What sort of physique would a men-at-arms have had /fit/?
Would they have been skinny? lean fit? high bf% fit?

>>76288306 (OP)
Why tf you would ask this though that time ended several centiries ago and we have guns missiles and drones and you go to war for penies not for ascending on feudal ladder now it's totally different battle scene
I hope you are not larping as medieval knight just go do some spec ops or navy routine or just go to tire

>>76288428
>go do some spec ops or navy
Cringe and gay

>>76288428
ESL or retard. Call it

>>76288440
I think you are retard imho

>>76288428
Cool, no want physique would they have had, Pedro?

>>76288447
Well as far as i am concerned medieval troops especially after they got full plate armor clad either did tactical scrums intercepting enemies real fast with most fitting units like pikes vs cavalry then wrestling against opponents using weapons and armor pieces trying to dominate/expose/pin them and go for a kill as fast as possible, so it was kinda like team wrestling with some strikes, so i imagine them being built like modern wrestlers (little fatter) or rugby players (little leaner), both explosive and long endurance,with a strong neck, trapezius, lats, erector spine and legs, bf 15%-18% bf

>>76288306 (OP)

>>76288495
Would add obvious - strong core, shoulders and forearms

>>76288306 (OP)
big arms and back, good legs but i imagine them having a big ole ale belly

Wrestling was a very common passtime in the Medieval Age, the 'jacket/belt wrestling' or 'folk wrestling' styles known as Cornish Wrestling, Devon Wrestling, Schwingen, Glima, etc all descend from what was traditionally practiced, and wrestling was part of a man-at-arms repetoir
The people who still do them basically look like what >>76288730 suggests
The accounts of how men-at-arms trained suggest they'd be up several times a day before sunrise to practice, primarily in their armor, what amounts to cardio: running, dancing jigs, vaulting fences, doing hand stands, etc - in up to 25kg of armor
They also still used Roman military manuals so it is possible they copied their weapons training technique of using lead sword and shields heavier than the real thing too

>>76290316
oh and here is Henry the VIII armor, you can see how he got swole over time

>>76290321
henry just got fucking fat. he wasnt strong at all. he was a fat angry retard with gout, diabetes and ulcers in his legs

>>76288306 (OP)
Considering grains were the primary staple of their diet and most of their exercise would be via walking every day, they'd probably be at around 20% and have a box shape. Though, could be lower depending on how seriously they trained their martial ability, if they followed all the Catholic fasting days or not, and how much alcohol they drank.

>>76288730
I don't know about the belly, medieval beauty standard for men were about emphasising a slim waist and muscular legs (especially calves)

>>76288306 (OP)
Just look at the average man of any 3rd world country. That was their physique.

Or just look at any conscript around the world.
It was always the same.

If there was a war you wouldn't transform into hulk overnight. You'd go there with your shitty endurance, your bad 1rm and you'd be tasked to kill some bloke.

>>76290418
He was strong and fit at first though, he got fat and all due to a jousting injury that never properly healed.

>>76290473
>Just look at the average man of any 3rd world country. That was their physique.
this makes no sense at all, they were well-fed and trained from childhood on. they definitely had good physiques, being literally grown into their job of being a warrior. they wrestled, learned archery, swordfighting, riding. the aesthetics will probably come down to genetics though.

>>76290473
Men-at-arms were professional soldiers not peasant conscripts

>>76288428
>implying that spec ops is not the modern equivalent of a knight
>implying that knightly (male) virtues and close combat techniques are outdated and useless
bro

>>76288306 (OP)
Depends on the era. Generally very lean because lifting for aesthetics was considered a sin (vanity) but lifting for performance was a-ok, so with all the things a man at arms had to do and the lifts he had to do, think decathlon type build that is mostly geared for speed and explosive force.
If you look at period artwork, they're all pretty skinny.

Later towards the renaissance, he would have probably had more mass, as armor and weapons became heavier and more unwieldy, needing more strength, and renaissance artwork depicted warriors are more muscular.

Modern era type bulk physiques were impossible because there were no very heavy weights to lift, and just strength without speed would have been a death sentence.

>>76290497
Look at period armor, they were all skinny.

>>76290558
>and close combat techniques are outdated and useless
Most are because you aren't fighting armored people on horseback or with sword & board anymore.

>>76290558
Any medieval combatant would get floored by any semidecent amateur athlete or even modern trained soldier/spec ops. Superior endurance, training programs, technique, commera and nutrition all around. Soldiers cover much bigger distances in absolutely random places of the world racking twice the weight of knight armor in much faster pace being constantly under the pressure of enemy fire

>>76290497
>they definitely had good physiques
They didn't by modern standards. Again, look at armor. Or statues, sarcophagi etc.

The modern obsession with bulking is only like 15 years old, what makes you think 12th century men who fought for a living looked like powerlifters?

>>76290597
they had some freaks in the middle ages and knew a lot of wrestling, people underestimate how martial european cultures were all the way up to 1960. special forces guys are all on steroids so its not really fair.
>>76290605
this is such a dumb and uneducated post i'm not going to engage with you, go argue with the strawmen in your head.

>>76290605
>They didn't by modern standards. Again, look at armor. Or statues, sarcophagi etc.

This statue is over two thousand years old.

>>76290597
lol no
We're talking people who were trained like pro athletes and also killed other trained killers for a living. With no regard to terms of engagement, human rights etc. because those didn't even exist at that time.

Keep in mind that the fully hypprtrophied athlete-soldier of today was already tried millennia prior to the medieval knight, in Greece, and failed. They learned those lessons via Roman transmissions and acted accordingly.

>>76290612
And not very muscular when you see it irl. Also untypically big for Greek statues. Also we're talking medieval men at arms here, not ancient Greece.

Sandow was bigger than the Hercules Farnese, and Sandow wasn't exactly as mass monster.

>>76290624
Say that to me face mate
If you fink your ard enough

>>76290624
But you cant say its not a good physique

mass monsters are repulsive

>>76288306 (OP)
From what we know (armor, illustrations, etc), extremely skinny, prettyboys (with beards as they aged ofc) and tough as nails, beating other people and each other to death just for fun (so the Church had to step in unironically). Imagine you look like a skinny fashion model, but you're a pro athlete, but your sport is killing other pro athletes in armed combat (and sometimes unarmed too). So yeah, the cringe manga bishounen "nothing personnel" ideal, pretty much. They mostly did ballistic exercise like track and field-ish and basically ate no vegetables, only daily pounds of meat and bread with some fruit and lots of wine. We don't know exactly HOW they trained, only what exercises they generally did, which was throwing, jumping, sprinting, fencing, wrestling, hunting animals armed and unarmed etc. We also know they kept the light physique until old age and also were still able to fight in battle in their 70s and sometimes 80s like some warlords of antiquity did.

So, tl;dr, I guess those skinny MMA guys would be kinda sorty the build you are going for, but remember, the building of mass, muscle or fat, wasn't wanted. You also need long wavy hair, pale skin and smooth features I guess.

>>76288306 (OP)
They would all have different physiques depending on skeletal structure, muscle insertions, muscle mass and body fat.
Why do retarded 4chan dyels think certain activities result in specific physiques?
You wanna know what "physique" rucking gives you?
Look a platoon of infantrymen who ruck for a living. You will see every physique and body type imaginable except for obese. Anyone who is particularly muscular also lifts weights.

>>76290646
Fake reconstruction.

Visit the Tower in London, look at the armor. Unless you're a pajeet you will find you're too big for most plate mails. They were skinny and trim.
Think like a fighter in low weight classes, track and field (Because that's more or less how they trained - jumping, throwing, sprinting), something like that. Battles were generally intensense short bursts followed by a breather, so their training emulated that.

>>76290650
It's definitely a DYEL physique by modern standards.

>>76290578
>lifting for aesthetics was considered a sin (vanity)
you're just making up bullshit on the spot and typing it out

>>76290657
>Why do retarded 4chan dyels think certain activities result in specific physiques?
Because they do.

>>76290666
It's been true since late antquity, one of the reasons the Church banned the Olympic Games.
They were hardly alone with that btw, many pagans agreed that the athletic training of late Greece that concentrated on hypertrophy and vanity muscles was useless in war and unhealthy.

>>76290666
Not exactly. Exercise was deeme dlegit for two and only two reasons:
>health
>warfare
That's it. The aim for big muscles I very recent in European culture and originally stems from non-white sources. Big, slow muscles were seen as something a slave would cultivate, not a free man or a warrior. Those were lean.

>>76290674
Yeah sure they sat around 1000 years ago talking about hypertrophy.
And their weightlifting routines were so effective they got "vanity muscles" .
I mean forget the fact that most people today train for years in modern gyms with modern knowledge and modern nutrition and never get jacked, but they all got "vanity muscles" 1000 years ago from lugging rocks around or whatever and eating gruel.
And of course they knew muscles are useless in fighting that's why pro fighters today dont lift weights.
retard
Why I am I even responding to some dumb teenager who struggles to make it through 5th period gym class?
I need a break from this retarded website

>>76290684
Nobody grew enough muscles in ancient times to make them big or slow. You keep making up shit in your head or read something in a comic book you thought was real life

Who cares what anyone else looked like or was capable of. Eat healthy, workout and live your life. God is unironically Sovereign and if you die you die if you live you live. Big and strong men die to small and skinny when it is pleasing to the Lord and His loyal die as martyrs too. It's all pointless from our perspective because we can't see His purpose in the moment. So please the Lord, train your body and mind, eat well, take care of yourself and rest deeply knowing a missile might land on your or maybe you become the next hero songs are written about. It's all the same, be thankful for what you do have, seek the Lord and defy tyrants. You'll live, you'll laugh, you'll love, you'll mourn and you will eventually die, but fixating on comparison will be the thief of the joy you should have all along.

If you want to know what a "fit" man of old was, the statue of David is probably most accurate. Still, even that is merely a sculptures rendition and not necessarily achievable for all. Nothing means anything and the lie you were sold is that at some point it did. It did not, life was a futile as it has always been (without God). But in knowing Him, life becomes meaningful and what we do, everything we do, matters.

>>76290670
They why does every wrestler look different? Why does every swimmer look different?
They only thing every natty athlete has in common is low body fat and just enough muscle to perform their activity.
The only exception to this is runners who are just skelly and football linemen who are just huge. And even they all look different given with various combinations of fat and muscle.
And again why would a platoon of infantrymen who all the EXACT same workouts together every day for years all look completely different (skelly, skinny fat, "oddurrrr mowed", ripped etc)? And many just look like normal unathletic guys

>>76290614
the fuck are you talking about? if you actually bothered looking up info before typing dumbass post you would find that soldiers as well as athletes (though less well-rounded) all have training program mainly aimed to train endurance (aerobic) and explosiviness (anaerobic) with some strength training here and there. hyperthrophied navy guys you see on yt videos are no regular bodybuilder gym rats but people who has done all of this while taking steroids as this anon suggests >>76290609 and that means those dudes would screw off the head of any noble noight' even not training and the actual athletes especially and especialy modern competetive wrestler with centuries of honed techniques, sense of leverage and superior strength n conditioning on knight would do anything he want to medieval wresslin guy in a contest

>>76290731
>Who cares what anyone else looked like or was capable of.
It has to do with the /fit/ concept of "redpilling" which means "how do I get jacked without doing anything?".
They either dont want to go to the gym or they tried and got no results so they wanna know if they play with their toy light saber in the garage they'll look like those roided actors in that stupid 300 movie. Because we all know spartan warriors were jacked monsters from swinging swords around and eating lentils.
So these tards think that if they follow Arnold's routine rep for rep they'll look like Arnold and if they follow zyzz's routine rep for rep they;ll look like zyzz etc

>>76290766

I think there's an element of genuine nievity here where they've only ever been mislead and lied to that they have no basis for reality. They haven't done it themselves (yet) so they can't be sure if the failure to achieve their results is due to a failure in their plan / follow through or in the lies they've been fed.

I agree, fit redpilling. That's why this is a journey for us all. I worked out with multiple friends and matched them in pound for pound and yet I looked thin and wirey (like the statue of David) while they inflated more (not to comical levels, just more balloon than me).

My past was that of cardio while theirs not so much, was that a factor? What about genes? What about diet? Who knows, who cares. Like you said, hit the gym, lift the weights, make improvements and after doing that for 5, 10, 15 years maybe you'll be happy with how you look or maybe not. There's meaning in the pursuit, not in the accomplishment because you may never accomplish your original goal because that may be entirely impossible... But you tried and that should make you sleep well at night and not come here looking for meaning in questions no one but you can answer.

>>76290801
>failure to achieve their results is due to a failure in their plan / follow through or in the lies they've been fed.
And eventually after getting no results they blame it on microplastics, seed oils, estrogen in the water, jews etc.
Anyone but the loser in the mirror.
And they're convinced that if they were born 1000 years ago they'd be jacked viking warriors who got all the pussy because there were no plastic waters bottles back to make them "low T".

>>76290674
>the Church banned the Olympic Games
Never happened. There was no banning of the Olympic Games. The Games had been in decline for a long time, due to a number of factors such as natural disasters and the increasing unstability of the Empire, with barbarian raids now reaching Olympia. Certainly, the fact that the Olympic Games were a pagan ritual dedicated to Zeus didn't help its popularity in the christianizing Empire, but other institutions were successfully christened and carried on, so this was certainly not the main cause.
>many pagans agreed that the athletic training of late Greece that concentrated on hypertrophy and vanity muscles was useless in war and unhealthy.
Wrong. There are some cases of philosophers mentioning athletic training is unneccesary for war, which it just objectively is, but they still justified athletic training for it'sm own sake. The only similar statement in all of Antiquity is Philostratus in his Gymnastica saying athletes SHOULD focus on hypertrophy of the chest even if it doesn't help with their sport because of aesthetics.
>>76290684
Wrong. Excercise was valued for its own sake as well as for the virtues it cultivated. The Greeks spent an inordinate amount of time in gymnastic excercise which beyond a very little bit does not help in warfare at all. Big muscles weren't associated with slaves either. Slaves were quite literally forbidden from entering gymnasia.

>>76290935
You're gonna cause some suicides here. The only thing keeping some of these dyels from the rope is coping that their le based ancestors thought it was bad to be jacked.

>>76288306 (OP)
They'd have to have high endurance for long marches in heavy armor, and the sword arm would be somewhat stronger than the shield arm. Their diet would be mostly slop though unless they were higher ranked and had the favor of their liege lord, so I'd expect them to be 15%-20% bf and somewhat skinnyfat except for their legs and dominant side of their upper body. The guys who could eat more meat would look less dyel.

>>76291041
>sword arm would be somewhat stronger than the shield arm
kinda disagree, swords arent very heavy, shields are definitely heavier, and you pretty much need to keep the shield up all the time
with sword you can use momentum to swing which takes away need for that much strength

>>76291041
cope, before seed oils and fast food the average man looked like Arnold

>>76290882

There are plenty of things that slow results, but to get no results with earnest effort, I'm not sure that's possible without dying. The guy dying of cancer isn't going to get results, but all the microplastics in the world won't prevent you from gaining even just a little. Agreed, no results means you're not trying while slow results could just mean you have more to learn.

Nothing stops progress like self pity.

>>76291045
>kinda disagree, swords arent very heavy, shields are definitely heavier, and you pretty much need to keep the shield up all the time
>with sword you can use momentum to swing which takes away need for that much strength
The sword arm has to be more mobile though and is generally more active whereas the shield may be heavier but is held in place mostly. But I'm no expert, I thought this was determined to be the case by examining remains where the sword arm was significantly denser. I was also thinking sort of analogously to how tennis players have stronger dominant arms, for obvious reasons.

>>76291058
Because the average person goes to the gym with the goal of "losing fat and gaining muscle" and they dont eat enough to grow muscle but still eat too much to burn fat and do they look the same 2 years later.
Most people, esp women fall into this category

>>76288306 (OP)
men-at-arms were not quite knights. they were the warriors that didn't necessarily belong to the noble classes. many of them made good money for their services though and could afford the same kinds of equipment and horses. their diets would be better than laborers but they probably did more actual work too than the nobles so i could see them being bigger and stronger. probably very lean as they walked constantly and even their ale wasn't like ours- it was watered down and not very high alcohol percentage- like 1% or 2%. lots of lean meats and exercise, they were probably /fit/ as fuck.

They would have been DYEL manlets by modern standards. I know it's really romantic to think that these ancient warriors were all big manly jacked dudes like your favorite movie star, but in reality they would have been 5'6, 150lbs wiry looking dudes.

>>76290321
1520 has the most defense
1544 doesn't even have metal protection for the groin

>>76291103
maybe meant for horseback?

>>76290316
>The accounts of how men-at-arms trained suggest they'd be up several times a day before sunrise to practice, primarily in their armor, what amounts to cardio: running, dancing jigs, vaulting fences, doing hand stands, etc - in up to 25kg of armor
I'm really interested in the ratio of armored to unarmored training was. Realistically, most of their time would have been spent in more civilian settings without armor while still armed; which would be when most of the physical altercations they faced would happen. So it would make sense to do most of the training in every day clothing, then train in armor during the lead up to tournaments where wearing it was expected.

>>76290316
Oh I forgot to add they'd typically have fish after they finished training too
>>76291158
The 'fechtbochs', fight books, that began to appear in Germany in the 1400s recommended training in and out of armor against armored and unarmored opponents - you were expected to be able to fight whether or not you were armored and to do so against an opponent whether or not they were armored
The fechtbochs swordfighting was geared towards self defense and dueling

>>76290593
>he thinks that things are that specific
>what is even human anatomy
oh boi

>>76290597
that sounds awfully like a chairborne ranger coping :^)
>missing the point this hard

>>76290455
But the type of grain you got varied by your wealth level.
They were all about conspicuous consumption so the wealthy would be paying to eat refined white bread just to show they could while the poor would get wholemeal multigrain bread.
This is why gout was a disease of the rich.
>how much alcohol they drank
It had a much lower alcohol % back then, in fact many drank 'small beer' which had hardly any.
>>76290462
The slim waist you see on armor was to help with weight distribution, it so it wasn't all sitting on the shoulders this would put some of it on the hips.
>>76290473
The people who trained for it not the peasant levy.
>>76290584
>>76290662
The surviving armor tends to be the sort of armor a family would preserve - ie it was the armor of the wealthy, it's something the owner might have worn a few times as teenagers/young adults.
>>76290597
A soldiers fighting load is about the same as a man-at-arms remember they could wear 25kg of armor. The difference is the man-at-arms weight is all armor where as a soldier has ammunition, food, water, batteries, etc

>>76291041
>They'd have to have high endurance for long marches in heavy armor,
They didn't really travel for extended periods in armor
Agincourt took place where the English did stay in their armor for a long period of time and it was described as loong brown at the end from rust
But they did seem to train to have stamina when they finally donned their armor, see what OP said about running and dancing in armor
>>76291045
By the time of full plate men-at-arms generally stopped using shields, the armor could do that job, they switched to two handed longswords and polearms like the pollaxe
>>76291083
every knight was a man-at-arms, not all men-at-arms were knights

>>76290497
They didn't have "good physiques" in the modern sense because they didn't do bodybuilding, had small chests, were shorter etc.
The average normie in a modern american gym looks better than the best looking ancient warriors ever

there was a lot more manual labor back then. the buff ones were probably bigger than modern day construction workers.

>>76288428
Ahahah sword go swing swing

>>76292119
>were shorter
meme

>>76292274
White Zoomers are 6'2 on average. 6'2 in the middle ages would have been gigantic. So no, not a meme.

>>76292142
more like **swoosh-swoosh** **nyeck**