etiquette of sword fights (18th century Scotland)

[Arnold Winkelried]

After a repeat viewing of Rob Roy (1995, directed by Michael Caton-Jones; one of my favourite movies) recently, I finally decided to ask a question that's been plaguing me since my first viewing of it. If you remember the climactic scene, Rob Roy (Liam Neeson), in a swordfight against Archibald Cunningham (Tim Roth), wins by grasping his opponent's sword in his hand (ouch!) and then striking him with his (Rob Roy's) own sword.

Is this the way that the Sir Walter Scott novel describes it? I've never read the novel.
Were the rules for swordfights in 18th century Scotland different than in the rest of Europe?
Would Rob Roy's action be considered a violation of the rules governing swordfights?

Here are the reasons that prompt me to ask my second and third questions. According to Encyclopædia Britannica, Rob Roy lived from 1671 to 1734. In Robert Louis Stevenson's novel The Master of Ballantrae (you can find the full text of The Master of Ballantrae at Project Gutenberg (http://www.gutenberg.net/)), also set in Scotland, we see the following description of a swordfight:

CHAPTER V. - ACCOUNT OF ALL THAT PASSED ON THE NIGHT ON FEBRUARY 27TH, 1757.
...

For it is beyond doubt he now recognised himself for lost, and had some taste of the cold agony of fear; or he had never attempted the foul stroke. I cannot say I followed it, my untrained eye was never quick enough to seize details, but it appears he caught his brother's blade with his left hand, a practice not permitted. Certainly Mr. Henry only saved himself by leaping on one side; as certainly the Master, lunging in the air, stumbled on his knee, and before he could move the sword was through his body.

I cried out with a stifled scream, and ran in; but the body was already fallen to the ground, where it writhed a moment like a trodden worm, and then lay motionless.

"Look at his left hand." said Mr. Henry.

"It is all bloody," said I.

"On the inside?" said he.

"It is cut on the inside," said I.

"I thought so," said he, and turned his back.

...

"It was a fair fight on my dear master's part," said I. "As for the other, he was slain in the very act of a foul stroke."

So, did Rob Roy "cheat"?

[Finagle]

"Rules? In a knife fight?"

[m3]

Originally posted by Finagle
"Rules? In a knife fight?"
Hey, we got rules for war (Geneva convention). Why not a duel?
I haven't seen the movie or read the book, but it seems odd to me that a fatal blow could be "caught" with a hand. Maybe subtly diverted, but caught and held? Or were they using those wimpy little pointy fencing swords that were made just for sticking and not slashing?

[Silvio]

Yes, they were using those wimpy little fencing rapiers. Rob Roy got a bad cut which might have slowed him down from the bleeding if he didn't kill his enemy right away. I think it looked plausible.

I think that pretty much anything went in a knock down, drag out, to the death sword fight.

[Scylla]

Yes, it's cheating.

You're supposed to play a let.

[Scylla]

But to be serious, since the question was posed seriously.

In fencing it is illegal to deflect the blade with anything but the body of your blade.

Considering that Rob Roy's friend got killed, his wife raped, and that he tried to hang Tim ROth with his own body weight, I think it's fair to say that neither party expected a highbrow duel of fair sportsmanship and ettiquette.

It does however add an interesting question about the side bets.

[bibliophage]

1.Is this the way that the Sir Walter Scott novel describes it? I've never read the novel.

I've never read the book either (nor seen the movie), but I've found a few things out. Apparently Cunningham is not even a character in the novel, but Henry Cunningham of Boquhan is mentioned in the author's introduction, which is about the historical (i.e., real) Rob Roy MacGregor. The climax of the novel (or anticlimax?) appears to be the fight between MacGregor and Rashleigh Osbaldistone (the narrator's cousin). Scott does not descibe the fight in any detail. Rashleigh, meanwhile, had dismounted, and on foot had maintained a desperate and single-handed conflict with the leader of the band. The window of the carriage, on my side, permitted me to witness it. At length Rashleigh dropped. ``Will you ask forgiveness for the sake of God, King James, and auld friendship?'' said a voice which I knew right well. ``No, never!'' said Rashleigh, firmly. ``Then, traitor, die in your treason!'' retorted MacGregor, and plunged his sword in his prostrate antagonist. . . . Sir Rashleigh Osbaldistone was still alive, but so dreadfully wounded that the bottom of the coach was filled with his blood. . . . his eyes became glazed, his limbs stiffened, but the grin and glare of mortal hatred survived even the last gasp of life. I will dwell no longer on so painful a picture, nor say any more of the death of Rashleigh . . .

see the text of the novel at http://eserver.org/fiction/rob-roy.txt

[Finagle]

Originally posted by Scylla
But to be serious, since the question was posed seriously.

In fencing it is illegal to deflect the blade with anything but the body of your blade.


Well, yes, but fencing is highly stylized. It bears little if any resemblance to actual swordfighting.

I know in some swordfighting the use of the main gauche, a fairly large dagger held in the left hand and used to deflect the opponent's blade was allowed. Using the actual left hand? Ouch.

[carnivorousplant]

I think that I would rather live to be called a coward and a cheat than die playing by the rules.

[Doctor Who]

I messed around with fencing for a year or so - and it's totally illegal in the actual sport - but.....

while I was really interested, I studied up and there are fencers who basically fight in the real styles - its called historical fencing or something (ill look it up later) but what you're describing is known as an off-hand parry.

That is, using the hand NOT holding the sword to stop the other guys sword or grab it so that you can whack them in a vital area. It makes a lot of sense when you're wearing an armored glove - lots of pain when your not.

- Peter Wiggen

[The Ryan]

In fencing, only the first hit counts; if your opponent hits you, and you hit your opponent a moment later, your hit doesn't count. If you grab the other person's sword, that would be considered a hit by your opponent, and so anything done after that would not be counted. So even if it were illegal, I can't see your opponent calling you on it (penalty declined, as they say in football). Of course, sword-fighting would be another matter entirely.

[RM Mentock]

I don't know all the rules of swordfighting, but I seem to remember that the person who dies is the loser. So, you know, with all the emphasis on winning nowdays, I can see why someone might want to cheat.

[Chronos]

Grabbing the blade would only be painful if it's a lightsaber duel. You don't grab it by the edges, you grab the flat. There's no need to make any contact between skin and edge.

Of course, even if you do take the edge on your hand, it would generally be considered preferable to taking it in the neck or heart.

[Punoqllads]

Originally posted by The Ryan
In fencing, only the first hit counts; if your opponent hits you, and you hit your opponent a moment later, your hit doesn't count.


In epee fencing, the above is correct. In foil fencing and sabre fencing, there is a priority system determining whose attack was "before" the other fencer's. Also note that in epee fencing, if both fencers' hits are within a quarter-second of each other, both hits score; it's a "double-touch".


If you grab the other person's sword, that would be considered a hit by your opponent.


No, in foil and epee, only the point is a scoring surface. In addition, the hand is not a valid target in foil fencing. Now, in sabre, the front edge and 1/3 of the rear edge, along with the point, is a scoring surface. But in the other two, grabbing your opponent's blade is a foul. The first time, you get a warning. The second gives your opponent a touch. A third offence gives your opponent the match.

[Sofa King]

I don't know about the Olde Country, but in the States in the 1800's the rules were almost always unique to the particular duel at hand.

Gentlemen did not speak to one another once the challenge was made. Instead, the duellers' "seconds", or handlers, would agree upon the rules. One immutable tradition was that the side that was challenged could name the weapon and the setting.

This is how super-psychopath Jim Bowie could arrange for a knife fight in a completely darkened room, or lashed to a tree straddling a brook within arms' length of the challenger, always of course utilizing the famous knife that bears Bowie's name. Bowie, of course, worked hard to offend someone enough to challenge him. His reputation preceded him.

One popular legend has it that Alexander Hamilton "cheated" in his duel with Aaron Burr. He purportedly fashioned a hair-trigger for his pistol and misfired it, allowing Burr to take careful aim and finish off Hamilton.

A formal duel is different from a simple fight. There are no rules in a fight, except that the Bad Guy will always get back up if he is not impaled.

[Lemur866]

I always thought that Alexander Hamilton fired in the air, expecting Burr to do the same, and with honor satisfied they could end the feud. But Burr plugged him instead. But that's just my recollection.

Now, to all those who say that the rules don't matter, you've got to play to win. Well, maybe. But what was the purpose of a duel? You could just jump the guy in a back alley and whack him. But you arrange a duel so that everyone can see that the fight was fair, so the guy's buddies don't try to whack you back. And you don't have to accept a duel, it's just that everyone will think you're a coward if you don't. If you cheat, everyone will think you're a coward anyway. So why go to the trouble of accepting the challange if you are not going to play by the "rules"? And if the challange is over a matter of honor, how do you regain your honor if you use dishonorable means?

I know we don't hold to the code of honor those guys did, but the whole idea was that death was preferable to dishonor. If you don't agree, don't get involved in duels of honor, use other means that don't risk your precious skin, like sending assasins, or burning down the guy's house while he's asleep, raping his wife, etc.

[carnivorousplant]

Why don't chicken, turkey and ducks taste the same?

[The Ryan]

Punoqllads:
Yes, I confused the different types of fencing. In sabre, the hand would be considered a valid target. I recall that the other types or perhaps it was only one other), there's a rule to the effect that you can't hit your opponent if they are currently threatening you, and it sems to me that grabbing the other person's blade would not be a valid method of stopping a threat.

[stuyguy]

Ryan: The concept you're describing is known as "right-of-way." It only applies in foil and saber fencing. (Epee fencing -- my weapon of choice for the six years I fenced competitively -- has no right-of-way; and yes, fencers call them "weapons" not "swords.")

Right-of-way entitles the attacker (determined by an extended weapon arm threatening valid target area, NOT forward leg movement) to the touch -- provided, of course, the attack lands on valid target area. (Target area in foil includes the front and back of the torso only, not the head or limbs; in saber, target area includes the entire body above the waist, including the head, arms, and hands.) If the attack lands off target -- say on the opponent's leg -- no touch is awarded.

A defender may steal the right-of-way from an attacker by deflecting the attacker's blade with a parry; the defender, in turn, becomes the new attacker (with right-of-way) by extending his/her weapon arm and threatening valid target area (a "repost").

But, if the defender "counterattacks" without first gaining the right-of-way (that is, without parrying the initial attack) his/her touch is invalid IF THE ORIGINAL ATTACKER LANDS A TOUCH -- ON VALID OR INVALID TARGET AREA. If the original attacker misses entirely, and the defender lands a touch on the counterattack, the defender's touch counts, right-of-way be damned. "[Only] one light" as they say, gets the touch.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Thank you all for your answers. I agree with Lemur866 that a duel should probably obey some rules, otherwise you might as well hire assassins.

On the other hand, RM Mentock's point is well taken - I could see excellent reasons for wanting to cheat.

I will have to find a book entitled "Rules of swordfights in 18th century Scotland" to solve the question decisively I suppose.

[Maeglin]

I am learning historical and classical fencing. Here are a few titles that might help you in your quest to uncover the skinny on duel rules.

Baldick, Robert
The Duel
London, 1965
Billacois, Francois
The Duel: Its Rise and Fall in Early Modern France
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990
Cienfuegos, Luis Ramos Yzquierdo
Codigo Del Duelo
n.p. 1889
Gelli
Manuale del duellante
n.p. 1889
Hutton, Alfred
The Sword & the Centuries
London, 1901
Kane, Harnett T.
Gentlemen, Swords & Pistols
New York, 1961
Keirnan, V.G.
The Duel in European History
Oxford, 1986
Landry, Stuart O.
Duelling in Old New Orleans
New Orleans, 1950
McAleer, Kevin
Dueling: The Cult of Honor in Fin-de-Siecle Germany
Princeton University Press
Princeton, New Jersey 1994

Steinmetz, Andrew
The Romance of Dueling in all Times and Countries, 2 vols.
London, 1868
Thimm, Carl A.
A Complete Bibliography of Fencing and Dueling
1846
Author Unkown
The British Code of Duel: A Reference to the Laws of Honor and the Character of a Gentleman.
London, 1824

MR

[Milton De La Warre]

Most enlightening, all.

When fighting for your life, rule number one is: WIN. So is rule two, for that matter.

However, the details supplied of the ettiquitte of this kind of impolite thing are most interesting. It made me thing of a book I'd read that was originally in French, apparently. The reference in question is to a person called Jarnac, for whom is named the Coupe de Jarnac. I gather this is a move that cuts the Achilles' tendon, but whether this was done BY or done TO Jarnac, I don't recall. I reckon the term Coupe de Jarnac is now used (in French?) as a reference to a low blow or cheater's shot. Is this true?

[DRY]

Originally posted by JCHeckler
The reference in question is to a person called Jarnac, for whom is named the Coupe de Jarnac. I gather this is a move that cuts the Achilles' tendon, but whether this was done BY or done TO Jarnac, I don't recall. I reckon the term Coupe de Jarnac is now used (in French?) as a reference to a low blow or cheater's shot. Is this true?

I don't know, but here's a prediction:

200 years from now, no one is going to be discussing the term "the Andrew Golota manuever" as a famous boxing strategy. :eek: