“No, sir. It was our wire.”
Why it's great
Three words quietly demolish the assumption that he reached enemy ground.
Register
Neutral
Use it yourself
No, sir. It was our budget, not theirs.
00:00 / 02:54
00:00 / 02:54
Arnaud Testifies at His Court-Martial, Explained
Paths of Glory · 1957
Chapter 10 of 17 · 2'54"
On the stand, Private Arnaud admits he never got past his own wire, and the prosecutor's incredulous question — 'You mean to tell me...' — becomes the trial's cruelest moment. The court rules his past bravery immaterial, and the prosecutor argues that choosing him by lot was fair. Dax can only point out that no one, himself included, reached the German wire.
Key moments
Start here, then watch the full scene- 0:02–1:10
Arnaud Says He Never Crossed the Wire
68s - 1:30–2:53
The Court Rules Bravery Immaterial
83s
Arnaud Testifies at His Court-Martial, explained
What happens
Arnaud takes the stand and is asked how far he advanced. He says he got as far as his own wire, no further, and did not urge the others on. The prosecutor suggests that picking him by lot was fair; the court refuses Dax's attempt to cite Arnaud's past bravery, calling it immaterial, and lets him only prove he did not reach the German wire.
What's really going on
The scene makes the absurdity of the trial visible in small details. Arnaud answers honestly and precisely, and that honesty destroys him: 'No, sir. It was our wire.' The prosecutor turns the truth into an accusation — 'You mean to tell me that you didn't advance any further than our wire?' — as if the wire were his fault. Then the court's logic becomes openly circular: because the whole company failed, picking him by lot was fair; because the accused is on trial for cowardice, his earlier bravery is immaterial. Dax's defense is stripped down to a single factual correction, that nobody reached the German wire, which the court duly ignores. What the trial protects is not the truth but the army's version of itself.
Key lines & what they mean
- “No, sir. It was our wire.”
- Arnaud's honest correction, which is devastating: he never crossed into enemy ground at all, only his own defenses.
- “You mean to tell me that you didn't advance any further than our wire?”
- The prosecutor's incredulous question, used not to learn the truth but to make the truth sound like a confession.
- “Most of them were dead or wounded before they got three steps beyond the trenches.”
- Arnaud's plain description of the attack, explaining why advancing was impossible — and getting him scolded for not answering the question.
- “was your behavior different in any respect from that of the other men in your company?”
- The defense's question trying to show Arnaud acted no differently from anyone else, which the court dismisses as conjecture.
- “picking by lot was eminently fair in this case.”
- The prosecutor's argument that a lottery is justice, since the whole company failed and someone had to be punished.
- “The accused is not being tried for his former bravery...”
- The ruling that shuts out Arnaud's record of courage, leaving the court free to judge one moment of the war.
Theme
- Justice — The court twists every fact against the accused and refuses any defense, so the verdict is settled before the testimony ends.
- Power — Rank decides what counts as evidence: bravery is immaterial, and a lottery is called fair because the army says so.
What this chapter teaches
Teaching points
Review right after watchingMy level3/7
A1–C2 is the CEFR scale. Cards above the level you pick fade, and playback will not auto-pause on them.
Language points
Click a card to jump to its moment in the videoGolden lines
A great line in its own right — why and how to use it“You mean to tell me that you didn't advance any further than our wire?”
Why it's great
The rephrasing turns a plain fact into an accusation of cowardice.
Register
Formal
Use it yourself
You mean to tell me nobody checked the figures?
“Most of them were dead or wounded before they got three steps beyond the trenches.”
Why it's great
Three steps makes the slaughter measurable and impossible to argue with.
Register
Neutral
Use it yourself
Most of them were out before the first hour ended.
“was your behavior different in any respect from that of the other men in your company?”
Why it's great
The stilted phrasing is itself the insult: only a coward would stand out.
Register
Formal
Use it yourself
Was your work different in any respect from that of the others?
“picking by lot was eminently fair in this case.”
Why it's great
Calling a lottery eminently fair is the film's sharpest little joke.
Register
Formal
Use it yourself
Choosing by seniority was eminently fair in this case.
“The accused is not being tried for his former bravery...”
Why it's great
Past courage is dismissed in one clause, and the trap closes.
Register
Formal
Use it yourself
You're not being judged for last year, but for this quarter.
Up next · 11a stain on somethingThe scene: Dax's Final Plea at the Court-MartialTakeaways
What you walk away with- A lottery can be dressed up as perfect fairness.
- Bravery in old battles counts for nothing in this room.
- The accused answers honestly and still loses ground.
- Immaterial is the word that closes the door on honor.
People also search
Questions, then the linesWhat does Arnaud say about how far he advanced?
He says he went as far as his own wire and no further, because Captain Renouart ordered him back to the trenches. His honesty is then used against him.
Why does the prosecutor ask 'you mean to tell me'?
He is not asking for information; he is framing Arnaud's answer as absurd in front of the court, turning a fact into a confession of cowardice.
Why does the court reject Arnaud's past bravery?
It rules that the citations are immaterial, since he is being tried for recent cowardice, not for earlier courage. The defense is left with almost nothing.
What argument does the prosecutor make about picking by lot?
He claims that because the whole company failed to advance, choosing an example by lot was fair and standard practice in the French army.
What point does Dax make at the end?
He says no one in the regiment, himself included, got near the German wire, so Arnaud's conduct was the same as everyone else's — an argument the court ignores.