John Fredrick Parker
Donor
With no PoDs prior to 1800, how can the practice of settling affairs of honor between men by way of arranged combat with matched weapons? What would be the knock off effects on modernity and world culture as a result?
AHC: Duels Remain Common Practice
- Thread starter John Fredrick Parker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 19th century duel
Skallagrim
Banned
I don't think you can make this universal (or anything close to it) with any POD after 1800, unless you take one that dramatically alters the world in far more fundamental ways. At best, you might preserve the practice in certain countries and regions (like the Southern states of the USA, or Mediterranean Europe).
The effect would be that the world would be far superior. Many conflicts that lead to useless legal procedures could be solved by something so simple as signing a simple statement waiving all claims as to resulting damages, and just... fighting it out. Insults would carry the inherent risk of this outcome, so politeness would presumably be more wide-spread, whereas slander would be far less common. A culture where you have to back up any 'fighting words' with actual fighting will presumably be a wold with - paradoxically - both fewer fighting words and fewer fights.
An unintended result might be that private conflict resolution of any sort becomes far more common, so that virtually all civil law conflicts get resolved via arbitration, never even coming before a judge.
Regardless of how unlikely the POD would have to be, I'd very much like to live in this world.
The effect would be that the world would be far superior. Many conflicts that lead to useless legal procedures could be solved by something so simple as signing a simple statement waiving all claims as to resulting damages, and just... fighting it out. Insults would carry the inherent risk of this outcome, so politeness would presumably be more wide-spread, whereas slander would be far less common. A culture where you have to back up any 'fighting words' with actual fighting will presumably be a wold with - paradoxically - both fewer fighting words and fewer fights.
An unintended result might be that private conflict resolution of any sort becomes far more common, so that virtually all civil law conflicts get resolved via arbitration, never even coming before a judge.
Regardless of how unlikely the POD would have to be, I'd very much like to live in this world.
I can't think you can make it with a PoD in the XIXth : the concept of honor on which the duel was built already began to disappear in the XVIIIth century in western Europe due to both growing state monopoly on violence, and adoption of liberal ideas.
With the growing liberal triumph in Europe as a consequence of French Revolution, the idea of honor that saw a resurgence in France (mostly because while nobility was more than ready to give up significant economic and social privileges, it really wasn't to do the same for institutional and symbolic features hence why they generally wanted to stand on this hill).
Maybe, if you manage to get a more smooth transition from XVIIIth societies to a more national/civic/liberal identity instead of being trough the revolutionary way, you could kept long enough the idea of honor (while diversely understood, depending from which european culture we're talking about) and the possibility of duel as an illegal way (but relatively tolerated, if not leading to severe injuries).
I'd still see it dying down eventually, being largely associated with an antiquated notion of honor, would it be able to survive longer than IOTL.
With the growing liberal triumph in Europe as a consequence of French Revolution, the idea of honor that saw a resurgence in France (mostly because while nobility was more than ready to give up significant economic and social privileges, it really wasn't to do the same for institutional and symbolic features hence why they generally wanted to stand on this hill).
Maybe, if you manage to get a more smooth transition from XVIIIth societies to a more national/civic/liberal identity instead of being trough the revolutionary way, you could kept long enough the idea of honor (while diversely understood, depending from which european culture we're talking about) and the possibility of duel as an illegal way (but relatively tolerated, if not leading to severe injuries).
I'd still see it dying down eventually, being largely associated with an antiquated notion of honor, would it be able to survive longer than IOTL.
RightHoJeeves
Banned
I feel inevitably too many hot-headed young men are going to die and to the detriment of the state, prompting government to crackdown on the practice. This is what happened in European militaries of the Napoleonic era where some armies lost more junior officers to duels than in actual combat.
At best perhaps some countries or states can have state-sanctioned duels as a legal option to resolve a civil dispute but as time progresses no one ever agrees to do it and such laws remain an antiquated curiosity.
At best perhaps some countries or states can have state-sanctioned duels as a legal option to resolve a civil dispute but as time progresses no one ever agrees to do it and such laws remain an antiquated curiosity.
This type of Duel to defend one's honor was tied to a strong aristocracy who lived by it own laws and traditions. One of the hallmark of modern states was to made everyone, noble or commoner, equal and answerable to the same law.
Duel would become obsolete from the simple fact they are not so fair in nature: they depend from one's skill at arms. Which mean the finest fighter of the country would be allowed to act like a complete jerk with no fear of repercussion.
At best, you could have "sporterized" duels allowed out of tradition, restricted to a certain group, for certain events.
Duel would become obsolete from the simple fact they are not so fair in nature: they depend from one's skill at arms. Which mean the finest fighter of the country would be allowed to act like a complete jerk with no fear of repercussion.
At best, you could have "sporterized" duels allowed out of tradition, restricted to a certain group, for certain events.
I'd argue that duels are still very much of a thing, at least in the US, albeit far less formal than back in Aaron Burr's day.
Not entirely sure what you mean by that.
But getting back to the idea of sanctioned duels: maybe dueling with firearms is outlawed, but something akin to fencing is the sanctioned method, with all sorts of padding, guards, etc. roughly along the lines of the dueling fraternities in Germany--and a referee/judge/umpire (don't know the precise term) as a state employee, not unlike a member of the bench. Both parties would have to sign some sort of document to abide by the umpire's ruling(s). That would work for much of the 19th and 20th centuries; by the late 20th century, something akin to paintball or laser tag could become the prescribed methods.
Then too, IIRC, the choice of weapons was left to the person receiving the challenge. Could make for some interesting / funny situations, like water balloons, snowballs during winter, etc.
Well, for instance, https://cw39.com/2018/05/06/2-injured-in-apparent-road-rage-shooting/
Oh, you meant "sanctioned" duels.
Skallagrim
Banned
A shooting isn't a duel, and "sanctioned" just means "allowed". Even if not allowed, there's still a difference between random fights/shootings/stabbings and duels. The latter are based on the premise that both sides consent explicitly, that it takes place at an agreed-upon time (it cannot occur "in the heat of the moment"; there must be time to reconsider), that both sides agree on a certain weapon, and that there is equality of arms (both sides use weapons that are inspected and deemed equal by an impartial judge).
So, no. Duels are no longer common by any stretch of the imagination.
*Soufflet* I demand satisfaction in recompense for this intolerable affront.
Skallagrim
Banned
Excellent. My weapon of choice is the rolled-up newspaper. To ensure equality of arms, I suggest we both use the New York Times.
I SHALL SEE YOU UPON THE FIELD
RightHoJeeves
Banned
Indeed. The whole point is for both parties to demonstrate a willingness to risk one's life for their honor. The closest thing we have today would be fisticuffs of the "let's take this outside" variety where at least both parties are consenting and the violence is planned.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
I'm surprised how difficult this challenge is generally agreed to be, considering how common to the point of iconic the practice was in the first decade of the 19th Century alone.
Indeed. In the Viking Age, professional duelists used holmgangs (duels) as a form of legalized robbery; they could claim rights to land, women, or property, and then prove their claims in the duel at the expense of the legitimate owner. Many sagas describe berserks who abused holmgang in this way. In large part due to such practices, holmgangs were outlawed in Iceland and Norway in the 11th century.
Well, it was iconic in no small part because it was slowly (arguably) dying out, so worth of being romanticized.