Thanks to Praesidus for sponsoring this episode. To check out their historically inspired watches, go to praesidus.com/?rfsn=6805033.72f618f&.72f618f Click "read more" for further info, corrections, and bibliography Thanks for watching! Please consider supporting the channel by buying merch: teespring.com/stores/the-cynical-historian Or by donating to my Patreon: www.patreon.com/CynicalHistorian *[reserved for errata]* *Bibliography* Eric Jager, _The Last Duel: A True Story of Trial by Combat in Medieval France,_ reprint (2004; New York: Arrow, 2020), audiobook. amzn.to/3ADJBs5 John Norris, _Pistols at Dawn: A History of Dueling_ (Stroud, UK: The History Press, 2009), ebook. amzn.to/3JEm1OV Stephen Wynn, _Dueling through the Ages_ (Barnsley: Pen and Sword Military, 2021). amzn.to/3JqWCbf www.medievalists.net/2021/10/medieval-movie-review-last-duel/ www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/last-duel/ slate.com/culture/2021/10/last-duel-movie-historical-accuracy.html www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-true-history-behind-the-last-duel-180978860/

Wait, the french expert of studies of chevalerie is named Lorris Chevalier? He is an expert on knights called knight.

This was a pretty interesting film, especially after I read more on how much it got right. However, I think including more of the major details of how long this trial was would've helped put things into context. It turns out that this trial and all the drama that followed was causing issues for both parties standing at the time. We know a lot about this trial due to the records kept, which wasn't common for most proceedings at the time. I personally didn't find any trouble with how the film portrayed "the truth" portion because of its attempt to frame the widespread misogyny and sexual abuse of women at this time. From what I gathered in my readings, most historians do agree that she was raped and likely by the person the film portrays. The film also does a good job showing how a society can dehumanize a women just as much as her individual relationships with her husband. These intertwining themes were powerful and gave me perspective and interest to read further on these topics. I think the film got a bad rap at times because people focused on how the rape was presented twice rather than looking at how the perspectives of the event shifted between the victim and perpetrator. If you haven't seen this film, I would suggest giving it a shot.

The Last Duel is the best movie nobody saw in the last few years.

One problem I have with the film that you did not mention is that implied Le Gris's defense was essentially that it was consensual sex when he maintained the entire time that he didn't even see her that day and that the charge was being made up due to the rivalry. Also this movie like others overstated the lack of rights women have. While women where not afforded the right to really participate in society at the same time they where not considered property either. If his statement is correct that it was only considered a crime against her husband, a widowed or unmarried woman with no family should theoretically be free for anyone to rape, kill or do whatever they wanted. And that quite frankly was not the case. Women where not full citizens the way a man of the same rank was, but they where not simply property owned by a man. The truth is they where something in between. 2nd class citizens would be a better way of describing them. Chattel slavery was humans as property. An imperfect analogy would be that they had similar rights to that of a child today. It was considered important that they needed a man to take care of them but they could still in their own right be the victims of crime including rape. To be fair the husband would have likely been considered a victim as well but it was not like he was considered the ONLY victim.

I loved this movie (watched it three times in theater)! Movies based on true stories can never be 100% accurate, in this case (as you pointed it out) they did a pretty good job.

Back then saying 'I'm right, fight me' MEANT something...

Off-topic rant: I hate the blue-grey filter they put on almost all medieval movies these days. Even shows like Game of Thrones. The Middle Ages were actually a rather colorful era. This ubiquitous blue-grey gloomy desaturated dullness makes all these movies look bland and unappealing. For all its flaws, I appreciate Kingdom of Heaven for daring to actually have color and (gasp) sunlight in its medieval setting. Except the parts that take place in France, those also fall victim to the blue filter of dullness. It's like they took the term "Dark Ages" WAY too literally

People that responded to Ridley Scotts complaints about millenials having bad attention span were completely right when they said this was badly advertised. I thought this movie was about the same story as that one Netflix movie with Pattinson.

On the Notre Dame, I think it was being repaired at that time period not built so showing scaffolding wouldn't necessarily be wrong.

Fun fact Finland had duel in its law code until 1969 😂

Eyyyy, welcome back Film CinHist, these are my favourite of your vids. However I generally prefer it when youtubers are passionate about the subject so I appreciate you waiting until it was something you really wanted to discuss rather than cranking out obligatory content. Keep doing you, I'll be here for the whole journey.

really nice vid dude, as always!

Congrats on the sponsorship! I was very hesitant to watch this movie as the director is so hit and miss recently.

Thanks I been waiting for you to cover this one.

One of the most interesting duels I heard about was in the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic (now Ukraine) in 1934, I think. While there seem to be a few conflicting details as to what caused the duel it also has a world record for the longest duel between 2 individuals (clocking in at around 35 hours). Supposedly there was a tradition going back to the days of the Sich where two men who had a dispute would duel on Good Friday so they could go to Easter together reconciled. However unlike the Sich Cossack of old the average Soviet Citizen didn't have access to a Cossack Sabre or other applicable weapons and so they came together at the appointed hour and like men of old swore they had considered their action without impediment of anger, hunger or intoxication, that they had found no satisfaction in their dispute and thus would undertake to let it be decided on the field of honour by the first to draw blood, then they drew their hands and each began slapping one another, taking turns to slap one another across the face. Funnily enough, I also read how it meant the religious services could go on uninterrupted since it was impossible for the NKVD to tell who was was in the square to go to church and who was there to watch the slap fight although I'm not sure if this is legend or not. Anyway, after 35 hours of no-one drawing blood and no-one backing down they were pulled off each other by the onlookers.

Been a while since you did a film review welcome back

Excellent, as always !! 👍

Definitely would have been improved with a "by these swans..." moment 😆

Thanks. Enjoyed the movie especially the parts where we have truly medieval conflicts of ideas which can seem alien to us. But I had a sense they had changed some parts to appeal to modern views/views of medieval times. Interesting point you raised about Victorian ideas of the relationship between orgasms and rape/pregnancy.

I wish the film had spent more time on the actual trial, which was fascinating. Like the fact that Le Gris claimed to have an alibi, but then the man vouching for his alibi was arrested in Paris during the trial... also for rape. Or the fact that Le Gris made a counter suit of defamation, demanding 40 000 livres in compensation. Or that de Carrouges' maidservant was called to testify and then tortured to verify the accuracy of the testimony. They should have made the movie a straight up courtroom drama, culminating in a duel. The multiple perspectives thing is great, but it also leads to repetition and makes the movie feel a bit long. I particularly did not enjoy watching a r*ape scene twice. I also feel like the marketing and the trailers falsely advertised the film as being about a woman seeking justice when in reality the rivalry between de Carrouges and Le Gris makes up the bulk of the film's runtime.

I did not know that the book was written from five different sources, sporadically chosen. Are there any good counterpoints to clarify this? When I read the book, it seemed to be a perfect Hollywood candidate, and that was my only suspicion that it was too good to be true. I was annoyed that the movie changed the combat itself, and the wife's role seemed a bit too politically correct, but neither mattered that much in the overall big picture, so to speak.

Glad to see a half decent portrayal of this time period. As a medieval history buff the lack of effort annoys me.

I haven't seen it yet, although one of my students recommended it to me. I like knowing how accurate history based films are.

Good stuff, man

"Long in the tooth" means old, not long.

To their credit, the artistic license of Notre Dame under construction was still an epic scene and gave me chills.

You mist one type of duel that still goes on within some germanic student societies in germany, Austria, Latvia, Switzerland, Poland, Estonia, Belgium and maybe on Dutch student fraternity, the Mensuur/mensur which is fought with a saber like sword an eye, nose and chest protection. The go of the Mensuur/Mensur is to hit the face but isn't a kind of "free for all" fight but is more of a choreographed set of movements where if one of the fighters is just a bit wrong the other may use the opening created to slash the cheek of his opponent.

I think this is the best film Ridley Scott has made in the past ten years.

Forgive me for being somewhat off subject, but I appreciated the reference to the non radioactive glow in the dark paint on the Praesidus watches. I am a former paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne. I was issued a watch in 1983 with radioactive Tritium and Tritium gas sealed inside. The watches actually had a radioactive warning stamped on the back.

You can't really have a "believe women" narrative when the woman's perspective is not available due to a lack of historical source explaining her perspective. That said, I had a few books in several of my classes (someone at my university loved that story) about the Return of Martin Guerre that was trying to get a woman's perspective where the source base was borderline nonexistent (we have some testimony but not much and what we do have is layers removed). Still, even the Return of Martin Guerre's book about Guerre's wife acknowledge that it is, at best, a historical reconstruction of a possible perspective she may have had, not a definitive true retelling of her actual perspective. Just an interesting parallel to a few books I had in some of my classes.

I love how there is a Boston Terrier in the movie which did not even exist until 500yrs later. Boston’s are the best so I’ll let it slide! I really enjoyed the movie.

On January 6, 2021 Rudy Giuliani demanded trial by combat. Someone please teleport Giuliani and his master Don the Con Trump back 700 years into the past to undergo trial by combat.

I can't believe how interesting the add was, forgot what it was until you said let's get back to the video

I adore this movie. It is criminally underrated in my opinion

Why didn't you mention one of the biggest duels of all time Dwight vs. Andy

I hear that people of the Americas once did battle with banjos. It sounds truly terrifying. What happened to this ordeal? When was it finally done away with?

This is one of those epic stories of Friends turned to Enemies stories like Temujin vs Jamuka Caesar vs Pompey

I mean, in the year of our Lord of 2017 a guy just down the road from me got killed in a dagger duel. It just happens sometimes

If they made dueling legal again how would the legal system handle this and would there be a bunch of regulations for it

Would like to know your take on "Weapons masters rate 7 duels in movies".

Great Review, I thought this movie was great but long as well. I know a guy that majored in this time period and the movie didn't sit right with him. But I can't imagine being this hard headed with something that has sourcing problems.

Fun! Wasn't interested in this film, but may give it a try. Thanks, Cypher!

The Last Duel was an interesting movie and I think we’ve never seen a movie based on the French Monarchy until now but I hope we see a French Monarchy movie about King Louis XVI... I’m part French in America but as far as I know... I have very little ancestors history and documents from 14th Century France I just make predictions and theories of their lifestyles but the 19th century is far as I could go... which is a head scratcher if there are any documents left... about what they did what their day to day life was like etc. It always curious me how back then was a complete different world... they probably heard about this duel but I think they just cared less and continue their lives and I can’t imagine how ugly it must’ve been...

Thank you.

Loved the Movie. Thought the truth bit was silly, because with historical material i would avoid such statements.

What about the ancient mullet? Is that accurate?

Wish I saw it in theatres.

LETS GO!!!

good video

I read somewhere long ago than dueling was never technically outlawed in New York state however upon consulting it with my attorney he says I would probably catch a manslaughter charge... I must admit I was set on walking up to a certain someone and slapping them with a pair of leather gloves.

Have you ever done a bookshelf video?

I don’t understand how the guy wasn’t knighted until the duel when he was already 50 years old and a commander of a military garrison. Weren’t people knighted in their 20s? Was this something particular to France?

The idea of a judicial duel deciding something is so ridiculously funny to me. Like, what if one dude is 6'6" and the other is 5' flat? Is it still god's choice when the 5' guy gets the SHIT kicked out of him in the first round?

A fight, to the pain!

Still my favorite historian

As a history buff, I cannot find a definitive answer that bugs me about this movie so maybe you guys would know. The orgies shown in this movie; was it normal for rich nobles to have them? Did they have to make them secret since they had lived in a christian society? Were bisexual orgies a recorded thing? I know that some popes liked to have extravagant parties, but these were with prostitutes. Not ''respectable'' god-obedient noblewomen.

the movie was cool, tho was turned off at first because ridley scott was being such a baby about the film. glad you covered it

10:15 That attitude isn't foreign and outdated enough presently. Just a few years ago, some christian right congressman went on in congress about how women seldom/never get pregnant during a "legitimate" rape.

It looks like an awesome watch to have :)

I'm surprised you didn't mention the king character.

7:02 now thats soldiering

I also liked the fight it’s pretty intense to watch.

I actually like the "the truth" aprt because it framed the entire narrative as the woman's. So you could then frame the duel as what she emotionally experienced, semi-excusing how Hollywood it was. But I'm high AF so idk.

I have to admit it, Louis the Knight is a much cooler name than Lewis the Tailor.

The definitive statement at the end, I believe, was the film communicating she was right because her husband won the duel as was the law. I didn’t take it as a believe all women stance or that she was indeed telling the truth. It just struck me as the final mail driving home that this duel solidified she was right, within the context of how the society was operating at the time. Could be wrong but that’s what I got out of it. The constant talk of “if I win, god has decided you were raped” kind of was building to that statement at the end. I think it was just driving home the rape happened because of the outcome. I don’t think it was a statement on the actual REAL truth if it happened or not. Because all we have is…one guy lost a duel therefore it happened. Would be a bit silly to make a statement like that.

Are you going to do any History videos on the FBI and CIA?

Thank gosh I never seen this movie since the movie got some stuff wrong

One thing that I griped with was the idea of women being completely unreliable in testimony in medieval courts. A woman of nobility such as Marguerite would have commanded much more respect than the movie depicts, yes the crime of rape was abhorrently viewed as chiefly an offense against her husband, but sympathies towards noblewomen due to the popularity of Chanson de Geste novels suggest that a charge such as this would have not been as chauvinistic as Scott depicts.

I couldve sworn the accused was innocent since he was on the other side of France and one of the arguments was that he was so rich he could afford a fresh horse at every stop and thats how he made his way there and back from the crime committed also he claimed he was innocent even when died. But this was before the movie so things might have come to light.

Dueling should be brought back.

Didn’t anyone just duel by boxing?

"The Truth" I litterally shouted at the screen "How the fuck would you know Scott?"

3:47 I see Japanese media hasn't changed much

Interesting story and movie. I’m inclined to believe the woman, she was putting her honour, her husband’s honour and both their lives on the line for this. Le Gris no matter was not a chivalrous man, he would never have put her in that position if he cared a whit for her let alone loved her as inferred.

#BringBackOlympicDuels

Directors said Millennials are too stupid to get the movie… so I’m not going to watch it. Appreciate the synopsis

Wow, a Ridley Scott film more historically accurate than his previous historical films! Can't wait to see Nick's review of this on HISTORY BUFFS, I'm sure he would have plenty to add!

Armor in most movies ruins it for me but they did a really good job in this movie and then go and ruin it with the ****** helmets in the end

I was wondering when there was going to be a video about the last duel.

Long in the tooth means old, not long

Aha! Lit Crit fails again.

Kitty Kiss ?!?!

The Matrix | Based on a True Story

Why are the Middle Ages always portrayed as gray and gloomy. Didn't the sun shine back then. Didn't people laugh? Has anybody ever seen a movie set during this time period in which someone told a joke? Except for the Holy Grail, of course. When they say the Dark Ages, they didn't mean it was always dark.

I enjoyed the film and as you point out the inaccuracies don't matter too much, bit baffled as to how showing her perspective, known as the reason given for the duel and indirectly from testimony, is so enraging. The guilt of the defendant was decided by God after all.

✨ ρгό𝔪σŞｍ

Yeah I didn't like that they implied that her story was the truth. With the longstanding rivalry and the fact that they were having difficulty conceiving children. That she could have had an affair trying to conceive by any means necessary, got caught then cried rape. Or even that the rivalry had progressed so far that Carrouge lied so that he could kill his rival without repercussions. Or even more twisted Carrouge knew about and approved of the affair, because his wife was in on the plot to kill his rival. The point is Carrouge went into that match with far more combat experience than his opponent and it was certain to give him an advantage.

Comment

I disagree about the purpose of roshaman style is to avoid being definitive. I think it worked well here because all three sides believe they are in the right. We are not trying to solve a mystery with three clashing testimonies- we are seeing three perspectives. And learning just how fucked the entire society's understanding of women's rights and justice was, and is.

"How cares" (concerning the helmets") says the "cynical historian". Let me be cynical. A historian does. A historian, especially with focus on that period, suffers. I do. Are we getting a good sense odf the period? No, we don't! Wrong: - Clothing - Style (hair, beard) - Armour (not only the helmets - General depiction of the scenery (you noticed they removed all colours, did you?) - Military tactics, fighting techniques, locations, scenarios (pretty unimportant? Why did they care about showing it in the first place? Because....hollywood.) - The duell itself (the one in the title) - Locations (you named it, the place wher the duel took place is well described, and was nothing like shown) - Rites (marriage negotiations in front of the women? Nope. Show me a source for that; it even makes no sense from a medieval point of view. It is just used to underline the movie's message "woman in the middle ages were screwed" - gender role: not as much as the rest. The topic you touched about the point of the accusation being rather one of property then of morale or such simply has to do with the way trials worked at the time, with no legislative existing taking the role of the accusor (in many cases, thus also changing in late middle ages). In this case the accusation has to be carried by the person being harmed. Now, the fact that this was a woman and that her being raped not being considered a morale flaw isn't correct. The code was simply based on the bible, or better: roman law based on the 10 commandmends, in this case, seeing this as a violation of 9th and 10th commandment. And yes, wouldn't she have been married it would have been her father to carry the accusations. That does *not* mean people saw rape as something morally "ok". The point is simply that during that time, without said legislative, the accosator could be held responsible of damage in case of his case not having been proved. With the lack of general (not local) formalized law during a longer period of middle ages (changing from late 13th century, especially in the cities) this meant especially for a woman that she had to prove her case. If this happened, the sentence for the rapist could be quite serious. Studies on this (see "Rape in Medieval England: An Historical and Sociological Study", or: "Caroline Dunn, Stolen Women in Medieval England : Rape, Abduction and Adultery, 1100-1500") tend to concentrate on the "punishment" rather on compensation, which was a very vital part of medieval handling of such things, up to the of course for us today completly inacceptable sentence to marry the victim: this however ties into the medieval treatment of actions and their "damage" inflicted: a raped woman was damaged in her possibility to marry. But even though the movie here touches some points at least up to now not being handled in movies, it falls flat in the description of the social situation of the woman in general. "I have no legal standing without you" is simply not correct. "It's a good film with an excellent look in medieval society"? No it is not. Not at all. It touches one aspect of the role of women in medieval times, but it fails in painting a realistic picture of france in the 1380s, in nearly every other aspect. It's hollywood, with a good idea, on a book, on an interesting historical case. How splendid could it have been if been done by a filmmaker who cares about what advisors say. Aka, not by Ridley Scott. As we can see with his latest one.

I am absolutely for trail by combat. I've bin to prison I guarantee if I was a scout for gladiators I'd start on death row. These people aren't there because they stole candy from a baby I make no apologies for my statement. Also I truly believe only those who have fought or are at the very least have looked deeply inward and know they would definitely die for there Nation or there Neighbors. Those who participated in these hard character building exercises truly know what it is to both have a power and to not use it. These people weren't just hacking away at each other in the street's they organized the met up. Mutual combat is still legal in most states.

Those medieval methods of duels seem barbaric. 2022: A video of people fighting in a McDonald's.

Believe all wahmen

I hate Adam Driver. Kylo-Ren was a bad idea for a villain. He's a low rent Darth Vader. The entire star wars sequel trilogy was a stupid idea. I will forever associate his face with stupid, unoriginal ideas. I'm immediately skeptical of this movie because his stupid, wannabe Keanu Reaves face is in it

Why not show her perspective? God decided who was right apparently.

I tried. But you won't fix this film with knowledge or logic. This film had time travel so we could watch jodie lay down 10times. I was hoping the mother inlaw knew so it would have been a slight payoff but fk me, dull and painfully boring to watch.