Answers to Segar's Questions on Combat

Segar's 1st Question

A:
Whereunto is answered, that in a Challenge for life and death, no man ought bee accompted vanquished unlesse he bee slaine, or forced with his owne mouth to yeeld or denie those words wherevpon the quarrell groweth: yet otherwise it is, when the Challenge or Combat is for Honor onlie, loue of Ladies, or exercise of Armes, because in that case (notwithstanding the Runners bee determined upon a certeine number of courses) yet if at the first, or after (before those courses be all performed) any of them doo fall, he that receiueth the fall shall lose the honor and the other depart with victorie.

Return to Question 1
Segar's 2nd Question

A:
Albeit no dead man can require iudgement of victorie; yet to the end the honor due unto the victorius may be in signe of his valerous merit bestowed, and the spoyls of the vanquished laid under his Ensigne, thus it is said. He who first had the bodie of the enemie in his power and under, ought be reputed victoriuous: yet may it be alleadged, that the other who gaue the first mortall wound, ought haue the victorie, because the time thereof & not the time of death is to bee considered. Others are of opinion, that the longer liuer ought to haue victorie: and some affirme, that if the Challenger gaue the first wound where of death ensued, although himself did first die: yet he performed his part and deserued most praise. Some also doo thinke, there is no iudgement can bee giuen but that the matter should lie dead. Howsoeuer it bee, I leaue the same to more learned Doctors and better experienced Knights.

Return to Question 2
Segar's 3rd Question

A:
Thereunto is answered. That if the Challenge were for triall of Honor, Triumph, or sport on horseback, then is no honor due to him that thus killed his enemie, for that neither of the fighters ought to bee on foote : but in a Combat for life it is otherwise. Sith then it is lawfull aswell for the one as the other to take and use all meanes, aduantages and subtilties that can be inuented.

Return to Question 3
Segar's 4th Question

A:
To this case may be answered, that forsomuch as the Challenger is not onelie to defend himselfe, but also offend & winne victorie, now falling even with the Defender, he thereby ought be accompted victory to be fauoured. Others are of minde, that seeing the fall of the Challenger might proceede of his owne force, & not the vertue of the enemie, the iudgement ought lie dead. But the true decision of this question is thus. If the Combat were for Triall of Vertue, Loue, or Prize, then ought the Challenger to lose the honor; but if the same were for life, then ought the fight to be performed in one other day by consent of both parties : because in Combats of that kinde no victorie is gained vntill one of the fighters bee either slaine or yeelded, or hath with his owne mouth denied the words wherevpon the Combat was occasioned.

Return to Question 4
Segar's 5th Question

A:
Thereunto is said, that forsomuch as the words and deedes of him that liueth, were said and done at one instant, being of contrarie effect, the iudgement ought to haue relation vnto the deedes : for oft times words are vttered, diuers from the intent of that is done. But if so be a man doth say, I yeeld, and he vnto whom he yeeldeth doth stay to fight & accept thereof, then shall the sayer be reputed vanquished; and afterwards offending him to whom he is yeelded, for so dooing, he ought bee dishonored and condemned as a Traitor.

Return to Question 5
Segar's 6th Question

A:
To this question, the answere is apparant. For seeing that the fall proceeded not from the vertue of force of the aduersary, but by misfortune, the Gentleman falne ought to be excused. Notwithstanding, if the fight had been for life, the matter ought reeiue other iudgement, seeing in those kind of Combats it is lawfull to take all opportunities and advantages.

Return to Question 6
Segar's 7th Question

A:
Whereunto may be answered, that forsomuch as the office of a Iudge, is to giue sentence according to allegations and prooues; it seemeth that the Iudge ought in no wise to stay the fight, but permit the Combat to proceede, till the one or the other of the fighters bee either yeelded or slaine, especiallie in quarrells of so heinous weight as is the cause of treason. For Frederick, the Emperour, who cassed and disananulled all particular Battells and Combats used by the Lombards, did notwithstanding allow, that upon quarrell for treason and secret murther, the Combat should bee permitted and graunted by all Princes, because the one was offensive to God, the other to Prince and Countrie.

Return to Question 7
Segar's 8th Question
A:
To that doubt we answer thus. Albeit the eye is a member of much delicacie, and also placed in the head : yet for that the Launce is passed through both breast and back, it must needes be that he on whom those wounds are, should confesse to receiue most hurt, and consequentlie to lose the honor and victorie.

Return to Question 8
Segar's 9th Question

A:
It may seeme at the first sight, that losse of an eye is greatest, being a member placed above, & that without the sight a man prooueth vnfit for all worldlie actions: yet forsomuch as the want of a nose is commonlie accompted the greatest deformitie, and a punishment due for infamouse offences, it may bee reasonablie inferred, that the losse of that feature should bring with it most dishonor. Besides that, seeing man is made according to the similtude of God, wee accompt that the face being made more deformed by the losse of the nose, than of one eye: therefore the greatest honor of this Combat is due vnto him who taketh the nose of the enemie.

Return to Question 9
Segar's 10th Question

A:
Hereunto may be said, that the hand being a member most necessarie for fight, and place much higher than the legge : therefore the losse thereof is of more importance & conseque~tly dishonorable. On the other side is alleadged, that seeing the leg is of as great necessitie, so as without it he is dishabled to serue either hurt and lame in that part, receiueth most dishonor, and the more for that no Arte can supplie that want, as in the hand it may. But I referre to the true deciding of this doubt unto the wise and learned reader.

Return to Question 10
Segar's 11th Question

A:
It seemeth that in this case the losses and harmes are equall; for he who was left handed, being maimed on that side, is depriued of that hand for which he used chieflie, and was no lesse apt for him, than the right hand is vnto the enemie. And sith it is the office of the Challenger not onlie to mainteine but also offend and prooue, in not doing more to preiudice the Defender than that harm himself receiueth : therefore the Challenger (although hee loseth but a left hand) is in thise case most dishonored. Yet because the exercise of these mens hands were of like necessitie, I thinke (vnder correction) the iudgement oughte rest as indifferent.

Return to Question 11
Segar's 12th Question

A:
We have in the former question said, that where two fighters bee equallie hurt, the Challenger should depart with dishonor, because he hath no prooued that which he tooke in hand, which is to vanquish the Defender. Therefore, the drawing the enemies bloud and the manner thereof is to bee considered. If then the one be hurt in the right arme, and the other on the left, it may seeme there is none aduantage : for as the right hand is apt to offend in fight, so the left hand is no lesse fit to defend. Notwithstanding, for that the use of the right hand is both more necessarie and ordinarie, he who is hurt thereof, ought be adiudged vnto most dishonor, chieflie in Combat for life. For in the exercise of Armes for honor onlie, the iudgement ought lie dead, or els he shall bee thought victorious that most manfullie performed his part or that regardeth least the wound, or that most cunninglie doth handle his weapon. The qualitie of the hurts is also to be considered, which of them is more or lesse mortall, likewise which member is more or lesse to be regarded.

Return to Question 12
Segar's 13th Question:

A:
That he who denied, ought with his companion to lose the Honor. For albeit one of the enemies did also leaue the Lists, yet his entent therein was to ursue his foe being fled thence : and forsomuch as the Combat was for a matter of Treason, it sufficeth not onlie for the victorious to vanquish the enemie, but also to bring him into the power of the Iudge to be punished. And it is plaine, that seeing of the one partie was hurt, and the other fled, they ought to be iudged to lose all honor, and be condemned as guiltie of that wherevpon the quarrell was mooued.

Return to Question 13
Segar's 14th Question

A:
Albeit in this case much may bee spoken, yet for that the question is not of any particular mans merit, but which partie in generall performed best the enterprize; it may be alleadged, that the partie wherein were most weldoers ought to haue the honor, notwithstanding the fall of two of their companions:yet foresomuch as to fall from horseback by the enemies force or vertue is most reproachfull, it seemeth that the misaduenture of two men onlie may reasonablie be the loss of honor to all the rest. And therefore, we leaue the iudgement of this doubt unto wise men, better experienced in Armes.

Return to Question 14
Segar's 15th Question

A:
Forsomuch as this Combat was for life, and that in euerie fight of such nature, no victorie is fullie gained untill the Defender is slaine, or els force to yeeld or denie ; it seemeth that he is not to be iudged guiltie, not hauing done any of these, although his sword were lost, which indeed in all Martiall exercises and feates of Armes is a thing much to be discommended. But most certaine it is, that in all Combats and actions of Armes, for Honor, Loue, & Praise onelie, whosoeuer loseth his sword, must presentlie (also)lose the honor and victorie.

Return to Question 15
Segar's 16th Question

A:
That albeit euerie prisoner apperteineth vnto his taker, yet hath it commonly be vsed, that the victorious haue presented their prisoners vnto the Prince, to be disposed of at his good pleasure, who in recompence thereof, doo vse (according to the magnanimous mindes of such persons) not onlie to pay the charges of the victorious, but also in signe of clemencie and mercie set the infortunate prisoner freely at libertie. As did the Noble King Edward the third of England, vnto Iohn Visconti, who in his precence was vanquished by Thomas de la Marche base sonne vnto the French King. And Phillip Duke of Milan did the like unto another infortunate Gentleman vanquished by a Neapolitane Knight.

Return to Question 16
  • dylan's fencing page
  • dylan's home page
  • e-mail: dylan iceweasel org
    Last modified on 29 May 1998 (updated for change to iceweasel.org)