r/medieval • u/ONPige • 2d ago
Discussion š¬ It must have been insanely difficult to train the way the knights did.
So, recently I saw a short of a dude jumping into the pool with different weights on a weight belt and trying to swim up. He got all the way up to 15kg and he couldn't swim to the surface, at all. That had made me remember that knight's training involved swimming in bodies of water with their armor on that could have reached up to 20 kilos of weight. Kind of insane to think of how strong the knights must have been back then to be able to do this kind of training.
77
u/No_Solid1035 2d ago
Knights were the professional athletes/soldiers (think more Special Operators not line troops) of their time, and whenever they weren't engaging in war, were training for it, which puts them at a level significantly above the "average" person.
46
u/theginger99 2d ago
Youāre overstating the extent to which knights trained.
Knights donāt have a clear parallels in modern militaries because knights were quite critically not professional soldiers in a modern sense at all.
How much a knight trained was entirely contingent on the knight himself, and there were plenty of knights who either never fought, or who fought only rarely.
24
u/Sweary_Biochemist 2d ago
"All I want to do is sit on a horse and butcher poor people: how hard can it be?"
1
u/1967punisher 1d ago
And I believe the poor common folk equally understood this. But they knew about how to "knock someone off their high horse". The charge being the shock tactic, but battlefields tended to end up in brawling masses There was the Flemish guild workers who took on the overlords, the "golden spurs" and if course when the English cut down the "flower" or fleur of French chivalry".
3
u/RhetoricalEquestrian 1d ago
The charge being the shock tactic, but battlefields tended to end up in brawling massesĀ
No, this is just how it's portrayed in media. That very rarely happened, because even the victor would take insanely high casualies.
1
u/theginger99 1d ago edited 1d ago
The historical evidence is fairly clear that knightly charges regularly entered into contact with the enemy.
The shock charge was the point of knightly combat, and was regularly employed throughout the Middle Ages.
It didnāt look the way we see in movies, largely because knights changed in thin ranks rather than dense blocks and did not enter combat at the gallop, but the basic principle was there. They charged into contact with the enemy as a matter of course, often multiple times in a single battle.
3
u/Sweary_Biochemist 1d ago
The important thing is always to use your elite shock troops on their poor unwashed masses, while letting them use their elite shock troops on your poor unwashed masses.
That way, you both still have a nice bunch of intact noblemen at the end, and you can simply tot up the respective piles of unimportant corpses to see who won.
2
u/theginger99 1d ago
Counterpoint, I need to charge my elite shock troops into their elite shock troops because thatās where all the juicy ransoms are.
2
u/RhetoricalEquestrian 1d ago
Apologies, I meant to only quote the second bit about battles ending in brawling masses. That's the bit I was referring to
6
u/Mediumtim 2d ago
There's a difficulty in sources referring to both noble fighting men and men at arms as "knights"
5
u/theginger99 2d ago
Yes, especially in the early period when the term knight was used more or less to refer to any mounted lancer.
In that period there was very little distinction made in the sources between the truly trained, well born knight snd the random sword carrier who happened to own a horse.
Even in the later period though many knights only rarely preformed militray service, or never did so at all. In England knighthood could be attained simply by virtue of a high enough annual income, and in much of the continent it was a matter of birth. Actual military service, let alone being good at military service, was not really considered necessary for knighthood.
In all periods the well armed āspecial forcesā that so many people seem to imagine knights having been would have been a very small portion of the overall body of āknightlyā cavalry.
1
u/No_Solid1035 2d ago
Oh I know they were not trained the way professional soldiers are, and of course there were outliers that didn't fight, but the overwhelming majority of them did, which is why they were the dominant professional warrior class for centuries.
11
u/theginger99 2d ago
Knights were conceived of as warriors, but itās important to recognize that knighthood was a social positions as much (or even more) than it was a military status.
Being a knight through much of the medieval period did not actually require someone to fight regularly (or even at all), and it certainly did not require someone to be good at fighting.
There were certainly brilliantly trained and capable knights, but there were also plenty of knights who were unexceptional soldiers. Knighthood was a vast spectrum, and it included men of almost every conceivable temperament and condition. They were certainly disproportionately involved in war, and even disproportionately capable soldiers, but comparing knights to modern special forces obscures the reality of knighthood which was far more nebulous and variable.
0
18
2
u/mb3838 2d ago
In an age where almost everyone had farm muscle
1
0
u/No_Solid1035 2d ago
Well, I don't think it would necessarily be just physical fitness so to speak. Knights would have had a better diet and far more regular intake of protein due to being able to eat meat on a regular basis. They also would have much better general living conditions and less regular injury so overall they would be in much better health. I mean, all you need to do is examine the juxtaposition between the average lifespan of a "common" person versus peers and nobility. Common folk hitting 50 was considered unusual, but it's pretty common for peers and nobility to live into their 60s and 70s. Diet and significantly lessend risk of permanent injury goes a LONG way to living a long and healthy life. Plus they would literally have extensive training geared towards martial pursuits which includes regularly donning armor and moving around in it. So yeah, it's a culmination of multiple factors that puts them at a different level, same as a modern Special Operator versus a normal person, or even a regular infantry soldier. Regular infantry trains when they are told to, and if they can avoid it, they do. Special Operators train, voluntarily, and constantly.
1
u/Inevitable_Top69 1d ago
You think that makes knights like... superhuman warriors?
1
u/No_Solid1035 1d ago
Not at all. However I do think that they would be significantly more capable in combat than a common man. That's why I make the comparison with professional athletes/soldiers, who are far more capable at doing the things they do than "common folk" but are still human.
0
u/Usernambo 11h ago
Sorry bro - this is in no way accurate. Try telling a modern infanteer he aint fit (and that's not what puts the "spec" in SpecOps either...). Knights were fancy thugs on horses with spearcarrying leavies, who drank and extracted taxes and occasionally had peasants whipped. They often weren't even particularly skilled swordsman (most used maces and daggers)
1
12
u/RadiantSweater 2d ago
I'm not a historian or an expert or anything, but that just sounds like some horse hockey.
Swimming in armor, even to train, would be very impractical. You're more likely to have your very expensive-to-train-and-maintain knights possibly drowning rather than gaining any benefit. All just to practice doing something that would be almost pointless in battle. If you found yourself needing to be in water during a skirmish, you were already on the losing side
I'm sure that there were some knights who were physically capable of swimming for short periods in their armor, but that would be at peak energy and strength and likely for not much more than a moment. 40kg of metal doesn't just add weight, it adds drag, and more importantly, it is material that is simply not buoyant.
I'm sure they trained for getting out of water, but I would likely bet on that being a few feet of water and muck that would absolutely still be a lethal threat to a tired combatant who can't push themselves up or maneuver themselves in the water.
Training in armor while doing other activities was absolutely something that happened. But it was things like climbing, jumping, and running. In fact, the first "source" I found was this article: The 3 Ways Medieval Knights Would Work Out and Stay Fit - which does claim swimming was in the regimen. But the article they cite: Killing the myth: The slow knight in clumsy armour | JSTOR - mentions absolutely nothing about swimming.
7
u/1967punisher 2d ago
I'm not sure about swimming in armour as a training technique.
I'm pretty sure knights in both plate armour and chain mail often avoided water wherever possible. Even if fleeing, due to the weights dragging them down and resulting in them drowning.
It's even accepted that the rain, mud and general boggy condition contributed to English victories over the French in battles such as Agincourt. Where the heavily armoured French forces were unable to keep a firm footing.
2
u/Usual_Purchase_9567 2d ago
We'll charge up this muddy hill! Their legendary English longbows will be no match for our famous heavy cavalry!
1
u/UnderstandingCalm452 1d ago
Frederick I āBarbarossa,ā the Holy Roman Emperor drowned in the Saleph River (now the Gƶksu River in southern Turkey) on 10 June 1190, while leading an army toward the Holy Land during the Third Crusade. Speculation abounds whether the armour contributed to the drowning.
0
u/Timely_Egg_6827 2d ago
And Scottish victory against the English at Bannockburn - fighting around a steep-sided burn and the muddy carseland around it. They couldn't make headway against the schiltrons and a lot drowned in the chaotic retreat.
1
u/jaxqatch 2d ago
You used three words Ive never heard before in one post
1
u/FrankDrebinOnReddit 2d ago
The Scottish are people from Scotland.
1
u/jaxqatch 2d ago
Yes. That was one of the words. Also retreat. And not burns. Or carseland. Or shiltron.
If Iām being honest. Iām not sure if those arenāt all fake words and Iām being trolled.
But respect to the troll if itās true. That is such a bullshit ass way to say I know nothing. But the truth is. I know nothing. But Iām willing to learn
1
u/1967punisher 1d ago
Burn is a Scottish word for a mound/hill I think. Shiltron was the formation of massive stakes acting like pykes to defend the people against cavalry charges. Retreat would be what occurs after a failed attack, a withdrawl from the clash. The other iv no idea upon but it may be the place/location
1
u/jaxqatch 1d ago
Thank you
1
1
u/1967punisher 1d ago
Think the film brave heart with Mel Gibson... Rather than the Disney/pixar cartoon of same name.
1
6
u/Asmallbitofanxiety 2d ago
Bro armor is hella expensive and made out of metal and leather... Swimming will cause rust and rot.... Who is going swimming in a suit that costs thousands of dollars???
-2
u/RadiantSweater 2d ago
They used old armor that was busted and rusted and that was there just for weighted swimming exercises. It was considered very courageous and chivalrous because over half the knights that participated in the exercise would eventually suffer painful muscle contractions and spasms that historians believe were likely caused by tetanus resulting from the lacerations they received from the rusted armor.
4
1
4
u/Lymetme 2d ago
If you think that's crazy try surfing with weights! Knights would have to surf through the straights of Gibraltar on a long board. I tried doing it in Florida with a kettlebell and it was very difficult. They also had to make a pizza while wearing the armour and couldn't take off their gauntlets!
3
u/RadiantSweater 2d ago
The worst part is that the metal in the gloves conducted heat very easily and regularly resulted in knights being burned as the pizza conducted high heat through the metal to their hands resulting in what was, at the time, known colloquially as "an ouchie".
9
3
u/SnooPears7162 2d ago
Swimming in general wasn't really a thing. And the natural fibres people wore got very heavy when wet. People would occasionally die from drowning because they fell in when fetching water from a river.Ā
I don't think water based training was really a thing in the way it might be for modern soldiers. I think medieval people would have associated bodies of water with much more danger than we would today, and that even the underclothes worn by knights could by themselves be quite heavy when wet.Ā
4
u/petr1111 2d ago edited 2d ago
What's the source on this "knightly excercise"? Where exactly in historical documents it was described? Because it sounds like complete bullshit. Even if we ignore the elephant in the room (risk of drowning to death), this makes absolutley no sense. The risk of armor rusting as a result of it is very high, while there is no reward whatsoever, as the same result can be easily achieved just by weightlifting, running and other basic exercises. And armor can cost a fortune - it was ofter several villages worth in money.
Also, knights were never expected to swim in armor. There are accounts of knights falling in water and immediately drowning - and it didn't surprise any witnesses. Everyone agreed that of course they drowned - because it is common sense that swimming in armor is almost impossible.
-6
u/ONPige 2d ago
No source. I just remember reading it a long time ago from somewhere. I know that armor is vulnerable to saltwater, but maybe they were swimming in freshwater sources?
7
u/BjornBergdahl 2d ago
The training regime of Boucicault, the knightiest of knightly knights in the end of the 14-th century did some impressive feats but not even he did swim in plate. Mail hauberk/haubergon is allegedly possible. Padded garments is a time trap. They help you for a short while. Until they fill up with water and drags you down.
2
u/jdrawr 2d ago
There is a couple videos of modern people swimming in mail shirt, for short distances.
Typically if you needed to swim across a river in armor due to circumstances and lack of boats, you'd use a floatation aid like a air filled bladder or something as a float. This was not preferred but it did sometimes occur. The preferred method was boats or finding a Ford that you could cross on foot/horse.
Cavalry could swim rivers if nessarry and not heavily loaded.(Not sure how much weight a cavalry horse could swim with)
3
u/petr1111 2d ago edited 2d ago
Fresh water also causes rust, the only difference is that salty water causes if quicker. But in any case, the extremely expensive set of armor will be completely ruined for no reason whatsoever. The main point of my comment is - this "excercise" is absolutely unnecessary.
Yeah, if you "remember reading it a long time ago from somewhere" then there is a 99% chance that it's just a stupid myth that someone made up from his ass in XIX century or later.
1
u/SuperMajesticMan 2d ago
My dude, I do Buhurt, and we have to wipe our armor down just from practicing in it because our sweat will rust it. Swimming in it makes no sense.
2
u/CarrotCumin 2d ago
Where exactly did you learn that swimming with armor on was a typical training scenario for medieval knights?
9
u/OtherwiseJello2055 2d ago
When knights actually fought on the front lines during the early and middle era of the medieval age they were raised from birth , trained and lived for a life of war. If they couldnt handle it they were directed into the church or trades. They didnt even value learning to read and write for centuries as they didnt see as helping in warfare. If you are raised up into that it becomes second nature and they by default knew no other way.
3
u/Whole_Mongoose1854 2d ago
We really just have nothing like these people alive today. Iād be curious to meet them. Our modern equivalents are trained mostly to shoot projectiles at each other from a distance, which just doesnāt match at all.
2
u/Simple-Royal-1578 2d ago
I think you are overstating it a bit. Most developed countries have professional full time armies full of people who'se entire job is to be ready and train for war fighting. The knights of the past were the average soldiers of today.
I would also go as far as to say that fitness standards have increased. Soldiers still wear armor, it's made of ceramic plates and not spread across the body so it feels heavier. You are carrying a lot of weight worth of ammunition all of the time. Rucksacks can weigh 80-100 lbs. Now when fighting you can be killed from basically any direction, at any distance, at any time depending on your enemie's capabilities. You have to be switched on with your head on a swivel in an environment where not being fast enough can cost you your life. In the middle ages a knight on horseback probably wasn't particularly afraid of a present conscript with a short spear, but an enemy with even the cheapest and oldest firearms are a significant and direct threat to an infantry soldiers life regardless of how much better equipped you are.
1
u/Active-Conflict-8888 1d ago
One clarification there, spreading armour over the body is actually more encumbering.
Armour on your limbs gets moved a lot more and is thus considerably more tiring than the same weight in the torso. Even people who owned full plate would often leave the foot and lower leg armour behind if they expected to march.
1
u/Simple-Royal-1578 1d ago
I'll give you that as I'll admit I forgot how big of a PITA armour on the arms and heavy gloves are. My counter I suppose is that a modern soldier is carrying a significantly heavier weapon in their hands that usually more than makes up the difference. Even a loaded rifle which is the lightest weapon anyone is using is creeping up on 10 lbs, with most light machine guns over 20 once you factor in the box or belt.
1
u/Ne0n_Walrusi 1d ago edited 1d ago
I figure medieval arms is pretty similar.
A medieval source roughly translated at "How a man shalled be armed when he fights on foot" which suggested that knights should bring a shield, spear, longsword, shortsword, and dagger.
Obviously theres variation on it but from my prospective my shield is about 3kg/6.6lbs, spear is 2kg/4.5lbs, longsword is 1.5kg/3.5lbs, arming sword is 1.3kg/3lbs, and my rondel is 400g/1lbs. Thats about 18.6lbs more or less for others.
When in the army my m4a1 (with sling and foregrip) was about 3.3kg/7lbs, optic and laser is out 800g/1.6lbs, and 6mags is 3kg/6.6lbs which is about 15lbs.
0
2
u/theginger99 2d ago
The vast majority of āknightsā were just regular soldiers who happened to own a warhorse and reasonably comprehensive armor. They didnāt receive particularly extensive training.
The Middle Ages overflows with knights whose primary roles were administrative, political or social. The idea that all knights were āraised from birth to be the baddest of bad motherfuckersā is really nonsense. Some would have been exceptional soldiers, but many others would have been reluctant fighters at best.
Knighthood was as much (or arguably more) a social rank than a military one and could be achieved and maintained through exclusively financial or social means. Not all knights were soldiers, and not all capable fighters were knights.
1
u/MasterpieceBrief4442 2d ago
I mean yes but also no. By the middle to late medieval period, I think it would be very inaccurate to say that most knights were functionally illiterate.Ā
And a knight was literally just someone with enough of a landholding to be able to generate enough income for some horses, some suits of armor, and a small band of soldiers. Yes they trained from when they were young but then again so do very many people today. In fact, I would say that people today are generally stronger due to better nutrition and healthcare.Ā
2
2
u/KernelWizard 2d ago
Well I mean I'm pretty sure elite troops these days like the Navy SEAL, the French Foreign Legionnaires, or I don't know the other special forces still undergo harsh training like that too. Also isn't knightly training not very uniformed? Like each person train in the way they see fit and test out their skills in tourneys and if possible actual battlefields.
1
1
1
u/adam_sky 2d ago
Weāve had modern soldiers put on their armor and they said it was easier to wear than current military gear due to weight distribution. No clue about the swimming but you could train a soldier from boot camp to knight in like 6 months.
1
1
u/Dolnikan 1d ago
Fundamentally, no matter how strong someone is, adding that much metal can very easily make it impossible to stay above water. They would be heavier than the water around them and then gravity just does its work.
That, and it would be an amazing trick to ruin something pretty expensive. No point in getting everything wet and having to do a whole lot of maintenance without a very good reason. And such a thing just wouldn't be a good reason.
Although, big armour might recommend it to sell more...
1
1
u/Fearless-Mango2169 18h ago
While we do have records for how some knights trained, I wasn't aware of any one swimming in armour.
We do know Boucicaut, the Marshall of France had fitness routine that meant that he would have easily run a winning time at Ninja Warrior competition, he regularly did reverse ladder climbs, long runs and chimney climbs in full armour.
He was an outlier but most knights would have been as fit as a professional or semi-professional athletes.
1
0
0
u/Hypornicated_1 1d ago
Kid, I'm being dead serious here: medieval knights did not film themselves on IG and Youtube.
They didn't even take selfies.
So that documentary you saw wasn't real.
57
u/Jacob_Astley 2d ago
Iāve no idea where youāre getting your facts from, but it sounds implausible that knights would routinely train to swim in 20kg armour. Do you have a source?
Knights trained according to the era/country/household they were in, so itās not impossible that a knight could train in such a way, however itās clearly not a universal training technique as itās impractical and clearly dangerous, with no real benefit to being able to do so.