Thought people might find this interesting.
http://smuhlberger.blogspot.ca/2016/12/death-by-overexertion-english-duel-of.html
Thanks, David.
The knight seems to have been quite unaffected after his uninterrupted half hour of strenuous combat; then again, he would have trained for this sort of thing. And he gives the impression he was perfectly happy to do the same again.
The squire presumably had the same training, same kit and same fight. Maybe the knight was just leaner and wirier. People do vary. Of course the squire may have been guilty and his sins weighed upon his mind.
Muhammad Ali could soak up pressure from an opponent until the other man was exhausted and then Ali would finish him. Perhaps the knight had a superior and more economical fighting style. Perhaps the squire had a debilitating internal wound.
Perhaps the squire had a heart condition?
Roy
Quote from: aligern on December 02, 2016, 08:57:54 PM
The squire presumably had the same training, same kit and same fight.
My impression was that squires generally wore noticeably lighter and more convenient-to-don armour than their knights, not least because in normal circumstances the squire was there to arm the knight but nobody was there to arm the squire. Hence Mr Esquire would be unused to wearing knightly armour, and I very much doubt he would ever have fought in it, or realised there was more to fighting in it than simply putting it on.
For duelling a knight, he would have been allowed a set of full armour, but he would not have been habituated to wearing it. He would have fought with the movement and degree of exertion customary for the light armour he was accustomed to wearing - a bit like running in full kit and backpack when previously one has only ever run in sports wear, and trying to run in exactly the same way as usual. Heatstroke and/or heart attack practically guaranteed.
diet, water intake before the duel, size and bone density of the combatants are also contributory factors to exhaustion beyond the normal physical condition and training of said chaps
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 03, 2016, 11:01:27 AM
My impression was that squires generally wore noticeably lighter and more convenient-to-don armour than their knights, not least because in normal circumstances the squire was there to arm the knight but nobody was there to arm the squire. Hence Mr Esquire would be unused to wearing knightly armour, and I very much doubt he would ever have fought in it, or realised there was more to fighting in it than simply putting it on.
It is unlikely that this meaning of squire is the one meant. He was a castle commander rather than a servant. More likely it means esquire, a man from the second tier of gentlemen. There is no reason that they would be armed differently.
Leaving aside a health issue (heart, asthma) it is possibly a question of who was match fit. If our esquire was a freebooting chancer whose main fighting experience was terrorising peasants and our knight was an experienced man-at-arms used to set tos against his own kind, it might explain it.
Thanks for the clarification, Anthony: that particular point (castle garrison commander) had somehow passed me by.
Quote
Leaving aside a health issue (heart, asthma) it is possibly a question of who was match fit. If our esquire was a freebooting chancer whose main fighting experience was terrorising peasants and our knight was an experienced man-at-arms used to set tos against his own kind, it might explain it.
Indeed.