ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Round Table => Topic started by: Sir Brian on 2011-06-09, 19:07:43
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Le_Gris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Le_Gris)
Here is an interesting story relating to the last trial by combat in France sanctioned by the crown. :)
-
Oh this is awesome! 1300's, even more awesome.
Only sad part of it, is that Le Gris had to die with no chance of proving his innocence. That would have helped earlier in the Court and certainly would help with Historians and Jurists of today.
I cannot help but to think that Le Gris's judicial duel in description does sound like a bout in full armor, first started on horseback, then with longswords, finally ended with daggers.
Thank you Sir Brian for sharing!
-
Man, what a great story! The page notes the possibility of a film adaptation. That would be cool.
-
Yeah I thought it would make an excellent movie as well, there was certainly enough doubts bandied about after the duel that he was innocent. Martin Scorsese could take it in so many different directions. :)
-
I read a book on that. When the guy told the story it was great, when it strayed into the realm of historian giving a thesis speech it wasn't.
On that topic: Aside from the 13th Warrior, and that scene in The War Gods Own, is their any good films or fiction books you could reccomend that would have a goos scene of Trial By Combat, Holmganga, or Einvigi?
-
That was an engaging read...I know the actual spectacle would've been treated how we celebrate events like a championship bout. I side with Carrouges...he and his wife had a lot to lose and they still stuck with their story.
A film with a decent trial by combat depiction is Rob Roy; the characters played by Liam Neeson and Tim Roth engage in a seemingly realistic (until you think about what's actually being used here by the combatants, a rapier and Scottish basket-hilted broadsword) duel until the end, which is quite abrupt and more in line with how I view a duel of swords could end, sans Hollywood flash.
-
Yep. A great climax fight in a great movie!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27M5KWI_q50[/youtube]
-
:)
-
Ah yes one of the best cinematic duels of all time IMO! :)
-
Agreed! No trash-tlking or crazy moves, just two guys who hate each other hacking away! Very much what you would expect in real life.
-
You know Rob was telling himself 'you cannot lose to a fop, you cannot lose to a fop- you are a Scot' over and over again!
-
So to summarize that Rob Roy movie duel:
Archibald: “I rape your wife!”
Rob Roy: “I end your miserable life”
:D
-
I found the book, "The Last Duel" by Eric Jager to be a fascinating read and couldn`t put it down untill I had turned the last page.
G
-
I'm putting this book on my Kindle list...man I love that thing. Altho I still love my paper books, it is quite handy.
-
So to summarize that Rob Roy movie duel:
Archibald: “I rape your wife!”
Rob Roy: “I end your miserable life”
:D
It's almost a summary of the whole film. :) What's cool is that they worked some real martial techniques into the duel, if I recall. It's been a long time since I've seen it (and I'm not getting a chance to watch youtube stuff this week). I may have to add the film to my collection.
-
Rob Roy was a good movie, although not what I expected. I thank Braveheart for that...every time I see a movie and Scots are in it, I'm expecting a recreation of the Battle of Stirling Bridge. lol
-
Rob Roy was a good movie, although not what I expected. I thank Braveheart for that...every time I see a movie and Scots are in it, I'm expecting a recreation of the Battle of Stirling Bridge. lol
Do you mean the battle scene in Braveheart WITHOUT the bridge in it? :D
-
That'd be the one! lol
Odd name but there you have it.
-
What's cool is that they worked some real martial techniques into the duel, if I recall. It's been a long time since I've seen it (and I'm not getting a chance to watch youtube stuff this week).
Nah, not really. :) It's actually a wonderful film, and I do really like the duel because I feel it tells the story well... but from a martial arts perspective, it sucks, as do just about all sword fight scenes. :) And for me, the most important part is the story, so I'm able to turn my brain off during sword fight scenes in movies (unless if they are atrocious).
The problem really is that it is not cost-effective to take the primary actors and train them to a level of proficiency that would be required to become excellent stunt men just for the sake of a few fight scenes. So even people like Liam Neeson, who have a lot of stage fighting experience, are not going to be a martial arts actor of the caliber of, say, Tony Jaa. The flip side to that coin is that a Tony Jaa film is always going to be pretty dumb no matter how amazing the martial arts are, while a Liam Neeson movie has the potential to be very good with adequate fight scenes.
Case in point. Here's a scene from a Tony Jaa film The Protector. It's an amazing martial arts sequence, particularly because it's all done in one take without a single edit. But the movie? It's absolutely stupid. :)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCoaYchGtpI[/youtube]
-
Tony Jaa is a beast...but I prefer his Ong Bak movies to The Protector, which was a good MA movie but the premise, as you say, is somewhat dumb. Having said that, Tony Jaa is electrifying when he showcases his skills like this. Love watching him work.
Ong Bak II was bonecrushingly amazing...he handed out so much whup-ass it was exhausting to watch! The third one I've not yet seen...and haven't heard much about it either so it was either very good and had a small release or it really sucked. Anyone seen it yet?
-
What's cool is that they worked some real martial techniques into the duel, if I recall. It's been a long time since I've seen it (and I'm not getting a chance to watch youtube stuff this week).
Nah, not really. :) It's actually a wonderful film, and I do really like the duel because I feel it tells the story well... but from a martial arts perspective, it sucks, as do just about all sword fight scenes. :) And for me, the most important part is the story, so I'm able to turn my brain off during sword fight scenes in movies (unless if they are atrocious).
lol, then I must be remembering it wrong. Like I said, it's been a long time.
I must admit though, I've never seen Liam Neeson do good combat. If you notice, the camera changes angle 3 times a second when he's fighting in most films. You never see him do anything complex in one long take. :)
-
You could write that as: I've never seen any Hollywood actor do 'good combat'. The sword instructors make do with the clay they're given, or so I believe. Here's a decent Hollywood sword fight, in that it incorporates some strikes as well as swordwork, from the director's cut of KoH.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSNYkCa1f24[/youtube]
-
Nah, not really. Smiley It's actually a wonderful film, and I do really like the duel because I feel it tells the story well... but from a martial arts perspective, it sucks, as do just about all sword fight scenes. Smiley And for me, the most important part is the story, so I'm able to turn my brain off during sword fight scenes in movies (unless if they are atrocious).
The problem really is that it is not cost-effective to take the primary actors and train them to a level of proficiency that would be required to become excellent stunt men just for the sake of a few fight scenes. So even people like Liam Neeson, who have a lot of stage fighting experience, are not going to be a martial arts actor of the caliber of, say, Tony Jaa. The flip side to that coin is that a Tony Jaa film is always going to be pretty dumb no matter how amazing the martial arts are, while a Liam Neeson movie has the potential to be very good with adequate fight scenes.
I share the same if not similar viewpoints when it comes to Hollywood and Sword Fighting. Hollywood always take literary freedoms when depicting violence, sometimes even choreographers will make fights look dumb so that the audience can look at every single move (shame on them!). But please, this is just choreography, real violence is fast, ugly and real.
In terms of Liajm Neeson films, one needs to look no further than Kingdom if Heaven as an example of a good film (historical accuracy of events are debatable even the representation of the actual Crusaders Kings and Knights and Saracen warriors and Gernerals, costumes, and terrain never the less good) along with an adequate sword fights scene (the scene in which Liam teaches Bloom how to handle the sword with a reference to Philipo di' Vadi's Guard of the Falcon or Posta di Falcone). That is an example of Das Bill's point concerning Martial Arts films.
I use top watch Tony Jaa all the time back in the olden days of intense Kung Fu and Tai Chi training (I was a nut back then). I would watch just for the action and didn't care for film premise. Nowadays I consider story premise to be most important, action should be a compliment to further the story. It should be entertaining, rather than just a bravado show of all brawn's but no brains in the story line. The exception would be a good old Rambo film.
Speaking of Rob Roy, I did a film review of the film for a Western Civilization class in college, I gave it a good entertaining film with several historical events left out just to focus on the main characters. i considered the sword fight in the end a fantasy match, because back in the day, fighting a rapier wielding opponent with a Scottish broadsword would be considered unfair. Duels were foughtb using single weapons (rapier vs, rapier, broadsword vs. broadsword), there were no duels in which weapons were matched against different weapons. It was against the dueling rules.
You could write that as: I've never seen any Hollywood actor do 'good combat'. The sword instructors make do with the clay they're given, or so I believe. Here's a decent Hollywood sword fight, in that it incorporates some strikes as well as swordwork, from the director's cut of KoH.
That is not a bad choreographed sword fight, but it irritates me. First, wielding sword and dagger was invented during the Renaissance with the Side-sword. Second, the dagger was a weapon of last resort. Third, Orlando Bloomer staying in High Vom Tag (or Posta di Flacone: Guard of the Falcon not the Hawk) doesn't look too bad, just fighting in that stance: good for fighting in Zufechten, but not in Krieg. And fighting in Krieg would be a lot more different than what is shown in the clip (grappling, winding etc.) This looks more Hollywood style with a tiny element of truth in terms of the movements.
Or as I would say it: "What is wrong with these people! Why thrashing your sword wildy when you can bind, wind, cut or thrust at your pleasure! Bloomer, your an idiot for holding High Vom Tag, you need serious help. What's his face, needs serious training, let go of the dagger lest your hand gets severed! And please, for the love of Pete stop trying to hit, Hit your opponent! JUST HIT"
-
A very small percentage of people watching (very small) would agree with you, Joshua...and Hollywood is banking on that. Lets face it, if medieval swordsmanship still existed widely as it did back then, there'd be no need for movies to depict it, we'd see it daily.
Sometimes I wonder if we wouldn't be better served if all personal disputes could be settled by duel. I have a feeling that there'd be a lot less litigation (and less complaints about what I consider to be stupid stuff, like a suit over hot coffee for starters). We probably wouldn't be as over-populated either...lol
-
A very small percentage of people watching (very small) would agree with you, Joshua...and Hollywood is banking on that. Lets face it, if medieval swordsmanship still existed widely as it did back then, there'd be no need for movies to depict it, we'd see it daily.
Sometimes I wonder if we wouldn't be better served if all personal disputes could be settled by duel. I have a feeling that there'd be a lot less litigation (and less complaints about what I consider to be stupid stuff, like a suit over hot coffee for starters). We probably wouldn't be as over-populated either...lol
LOL! Hahahahahahaha Sir William that is very true! We should one day create a Medieval style commune (like the Amish Community only with Kings, Lords, Knights, Ladies, Merchants, Farmers, Tradesmen, Peasants and Damsels included) and Dueling is allowed! I would be all in for it! lol!
-
You guys are killing me with giving praise to Kingdom of Heaven. ;) That movie was atrocious! Nevermind all the historical innaccuracies, nevermind that the fighting in it was horrible (and believe me, it is)... the movie was just so boring. :) I don't care that there's a reference to a historical manuscript in terms of fighting. I'll give them props for that, but taking a stance from a manuscript and saying the name of it is not the same thing as actually portraying actual techniques in a believable but exciting way. There are people out there who do it, and do it well, but it's not really worth a director's time and money to also train them to be good at the other things they need for the movie (like acting ability).
i considered the sword fight in the end a fantasy match, because back in the day, fighting a rapier wielding opponent with a Scottish broadsword would be considered unfair. Duels were foughtb using single weapons (rapier vs, rapier, broadsword vs. broadsword), there were no duels in which weapons were matched against different weapons. It was against the dueling rules.
Well, sort of. You're right that duels required matched weapons, and you're right that the movie was more or less fantasy, as there was nothing about it that reflected the rules and ettiquette of a real historical duel of the period. But a rapier vs broadsword was ridiculously common. Those are considered matched weapons, because they're both single handed swords with two edges and hand protection. It's a very modern thing to assume huge differences between different types of swords, but in period that was far less true, because a sword is a sword. Rapier can be used with broadswords, and broadsword techniques can be used with rapiers. The Italians didn't even use the word "rapier", but rather just called anything with a cutting blade and a hilt a "spada" (i.e. a "sword"). Even when historical masters did differentiate, they still talked about what to do if you were armed one way and your opponent the other way in a duel, so we know they definitely did duels this way.
-
Well, sort of. You're right that duels required matched weapons, and you're right that the movie was more or less fantasy, as there was nothing about it that reflected the rules and ettiquette of a real historical duel of the period. But a rapier vs broadsword was ridiculously common. Those are considered matched weapons, because they're both single handed swords with two edges and hand protection. It's a very modern thing to assume huge differences between different types of swords, but in period that was far less true, because a sword is a sword. Rapier can be used with broadswords, and broadsword techniques can be used with rapiers. The Italians didn't even use the word "rapier", but rather just called anything with a cutting blade and a hilt a "spada" (i.e. a "sword"). Even when historical masters did differentiate, they still talked about what to do if you were armed one way and your opponent the other way in a duel, so we know they definitely did duels this way.
REALLY!?! That is awesome! Thank you for the needed correction by the way. I only learned that from inquiring from Maestro Ramon Martinez concerning this.
Also concerning KOH, Sorry, but never the less: I am in full agreement that KOH is one of the biggest disgrace in cinematic history. Point taken.
-
This is gold here...soaking it all up as much as possible! What Bill says is a testament to a lot of misconceptions we have regarding this particular part of history. My thanks Bill for setting the records straight.
For what it's worth, I praise KoH mostly for the photography...but I'd be lying if I didn't include that the mass battle scenes were quite fascinating to me although the last battle before Balian gives up Jerusalem left a lot to be desired. Viewed from above, it looked like a rugby scrum that had somehow synchronized as they were all pushing in tandem in an almost rhythmic fashion, no weapon play to be seen. Maybe it was just me but that scene always sat oddly with me.
-
Well, sort of. You're right that duels required matched weapons, and you're right that the movie was more or less fantasy, as there was nothing about it that reflected the rules and ettiquette of a real historical duel of the period. But a rapier vs broadsword was ridiculously common. Those are considered matched weapons, because they're both single handed swords with two edges and hand protection. It's a very modern thing to assume huge differences between different types of swords, but in period that was far less true, because a sword is a sword. Rapier can be used with broadswords, and broadsword techniques can be used with rapiers. The Italians didn't even use the word "rapier", but rather just called anything with a cutting blade and a hilt a "spada" (i.e. a "sword"). Even when historical masters did differentiate, they still talked about what to do if you were armed one way and your opponent the other way in a duel, so we know they definitely did duels this way.
And also there is the Einvigi (informal, almost no rules) and the Holmganga (formal, several rules). There is a quote somewhere that says, to effect, that an inexperienced warrior may have an easier time in the Einvigi than the Holmganga as they will have less to worry about even though they are in greater danger.
-
My thanks Bill for setting the records straight.
My thanks also goes to Bill!
And also there is the Einvigi (informal, almost no rules) and the Holmganga (formal, several rules). There is a quote somewhere that says, to effect, that an inexperienced warrior may have an easier time in the Einvigi than the Holmganga as they will have less to worry about even though they are in greater danger.
Quite interesting! Thanks Rauttskegg for the Nordic perspective of dueling!
-
at least KOH had riveted mail ;)
-
And also there is the Einvigi (informal, almost no rules) and the Holmganga (formal, several rules). There is a quote somewhere that says, to effect, that an inexperienced warrior may have an easier time in the Einvigi than the Holmganga as they will have less to worry about even though they are in greater danger.
Only if you're doing time travel. ;) You're talking about cultures that are half a millenia apart. The laws, weapons, culture and context are all very different between 13th century Scandanavia and 18th century Scotland.
In the 18th century, doing something akin to the Holmganga would be the equivalent to modern gang members putting on pantyhose and licking their palms while knife fighting... in other words, everyone would wonder, "What the hell are they doing? Someone call the police." And doing something akin to the Einvigi in the 18th century would have gotten you thrown in prison or even executed for murder.
-
Only if you're doing time travel. ;) You're talking about cultures that are half a millenia apart. The laws, weapons, culture and context are all very different between 13th century Scandanavia and 18th century Scotland.
In the 18th century, doing something akin to the Holmganga would be the equivalent to modern gang members putting on pantyhose and licking their palms while knife fighting... in other words, everyone would wonder, "What the hell are they doing? Someone call the police." And doing something akin to the Einvigi in the 18th century would have gotten you thrown in prison or even executed for murder.
That is a distinction of method but not style nor motivation relative to the cultures of the time.
Even in the 18th century did you have informal and formal duels. Think of the one that was both that Abraham Lincoln fought a century later than Rob Roy.
-
That is a distinction of method but not style nor motivation relative to the cultures of the time.
It's all of the above. If you're saying that informal and formal duels happened in the 18th century, then yes, I agree with you. (though informal duels were technically illegal) If you're saying the Einvigi and the Holmganga were done, then I can't agree, because those had their own sets of customs, and they had their own cultural connotations for their own period half a millenia earlier. We can't lump all of history together and assume everything applies to all occassions. Trial by combat changed quite a bit throughout history.
-
What comes to my mind whenever I hear "rapier vs broadsword/longsword":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofMnvrMRpjM
(jump to 1:05 - or watch the whole thing - it's hilarious in it's disregard for safety)
Das Bill, I had no idea that dissimilar weapons were used in historical context for dueling. Neat!
-
Das Bill, I had no idea that dissimilar weapons were used in historical context for dueling. Neat!
Well, remember, they aren't dissimilar weapons by period definitions. They are both single handed, double edged swords that can both cut and thrust. As long as one isn't gigantically longer than the other, they would be considered the same thing. Also, keep in mind, in many cases the definition of the word "rapier" had more to do with the hilt than the blade... I own an antique rapier where, if you put a baskethilt on it, no one would think anything weird of it.
-
What comes to my mind whenever I hear "rapier vs broadsword/longsword":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofMnvrMRpjM
(jump to 1:05 - or watch the whole thing - it's hilarious in it's disregard for safety)
Das Bill, I had no idea that dissimilar weapons were used in historical context for dueling. Neat!
LMAO @ Tosh.0 - I think it was you guys that turned me onto this guy.
Bill, do you have pics of that antique rapier? You have the most extensive sword collection I've ever laid eyes on...and I only saw a few pics.
-
Bill, do you have pics of that antique rapier?
I thought I did. I could have sworn I put up a thread on this site with pics, but I can't find it. The best one I can find right now is this one from when Tom Leoni and I were doing a presentation on antique swords at NHSC:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/223199_224058767609965_160174087331767_1069617_7488700_n.jpg)
I'm on the right, and it is in my right hand. Sadly, it doesn't show the sword very well.
I own two antique rapiers, a schiavona and two smallswords, and each one has a very different blade. Despite that, the rapiers and and schiavona could all be "mixed and matched" and still be perfectly normal. One of the rapiers has a very long thrust oriented blade and is more in line with what most modern people think of, while the other rapier is shorter and very cut oriented. The schiavona is somewhat in the middle.
You have the most extensive sword collection I've ever laid eyes on...and I only saw a few pics.
Ed's completely dwarfs mine. :) I actually don't have as many as it may seem, at least anymore, as I've sold of *A LOT* of swords in order to start buying antiques. While I still very much appreciate well made production swords (particularly from eras where I can't afford the antique version), I've been drawn more and more to the real thing as time goes on. Wish my bank account could keep up. :)
-
Sounds like a natural progression...at least, that is how it has been for me. I started w/wallhangers and graduated to Windlass types; sadly, the more authentic (and better quality) I go for, the more it'll cost.
Bank accounts rarely make us happy enough, do they? At least, not our own. :)
-
LOL, yeah my collection may be big, but I've also sold a lot, and will be getting rid of more soon. I'm less enamored with my cheaper pieces these days. Though a few of the wallhangers are still nice to have, as a decoration.
These days I'm focused more on getting scabbards for the swords I already have.
-
Same here...the scabbards cost more than some of my swords- most of them, in fact. Which is why I've explored other options (than DBK) for my lesser ones.