[Victor R.]

Previews look interesting. I know some of the makers on boards I'm in have been on Forged in Fire; any practitioners on here involved in this in any way?

Planning to set the DVR and give it a chance.

https://www.history.com/shows/knight-fight

[Lin Robinson]

The Discovery Channel also now has a show which I believe is called "Master of Arms," which I have seen once. It happened that one of the contestants, who were required to build a working blunderbuss in five days, is an acquaintance of mine, Lee Shaver. He won. Don't know when the show comes on but it was very interesting.

[Craig Peters]

I can't say I'm thrilled to see this. People watching this show are only going to have the impression that the fighting in the Middle Ages was about mindlessly bludgeoning one another and cross-checking your opponents. It stinks of the modern "I'm a bad-ass tough guy" attitude seen with guys who are participating in a sport, not a life-and-death fight.

I'm surprised John Clements agreed to do the narration for the History Channel about this. He used to rant about all the ways historic medieval combat was bastardized by stage fighting, movie fighting, Renn-faire people and so forth. I guess there was a good paycheck and a chance for self-promotion.

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

Some months ago, I was interviewed by a show that may well have been this one, but it was all very hush-hush. I was under consideration as one of the 'judges', but apparently I did not make the cut.

[Blaz Berlec]

I have seen the first episode, and I can't say I'm hooked. I have watched Forged in Fire (and quite liked it, despite some flaws), Forged in Fire: Knife or Death (not a fan) and Master of Arms (which is at times entertaining, but I don't like the presenters).

I'm quite familiar with "Armored Combat League", "Battle of the Nations" bohurt style of combat, and I don't have problems with that - but it could have been better explained that this is in no way recreation of medieval combat in battle, or even medieval combat in a tournament.

There is also very little information about how armour and weapons differ from real medieval pieces, and they do differ a lot to compy with the ACL rules. Trying to represent "Vikings" vs. "Byzantines" with those types of armour was really laughable.

Combatants rarely show any knowledge of real western medieval martial arts - but then again, they are really hindered by overweight armour (40 kg+) and safety limitations (no stabbing)...

I was disappointed to see John Clements commenting the battles in the same vein as one of the other judges, former wrestler Jay “Christian” Reso. Limitations of the show format?

I was also disappointed that they offered very little explanation about how the fights are scored and judged.

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

I cannot say I am sorry to have been passed over for being one of the judges. The armour is mostly crude and inaccurate (with a few bits of better stuff here and there), the 'history' described is... highly inaccurate (example: Templars vs. Saracens, calling all the Arabs Saracens, saying nothing about the Seljuk Turks and the fact that Salah ad-Din was a Kurd), and the first couple of programs had fighting that looked every bit as crude as the typical modern expectation. The fighting in the last two episodes has been considerably better, especially the last one. And I just like seeing people using two handed axes doing well, especially a fellow who is 48 years old. As for thrusting, there were plenty of tournament foot combats which forbade thrusting, which could be dangerous even to fully armoured men, even if using blunted weapons. I do not recall if thrusting in the tournament became more common as the 15th century went on. IIRC, throwing one's opponent to the ground was a common way to win a fight in a real tournament (why not here?), though my favorite was to 'show them the gate'.

[Lin Robinson]

I watched the first episode then wrote it off. It is just a big brawl with the fattest guy winning! At least that was the impression I got. I expected to see more sophistication in tactics but there wasn't any at all. Won't bother with it again.

[Victor R.]

I missed the first episode, but watched the second, and only the second. Sadly, my impression was a combo of the thoughts posted by James and Lin - it reminded me of a bar room brawl with rebated weapons and costume armor.

[Michael P. Smith]

Watched a few episodes.....

It reduces medieval fighting to the stereotypes of brute force. They talk about technique, but I rarely see anything like it.

I won't be watching.

One minor silver lining... it does show you can knock the shit out someone without penetrating or even seriously damaging armor.

[Nathan Robinson]

Seriously not entertaining and shitty all around.

[Mark Moore]

I'd rather watch a video of a good LARP battle, with guys in leather fantasy armor and foam weapons battling Orcs and Goblins to get some magical treasure. The fighting styles(and I use that term VERY loosely)in that show are atrocious. The only contestant I saw with much of anything to offer was the young guy who was a 'fight choreographer'---who won. Otherwise, it looks like armored gorillas in a free-for-all. I'm one to talk though. At 51yo. with a bad back, I'd do good to get the armor on and make it to the arena. ...............McM

[J.D. Crawford]

I watched it a couple of times and had enough.

I agree with everything said above, but i try to be positive and will try to find something positive here:

First, maybe it will get some people interested in Medieval history, and then they will learn more?

Second, the contestants seem very serious and earnest about their hobby, and they clearly give it their all. The injuries are real. These are some pretty tough guys that I would not want to take on in a bar fight, so will not insult them.

Third, my guess is that it does capture some occasional aspects of real medieval battle. There had to be times when there was no time or space for finesse and knights did have to just bash the hell out of each other to see who goes down first.

Having said all that, I don't think it represents the totality of real medieval battle any better than a knife fight would represent the sophistication of modern warfare. I'd much rather watch some Scholars & Masters engaged in proper historical fencing, a proper recreation of a tournament with safety measures in place, or realistic reenactments of historical battles.

Why can't the history channel do that?

[Victor R.]

[Karl G]

I havent seen it but I will bet a dollar it wiil neglect, as hollywood neglects, and many respected modern medieval martial artists neglect, the amount of wrestling that occurred in knightly combat. This is because despite its necessity its actually hard work, boring to learn alongside swinging a cool sword, and less visually impressive to TV audiences and new students I have been bemoaning this since before internet forums 25 years ago, I will be bemoaning it another 25.

[Blaz Berlec]

The Battle of the Nations / bohurt / Armored Combat League type of combat is quite different from stage / screen fights - but it doesn't help it one bit to make it believable martial art. Armour is usually very overweight (and badly fitted), so combatants really struggle to remain in balance. I think they see most of the fancy moves from sword fighting and medieval wrestling as unnecessary risks, so the actual combat usually consists of simple punches - which makes most fight quite repetitive.

[Karl G]

Agree I have seen a few of these battle of the nations videos and consider them a great spectacle and fun but a lot of times where 1-1 or 2 on 1 they could easiy enact a hook, sweep, grapple, takedown in less than a second to finish a guy.. Instead of lumbering about for another 20 seconds with mock hits of a polexae like they are fanning a persan satrap.