How "in shape" was the average knight or man at arms?

[Sir Edward]

You're a stronger man than I am in that regard. Ugh, too much candy... I'm going to make myself sick.

[Sir William]

The building management company at my job handed out these lil baggies full of goodies and I must confess to eating ALL the chocolate candies before taking it home so my wife could kill the rest.  LOL

Congratulations, Sir Wolf- what's your secret?  You've lost nearly 40 lbs in a relatively short amount of time!  At this point, you're only 13 lbs over me, and within 3 lbs of the weight class you said you wanted to be in.  THAT's what I'm talkin about!

[Sir Brian]

Congratulations Sir Wolf! Don’t sweat it if you indulge yourself a little bit over the holidays. One of the great things about choosing a change of eating habits instead of diets or gimmick weight loss fads is the overall resiliency of your weight management regime. You can afford the occasional lapse without suffering any long term repercussions.

[Sir William]

Just don't lapse for an entire week, ok?  lol

[Sir Wolf]

portion control, no sodas or Gatorade type drinks, portion control, no sweets cakes pies excess foods, portion control ummmmmmmmm

hehe my biggest thing is i eat and drink tea when I'm bored or stressed. ive been drinking mainly only water, less sugar in my tea, barely drink coffees anyways etc.

[Sir James A]

I agree that they would be "fit" in that they would have great stamina, and more towards "cardio" than "bulk". Later period plate armors are decent proof that armored knights weren't overly muscular; if they were, they'd have deeper dished vambraces, wider cuisses, more flared sides to the cuirass, steeper angle gorgets, etc.

We know the weight of a sword wasn't 25 pounds, and we know that armor distributes the weight fairly well over the body. They wouldn't need to be a hulk in order to use the equipment, and low stamina slowing you down on the field would usually mean easier pickings for the opponent.

The host of SCA fighter practice years ago used to always say "Old age and treachery will overcome youth and enthusiasm every time". And he proceed to thrash me on the field. Constantly. Often without breaking a sweat. Then remind me. I can see that experience in commanding a group of soldiers being more valuable than another sword in a line of soldiers.

[Sir William]

I would posit that later period armors, especially the highly detailed/decorated ones such as we might see in the museum were likely parade or tournament pieces...meant to be worn at the event and then retired.  I bet the field armor, which would've been plainer, more utilitarian, was probably stouter given its function.  Just my opinion; as I've never handled either I can only speculate and bow to my more-informed brethren.

You all remember the article about the bones of a knight found in the lower part of the ruins of what used to be a castle; in their examination of the bones they noted that the man was likely around 5'7", heavily muscled and his joints showed signs of wear that were consistent w/being in armor and engaging in battle.  I don't have all the particulars, but it is in a thread on here somewhere.  Of course, that is just one case but it did make sense to me...

One can't help but become stronger, more muscular if you're constantly encased in 50lbs of steel, leather and clothing, riding, walking, eating, sitting, etc.

I wonder if I could get away with wearing mail to work, daily.  lol

[Sir Edward]

Yeah, the more complex later period tournament armors were exactly that-- tournament armor. Knighthood and warfare in general changed a lot as gunpowder worked its way into more regular use, and so the complex armor tended not to be as useful in battle. However, tournaments were still in full swing (Henry VIII was quite the athlete in his youth, fighting in tournaments).

There would certainly be at least some bulky fighters, since genetically some people put on muscle as easily as the rest of us put on fat. But unless you were to do daily power-lifting, most combat and tournament activities would build muscle tone without an enormous level of bulk.

The skeletal remains can tell a lot though. Recovered remains of longbow archers have shown fused back bones, from the massive amount of work that it took to maintain the strength to use them. It's crazy.

[Sir Patrick]

I saw a show about gladiator remains once, and they suggested these fighters were not overly muscular, nor overly toned (as the movies suggest).  instead, they were "thick" and strong, yet agile (think corn-fed farmboys).  The "meat on their bones" gave a little more protection than a zero percent body fat bodybuilder physique would have.  Wonder if our boys were the same?

[Sir William]

Sir Edward, I'd heard the same about longbowmen's bones...crazy.  Those guys were the Muscle Beach dudes of the medieval ages; lifting the equivalent of a 200lb man singlehanded a hundred times or more a day will do that.  I doubt I could draw an actual longbow (another thing I didn't like about Robin Hood were those flimsy bows they used; and I know none of those actors [possible exception being Kevin Durand] have the requisite strength to draw one, but I wonder if any of them tried) has anyone ever tried it?

I read about a man who can shoot one, think his is rated at 150#, and he was able to put 10 of 12 flights into the target at 200 paces.

Red Knight, that makes a lot of sense to me...as I thought about it, a body does get 'used' to an activity if it is done regularly so these knights would've been some strong men, but may not have looked like it, to a 21st Century eye?  I could dig that.

[Sir Edward]

I saw a show about gladiator remains once, and they suggested these fighters were not overly muscular, nor overly toned (as the movies suggest).  instead, they were "thick" and strong, yet agile (think corn-fed farmboys).  The "meat on their bones" gave a little more protection than a zero percent body fat bodybuilder physique would have.  Wonder if our boys were the same?

My thoughts exactly.

[Sir Wolf]

during the 15th century, english men from the ages of 6 to 60 were required by law on the sabbath after church to practice with the bow.

[Sir William]

Nobility too, or just the peasantry?

[Sir James A]

I saw a show about gladiator remains once, and they suggested these fighters were not overly muscular, nor overly toned (as the movies suggest).  instead, they were "thick" and strong, yet agile (think corn-fed farmboys).  The "meat on their bones" gave a little more protection than a zero percent body fat bodybuilder physique would have.  Wonder if our boys were the same?

That's the same thing I think. Look at some of the world record holders on things, and compare them to the massive bodybuilders at professional competitions; almost every record holder I've seen is quite thick, but doesn't have much cut and definition to their muscles. Mark Henry, Mark Felix, Tony Cardello, Vladimir Bondarenko ... they literally throw around 400 lbs as if it was a small child, and all have the "farm boy" appearance.

[Sir Patrick]

You know, diet is also going to play a major role in physique.  Obviously nobles were at the top of the food chain, but what about the average man-at-arms?  Was he getting a fair amount of animal protien, or was it primarily grains?