This is good. Rock throwing was a real knightly skill. Hi there. My name's Dave Rawlings. I'm the master-of-arms at
the London Longsword Academy, which basically means I teach people to stab each other for money. I'm Toby Capwell. I'm a curator of arms and armor at The Wallace Collection
in Central London. I'm also a practitioner of the European historical martial arts. Today, we're going to look
at duels in movie and in TV and we're going to see
how realistic they are. This film is portraying a
highly fictionalized version of a real historical event. A trial by combat, or a judicial duel, is a legal procedure to settle some kind of dispute. This is a legal standing. It's an appeal to the
direct intervention of God. This is really a medieval phenomenon, although there's stories
of one-on-one combats throughout history. [screaming] That's one of the only things that we know for a fact happened. Jean de Carrouges was stabbed
somewhere in the thigh. A good martial artist will know that that's a good place to stab someone. You can bleed out very quickly
with a wound like that. And let them bleed for a while. The armor is clunkier and more cumbersome-looking than it should be. The whole general feel
of the fight is, overall, it's too big, too clunky. There's a lot of swinging
where there should be a lot of refined jamming it
into, finding the little gaps, forcing, always counseling them to defend the point as you're going back. This is one of the things you see a lot in the unterhalten sections
in German treaties, this idea of wrestling your opponent, first of all, to the ground. Once they're on the ground,
you work your way up them. You fall with your knee
between their legs. A lot of times when there's
rolling around on the ground in film fights, the
other opponent will then just jump sort of belly-flop
style straight onto him, which doesn't achieve much. But here you've got a
very intentional crouch binding the fallen enemy's limbs. I guess when a lot of people
think of a knightly dagger, they think of a knife that
looks a bit like a sword. Cross-hilted cruciform daggers
like this were a thing. Can be used blade up, it can be used blade down, stabbing action, whatever. But actually they're not. The much more typical knightly
dagger for armored combat are daggers like the
one we see in the clip, the so-called rondel dagger. Which, instead of a cross guard, it's got two circular plates. It's not really a weapon
that's effectively used to extend the reach of the arm. It's really all about this. And in the clip here, you
actually see Matt Damon getting in and leaning on it. But you do still see it
quite a lot used like so, and, again, it's all about the utility that you get out of it. You can put your weight
on this, absolutely valid. For me, it's more about the spacing. So this gives you much
more protection than this, particularly if you're in a position exactly as Toby said like so, you're preventing somebody from
stabbing up into your hands. In the German treaties that we study, we call this the wrath
position or the wrath strike. When we think about
knights and formal dueling, there's a question of manners, politeness. Fights to the death aren't clean. And the dirtiness of
it, perfectly plausible. 6 out of 10. It's got some good references in it, but with this production
crew at this level of budget, it could have been a lot better. Yeah, I'm going to say a 5, 6 as well. It's not anything like the typical Hollywood lance exchange. Normally, they'll charge each
other one, two, three times and someone falls off. And it's really kind of formulaic and boring and predictable. Here, they go on the first charge, and they both blast each other out. You can see real impact. You see the guy's lance get
banged out the back of him, nearly hits one of the extras
on the side there almost. And the falls are pretty brutal, too. These giant maces, which as far as I am aware are not a weapon that ever existed. There are two-handed maces, but with these giant, oversized heads. They've basically taken a short mace and then just enlarged
it to mythic proportions. 'Cause there is a long
tradition in judicial combats of using unusual, weird weapons just for the trial by combat that are not like the normal weapons that you would use on the battlefield. I'd like to see people
in kind of a lower guard without just swinging the
thing around their head. Swinging the thing around
your head is not a good use of energy at all. It's
a waste of your time. It's just sort of like the big barreling, "We're going to run in and do big moves," when your moves want to be concise and about controlling your space, particularly when you're using something which is primarily a thrusting weapon. The thing that makes me giggle about it, but I do like it, is the way that whenever there's a swing at somebody, they kind of try and skip out the way. On one level, it looks comedic. On the other level, well, you don't want to get
hit by something really heavy, so you might well skip out the way. Hollywood people are
forever trying to get rid of their actors' helmets
as quickly as possible. There are plausible ways
of getting rid of a helmet if you bother to think about it. He's having a hard time breathing, he's probably overheating, and he just panics and loses the helmet. That's a storytelling device
that I can get my hands on. And actually I've suffered
from near heat stroke fighting in armor in California. And taking your helmet off
might seem like a bad idea, but it's about practicality. You might get hit in the head, but you're definitely going to lose if you fall on the floor. The queen is innocent! [crowd shouting] Here, Gawain rescinds his
accusation of adultery. There is a real precedent for someone who's been
defeated in a judicial duel and is about to be dispatched can make an admission
that they were wrong. I'm going to have to give it another 5. I'll give it a 6, because it's got a
legitimate helmet removal. Women did actually fight judicial duels, especially in Germany. Women historically weren't knights, that's a fantasy element here, but they did fight judicial duels. And later, they fought
civilian duels as well, particularly in the
17th and 18th centuries. Renly: You may ask
anything of me you desire. If it is within my power, it is yours. Your grace. I ask the honor of a place
in your king's guard. I like this because knights often did fight formal combats for other reasons beyond the legal procedure
of a judicial duel. Sometimes they fought what
were called deeds of arms, which were these kind
of exhibition fights, a lot like this. And it's just about the
prestige and the fame, the celebrity aspects of knighthood, which is something "Game of
Thrones" does really well. Today is not the day I die. Both sides in this judicial procedure are fighting with champions, professional fighters who volunteer to act on their behalf, and that is absolutely a real thing. It's almost very much like
having your own lawyer. This person will come and fight for you. I'm not sure quite this much
exhibition jumping about is a good idea here. I'm a bit wary of anything that might give your opponent information about how you move and
what you're capable of. I think it's potentially a good way of releasing your own adrenaline. If you stand there and you're very stoic and you're kind of [grunts], then all of that adrenaline is
coursing through your system, and it makes your
reactions very, very jumpy. So it's almost like this feeling of freeing up your limbs, ready to fight. It seems like a spear with a
wooden haft is a bad choice when you've got a 7-foot-tall guy with a big sword facing you. I guess you don't have to let him hit it. I do like that the majority of the deflections with the spear are ones which accentuate
the movement of the sword. There's good deflections. There's not these attempts to
confront the weapon mainly, which is very, very good. There's not very much of this just direct threat, threat, threat changing through from
side to side to side. There is an awful lot of
movement around the opponent. Cavandish talk about getting
behind your opponent. Marozzo talks about
walking to their shoulders. Like a modern fencing
match, just up and down. With very few exceptions. You're categorically
trying to get the best, most advantageous position
that takes your opponent's arms out of their natural position of strength. The way that we portray people
who are incredibly large in general forms of fiction
is massively fiction. That person, who is immensely strong, has to be, for some reason, uneducated and unable to move. And this is not true. You get some absolute
premium, huge athletes -- Toby: Who move fast.
Dave: Who are nimble. Yes, terrifyingly fast,
and are intelligent and use that to their own advantage. It would be nice really to see a fight that represents that not
only is this person huge, but they have studied their art. Oh, no, you can't die yet,
you haven't confessed! Say it! He clearly has made a mistake
with all this gloating. You've got to keep your
emotions under control. You've got to stop with the pride and the celebration prematurely. A knightly kind of mental
preparation is about keeping a very even, kind of
dispassionate mindset. I'm going to go for a 7 1/2. I really, really like
the way the spear moves. I hate the way the sword moves. I'd be willing to give it a 6. How many more must die for the throne? Just one. I think you can always
look at this as just being, what are your physical attributes and your training relative
to those of your opponent? If your endurance is good and you're older or if your endurance is
good and you're younger and you spend more time as
a younger person fighting, it's more likely to go to the person with the best combination
of attributes in effect. But the mental aspect is important, too. Older fighters often
have a mental advantage because they're better
at keeping their cool. The bigger, stronger, more experienced guy is going to have an advantage. It's kind of that point of,
where are you on the curve? How many injuries have you taken? How does that affect your performance? Where's the probing of it? It's always, I'll step
in, and then I'll hit. And that's a sure way for somebody to have the right time to do something. There's too much rolling around now. There's reference in a
knife-fighting manual to basically effectively faking a trip. So you fall over, and then
you roll past your opponent. Got caught by somebody in
a sword and buckler fight because they literally,
they come towards you, they trip over their own
leg, and you go, "Ha!" And they roll behind you and
they cut the back of your leg, literally rolling along the floor. So there's certainly places for it. Making it the predominance
of a fight scene, I think, is very, very, very flawed. Does his highness need a respite? Five minutes. The whole thing of taking a break in the middle of a trial by battle, it's unusual and probably
normally not allowed, but there is some
historical precedent for it. There was a famous deed of arms called the Battle of the Thirty in 1351 in Brittany between two groups of Breton knights. They fought very hard
for quite a long time, and then they did agree to take a break. They were exhausted, but yet they hadn't achieved a resolution. So it's not totally without precedent. I think it's going to be another 5, 6, just because there's so much rolling. And I appreciate that the armor is nice. The younger guy especially could have used more training, I think. I'm going to say 5 on that one. I come from a planet where
we have no understanding of reach or measure. [laughing] A lot of people have criticized this scene for the slowness of the
dinosaur guy's actions, but that actually relates very well to what it feels like when
you're fighting in armor. You can feel as though you
are moving really dynamically and all these amazing
things are happening, and then you see the camera
footage of the fight, and it's just like ... There's a Castilian
knight named Luis Zapata who wrote a book on knightly combat at the end of the 16th century. He says specifically, when
you're in full-plate armor, you must make an extra
effort to move dynamically, with intention. And he says specifically so that you don't look stiff as a statue. You have to make that extra effort to get out of the kind of Gorn effect. We get accidentally into another
piece of knightly combat, or knightly health and
fitness, if you like. This is like, what have
I got to hit him with? I mean, element of surprise
and moving spontaneously and getting ahead of your opponent is obviously very important. There's not a lot of that going on here. This is good. Rock throwing was a real knightly skill. Numerous knightly treatises talk specifically about
the correct techniques for throwing small, medium, and large rocks appropriately. Not perhaps that large. The Gorn, as a sort of reptilian humanoid, I think he's being sold to us as a creature that has a very thick hide. I just like the idea he's on
his way to a cocktail party and he's been accosted by Kirk. Absolutely 10. Is there a 12 button? Yeah, 12. To the death! It's a form of punishment
meted out on prisoners, making them fight to the death. And normally I would say,
what's with the whips? The whip is not a weapon, but the whip is also an implement for corporal punishment,
again, on prisoners. So it's kind of consistent with, again, the circumstances in the story. So it's more just making
two prisoners fight for your entertainment
rather than any of them having any particular standing. And fight with implements that are used to mete out corporal punishment. For that kind of mannered behavior, you probably would need to go forward to the 17th or 18th century. In civilian duels, you
might see very cordial, formal politeness occurring right before they
stab each other to death. Here, it's quite a theatrical thing where they just emphasizing
that Flash is a good guy and the prince is just
being a bit of a d---. These are modern conceptions
of shaking hands and things. There is a tradition, sort of theatrical fights
occurring in weird places. I don't think traps were ever a thing, because really they're going to ruin the quality of your fight. I mean, even in gladiatorial
combat in ancient Rome, they're concerned about the
quality of the fighting. And if you've got people
tripping and falling over and accidentally spiking themselves, it kind of ruins the spectacle. The footing is a problem. In a lot of medieval combats
that I've been involved in, you're wearing smooth-soled leather shoes a lot of the time. And depending on what
surface you're standing on, the footing can be a real problem. Take my hand! Come on! You've won! Let him go. That's not how this works. If the opponent is
defeated but not killed, the officers of the court take
him out and hang him anyway, because you have to have that resolution. The fight has proven that
if he is the accuser, then he has beared false witness. And if he's the accused, then he's guilty. Either way, he has to die. Historically in judicial
duels, is the penalty usually death regardless,
or can it be a lesser thing? For the loser in the High
and Late Middle Ages, the loser dies one way or another. By that point, we're dealing
with judicial combats that are fought largely for
very, very serious offenses, like murder or rape. In the earlier Middle Ages, when they're fighting
about land ownership, they don't need to kill. One person can just say, "OK,
the land's yours, I give up." I'll give it a 7. It just does what it wants to do, and it's outrageous and camp. For the accuracy of portraying birdmen, I'm giving it a 10. Does anyone ever use a flail on horseback? It's not a good idea. Flails are massively overemphasized. And when they are used, historically, they're used on foot. So that's the one kind
of letdown in this scene. All this mounted combat is great. I'm glad they're using rubber weapons, 'cause they hit the
horses a couple of times. But that probably would happen, and there's a reality to it. The simplicity of this fight scene is that they're trying to hit the person, in general, where the shield is not. And they're just looking
for every single gap. If the shield's going up,
you're cracking him underneath. The whole thing where they're fighting with different weapons is
something of a problem. A judicial duel, properly, has to occur on equal terms. So the weapons have got to be the same one way or another; you can't choose whatever
you want to fight with. That's a kind of old Hollywood trope that's appeared in several films. It has to be fairness. You do see mismatch though. You get somebody who's got a spear, somebody who's got a sword. In Talhoffer, some of
the mismatched weapons is about trying to address other physical inequalities. Here, you've got a proper
duel of chivalry set in 1194, really the high point of judicial dueling. Two knights, evenly matched, should be fighting with
the same set of weapons. So this is set in 1194. The equipment that they're wearing is more typical of the
early to mid-13th century. They're a generation or so out. But that's really starting to get picky. Overall, this is a really great sequence. There's manipulation of the horses against each other for advantage, there's navigation around the shields. So for me, it's a good solid 8, I reckon. I'd rather they charged
with the lance first and then progressed with other weapons, but there's real mail. I give it a 9 out of 10. Thanks for watching. And if you enjoyed this,
you might like these ones.
