Even after dueling gradually became illegal as early as the 1600s in many countries, it was still a popular method of "restoring honor" well into the 19th century. How might it remain fashionable for longer? Bonus points if you can make it last until the alternate 21st century.
AHC: Keep Dueling As A Form Of Resolving Disputes
- Thread starter Herman Gigglethorpe
- Start date
See also
Challenge: Save dueling
tom
WI: Dueling never outlawed? (
1 2 3 4)
Armored Diplomacy
AHC: Dueling survives to Present Day
Tsao
AHC: Dueling continues to this day
Polish Eagle
and
Dueling (
1 2)
EvolvedSaurian
Challenge: Save dueling
tom
WI: Dueling never outlawed? (
Armored Diplomacy
AHC: Dueling survives to Present Day
Tsao
AHC: Dueling continues to this day
Polish Eagle
and
Dueling (
EvolvedSaurian
Last edited:
See also
WI: Dueling never outlawed? (1 2 3 4)
Armored Diplomacy
AHC: Dueling survives to Present Day
Tsao
AHC: Dueling continues to this day
Polish Eagle
and
Dueling (1 2)
EvolvedSaurian
I didn't know there were several discussions on this already. Pretty interesting. Most of those suggest that perhaps it could be kept if it were restricted to something like "first blood" or they had to use inaccurate old weapons like 19th century dueling pistols.
But it does survive...
It is by no means a mainstream thing and it is all very hush-hush, but duels are still fought, mainly with sabres in Austria and Southern Germany.
Some student fraternities still have the Code of Honour. Usually, when things go wrong, everything is done to have the side at fault apologise, but for certain insults, this is not enough and "usually" a saber duel is fought. Pistols without 'drawn' barrels are used by people who have a handicap of any kind or a disease transmissible through blood.
Now I don't know what it would have taken to keep duelling as a mainstream means of dispute resolution, but I know that in the said circles, people are extremely polite and considered, even when drunk. Everybody knows what can happen if you do not stick to the rules.
It is by no means a mainstream thing and it is all very hush-hush, but duels are still fought, mainly with sabres in Austria and Southern Germany.
Some student fraternities still have the Code of Honour. Usually, when things go wrong, everything is done to have the side at fault apologise, but for certain insults, this is not enough and "usually" a saber duel is fought. Pistols without 'drawn' barrels are used by people who have a handicap of any kind or a disease transmissible through blood.
Now I don't know what it would have taken to keep duelling as a mainstream means of dispute resolution, but I know that in the said circles, people are extremely polite and considered, even when drunk. Everybody knows what can happen if you do not stick to the rules.
Mensur isn't quite dueling. In fact it was created to cut down on rampart dueling.
Yes, mensur is used to settle disputes of a certain kind ('honour'). But it is very much non-lethal unless something goes extremely wrong.
The last 'real' duel (fought with pistols) in Austria that I'm aware of was in the late 80s. Could have been early 90s. And IIRC that was a cross of youthful stupidity and a fight over a girl.
And them being polite even while drunk? Well, those of 'schlagende' fraternities I met were pretty in your face in their own way, constantly attempting to provoke in a way that isn't overt.
So unless you have information that only very few people know, you are grossly exaggerating.
Swordman
Banned
Actually, I'd rather like it if duelling did survive to the present day. Of course, no modern firearms would be allowed (smoothbore flint or percussion pistols only); I am equally good with both swords and pistols.
Swords,of course, would be permitted. I think that I would allow other types of hand-held weapons (axes, maces, hammers, polearms, etc), but such are outside the purview of the Code Duello.
Mike Garrity
Swords,of course, would be permitted. I think that I would allow other types of hand-held weapons (axes, maces, hammers, polearms, etc), but such are outside the purview of the Code Duello.
Mike Garrity
As long as lethality isn't inherent (instead, using "first blood" as a principle), I'd agree that dueling between two opposed individuals could work. If nothing else, maybe it can reduce the usage of frivolous lawsuits, since one's actual health is on the line when dealing with an issue with another individual (obviously, this still doesn't take care of things like class-action litigation or other legal measures, which do have a place in such contexts).
I heard about a case in the Sussex, in 1979, when two persons settled a disagreement about the selling price of a manor (90,000£ for the seller vs. 80,000£ for the buyer) with a boxing match, which put the price to 85,000£.
Maybe such duelling (boxing, fencing) could be kept for settling disputes.
(The last challenge of trial by jury in Britain was in 1818, in the Ashford v. Thornton case.)
I also heard that, in Uruguay, in 1990, an editor was challenged in duel by an asistant police chief he accused of drug trafficking.
Maybe such duelling (boxing, fencing) could be kept for settling disputes.
(The last challenge of trial by jury in Britain was in 1818, in the Ashford v. Thornton case.)
I also heard that, in Uruguay, in 1990, an editor was challenged in duel by an asistant police chief he accused of drug trafficking.
And it would also cut down on perfectly valid lawsuits, just because the accused is known to be a good duellist.
Dueling is impractical because women are less likely to agree to fight duels, and they're now socially prominent enough that they'd be involved in 50% of duel-worthy disputes.
(Though if male/female duels ever became acceptable and widespread -- which is even more ASB than this scenario -- most duels would be fought over divorce/custody issues. There aren't that many other modern issues that make the combatants angry enough to want to kill each other.)
(Though if male/female duels ever became acceptable and widespread -- which is even more ASB than this scenario -- most duels would be fought over divorce/custody issues. There aren't that many other modern issues that make the combatants angry enough to want to kill each other.)
You mean, just like how the accused can still arbitrarily win a case (rightly or not) by happening upon the right lawyer? Dueling isn't a perfect system, but it's decisive (unless one subscribes to a gang-war mentality, which is beyond the scope of most civil suits anyway) short, and relatively cheap to set up. And let's not kid ourselves, who could or would spend enough time and money in this day and age to perfect one's dueling abilities on the off-chance of getting into a duel? I'm not aware of most people keeping a lawyer on retainer for just such an occasion. You're also assuming that said duel would be fought using weapons requiring a wealth of skill to begin with.
EDIT: Now Myth does make a point, although I've met plenty of women in my time that wouldn't have a problem with getting their hands dirty against someone they don't like.
Sort of like today many lawsuits never happen because the accused has an amazing lawyer or team of them.
While this is a fair point, you can always hire a lawyer AFTER someone sues you. You can't instantly develop dueling skills after someone challenges you.
(Also, FWIW, dueling skills are probably cheaper to develop than keeping a lawyer on retainer would be. Just replace your gym membership with weekly fencing/boxing/marksmanship classes, which would presumably be in great demand in a dueling society.)
True, although you'd also have to butterfly away all the chivalry and traditional Western aversion to (publicly) hurting women -- which is more common among the sort of honor-conscious people who'd fight duels to begin with. Because really, what kind of jerk would challenge a woman to a duel?
True, although I don't see why "might makes right" is inherently a bad thing when it comes to personal arguments. Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely not appropriate in most matters between individuals (e.g. a spousal disagreement, professional conflicts at work, correcting a child's misbehavior, etc.), but when the interaction between Person A and Person B is unlikely to be resolved via compromise or some sort of consensus, I think we can chuck the whole "playing nice" element out since it won't accomplish anything any more than a fight would. Really, all a civil lawsuit is can be summed up as litigation posing as might to achieve an advantage of some sort in a legal context anyway, so why play the farce? Enact the fight in a literal sense (properly proctored and refereed, of course, to prevent cheating or unwarranted violence beyond the ambit of the duel), at least then one is shedding the "affordability" of attacking somebody by putting one's butt at physical risk. If nothing else, that physical jeopardy might make the disagreeing parties step back and try to work at the issue in a more civilized manner, with the duel acting as the "MAD Option" in a deterrent sense.
I do think that the gap between duelists' abilities is greater than a gap between most (plausible) disputants' legal resources. Having the black-letter law on your side is a genuine advantage in a lawsuit, and the contingency fee system levels the playing field financially for some kinds of lawsuits.
All that aside, I'd also be willing to bet that duels were more restricted to social peers than modern lawsuits are.
No WWI, keep the landed gentry in power for longer (South wins the Civil War somehow, British aristocracy adapts to investment as an alternative to real estate assets and refuses to back down on the House of Lords), and postpone women's rights as long as possible. That might get you started.
All that aside, I'd also be willing to bet that duels were more restricted to social peers than modern lawsuits are.
No WWI, keep the landed gentry in power for longer (South wins the Civil War somehow, British aristocracy adapts to investment as an alternative to real estate assets and refuses to back down on the House of Lords), and postpone women's rights as long as possible. That might get you started.
I can agree to that, although I personally find such a view within modern society, that violence is always "unacceptable", to be a bad thing; I grew up with the attitude that violence was not to be one's first or more readily-used resort, but it does have its place (even between two grown adults).
Getting to the OP, I'm curious whether there would be any impact on the practice if the use of civil law as a concept predominated over common law; in such a case, could having a codified set of statutes theoretically set a "place" for acts such as dueling within a legal context and remove ambiguity about its use and limits? Perhaps a POD somewhere in the Late Medieval Period to Renaissance, wherein the concept of legal frameworks was starting to become more formalized in Europe.
If you want to get technical, wager of battle is an American constitutional right until the SCOTUS says otherwise. The Constitution incorporated the traditional rights of Englishmen, which included trial by combat in certain circumstances, since the latter wasn't abolished until 1818 in Britain.
Perhaps a few more people try to exercise it early in the Federalist period, and Marshall is feeling particularly whimsical (or drunk) that day. Alternatively, one or more state courts -- probably Southern -- rule that it's a constitutional right, and the Supreme Court never grants cert for whatever reason.
Last edited:
A bit off-topic, but I once created a culture in which the judiciary was part of the state religious establishment, and breaking any law was a sin. This led to a large number of disputes being settled out of court, by duels, officiated by notaries. Though, the "duels" could take forms other than combat; certain games of skill were allowed as well.