Main > The Round Table
How "in shape" was the average knight or man at arms?
Sir William:
I guess it would depend on how much money he has...the more successful men-at-arms would probably eat meat, and better quality than their poorer compatriots and certainly better than the peasantry ate, by and large. That's just speculative, I haven't read it was either one way or another. I'd imagine a lot of their required nutrition would've come from plant sources too...I've read about 'horsebread' in more than one source and while it does not sound very tasty, it was quite useful for its time as a natural laxative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsebread
Sir Edward:
I'd say "it depends." :) On campaign, it might be harder to have varied founds and a well rounded diet. But at home, most knights would be wealthy enough to pretty much get what they want. The horse is a lot harder to afford than decent food and good equipment.
Most monastic orders had tightly controlled rations, but the Templars, being a military order, actually would often require double rations of meat for their knights. So my feeling is they ate rather well too.
Sir William:
The Templars obviously understood the importance of meat and performance as there is a direct correlation. I wonder though, for Henry V for instance...what was his army eating or starving on? How did 5000 men defeat a force 4 times their number that was also well-fed and better equipped? I mean...besides the longbow...makes one wonder, limits of the human ability to withstand adversity of all kinds, physical, mental, emotional, spiritual. Their feats border on the superhuman if you think about it...
SirNathanQ:
I would say that our knights would be massively strong, but not big. Harnesses show us that knights weren't beefcakes, but the act of repeated combat will toughen you up. For instance, I don't look impressively strong at all. There are a million football players that make me look small, but I'm stronger than most of them. Also, weightlifting builds muscle and was developed by bodybuilders. It's mostly bulk.
There are guys that can out lift me but they cannot actually do some of the things I can do. Most "weight training" I get is pushing 600lb bales of hay and things that involve no weights. I'm also good at projecting my strength, which means I can hit harder and throw around 150lb friends (or opponents) around like ragdolls, while technically stronger people cannot. I think knights might have been good at this also...
Knights would be very smiler. Not very big, but can project some serious force.
Also, tone is overrated. I beat the kids w/ washboard abs on the crunch machine all day. Studies have shown that having extreme tone is in fact not ideal for activities knights would do. Your body needs something to feed on when your food energy is gone. That's how you lose weight. If you don't have this "buffer" your body will begin to cannibalize itself. Starting with the muscles. So for prolonged extremely strenuous activities (battle) it's actually decremental to be wickedly toned. The only reason modern marathon runners and such do not do this is because they can accurately predict what the activity is going to be, energy used, and eat accordingly. When your armies encamped in enemy territory, and you don't even know if the enemy will give you a chance to get breakfast, you better have some reserve source of energy.
Sir Wolf:
bunch of dawg gone Chuck Norris's
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version