Smallsword Duelling

[urbanspaceman]

Considering the swords they use in those two clips - both with knuckle-bows - it still seems likely mine is a duelling piece due to the blade. I've been a fan of this film since its first release. I've read endless criticisms, both positive and negative but I remain captivated.

Carradine didn't lose half a leg and a whole arm and still keep going, just a little puncture wound and he was out for the count. Realism is so refreshing sometimes.

I read that, during the Peninsular War, British medics remarked on the invariable deaths of British soldiers compared to the survival rate of the French, and postulated that the thrust was invariably more deadly than the cut. This doesn't compute for me as the British would be using the 1796 pattern, right?
I am out of my depth here. Any help gratefully accepted.

p.s. Ridley Scott is a Tyneside lad like me.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

Considering the swords they use in those two clips - both with knuckle-bows - it still seems likely mine is a duelling piece due to the blade. I've been a fan of this film since its first release. I've read endless criticisms, both positive and negative but I remain captivated.

Carradine didn't lose half a leg and a whole arm and still keep going, just a little puncture wound and he was out for the count. Realism is so refreshing sometimes.

I read that, during the Peninsular War, British medics remarked on the invariable deaths of British soldiers compared to the survival rate of the French, and postulated that the thrust was invariably more deadly than the cut. This doesn't compute for me as the British would be using the 1796 pattern, right?
I am out of my depth here. Any help gratefully accepted.

p.s. Ridley Scott is a Tyneside lad like me.

The cut vs. thrust note was quite accurate and the thrust invariably did result in fatality mostly as the puncture of organs, hemorrhaging and peritonitis resulted. Napoleon was said to have called to his men riding into battle, "give point!, thrust".
While clearly his cuirassiers used straight thrusting blades, the light cavalry also had means of thrusting with saber from a high tierce posture and thrusting downward.
The British indeed had the M1796 saber which had a broadly radiused 'hatchet point' which was obviously useless for anything but chopping, hence many references referring to them 'chopping wood'. Napoleon however declared them barbarous, for the ghastly wounding power they had.

The thrust was eventually determined to have the most combative power and potential for fatal wounds, which was what brought the discussion of the M1913 Patton sword (despite its outlier circumstance chronologically here) to the fore. It was the culmination of well over a century of debate and trial over which was best, cut vs. thrust, thus the proper close to the combat sword in actual use.

Thanks for the note on the Dutch sword length, and I see what you mean.
On a duelling epee, there is no need for knuckleguard.

[Hotspur]

https://smallswordproject.files.word...ie_26_1780.pdf

A worthwhile free read/download, albeit in French.

The paperback folio book is an inexpensive find and worthy of any shelf for swords.


https://www.biblio.com/book/fabrique...t/d/1357685623

Cheers
GC

[Jim McDougall]

Just viewed the movie scenes from "The Duelists" (1977), which was a fantastic movie! one of my favorites. Actually, I saw it in the theater in 1977 when it came out, and I was actually talking fencing classes at the time. I was so enthralled, I convinced the theater manager to give me one of the posters !!
I had it framed and it hung in my den for many years.

At the time it was being filmed I read many accounts of the movie being made and the difficulties and efforts toward the sword combat scenes' realism. It is not hard to see why the film in these respects was so well done.
I recall when the film ended (I was in Long Beach, Calif.) the audience not only clapped, but cheered! and I heard people in the crowd yelling, "way to go Ridley!!!". It was an experience I'll never forget.

It is easy to 'armchair' criticize a movie, but while fencing does not constitute experience in 'dueling' obviously, the dynamics and physical exertion are profoundly more apparent. It must be remembered that 'duels' were not exactly with equally paired opponents, and often a man called out, even if not as experienced, would be forced to respond to protect his honor. The film shows the inherent reluctance to go into such futile confrontation, but doing so as compelled by that driving force.

The movie was based on a book by Joseph Conrad (1908), and based on true events and figures in the Napoleonic armies who did carry out ongoing duels as shown in the film. The cover painting on the book is Gericaults "French Officer Charging" and I had a print of this next to the 'Duelist' poster.

In the scene where they duel on horseback, the high tierce position of the sabers is shown. The scene with Keitel vs. the civilian they are armed with dueling epee's.

[Norman McCormick]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

This doesn't compute for me as the British would be using the 1796 pattern, right?
I am out of my depth here.

Hi,
I think Jim may have picked you up wrongly. I take it you are referring to the P1796 Infantry Officers sword which would be suitable for the cut and thrust and not to the P1796 Light Cavalry sabre that Jim has referenced.
Regards,
Norman.

[batjka]

The movie "The Duelists", while interesting and entertaining, does not show correct fencing techniques. Here's a video of a real duel that occurred in Paris in 1900. And while this is about 100 years since the bouts shown in "The Duelists", swords are similar and so is their use. Enjoy the show:

https://youtu.be/p0MdJ6KTdDw

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by batjka

The movie "The Duelists", while interesting and entertaining, does not show correct fencing techniques. Here's a video of a real duel that occurred in Paris in 1900. And while this is about 100 years since the bouts shown in "The Duelists", swords are similar and so is their use. Enjoy the show:

https://youtu.be/p0MdJ6KTdDw

The movie "The Duelists" is not about FENCING but about dueling. And not about épée (as a fencing tool) but about smallsword.

And more specifically about dueling TO THE DEATH.

One may say that the so called "duels" in your clip were real duels but they were nothing but sports fencing contests, like challenging an opponent to duel in a tennis match.
These "duels" were in fact sporting matches carried out with blunt fencing épées, like the ones used today in fencing sports. That's why you can clearly see that the "duels" concluded without anyone getting even slightly hurt, as the winner was simply the one who scored more points (touches of opponent's arms and torso).
However, on the rare occasions when the duels were carried out with sharp-point épées, then the purpose was to nick the arm of the opponent just to draw some blood.

Here is another, more choregraphed example of dueling with smallswords, done by well trained guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9SbU7YQYxA

PS: It must be noted that "épée" has different meanings in French and English. In French "épée" refers to generally any straight sword mainly used for thrusting (like rapiers and smallswords).
In English, the term is rather confusing and often misused, but the modern term refers to the tool used in fencing, that is heavier and bigger than the foil, like the swords in Batjka's video clip.

[Jim McDougall]

As well noted by Marius, the 'duels' shown in 'The Duelists' have NOTHING to do with sport fencing, though obviously training in the use of the sword was achieved through fencing. While technically there are no 'rules' in the duel, these were affairs of honor, and anything untoward would quickly ruin a mans reputation. The notorious term 'coup de Jarnac' refers to a famed duel of late 16th c. where a 'cheap shot' (in modern lingo) was fatally used, and this term has become colloquially known in the history of the sword.

The 'realism' in the fight scenes in the movie refers to the absolutely non 'regulation' manner in which the fights ensued, while not according to some set rules, there was a certain 'convention' and 'conditioning. These are matters of experience, and the distractions and feints used by Keitel illustrate his profound mastery in use of the sword in duels. He is clearly the aggressor and uses these skills to intimidate his opponent.

It is true that in most duels these were affairs which had a degree of intent to 'draw blood', they were typically not 'to the death'. In the famed "Dueling Oaks' in New Orleans, one man fought seven duels there in a week, and none were fatal. The duel, even into modern times, known as the 'mensur' is fought with special mask and glove, and intended to have blood, so in effect outlawed (but still practiced, much as the use of schlagers in Germany).

Regarding the M1796 swords, there was a cavalry officers version with hilt like small sword and heavy straight blade, but these were dress swords. Apparently some officers took them to the Peninsula and considered them worthless in combat.

On the left is the infantry officers M1796, which seldom if ever saw use as officers used them more to direct and were not expected to participate in actual combat (obviously with exception).
The other is the cavalry version, as noted.
I think the comment on thrust vs. cut with the 1796 'sword' referred to the forms used in 'the charge' or use en masse.

[mariusgmioc]

Hello Jim,

I must observe that "coup de Jarnac" was initially referring to a very skillful and/or unexpected strike, as Jarnac has won the duel by delivering a very skillful blow to his opponent (as far as I remember, it was a blow taught to him by an Italian swords master). Since that blow was previously not known in France, it became named after him.

The negative connotation "coup de Jarnac" we have today appeared later, probably because the exact background context was forgotten.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Hello Jim,

I must observe that "coup de Jarnac" was initially referring to a very skillful and/or unexpected strike, as Jarnac has won the duel by delivering a very skillful blow to his opponent (as far as I remember, it was a blow taught to him by an Italian swords master). Since that blow was previously not known in France, it became named after him.

The negative connotation "coup de Jarnac" may have today appeared later, probably because the exact background context was forgotten.

As with most sword 'lore', things fall out of context or become contrived to embellish or 'explain' various matters or items. In the duel noted here, Jarnac used a strike behind the knee which partially disabled his opponent who was a far more advanced swordsman. When he continued, to Jarnac's dismay, he struck again in the same manner on the other leg. The man fell to the ground in a heap, and according to 'code' he was to yield and Jarnac would in turn offer mercy. He implored the man to yield but he would not, and Jarnac would not finish him. The victims wounds were dressed, but outraged, he tore away his dressings and bled to death. Still the event remained infamous.

Literature often describes the 'botte segret' (the secret thrust) which fencers and duelists are claimed to possess, the move which is indefensible. But such things are perhaps somewhat romanticized. As once told by a fencing master, if such thrusts were being taught, they would hardly be 'secret'.