# Arts of the white man and the native american



## PhotonGuy (Jul 19, 2014)

From what I know, boxing or pugilism as it was called was brought to what is now the U.S.A. by the white man when he settled here from Europe. Fist fighting has a history that goes back to the middle ages, the knights used it as a form of combat, and before then it has roots that go all the way back to ancient Greece. The american indians did have certain unarmed fighting styles but they were mostly just grappling systems, they didn't use much striking or if they did strike it would be done with a weapon such as a tomahawk or club.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 19, 2014)

Support this.  Where are you pulling this from?  Consider how diverse the various Native American tribes and nations were.  Some were hunter-gatherer societies, following herds.  Others were agricultural communities.  And that's only in North America... let's not forget the Inca, Maya, and other South and Central American cultures.

What, by and large, the Native American tribes don't seem to have done is developed a structured or hierarchical means of passing on or recording their approaches to combat.  One can be fairly confident that they did have something -- even if it was simply a variant of "this is where you shoot an arrow into a buffalo to kill it" _a la_ "this is where to whack a guy in the head to kill him."   The other thing is that European cultural imperatives did a wonderful job of crushing a lot of those traditions.  I'm not aware of anyone teaching what they claim to be Native American martial arts that doesn't have a huge Eastern influence and pressure.  Doesn't mean there are none out there... just that I haven't found one that I'm convinced of the legitimacy of lineage claims.

As to "the white man"...  There is a lot of documentation of the various combative approaches in Historical European Martial Arts.  Not sure where you're going with this.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 19, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> From what I know, boxing or pugilism as it was called was brought to what is now the U.S.A. by the white man when he settled here from Europe. Fist fighting has a history that goes back to the middle ages, the knights used it as a form of combat, and before then it has roots that go all the way back to ancient Greece. The american indians did have certain unarmed fighting styles but they were mostly just grappling systems, they didn't use much striking or if they did strike it would be done with a weapon such as a tomahawk or club.



I'd really like to see some actual factual basis for what you're saying. I don't expect to, given your history, but it sure would be nice.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 20, 2014)

Over the years, I have seen some people advertising "Apache Knifefighting" and hand to hand fighting systems.  I have never seen _what _they actually taught though.

But, if we look at history and what we do have documented.  I think it safe to say that any independant people/tribe of people has had some form of personal protection that they learned/taught to each other.  Most wouldn't have been codified to teach outside of their own tribe/group.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2014)

punisher73 said:


> Over the years, I have seen some people advertising "Apache Knifefighting" and hand to hand fighting systems. I have never seen _what _they actually taught though.
> 
> But, if we look at history and what we do have documented. I think it safe to say that any independant people/tribe of people has had some form of personal protection that they learned/taught to each other. Most wouldn't have been codified to teach outside of their own tribe/group.



Robert Redfeather is a Jicarilla Apache-his methods might have been handed down as "Apache," but seem to bear close relation to Spanish knife fighting,styles, which shouldn't be too surprising given New Mexico's history......I think I'll stay out of this one, and remind all to use the search function....


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 20, 2014)

There was a guy around here for a while teaching Native American secret hand to hand fighting styles.  You even got colored feather head dress depending on you "rank"  Now he just teaches his version of "advanced" Taekwondo.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 20, 2014)

Leaving aside the rest of the post, I just wanted to point out that to the best of my knowledge armored European knights did not use boxing or any other form of fist fighting in combat.  Punching an armored opponent just doesn't work. They _did _have close quarters _grappling_ techniques for putting an opponent on the ground.


----------



## hussaf (Jul 20, 2014)

elder999 said:


> Robert Redfeather is a Jicarilla Apache-his methods might have been handed down as "Apache," but seem to bear close relation to Spanish knife fighting,styles, which shouldn't be too surprising given New Mexico's history......I think I'll stay out of this one, and remind all to use the search function....



Is Redfeather still incarcerated?


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2014)

hussaf said:


> Is Redfeather still incarcerated?




I heard he'd gotten out, but I'm not on "Redfeather watch," so I don't really care......:lfao:

Oh, and he's Mescalero, not Jicarilla-but last he was in NM, I think he was on the Jicarilla Rez....


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 20, 2014)

elder999 said:


> Robert Redfeather is a Jicarilla Apache-his methods might have been handed down as "Apache," but seem to bear close relation to Spanish knife fighting,styles, which shouldn't be too surprising given New Mexico's history......I think I'll stay out of this one, and remind all to use the search function....








Hmmm, seems strange that they use the numbering system for angles like in FMA.  Not impressed with watching them stab the ground over and over either.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 20, 2014)

I also remember this guy.  He had a "buy your blackbelt home study program" for American Kenpo and then had his own native american fighting system too.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2014)

punisher73 said:


> Hmmm, seems strange that they use the numbering system for angles like in FMA. Not impressed with watching them stab the ground over and over either.



Not too much stranger than using numbering systems for angles in Spanish methods...or French ones....

and no, they're not particularly impresive at all....


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2014)

punisher73 said:


> I also remember this guy. He had a "buy your blackbelt home study program" for American Kenpo and then had his own native american fighting system too.



He still does.....his kenpo isn't even that good.....:barf:


----------



## Blindside (Jul 20, 2014)

Actually the stabbing the ground thin in sand or similar medium would provide good feedback for stabbing something, I can see its use.
Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express


----------



## elder999 (Jul 20, 2014)

Blindside said:


> Actually the stabbing the ground thin in sand or similar medium would provide good feedback for stabbing something, I can see its use.
> Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express



Especially for groundfighting-but I'm more generally unimpressed-though one of his (Redfeather's) associates used to work at the lab, and has some of the fastest hands I've ever experienced-Alan Tafoya actually won the knife fighting competition at a Soldier of Fortune magazine convention...but he  was an FMA stylist before he hooked up with Robert Redfeather-some of you may have seen him on the "Apach vs. Gladiator" episode of _the Deadliest Warrior_/


----------



## lklawson (Jul 23, 2014)

Boxing, as the sport we generally think of it, pretty much disappeared during the middle ages.  There seems to have been one or two regional sports, but not English boxing.  Most likely, the first of the English "Stage Gladiators," James Figg reintroduced "Prize Fighting" Pugilism to London.  I, personally, refer to antique boxing as "Pugilism" specifically as a way to differentiate the pre-Marquis rule sets which included grapples, throws, trips, chokes, backfists, spinning backfists, and some other stuff which aren't legal under MoQ rules.  However, that said, even "in period," the sport and art was usually referred to as "Boxing." 
Medieval Knights covers a span of centuries of weapon and armor technology improvements and social changes.  It's hard to lock it down to just one "thing."  It's usually best to refer to a specific time period in a specific location, such as 16th Century Germany or the like.  When armoured, knights were armoured, depending on time period and social convention, in anything from heavily padded clothing, to hardened leather (similar to hard plastic), to flexible metal maille ("chain mail"), to various kinds of plate harnesses ("plate armor").   Again, when armoured, the armour always included some form of helmet.  When wearing a full plate harness, bare hand striking techniques would have been marginal in effectiveness (at best).  That said, judging by the knightly fight books and other period fighting books I've read, knightly fighting skills covered the whole range and included bare-hand striking, kicking, grappling, joint-locking, throwing, and any/every melee and personal ranged weapon available at the time.  However, bare-handed strikes appear to be the least represented of all of the techniques and, when shown at all, are restricted to unarmored and unarmed fighting.  Understanding, of course, that I'm not a medieval martial arts expert.  I've just studied a little bit of them and read a bit more. 
When it comes to native american martial arts, my research indicates that some tribes did, in fact, have fairly sophisticated systems.  They, apparently, were largely taught as an integral part of social upbringing.  While it is impossible to lump all native american tribes into one big pile, apparently, for many there was no equivalent of, "it's Tuesday so it's Martial Arts class after lunch."  You learned fighting from mentors all the time, whenever they felt like it.  One fascinating theory is that many of the "War Dances" were training systems for martial arts in a similar way to the commonly accepted understanding of Kata.  From what few resources seem to have survived, bare-hand strikes, kicks, grapples/wrestling, and the common melee and personal ranged weapons were all part of the tribal systems, focus being primarily on weapons with grappling and/or striking being thought of as in support of the weapon work.  Again, based on what little documentation remains, common native american melee weapons included the war-club (including a stone-headed mace), small knives, spears, throwing club, bow, sling, and the atlatl.  Most cutting edges would be stone, though there is evidence of the use of naturally occurring copper which once could be found on the shores of the Great Lakes and was traded as far as modern St. Louis.  They often made use of armour including heavy clothing, reinforced clothing, and shields.  One account I read indicated that there was more honor gained by fighting (and winning) with an inferior weapon against a superior one and seemed to imply that fighting unarmed while naked and besting a man with a bow and lance earned the most honor though, to be fair, the account was written as recording an oral tradition.  Again, I'm not an expert on pre-European native american fighting systems.  I've just had a little exposure and have done some research as it relates to Tomahawk use. 
 
In short, everybody was fighting, all the time, with whatever they had available, weapons first, and running all the way down to fighting nekkid.  Most people get a chuckle when looking at period Italian Rapier manuals which show the Duelists fighting completely naked except for their Rapiers (and sometimes Parrying Daggers) but, personally, I don't believe that it happened.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 23, 2014)

No doubt about it that the Native Americans had martial systems that they trained in.  They certainly taught their younger people, how to hunt, fish, build things, etc.  It would be no different for martial practice I imagine.  They were quite often in warfare with other tribes and lord knows when the white man arrived there were plenty of engagements.  Having said that I personally have not come across anything that I would call legitimate being taught as native American martial practice.  A lot of people who trained in Asian systems and then created their own native Amercian system but none that I would consider some thing passed down over time.  Though I would imagine that if there is some they probably would not show it to this white guy or any other for that matter.  When asked by someone who wants to practice native American martial arts I usually refer them to join a Lacrosse league.  Lacrosse was a ritual, warfare tribal game and still has that tough edge to it.  Lacrosse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 23, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Support this.  Where are you pulling this from?  Consider how diverse the various Native American tribes and nations were.  Some were hunter-gatherer societies, following herds.  Others were agricultural communities.  And that's only in North America... let's not forget the Inca, Maya, and other South and Central American cultures.
> 
> What, by and large, the Native American tribes don't seem to have done is developed a structured or hierarchical means of passing on or recording their approaches to combat.  One can be fairly confident that they did have something -- even if it was simply a variant of "this is where you shoot an arrow into a buffalo to kill it" _a la_ "this is where to whack a guy in the head to kill him."   The other thing is that European cultural imperatives did a wonderful job of crushing a lot of those traditions.  I'm not aware of anyone teaching what they claim to be Native American martial arts that doesn't have a huge Eastern influence and pressure.  Doesn't mean there are none out there... just that I haven't found one that I'm convinced of the legitimacy of lineage claims.
> 
> As to "the white man"...  There is a lot of documentation of the various combative approaches in Historical European Martial Arts.  Not sure where you're going with this.


It isn't hard to imagine a society that didn't rely on thrusting motions with the fist to take down their enemy. Thrusting is unnatural, hammering, and bonking are almost a natural instinct. Boxing was a sport, and very hard to master. I suggest you go with this until you provide evidence that they were boxers.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 23, 2014)

punisher73 said:


> I also remember this guy.  He had a "buy your blackbelt home study program" for American Kenpo and then had his own native american fighting system too.


That looked like kenpo to me.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 23, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> Thrusting is unnatural


The "punch" exists as part of pretty much every codified martial art I've ever heard of.  Seems natural enough going by the evidence.  I'll give you that hammer-fists are even more natural as an instinctive movement.



> Boxing was a sport,


And a martial art.  Going on from it's reintroduction to England by Figg, Boxing has been considered an unarmed martial art of self defense.  Boxing is a "sport" in the same way that Judo and Tae Kwon Do are "sports."



> and very hard to master.


But still easier than any other empty-handed martial art, however.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 23, 2014)

lklawson said:


> The "punch" exists as part of pretty much every codified martial art I've ever heard of.  Seems natural enough going by the evidence.  I'll give you that hammer-fists are even more natural as an instinctive movement.
> 
> And a martial art.  Going on from it's reintroduction to England by Figg, Boxing has been considered an unarmed martial art of self defense.  Boxing is a "sport" in the same way that Judo and Tae Kwon Do are "sports."
> 
> ...


It may be easy to fight like Tyson, but it ain't easy to fight like Holyfield.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 23, 2014)

lklawson said:


> The "punch" exists as part of pretty much every codified martial art I've ever heard of.  Seems natural enough going by the evidence.  I'll give you that hammer-fists are even more natural as an instinctive movement.
> 
> And a martial art.  Going on from it's reintroduction to England by Figg, Boxing has been considered an unarmed martial art of self defense.  Boxing is a "sport" in the same way that Judo and Tae Kwon Do are "sports."
> 
> ...


I think they were probably smart enough to not try to break their hands in the heat of battle.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 23, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> It may be easy to fight like Tyson, but it ain't easy to fight like Holyfield.


You don't have to fight like Holyfield to learn how to box old school.  It's not complicated.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jul 23, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> I think they were probably smart enough to not try to break their hands in the heat of battle.


I can't tell if you're serious.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 23, 2014)

lklawson said:


> You don't have to fight like Holyfield to learn how to box old school.  It's not complicated.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Sure it is. I think it is science... a sweet science, even. I think you are placing to much complexity on these other arts. It is just about the same damn thing. How are they more complex? And why do the boxers fair so well against them in the ring? I will give you that adding outward motion to boxing makes it more complex, but its one move. LOL
Sean


----------



## lklawson (Jul 23, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> Sure it is. I think it is science... a sweet science, even. I think you are placing to much complexity on these other arts. It is just about the same damn thing. How are they more complex? And why do the boxers fair so well against them in the ring? I will give you that adding outward motion to boxing makes it more complex, but its one move. LOL
> Sean


The K.I.S.S. Principle.  Depending on how you catalog them, boxing only has half-a-dozen punches or so and fewer "guards."  It's not "complexity" you're thinking of, it's "sophistication."  Boxing can be very sophisticated because of the many ways that a single given boxing technique can be refined and applied, assuming the practitioner has spent the time to develop that level of sophistication.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 23, 2014)

lklawson said:


> I can't tell if you're serious.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


I am very serious. They probably punched the enemy about as much as our soldiers do now.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 23, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> I am very serious. They probably punched the enemy about as much as our soldiers do now.


Then I refer you to the extremely long and painful thread in which I discuss that you just have punch properly.  

The thread was long, painful, and not particularly fruitful.  The reader's digest version of my statements is, "learn to punch right and you have very little chance of breaking your hand."

For exactly how that is done, rather than retype if all yet again, I refer the interested readers to any number of period Pugilism manuals, some of which are referenced in the stickied thread in this sub-forum.  But if you don't like 19th Century or early 20th Century English, then just read Jack Dempsey's description.  He writes it very well.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 23, 2014)

lklawson said:


> Then I refer you to the extremely long and painful thread in which I discuss that you just have punch properly.
> 
> The thread was long, painful, and not particularly fruitful.  The reader's digest version of my statements is, "learn to punch right and you have very little chance of breaking your hand."
> 
> ...


They used sticks, stones, and arrows. If they fought hand to hand, the idea was to take your enemy off his feet, not square off for the entertainment of others. 
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 23, 2014)

lklawson said:


> Then I refer you to the extremely long and painful thread in which I discuss that you just have punch properly.
> 
> The thread was long, painful, and not particularly fruitful.  The reader's digest version of my statements is, "learn to punch right and you have very little chance of breaking your hand."
> 
> ...


I understand how to not hurt my hand when punching, but would an entire tribe spend a lot of time on it?
Sean


----------



## lklawson (Jul 23, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> They used sticks, stones, and arrows.


So?



> If they fought hand to hand, the idea was to take your enemy off his feet


The same as grappling; as a way to supplement and enhance weapon work, or when a weapon was not available.



> not square off for the entertainment of others.
> Sean


I never claimed that they did.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 23, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> I understand how to not hurt my hand when punching, but would an entire tribe spend a lot of time on it?
> Sean


Who said "a lot of time?"  The evidence indicates that empty handed punching was what you did if you did if you didn't have a weapon or as a supplement to the weapon already in hand, much like wrestling.

This isn't rocket surgery.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 23, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Leaving aside the rest of the post, I just wanted to point out that to the best of my knowledge armored European knights did not use boxing or any other form of fist fighting in combat.  Punching an armored opponent just doesn't work. They _did _have close quarters _grappling_ techniques for putting an opponent on the ground.



Keep in mind that if you were to punch an armored opponent you would probably be wearing a metal gauntlet so it would have some effect. And besides, not all your opponents wore metal armor. The common foot soldier would usually just be wearing leather.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 23, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> That looked like kenpo to me.



That's because, what I know of Adrian "chief" Roman, he incorporated Kempo into native american fighting systems.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 23, 2014)

lklawson said:


> Who said "a lot of time?"  The evidence indicates that empty handed punching was what you did if you did if you didn't have a weapon or as a supplement to the weapon already in hand, much like wrestling.
> 
> This isn't rocket surgery.


I think more rockets die than you think. LOL


----------



## lklawson (Jul 23, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> I think more rockets die than you think. LOL


OK then, so what is the basis for your conclusions?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 23, 2014)

lklawson said:


> OK then, so what is the basis for your conclusions?


I think we watch too many movies, and have a very small filter in which we view history. The punch as we know it is a specialization. Your a martial artist... go ask you non martial art friends to punch you in the stomach as hard as they can. It is great fun watching them hut their hand, but then you have trust issues.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 23, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> I think we watch too many movies, and have a very small filter in which we view history. The punch as we know it is a specialization. Your a martial artist... go ask you non martial art friends to punch you in the stomach as hard as they can. It is great fun watching them hut their hand, but then you have trust issues.


I don't think that answers my question, unless you're answer is, "I base my conclusions upon movies."

What is the basis for your conclusions?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 23, 2014)

lklawson said:


> I don't think that answers my question, unless you're answer is, "I base my conclusions upon movies."
> 
> What is the basis for your conclusions?






 To be honest, I was told this by one of my karate teachers, and his question to me was, why is something that is so hard to do well, so, common? I came up with, entertainment, and it seems a less dangerous way of stabbing (or jabbing) which is sort of a sexual thing, but who knows? The bottom line is that, punching occurred a lot less through human history than you have been led to believe. It is more likely you babied your hands, so that you might still hold a weapon.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 23, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Keep in mind that if you were to punch an armored opponent you would probably be wearing a metal gauntlet so it would have some effect. And besides, not all your opponents wore metal armor. The common foot soldier would usually just be wearing leather.



Not necessarily.  Medieval European?  Maybe... but, though I don't have hard facts handy, I suspect that the run of the mill soldier wasn't wearing metal gauntlets.  Native American?  I'm pretty confident that they had hide gloves at best.  I've never seen much showing that they had a lot of extensive metal use like that.  Bone, leather, wooden armor?  Sure.  

A standing, professional soldier class is something that it takes a certain level of both warfare and technology/cultural advancement to support.  Otherwise, the culture just can't spare a few bodies from farming or hunting or other survival tasks just to stand around and be ready to fight.  (Heck, in many of the cultures we think of as having them -- the folks whose primary role was fighter were really a minority and viewed as leadership, not the rank & file.)


----------



## lklawson (Jul 23, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


>


So you don't actually have any source for your conclusions on how native americans fought.  I base my conclusions about how they fought upon first hand accounts, first person recounts, and oral histories.  I came across most of them during my research on period Bowie and period Tomahawk technique and use.  Most accounts give next to no information that is useful.  However, accounts of native american combat which do include any sort of useful information will occasionally include words like, "punching and kicking."  Most accounts of single-combat or dueling among or with native americans include accounts of grappling, wrestling, and "death grips." and may sometimes also include phrases such as "punching and kicking."  Based upon these accounts and the well documented evolution of armed melee combat in other places, I have concluded that native american combat probably had a preference for using melee and ranged personal weapons but included strong elements of grappling, and sometimes included "punching and kicking" as supplements to the weapon work.



> To be honest, I was told this by one of my karate teachers, and his question to me was, why is something that is so hard to do well, so, common? I came up with, entertainment, and it seems a less dangerous way of stabbing (or jabbing) which is sort of a sexual thing, but who knows? The bottom line is that, punching occurred a lot less through human history than you have been led to believe. It is more likely you babied your hands, so that you might still hold a weapon.


Perhaps you've made an unjustified assumption.  You assume that the hand wasn't designed ("evolved," whatever) for punching, but, well, apparently some really smart Dr.s think maybe it was.  Here are a couple of articles discussing the study.

Evolved Fists or the Best Weapons at Hand? - Retort
The evolution of the hand: Making a fist of it | The Economist


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 23, 2014)

lklawson said:


> So you don't actually have any source for your conclusions on how native americans fought.  I base my conclusions about how they fought upon first hand accounts, first person recounts, and oral histories.  I came across most of them during my research on period Bowie and period Tomahawk technique and use.  Most accounts give next to no information that is useful.  However, accounts of native american combat which do include any sort of useful information will occasionally include words like, "punching and kicking."  Most accounts of single-combat or dueling among or with native americans include accounts of grappling, wrestling, and "death grips." and may sometimes also include phrases such as "punching and kicking."  Based upon these accounts and the well documented evolution of armed melee combat in other places, I have concluded that native american combat probably had a preference for using melee and ranged personal weapons but included strong elements of grappling, and sometimes included "punching and kicking" as supplements to the weapon work.
> 
> Perhaps you've made an unjustified assumption.  You assume that the hand wasn't designed ("evolved," whatever) for punching, but, well, apparently some really smart Dr.s think maybe it was.  Here are a couple of articles discussing the study.
> 
> ...


Our hands have done nothing of the sort. I don't believe that for a second.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 23, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> Our hands have done nothing of the sort. I don't believe that for a second.


OK, now you're either just having a go at me for the fun of it, or, well, best to leave that unsaid.

In either case, this is going nowhere.  I've laid out evidence and described where I draw my conclusions from.  You can either explain why that evidence is "wrong" or you can continue to ignore it.  If you're just having some fun with me, then I don't have time for it today.  If it's the alternative, then I *definitely *don't have time for it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 23, 2014)

lklawson said:


> OK, now you're either just having a go at me for the fun of it, or, well, best to leave that unsaid.
> 
> In either case, this is going nowhere.  I've laid out evidence and described where I draw my conclusions from.  You can either explain why that evidence is "wrong" or you can continue to ignore it.  If you're just having some fun with me, then I don't have time for it today.  If it's the alternative, then I *definitely *don't have time for it.


If our hands evolved for thrusting, we would be born knowing how to thrust. It just doesn't follow that we would evolve for something we don't know how to do. Do you follow?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 23, 2014)

I can provide evidence that Aliens are controlling our minds, but it would still be false.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 23, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Not necessarily.  Medieval European?  Maybe... but, though I don't have hard facts handy, I suspect that the run of the mill soldier wasn't wearing metal gauntlets.  Native American?  I'm pretty confident that they had hide gloves at best.  I've never seen much showing that they had a lot of extensive metal use like that.  Bone, leather, wooden armor?  Sure.
> 
> A standing, professional soldier class is something that it takes a certain level of both warfare and technology/cultural advancement to support.  Otherwise, the culture just can't spare a few bodies from farming or hunting or other survival tasks just to stand around and be ready to fight.  (Heck, in many of the cultures we think of as having them -- the folks whose primary role was fighter were really a minority and viewed as leadership, not the rank & file.)



The knights would wear metal gauntlets and the knights were not run of the mill soldiers. The regular foot soldier was usually a drafted peasant, somebody from the lower class, the dirt poor class. A standard knight on the other hand was upper class although low level upper class and as such the knight would have access to stuff the foot soldier wouldn't such as a full set of armor. And from what I heard boxing was used by the knights, maybe not by the foot soldier but by the knights as a sport and as a form of combat.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 23, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> I can provide evidence that Aliens are controlling our minds, but it would still be false.


So your rebuttal is "nuh-uh."

<sigh>

I still don't know if you're just friendly trolling me or something else but, in the end, it doesn't matter.  Until you can come up with something better in way of rebuttal, this cheeseburger is fully cooked; it's "done."


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Jul 30, 2014)

I'm confused by this whole thread. 

Surely no-one is suggesting that medieval knights had boxing matches in full plate armour with metal gauntlets on?


----------

