AHC: Keep Dueling As A Form Of Resolving Disputes

I kind of like the idea of a sub culture of using WW1 surplus fighters for duels in the 1920s

I mean like as fascinating rather than morally good
 
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.

Wouldn't work for Britain at least. Duelling pretty much died out in the 19th century for reasons that had nothing to do with the declining power of the aristocracy - basically it was a combination of public opinion changing to see duelling as something fit only for mockery (duelling could survive being notorious, it could not survive being ridiculous) and linked to this an increasing willingness for jurors to convict winning duellists of murder.

For duelling to survive as even a semi-respectable means of dispute resolution in Britain you probably need a POD in the early 19th century.
 
Wouldn't work for Britain at least. Duelling pretty much died out in the 19th century for reasons that had nothing to do with the declining power of the aristocracy - basically it was a combination of public opinion changing to see duelling as something fit only for mockery (duelling could survive being notorious, it could not survive being ridiculous) and linked to this an increasing willingness for jurors to convict winning duellists of murder.

For duelling to survive as even a semi-respectable means of dispute resolution in Britain you probably need a POD in the early 19th century.

I knew that this was the case with duels to the death, but weren't duels still fought to first blood with swords until comparatively late?
 
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.

If we're talking Code Duello that won't be quite so clear-cut as you think seeing as the challenged party has the right to choose the weapons used. That would level things out considerably if, say, the challenger is hoping for a fencing match and ends up having to go six rounds in the boxing ring and would tamp down a bit on hot-heads trying to solve all their problems with violence.

Another possibility would be a change in societal attitudes to where dueling is more acceptable not due to violence itself being more acceptable but more out of non-lethal dueling becoming seen as more "fair" than resorting to the legal process. Couple this with dueling being opened up to all classes and between all classes and you could get what would be necessary to make that happen although you'd need a change in attitudes and culture for that to happen going back well before the 18th century at the earliest.
 
If we're talking Code Duello that won't be quite so clear-cut as you think seeing as the challenged party has the right to choose the weapons used. That would level things out considerably if, say, the challenger is hoping for a fencing match and ends up having to go six rounds in the boxing ring and would tamp down a bit on hot-heads trying to solve all their problems with violence.

I'd considered that, but even giving the challenged party a choice of weapons doesn't level the playing field THAT much. The traits and skills that people need for a violence tend to cluster, even when you give them a choice of pistols, swords, hatchets, firearms, whatever.

Young people will generally do much better at this than older people, for instance. And ironically, people will pass their prime dueling years at roughly the point that they become important enough to merit challenges.

It gets worse, too. Picture the CEO of a large corporation. He'll have to face down dozens of lawsuits over the course of his career. Probably more. Court issues are just the cost of doing business, and that's true whether the company is honest or not. If all of those conflicts are duels...well, being a CEO is a death sentence. Somebody will get him sooner or later.

You can outsource to chosen "champions" for duels, but that opens another can of worms. It also further reduces any cost savings.

Another possibility would be a change in societal attitudes to where dueling is more acceptable not due to violence itself being more acceptable but more out of non-lethal dueling becoming seen as more "fair" than resorting to the legal process. Couple this with dueling being opened up to all classes and between all classes and you could get what would be necessary to make that happen although you'd need a change in attitudes and culture for that to happen going back well before the 18th century at the earliest.

Wager of battle needs to survive longer, maybe?
 
I'd considered that, but even giving the challenged party a choice of weapons doesn't level the playing field THAT much. The traits and skills that people need for a violence tend to cluster, even when you give them a choice of pistols, swords, hatchets, firearms, whatever.

There are other ways of doing it. for example, Otto von Bismarck was an enthusiastic duellist, and once challenged a political opponent - Rudolf Virchow, one of the founders of the German Liberal Party - to a duel. Virchow, who was not a duellist but who was an eniment doctor who made many important advances in the field of public medicine, had the right to choose weapons as the challenged party. He turned up with two sausages, one safe to eat and one laced with trichinella larvae. Bismarck chose to wthdraw his challenge rather than go through with the duel.

Moral of the story - don't be bound by expectations. Brains beat brawn:cool:
 
Top