[saulrh]

Swords are a lot lighter than people think, even the heaviest armor in use (completely different from the ceremonial stuff) was much less restrictive than usually believed, and the average video gamer is significantly less fit than the average medieval soldier. I suspect that if you used a wiimote or a kinect-tracked stick things would all balance out. It would still require some abstraction, true, but not quite that much.

[1] European longswords weigh 1.5 kg on average: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longsword

[2] Guy doing gymnastics in armor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg

[dfc]

> the average video gamer is significantly less fit than the average medieval soldier.

I am curious if this is just speculation or if you have evidence for this statement? At first it seems reasonable but I am not so confident after you factor in modern medicine and advances in nutrition/diet and discount for stereotyping.

[defen]

Consider the draw weight of the longbow - "Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 360 newtons (81 pounds-force) and possibly more than 600 N (130 lbf), with some estimates as high as 900 N (200 lbf)". And they would loose approximately 6 arrows per minute in combat. And this was a weapon for the yeomanry, not the guys whose entire lives were devoted to maintaining military prowess.

Another quote: "Modern longbows have a useful range up to 180 m (200 yd). A 667 N (150 lbf) Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.9 oz) arrow 328 m (360 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.3 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (272 yd). A flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach 400 yds. It is also well known that no practice range was allowed to be less than 220 yds by order of Henry VIII"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_longbow

[josephkern]

> And this was a weapon for the yeomanry, not the guys whose entire lives were devoted to maintaining military prowess.

Yes in fact they did spend their whole lives practicing. (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training):

"Longbows were very difficult to master because the force required to deliver an arrow through the improving armour of medieval Europe was very high by modern standards ... etons of longbow archers are recognisably deformed, with enlarged left arms and often bone spurs on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

Further:

"It was the difficulty in using the longbow which led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and King Edward III's declaration of 1363."

The popularization of the crossbow, in part, was the reduceded need for training. In some areas it also paid better.

[defen]

Perhaps I was a bit ambiguous - they were free farmers, not professional soldiers. Even if they spent a good deal of time practicing, it was not their primary pursuit.

[josephkern]

Yes I understand the background, but the difference between the bow and the crossbow was that of both skill and strength. While not their primary pursuit the long-bow was still a skill that the State needed to motivate their citizens to practice between wars. As an aside, were average citizens allowed to hunt? From the little information I've read it seemed like it was considered poatching.

[liedra]

This is quite interesting. I did some archery a few years back (recurve bow) and picked up a second hand, 50lb bow, which, apparently, for a slender early 20s female would be "quite tough" to draw, but I managed it, and got quite good (and strong arms). I never really took it very seriously though, but it was lots of fun. I can only imagine how hard it would be to draw an 81+lb bow (though perhaps longbows distribute the force differently? Otherwise that's going to be some sore fingers!).

[Karellen]

Your rate is low. A semi-decent archer (which most men were, practicing every Sunday after church) should be able to loose at least 12 arrows/minute. Most students (~80%) are able to do that, safely, after about 4 3-hour training sessions, 2 weeks apart. Admittedly, they're only using 30-40lb bows, and can only do it for 1 minute, but that's just lack of strength/stamina which comes from practice. A fair proportion can reach 15 arrows/minute, and a very few will eventually be able to get off 18/minute.

This is for shooting at a block of billmen, which does not require much in the way of aim. So long as you aim in roughly the right direction, and get your elevation and draw length mostly right, that's all that's really necessary.

For target shooting, most competent archers will be able to hit a 1m target at 20m >75% of the time, loosing in time with a 12/minute count.

[Retric]

At 12/minute your not going to be able fire again before someone 20m from you get's in range. Second 80lb is light on the light but useful end of a medieval bow. Also, their arrows where much heaver and less stable in flight than what most people use now days.

PS: There is something of an arms race with bows, if you use a 100lb bow and your opponents use 80lb bows you can slaughter them before they get into range. (Ignoring wind, and terrain issues.)

[Karellen]

No, but that's why you aren't a lone archer on the field. You're in a block of dozens, and you're behind a block of billmen who stop anyone with a hand weapon (bill, sword) from getting anywhere near you.

If that fails, and someone is anywhere near 20m, you drop your bow and a) draw your own hand weapon, or b) more likely - run. Because if you're up against someone whose primary weapon is a sword, they're likely to be better than you and have more/better armour, so your odds are low. On the other hand, if you're up against a billman, your odds are basically zero.

I only put the accuracy for a 20m target because a) that's what we shoot at for practice in my reenactment group, and b) to demonstrate that most people can aim moderately at that distance while shooting quickly - they're not just pinging arrows off in any direction in order to get the rate of fire up.

As a longbow archer, your primary job is to put as many arrows as possible into a large block of men 200m-300m(-400m?) away before they get to the billmen you're protecting (and who are protecting you.)

[arethuza]

I can recommend the book "The Time-traveller's Guide to Medieval England" - it mentions the amount of military training that both knights and commoners were expected to perform. Basically a knight was trained from a very early age to fight - no way would an average 21st century male be able to compete in skill or strength.

Even for commeners they were still often legally required to spend a significant amount of time working on their marshal skills - mainly archery.

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Travelers-Guide-Medieval-England/...

e.g. Here in Scotland there was a time that games like golf and football were officially banned as they were seen to distract men away from military training for the wars with England.

[Simucal]

Thanks for the book suggestion, I just purchased it. I had been looking to read a book about Medieval times but hadn't taken the time to find out what one to read. The reviews look promising.

[saulrh]

Bit of a difference between overall health and sword-swinging fitness. I may be almost completely disease- and parasite-free, but the guy that's been training five hours a day since he was five will always lift more than me and run further than me.

[goblin89]

Does “overall health” mean being disease- and parasite-free, though? There's at least one disease I heard of from which the case may actually benefit with increased lifespan[0]. That said, I tend to agree that to equate fitness with health probably isn't correct either.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celiac_disease#Screening

[1123581321]

Look into the physical fitness of Amish and the less developed world in general. You will also find the answer in any researched history of medieval life.

The short answer is that a typical modern person (gamer or no) is much less fit than anybody from the age of melee weapons, let alone knights.

[derleth]

> The short answer is that a typical modern person (gamer or no) is much less fit than anybody from the age of melee weapons, let alone knights.

But I don't have smallpox. Or cholera. Or an iodine deficiency, because I live so far from the ocean.

[1123581321]

That is another discussion since we are talking about fitness, specifically upper body strength and endurance, not rates of illness.

[flyinRyan]

So if you had most of those things you'd be dead and therefor not factor into this discussion. The ones who didn't die were much stronger than the average person today. They had to be.

[sambeau]

14th century knights had the physiques of professional rugby players:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10138060

http://www.stirlingcastle.gov.uk/home/newsevents/bbc2history...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279306/Face-mystery...

[Someone]

On the other hand, that long sword has more rotational inertia than the slightly heavier roman gladius, let alone a much smaller and lighter controller.

[arethuza]

Having fenced a wee bit in high school I was shocked to get to waive a claymore around - a ~1.5m long two-handed broadsword has a lot of inertia.

[wazoox]

I remember Gaston Phoebus' war armour displayed in Foix castle. It's made of relatively thin plates but reinforced with 5 mm thick iron bars and weigh at least 60 kilos. Of course the guy was a hell of a beast but... It doesn't look anything like the sort of tournament armour such as the one in the video or those most currently shown in museums (hint: if it's beautifully engraved, it's probably not war equipment).

[soult]

Using a stick won't work because a typical living room doesn't have enough space to swing it around withoud damaging the furniture.

[pbhjpbhj]

Perhaps use a gyroscope to simulate the inertia of moving a larger weight?

[jpxxx]

Fortunately, human apathy does not yet rule all of reality.