Morality of Dueling

[Miss. Marin]

For fencing, I hate fighting with sabers the most. I'm incapable of doing parry 5 quickly or correctly which the entire fencing club takes advantage of and goes for the head every time. However, saber fencing is probably what you would need most in a real battle so in the event I am captured my air pirates I'll be doomed.

[Dax]

Prancing back and forth in a white suit while waving a thin blade? Get some proper blunt swords and go at it.

Why don't you try it once.  And I can assure you, getting hit with an epee hurts.

I spend most of my time covered in little round bruises. 

I know what you mean, I practiced against a lefty a couple of weeks ago.  A couple of days later my ribcage looked like an Olympics symbol.

[EdwardBone]

This topic reminded me of Barry Lyndon. Any of you other guys familiar with it?

Here's a dueling scene from the film, but it's quite lengthy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDupoFh5Op0

[Kogwheal]

Barry Lyndon rules. For some reason, it was only upon the second viewing that I realized how hilarious it was.

[Bajaro]

Yes the one being challenged is meant to choose time, place and weapons. Exactly so the expert swordsman thinks twice before asking someone to duel, as the weapon chosen might be pistols.

And on top of everything, there is the right to refuse. That makes dueling far different from trial by combat. If I believe that the challenge against me were based on trumped instances, then I can merely brush off the person's call for a duel as a mockery.

With rules upon rules in place, the only ones who will meet each other on the field would be two persons who regard each other as equals and who find no other recourse than to fight.

[mechane]

Barry Lyndon's a GREAT movie.

That said, I do not think duelling would work for settling conflicts. The concept of honour involved simply is not present in today's society - and I do not say this with nostalgia. I, for one, am a good example for a person who cannot identify with it at all. Viewing honour as something that can be taken away from you by others, and then regained by challenging the perpetrator, sounds somewhat stupid to me. This is what duels were about, however - they were not meant as "vents" (I have no problem at all with non-crippling, non-lethal ways of fighting each other to vent anger and hard feelings, though I'm not sure that would work, either).

[Michael Augustus]

I'm new to this forum but I find this thread particularly interesting.  Having spent many years as a heavy weapons fighter in the Society for Creative Anachronism and in my mundane early jobs in club security (read bouncer) I can assure you that there is no comparison between the very real fear of pain, injury or death and knowing you are doing it in "sport". That being said combat whether in single or as part of the line of battle in larger fights with shield and sword is a very enlightening experience. I've never felt much more alive than when in a fight either live or for fun. As a mode of conflict resolution it has a long and checkered history. The duel being an extension of the much older "trial by combat" of the earlier periods leaving the judgment of an issue up to luck, God or skill often leaves much to be desired. As a question of defense in our modern age I'll stick to my sidearm of choice for close and long arms for far, I love my blades but if being attacked I want the villain stopped as rapidly and efficiently as possible.

Now that being said I do have this little list of individuals that I would cheerfully have my seconds call upon because they just need to be called to account.

And of course as a rather brilliant fellow once said "Nothing concentrates the mind quite so much as being shot at and missed".

[heavyporker]

I wish I could agree with that, but I live in America where there are approximately 45 murders a day.

Is it not true that in a proper duel, the challenged chooses the weapon? I always thought of this principal that levelled the playing field so to speak.

 I had to speak up. If you say there is 45 murders a day, then I have to say, in my opinion, that's frankly incredibly low in a country of 270+ *million* people and in a culture that *supposedly* glorifies mayhem and murder. And now, I must quietly withdraw. *cough*

[Churchwarden]

True, it could be worse, unfortunately, that number adds up quickly.
16,425 murders a year, which means in an average persons life, say 75 years thats 1,231,875 deaths at the hands of another person, and in all likelyhood at least one of these will have touched upon your life in some way. I can't help but wonder if dueling as a deterrant might lessen this somehow, but then so many things play into it sociological, ethical, psychological...its overwhelming to consider all the possible outcomes an institution such as the duel could play on modern society not only in America, but the world as a whole. Wouldn't it be nice if wars were settled by leaders fighting each other rather than sending thousands to die in their stead?

[akumabito]

I always thought it a fascinating concept if every nation's army was limited to 1,000 highly trained ninjas. Military finding would be unlimited, but weapons would be limited to swords, spears and other sharp and pointy objects which would be strictly regulated. Battles would be fought in specially designed arenas. Each side would enter 100 soldiers, and victory would be declared to the side that wiped out the others... Naturally, the whole event would be broadcasted live..

[Bigglesworth]

The national teams would also be themed:

American stone hatchet wielders vs. English Longbowmen and Men at Arms.

[Dusza Beben]

The national teams would also be themed:

American stone hatchet wielders vs. English Longbowmen and Men at Arms.

I'd put a Native American sinew backed, horn bellied Osage bow up against your finest yew longbow any day.
I haven't seen too many bison dropped with a longbow. Oh! And don't forget the atlatl. 

DB

[Albrecht]

I always thought it a fascinating concept if every nation's army was limited to 1,000 highly trained ninjas. Military finding would be unlimited, but weapons would be limited to swords, spears and other sharp and pointy objects which would be strictly regulated. Battles would be fought in specially designed arenas. Each side would enter 100 soldiers, and victory would be declared to the side that wiped out the others... Naturally, the whole event would be broadcasted live..

Great idea, actually but don't advertise it too aggressively. Various TV stations may like the idea.

I'm new to this forum but I find this thread particularly interesting.  Having spent many years as a heavy weapons fighter in the Society for Creative Anachronism and in my mundane early jobs in club security (read bouncer) I can assure you that there is no comparison between the very real fear of pain, injury or death and knowing you are doing it in "sport". That being said combat whether in single or as part of the line of battle in larger fights with shield and sword is a very enlightening experience. I've never felt much more alive than when in a fight either live or for fun. As a mode of conflict resolution it has a long and checkered history. The duel being an extension of the much older "trial by combat" of the earlier periods leaving the judgment of an issue up to luck, God or skill often leaves much to be desired. As a question of defense in our modern age I'll stick to my sidearm of choice for close and long arms for far, I love my blades but if being attacked I want the villain stopped as rapidly and efficiently as possible.

Now that being said I do have this little list of individuals that I would cheerfully have my seconds call upon because they just need to be called to account.

And of course as a rather brilliant fellow once said "Nothing concentrates the mind quite so much as being shot at and missed".

I completely agree. I did WWII reenactment while living in Britain (RAMC, in case you wonder, not Waffen SS or Wehrmacht) and I found some of the bigger get-togethers and fights quite unnerving, so how much worse would the real thing be?

And to pick up on a different thing mentioned here:

Duells only make sense if every participant knows the rules and plays by them. PLUS: The society in which the duel takes place must be so that cheating would be so disgraceful as to lead to suicide on part of the cheater because he would become an outcast.
But that's a very romanticized idea, I guess.
Some German student "Burschenschaften" still practice ritual duels today. I've been to one of those duelss but I consider much of it to be machoism gone berzerk, totally anachronistic and most of the students there actually came for the free beer afterwards and had no idea what it was all about.

[heavyporker]

 Oh, yes, the "mensur", or German duelling. I read an article about that. I must admit, it does have a tinge of machismo gone rampant. Still, the idea does intrigue. 

[Jarret]

That said, I do not think duelling would work for settling conflicts. The concept of honour involved simply is not present in today's society - and I do not say this with nostalgia. I, for one, am a good example for a person who cannot identify with it at all. Viewing honour as something that can be taken away from you by others, and then regained by challenging the perpetrator, sounds somewhat stupid to me.

It is stupid. Duelling seems to make sense to me only if it's used for the same reason rehabiliation is used in criminals and troublemakers by law already.

Great idea, actually but don't advertise it too aggressively. Various TV stations may like the idea.

Didn't Mr. Terminator himself do a movie that was sort of like this premise? Anyway, you can rest assured that in international conflicts or shootouts in the 'hood that if someone starts fighting, they're going to make sure they have better weapons and that their bullets are tearing into something the other side really, really cares about. Else we could just have nine innings with the ninjas and kick back with some beers.

16,425 murders a year, which means in an average persons life, say 75 years thats 1,231,875 deaths at the hands of another person, and in all likelyhood at least one of these will have touched upon your life in some way. I can't help but wonder if dueling as a deterrant might lessen this somehow, but then so many things play into it sociological, ethical, psychological...its overwhelming to consider all the possible outcomes an institution such as the duel could play on modern society not only in America, but the world as a whole.

But we really don't think about that loss, do we? We're desensitized by everyday life, and we get used to whatever is the norm in our society. Any time someone uses the defense "But we don't do that any more, this is the modern era!" my brains starts hurting.

Wouldn't it be nice if wars were settled by leaders fighting each other rather than sending thousands to die in their stead?

I think Humvee armor would suddenly become a very high priority from day one. 

[Churchwarden]

Sad but true.