Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS/ANDROID/PC: clcr.me/scholagladiatoria_Jan23 and get a special starter pack with an Epic champion Chonoru 💥 Available only for new players for the next 30 days Visit Champions Elect Event page championselect.plarium.com ⚡ to get a chance to win amazing in-game and real life prizes 🎁 Promo codes: ✅ Use the Promo Code RAIDRONDA to get a bunch of helpful stuff like a 3-day 100% XP boost, 500K Silver and 5 full Energy refills, 50 Auto battle x3. Available for ALL users: New and Old by February 28 ✅ Use the Promo Code READY4RAID to get 4 x Skill Tomes Rare, 4 x Rank Up Chickens 3*, 40 Random EXP brews, 200 Autobattle tickets, 1 million silver. Available for New users only by February 28 *Note that only 1 Promo code can be used within 24hours
im assuming too that people werent always going for kill shots, and would attack whatever body part was presented, and while it might not be an instant kill, seems fine to just wait 15 minutes
Matt, is there a likelihood that the people Knew specifically what sort of weapon they had on them and the "rapier" which the court cases referred to are in actuality referring to a generic (that is to say potentially Not what we might call a rapier) sword? We don't exactly have the murder weapons to hand so we can't exactly verify if the swords are Actually rapiers, and what with swords of All sorts having an ability to both cut And stab, might there be a kind of "lost in translation" as rapier became a by-word for Generic Sword? We on the channel have a decent amount of privilege in the categorisation of different historical weapons, swords probably chief of which, where that categorisation may not have existed in the same way Yonks ago. At least that's what comes to mind for me, you're the historian you know this stuff better than me, i'd love to hear what you say about this linguistic quibble I have.
@@mordreddelavirac Me too I will never install Raid Shadow Legends... a "free" game where there is 1000 $ gift card means that one can spend at least 1000 $ to unlock content that is otherwhise unnaccessible or that is far too boresome to unlock by playing... I regret the pre internet games where the unlockable content was present in the game cartridge at no extra fee, and that bugs where corrected before the release...
I thought the sword fights in Romeo and Juliet were just plot devices that were a stretch of reality, but after seeing this video, they're astonishingly realistic.
Shakespeare definitely knew some stuff about swords and swordsmanship, as well as some fencing masters and styles of his time - there are lots of clues in his descriptions of fights, even alluding to specific fencing techniques.
I've always interpreted Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet films use of guns to be a commentary on gun culture and if you think about it, that's a very good update on something Shakespeare might have been trying to comment on with the use of Rapiers in his time. It's possible I could be reading to much into it but it seems possible!!
@@jacksonsmiler8028 That's the second round. When the speaker robs Captain Farrell in the first verse, he first produces his pistol and then produces his rapier. His rapier isn't stolen until his girl betrays him and Captain Farrell comes for his revenge.
Absolutely. I imagine the age as written in The Three Musketeers. It might be fiction, but Dumas used source material like the memoirs of Comte de la Fère.
I think most people expected daggers to be more common in murders. Way more concealable and can hide your intent to kill, while a rapier is a lot more obvious. We would expect that the rapier would have more dueling deaths, then murders. Seems like a fair conjecture.
Fervidor: Finds out rapiers were not used exclusively in a war context to gallantly protect family from invaders Fervidor: Angry pikachu face And I know damn well that is likely how you view swords and their history
@@Crimzs i think you are not taking into account aspects of class at the time, and how much those "gentlemen" (aristocrats) might feel it well in their rights to murder others in response to perceived affronts.
@@sethdusith6093 Rapiers were generally civilian weapons, not military ones. It's unlikely you'd encounter on in a war context, but entirely expected that you'd encounter one when some chav wants to behave like a twat.
Awesome topic! Made me want to re-read Captain Alatriste novels by Arturo Pérez-Reverte. The protagonist there - Diego Alatriste - is a soldier in the Spanish tercios who moonlights as hitman for hire to make ends meet in between campaigns. The books don't make a huge plot point of it, but it's constantly there as background: enough people hiring ruffian brawlers to "accidentally on purpose" pick lethal fights with their romantic or business rivals that an out of work soldier can scrape out a living at it.
i'am glad that thanks to the cinema you see how good soldiers the Spanish Infantry Tercios were some on the best armies indoubtely and creators to the current modern infantry
@@Lacteagalaxia Absolutely! Especially that pike battle segment at the end is a very rare find in movies, 90% of Hollywood battles depict men madly running towards each other engaging in chaotic one on one melee events.
This really drives home an idea I've had since I was young: it is extremely foolish to pick a fight because that person may well end your life. As well, if someone picks a fight with you, they may well be out to kill you - you simply don't know. I've never understood how some people will fight total strangers over the slightest of slights or even just casually.
I think that violent tendency is the same one that causes wars and evil regimes, if we could somehow eliminate this personality trait from ever appearing again, things would improve.
I think ego has a lot to do with it; it makes them feel important, powerful and special. When a teenager I was attacked one evening by a man in the street. He ran up behind me, I turned round and he grabbed me by my collar. I managed to fight him off, but it took me 20minutes. Found out later he was known for starting fights with people who were smaller and by themselves. One night decades later on my way home from work, I passed him and his mate fighting (and losing) with three others in a subway. He and his mate had seen one who was a little drunk going for a piss and had started on him: not realising his two friends were waiting for him just around the corner. Joe Jones yes. I think many wars are caused, because presidents and prime ministers have a similar personality to that arse that attacked me.
@@joejones9520 they've been doing just that for at least a decade in Denmark. They teach young children empathy at school and it's shown to have a significant effect.
@@stephena1196 do you really think gw bush went to war because big bad Saddam Hussein tried to kill his poor old daddy? 😹 stop believing the hollywood tripe, a war does not happen overnight because of ego, it takes months if not years of preparation from a good pat of any society and usually happens for either access to ressources and economic gain or geopolitical goals or both. 🙄
Well, fact is that people who are quarrelsome and viiolent -do- tend to die prematurely or suffer serious injury. Unfortunately, they usually die after they've already preocreated, so pass along their genes to another generation, as someone else points out. Of course, healthy parenting and a nurturing society help counteract violent tendencies, as another commenter points out. I worked in health care and I can telll you I saw a lot of angry, violent men (and a few women) come into the hospital, many of them with serious head or spinal injuries that left them dependent for the rest of their lives. Did this circumstance thange their behavior? Only to the extent that they couldn't physically perform. So, I quote this: "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day." I would add, do the running away part first.
As Lois Bujold wrote in _Curse of Chalion_ "The difference between a soldier and a duelist is the soldier kills your enemies. The duelist kills your allies." There are plenty of accounts of people who were good with sword and pistol putting folks they wanted to kill in situations where they would have to commit the social equivalent of suicide by 1) Failing to accept a challenge 2) Failing to challenge or effectively commit real suicide by agreeing to a duel with an obviously superior opponent. I haven't read the primary sources, but I've read at least a couple good books on the subject by well-respected historians over the years. It was generally condemned by authorities in most times and places even if it was acceptable among classes that were high enough or low enough in status that official (dis)approval wasn't as much of a restraint. That governments kept passing laws against it is a sign they took it seriously. A weapon primarily designed for dueling? That sounds like a weapon effectively _designed_ primarily for murder even if it was often _used_ legitimately for protection.
The rapier had not been "designed for dueling". It had been designed (really, evolved from the sidesword) for self-defense in a civilian environment. It was all-around the best weapon to do so. It was used for dueling, simply because it was the weapon gentlemen usually carried for self-defense, and so the weapon they were most used to.
Fun fact: In Spain in the late 17th century wearing the traditional long capes was forbiden by law. Because you could be hiding a rapier under that and it looks like it was quite comon to use it in a heated argument in a bar that would end badly for someone.
First rule of warfare, never pick a fight you aren't sure you can win. Second first rule of warfare, there's no such thing as overkill, third first rule of warfare, never pick on someone your own size or bigger than you (all basically the same thing)
@@jeremiahsmith7924There is such a thing as overkill in war. That’s why modern militaries adopted the 5.56 round, so that they could have are cartridge that would tumble and do damage requiring the enemy state to invest resources into taking care of them. Wounding your opponents severely rather than killing them diverts more energy away from the war effort as opposed to if you just outright kill a man using the old 7.62x51 cartridges.
I love when you delve into these sorts of historical accounts. These types of mixed weapon situations are a big reason why I love my HEMA club as we practice heavily lopsided fights such as greatsword versus arming sword, or an angry swordsman versus a merchant with a knife lol
On the groin hits causing death, the femoral artery runs very close to your skin in that area. That artery supplies your leg (your largest muscles) with blood. If that goes, you're probably done.
@@unbanned6175 sure you don't bleed out, immediately but you need medical attention to repair it. How many skilled surgeons are around at that time? Cutting off the bleeding leads to gangrene, or long term bleeding out.
More of this type of video, please. Historical accounts are always interesting, and having someone walk us through them helps to understand what happened.
Duels are depicted in film and accounts because they are more romantic, and dramatic, and thus noteworthy. It makes sense that the vast majority of actual incidents in history are just random fights or murders, which may not be recorded (except in the dry records of various counties) because they are so commonplace in reality (and thus not necessarily interesting).
Deaths by dueling in England were legally murders, which is why they were not public entertainments, but hidden in obscure locations, often with complicated jurisdictions such as below the high tide mark, making it requiring an Admiralty Court.
@@davidweihe6052 That sounds akin to dueling, when made illegal in the States, they would travel to the Canadian side of Niagara falls, and they would swear their seconds to turn away and to secrecy.
I absolutely love when you read these historical newspaper accounts and I'm glad you haven't given up on them. As long as you keep doing them I'll watch them
Why not use an offhand dagger for even more crit while maintaining historical accuracy? ...is what I would say if any dagger other than miséricorde actually had a higher crit stat
Fantastic research. Regarding primary sources for duels, you might consult cases in the Kings Bench and esp the House of Lords, where peers were tried. Eg Lord Mohun (Charles Mohun) in December 1692, with acquittal coming In February 1693
I suppose that duels are statistically more rare than murders and way better documented than just street fights and duels, especially those than finished without death of one of participants.
I love this dude! Why is it that weapon historians are one of the few demographics that utilize a branch of philosophical thought, that very few philosophers these days will explicitly mention outside of epistemology? Contextualism for the win! I may have to reference some of these videos in my writings. To be clear, although this guy isn't a self-identified philosopher as such, his respect and regard for context is up there with Wittgenstein, along with his intelligence. So happy I found this channel, so much to learn! I particularly enjoyed the debunking of the Gladius being an awesome sword on its own. Can't wait until you can get a scutum to go with yours!
Great presentation. It was interesting to learn of the "rusty" rapier taken from a cutlers stall and use in self defense. Gives me a whole fresh perspective on the use and character of edged weapons available to public.
The fact that somebody actually whacked somebody in the head with a rapier and killed them goes to show that cuts with a rapier are not something to be underestimated.
Rapiers are flipping heavy. Everyone thinks they're light, they weigh more than longswords, and are longer. A lot of energy going into that cut, even if it's not really suited to cut.
@@tallonhunter3663 Sure, but depends where is most of its mass. And I guess that basket and hilt takes maybe half. On the other hand, due to the blade's length, swing can give it tremendous momentum, and as it is flexible if someone is hit in some whip-style it could do a lot of damage.
There was a tudor episode which I found rather interesting, I think Bolyenne and Suffolk squires were having a spat, and one murdered the other in a church, it then reminded me of Robert the Bruce, How common were Church Murderes, Wasnt it like super No-No?
Church murders were very much super no-nos what with the church having a Massive impact upon people's lives back then, furthermore the kings and nobles drew their their authority from the Divine Right of Kings and so (sanctity of life included) killing people in a church was Highly taboo. Furthermore, all churches have Sanctuary which is sort of meant to be exempt from the laws of the land, so the murder of Archbishop Thomas Beckett in Cantebury Cathedral in like the 1100s was Incredibly poor form.
Broadly speaking, yes, murder in a church was an extreme taboo, and it got Bruce in a LOT of trouble. While it certainly happened, it came at a severe cost.
Wasn't Henry VI also meant to have been murdered in one of the chapels at the Tower of London? Henry VI was described as 'timid, shy, passive and averse to warfare and violence' which in mediaeval times was kind of equivalent to being born with a birthmark in the shape of a bullseye on your face.
its really good at killing unarmored or maybe even chainmailed opponents. Thrusts are precise about where the wound is gonna be & usually fatal if they hit vitals. But it's also because it was a fashionable sword to carry on the side, in Japan the murder weapon was obviously the Katana or Wakazashi.
I love hearing the original accounts. It's interesting how they used the language, how their values are reflected in the accounts, and of course just what the simple reality was (each specific account is just a claim, of course, but if you average out many accounts, you can get a sense of what these events could be like).
In the Early Modern era, killing someone in a duel or a fight could still be considered murder if the culprit left the scene, or there were other aggravating factors, so it's possible some of the victims were armed or that the crimes were partly provoked, but the reports just don't mention it. That said, I bet that just like murders today, most probably involved violent score-settling over money, women or perceived slights. It's worth noting how many of the murderers are described as 'gentlemen'- at this point the upper classes were the most violent section of society, mostly because they were the most likely to carry swords, but also because of their adherence to violent honour codes and increased ability to purchase alcohol compared to the poor. It was quite common for well-connected young men to get away with violent crimes, particularly first offenses, either because their families paid bribes or called in favours or because they claimed 'Benefit of Clergy'. This was a medieval tradition where people who were able to read and write were considered to be churchmen under English law, and therefore subject to the Ecclesiastical courts, rather than the normal criminal justice system, although this excuse was only good once, as repeat offenders were automatically considered to have been defrocked. This tradition may be what is referred to in the report on the fight between the man with the staff and the man with the rapier by the line 'he asked for the book, read like a clerk, and was delivered', although I'm not particularly experienced with primary sources, so don't take my word for it. The Playwright Ben Johnson (a friend of Shakespeare) claimed Benefit of Clergy for manslaughter after killing a man, apparently in a duel. Several other men Shakespeare knew were involved in killings as either victims or perpetrators, so although his plays are obviously intended as entertainment, he probably did know what he was writing about when he portrayed street violence in his plays, and you can probably get a flavour for how things could go down from reading or watching them, or from other plays from the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras.
Plus just speaking from a layman's conjectural point of view, I imagine that the plays Shakespeare wrote would have to be reasonably believable for the time.. otherwise the audiences of the day would have just found it unrealistic and unbelievable. So I'd expect that the way he portrayed sword duels happening, and the ramifications for the winner of the duel from a social and legal perspective, was what was commonly known to be correct, for the time the plays were set in.
Question: was duelling lawful at the time? If not, each of the incidents in the first ten minutes could easily have been an unlawful duel, with the winner’s seconds being charged along with him.
Duelling was widely tolerated, but still illegal. Duellists who killed their opponent could, and did end up in court, so I'm with you that some of the incidents might have been unlawful duels or fights. That said, most murders today aren't part of armed showdowns, and it's likely this was the same 400 years ago.
@@chrisball3778 As far a I know in post-Revolutionary France they were fully legal. And even in infant USA. In other instances they could've been allowed or even ordered by the court or the king. You cannot make one legal claim for phenomena that spans over so many countries, legals systems and centuries.
Would “normal” pre-arranged duels that did not result in death have been something worth reporting? I mean, fist fights in bars that just end up with people getting kicked out don’t really get reported today.
Why are assault, wounding, maiming, brawling and all the rest crimes if nobody plans on killing anyone else? How come rioting is a crime if we make rioters pay for damages to local homes and businesses? How do laws and civil order work?
How do you fight with swords without killing? Dueling was illegal in many places. For example the duel, with pistols, that killed Hamilton, was held in New Jersey instead of New York because New York was stricter.
@@meirsimchaesral5095 typically the dual is to first blood. That is the first to land any cut will work. One french source I looked at specifically called our three types of duals: the first order dual was the most common and most acceptable and that was to first blood. The second order dual was till one of the combatants could no longer fight as determined by the second or the doctor who was at the dual. The third order dual which was reserved for the highest, most severe insult and that was the dual to the death.
Fun thought after all this; I remember watching the series Zorro back in the 1970-s as a young boy, and was allways very impressed by his swordmanship. Especially when he won and "drew" a big Z in their shirt or skin sometimes. Is this even possible with a rapier? I tried it back then, curious and innocent me when no-one watched with the biggest kitchen knife I could find on one of my fathers fancy shirts, which did destroy it wildly, I do remember my really angry mum and dad better then anything else though when they found out...
Haha! There should have been at least one scene in a Zorro movie where he has to fight with a kitchen knife. 😂 Or, in case you should ever happen to write a Zorro story, you could use this incident as something from his childhood. Scolding parents: "Zorro, you are _never_ going to make anything of yourself by cutting a 'Z' into people's shirts!"
@@beepboop204 The charge of second degree murder in the US addresses this, murder without premeditation. As in a sudden crime of passion, still murder.
Many of these examples are where one person had a rapier and the other was apparently unarmed, and seems to have been attacked, rather than challenged and given the chance to arm themselves.
I remember reading ages ago that deaths in duels in Britan were often just considered as murders, so even though there could have been plan organised fight none of that mattered.
This just shows that a lot of people were carrying rapiers around and so used it for all kind of stuff rapiers can be used for. Also that duels were very uncommon. Just as you said it yourself xD
@@meirsimchaesral5095 he was no longer in the military. The war with Sweden was over, so he was on his way to Hannover to offer his services to the English King. Actually, it could have been a smallsword, the Danish name is the same.
I remember a quote from the time, "broadswords are for killing your enemies but rapiers are for killing your friends." I'm sorry but I forget the source.
i dont get it, your saying that broad swords are used more in battle and that rapiers are used in town? around your friends? or you think they are saying that people accidently killed their friends cuz they fought in a drunken fray, not expecting they would actually kill them?
I love these slice of life is kinds of Anthropology research. Really gives you a look at the contexts people lived in, and usually how people have pretty much been the same since forever.
I notice that a number of these events took place at St. Giles in the Fields, which was at that time between London and Westminster and outside the city limits of London. I wonder if this was a common meeting place for duels, and if some of these murders were actually duels. Dueling was never recognized as lawful in England and was the subject of a number of prohibitions under the Stuarts and the Commonwealth.
Came here to say basically the same thing. It seems that whatever's the most popular carry weapon at any given time is also going to be the most popular murder weapon
and in the comic relief of 'King Lear' in the fights of the servants, one calls the other an 'action-taker' - which is somebody who sues the other instead of doing the manly thing and challenging them to a duel!
The repetition of the wording "... then and there died, instantly." kinda makes you wonder if it was a solidified legal terminology of some sort, for the period. Perhaps it refers broadly to any situation in which a victim passes before some kind of qualified medical professional arrives? Like we would read " - DOA " in a police report, today.
There are ample accounts from medieval & Renaissance England of simple staves killing people, sometimes by a single blow to the head. It's additionally the case that staves in England frequently had a metal spike or so other form of enhancement to make them more dangerous weapons. As much as they disagreed about the rapier & about how to use a staff, George Silver & Joseph Swetnam agreed that a staff with a sharp point for thrusting has the advantage over any sword alone or with a dagger. Swetnam recommended that people who traveled on foot have a staff because of how easy he thought it was for the staff to hold off a person with sword & dagger. He did acknowledge that skill would allow a rapier fencer to overcome the staff.
Wouldnt a stave with a metal spike on be a spear? Been doing soldiers well for thousands (?) of years right up to very recently (rifle+bayonette is just a shooty spear really).
@@jamesmaybrick2001 I'd say it's fair to call such weapons spears, but the spike's design was different from most things called spears back then & today. English spiked staves also tended to be stout enough to deliver powerful blows, while some spears are not (particular thin ones designed mainly for single-handed use). However, unlike Silver, Swetnam recommended against striking with the staff but instead wrote to only thrust (as with the rapier by his method).
for those intrested in this kind of thing but in a difremt local id recomend the book "A Renascence of violence: Homicide in Early Modern Italy" it looks at Murder cases in Bologna and its surrounding environs from 1630 and 1660 one intresting thing to come out of the study was an uptick of stabbing as cause of death in the 1650s and 1660s and the author Rose attributes this to the murders being more used to the use of swords on account of being from Nobel family's in Bologna as a means of settling political disputes
Would you be able to post a bibliography or reference list of the primary sources? Not because I don't believe you, but because I wouldn't even know where to start looking for them.
I've actually trained with rapiers, and I was honestly astounded with how different and efficient rapier combat is from the usual sword combat you see in TV and film which usually shows broad arrays of cuts, parries etc...not with rapiers. If you're going against a rapier and you aren't a) wearing profoundly good armor and/or b) used to rapier combat, you're probably going to die. Proper rapier combat is entirely focused on two things. 1) Knowing the exact moment your opponent is in range, and 2) rapidly executing a MASSIVE range forward thrust with pinpoint accuracy to deflect the opponents weapon and kill them in one, single move. No flashy swings, no elaborate in-and-out footwork, it's in-range-BLAM-dead, move on. The default stance is quite back-weighted with your front leg more extended, and your sword hand a bit more tucked in with the sword pointed forward. The attack is a simultaneous shifting of your front leg forward a bit further, then really shifting your whole weight and body onto the front leg paired with a very long thrust with the sword arm; the only other solid single-piece weapon I've seen that can get this kind of range on a thrusting strike is a spear. And we drilled for HOURS on not only doing this lunge, but at that max range still be able to hit a target the size of a fingertip, AND have the sword angled so that if an enemy weapon was in the way your sword thrust would deflect it out of the way while still continuing the thrust to hit the fingertip-sized target.
I wonder if this is England specific? Posting this at the beginning of the video so idk if that gets brought up lol Also if men are already carrying swords....what else would they commit said murder with?
There was a paper about France on the 1700s where smallswords were enormously popular, and were also the number one weapon for murders and muggers. Sidearms seems to always be the number one weapon for murder and mugging.
Most people did not wear swords regularly it seems. Most people would however have a knife on them and knives make up the majority of murder weapons in any period I have studied.
@@scholagladiatoria but in the time of the rapier it was fashionable to wear swords in many parts of europe (at least moreso than many other periods and places) it just seems more likely that murders were taking place with the weapons most readily available just like any other era (knives usually but seemingly in this case, a rapier), rather than acquiring a rapier specifically for a premeditated murder. It could also be that from a legal standpoint many duels were classified as murders, possibly to discourage the practice. And it could also be that rapiers are long pointy spikes that are great for murder
I mean, if you've got a fairly durable, pointy, long thing handy, I'm not too surprised if when murders happen people use it. It isn't like murderers go around looking for the crappiest weapon they can find before making the attempt.
Are these at a time when dueling was illegal? Couldn’t the murder charges be applied when someone was killed in a duel, and “aiding and abetting” be applied to seconds?
7:47 officers were taught a maneuver where they would raise the sword and extend the sword out and use the pivoting weight of the sword at the same time as they would rotate their wrist so that without swinging the sword at all they would still generate a lot of momentum which would take the top of the skull off in a duel. many people died this way and the maneuver was a military secret because regular soldiers were taught differently because at the time it was very common for soldiers to challenge a superior officer and so it was like walking into a trap. 10:03 femoral artery
Alot of recorded examples of a Rapier dealing a strike that instantly killed the person. I didn't realize how common that was. Very interesting, thanks for the great video and information!
Might be confirmation bias. The clashes that ended with only light wounds probably didn't go to court. Law enforcement was very different 200 or even 150 years ago - not many if any cops as we understand the term. And I don't think the doctor was obligated to report battle wounds. So, most duels or clashes might only have resulted in wounds, and were never documented.
@@Michael-jx9bh yea that is definitely possible. But I'm still shocked not at the amount of Recorded Incidents that ended in death, In the case of Murder Records obviously all of them will record someone being killed and not just wounded. But I was shocked at how many of these Scenarios ended in the person being killed instantly with a Rapier.
Just goes to show how much we romanticize the past, even those of us who know better. This was a good reminder that the people of the past were just like us. Lofty ideals of chivalry and fair play were just that: ideals, not how most people actually lived their lives. Both enlightening, and slightly disappointing. It popped my balloon, but I still feel slightly wiser. Great video!
Hi Matt. Nearly all of the accounts say “late of this parish”. Can we assume that they were executed, even the Lords mentioned in the early accounts? Thanks! 🙂👍🙂
I don't think they'd have been executed at that point, as these seem to be the initial reports on the incidents- they'd have been entitled to a trial. A lot of the perpetrators were 'gentlemen' and the rich often got away with crimes due to bribery or legal loopholes.
Very nice to have some primary source backing on this idea. I would be willing to bet this is also true for most swords carried in civilian contexts, and indeed probably most lethal weapons carried by civilians (EG far more people killed with firearms as criminal homicide than in justified self defense), but it would be super interesting to investigate the primary sources on that.
I know there were laws about the Rapiers having their length reduced so this doesnt come as a surprise. The laws didnt touch Officer or Cavalry Swords because these were Army weapons. This reduced length paved the way for Smallswords to compete against the Rapier in duelist scenarios.
28:17 Interesting, is this a case of Benefit of Clergy; where, if you could prove that you could read, you could claim to be tried in a clerical court; where the sentencing could be far more lenient than the criminal court? 31:35 Rashomon: Exeter Version. Thanks for another fascinating video.
Makes sense when you think about treatises teaching rapier and lantern, cloak and dagger... random objects you'd have on your person if you got assaulted in the street.
It doesn't surprise me that you weren't capable of easily finding records of duels. They were not often reported to the legal system. It is much easier to find legal records than it is personal records.
It's interesting to me that so many of these descriptions from the court records use the same phrasing (e.g. "...giving him, with a rapier, a mortal wound...") over a fairly long period of time. Perhaps rapier murders were so common that descriptions of their use as murder weapons reached the status of legal boilerplate, so they could just about pull out a "rapier murder form" and fill in the names and dates.
The opening to _Teahouse of the August Moon_ said "Pornography is a matter of geography". Similarly murder is a matter of money *OUR GOOD KING* exercises his Divine Rights (several of them) *THE HOLY CHURCH* calls on us to Take Up the Cross *GENTLEMEN* defend their honor with the Noble Sword ---------
Re: that fight between Michael Pinkey and John Langton, at 27:40. It's entirely possible that Langton died of a secondary effect of the wound instead. Shock is essentially blood loss but doesn't actually have to be a LOT of blood loss, there are plenty of accounts of people dying from otherwise survivable injuries. He could've had a bad heart or other preexisting condition, hell even something like haemophilia. Entirely possible at that time in history they just simply didn't have the means to test this, or the resources, it's not exactly uncommon even today that sort of investigation isn't done, especially when it doesn't really matter that much. All that needed to be known is that one guy caused the death of another.
If it is a good weapon it will be used in a wide range of uses. The only reason I could envision a rapier not used as a murder weapon is it is not particularly concealable, but that may be a modern concern. I suppose concealing the weapon is not a concern in a time when everyone openly carried weapons.
Must disagree. A good weapon can also be one which does its one specific task very, very well. A sleeve-tangler or a trebuchet or a bombard is only really good for one thing. But for that one thing it is peerless which is why they were used.
@@toddellner5283 I don't know man. Trebuchets have been used for many strange and wonderful things, from the straightforward chucking rocks to knock down walls, to propaganda use, to biological warfare, to use in Monty Python sketches. (Sorry I have never heard of a "sleeve-tangler" before. An internet search leads me to posts in "Troll games" forums discussing the appropriate die to roll for damage from it, although one post leads to the sodegarami, which is a very specialized pole arm, and from its very limited use, may not be what I would call a "good weapon". To be fair though I have seen them in use for crowd control in China to this day, so something that has been used for centuries to the modern day may be arguable).
Regarding the case of the guy dying from a stab to the thigh - yeah, the femoral artery is nothing to mess around with. It's a relatively small target for a weapon like a rapier (compare to a longsword that could lop the entire leg off and thus is *definitely* getting the femoral artery because it gets everything), but...yeah, even a small nick to that artery is very quickly going to prove fatal.
Cassidy Cash has a video called Ep 166: Casey Kaleba and Elizabethan Street Fighting. It's a good one to watch. It's also on a Podbean podcast episode as well. Gives some context of the rapier, duels, laws and more.
Matt you discuss rapier use being more common in murders and affrays in the street rather than in duels. But would it have been common for people to defend themselves from vagabonds using rapiers? For instance walking country roads at night and the like?
14:19 When I studied Western Civilization at the university, the lecturer (who said he had focused his own studies on the Roman Empire) said that in battle, the Roman troops would often advance using their shields to push up the enemy’s weapons and arms and would use their gladius to cut open the inside of the thigh. I don’t know if that’s true, but that’s what the instructor said.
I had understood that the rapier was carried as a weapon that was a fight-ender, to be used quickly to end a threat. Not necessarily for dueling I can see where an assailant is dispatched and then it's called murder. This is a peril of being effective.
What you are probably looking at here is a weapon that is considered unfair/abnormal, the wearing of weapons was accepted in this period but it's a question of what weapon. We know that later there was a limitation on blade length, hence the term cut down to size. Where if your sword was too long you had the choice of leaving it at a cities gate or having it shortened. So the idea that when everyone else is carrying similar weapons, and suddenly there's people with longer swords, I noticed a lot seemed to be lords, or at least titled so wealthier and better armed could be linked to bullying, ie the wealthy well armed lad uses his longer weapon to harass and then kill a normal chap. Something which would be looked on very negatively by English courts at this period.
Effectively the same thing as today's sub machine gun and assault rifle bans. Can legally carry a pistol in certain places but rifles and any kind of automatic weapon is banned. Similarly the short swords were ok but the more effective longer swords were banned. Cities became a no longer sword ban. The result of this obviously would be the good folk following the rule and not being able to have a longer sword for self defence whereas the criminals ignoring the rule and bringing their longer swords wherever they could. Also add in the fact that the lords had more money to afford a rapier and had more influence to get the authorities to look the other way when they carried a longer sword.
It's start over time for my Rapier. I thought 33 inches was ko long. I was wrong. The biggest problem with making long thin blades is heat treatment. A straight blade is difficult and so is keeping the metal at temperature long enough to quench. It neutralizes in places before it hits the oil. I'm building a vertical oven to address this.
This video got me wondering how many duels were simply classified as murder. I suppose there's no way to know. My curiosity here excludes duels put together in times and places that duels were illegal.
That's why in France they moved to locations to be unobserved by the authorities. In those days jurisdiction was a big problem. The law itself would fight over it so much that nobody took responsibility. So it's No Man's Land in some cases. Duelists weren't taking chances so they went inside or to areas outside that jurisdiction.
If you're looking at court documents then maybe the lack of reference to duels is because that deaths related in duels were not considered in the same court, or were not considered the same as homicide? The duels you read about may have certain similarities that put them into that court where the documents were made.
I'd suspect a lot of these "murders" are in fact the result of duels, the fact that few of them are reported as one on one encounters, & that most of the co-accused are of a similar social standing to the murderer, would suggest that the duelist's seconds were being prosecuted as accessories to discourage the practice.
What was the legality of pre-arranged duels in the area/period, though? Not that it invalidates anything here, but I would expect some sampling biais if the main source is trial logs.
a severe cut to the thigh cutting the artery there can cause a massive immediate bleed out one of the things that can kill supper quickly is when air enters the artery the person will then die before he completely bleeds out.
Very interesting video, thank you. I was wondering how much training people would have had in the weapons they carried. You mention the treatises, but would it only be the lord who had access to such schooling? For the general public, would it just be 'stab them with the pointy end'?
Hey, as always, love your rapier related content, as I agree with your general thoughts about the said weapon. Two questions : don't you think that some of these were judged as "murder" while in reality they were duels? I've read some people wrigting about duels they themselves survived from in the early XVIIth, but they rarely used the term "Duel" to describe it. I note that in most of the cases you cite in the first part, we don't know if the guy who died was fighting or not. (The second part cases are clearly not duels but self defense, as you explain very well.) Furthermore, as law was usually trying to repress duels, don't you think it would make sense for the juges to label any fight with a dead guy at the end (duel or not) as "murders"? Secondly, if I understand well you used the legal reccords of the time, don't you think this would skew the number of cases toward murders instead of duels? Again, honest questions, and I'm anyway already convinced rapier was used in more things than just formal duels. PS : apologies for the bad english, I'm not native
Duels per se were not treated as homicide because the code duello made it an agreed-upon affair of honor. Duels did not have to be to the death, which further gave societal excuse to the duel, as opposed to a random killing in the street. Street fights and brawls that spontaneously occurred and resulted in a death or deaths could result in a charge of homicide due to circumstance and motive of the fighters.
I want to buy training & battle capable; thou I hope to never use as such a war ax & sword along with a shield, helmet & such; what companies online would be best for cosplay/practice use?
I noticed that they categorize deaths as either instant or list how many hours/days the person survived. I think instantly just means a longer period of time than you think.
There is also a historical legal basis for charging fault of a death by the amount of time from the injury, some jurisdictions held that if an injury led to the death of the person, for example, within a year and a day of the infliction, then the offending party could be charged with murder whereas any time over that span the injury was not considered cause of death.
Some of these accounts were probably either exaggerated to some degree or some of these people simply had a slight difference in the way in which they define the word instantly.
My take would be instantaneously means the person expired on the scene - that could have been several hours still but the wound was considered lethal and they were not moved to a place of care.
Makes sense. If everyone carries a hammer most of the murders will be done with a hammer. If everyone carries a gun, people will kill each other with guns. If you have a weapon that can instantly kill someone more fights will lead to immediate death.
I'm a recent subscriber. I plan on purchasing six swords, high end. As an investment would you give me some recommendations on some medieval European swords? I've ordered one already, the Albion Principe.
Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS/ANDROID/PC: clcr.me/scholagladiatoria_Jan23 and get a special starter pack with an Epic champion Chonoru 💥 Available only for new players for the next 30 days
Visit Champions Elect Event page championselect.plarium.com ⚡ to get a chance to win amazing in-game and real life prizes 🎁
Promo codes:
✅ Use the Promo Code RAIDRONDA to get a bunch of helpful stuff like a 3-day 100% XP boost, 500K Silver and 5 full Energy refills, 50 Auto battle x3. Available for ALL users: New and Old by February 28
✅ Use the Promo Code READY4RAID to get 4 x Skill Tomes Rare, 4 x Rank Up Chickens 3*, 40 Random EXP brews, 200 Autobattle tickets, 1 million silver. Available for New users only by February 28
*Note that only 1 Promo code can be used within 24hours
🙃
NEVER!!!
im assuming too that people werent always going for kill shots, and would attack whatever body part was presented, and while it might not be an instant kill, seems fine to just wait 15 minutes
Matt, is there a likelihood that the people Knew specifically what sort of weapon they had on them and the "rapier" which the court cases referred to are in actuality referring to a generic (that is to say potentially Not what we might call a rapier) sword? We don't exactly have the murder weapons to hand so we can't exactly verify if the swords are Actually rapiers, and what with swords of All sorts having an ability to both cut And stab, might there be a kind of "lost in translation" as rapier became a by-word for Generic Sword?
We on the channel have a decent amount of privilege in the categorisation of different historical weapons, swords probably chief of which, where that categorisation may not have existed in the same way Yonks ago. At least that's what comes to mind for me, you're the historian you know this stuff better than me, i'd love to hear what you say about this linguistic quibble I have.
@@mordreddelavirac Me too I will never install Raid Shadow Legends... a "free" game where there is 1000 $ gift card means that one can spend at least 1000 $ to unlock content that is otherwhise unnaccessible or that is far too boresome to unlock by playing... I regret the pre internet games where the unlockable content was present in the game cartridge at no extra fee, and that bugs where corrected before the release...
I thought the sword fights in Romeo and Juliet were just plot devices that were a stretch of reality, but after seeing this video, they're astonishingly realistic.
Shakespeare definitely knew some stuff about swords and swordsmanship, as well as some fencing masters and styles of his time - there are lots of clues in his descriptions of fights, even alluding to specific fencing techniques.
Today in America we call this "gang activity".
I've always interpreted Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet films use of guns to be a commentary on gun culture and if you think about it, that's a very good update on something Shakespeare might have been trying to comment on with the use of Rapiers in his time.
It's possible I could be reading to much into it but it seems possible!!
@@scholagladiatoria Maybe Shakespeare fenced?
@@danielamendola3906 Sir! Do you bite your thumb at me? VERSUS Where you from ese?
I love primary sources. Matt doing this research is so valuable and awesome. Thank you for this kind of content.
"I first produced my pistol and then produced my rapier, I said stand and deliver or the devil he may take ya..."
This was my thought as I was watching this as well :)
I produced my pistol, for she'd stolen away my rapier*
@@jacksonsmiler8028 not the original version
@@jacksonsmiler8028 That's the second round. When the speaker robs Captain Farrell in the first verse, he first produces his pistol and then produces his rapier.
His rapier isn't stolen until his girl betrays him and Captain Farrell comes for his revenge.
*Matt discovers that commonly carried lethal weapons were often used for murder*
Matt: *surprised Pikachú face*
Absolutely. I imagine the age as written in The Three Musketeers. It might be fiction, but Dumas used source material like the memoirs of Comte de la Fère.
I think most people expected daggers to be more common in murders. Way more concealable and can hide your intent to kill, while a rapier is a lot more obvious. We would expect that the rapier would have more dueling deaths, then murders. Seems like a fair conjecture.
Fervidor: Finds out rapiers were not used exclusively in a war context to gallantly protect family from invaders
Fervidor: Angry pikachu face
And I know damn well that is likely how you view swords and their history
@@Crimzs i think you are not taking into account aspects of class at the time, and how much those "gentlemen" (aristocrats) might feel it well in their rights to murder others in response to perceived affronts.
@@sethdusith6093 Rapiers were generally civilian weapons, not military ones. It's unlikely you'd encounter on in a war context, but entirely expected that you'd encounter one when some chav wants to behave like a twat.
Awesome topic! Made me want to re-read Captain Alatriste novels by Arturo Pérez-Reverte. The protagonist there - Diego Alatriste - is a soldier in the Spanish tercios who moonlights as hitman for hire to make ends meet in between campaigns. The books don't make a huge plot point of it, but it's constantly there as background: enough people hiring ruffian brawlers to "accidentally on purpose" pick lethal fights with their romantic or business rivals that an out of work soldier can scrape out a living at it.
The movie Alatriste with Viggo Mortensen is pretty neat as well. I hope Matt does some fight reviews based on it at some point.
@@AlexanderWernerJr I remember the movie. Ill look up the books.
i'am glad that thanks to the cinema you see how good soldiers the Spanish Infantry Tercios were some on the best armies indoubtely and creators to the current modern infantry
@@Lacteagalaxia Absolutely! Especially that pike battle segment at the end is a very rare find in movies, 90% of Hollywood battles depict men madly running towards each other engaging in chaotic one on one melee events.
@@Lacteagalaxia The battle of Rocroi was the highlight of the film, the rest feeled to be too much compressed for my taste.
This really drives home an idea I've had since I was young: it is extremely foolish to pick a fight because that person may well end your life. As well, if someone picks a fight with you, they may well be out to kill you - you simply don't know. I've never understood how some people will fight total strangers over the slightest of slights or even just casually.
I think that violent tendency is the same one that causes wars and evil regimes, if we could somehow eliminate this personality trait from ever appearing again, things would improve.
I think ego has a lot to do with it; it makes them feel important, powerful and special. When a teenager I was attacked one evening by a man in the street. He ran up behind me, I turned round and he grabbed me by my collar. I managed to fight him off, but it took me 20minutes. Found out later he was known for starting fights with people who were smaller and by themselves. One night decades later on my way home from work, I passed him and his mate fighting (and losing) with three others in a subway. He and his mate had seen one who was a little drunk going for a piss and had started on him: not realising his two friends were waiting for him just around the corner.
Joe Jones yes. I think many wars are caused, because presidents and prime ministers have a similar personality to that arse that attacked me.
@@joejones9520 they've been doing just that for at least a decade in Denmark. They teach young children empathy at school and it's shown to have a significant effect.
@@stephena1196 do you really think gw bush went to war because big bad Saddam Hussein tried to kill his poor old daddy? 😹
stop believing the hollywood tripe, a war does not happen overnight because of ego, it takes months if not years of preparation from a good pat of any society and usually happens for either access to ressources and economic gain or geopolitical goals or both. 🙄
Well, fact is that people who are quarrelsome and viiolent -do- tend to die prematurely or suffer serious injury. Unfortunately, they usually die after they've already preocreated, so pass along their genes to another generation, as someone else points out. Of course, healthy parenting and a nurturing society help counteract violent tendencies, as another commenter points out. I worked in health care and I can telll you I saw a lot of angry, violent men (and a few women) come into the hospital, many of them with serious head or spinal injuries that left them dependent for the rest of their lives. Did this circumstance thange their behavior? Only to the extent that they couldn't physically perform. So, I quote this: "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day." I would add, do the running away part first.
As Lois Bujold wrote in _Curse of Chalion_ "The difference between a soldier and a duelist is the soldier kills your enemies. The duelist kills your allies."
There are plenty of accounts of people who were good with sword and pistol putting folks they wanted to kill in situations where they would have to commit the social equivalent of suicide by
1) Failing to accept a challenge
2) Failing to challenge
or
effectively commit real suicide by agreeing to a duel with an obviously superior opponent.
I haven't read the primary sources, but I've read at least a couple good books on the subject by well-respected historians over the years. It was generally condemned by authorities in most times and places even if it was acceptable among classes that were high enough or low enough in status that official (dis)approval wasn't as much of a restraint. That governments kept passing laws against it is a sign they took it seriously.
A weapon primarily designed for dueling? That sounds like a weapon effectively _designed_ primarily for murder even if it was often _used_ legitimately for protection.
Do you have any recommendations for historical books on this subject? I don't know where to even start.
Kinda like pistols today…. 🤔
Kudos for the LMB quote. The five gods series is fantastic!
The rapier had not been "designed for dueling". It had been designed (really, evolved from the sidesword) for self-defense in a civilian environment. It was all-around the best weapon to do so.
It was used for dueling, simply because it was the weapon gentlemen usually carried for self-defense, and so the weapon they were most used to.
Any weapon not primarily designed for killing isn't a very good weapon.
Fun fact: In Spain in the late 17th century wearing the traditional long capes was forbiden by law. Because you could be hiding a rapier under that and it looks like it was quite comon to use it in a heated argument in a bar that would end badly for someone.
To be fair, it was to be expected that murder would be far more common than dueling. Most people don't want to risk a fair fight if they can help it.
First rule of warfare, never pick a fight you aren't sure you can win. Second first rule of warfare, there's no such thing as overkill, third first rule of warfare, never pick on someone your own size or bigger than you (all basically the same thing)
@@jeremiahsmith7924There is such a thing as overkill in war. That’s why modern militaries adopted the 5.56 round, so that they could have are cartridge that would tumble and do damage requiring the enemy state to invest resources into taking care of them. Wounding your opponents severely rather than killing them diverts more energy away from the war effort as opposed to if you just outright kill a man using the old 7.62x51 cartridges.
I love when you delve into these sorts of historical accounts. These types of mixed weapon situations are a big reason why I love my HEMA club as we practice heavily lopsided fights such as greatsword versus arming sword, or an angry swordsman versus a merchant with a knife lol
On the groin hits causing death, the femoral artery runs very close to your skin in that area. That artery supplies your leg (your largest muscles) with blood. If that goes, you're probably done.
Not probably, you are definitely gone.
2-3 minutes bleed out time.
Even if you miss the artery, the area is highly prone to infection. At that time, blood poisoning would be nearly impossible to avoid.
Imagine grappling and stabbing an opponent in the femoral artery with a dagger.
You won't make it
@@Wolf-Wolfman nah, you can cut off the blood flow.
@@unbanned6175 sure you don't bleed out, immediately but you need medical attention to repair it. How many skilled surgeons are around at that time?
Cutting off the bleeding leads to gangrene, or long term bleeding out.
More of this type of video, please. Historical accounts are always interesting, and having someone walk us through them helps to understand what happened.
Duels are depicted in film and accounts because they are more romantic, and dramatic, and thus noteworthy. It makes sense that the vast majority of actual incidents in history are just random fights or murders, which may not be recorded (except in the dry records of various counties) because they are so commonplace in reality (and thus not necessarily interesting).
Its kind of funny, I know nothing about this person except he was a random dude that killed someone.
And more dishonorable, dirty and downright evil
Deaths by dueling in England were legally murders, which is why they were not public entertainments, but hidden in obscure locations, often with complicated jurisdictions such as below the high tide mark, making it requiring an Admiralty Court.
@@davidweihe6052 That sounds akin to dueling, when made illegal in the States, they would travel to the Canadian side of Niagara falls, and they would swear their seconds to turn away and to secrecy.
I absolutely love when you read these historical newspaper accounts and I'm glad you haven't given up on them. As long as you keep doing them I'll watch them
Last. I'm so proud. Clearly, the rapier was the hitman's quiet choice of that period of history, well before the silenced pistol.
was there a silencer for the rapier too????
@@beepboop204 yes.
Leather scabbard with no metal mouth on its end
@@PobortzaPl 😁
Well nice thing about the rapier is its a lot less messy than slicing a man in twain from hip to shoulder with a messer would be lol
@@beepboop204 hopefully it was strictly regulated as a particularly dangerous weapon modificafion
I loved this video. I love hearing these stories. I hope you do eventually go one for dueling.
I use the Rapier in Elden Ring for that sweet 130% crit stat
Why not use an offhand dagger for even more crit while maintaining historical accuracy? ...is what I would say if any dagger other than miséricorde actually had a higher crit stat
You should try to check spanish use of the rapier in XVI-XVII centuries.
It's like it's own genre but very few people know about it.
Good tip!
Fantastic research. Regarding primary sources for duels, you might consult cases in the Kings Bench and esp the House of Lords, where peers were tried. Eg Lord Mohun (Charles Mohun) in December 1692, with acquittal coming In February 1693
I suppose that duels are statistically more rare than murders and way better documented than just street fights and duels, especially those than finished without death of one of participants.
I love this dude! Why is it that weapon historians are one of the few demographics that utilize a branch of philosophical thought, that very few philosophers these days will explicitly mention outside of epistemology? Contextualism for the win! I may have to reference some of these videos in my writings.
To be clear, although this guy isn't a self-identified philosopher as such, his respect and regard for context is up there with Wittgenstein, along with his intelligence.
So happy I found this channel, so much to learn! I particularly enjoyed the debunking of the Gladius being an awesome sword on its own. Can't wait until you can get a scutum to go with yours!
Great presentation. It was interesting to learn of the "rusty" rapier taken from a cutlers stall and use in self defense. Gives me a whole fresh perspective on the use and character of edged weapons available to public.
The fact that somebody actually whacked somebody in the head with a rapier and killed them goes to show that cuts with a rapier are not something to be underestimated.
Maybe he used the hilt
I was assuming a thrust to the temple, because of the instant death. I would prefer a shillelie (?) Since hard wood was more common than good steel.
Rapiers are flipping heavy. Everyone thinks they're light, they weigh more than longswords, and are longer. A lot of energy going into that cut, even if it's not really suited to cut.
They are really deadly weapons
@@tallonhunter3663 Sure, but depends where is most of its mass. And I guess that basket and hilt takes maybe half. On the other hand, due to the blade's length, swing can give it tremendous momentum, and as it is flexible if someone is hit in some whip-style it could do a lot of damage.
There was a tudor episode which I found rather interesting,
I think Bolyenne and Suffolk squires were having a spat,
and one murdered the other in a church,
it then reminded me of Robert the Bruce,
How common were Church Murderes,
Wasnt it like super No-No?
Church murders were very much super no-nos what with the church having a Massive impact upon people's lives back then, furthermore the kings and nobles drew their their authority from the Divine Right of Kings and so (sanctity of life included) killing people in a church was Highly taboo. Furthermore, all churches have Sanctuary which is sort of meant to be exempt from the laws of the land, so the murder of Archbishop Thomas Beckett in Cantebury Cathedral in like the 1100s was Incredibly poor form.
If I were to guess more common than one would think given the fact that the church was a central social hub back then.
Broadly speaking, yes, murder in a church was an extreme taboo, and it got Bruce in a LOT of trouble. While it certainly happened, it came at a severe cost.
wasn't the archbish of Canterbury slaughtered in the said cathedral by four Norman rogues?
Wasn't Henry VI also meant to have been murdered in one of the chapels at the Tower of London?
Henry VI was described as 'timid, shy, passive and averse to warfare and violence' which in mediaeval times was kind of equivalent to being born with a birthmark in the shape of a bullseye on your face.
its really good at killing unarmored or maybe even chainmailed opponents. Thrusts are precise about where the wound is gonna be & usually fatal if they hit vitals.
But it's also because it was a fashionable sword to carry on the side, in Japan the murder weapon was obviously the Katana or Wakazashi.
Rapiers were outlawed in Japan because Spanish and Dutch sailors kept killing samurai in duels with them.
Breaking news: murderers more likely to use the commonly carried weapons of the day to commit murder than they are to use other weapons.
I love hearing the original accounts. It's interesting how they used the language, how their values are reflected in the accounts, and of course just what the simple reality was (each specific account is just a claim, of course, but if you average out many accounts, you can get a sense of what these events could be like).
In the Early Modern era, killing someone in a duel or a fight could still be considered murder if the culprit left the scene, or there were other aggravating factors, so it's possible some of the victims were armed or that the crimes were partly provoked, but the reports just don't mention it. That said, I bet that just like murders today, most probably involved violent score-settling over money, women or perceived slights. It's worth noting how many of the murderers are described as 'gentlemen'- at this point the upper classes were the most violent section of society, mostly because they were the most likely to carry swords, but also because of their adherence to violent honour codes and increased ability to purchase alcohol compared to the poor.
It was quite common for well-connected young men to get away with violent crimes, particularly first offenses, either because their families paid bribes or called in favours or because they claimed 'Benefit of Clergy'. This was a medieval tradition where people who were able to read and write were considered to be churchmen under English law, and therefore subject to the Ecclesiastical courts, rather than the normal criminal justice system, although this excuse was only good once, as repeat offenders were automatically considered to have been defrocked. This tradition may be what is referred to in the report on the fight between the man with the staff and the man with the rapier by the line 'he asked for the book, read like a clerk, and was delivered', although I'm not particularly experienced with primary sources, so don't take my word for it.
The Playwright Ben Johnson (a friend of Shakespeare) claimed Benefit of Clergy for manslaughter after killing a man, apparently in a duel. Several other men Shakespeare knew were involved in killings as either victims or perpetrators, so although his plays are obviously intended as entertainment, he probably did know what he was writing about when he portrayed street violence in his plays, and you can probably get a flavour for how things could go down from reading or watching them, or from other plays from the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras.
Yes. I seem to recall Sir Richard F. Burton remarking of Shakespeare that "he knew the sword."
Plus just speaking from a layman's conjectural point of view, I imagine that the plays Shakespeare wrote would have to be reasonably believable for the time.. otherwise the audiences of the day would have just found it unrealistic and unbelievable.
So I'd expect that the way he portrayed sword duels happening, and the ramifications for the winner of the duel from a social and legal perspective, was what was commonly known to be correct, for the time the plays were set in.
Question: was duelling lawful at the time? If not, each of the incidents in the first ten minutes could easily have been an unlawful duel, with the winner’s seconds being charged along with him.
Duelling was widely tolerated, but still illegal. Duellists who killed their opponent could, and did end up in court, so I'm with you that some of the incidents might have been unlawful duels or fights. That said, most murders today aren't part of armed showdowns, and it's likely this was the same 400 years ago.
I'm pretty sure trial by combat became unlawful in 1819, and those cases occurred before that point.
Ok Saul Goodman good job defending your clients
@@chrisball3778 As far a I know in post-Revolutionary France they were fully legal. And even in infant USA. In other instances they could've been allowed or even ordered by the court or the king. You cannot make one legal claim for phenomena that spans over so many countries, legals systems and centuries.
Oh yeah definately a 'duel' if one party is unarmed and the other party has two other complices.
Would “normal” pre-arranged duels that did not result in death have been something worth reporting? I mean, fist fights in bars that just end up with people getting kicked out don’t really get reported today.
if there were rich people doing it theyd probably complain after
In tighter communities they’d be labelled a coward sand there’d be few enough people for that label to matter.
Why are assault, wounding, maiming, brawling and all the rest crimes if nobody plans on killing anyone else? How come rioting is a crime if we make rioters pay for damages to local homes and businesses? How do laws and civil order work?
How do you fight with swords without killing? Dueling was illegal in many places. For example the duel, with pistols, that killed Hamilton, was held in New Jersey instead of New York because New York was stricter.
@@meirsimchaesral5095 typically the dual is to first blood. That is the first to land any cut will work. One french source I looked at specifically called our three types of duals: the first order dual was the most common and most acceptable and that was to first blood. The second order dual was till one of the combatants could no longer fight as determined by the second or the doctor who was at the dual. The third order dual which was reserved for the highest, most severe insult and that was the dual to the death.
I happen to be just a humble villager myself but I enjoy your presentations as a common plebe.
I would love to see your opinion on the fight scenes and historical context of the 2006 film Alatriste.
Most of what I have heard is that it is quite accurate especially by cinema standards, especially considering the narrative context.
Fun thought after all this; I remember watching the series Zorro back in the 1970-s as a young boy, and was allways very impressed by his swordmanship. Especially when he won and "drew" a big Z in their shirt or skin sometimes. Is this even possible with a rapier? I tried it back then, curious and innocent me when no-one watched with the biggest kitchen knife I could find on one of my fathers fancy shirts, which did destroy it wildly, I do remember my really angry mum and dad better then anything else though when they found out...
Haha! There should have been at least one scene in a Zorro movie where he has to fight with a kitchen knife. 😂 Or, in case you should ever happen to write a Zorro story, you could use this incident as something from his childhood. Scolding parents: "Zorro, you are _never_ going to make anything of yourself by cutting a 'Z' into people's shirts!"
If you are a very talented swordsman, isn't killing an opponent in a duel just murder with extra steps? 🤔
Technically, a murder has to be an unlawful homicide. If it's a legitimate duel, it's fine.
@@PXCharon murder is premeditated, so it would take extra steps lol
@@PXCharon only duelling in itself was often illegal aswell
@@beepboop204 The charge of second degree murder in the US addresses this, murder without premeditation. As in a sudden crime of passion, still murder.
Many of these examples are where one person had a rapier and the other was apparently unarmed, and seems to have been attacked, rather than challenged and given the chance to arm themselves.
I remember reading ages ago that deaths in duels in Britan were often just considered as murders, so even though there could have been plan organised fight none of that mattered.
Duels can be engineered and forced onto unwilling victims.
This just shows that a lot of people were carrying rapiers around and so used it for all kind of stuff rapiers can be used for.
Also that duels were very uncommon.
Just as you said it yourself xD
The greatest Danish naval hero Peder Wessel Tordenskjold (Thundershirld), was killed in a duel by rapier in 1720.
I wonder if things were different in the military?
@@meirsimchaesral5095 he was no longer in the military. The war with Sweden was over, so he was on his way to Hannover to offer his services to the English King.
Actually, it could have been a smallsword, the Danish name is the same.
I remember a quote from the time, "broadswords are for killing your enemies but rapiers are for killing your friends." I'm sorry but I forget the source.
i dont get it, your saying that broad swords are used more in battle and that rapiers are used in town? around your friends? or you think they are saying that people accidently killed their friends cuz they fought in a drunken fray, not expecting they would actually kill them?
Gentlemen weren't very gentlemanly...
Also, candlesticks were pretty heavy; you'd be pretty seriously injured.
I love these slice of life is kinds of Anthropology research. Really gives you a look at the contexts people lived in, and usually how people have pretty much been the same since forever.
I notice that a number of these events took place at St. Giles in the Fields, which was at that time between London and Westminster and outside the city limits of London. I wonder if this was a common meeting place for duels, and if some of these murders were actually duels. Dueling was never recognized as lawful in England and was the subject of a number of prohibitions under the Stuarts and the Commonwealth.
Main takeaways: 1) Don't bring a candle-stick to a swordfight 2) Don't go to London
Essentially the Rapier is the Glock 19 of the 17th century, and as so, is reflected in recorded disputes of the time
Came here to say basically the same thing. It seems that whatever's the most popular carry weapon at any given time is also going to be the most popular murder weapon
and in the comic relief of 'King Lear' in the fights of the servants, one calls the other an 'action-taker' - which is somebody who sues the other instead of doing the manly thing and challenging them to a duel!
The repetition of the wording "... then and there died, instantly." kinda makes you wonder if it was a solidified legal terminology of some sort, for the period. Perhaps it refers broadly to any situation in which a victim passes before some kind of qualified medical professional arrives? Like we would read " - DOA " in a police report, today.
Yes I believe it's exactly equivalent to dead on arrival.
Imagine a time before acronyms!
Now I'm wondering what the first recorded acronym in history is. The Roman Senate abbreviated itself as SPQR...
There are ample accounts from medieval & Renaissance England of simple staves killing people, sometimes by a single blow to the head. It's additionally the case that staves in England frequently had a metal spike or so other form of enhancement to make them more dangerous weapons. As much as they disagreed about the rapier & about how to use a staff, George Silver & Joseph Swetnam agreed that a staff with a sharp point for thrusting has the advantage over any sword alone or with a dagger. Swetnam recommended that people who traveled on foot have a staff because of how easy he thought it was for the staff to hold off a person with sword & dagger. He did acknowledge that skill would allow a rapier fencer to overcome the staff.
Wouldnt a stave with a metal spike on be a spear? Been doing soldiers well for thousands (?) of years right up to very recently (rifle+bayonette is just a shooty spear really).
@@jamesmaybrick2001 I'd say it's fair to call such weapons spears, but the spike's design was different from most things called spears back then & today. English spiked staves also tended to be stout enough to deliver powerful blows, while some spears are not (particular thin ones designed mainly for single-handed use). However, unlike Silver, Swetnam recommended against striking with the staff but instead wrote to only thrust (as with the rapier by his method).
This I neat. I always enjoy reading the accounts of such. Keep up with the research!
for those intrested in this kind of thing but in a difremt local id recomend the book "A Renascence of violence: Homicide in Early Modern Italy" it looks at Murder cases in Bologna and its surrounding environs from 1630 and 1660 one intresting thing to come out of the study was an uptick of stabbing as cause of death in the 1650s and 1660s and the author Rose attributes this to the murders being more used to the use of swords on account of being from Nobel family's in Bologna as a means of settling political disputes
Would you be able to post a bibliography or reference list of the primary sources? Not because I don't believe you, but because I wouldn't even know where to start looking for them.
I've actually trained with rapiers, and I was honestly astounded with how different and efficient rapier combat is from the usual sword combat you see in TV and film which usually shows broad arrays of cuts, parries etc...not with rapiers. If you're going against a rapier and you aren't a) wearing profoundly good armor and/or b) used to rapier combat, you're probably going to die.
Proper rapier combat is entirely focused on two things. 1) Knowing the exact moment your opponent is in range, and 2) rapidly executing a MASSIVE range forward thrust with pinpoint accuracy to deflect the opponents weapon and kill them in one, single move. No flashy swings, no elaborate in-and-out footwork, it's in-range-BLAM-dead, move on.
The default stance is quite back-weighted with your front leg more extended, and your sword hand a bit more tucked in with the sword pointed forward. The attack is a simultaneous shifting of your front leg forward a bit further, then really shifting your whole weight and body onto the front leg paired with a very long thrust with the sword arm; the only other solid single-piece weapon I've seen that can get this kind of range on a thrusting strike is a spear. And we drilled for HOURS on not only doing this lunge, but at that max range still be able to hit a target the size of a fingertip, AND have the sword angled so that if an enemy weapon was in the way your sword thrust would deflect it out of the way while still continuing the thrust to hit the fingertip-sized target.
I wonder if this is England specific? Posting this at the beginning of the video so idk if that gets brought up lol
Also if men are already carrying swords....what else would they commit said murder with?
There was a paper about France on the 1700s where smallswords were enormously popular, and were also the number one weapon for murders and muggers. Sidearms seems to always be the number one weapon for murder and mugging.
Most people did not wear swords regularly it seems. Most people would however have a knife on them and knives make up the majority of murder weapons in any period I have studied.
@@scholagladiatoria but in the time of the rapier it was fashionable to wear swords in many parts of europe (at least moreso than many other periods and places) it just seems more likely that murders were taking place with the weapons most readily available just like any other era (knives usually but seemingly in this case, a rapier), rather than acquiring a rapier specifically for a premeditated murder. It could also be that from a legal standpoint many duels were classified as murders, possibly to discourage the practice.
And it could also be that rapiers are long pointy spikes that are great for murder
Candlesticks can kill. Haven’t you played Clue?
I love Raid. Very engaging.
I love rapiers. Very pointy.
I first produced my pistol
And then produced my rapier,
Said "stand and deliver"
But he was a bold deciver...
There is whiskey in the jar
ha, i made one too, didnt mean to copy you!
Not even a duel. Just a robber trying to resist arrest. Fortunately, his girl made sure he didn't have the means.
@@toddellner5283 but he still has a brother in the army :)
I mean, if you've got a fairly durable, pointy, long thing handy, I'm not too surprised if when murders happen people use it.
It isn't like murderers go around looking for the crappiest weapon they can find before making the attempt.
Hey Matt, whats your favourite rapier? (in your collection or out) Also do you have a favourite rapier style? (Destreza, Fabris, Capo Ferro etc.)
Very enjoyable bit of history here. Thank you.
Are these at a time when dueling was illegal?
Couldn’t the murder charges be applied when someone was killed in a duel, and “aiding and abetting” be applied to seconds?
Thanks for the great video Matt, this provides some wonderful context for 16th and 17th century rapier combat and interpersonal violence.
Very interesting video! What was the legal frame (if any) of formal duels in England during the 16th-early 19th centuries?
It's like a game of Cluedo - Colonel Mustard, with a rapier, in the groin...
7:47 officers were taught a maneuver where they would raise the sword and extend the sword out and use the pivoting weight of the sword at the same time as they would rotate their wrist so that without swinging the sword at all they would still generate a lot of momentum which would take the top of the skull off in a duel. many people died this way and the maneuver was a military secret because regular soldiers were taught differently because at the time it was very common for soldiers to challenge a superior officer and so it was like walking into a trap. 10:03 femoral artery
Alot of recorded examples of a Rapier dealing a strike that instantly killed the person. I didn't realize how common that was. Very interesting, thanks for the great video and information!
Might be confirmation bias. The clashes that ended with only light wounds probably didn't go to court. Law enforcement was very different 200 or even 150 years ago - not many if any cops as we understand the term.
And I don't think the doctor was obligated to report battle wounds.
So, most duels or clashes might only have resulted in wounds, and were never documented.
@@Michael-jx9bh yea that is definitely possible.
But I'm still shocked not at the amount of Recorded Incidents that ended in death, In the case of Murder Records obviously all of them will record someone being killed and not just wounded.
But I was shocked at how many of these Scenarios ended in the person being killed instantly with a Rapier.
Just goes to show how much we romanticize the past, even those of us who know better. This was a good reminder that the people of the past were just like us. Lofty ideals of chivalry and fair play were just that: ideals, not how most people actually lived their lives. Both enlightening, and slightly disappointing. It popped my balloon, but I still feel slightly wiser. Great video!
Hi Matt. Nearly all of the accounts say “late of this parish”. Can we assume that they were executed, even the Lords mentioned in the early accounts? Thanks! 🙂👍🙂
I'm quite interested in average sentences in these cases.
I don't think they'd have been executed at that point, as these seem to be the initial reports on the incidents- they'd have been entitled to a trial. A lot of the perpetrators were 'gentlemen' and the rich often got away with crimes due to bribery or legal loopholes.
Cool video. I feel differently about owning a rapier now.
Very nice to have some primary source backing on this idea. I would be willing to bet this is also true for most swords carried in civilian contexts, and indeed probably most lethal weapons carried by civilians (EG far more people killed with firearms as criminal homicide than in justified self defense), but it would be super interesting to investigate the primary sources on that.
I know there were laws about the Rapiers having their length reduced so this doesnt come as a surprise. The laws didnt touch Officer or Cavalry Swords because these were Army weapons.
This reduced length paved the way for Smallswords to compete against the Rapier in duelist scenarios.
28:17 Interesting, is this a case of Benefit of Clergy; where, if you could prove that you could read, you could claim to be tried in a clerical court; where the sentencing could be far more lenient than the criminal court?
31:35 Rashomon: Exeter Version.
Thanks for another fascinating video.
Makes sense when you think about treatises teaching rapier and lantern, cloak and dagger... random objects you'd have on your person if you got assaulted in the street.
Yes! Suspected this long ago, between reading--and reading about the culture around--drama in the era of Shakespeare, Marlowe et al.
It does seem a perfect weapon for ambush, especially to hit with from cover or in tight spaces when the target is unsuspecting.
It doesn't surprise me that you weren't capable of easily finding records of duels. They were not often reported to the legal system. It is much easier to find legal records than it is personal records.
It's interesting to me that so many of these descriptions from the court records use the same phrasing (e.g. "...giving him, with a rapier, a mortal wound...") over a fairly long period of time. Perhaps rapier murders were so common that descriptions of their use as murder weapons reached the status of legal boilerplate, so they could just about pull out a "rapier murder form" and fill in the names and dates.
The opening to _Teahouse of the August Moon_ said "Pornography is a matter of geography". Similarly murder is a matter of money
*OUR GOOD KING* exercises his Divine Rights (several of them)
*THE HOLY CHURCH* calls on us to Take Up the Cross
*GENTLEMEN* defend their honor with the Noble Sword
---------
Have you made any videos on how swordsmen defended themselves when suddenly attacked in a place like a pub? I'd love to see that!
My guess, always wear mail; choose fabric that are more slash resistant; always aware of surrounding, etc.
Id say generally, it would be a fist fight, but if not, who's messing with the swordsman? Basically picking a fight with a marine.
@@unbanned6175 Well, maybe the assailant has a sword too.
Re: that fight between Michael Pinkey and John Langton, at 27:40. It's entirely possible that Langton died of a secondary effect of the wound instead. Shock is essentially blood loss but doesn't actually have to be a LOT of blood loss, there are plenty of accounts of people dying from otherwise survivable injuries. He could've had a bad heart or other preexisting condition, hell even something like haemophilia. Entirely possible at that time in history they just simply didn't have the means to test this, or the resources, it's not exactly uncommon even today that sort of investigation isn't done, especially when it doesn't really matter that much. All that needed to be known is that one guy caused the death of another.
If it is a good weapon it will be used in a wide range of uses.
The only reason I could envision a rapier not used as a murder weapon is it is not particularly concealable, but that may be a modern concern. I suppose concealing the weapon is not a concern in a time when everyone openly carried weapons.
Must disagree. A good weapon can also be one which does its one specific task very, very well. A sleeve-tangler or a trebuchet or a bombard is only really good for one thing. But for that one thing it is peerless which is why they were used.
@@toddellner5283 I don't know man. Trebuchets have been used for many strange and wonderful things, from the straightforward chucking rocks to knock down walls, to propaganda use, to biological warfare, to use in Monty Python sketches. (Sorry I have never heard of a "sleeve-tangler" before. An internet search leads me to posts in "Troll games" forums discussing the appropriate die to roll for damage from it, although one post leads to the sodegarami, which is a very specialized pole arm, and from its very limited use, may not be what I would call a "good weapon". To be fair though I have seen them in use for crowd control in China to this day, so something that has been used for centuries to the modern day may be arguable).
Regarding the case of the guy dying from a stab to the thigh - yeah, the femoral artery is nothing to mess around with. It's a relatively small target for a weapon like a rapier (compare to a longsword that could lop the entire leg off and thus is *definitely* getting the femoral artery because it gets everything), but...yeah, even a small nick to that artery is very quickly going to prove fatal.
Cassidy Cash has a video called Ep 166: Casey Kaleba and Elizabethan Street Fighting.
It's a good one to watch.
It's also on a Podbean podcast episode as well.
Gives some context of the rapier, duels, laws and more.
Matt you discuss rapier use being more common in murders and affrays in the street rather than in duels.
But would it have been common for people to defend themselves from vagabonds using rapiers? For instance walking country roads at night and the like?
14:19
When I studied Western Civilization at the university, the lecturer (who said he had focused his own studies on the Roman Empire) said that in battle, the Roman troops would often advance using their shields to push up the enemy’s weapons and arms and would use their gladius to cut open the inside of the thigh.
I don’t know if that’s true, but that’s what the instructor said.
I had understood that the rapier was carried as a weapon that was a fight-ender, to be used quickly to end a threat. Not necessarily for dueling I can see where an assailant is dispatched and then it's called murder. This is a peril of being effective.
I look forward to hearing if there are similar findings with Smallswords
What you are probably looking at here is a weapon that is considered unfair/abnormal, the wearing of weapons was accepted in this period but it's a question of what weapon. We know that later there was a limitation on blade length, hence the term cut down to size. Where if your sword was too long you had the choice of leaving it at a cities gate or having it shortened. So the idea that when everyone else is carrying similar weapons, and suddenly there's people with longer swords, I noticed a lot seemed to be lords, or at least titled so wealthier and better armed could be linked to bullying, ie the wealthy well armed lad uses his longer weapon to harass and then kill a normal chap. Something which would be looked on very negatively by English courts at this period.
Effectively the same thing as today's sub machine gun and assault rifle bans. Can legally carry a pistol in certain places but rifles and any kind of automatic weapon is banned.
Similarly the short swords were ok but the more effective longer swords were banned. Cities became a no longer sword ban.
The result of this obviously would be the good folk following the rule and not being able to have a longer sword for self defence whereas the criminals ignoring the rule and bringing their longer swords wherever they could.
Also add in the fact that the lords had more money to afford a rapier and had more influence to get the authorities to look the other way when they carried a longer sword.
It's start over time for my Rapier. I thought 33 inches was ko long. I was wrong.
The biggest problem with making long thin blades is heat treatment. A straight blade is difficult and so is keeping the metal at temperature long enough to quench.
It neutralizes in places before it hits the oil.
I'm building a vertical oven to address this.
Thank you for sharing this lesson in history now i have learned something new here.
Very interesting. Not what I would have expected, either. Well done.
This video got me wondering how many duels were simply classified as murder. I suppose there's no way to know.
My curiosity here excludes duels put together in times and places that duels were illegal.
And how many murders were spun as noble duels, technically illegal, but, you know, dutyhonornobility
That's why in France they moved to locations to be unobserved by the authorities. In those days jurisdiction was a big problem. The law itself would fight over it so much that nobody took responsibility. So it's No Man's Land in some cases.
Duelists weren't taking chances so they went inside or to areas outside that jurisdiction.
If you're looking at court documents then maybe the lack of reference to duels is because that deaths related in duels were not considered in the same court, or were not considered the same as homicide? The duels you read about may have certain similarities that put them into that court where the documents were made.
I'd suspect a lot of these "murders" are in fact the result of duels, the fact that few of them are reported as one on one encounters, & that most of the co-accused are of a similar social standing to the murderer, would suggest that the duelist's seconds were being prosecuted as accessories to discourage the practice.
What was the legality of pre-arranged duels in the area/period, though? Not that it invalidates anything here, but I would expect some sampling biais if the main source is trial logs.
a severe cut to the thigh cutting the artery there can cause a massive immediate bleed out one of the things that can kill supper quickly is when air enters the artery the person will then die before he completely bleeds out.
Very interesting video, thank you. I was wondering how much training people would have had in the weapons they carried. You mention the treatises, but would it only be the lord who had access to such schooling? For the general public, would it just be 'stab them with the pointy end'?
Hey, as always, love your rapier related content, as I agree with your general thoughts about the said weapon.
Two questions : don't you think that some of these were judged as "murder" while in reality they were duels? I've read some people wrigting about duels they themselves survived from in the early XVIIth, but they rarely used the term "Duel" to describe it. I note that in most of the cases you cite in the first part, we don't know if the guy who died was fighting or not. (The second part cases are clearly not duels but self defense, as you explain very well.)
Furthermore, as law was usually trying to repress duels, don't you think it would make sense for the juges to label any fight with a dead guy at the end (duel or not) as "murders"?
Secondly, if I understand well you used the legal reccords of the time, don't you think this would skew the number of cases toward murders instead of duels?
Again, honest questions, and I'm anyway already convinced rapier was used in more things than just formal duels.
PS : apologies for the bad english, I'm not native
Duels per se were not treated as homicide because the code duello made it an agreed-upon affair of honor. Duels did not have to be to the death, which further gave societal excuse to the duel, as opposed to a random killing in the street. Street fights and brawls that spontaneously occurred and resulted in a death or deaths could result in a charge of homicide due to circumstance and motive of the fighters.
I want to buy training & battle capable; thou I hope to never use as such a war ax & sword along with a shield, helmet & such; what companies online would be best for cosplay/practice use?
I noticed that they categorize deaths as either instant or list how many hours/days the person survived. I think instantly just means a longer period of time than you think.
There is also a historical legal basis for charging fault of a death by the amount of time from the injury, some jurisdictions held that if an injury led to the death of the person, for example, within a year and a day of the infliction, then the offending party could be charged with murder whereas any time over that span the injury was not considered cause of death.
Some of these accounts were probably either exaggerated to some degree or some of these people simply had a slight difference in the way in which they define the word instantly.
My take would be instantaneously means the person expired on the scene - that could have been several hours still but the wound was considered lethal and they were not moved to a place of care.
Makes sense. If everyone carries a hammer most of the murders will be done with a hammer. If everyone carries a gun, people will kill each other with guns. If you have a weapon that can instantly kill someone more fights will lead to immediate death.
I'm a recent subscriber. I plan on purchasing six swords, high end. As an investment would you give me some recommendations on some medieval European swords? I've ordered one already, the Albion Principe.
i love the rapier videos!