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.
[ol][li]Is this the way that the Sir Walter Scott novel describes it? I’ve never read the novel.[/li][li]Were the rules for swordfights in 18th century Scotland different than in the rest of Europe?[/li][li]Would Rob Roy’s action be considered a violation of the rules governing swordfights?[/ol][/li]
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), also set in Scotland, we see the following description of a swordfight:
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?
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.
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.
**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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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 [sup]1[/sup]/[sub]3[/sub] 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.