[removed]

Hans Talhoffers fencing manual states, that is forbidden that the combatants are closer than a relation in the fifth degree (Item wenn zween mann gesinnt sind biß uff die fünffte sipp oder näher die mügent durch recht nit mit ein ander kempfen und des müssn siben man schwern die die vatter und muotter halb mäge sind - Talhoffer 1459, Page 9 recto) Therefore a fight between wife and husband is not shown in this document and probably illegal.

[removed]

We did that already, couldnt we try and defend ourselves from soneone attacking with a stick?

I love that this is a "tradition". I figure the first few kings were probably going, early morning tomorrow i should save some time and kip near westminster abbey, and a few monarchs down the line everyone has to do it.

Where can I get those rash guards?

The article says it’s not from trial by combat, there were no records of that being used after 1200.

Altho I’m wondering if it’s a theoretical match-up for trial by combat? Like what if Bruce Lee fought Chuck Norris? Who would need the handicap, and how? Just in case it might crop up again with the next plague or what not.

IIRC the man stands in a shallow pit while the woman stands. I think it had to do with divorce or a scorned woman

If you read the article, it actually claims that the interpretation you mention is hastily made and likely incorrect.

Some nice filth over there, Dennis.

I guess there are a few too many gratuitous sexual inferences that don't fit combat for me not to wonder if other factors are in play. Sex would've garnered extra attention back then like it does now and the format allows some leeway before any reputations would get tarnished. The boob grab with the guy having his hand clasped at his own crotch doesn't seem to have any potential value added from the pose for instance. I'm under no illusion my tangential experience qualifies me for anything other than a layman's opinion though : )

The article literally calls the man vs wife angle "bullshit". That's a direct quote.

It goes on to say this manual was made 300 years after Man vs Wife combat disappeared from Europe.

One of those British History shows that did an entire episode on this trying to recreate the techniques in the illustrations. Took me a second, but I found it. They also recreate some of the siege engines and other inventions from the manual.

I understand this is trial by combat stuff, woman vs. man, and putting the man in the hole is meant to make the fight more fair. But what about man vs. man (or woman vs. woman) trials where one man is significantly bigger than the other, or more trained (or trained at all vs. completely untrained), or any other disparity between the combatants? What exactly is this concept of "fair"? Why would someone choose a trial by combat if they didn't think they had some [unfair?] advantage over their opponent? If fairness is desired, why not just roll dice and then execute (or beat) the loser? If the decision has to be through combat, and "God's favor" is expected to be the deciding factor, why isn't the larger man's advantage considered to be part of "God's plan"?

I'm asking legitimate questions, here, to hear answers. I'm not asking rhetorical questions to make a point.

Really, what variables were considered still fair, vs. what variables were considered unfair for a trial by combat?

But does it describe how to defend oneself from a man wielding fruit?

Duma was Russian parliament and as such was official institution of the state. It predated revolution. It was controlled by political parties. At first by liberals that overthrew czar and then socialists.

Provisional government was the government of the Russian republic (established after first revolution that overthrew czar Nicolas II) and was subordinated to the Duma.

Soviets (literally councils in English) were effectively parallel parliament/government established by the people (mostly workers) during revolution and rival power of the Duma and the provisional government. They were organized locally (for example in factories) and then deputies would be send to the higher level Soviet (for example city). The most important Soviet during and after revolution was Leningrad Soviet, which served as an unofficial top Soviet. Bolsheviks gaining majority in the Soviets made them major power that could eventually defeat their opponents and gain control over country.

In the competition between Soviets and Duma/provisional government, Soviets eventually emerged victorious, mostly because they were able to control soldiers, railway, telegraph and factory workers. Basically they could control revolutionary masses while Duma and government could not.

As for actual political parties, there were liberals that actually organized coup that overthrew czar and started the first revolution (February Revolution). Two main liberal parties were Union of October 17 - otherwise known as Okrobtrists party and Constitutional Democratic Party otherwise known as Kadets. They organized anti government coup and forced czar Nicolas II to abdicate. Their idea was for Nicolas II to pass rule to his small son that would serve as a weak ruler of the constitutional monarchy similar to Great Britain. But Nicolas II refused and passed crown on to his brother grand duke Michael. However when liberals came to Michael, he told them that he will accept only if they can guarantee him safety, which they could not as coup got out of their hands and turned in to revolution with liberals having no control over masses on the streets and army.

Liberals were then forced to declare republic and created provisional government (until general elections), but were replaced in the Duma and the provisional government by Socialists who had majority in Soviets. Head of the provisional government became socialist Kerensky (hence "Kerensky government").

Main Socialist parties were Mensheviks, Socialists Revolutionary party called also Esers (basically socialist party that oriented itself on peasants rather then workers and performed political terror -political assassinations). Esers later split in to Left and Right Esers, former allied with Bolsheviks while later allied to other Socialists and liberals. Socialists were first to gain majority support in Soviets so they pushed liberals out of Duma and provisional government.

Then there were Bolsheviks, who before revolution split from socialist party of Mensheviks. They were more radical socialists. They were at first minor party that did not play any role in the revolution, but after Socialists took over Duma and provisional government, they begun gaining support in Soviets and eventually overthrew Kerensky, Socialists and their Duma and provisional government in the second revolution (October Revolution).

There were also various royalist parties and anarchists, plus parties of ethnic minorities (mostly of socialist kind) -for example Jewish socialists, but those did not play larger role.

During Kerensky/Socialist rule, there was failed attempt at counterrevolution organized by part of the army (mostly officers) and some political parties (originally Kerensky himself agreed to join but then he changed his mind fearing that he would be betrayed). Military force was send to take over Leningrad under general Kornilov and to disperse Soviets. Attempt failed as Kerensky flipped sides and most of the soldiers in Kerensky force refused to carry orders.

After Bolsheviks took power in October Revolution, general elections were held but as results were not flavoring Bolsheviks, Bolsheviks and Left Esers boycotted them which resulted in failed elections. After that civil war effectively started between Bolsheviks, Left Esers and few minor parties on one side and everybody else on the other.

At the beginning of the civil war Left Esers attempted coup against Bolsheviks, because they disagreed with their policy of making peace with Germany. Coup failed and Left Esers were purged.

Bolsheviks emerged victorious from the civil war and political struggle and united all political leftovers in to new Communist party.

[Edit:] One more important thing to understand is what made Bolsheviks and Left Esers disagree with other Socialists in Russia:

According to Marxist theory, development of human society comes in socio-economic stages:

Tribal society -> Slavery -> Feudalism -> Capitalism -> Socialism -> Communism

Russia at the beginning of the 20st ct. was in many ways still feudal society that just begun to adopt capitalism.

Most Russian socialists therefore believed, that Russia first have to became capitalists, before becoming socialist and then communist. And so socialists wanted to establish capitalist republic after revolution. Meanwhile Bolsheviks believed that it is possible for Russia to skip capitalism and go strait to socialism and wanted to establish socialist republic. That was the main point of disagreement.

Watch the video at the end of the article. There is a modern day demonstration of what is depicted in the manual with explanations.

It's this manuscript. You can see contact with genitals not only in this specific setup, it also appears in other areas. Not exactly sure why, maybe it's because the groin is a convenient place to set up a takedown that also hurts when you grab it. AFAIK you get similar situations in folk style wrestling like Turkish oil wrestling or Glima, but I'm not sure. That said, grappling isn't my strong point, I mainly concentrate on the armed stuff.

That's not "mixed-gender fight club" those are pictures of "trial by combat" or in other words, judicial duels where legal disputes were to be settled by duels ordered by the court.

As women were considered to be at the disadvantage in combat, men were to be handicapped in duels with women to make fight more "fair".

Pictures are from a fighting manual supposed to teach people how to fight these trials.

This is assumed a specific kind of duel to settle a dispute by commoners/town people where a woman was defending her rights.

The hallmark of duels was that they were intentionally designed to equalize the combat so "God's will" was not distorted by something like one guy being a trained swordsman. Another was that (particularly if not of the knightly class) you actually wanted a lot of duels not to be to the death but until one side yields. Obviously depended on what this was about.

For that reason specific, weird looking fencing shields were common, too. Easy to defend, awkward to handle.

I noticed out of 7 pictures, 6 of them have direct or implied contact with a genital region. Have you seen the other pictures from this manual, did they just pick salacious ones for the article? And the last has the lady grabbing a boob out of nowhere which I'm having a hard time fitting into context. Any guesses?

[removed]

Yup. There's a treatise associated with Albrecht Dürer (yes, that Albrecht Dürer) where groins get kicked, knees get stomped, arms get broken and eyes get gouged.

Are there any medieval self defence manuscripts that depict kicking your attacker in the groin?

>Since William the Conqueror in 1066, there had been a tradition that monarchs would spend the night at the Palace of Westminster before they ascended to the throne.

Now this bed isn't quite that old. It dates to 1859, yet somehow after WWII ended up at an antique auction.