Yield

I had an interesting conversation with another fencer at fighter's practice this last weekend. I was standing back, observing while he fought and his opponent managed to take both of his arms. She asked if he wanted to yield and he said no. That's when I roused from my slumber - I mean observation - and asked, "Are you sure about that?" Whether to yield or accept a quick death is generally considered a personal decision, and I suppose it is. But it's a decision that can have ramifications that aren't immediately obvious.

For fans of the modern-day action hero, the idea of yielding or surrendering is unthinkable. As Winston Churchill said, "... whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." But you have to remember, he was talking about a war, not a tournament. I know, I know. If you surrender once, it makes it easier to surrender the next time. But we're not talking about just sticking up our hands and saying "I give" when faced with an opponent, we're talking about having lost all ability to carry on the fight for one second more. That is what yielding in a tournament is: the recognition of your inability to defeat your opponent.

So what, you say. No quarter given, none received is the way you fight. Fair enough. You're a mean mother, and everyone can see that. But think about this: by refusing to yield, you are forcing you opponent to kill an unarmed opponent. Now I know there are all sorts of different codes of honor, but I'm pretty sure most of them do not say that killing the helpless is a Good Thing.

Of course, you have to assume their honor can handle the necessity of doing something dishonorable. Either that, or they have so little honor that it doesn't matter to them (of course, there isn't anyone who has so little honor in the SCA, so we can throw that notion out). There's only one problem with that. There are individuals for whom their sense of honor is so strong that they absolutely refuse to go against it. And unlike the dishonorable fencer, these do exist. You'll see them every once in a while a tourneys. They're the ones who give their opponent back an arm after they've been double-armed. There was even one who, faced with an opponent who would not yield, yielded himself, giving the bout to his unarmed opponent. Let me tell you: that caused a bit of a stir.

So now you're thinking, either they'll go ahead and kill you, or they'll give you back your arm and you might kill them, or else they'll yield and you'll win, which leaves you about a 50-50 chance of winning, even though you can't fight any more. Those sound like pretty good odds, except for one thing. To get those odds, you have to play on your opponent's honor. If they kill you, both of you will lose at least some honor. If they give you back your arm, then they gain honor, but you still don't. And if they yield to you, they gain a tremendous amount of honor - we're talking on-the-spot recognition and free beer for the rest of the event - and you're left standing there with your honor being questioned by all who witnessed it. Whereas, if you yield, they don't get that instant boost to honor and even if your honor isn't increased, you get recognized for having the common sense to admit when you're defeated. So I suppose it comes down to a question of what's more important to you: winning or your honor.

Now like I said, it's a personal choice whether to ask the quick death from or yield to your most worthy opponent, but I'd bet you can guess where I come in on the argument.