Richard III

[Sancho]

Have you by any chance come across the hypothetical Presidential knife-fight scenario? If not, then: http://faceintheblue.wordpress.com/2...d-win-and-why/

Haha. Good link, Lok'.

Looks like the usual names keep popping up. Some how I just don't like Honest Abe, though, due to poor situational awareness. I keep seeing that picture of him standing on battlefield during the Civil War (Bull Run, 1st Manassas, can't remember), towering above everybody else, wearing a stovepipe hat. Finally one of the soldiers had to tell him he needed to duck. He was making too good a target for a Rebel sniper.

Sorry, Mick, I keep screwing up the Louis/Francis deal. My knowledge of French Kings is worse than my knowledge of English Kings, which also stinks. I do know that if you happened to be an English King, you were a lot better off if your name was Henry rather than Charles.

Just to keep this discussion on my level, whooee that Francis I had a beak on him, didn't he?

And oh yeah, Maggie would be tough, but I like my odds in a smack down between her and Hillary. You see, Margret was a conservative and hence would probably fight conventionally. With Hillary, no telling what she'd do. At any rate, it'd be a good fight. I'd pay money to see it. A nonstarter would be a matchup between Margret Thatcher and Richard Nixon - those two would probably just fall into a warm embrace.

[prendrelemick]

I reckon George W Bush would be a contender. ( Jeb 'ud fix it for him.)

[Sancho]

Good point. Also Dubya's got agility and good reflexes. Here he is dodging a couple of shoes in Baghdad a few years ago:

http://youtu.be/1rwxIjQZF98

[Paulclem]

I bet Richard III could take them all in a knife fight. Trained in knife and sword combat.

[Ecurb]

Thanks for the link. I'd never seen it before. A weaponless fight would favor the moderns more than a knife fight, I think. Clinton, the Bushes, and Obama were probably in better physical shape during their Presidencies than many 19th century Presidents -- just because we are more aware of the health values of working out. I'll grant those old army guys (like Grant or Hayes) were probably tougher mentally. But mental toughness only gets you so far. Size, strength and athletic ability are more important. (Obviously, Taft might not be a contender in a knife fight, but his bulk would make him tough hand to hand.) "W.", if memory serves, used to brag about benching 200 pounds when he was first President. He could King Kong James Madison (who was 5'3" tall) two handed over his head and pitch him out of the ring (if he didn't go awol from the match).

[Ecurb]

I bet Richard III could take them all in a knife fight. Trained in knife and sword combat.

Many of those old English Kings would have been tough with knives. Richard I was a bad ***, too. I believe Henry VIII was a jousting champion in his youth. Obviously, any of the physical combat scenarios would favor those under 40 -- no U.S. Presidents were that young.

[Lokasenna]

I bet Richard III could take them all in a knife fight. Trained in knife and sword combat.

Which leads us to the question of which English monarch would win in an all-out knife-fight? I suspect my crowd (i.e. the medieval lot) would have a significant advantage. That said, I bet the women would team up - Victoria, Matilda, Mary and the two Elizabeths would be quite the force to reckon with.

[Ecurb]

The obvious choice is King Arthur, who, according to (I think) Mallory, was not Lancelot's equal in the lists, but was his superior on the battlefield. Alfred the Great might garner some support at the tote windows, too (he'd use some tricky tactics).

Of the more historical Kings, Edward IV was 6'5". Edward Longshanks and Richard Coeur d'Leon were also big men, and (if the histories of the times are to be believed) mighty warriors. I'd pick Henry V as the corner man, to make speeches between rounds ("Once more into the breech...."). Richard III had the skill, but not the physical size or strength.

[Sancho]

Oliver Cromwell.
Wait, was he a king? Ah well, he was pretty good with a hatchet anyway.

[Paulclem]

Oliver Cromwell.
Wait, was he a king? Ah well, he was pretty good with a hatchet anyway.

He's the people's choice.

What a fantastic turn this thread has made.

[prendrelemick]

I'll bet my castle and all my chattels on Richard the First. He had the appetite for it.

The Nobs of those times used to have a thing called a tourney, where our imagined scenario was actually played out. There was a event called the Melee where the last man standing was declared the winner. Geoffrey, Richard's brother, was killed while competing , so they weren't messing about.

[qimissung]

I'm afraid when I think of Bush I think of that Monty Python scene in the Holy Grail movie:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92gP2J0CUjc

[kev67]

I heard Henry VIII was the best swordsman in England, so I was surprised to hear the French King beat him at wrestling so easily. William the Conqueror was definitely a bruiser. Alfred the Great was reported to have charged uphill at the pagans like a wild boar.

I think Ethelred the Unready was a bit rubbish, but you never know, he might have been handy with his fists.

[Calidore]

Good point. Also Dubya's got agility and good reflexes. Here he is dodging a couple of shoes in Baghdad a few years ago:

http://youtu.be/1rwxIjQZF98

Agility and reflexes are nice and all, but Dubya is the classic "popular" rich boy who could always get others to do his bidding. I don't think anyone would consider him a genuine tough guy like Jackson and Roosevelt.

[prendrelemick]

I heard Henry VIII was the best swordsman in England, so I was surprised to hear the French King beat him at wrestling so easily. William the Conqueror was definitely a bruiser. Alfred the Great was reported to have charged uphill at the pagans like a wild boar.

I think Ethelred the Unready was a bit rubbish, but you never know, he might have been handy with his fists.

Yer, that William was a right bastard ! (medieval joke)