Rules of Grappling in Arthurian Literature

[David_Knight]

If the original source is to be trusted, here is an interesting passage from the French prose version of Lancelot (FPL) that a French Arthurian scholar, Anna Korczakowska, posted on an academic elist:

"It's when the Duc of Clarence fights against the four swordsmen at Pintadol. Once he gets rid of the first of his adversaries, we read:

li autre troi enragent de duel et moult volentiers saisissent le duc as bras, se il oissaissent, mais ce n'estoit mie la costume, kar il ne pooient par droit home saisir as bras, se cil qui a els se combatoit nel faisoit avant
Translation:
"The other three become furious with grief and would gladly grab the Duc with their hands if they dared, but that was not the custom, because according to the rules they couldn't fight a man with hands unless their adversary did so first."

Anna also writes that "elsewhere in the FPL there are knights dropping their arms and fighting with fists - that always seemed a bit bizarre to me, but no comments are given anywhere and the above passage is the only insight that the text provides. I don't know much about the medieval and chilvaric rules of combat and I'm wondering whether this rule is specific to Pintadol or should be considered as a general rule of chilvaric combat, in which case fighting with fists would be transgressing the code of chilvaric combat practices. Any ideas anyone?"

This might be a good opportunity to introduce our own research to more academics. French Arthurian literature is notorious for espousing extreme interpretations of the chivalric code, and politely waiting for the opponent to strike first is not martially sound, so I suspect this is an artistic device specific to Pintadol. Is there any evidence to the contrary, perhaps in formal tournaments? Suggestions on how I should respond?

[Casper Bradak]

It has nothing to do with chivalry. Nothing of the sort is mentioned in any chivalric treatise. Chivalry puts no constraints on the techniques of combat.

[David_Knight]

Thanks, Casper. My response:

>I don't know much about the medieval and chilvaric rules of
> combat and I'm wondering whether this rule is specific to Pintadol or
> should be considered as a general rule of chilvaric combat, in which
> case fighting with fists would be transgressing the code of chilvaric
> combat practices.

As a student of both medieval literature and hoplology, I have found that literary accounts of combat in the Middle Ages are dubious at best. To my knowledge, there is no chivalric treatise regulating actual combat techniques. Like any warrior past or present, the primary goal of a knight in battle was to kill his enemy. Politely waiting for the opponent to strike first is not martially sound, so I suspect this is either an artistic invention or a formal tournament rule that the author erroneously applied to actual combat.

>Elsewhere in the FPL there are knights dropping their arms and fighting
> with fists - that always seemed a bit bizarre to me, but no comments are
> given anywhere and the above passage is the only insight that the text
> provides.

Numerous extant "fechtbucher", or illustrated combat manuals from the Middle Ages and Renaissance, give considerable attention to grappling and disarming techniques. There was nothing unusual about medieval knights closing to fight unarmed when both were too close to properly wield their main weapons. Swordsmanship is an art that hinges on timing and distance; to swing, for example, a typical 48" (1.2M) two-handed longsword, a knight had to maintain a certain distance from his opponent. If an attacker was able to penetrate within arm's length of his opponent, the defender simply could not swing his sword. If the attacker was also unable to strike, both combatants had to either disengage and reset the fight, or discard their weapons and fight with daggers or fists.

If you are interested in the serious study of medieval European combatives, I would highly recommend that you visit the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts' website at http://www.thearma.org. ARMA's two-fold method of validating scholarly research through physical application has greatly advanced our understanding of medieval fighting systems.

[Derek Gulas]

Hi Casper,

What are some good treatises on Chivalry that you would recommend? I just realized recently that although I have a general concept of what it is to be chivalrous, I don't know the specifics about it.

Thanks!

[Casper Bradak]

Chivalry, by Keen is an excellent modern overview of most aspects of chivalry.
Probably the best places to start for chivalric treatises are
The Book of Chivalry, by Geoffroi De Charny
The Book of Knighthood and Chivalry by Ramon Lull. You can get that one with the Ordene de Chevalerie from chivalry bookshelf I think.
It's an outstanding subject with every bit as much misconception as the martial arts and martial artists it governed, focusing on every aspect of a warriors life. Most of them are quite a bit older, and quite a bit more in depth, than the Hagakure or Bushido Shoshinsu. It wasn't about just being a swell guy, or good sportsmanship like so many now believe.

[Derek Gulas]

Thank you very much. I'm really going to have to check those out. I own a copy of the Bushido Shoshinshu, but it'll be nice to get something from a Euro perspective.

Thanks again!

[Jay Vail]

David, the reality of combat in the middle ages, even sadly combat by French champions, is somewhat different that your author comprehends. Here is an example of a duel fought by a marshal of France:

Duel between Bertrand de Guesclin and one Thomas of Canterbury at Rennes, 1357. The duel was prompted by the capture of du Guesclin’s brother, who had taken a ride outside Rennes’ walls and had been captured by the English, who demanded a ransom. Du Guesclin challenged the captor to a duel:

“In the presence of the Duke of Lancaster, who had been permitted to enter the city as witness with twenty knights as escort, the two adversaries charged at each other with such force that both lances shattered on the other’s shield. After a long spell of fighting with swords, Thomas struck downwards at du Guesclin’s head. He missed and his sword skidded out of his hand. De Guesclin got down from his horse, retrieved the sword and flug it across the square. Armed only with his dagger, the Englishman refused to continue on foot as du Guesclin invited him repeatedly to do. Instead he reared his horse at his dismounted rival, trying to trample du Guesclin beneath its feet. But du Guesclin had swiftly removed his leg armour and was able to dodge to one side. Forcing his sword upwards, he struck deeply into the flanks of the horse. The animal reared out of control, depositing Thomas of Canterbury on the ground. Du Guesclin flung himself on his adversary, dragged off his helmet and punched him in the face. Blinded by his own blood, Thomas surrendered.”

from Stephen Turnbull, “The Knight Triumphant,” Cassell & Co. 2001, p. 79

[Casper Bradak]

I've only ever heard a little of that story before. That's interesting that he chose to discard his leg armour.

[Pierre Planas]

There might be an error in the translation.

"et moult volentiers saisissent le duc as bras." should translate into "And would gladly grab the duke by the arms."

Same thing with "kar il ne pooient par droit home saisir as bras". Should translate into "Because they couldn't, according to the rules (the law, the custom), grab a man by the arms".