Where is boxing in medieval European martial arts?

/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiatoria
scholagladiator...
/ matt_easton
www.antique-swo...

[@alphermail]

Legend says that Matt wields a magical sword called "Context"

[@villehammar7858]

Does it have context-dependent powers?

[@Bearded_Tattooed_Guy]

It can cut through bullshit like a hot blade in butter...

[@christopherknorr2895]

It's effectiveness depends entirely on the situation at hand.

[@alphermail]

Generally speaking...

[@christopherknorr2895]

In actual fact

[@Sophocles13]

I got stabbed in a street fight, and the creepy thing is that when you're adrenaline is flowing it really does just feel like a punch, or a thump. To me it happened extremely quickly. It was someone that was really messed up on drugs at a bus stop and he pulled a pocket knife without me seeing and hit me in my chest on the right side below my armpit. It perforated my chest cavity but at the time all I felt was a thump. Thank god I happened to have a walking stick on me that I was carving and shoved him back with it and he ended up running. If it weren't for the fact that my lung partially collapsed because the knife went through my chest wall, I wouldn't have even known something was wrong at first. Thankfully the 3 1/2" folding knife didn't penetrate organs and I was stabilized fairly easily at the e.r. But still, it was a chilling experience.

[@lokuzt]

regarding the knife as a weapon: I like the way some D&D rule supplement (I can't recall which one) explained the danger factor of small (goblin and the like) opponents with knives. It went something like _"you'd laugh at a group of 5 10 year olds trying to assault you in a dark corner. You wouldn't laugh as readily if those ten year olds were sporting knives"_

[@wtfwhoisthisguy]

I like to believe Mr. Easton sometimes wakes up screaming "COOONNNTTEEEEXXXTTTT" in the middle of the night and the palpitations won't stop until he gets it out in a video.

[@TimmyTurner421]

lol

[@wtfwhoisthisguy]

Please show me on the doll where the context touched you.

[@sonny19931]

I legitimately laughed out loud for a good 15 seconds after reading this comment, that's such a good mental image

[@zombieteenager007]

This fucking thread, holy shit. Actual fucking gold.

[@williamstark2982]

Genuinely funny, I laughed. Good show, carry on.

[@demure4398]

Fun fact: deaths in boxing went up after the introduction of the boxing glove. It is largely believed that this is due to the boxing glove allowing a fighter to hit their opponents head without damaging their hand.

[@hoop6988]

Also brain damage increased.

[@geeemm909]

I’ve been punched with both bare fist and gloves. I found that being punched with a gloved fist feels far worse, a really heavy impact buffeting effect. I think you can hit much harder with gloves due to the protection they give to the hand and also the extra weight.

[@bar0nger]

Also like judo, wrestling is good against people in plate. Also probably good for getting a fully armored knight into a position where you can access the gaps in his armor and force him to submit, so that he can be ransomed.

[@DJDocsVideos]

In armor thee weak points are the joints and any kind of wrestling on this planet teachesa multitude of joint lock techniques. QED

[@lucasriley874]

You don't EVER want someone wearing steel gauntlets to punch you (or headbutt you, or elbow/knee/kick/bodyblock ect.) Someone covered in steel can hurt you (seriously hurt you) pretty easily. Every part of the armoured persons body is a weapon if you are unarmoured. I'd only attempt that if I had several friends to help... or if I was in full harness as well.

[@Poldovico]

Right, I guess armour will effectively turn someone's fists into makeshift maces insofar as the person being hit by them is concerned. Although I imagine you'd be hard pressed trying to find someone in armor who doesn't have a weapon of some kind anyway.

[@alanj7099]

emmm jujitsu and ninjas kill people well armed, using the weigth to the oponent, also broke hands and legs before kill, even whit they own hands.

[@nohbdy1122]

Depends on the context. In the middle of a battlefield rolling on the ground is probably the last thing you want to do.

[@meanmanturbo]

I have read an American military report were they investigated the uses of hand to hand combat by US forces in Iraq. To the suprise of absolutely no one grappling was by far the most used type of hand to hand techniques that were used. Found the title: Hand-to-Hand Combat and the Use of Combatives Skills: An Analysis of United States Army Post Combat Surveys from 2004-2008 Just put it into google if you want to read it Numbers. Grappling 72.6%, Striking with weapon 21.9% unarmed strikes 5.5% only

[@jamestheeggplant5446]

I did Japanese Ju jitsu and I believe that this hits the nail on the head.

[@dangambiera2648]

In older forms of pugilism such as Muay Kaechuk, Lao Boxing and Muay Thai Boran the majority of strikes are with the hammerfist, back of the hand, palm, elbow or forearm for exactly the reasons he mentions. That's why they call the fourth and fifth metacarpal break "Boxer's Fracture". Thai boxing, which he mentions, only really began to emphasize punching when it adopted Western style hand wraps and gloves which make repeated punching to the head practical. "Hit to disrupt, then destroy" is a principle in everything from Gatka to Silat to Ju Jitsu. Not coincidentally, these systems assume the other person is armed. So yes, I think Matt is on the right track here.

[@kairyumina6407]

Yup. Hapkido second degree blackbelt here, and if I was attacked by someone with a knife, I would definitely try to run first. If that wasn't an option I would focus %100 of my efforts on using joint locks and takedowns in which the knife hand is controlled/ disabled.

[@scholagladiatoria]

[@frankharr9466]

I like to think of it as the Belkar factor. Also, when I studies karate, I was taught to hit with the top-two knuckels specifically in increase effectivness and decrease the chance of the punch hurting me. I was also taught that if the oponant had a weapon (that wasn't a firearm) controling that was most importanat. So yeah, that tracks.

[@Aztec1011]

I always found it interesting how in Chinese internal arts the palm is so widely featured, and also how rare the strikes are in the forms. Great video, Thanks Matt!

[@kiba3x]

Punching was a some kind of sport in ancient Greece, its mentioned in Illiad when they celebrated Patrclus funeral. They wraped both hand with leather straps. But no one is crazy enough to go to the battlefield against spears and swords only with his fists. :)

[@gingercore69]

Substandard Gamer Kiba many people is crazy enough, to survive that stupidity, thats another story...

[@sugarnads]

Pugilism is depicted on a fresco at Knossos. Bronze age. And theyre wearing gloves.

[@OkurkaBinLadin]

@@sugarnads Sure,, as a sport.

[@lukegrraaa]

Your unarmed skill increases +5

[@patrickrichardson5934]

Oblivion

[@GogiRazmadze]

Hi Matt, thanks for great channel! there is one situation when striking has an advantage against grappling - that is when there are more than two of fighters. Sure you do not want to end on the ground grappling with one opponent while another is still standing.

[@100dfrost]

Matt over the space of about 14 years, off and on, I engaged in about 145 amateur boxing matches. While I was in Panama with the Army in 1989 I was lightly wounded, due to my much younger reflexes, by a PDF gentleman with an Fairbairn-Sykes combat knife. Without any hesitation I instantly took both of my hands and grabbed this gentleman's arm and held on for all my worth, all the while screaming at the top of my lungs for help. Two young Infantry gentlemen came to my aid. I suspect that you are about 100% right in your conjecture as to the use of fists, and kicks as a developed noble martial art. It is however spoken of as a means by which peasants and serfs would solve difficulties among themselves. They were not permitted, under English laws of the period to actually kill each other. Thank-you, Dante.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Sounds right to me :-)

[@alexanerose4820]

How much damage do you think a shaloin strike would do to someone in plate armor (apparently, plate armor is expensive and one can not just go to a shaolin temple -_-)

[@scholagladiatoria]

It would do almost nothing at all. Make then take a small step backwards maybe.

[@juliahenriques210]

You'd just displace their weight. They'd be thrown back a bit and keep coming. You might, if you get them on a bad stance for some reason, make them lose their balance and fall. And that's about it, assuming one can even pull it off in actual combat.

[@blakewinter1657]

At best throw them off balance. At worst, break your hand. The Japanese art of ju jitsu focused so much on grappling in part because when facing someone in armor, grapples and throws will be much more effective and safer than trying to hit them with your hand.

[@flyingninja1234]

This is interesting from a historical perspective. Thank you.

[@kamaeq]

I'm noticing a big disconnect here in the "logic" of self defense. "Oh, you can't use self defense to protect your property" Really? How long did it take Matt to earn the money to buy that wall of sword? How much of his life did he expend in that effort? Amazing how those numbers will come up in all kinds legal resolutions other than self defense ones because they represent a part of Matt's life as a value. Two points here: 1) reducing a life down to a monetary figure in general is wrong in a number of ways (although, again, the logic is used in a lot of cases to derive the amount of monetary settlement), especially to turn it into a "price for a life" situation. 2) the logic that "it's only things, it isn't your life" actually works when one speaks of fleeing from a natural disaster of some sort, but it has then been falsely applied to self defense issues (usually IMO by the same crowd that wants to disarm the populace).

[@togaassassin]

I actually just wanted to add an additional point in about wrestling! I personally believe (largely based on personal experiences) that you find "folk wrestling" martial arts systems from basically every culture on earth, including ones that often have no other forms of systematized fighting, because many common fights are between intoxicated friends or family members who don't really want to hurt each other in a permanent way. It's of tremendous "tribal" value to be able to subdue someone (your little brother) who had a few to many (6, that's the number) without knocking his teeth out or introducing his insides to the outside with a blade. Additionally wrestling is suitable for young male hierarchical fighting for social position without weakening the tribe with injuries that might end in disabilities. Realistically wrestling is easier to learn, safer to practice, and more commonly used for most (non soldierly) humans then almost any other method of combat. I've done an extremely substantial amount of training unarmed against knife and in my personal opinion trying to grapple with a bladed opponent is almost always suicide. The most effective knife disarms shock the CNS with enough force to eject the knife. In my experience that often involves striking (sometimes repeatedly) with a natural weapon (like a knee, elbow, or fist). I guess I just wanted to put in my short (largely uneducated) guess as to why you don't see much boxing in HEMA. I think it's because the combat interval that most demands something like that (brutal unarmed combat) was simply uncommon enough that people didn't see a need to create a system of knowledge that described it.

[@williambreazeal387]

A somewhat related tangent to your video. The historical sources in Meir Shahar's "The Shaolin Monastery" suggest that pugilism was relatively rare in China up through at least the early 16th century, and that it's practice at the monastery was uncommon up to at least the early 17th century. And since it looks like Okinawan Karate is derived from White Crane, which was itself derived from Shaolin boxing, Okinawa's history of pugilism may be even more recent. So for China, Japan, Okinawa, and Korea, its likely the spread of pugilism started much later than (e.g. mid 16th century at the earliest) than is commonly believed.

[@1066BigDaddy]

I would certainly agree with this concept, the idea that everyone was armed to one degree or another at the time. We can look at it from the perspective presented in the video, as well as the perspective that if everyone is armed then being able to use those weapons is paramount. As such strikes were to be avoided in order to preserve the health and mobility of the hand. This has always been my main assumption for strikes not being overly important.

[@enoughofyourkoicarp]

Another possible explanation for hammer blows being encouraged could be to encourage pommel strikes in armed combat, or at least to get people used to using them instead of panicking and twisting their arm into odd angles which could cause tendon damage, open targets etc..

[@themastermason1]

The proliferation of eating or utility knives and daggers amongst Europe and the prevalence of wrestling also seems to be a factor of the local cuisine. In most (eastern) Asian cuisine, the food is usually cut up into bite sized pieces beforehand and is eaten with either chopsticks or bare hands so it makes sense that not many would be carrying knives all the time. Being of Chinese descent, my dad told me that when he was a kid in Hong Kong duing the 1950's, the idea of a western-style steak that you ate with a knife and fork was both weird and a luxury you experienced at a hotel.

[@kamaeq]

On the subject of "boxing", I'll note that ancient forms of pugilism tended to include "wrestling". Also, there are a lot of basic principles in boxing that apply to fencing, which does support the point Matt makes about everyone being armed.

[@lancerd4934]

"they noticed people who wandered around with swords tended to cause more fatalities than people who didn't" - sure am glad there's no parallel to that in the modern world! :P

[@DevinDTV]

this is what europeans actually believe

[@charthezombiehound8952]

sad when people without a decent day of school were smarter than some people today ain't it?

[@00Trademark00]

Not all Europeans. Look up Czech gun laws, they're almost as liberal as those in the US. You still need a gun license, but concealed carry is automatically issued with a self-defence license (you are allowed to carry at most two guns at a time on your person). On the other hand, open carry is completely illegal unless you're a policeman (to prevent panic)....and one of the lowest homicide rates in Europe - incidentally the same as in the neighbouring Germany which is way more restrictive (there you need to give the police a justification to be issued a self-defence license). Switzerland also has fairly liberal gun laws and the concentration of privately owned firearms is very high there (also, most men have a government issued rifle at home - the theory is that if Switzerland is attacked, there won't be time to go to a warehouse to get your rifle, so you have to keep it at home). Austria also has relatively liberal gun laws. I find it annoying when Americans think that all Europeans laws are the same. Most European countries are not so extremely restrictive as the UK or even Germany (which is still less restrictive than the UK) and a few are almost as liberal as the US (in a sense more - not all US states have legal concealed carry). In addition to that, you can carry a sword around in the Czech republic if you want to, the police won't give you a fine for that or anything, also "butterfly knives" are legal here. Similarly, I find it annoying when Brits or some Americans who prefer British-like gun laws think that those are just "obviously better". The problem with violence in the US is mostly socio-economical, it is not a simple matter of banning guns. Switzerland has almost as many guns as the US but a drastically less gun violence and a homicide rate lower than any other country in Europe.

[@ondrejbrezina4053]

yeah concealed carry is maybe legal in czech republic, but you must have a licence, and complete psychological tests, and I think the issue is not only law but also the mindset of the people. I live in czech republic since I was born, and I don't know anyone who has a licence (with the exeption of people who are policemen), because it's just wierd to get a licence for no reason

[@sasquatchycowboy5585]

00Trademark00 Thank you sir! I couldn't have said it better. Are you in the U.S. or another contry.

[@sventorgersen7545]

Great Video! Thank you.

[@J40JesusIsLord]

One factor in why punching is limited without gloves is the fact if you hit someone in the mouth with bare knuckles, you could get a dangerous infection from cutting or worse, puncturing your knuckles on teeth.

[@MichaelJenkins910]

Insightful as always--and interestingly resonant with contemporary combatives. In the UK, In addition to knives I'm wondering how the quarterstaff played into all of this-from what I gather it was popular, fairly easy to learn, and legal.

[@elgostine]

theres a good reason that stick based martial arts are the most ubiquitous in all of world culture and history because sticks are literally everywhere or some sort of stick like object, be it a rolling pin, curtain rod, walking stick, cane, length of pipe oir some sort of hard tubing (in todays world) not to mention a lot of people carried short walking staffs, and while a stick wont easily kill, it is a force multiplier, and can be used against a knife hitting the hands german treatises showcase thrusting at the face for most of the strikes

[@MarcRitzMD]

Matt, I was about to write a comment until you basically gave your disclaimer that it's your theory. We assume because of your previous videos that you spread ideas which are well backed up by evidence. Glad you emphasize when you are sharing your own theories. that's what is my biggest gripe with Lindybeige

[@CZProtton]

Indeed, Lindy is almost never basing his opinions on facts, he is making a theory based on what he knows... and that is sometimes full of shit. The best example of that is his "fancy fencing stance" video where he talks about the ox and is full of shit, does not uderstand what he is talking about at all.

[@zednotzee7]

I think you mean " ochs". An Ox is a big cow, basically.

[@CZProtton]

zednotzee7 and ochs is a big cow aswell, just in german. It is the same thing.

[@ianboreham454]

And "Ochs" is German for "ox"... :-)

[@zednotzee7]

Protton Ochs is still the correct term.

[@brandonbeck6117]

In medieval combat, strikes are not the End but the Means. The lack of a designated punch may come from the amount of weapons in common use. Breaking your hand would be quite bad. And The strikes that are shown by Matt here appear to mirror overhand dagger strikes. Strikes are means to grapple, and grappling is a near necessity against an armored opponent as well.

[@londiniumarmoury7037]

As you mentioned, we do see strikes in the old manuscripts, but to be 100% honest I think the reason we do not find a purely unarmed fighting style is because back then to walk around completely unarmed was unthinkable. You see lots of wrestling, but when you look at these wrestling moves, they always speak about disarming people. People simply never went around unarmed, just like many people today, some people just wouldn't leave their home without a huge knife or a sword, or now a gun. And I just heard you say this very point in the video, so now i'm shutting up and posting.

[@cadarn1274]

David Lindholm and Peter Svard, in their book Sigmund Ringeck's Knightly Arts of Combat, suggest that punching may not have been discussed in the treatises because it was considered common knowledge. I find this quite plausible, especially when we consider that, at least I'd argue, that punching is generally simpler/ less varied in technique, than wrestling (not saying that there isn't a lot to learn in punching, I've done Kickboxing and Ju Jitsu.) Given that medieval society was so martial, I'd be surprised if most people, or at least the nobles, weren't taught a fair amount of punching

[@btrenninger1]

Fistfights were just the gentle cuddling foreplay to buildup to the stabbing.

[@36424567254]

i think you people commenting are missing the point: i think wrestling was preferred to pugilism not because it's better to wrestle someone armed with knives than punch/kick him, but simply because if we're assuming everyone has a weapon, then you have one too. If you have a weapon, using it rather than punching seems a no brainer, which means your striking is mostly covered by that already so you probably want to focus the rest of the training on wrestling to assist in your armed fights, either to disarm your opponent of prevent him from disarming you, or simply to control him in order to cut/stab him. Of course fights are chaotic, it may always happen that a good chance to punch presents itself, but you don't need 10 years of dedicated training to punch someone, even more so if you have a weapon since all you need and are looking for is to stun him for the fraction of second needed to stab/slash him. In other words, weapons make punching (or to be more precise, dedicated pugilism training) largely redundant, while wrestling is still a good additional skill to have.

[@mythicwhitewhale]

Correct! Matt is actually wrong about wrestling being best against knives, I have trained a tonne in modern knife and wrestling knife fighters is guaranteed to end up getting stabbed. u need to maintain range and motion , create angle and knock them out cold I say that as a former wrestler for whom it is natural to clinch and tie up....u get stabbed all the time doing that. You are dead on the money as to why they still learnt wrestling

[@ruiseartalcorn]

@@mythicwhitewhale I agree! In all my many years of martial arts training I am firmly of the belief that grappling someone with a knife is a great way to get stabbed. I'd much rather stay mobile and try to kick the attackers legs to immobilize them and then run!

[@UnbeltedSundew]

I don't think it has to do with weapons, but rather purpose. You can see it in Mixed Martial Arts fights nowadays as soon as you throw out the rulebook (figuratively speaking) fighters end up grappling and not boxing. The idea being that once you change the challenge to “Beat your opponent” rather than “Beat your opponent with these specific means” the fight changes and it is almost always at least in one of the fighters advantage to close the distance.

[@vosslergardia3179]

Yep very true, as someone who's practiced 3 separate unarmed martial arts one to the point of achieving black belt engaging an armed opponent whilst unarmed is a huge no no. We still drill for it as a last resort but typically you're taught if the attacker has a weapon you should flee.

[@Ken_Jones]

Interesting comment. And I believe you. But also, the way I see it is that a trained boxer is generally a good fighter, while the untrained man is not. What happens is that the trained fighter can easily see the movements of the untrained man coming - "from a mile away". The boxer will keep a "fake" distance (seemingly in range, but easy to get of range when he sees any movement from the opponent), then he will side-step and grab the hand that is holding the knife (or back-step into front-step when it's a swing instead of a thrust), to disable the danger of the knife and start to win the fight from that point. I'm a boxer and I've experienced new guys coming to the boxing club. Even when they are physically well trained (stamina and decent speed), their technique and rhythm is very EASY to read. They can never land one punch and get hit with every punch I want to hit them with. I also had three "street-fights" when I was about 14-16 years old (and was drunk) and it was really easy to win those fights because the opponents were not trained. I don't think that an untrained man with a knife has a necessary advantage. HOWEVER, I do AGREE that it's still very tricky because once the knife hits it can be fatal (organ or artery). Generally I'd do what yo u say in your last sentence: FLEE! Not taking any chance, unless fleeing would endanger someone I love.

[@ProfStuartAkers]

When I ask my kids class, 'Who's the best martial artist that ever lived.' All the usual suspects come up and they all get a 'No!' The best one is Usain Bolt - run like hell and when they get close - run again. Unfortunately now I'm old that's no longer an option. However 51 years non stop martial arts training is a good 2nd option. In the knife versus unarmed discussion, I've been attacked twice by people with knives (no I'd didn't ask them if they were trained), all I will say is it's truly amazing how fast you move when some bugger's intent on spiking you.

[@gatusberserk6972]

That iz a great theory In recent times there is a lot evidence that kata of Okinawa are grappling templates not punching or kicking templates that strong sttiking was supplementary within context of the grapple to assist when the opportunity of incapacitation presents itself. When karate was introduced into the school system and later the universitys sports was introduced and dominated it changed the way it was understood and that changed everything.

[@kevinlobos5519]

I can see a meme being born in this channel, about Matt and his constant mention of context :)

[@DavidB5501]

5:08 I looked up 'bollock knife'. Relieved to find it is not a knife devoted to castration, but a knife with 'two oval swellings at the guard'!

[@WordBearer86]

I would take a guess that the treatises would cover your most preferred, most likely to encounter, and the most efficient forms of engaging in combat against an opponent for the era they were written in. As you've said Matt, most people had access to a bladed weapon of some kind during the Middle Ages, the usage of some sort of item that could be used as a weapon against an attacker would be the best option if it was either that or attacking unarmed (aside from running of course), so there will be more material available on learning how to use some sort of implement as a weapon (pommels for instance, or a big pointy stick) should the need arise vs material that teaches you how to best defend yourself in a situation where neither is armed - in an era where most people can be considered to be armed.

[@IamHueGraves]

the one exception I see to the idea that strikes are bad against knives is a solid and skilled leg kick. They don't look that bad when the pros do it because those people are tanks, but the average person crumbles from a good one. It still fits with what you're saying about being in assistance of a larger plan, I'm just pointing out that it's something that I would actually consider a go-to if the opportunity is there.

[@tasatort9778]

Another point to consider is that wrestling is much more effective against even lightly armored opponents than punching and kicking.

[@Dhomazhir]

Good vid, just a couple of comments. Muay Thai comes from Muay Boran & Krabi Kabong which are arts dealing with weapons and striking. Same for Silat & Escrima/Arnis. However they may be the outliers. Also funny enough even Bruce Lee had an order of operations of weapons. First he said use a gun then use a stick because it had reach then a knife then your hands. as you can see in Enter the Dragon, Bruce Lee was actually a fan of the .45 as he said early in the film.

[@danprotheroe]

theory makes sense to me. boxing, especially the early(pre marquis of queensbury) forms was brutal entertainment, not any sort of fighting system. it was purely for the rich to be entertained and sometimes a poor person to elevate themselves through success. in the 1800's even good,skilled guys would have 20odd fights and then their hands and faces/ears/organs ect were damaged beyond repair. on the greek boxing - those leather wraps would have been weapons rather than hand protection, god only knows the state of the loser's face after a tough fight. and they supposedly fought tournaments, even if fights were waved off rather than being to the finish it is still unimaginably brutal. certainly only a sport rather than a war thing adapted to sport.

[@Yora21]

Without gloves, punching at the head is really not such a great idea. Skulls are the hardest surface of the body while fingers are the most fragile. You might get occasional strikes at the face, but it wouldn't be all at the face like in modern boxing with gloves.

[@danprotheroe]

fo sho, bareknuckle seems to have been either body shots or clubbing hooks to the side of the head(hence the messed up ears). jem belcher is supposed to have thrown straight shots, but without film it's hard to know how much it looked like a modern straight punch.

[@ProfStuartAkers]

Go fight some gypsies, my record is won1, lost 1. True gentlemen, just punching - no knees, kicks or elbows. If you turn away - it's finished and it stops, if you can't get up it stops

[@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin]

Let slip the infinite tide of unarmed martial arts enthusiasts to say that Matt's wrong, because their perspective is different simply from training in a different style.

[@kampar82]

Even farming implements would have been frowned upon in some places. Check cudgel war on wikipedia.

[@bennicolson815]

it makes sense that punching would be ignored. in a time when there wasn't the bone setting expertise of now and everyone relied on their hands for a living a broken hand could maim you.there wasn't really a gap where it was serious enough to risk such injury over such an ineffective move.

[@Mulberry2000]

i agree to fight a man or woman with a knife unarmed is not a good idea, but to say kicking is not good is a weak argument, one the legs are strong and longer, sure they are slower, but to keep a person a way you should kick them, punches are good follow ups. Now wrestling/judo etc, are great for self defence, but you have to get in really close to throw them, which leave one exposed to knife in the back or the stomach. now i am not saying it cannot happen, but you get the point. Plus judo etc do not train for knife attack nor does karate really. I think the reason why wrestling was used more than punching and kicking, was because people who fought in wars wore armour and chain mail, so it is common sense in this context to wrestling, because people were more confident of getting close, no point in kicking or punching them if it does not hurt them, but a good throw or arm lock is useful. For example police use stab vests So unarmoured: (if not weapons like sticks, poles etc) kicking and punching is great to keep the knife away then a throw to follow up . Armoured this is the opposite.

[@MidnightSt]

No other hypotheses, this is a very valid theory, punching someone with your hand meat is stupid if you're holding a sharp iron bar in that hand. Trying to punch someone in any way if they are holding a sharp iron bar in their hand is also stupid, you're going to try and hang on their weaponhand as close as possible from as unattackable angle as possible. Yes. I see not many alternative explanations possible or needed.

[@mlentzner]

After thinking about this a little I'm not so sure you are better off grappling in the situation of opponent knife vs.you unarmed. Against an opponent with a longer weapon it is no contest. You want to grapple. But a knife is specifically designed to be used while grappling. I would go so far as to say that it is much more dangerous at grappling range than striking range. And yes, of course, your goal should be to disarm the knife man as quickly as possible. But do you want to charge headlong into grappling range? If you get your hands on the knife arm then great, but if you don't, you're effed. At least at range you can keep your hands and arms in between your vitals and the attacker. At striking distance you out range the knife with kicks. Ideally you would stun them with a strike of some kind and then attempt the disarm. Second best would be to wait for them to over commit to an attack you can gain control of the weapon arm. Either way, you are playing a striking game until the opportunity to grapple/disarm presents itself as opposed to aggressively pursuing a grappling attack. You also want to prolong the fight as long as possible and evading the knife man while on your feet is the best way to do this.

[@michailtavonius3360]

There is, however, lots of evidence for boxing/pugilism in late medieval European Russia. There are many depictions of so called "wall on wall battles" or "ice battles", basically a group melee, as well as duels (some of them even in the form of poems) fought with either bare hands or mittens/gloves/gauntlets. Agreed, they appear to be placed within a sporting or duel context, yet the methods were taught and had a mostly oral tradition. Weapon laws there and then were quite similar to those in Western Europe. We are talking XVI./XVII centuries.

[@Angelarski]

I fully agree with you and would just like to add another point - the same martial arts principles are to be applied to armored combat where wrestling is again more useful than striking.

[@rdjhardy]

Best in ages Matt.

[@stevenparsons4464]

Good video. It is not news to me. It is a real world truth which must be often repeated. Oh yes. I purchased the Cold Steel Laredo Bowie trainer on the strength of your review. I am very happy with it and will purchase the CS Rondel dagger trainer also. Thanks.

[@forresta65]

Clement is pretty impressive with his unarmed HEMA videoa

[@seanwauters8556]

Thank you for sharing this. Is your theory changed over the years? Kindest regards Sean.

[@colemcmullen3904]

Overall, I enjoyed this video. I think your conclusion on wrestling and knife defense needs a huge caveat, though. Trying to gain and maintain control of a knife wielding hand against an uncooperative person is about one of the most difficult things you'll ever try.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Yep, it's incredibly difficult. But if you're unarmed and you cannot run away, then it's the only real option left.

[@MajorHyter]

In a war sort of setting there isn't much point striking a foe with your fist as they would be wearing armour, and having punched a guy in maille, I know for a fact that I came off worse in the equation. If you can wrestle them down, you can win, but you can't punch someone down in plate or maille and still have knuckles at the end.

[@arpioisme]

i always think that fiore's unarmed postures are a good palm striking stances

[@ChamorruWarrior]

This isn't an opinion, this is a fact. Every major culture on the planet that has seen combat more than a couple times has figured this out. Just to name a few... Greece - Pankration Germany - Kampfringen UK - Wrestling at the Sword Scandinavia - Glima Japan - Jujitsu/Combat Judo China - Shuai Jiao Korea - Hwarangdo/Ssrieum Senegal - Laamb Brazil - Huka Huka India - Pehlwani I like grappling, can you tell?

[@hedgetwentyfour2708]

Well, in jiu jitsu we do complement wrestling with strikes and kicks, as you say to inflict pain and cause temporary distraction. I think another reason why it is not in the treatises is economics, the treatises are expensive to make and including techniques that everybody knows about is not going to sell your treatise as well to your intended audience. With the intended audience of medieval treatises being people who are presumed to be able to fight, including the basics is not a big selling point.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Actually strikes and kicks are shown in the teatises in *exactly* the same contexts as in jiu jitsu. They are there to increase the effectiveness of the grappling.

[@hedgetwentyfour2708]

Yes I got that, I meant just as you were saying that they aren't there to "duke it out". Then going on to the actual point of the economics of treatises.

[@SevenDayGaming]

A quick note, punches can also be used when your weapon is off-line to buy a second to bring it back online. It is also useful when you have their weapon disabled and no usable weapon of your own. (Grabbing their wrist and beating their face in works pretty well. They can't take many hard punches to the head and keep holding onto their weapon... Especially since their blood will be pooling inside their cranium and putting pressure on their brain.) Also, the reason fighting purely hand to hand against a person with a weapon is such a bad idea is actually, and I'm sure Matt gets this, that you can't block very well bare-handed. I'm sure you'd probably be okay if you were in armour, but what are the odds you'll be in armour without a weapon? The second most important issue is reach. Damage, what most people think of, is not actually the biggest concern as punches can do plenty of damage if they are intended to kill. See, the way most people fight is more of a dominance display than an actual attempt to cause eachother harm. Punches are usually pulled, so that they hit the surface of the body and stop. This causes topical injuries, primarily bruises though blood may be drawn if the fist strikes the mouth, eyes or especially mouth. If they were trying to kill you, the punch would hit and keep going, breaking bones and in many locations inflicting life-threatening trauma of one form or another. The potentially fatal hit locations on the torso are the entire chest (though it is unlikely a single punch to the chest will kill you, broken ribs can cause punctures and lacerations and blunt lung trauma is no joke, so if they use enough force or multiple hits that CAN be fatal), the kidneys (stiff organs, easily ruptured, bleed like crazy), liver (like the kidneys but worse), the spleen (when ruptured, this little organ just keeps on bleeding) and the collar (easily broken, sharp ends can strike lungs and arteries). Other places are the throat (a real punch doesn't just collapse the trachea, it can destroy it or cause you to bleed into it, both fatal for most of history), the eye (easily ruptured and a weak point in the skull, you will bleed into your own brain), the side and top of the head (weak points in the skull, skull fractures are easily inflicted here and will either cause heavy internal or external bleeding a medieval surgeon can't do shit to stop because of your skull), and the base of the skull (snapping the brainstem takes a LOT more force than people tell you, but it causes complete paralysis and stops you from breathing, incurable even with modern medicine). If you are in a situation where your weapon cannot be used right then, a punch IS an asset. Of course, you probably learned to throw a proper punch about the time you learned to walk (historically), so why bother covering in a treatise what people already know?

[@SODEMO2007]

This seems to match well with the current meta of mixed martial arts, wrestling is seen as perhaps the most important skill to have as it allows you to control where the fight is taking place. Ironically, not a single champion in the UFC right now is considered a "wrestler", they're all strikers but with wrestling abilities good enough to keep the fight standing.

[@zpgoldman]

I disagree somewhat with the point of this video. You won't directly see a lot of boxing in HEMA, but I do think that boxing borrows heavily from HEMA. Based on what I've seen on this channel, that a lot of the footwork in HEMA is quite similar to footwork in boxing. The step & slide motions used in your saber fighting tutorials and I'd guess in other forms of HEMA involving swords is almost the same as how many fighters today move (look at Roman Gonzalez as an example). Also, parrying is a big part of boxing as well (Floyd Mayweather Jr. is a master of the parry) and would use an offensive version called a hand check to knock his opponent's guard open. Finally, a lot of the motions for the punches used in boxing borrow from the mechanics of striking with weapons in HEMA.

[@TheOhgodineedaname]

What do you actually think about Fairbairn-Sykes commando manual and especially the martial arts part of it? How does it compare to Hema techniques?

[@scholagladiatoria]

I have not studied it seriously enough to comment.

[@ME-hm7zm]

It makes some rather far-out claims, and the content is pretty set-piece.

[@NakMuayify]

Muay Thai is from the battlefield too. It just changed into a sport, like karate. edit: Should clarify that this is more accurate when describing Muay Boran or its older Khmer traiditons

[@geoffreyrobinson7611]

I think it's because grappling offers a greater deal of control and ability to minimize and mitigate damage. Even modern medicine doesn't really answer the concussion that well. Getting somebody to give up and understand that they aren't in control is preferable to everybody getting the crap knocked out of them until they're unable or unwilling to continue. A skilled grappler has a pretty insurmountable advantage over someone with less training. There's a lot of traps and tricks that are completely opaque to the uninitiated. I also think it's a similar problem to safety equipment in general back then. How do you safely train striking without the risk of permanent injury? Eastern martial arts answered it with pretty intense choreography and restrained sparring. Striking isn't good for longevity. Grappling is a lot safer with cooperative and uncooperative opponents. The overall benefit from being skilled in grappling also makes you safer if you can play your game. The same cannot necessarily be said for striking. You make yourself a better weapon, but that isn't necessarily better at defending you from aggressors. It also isn't really good for society either. A bunch of busted up people who can't eat or work because of broken hands and teeth don't aren't very useful. Whereas the injuries from grappling are a little more manageable with medieval medicine. Sprains and broken bones weren't insurmountable. You're pretty SOL if it's a torn ligament, but that generally involves some determined stupidity. Striking is also a very perishable skill as far as reactions, timing, and distance.

[@NekolasM]

Striking with the hands was always a fantasy of the disarmed, domesticated, and disenfranchised men of agricultural and industrial societies. We didn't start throwing hands until we started subjugating each other to the point where we had no weapons to defend ourselves with.

[@chadherbert18]

Makes a lot of sense! Good video! :)

[@57WillysCJ]

Why fence with fists when blades and staffs are everywhere. When everyone is unarmed then you think about something else, like arming yourself. Stick, bottle, chain all come first. I believe even under London Prize rules the fist wasn't the only tool used. Not saying that a well trained boxer can't destroy someone. I believe there was a video testing the impact blows of various hand martial arts and the blow from a boxer delivered the most impact. In the 1950s US there were quite a few boxers that could handle even a knife wielding opponent but they had learned it in lumber and mining camps where rough and tumble was the norm. Plus many of them had served in the army.

[@andrewsuryali8540]

Punches and kicks in oriental pugilism originated as a way to allow an unarmed fighter to control opposing polearms. You can't easily grapple a spear-wielding opponent, so you copy his stance, grab his weapon, then kick him in the nuts. Hopefully that'd get him to release the spear. Over time the punches and kicks got more elaborate, is all. Modern forms are pretty useless against armed opponents, but that's over a millennium after the original forms emerged. Chinese peasants had just as easy access to knives as European ones did. It wasn't the public's lack of access to common knives that allowed the punches and kicks to evolve but everyone's lack of access to military weapons that forced unarmed combat forms to evolve to fight those. Some forms of gongfu even came up with extremely specific solutions for specific circumstances. Bajiquan body slam was originally a way to fight an opponent armed with sword and shield. Dash forward with both hands open, catch sword with one or both hands, push sword down with one arm while pulling it back, raising the other arm up to create rotational momentum, slam body against shield. This should normally disarm the sword-wielder.

[@harryblack4062]

A point on palm strikes/hammer fists vs front knuckle strikes. It seems unlikely that medieval people would have had the same experience with striking as modern people due to all the things you mentioned, so I personally find the explanation of knuckle preservation less convincing than just the simple fact that you dont want to punch someone wearing armour or a helmet. Also, if you think about the weight that may be on your arm while armoured (not large, but there) a straight punch is going to lose some energy fighting gravity as opposed to a blow that uses the increased mass to its advantage.

[@scholagladiatoria]

I don't find the armour point really compelling, as most people would never wear armour or a helmet. Everybody would use a knife however.

[@harryblack4062]

scholagladiatoria Great point! I thought perhaps what was shown in the treatises might have been aimed at people expecting to wear armour or at least not wanting one system for armour and one for without. That was just an assumption on my part though so thanks for the correction!

[@dashcammer4322]

In addition to the 3-inch blade length UK law you mentioned, does that also apply to non-concealed/openly-carried knives as well?

[@RedDove91]

Lots of craftsmen and farmers unwilling to break the hands they do their job with as well? And punching generally isn't fatal unless you break your fist against someone's head.

[@MrAlepedroza]

Hi Matt. Sorry if I didnt understand you, but did you actually at minute 9.16 that there were sporting boxing/kickboxing systems back in the 15 the century? As far as I know, the earliest references to post roman boxing come from late 17 th century.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Yes, in early-renaissance Italy (14th/15th century) they had a form of boxing sport.

[@MrAlepedroza]

Was it a sort of pygmachia or pugilatus off shoot? I would love to see the sources

[@fredeagle8766]

pankration. no holds barred . submission or knock out. to wrestle. I'd say the lads of old were fully aware of the need to know it, for survival in those days. the human body is very vulnerable to force from a practised martial 'artist'. quite sickening lethal blows like the rabbit punch or arm lock to break bones. or to inflict agony to get your oponent down while a kick to the back of the neck finishes it. makes me feel queasy thinking of it.....

[@simkoning4648]

This is also why I think the striking arts of China, Japan and Okinawa were not as well developed as those of Thailand or had inferior punching techniques compared to western boxing. Sport fighting provided a motive for developing striking to a high level, whereas others treated the empty hand as only one of several "weapons" and always integrated strikes with grappling.

[@gwennblei]

Hum, I kind of disagree with what you said about a good kickboxer losing to a beginner armed with a knife, the kickboxer is used to dodging and judging distance, and to me, it's very likely he'll break the nose of the other guy before the beginner can touch him, and from there, he'll be likely to disarm him or knock him out pretty easily. I did similar tests with my brother, he has really basic training in boxing mainly, while I'm a Karate black belt (touching a bit to as many other martial arts as I can though, mainly thanks to friend practicing them), and he'd have a stabilo pen to simulate the knife (it's the best we had, we did try with other longer tools, but as they didn't leave marks, we found the pen to be better.) so if he touched me, we'd know he had. Almost every time I landed strikes to the face (punches) before he could touch me, and kicks (to the legs mainly) pretty often as well, knowing the hits didn't help, as I held back my strikes not to cause him any harm, so only wrestling and being able to grab his wrist would actually be of use. I'd disarm him approximately one time out of two without getting a cut, but if I landed strikes with full power, I'm pretty sure it'd be more often.

[@FfSsBb]

I also think that since the practiced martial arts would be battle tested, most people must've quickly realized, that when two people are fighting unarmed, by the simple fact that both of them have to come forward to land a disabling blow, they are bound to end up in a clinching position, where wrestling is king. In combination with Matt's argument, I simply think it's the more sensible option to learn.

[@glenndemoor3020]

I just like to point out that the idea of an armed populace negating the usefulness of unarmed combat can still be found to this day, in the Philippines. A Filipino might be able to expand or correct me on this but as far as I know a lot of Filipinos still walk around with variations of machetes for their day-to-day tasks. Hence the national form of self-defence, kali/arnis/eskrima, focuses on armed combat first and foremost with unarmed techniques actually considered to be more advanced stuff, in contrast to most self-defence styles and systems.

[@grumpyginger99]

The primary problem with that argument is that during the period when boxing was developing people were commonly carrying swords around. I'd say that really the development of boxing had to do more with the development of it as a folk sport and then its professionalization and growth alongside the other prizefighting events such as single stick. Really there's no reason that boxing or striking needs to be developed plenty of cultures have next to no striking traditions.

[@Shokukumi]

I have an observation to add: You said that due to regular arming of the populace with knives, schools would not focus on boxing arts. However, how much does that differ to our current society? Isn't it relatively common for us to have at least a utility knife with us? So, why do we study boxing arts instead of knife fighting? I try to answer my own question with a few words: Relative peace & Focus on pacifism. I think we live in a less scary world, thus we may not walk around with daggers, only utility knives. Furthermore, I think we pay more attention to educating each other about not escalating conflicts but ceasing violence, thus discouraging from killing each other and instead using self-defence techniques that don't lead to injuries. What are your thoughts? Maybe make a video comparing the mindset of the older worlds to our current societies in terms of how much violence gets avoided and shunned? I think it'd be very interesting and provide more cultural context to the armaments and fighting techniques.

[@AbelWiekens]

Let's test it! Matt Easton with a (plastic ofcoursec & waxed) Bowie Knife vs. Rico Verhoeven/Conor McGregor. :)

[@Helsbraun]

Most fights end on the ground. Punching and kicking is all well and fine, but does not serve much purpose when grounded. If you have to choose between learning to fight on the ground, versus learning to fight standing, the best bang for your buck is to learn to fight on the ground.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Most modern unarmed fights end on the ground. Most *armed* fights do not end on the ground. Fights with knives are usually entirely carried out standing up. The reason unarmed fights end on the ground is that most people's punches and kicks are relatively ineffective. People can sustain lots of punches and kicks in general, but they cannot usually keep fighting after just a few stabs. Often after just one stab.

[@Helsbraun]

True. However, this still plays into the value of ground arts over standing arts in the context of being unarmed yourself against either an armed or unarmed opponent. Against an unarmed opponent, ground techniques are the more reliable strategy. Against an armed and/or armoured opponent, still in the context of being unarmed yourself, in the absence of ability to retreat, strikes and kicks are even less effective, and your best chances would still lie in attempting to take the fight to the ground, putting your opponent in unfamiliar territory. As such, especially at a time where it was far more common for there to be armed opponents, if one was to invest the time in learning an unarmed combat art, it would seem to make even more sense to focus on ground based techniques over strikes and kicks.

[@Ahuc899]

Hi Matt, What are you supposed to do if you're attacked by two people with knives? (assuming you can't run away). I can understand that grappling is the best course of action if you're fighting a single armed opponent, but seems like would be a bad idea to start grappling with one aggressor when there's a second one who could stab you. In that situation would trying to keep distance and maybe hit a lucky strike be preferable?

[@36424567254]

general strategy vs multiple opponents is always to try and line them up so that they are in each other's way and you only face 1 at a time. The moment one gets behind you you're dead. That being said, if you find yourself attacked by multiple opponents with knives, you're almost certainly dead, sorry.

[@justsomeguy3931]

Boxing matches are held for the funeral games of Patroclus in the Illiad. There's a man who is a below average warrior, but not even the mighty Ajax or other great heroes could best him in the ring.

[@IamHueGraves]

I've wondered if it's similar to the reason "ninja" handbooks (that seem relatively legit) don't mention actual martial arts in the modern sense. One of the big theories is that it may have been considered not worth writing or reading since you either already would know it from other training or it was straight forward enough that an instructor wouldn't be at a loss for how to teach it like they might be for something more esoteric or counter intuitive.

[@amarj]

Hi Matt. Could you please tell us from where you got that sweet looking rondel dagger?

[@herbertgearing1702]

Bare knuckle boxing as it existed throughout most of history was a sport and rarely involved closed fist blows to the head. The bones of the hand are very fragile compared to the skull. Hitting a person with your bare knuckles in the head will ruin your hands in short order and end your career.

[@kennybrunton9389]

I train for fighting people armed with a blade . And yes a good hard strike or 2 before a disarm if they r still awake

[@kkgauthier]

The fact is that punching people is not a practical method of defense. If it were, we would not be seeing people standing there, punching each other for ten minutes at a time. Any man with the propensity for fighting, can take a punch to the head, or body and just keep coming. It is a momentary stun, or distraction that is best used as the set up for the exploitation of joints and leverage. If you are larger and tougher than your attacker, then a punch or kick may end the fight, but otherwise, keep in mind that knee joints are not toughened by adding body mass, they are weakened and constantly damaged in the process. Keep things moving with slight manipulation in their trajectory , and an attacker will always look the fool.

[@JimBCameron]

I always wonder if Europeans developed a style similar to Kali/Escrima as it incorporates long-short weapons-empty hand & a lot of the HEMA grappling I've seems similar. get an ' equaliser' & 'de-fang the snake'? Strikes are fair enough as part of a wider system incorporating grappling & disarms?

[@josuelitos]

Jimbo Jones I know for sure they did. In Spain

[@gionilotyo9331]

Kali is derived from european knife combat, just look it up.

[@josepablobolanos]

What about the use of armor? Is there any point in hitting or kicking an armored opponent? I mean, as opposed to taking him to the ground and finishing him there with any means available? After all, that IS SUPPOSED TO BE the original aim of sumai (early sumo), isn't it?

[@AngelaGonzalez-sf1yx]

if you punch someone who was armor on won't that end up doing more damage to your hand then your opponent

[@MFCirca]

You don't want to punch armor with a clenched fist either

[@briana7515]

Okay thats cool. Most people had access to a defensive dagger, and it was legal to carry them in public. Therefore early boxing wasn't really a thing, because the dagger guy was bound to win, generally. Ok Cool video.

[@immortaliserwow]

first time i tend to disagree. if i both have knives than being a boxer and having better measuring of distance has advantages to being a wrestler. I believe wrestling was popular because it was easier and safer to train. it might also be a cultural thing -once armored and properly armed wrestling or understanding of leverage is more important than knowing how to punch. if 2 knights on armor fight bare handed I bet they can only hurt one another via locks and throws. But when it comes to fighting a knife any sort of judo or ju jitsu skills will only make u close the distance and die faster. the rule is to stay away from the knife and to close in on guns. Cheers

[@rosko14]

Mr. Easton what do you carry every day as a self-defense weapon?

[@slenpaiwashere3599]

rosko14 Context

[@SpaceMarine113]

why do i feel like it would be easier to survive in sword fight than in a dagger fight. I imagine dagger fight is ugly, fast deaths, even high chance of both people dying.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Yes I think that's correct. Getting double-hits happens more with some weapons than others, and with knives you do generally get more double-hits.

[@bwcmakro]

4:50 - cue murrcans rushing in screaming "MUH GUNZ!!!!1"

[@Morrigi192]

Don't forget the Swiss!