Rapier v. court sword

In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:26:37 -0800
Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
>
> shared facilities with establishments teaching boxing and single stick among
> the "manly activities of the time". As to why one was considered deadly and
> the other not - would perhaps be addressed better by historical experts.

I am really unsure as to how expert you need to be to realise that a
sharp metal thing through the belly or throat is much more likely to
cause death than a fist to the head.

Zebee

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrnbrfnm7.9sb.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...

> Nothing is every clear cut - there were fights over honour that looked
> exactly like fights to determine ownership of property, and ones that
> were both. The fight between two familes - 6 a side, only 2 of 12 lived
> - mentioned by Brantome for example. That was over a loan of a small
> amount of money, but also about family honour.

And once more we're back at 'Tallhoffer' and 'Is it a fighting system or a
book of rules for judicial combat in Germany?'

Out on the fringes what constitutes a duel and what a 'trial by combat' (to
use the English legal term) gets blurred.

However 'at the centre' a duel is between gentlemen (or ladies, there is
certainly evidence that some ladies fought over matters of honour) over a
matter of honour.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:35:12 +0000 (UTC)
William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
> news:slrnbrfnm7.9sb.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
>
>> Nothing is every clear cut - there were fights over honour that looked
>> exactly like fights to determine ownership of property, and ones that
>> were both. The fight between two familes - 6 a side, only 2 of 12 lived
>> - mentioned by Brantome for example. That was over a loan of a small
>> amount of money, but also about family honour.
>
> And once more we're back at 'Tallhoffer' and 'Is it a fighting system or a
> book of rules for judicial combat in Germany?'
>
> Out on the fringes what constitutes a duel and what a 'trial by combat' (to
> use the English legal term) gets blurred.
>
> However 'at the centre' a duel is between gentlemen (or ladies, there is
> certainly evidence that some ladies fought over matters of honour) over a
> matter of honour.
>

That's the statement you make, yes.

And the one *I* make, is that over several hundred years and several
countries, that's too broad a brush.

Zebee

Boxing is legal, so is fencing. However duelling and street brawl are two
illegal activities. I wonder why you argue about two things completely
unrelated. Boxing is the sport of fighting with fists at a minimum risk (
not like on a street brawl ) and fencing is the same for swords. I know that
boxing cause more injuries, but both sports have deadly accidents. If we
consider fencings origin we may only be proud to be able to do it without
much risk now. Look at olympic boxing, point are counting, not the K.O.

Agleos

Agleos writes:

>I know that
>boxing cause more injuries, but both sports have deadly accidents.

Is that true? I had read in some intro-to-fencing book that there had been no
(one?) fatality in fencing as currently practiced.

In rec.sport.fencing on 18 Nov 2003 21:25:52 GMT
JDzik <jdzik@aol.com> wrote:
> Agleos writes:
>
>>I know that
>>boxing cause more injuries, but both sports have deadly accidents.
>
> Is that true? I had read in some intro-to-fencing book that there had been no
> (one?) fatality in fencing as currently practiced.

Depends on "currently".

I think the last one was in 1982, someone got killed *through* a mask,
and that's when they mandated 12kg masks instead of the previous 5kg.

I believe there have only been 3 deaths in fencing competition in the
20thC. Hard to tell what the relative risk is with boxing, because
you'd have to know the exposure - how many are boxing compared to how
many are fencing. PLus is it right to include amateur boxing - with
much stricter sfety rules - or is it only pro.

My guess is that fencing-as-sport is as safe or safer than amateur boxing,
and certainly safer than pro boxing. Remove plastrons and tough jackets
and masks, or else add in equivalent protection to boxers, plus add
electric scoring to boxing and the numbers might change

Zebee

--
Zebee Johnstone (zebee@zip.com.au), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"

"JDzik" <jdzik@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031118162552.19942.00000490@mb-m02.aol.com...
> Agleos writes:
>
> >I know that
> >boxing cause more injuries, but both sports have deadly accidents.
>
> Is that true? I had read in some intro-to-fencing book that there had
been no
> (one?) fatality in fencing as currently practiced.

There is also no professional fencing with millions of dollars at stake.

I imagine the odd person would get punctured and killed if there was loads
of cash involved, along with widespread cheating, drugs, corruption and
random violence.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrnbrkt3v.ann.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:35:12 +0000 (UTC)
> William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > However 'at the centre' a duel is between gentlemen (or ladies, there
is
> > certainly evidence that some ladies fought over matters of honour) over
a
> > matter of honour.
> >
>
> That's the statement you make, yes.
>
> And the one *I* make, is that over several hundred years and several
> countries, that's too broad a brush.

Almost certainly.

However the behaviour of Tarter tribesman or Borneo pirates and head-hunters
is of little interest when talking about the duel in its Western European
form and its relevance to modern life.

This conversation started when someone said that a duel could (or should?)
be fought in a fencing salon.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:26:37 -0800
> Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
>
>>shared facilities with establishments teaching boxing and single stick among
>>the "manly activities of the time". As to why one was considered deadly and
>>the other not - would perhaps be addressed better by historical experts.
>
>
> I am really unsure as to how expert you need to be to realise that a
> sharp metal thing through the belly or throat is much more likely to
> cause death than a fist to the head.
>
> Zebee

The descriptions I've read of boxing (aka fist fighting)
bouts of the day sound at least as bloody as the
duels in the same period with often the same
end result. Boxing as we know it today had yet to appear.
The biggest differentiation I've seen is money.
To duel meant you had money for weapons and instruction and
were a member of the class that mattered. Whereas boxing was
more readily adopted by the lower classes and no one really
was perturbed if they killed each other.

Okay a tad overstated. But class and money were as much a part of the
equation as any queasiness over spilt blood.

Just one more opinion. I wasn't there despite my advancing years.
J.

> The descriptions I've read of boxing (aka fist fighting)
> bouts of the day sound at least as bloody as the
> duels in the same period with often the same
> end result. Boxing as we know it today had yet to appear.
> The biggest differentiation I've seen is money.
> To duel meant you had money for weapons and instruction and
> were a member of the class that mattered.

Apart from first bit of the first sentance that is similar to what went on
in the American South, certainly pre civil war. Honour was considered
important and duels were quite common, with those from the lower classes
merely beating the stuffing out of each other rather than using weapons.
Many Southerners got quite a reputation for being a successful duellist.

Incidentally they had significantly more violent crime than the non-duelling
North (despite being a primarily pastoral society) so the romantic notion
that more duels = more civilised probably isn't true.

Mark Thompson writes:
> Incidentally they had significantly more violent crime than the
> non-duelling North...

I doubt that the records are reliable enough to say that with any
certainty.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin

John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> nattered on
thusnews:87n0atnkzk.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org:

> Mark Thompson writes:
>> Incidentally they had significantly more violent crime than the
>> non-duelling North...
>
> I doubt that the records are reliable enough to say that with any
> certainty.

straws
at
grasping

Rearrange to suit.

> Is that true? I had read in some intro-to-fencing book that there had
been no
> (one?) fatality in fencing as currently practiced.

Yes it is.
Only seven fatalities have been recorded since 1937, and most of these have
occurred in highly skilled competitors in elite competition (5, 7, 13, 14,
16). All fatalities have been male fencers; five of seven deaths involved
epée, with foil and sabre one each, and broken blades were responsible for
the fatal wound in six of the seven cases. Four fatalities resulted from
penetration of the thorax, with one or both lungs punctured and laceration
of at least one major blood vessel in each case. The other three deaths
involved neck (one case) and head (two cases) wounds. The two head wounds
resulted from broken blades penetrating the mask (13, 16), whereas the
mortal neck wound followed a broken blade slipping under the mask and
penetrating the trachea and left common carotid artery(5). Two of the
thoracic fatalities occurred before plastrons (underarm protectors) were
mandatory. The second incident was, in fact, the impetus for the
introduction of the plastron (13). Changes in equipment standards (design,
strength, type of materials) generally have followed catastrophic incidents.
However, all fatalities subsequent to the introduction of the plastron have
occurred to fencers utilizing equipment that met at least the minimum
standards set by the Fédération Internationale d'Escrime (FIE), the
international governing body for the sport. Unfortunately, the force
generated by elite athletes seems to be increasing even beyond the
accelerating standards for the structural integrity of fencing equipment (4,
7). In the most recent death, the athlete was using the highest standard
equipment available (14).

I wrote:
> I doubt that the records [of violent crime in the pre-civil war US] are
> reliable enough to say that [the South had significantly more violent
> crime than the North] with any certainty.

Bryan J. Maloney writes:
> straws
> at
> grasping

> Rearrange to suit.

Baffle. Do you have a point?
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI

> > Is that true? I had read in some intro-to-fencing book that there had
> been no
> > (one?) fatality in fencing as currently practiced.
>
> Yes it is.
> Only seven fatalities have been recorded since 1937, and most of these
have
> occurred in highly skilled competitors in elite competition (5, 7, 13, 14,
> 16). All fatalities have been male fencers; five of seven deaths involved
> epée, with foil and sabre one each, and broken blades were responsible for
> the fatal wound in six of the seven cases. Four fatalities resulted from
> penetration of the thorax, with one or both lungs punctured and laceration
> of at least one major blood vessel in each case. The other three deaths
> involved neck (one case) and head (two cases) wounds. The two head wounds
> resulted from broken blades penetrating the mask (13, 16), whereas the
> mortal neck wound followed a broken blade slipping under the mask and
> penetrating the trachea and left common carotid artery(5). Two of the
> thoracic fatalities occurred before plastrons (underarm protectors) were
> mandatory. The second incident was, in fact, the impetus for the
> introduction of the plastron (13). Changes in equipment standards (design,
> strength, type of materials) generally have followed catastrophic
incidents.
> However, all fatalities subsequent to the introduction of the plastron
have
> occurred to fencers utilizing equipment that met at least the minimum
> standards set by the Fédération Internationale d'Escrime (FIE), the
> international governing body for the sport. Unfortunately, the force
> generated by elite athletes seems to be increasing even beyond the
> accelerating standards for the structural integrity of fencing equipment
(4,
> 7). In the most recent death, the athlete was using the highest standard
> equipment available (14).

Wow, where'd you get that lot from?

> Mark Thompson writes:
> > Incidentally they had significantly more violent crime than the
> > non-duelling North...
>
> I doubt that the records are reliable enough to say that with any
> certainty.

I think it's mentioned in Battle Cry of Freedom (penguin), the standard one
volume text on the American Civil War (I'm at university). Would have given
you a page reference but took the book back to the library two days ago.

">
> Wow, where'd you get that lot from?
>
>
I keep it in my data base of fencing tough I am not sure where it is from.
This source is probably a FIE report founded at fencing.net on the
discutions.

Agleos

Mark Thompson wrote:
>>Mark Thompson writes:
>>
>>>Incidentally they had significantly more violent crime than the
>>>non-duelling North...
>>
>>I doubt that the records are reliable enough to say that with any
>>certainty.
>
> I think it's mentioned in Battle Cry of Freedom (penguin), the standard one
> volume text on the American Civil War (I'm at university). Would have given
> you a page reference but took the book back to the library two days ago.
>

Once again, we see the even handed approach of gentle yankee imperialism,

The Union forever! Hurrah, boys, hurrah!
Down with the traitors, up with the stars;
While we rally round the flag, boys, rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom!

One wonders if the irish immigrant fresh off the boat and forced
into Mr. Lincoln's armies saw it the same way. But it is not for
us to question.

They do say that history gets rewritten by the winners.
And the history books - particularly regarding the
"recent war between the states"
- have been completely rewritten in light of contemporary mores.
And might I say this is particularly true of those who wish to
make the best seller list as dictated by the New York literati.
But needless to say that Mr. Thompson does not need anyone else
to illuminate him.

J.

Mark Thompson wrote:
>>I do remember one quotable quote from Abraham Lincoln in 1862 on
>>being introduced to Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of Uncle Tom's Cabin
>>"So you're the little woman who wrote the book that started this Great
> War..."
>
> That's a fantastic quote. Can you give me a reference for it? I'll find
> some way to get it into an essay, but I can't really attribute it to you
> (sorry).
>
> Mark.
>
>
Well, try google'ing lincoln and Harriet Beecher Stowe but also
http://www.harrietbeecherstowecenter.org/life/

has it somewheres.

J.

"William Black" <black_william@hotmail.com> nattered on
thusnews:bpisp7$i9a$1@news.freedom2surf.net:

>
> "Jay and Diane Rudin" <rudin@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:vrpsl8f94palab@corp.supernews.com...

>> The final call for a judicial duel in an English courtroom was in
>> 1818.
>
> That's a really bad example, it was laughed out of court.

That would be the murder of Mary Ashford and the accusation of Thornton?
The 1911 Britannica has a few details on that. It wasn't just a matter of
some nob claiming a "right" to judicial duel out of the blue. Lord
Ellenborough pronounced that the law of the land was that there should be
a trial by combat (more properly called "wager of battel"--yes, that's
"battel") in cases of "criminal appeal" (not what we mean by "appeal")
unless the party should bring himself within one of the exceptions. The
accused (Thornton) challenged Miss Ashford's brother and was refused. The
accused thus escaped prosecution. The laws of wager of battel and
criminal appeal were quickly abolished after the matter.

The next most recent judicial duel permitted in England that I'm aware of
was in 1571, when a field was granted and justices appeared at Tothill
Fields, but the petitioner didn't show up at the appointed time and place,
so his suit was refused.