did wrestling in the middle ages involve ground-fighting ? supposidly meister Ott had teachings on it but i can't find any info.

Medieval wrestling texts do talk about unterhalten (holding down) techniques, but it's not a major focus of the art.

When unterhalten was used in kampfringen (combat wrestling) it was usually so that the top man had a chance to use his dagger.

My own guess is that, because killing someone with a dagger was a swifter process then winning a fight by ground & pound or submission, kampfringen pinning strategies didn't need to be as sophisticated as what we see in modern MMA, Jiu-jitsu, wrestling, etc.

It's unclear if the common form of sport grappling was to the takedown (like some Chinese wrestling styles) or to the pin (like greco-roman, freestyle & folkstyle wrestling). It seems unlikely that suck contests were to submission however it's possible that joint locks were used to secure turnovers & pins (like in early catch wrestling).

It's been a while since I looked into this, but AFAIK competitive (recreational) wrestling in Medieval/Renaissance Europe was typically fought to a clean throw rather than continued on the ground.

Kampfringen ("combat wrestling") did include some ground fighting and these techniques are detailed in several of the German treatises. However, we're not looking at the complex ground-game that we'd associate with BJJ, etc. today.

Historical German ground fighting was generally based on the idea of unterhalten ("holding down"), most especially a quick immobilizing lock intended to expose the enemy, who was typically wearing armor, to a thrust with a dagger. A few treatises (maybe only one - can't recall offhand) also deal with counters to underhalten, which tend to be leverage-based reversals.

There are also scattered descriptions/illustrations of quite elaborate pins and submission holds executed by an unarmed/unarmored man against one or even two opponents - very reminiscent of the complex holds we'd associate with Aikijutsu or some styles of traditional jujutsu today.

In general, though, while combat ground fighting was there, it doesn't appear to have been heavily emphasized - see http://www.thearma.org/essays/WheresAlltheGroundFighting.html , which also includes a number of Med./Ren kampfringen illustrations.

I openly risk some correction here, with some analogizing (real word?), but I am thinking that the ground game of the medieval era could be likened to todays "ground and pound".

Get'em down, hold'em down, kill'em.

All the Best,

Chris Amendola

That's not a totally unfair comparison.

I look at it this way:

If I'm pinning someone down in a submission match they can afford to be on bottom for quite a while as long as they're in good posture to avoid getting submitted, but they should still be working to escape.

If someone is pinned down in an MMA match then they need to escape quickly because the longer they're on bottom, the more they're getting hit.

On the medieval battlefield a pinned man is also being hit when he's down, but rather then absorbing punches he's being stabbed with a dagger. It likely takes far fewer stabs to kill a man then it takes punches to knock him out by ground & pound, so the window of escape for a person pinned down on a battlefield becomes infinitesimal.

maybe its like Cornish wrestling?



The objective of Cornish wrestling is to throw your opponent and make him land as flat as possible on his back. Three sticklers (referees) watch and control each bout whilst also recording down the score of points achieved in play. Four pins are located on the back of a wrestler, two at the back of each shoulder and two either side just above the buttocks. If a wrestler manages to throw his opponent flat onto his back, simultaneously scoring with all 4 pins they score four points in that single throw and this is called a "Back" to which the bout is then finished and the throwing wrestler is the winner. The sticklers will each raise their sticks when they perceive a Back has been achieved. If two sticklers raise their sticks but one does not a back is still awarded.

Among others; actually, most traditional (living lineage) European wrestling styles, including Glima, Scottish backhold, Cumberland, etc. are fought to the first clean fall from standing. Lancashire rules were controversial back in the 19th century because they did allow ground-grappling.

Among others; actually, most traditional (living lineage) European wrestling styles, including Glima, Scottish backhold, Cumberland, etc. are fought to the first clean fall from standing. Lancashire rules were controversial back in the 19th century because they did allow ground-grappling.

I think its because in a melee being on the ground tended to get you trampled, thats probably why traditional MA's avoided ground grappling.

I think its because in a melee being on the ground tended to get you trampled, thats probably why traditional MA's avoided ground grappling.


Sley,

Not sure your intention with the usage of "traditional" in a WMA setting ("Asian" arts?, or do you mean "historical"?).

Re-ground fighting: I think the value would depend on the context of combat. I think that in the history of many fighting systems, cultures etc., there's cases of "single combat", both "recreational" and "mortal", where holding someone down and finishing them off would be handy, because the "rules" kept one safe from multiple attackers.

I would agree that systems for the "battlefield" (or some such designation) would clearly avoid ground fighting, but that other forms of combat, like "dueling", it might actually be prudent to ground out the enemy.

All the Best,

-Chris Amendola

did the fact that they(warriors in the middle ages) assumed that the opponent would be wearing armour or at least thick clothes cause them to neglect striking?

did the fact that they(warriors in the middle ages) assumed that the opponent would be wearing armour or at least thick clothes cause them to neglect striking?

I think the fact that everyone carried a knife made unarmed striking less important. It's also certainly true that boxing doesn't work well against armor while grappling retains much of its effect.

Re-ground fighting: I think the value would depend on the context of combat. I think that in the history of many fighting systems, cultures etc., there's cases of "single combat", both "recreational" and "mortal", where holding someone down and finishing them off would be handy, because the "rules" kept one safe from multiple attackers.

I would agree that systems for the "battlefield" (or some such designation) would clearly avoid ground fighting, but that other forms of combat, like "dueling", it might actually be prudent to ground out the enemy.


Ground combat can happen whether you want it to or not, whether you're prepared for it or not. A strong, heavy, skilled and/or simply lucky opponent (or two, or three) can easily take a fighter down; it seems imprudent for battlefield arts to fail to prepare fighters for that eventuality.

Ground combat can happen whether you want it to or not, whether you're prepared for it or not. A strong, heavy, skilled and/or simply lucky opponent (or two, or three) can easily take a fighter down; it seems imprudent for battlefield arts to fail to prepare fighters for that eventuality.

Yes I see your point, and am of a similar mind- it sure can happen as you say.

My thinking was that the pro-active use of ground fighting in "battlefield" or "en masse" situations wouldn't be "high probability", but I agree with you that reversing the ground situation would be something best studied.


All the Best,

-Chris Amendola

Sley,

Not sure your intention with the usage of "traditional" in a WMA setting ("Asian" arts?, or do you mean "historical"?).

Re-ground fighting: I think the value would depend on the context of combat. I think that in the history of many fighting systems, cultures etc., there's cases of "single combat", both "recreational" and "mortal", where holding someone down and finishing them off would be handy, because the "rules" kept one safe from multiple attackers.

I would agree that systems for the "battlefield" (or some such designation) would clearly avoid ground fighting, but that other forms of combat, like "dueling", it might actually be prudent to ground out the enemy.

All the Best,

-Chris Amendola

I find the idea of a unarmed duels to the death being common in Medieval Europe rather far fetched

^^^

Actually why would you say that??? (unless you are joking, I cannot tell, its the internet)

There is plenty of evidence of duels to the death from the beginning of mankind all the way to Aaron Burr vs A Hamilton. Burr and Ham was fought with guns, but you get the point. Our ancestors meant business. Killing and being killed was a part of everyday life. Weapons were definitely a part of everyday life also, but that should not cause people to neglect all the skills one needs to fight, including the hand only ground techs.

I mean, your life is at stake, so why should you give up so easily? Just because you are on your back does not mean you should just lay there and take a beating. If my opponant has a weapon, and I am on my back, I will still try to do something: roll away, kick his legs out and make him fall, grab the spear as it is coming in.

I had a book called chinese fast wrestling. It had some tech to deal with a standing opponant when you are on your back. The book contained lots of trips to use against a standing enemy.

But lets take two unarmed combatants. They are fighting and one guy falls down. It is logical to assume the downed opponant is not just going to walk away now that he has fallen. Our ancestors must have known ways to deal with this situation, namely, to finish the fallen opponant without weapons.

Like someone had already stated. Martial arts are not only developed for the battlefield. What about self-defense outside of a duel when you did not have a weapon?

I find the idea of a unarmed duels to the death being common in Medieval Europe rather far fetched

Sley,

I didn't mean to imply that in that time period there were unarmed "duels" to the death. In that time period I would just imagine it might be easier to pin down an armored man and kill him there, than trying to finish him "toe to toe" if you will. (Notice I did not say "submit", so think dagger through the visor while sitting in something like a mount).

Also, even in later European times (less armour, but still armed), I can imagine that there would be times in "duels" where putting someone on their backside and then holding them down would be of great tactical advantage, for example if they were quick and their opponent was not.

Thanks,

Chris Amendola