting, and long distance running when he was in high school. He was extremely fit and strong, but not super huge. For reference, he could bench 350 lbs and squat well over 500 lbs, but he didn't look like a giant roided out gym rat. He went to Marine Corps boot camp right after high school, and when my dad and I went to see him graduate from boot, we didn't even recognize him at first. He had almost no body fat, and looked almost emaciated (compared to today's standards), but he was extremely healthy. He was still really strong (not as much as before), but his endurance was even higher, and trained to carry very heavy packs and gear for long distances. There's a misconception that to be strong you have to have huge muscles, probably from the weight lifting scene and action movie stereotypes. That's not the case. Muscles can be really dense.

@bickyboo7789

7 ай бұрын

I bet he had some great definition on his muscles though right?

@anon4854

7 ай бұрын

The problem is in the context of your comparison. You're comparing a regular person (your brother) to someone who abuses steroids. Of course the person who abuses steroids is going to be bigger...

@mrRunist

7 ай бұрын

Mass moves mass. Size definitely correlates to strength. Why do you think there's weight divisions in every combat and strength sport?

@asphaltshingles8594

6 ай бұрын

@@mrRunistyou are correct. We are not comparing people of different sizes, but muscles on the same body frame. Muscles do increase in size when gaining strength, but there is also fiber density. Some muscular people are very big, but there muscle fibers are not as dense. Hence there being workouts explicitly for getting big and explicitly for gaining strength. In short, not just muscle size matters. Muscle fiber density is a large factor. Putting the two together gets strongmen, I suppose.

@PacmanLickThisGuysAs

6 ай бұрын

@@mrRunist Size is only more potential for strength which is why a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle. Strength however is a neural adaptation, the more efficient your brain communicates with your muscle means the more muscle you can recruit leading to higher force production. When you train, you can train both of these things separately or together albeit at a slower rate compared to doing separately.

You’d be amazed how some people who look skinny are surprising strong. Having toned muscle is key to strength. Mass does help, but isn’t as necessary as you would think.

@draconian_dragons6588

8 ай бұрын

Rock climbers know this well

@unclechaw1894

8 ай бұрын

Farmer strength

@TheSinsOfAvarice97

8 ай бұрын

Surprisingly strong just means not nearly the strongest but stronger then expected

@AEsir_Goji

8 ай бұрын

I call it chimp mode.

@jameshildebrand907

8 ай бұрын

but, but... "Absolute Unit"

A small correction, at 7:40 you converted 173.4 cm to 5'6" - 5'7". It seems you treated inches as a decimal unit of feet instead of doing the necessary conversion. 173.4 cm is 5' 8.39" and 5'6" - 5'7" is equal to 167.64 - 170.18 cm

Down to earth, historical analysis. This is the stuff that got me into your channel and its what you excell at. Love your objective view on subjects.

When I had an internship at the seaport, I was convinced that the movers-machine operators are the strongest people on earth. They didn't have prominent, bulging muscles, but they were like steel. Since the salary depended directly on the amount of processed cargo, they did not walk, but ran, and they took 2 bags of rice on both shoulders, each 50 kilograms.

The developped calves on these medieval depictions remind me Egyptian reliefs showing soldiers with strong lower legs. Sometimes the Pharaoh himself is depicted with such toned legs.

Knights of old did not have much visible, sculpted musculature but they had immense muscle density, what gave them their strength because they did strength calisthenics. Actually, up to XIX c. it was believed that those Greek and Roman sculptures actually depict some anatomical study of an idealized silhouette. Greeks had some shredding excercises apparently too. Every time this topic comes up it reminds me the time we wnet with my fiance to a museum, where she stood next to a Renaissance cuirass. She's rather a diminutive lady, 158 cm tall and we realized that the cuirass would still be too small for her even without padding. I think warriors of old were more similar to modern special forces operators, who are built more like thriathlonists than some pile of beef, but they are still very strong, durable and so agile it seems unnaturally fast when they move if you had an occasion to see them. If you look at a special forces soldier unedited footage it looks like an old movie, where people move significantly faster but their movements are still precise what gives you this uncanny feeling. I think knights may have been like that, or even more, taking into account how much they trained (a SAS or Navy SEAL operator trains only after reaching adulthood, a knight trained since he could walk). It brings up a question, what is the neural and biomechanical limit for dexterity a human can possibly reach through training.

Henry VIII's young man armour before he got Chonkey after the jousting accident was fairly thin for a man of his height, like a low 40s inch chest and a low 30s inch waist on a 6'1"-6'2" guy

I mean, Link's physique, or perhaps a runner's physique, is the most attractive to me in a man. This tidbit of information validates my preferences. :P

@Skallagrim

8 ай бұрын

Not just you... going by polls that's the kind of physique that most straight (or bi) women prefer. The roided out gymbro appeals mainly to... other gymbros. :)

@Enyavar1

8 ай бұрын

Everyone please remember, just don't tell the gymbros that you know they're attracted to each other. Smile at them, give them thumbs up and shoulder-claps, and leave them to it.

I suspect parasite load was a significant limiter for body size back then too. No worming meds around in the middle ages. My first trip to France, I was amazed at how small the suits of armour were too. By just looking at the breastplates (i.e. the piece that couldn't really expand), it was clear that they were made for really compact people.

@Skallagrim

8 ай бұрын

Good point! We know from some well-preserved archaeological finds that they were ridden with parasites.

@JohnMicius

8 ай бұрын

@@Skallagrim didn't they use garlic and onions for that?

@aprinnyonbreak1290

8 ай бұрын

@@JohnMicius if I was a parasite and my host ate lots of garlic, I would be soooo happy.

@Phantom-bh5ru

7 ай бұрын

@@aprinnyonbreak1290garlic kills parasites

@brx1921

7 ай бұрын

@@aprinnyonbreak1290hehehe your funny

Great vid!

Funnily enough males in medieval Europe would have actually have been taller still than 5'6-5'7 based off of the 173 cm number. 173cm is actually a bit over 5'8. The confusion is likely due to the fact if you search up 173cm to feet google will display it as the number of whole feet and then decimal digits of feet, hence the 5.67 feet as opposed to 5 feet and 8 inches.

@rosomak8244

7 ай бұрын

Another argument to forget those medieval units.

When you visit castles or museums and see the armor, it really puts the size into perspective.

Not surprised. You need to be plenty slender to have the right balance of strength, endurance, and range/ease of movement. All of which I imagine are needed to wear maneuver in heavy armor and effectively wield a weapon. There's too much association with strength and over-developed vanity muscles.the

@Skallagrim

8 ай бұрын

"Vanity muscles" is a good way to put it. Of course bodybuilders can be remarkably strong, but functional strength doesn't usually come with enormous bulk. Especially the kind of strength relevant to martial arts.

@mrRunist

7 ай бұрын

Mass moves mass. Size definitely correlates to strength. Why do you think there's weight divisions in every combat and strength sport?

@deadcard13

7 ай бұрын

@mrRunist but you don't want too much mass if you also want speed. Plus, bulkier mass also puts limitations on range of movement. You want just enough muscle mass to be able to move with all that equipment and maintain an adequate range of movement without stamina being impacted.

@mrRunist

7 ай бұрын

@@deadcard13 One does NOT need to be "plenty" slender when partaking in armed combat with heavy armour. In such situations it's the strongest that win. With more muscles one can lift heavy objects for longer, i.e. more endurance. And of course, it's just silly to talk abput bodubuilders or men who have "too much" when talking about medieval warfare cause no-one is naturally that big without a great training regiment, good diet and performance enhancing drugs. Functional strength is just strength and with larger mass comes more functional strength. Only people who know nothing about strength talk this way.

@danieldeandrade5741

7 ай бұрын

​@@mrRunistI agree that one does not need to be slender to partake in armored combat, but saying that strenght usually wins is a misconception. It's speed that usually wins. A sword is going to cut you no matter how strong someone is and a mace is going to hurt you if swung with average strenght.

Superb. I have been researching this for over 50 years in over a dozen countries and this has always been my thesis as well.

Great topic, you always find something new to talk about. Things that I don't even think about.

Skal, you're more in shape than 80% of people I have seen at HEMA/SCA/DAG events, and you appear to regularly do exercise, whether hiking or combat. If theres anyone I trust about Historical accuracy of the muscle mass of 13th century fighters, itd probably be you before some "well akshually" off the internet. Youre looking alot better, Keep up the hard work man

@m0-m0597

8 ай бұрын

yikes, that doesn't sound that good. So you're saying when i finally go to a hema club, I will be surrounded by fat neckbeards? XD

@irishijo1

8 ай бұрын

@@m0-m0597 To be fair, it is very much dependant on region and local socioeconomic disparity. I was in a pretty lower middle-poor area, so it stands to reason.

@adrenjones9301

8 ай бұрын

Are you serious? No disrespect to Skal, but he is one Chunky boy.

@Skallagrim

8 ай бұрын

Thanks, but I'm really in terrible shape right now. Back in 2017 I was pretty fit.

@Vlad_Tepes_III

8 ай бұрын

Quick question: what's DAG? I recognize the other two, but not this one.

Strength and bodybuilding does have difference. I mean have people seen old labourers? Majority of them are not jacked or huge, but the term "old man strength" exists for a reason. Also, most of the "peak men physique" is unfortunately the product of performance enhancements and supplementation (believe me you will be full long before your "peak physique" goals if you consume protein normally instead of taking whey and creatine).

@stalhandske9649

8 ай бұрын

True. My grandfather (God rest his soul) was a blacksmith for all his life and spent most all his free time hunting and fishing. He was always of very thin build. When his memory illness forced him into a retirement home, a gym-going school buddy of mine who worked there as a nurse told me that he had taken my gramps to the modest gym they had there. He had been awestruck by the weights an over 85 years old man could lift. His muscles, though relatively thin, were like wire rope.

@gayusschwulius8490

8 ай бұрын

I agree with your comment apart from the last sentence. That's nonsense. Bodybuilders usually eat < 2 grams of protein per kg of bodyweight daily. Even assuming a 100 kg guy, that's only 200 grams of protein daily. You can easily hit that over three meals with lean meat and eggs.

@user-ql8lt2uy5s

7 ай бұрын

Supplements arent all that. You can become very big without them. Especially protein is not that hard to get 1.6 grams a kilo bodyweight which is like the max you would need. Creatine does help but is surely not necessary.

Bruce Lee is a fabulous example of strength before size, or rather strength without the disadvantage of big muscles (harder to oxygenate, less resistance, heavier and slower, etc)

Bodybuilder here and you are right muscle mass does not equate to muscle strength, definitely two different types of training. I'd imagine the best of warriors perhaps before knights became a thing had a decent amount of body fat for prolonged travel and combat, men today aren't really taught or advertised the need for a healthy amount of body fat. More muscle needs more energy, fat is energy and it's needed if you want strength and endurance to keep pushing.

@carrabosse

8 ай бұрын

Exactly this.

@Alex-cq1zr

7 ай бұрын

Fat also grants additional protection from injuries, both from strain and cuts and such (harder to reach vitals from what i heard). Fat does grant extra workload on muscles tho, so a fat person is likely to be stornger than a lean person with the same amount of physical activity. Not to mention, fat also gives simply more mass to swing around. I imagine a lot of modern perception of fat is shaped by BMI research which i think was sponsored by diet companies and assumes that someone is ultra unhealthy if they are a chubby... not even fat.

2:22 “There’s plenty of meat in that can” -skillgarm, 2023

In Eastern Europe the standards of what a knight or a warrior should be was much more chunky! In byzantine and orthodox art you mostly see realistic body types with more square and strong frames, sometimes you even see weird belly packs, something like a medieval dad bod. In Slavic world you see the Bogatyr, heroes of myth and folklore with superhuman strength, usually depicted as what we would call strongman build, term is borrowed from Turkic/Mongolian Baghatur, which are also described as superhumans built like tanks. but I think the Image came from the Viking Rus who ruled over eastern Slavs and were much larger, Vikings with their heavy protein diets compared with farmers who ate mainly carbs. In Georgia we have the ideal of Devgmiri, the Troll heroes, warriors with size and frame associated with ogres more than humans. Famous 5th century half mythic king Vahtang Gorgasal was described as 2.2 meters tall and strong enough to carry his armored horse on his back, who defeated 2 Alan giants as a teen in wrestling and who had a giant sword that could cut through the armored opponent and their horse. You even see to this day, so many power athletes are from this region. many great strongmen from Poland and Ukraine and many great wrestlers and lifters from Georgia and Caucasus.

Beautiful video! I liked the way you approached the topic!

I really appreciate that you listed your sources in the description.

I like how you referenced Bruce Lee fitting into Knight's armor (literally just as I thought that myself!), he's someone I reference when I talk about developed physiques vs sheer muscle mass.

Knights need not just strength but also agility and endurance as basics, with sufficiently developed skills and combat and even tactical mindsets. It comes as a total package to finish their daily tasks

Really liked this one. Thanks for the good research, and original source imagery. History is so fun.

Awesome video, would love to see more like this! Keep going Skall

Hahaha! Wonderful video! As someone who had that "knight physique" as a teenager and young adult (i.e.: fit and strong, slim and unable to gain large muscles), I feel retroactively happier about it all after seeing your take on it... :D

There was a knight excavated from Scotland and studies of his bones found he had the build of a professional rugby player. In my mind that makes sense - I don’t think we can extrapolate too much from artistic ideals. I always assumed that the average knight wasn’t a giant, but something akin to a rugby player. Stocky, strong, capable and functional.

@nuclearlefthook5008

7 ай бұрын

Exactly what I had in mind when I read the title.

@josiasarcadia

6 ай бұрын

Rugby is an interesting analogy because it also uses almost every body type. There are also tall and thin players as well as short and stocky.

Good man. Glad to see you in high spirits! Here's to adressing knowledge through the ages!

Just came back to the channel and this is what I see along with the intro, Im happy

Bro, just came here to say, looking good!! I can clearly see your fitness is gaining! Keep up the good work! I'm on a weightloss and fitness growth regiment as well!

There is something to be said about their diet which certainly played a huge role in their muscle mass, a point you do touch on in this video. They ate less fat and sugar than nowadays, had no or very little notions of what proteins would be, so the mass building diet would not exist in the same way it does today and it would have been quite expensive. That's not to say being just fat was impossible though. Consider much of the military and firemen today : Most have quite achievable body types, and they pack a huge load on their backs, but some are really massive.

@johanmetreus1268

8 ай бұрын

It was no secret that eating meat put meat on your bones, even the Viking Sagas speaks of that. Medieval nobles weren't starving by any means regardless how poor their subjects had it, and plenty of meat in their diet as well.

@davidwuhrer6704

8 ай бұрын

People in medieval times had more protein in their diet than most people today. It declined with the industrial revolution.

@ClemDiamond

8 ай бұрын

@@johanmetreus1268 Yes, i did not mean that they had no idea how types of food would impact the body. I meant that a diet for someone working out would have been different from now. We know everything about our food now, calories, protein, sugar, fat... they didn't have the kind of protein shake we have. These are knights we're talking about. One of the lowest ranks of nobility until the Renaissance. They had a fief given by their lord so they weren't starving but not all of them were rich. And their wealth was based mostly on the crops their serfs would grow and tarriffs, so in case of bad crops when the people starved they surely were more concerned than an important duke for example.

@ClemDiamond

8 ай бұрын

@@davidwuhrer6704 Do you have a source for that ? Because i find it hard to believe. We eat way more meat than our ancestors ever did and we know precisely what food contains what. Pretty sure the average westerner eats more even in quantity than some nobles of the medieval period.

@davidwuhrer6704

8 ай бұрын

@@ClemDiamond Our ancestors used to persist almost exclusively on fish and other meat. What is new in modern times is processed sugar. Which is a vegetable. I don't have a source ready for that specifically, it's in a lot of history books, but I can Google it for you.

Thjis video was awesome, I never thought about the build of Knights before, thanks!

comment for the algorithm! banger video with good clear editing :)

There's also absolute strength and relative/practical strength. One example is Chris Hemsworth trying to climb a rope. He manages a bit and with a lot of training does very well. But at the beginning his tiny wife outclimbs him easily. I reckon endurance and stamina are more important than raw power. A big dude might be able to hit very hard. But a small dude could probably hit hard enough and keep going for much longer.

@odinsrensen7460

8 ай бұрын

If we're just talking about dudes punching each other, I want to point out that weight classes exist for a reason. Bruce Lee said that if he had to fight some Brock Lesnar type he's have to resort to eye-gouging and biting.

@hearthatbird

8 ай бұрын

I mean they have armor so that moves them way up the weight class. They just need a good bodyweight to strenght ratio to back it uo

@tuna5305

8 ай бұрын

​@@odinsrensen7460 Weight classes exist in *unarmed* martial arts. However, fencing doesn't. Weight classes get thrown out the window when you bring a weapon into the equation.

@odinsrensen7460

8 ай бұрын

@@tuna5305 I don't think "Weight classes get thrown out the window" exactly. More like they take a backseat. Weapons are equalizers. And some weapons equalize more than others. A gun equalizes almost completely, but if what we have are swords, size can still be an advantage I'm sure. Taller people tend to have longer arms, more reach. Stronger, heavier men can swing larger swords, if not by much. As a comically exaggerated example to illustrate the principle, imagine Gregor Clegane vs Tyrion Lannister.

@Endru85x

8 ай бұрын

@@odinsrensen7460 Let,s not forget that kicking, pushing etc. still existed in armed combat. Imagine Gregor Clegane doing even a sloppy front kick to medium sized man all of sudden. Mass definitely matters, especially if you know how to use it.

A question for the ages lol, but I am going for not skinny but lean. My guess would be the core to arm muscle size ratio would be a lot more core friendly than modern day depictions. Also, the bicep to forearm ratio would look more like a climber and less like a strongman.

Just wanted to say you are one of my favorite channels ever.

I've got some Crusader era sources that try to describe Sudanese soldiers in Fatimid and Ayyubid Egyptian service in almost orcish terms, and one of the things that gets emphasized is how much taller and more muscular they were than the Europeans and how freakish that was. Generally speaking , if a society respects a look, they don't try to slap it onto enemies whom they're trying to depict as borderline sideshow escapees.

If you look up the dimensions approximated from existing suits of armour, more often than not they correspond with what you see on the average welterweight boxers tale of the tape, which makes sense to a degree.

Damn bro, you don't get old. What ever you doing keep it up

Good video Skall!

Considering knights commonly rode horses to battle, and how professional jockeys nowadays tend to be rather small, this makes sense to me. More like an athlete than a juiced-up actor

@DREADTHORN

7 ай бұрын

Jockeys are small people because they race the horses and want as little weight on them as physically possible. Further, most European knights rode huge warhorses compared to the fast, sleek, and slighter breeds of horse that are commonly seen racing or even just used for mounted police units these days - those horses were huge specifically because they were bred to carry large, well-armed, and well-armored men into battle.

@BilalKhan-yg9jc

7 ай бұрын

​@@DREADTHORNYup! War horses are different from racing horses. They are generally larger not just because they needed to carry a lot of weight but also because the momentum of the horse concentrated on the tip of a lance, created the most shock and awe. A bigger stronger horse would cause more shock from the charge and damage by trampling (Which from what I understand was something war horses were trained in.) A knight would commonly have 3 horses just for a single campaign. One was a charger, another back up if the first got felled or injured and the third was a fast nimble jumper, if the knight needed to make a get away. They maybe used by his squire and retinue under non combat conditions. In terms of the physiques of knights, they probably were like MMA fighters. Not Bodybuilder physiques but still muscled and very strong. Medieval battles were a slugfest and fighters needed endurance, athleticism and technique more than Strength. MMA fighters are gladiators of our age. In MMA fight like duels, technical skill is more important than raw strength. Most fighters have the ability to finish the other, if anyone makes a tiny misstep. I'd think it's even easier and more balanced contest with weapons in that battles were days long affairs, with armies trying to trick and outmaneuver the enemy, only commiting fully when they were certain of outright victory.

Huge stones preserved in Scandinavian museums, which lifting was a test of mandom, together with knowledge of working conditions like daily hours and chores in agriculture, seems to hint to that men were both expected to be and were strong and enduring. That doesn't tell anything about body shape. It differed, though, but I've seen many slender men in my life that had a great, hard manual labour capacity. Yes, I'm pretty old. In my youth I knew those born in the 18 hundreds. Things have changed...

Great vid as usual

I like what you did at the end there, didn't see it coming at all!

This is a topic for Tobey Capwell. In the influencer scene, he probably saw and interacted with the most actual medieval armors. Measure the chest and arm circumference, relate it to the waist circumference and height: you end up with a very good estimate for muscularity and body fat

@noneyabusiness3253

8 ай бұрын

Ya you could get a rough ffmi if you know how thick what they were wearing under the armour was.

@anaussie213

7 ай бұрын

@@noneyabusiness3253we know their rough ffmi, same as a fit man in good shape nowadays, 20-23.

This was a really interesting video and something that I never really thought about before. I think I'll incorporate some of these ideas when writing fantasy stories to give a bit more realism to the characters.

nice video! enjoyed it :)

Hey Skal been a fan for a long time and almost never comment but just wanted to say I hope your fitness is shaping up well and to not get discouraged. Thanks for the video.

I bet many soldiers and archers would have had fairly developed physiques but one thing about knights in particular is that the bigger you are the more your horse has to carry so, though def not as small as jockeys, they would have still had a reason not to get too buff, as well as less manual labour

Both. Depends on the training some Knights where athletic especially some Crusaders. But it was all Natty physique like some greek statues that aint exaggerated. People have forgot what is a natural physique because most of the influencers we see on the internet are roiders.

@spades9681

8 ай бұрын

No, Greek statues were generally exaggerated. The most common exaggeration was the shrinking of the head to make the rest of the body appear even bigger

Man, I never thought about this, cool insights!

Wow. Thx for getting in to that. I was asking myself recently if some knights coud have had big guns :-)

You’re basically saying they were built like non-heavyweight martial artists

I always like to imagine medieval knights who trained hard to be built somewhat like mid category wrestling (around 74kg) they do resemble mostly what you described. Broad shoulders, narrow waist, muscular but not huge arms. Also wrestling was a recreational and training tool soo I just guessed that If I want to know how they looked inside the can, I have to look at people who do physical activity similar to what knights did in the past, but minus the min-maxing because of modern knowledge we have about the body today. Anyways, great video. Cheerio.

@anaussie213

7 ай бұрын

Yep they wrestled as part of their training so it would of developed them well.

That was a pretty interesting video, debunking a commom historical misconception with images and artefacts fom the medieval era, congrats, I would like to see more videos like this, keep up the good work

Awesome video

Forensic archeology is constantly advancing, but modern techniques seem to be pretty accurate that a person’s bone density correlates very closely to their muscularity, especially in the bones of their arms and legs. Based on this metric it is assumed that not just knights, but medieval people in general, would have been extremely athletic and muscular due to a lifestyle of almost nonstop physical activity.

I’d like to add one more point I just thought of, knights were professional fighters and today I think if we look at say modern MMA pro fighters, the majority of them probably have a similar build. What were the criteria, broad backs, well developed shoulders, narrow waists, and long legs. Sure there are the occasional monsters like Brock Lestner, but the majority of MMA fighters I think are built just like the description we have for most knights. And probably every other warrior elite class from many other societies and cultures

Very informative video

Great video mate, Chad Knight obsessions have got out of control

I imagine strong and wiry as hell. I would also think endurance would be massively important. But like now, I’m sure there were really big powerful dudes that could overpower most opponents quickly, but like heavyweights would gas out like much quicker. But definitely wouldn’t have been the norm.

They had normal amounts of fat, not low body fat. Their glutes also look pretty big. I think you're spot on about the calves and the shoes. Endurance is much more important on the battlefield than strength. Good video thank you.

Cheers mate. Now I know I'm built like a knight. Been following you for a long time. Good work man.

Love your stuff like this that challenges pre conceived perceptions.

If you watch MMA, you'll notice that most fighters tend to have that lean muscular physique rather than massive muscles seen on most bodybuilders. The excess mass tends to leave one out of breath during longer durations of physical activity, fat or muscle.