Duelling in the Third Imperium

[The Pakkrat]

*sneaks onto the thread*

Imperium Vargr Infighting. Aekhu do it. Ovagoun do it. It's all the rage in the Extents.

 

[aramis]

*sneaks onto the thread*

Imperium Vargr Infighting. Aekhu do it. Ovagoun do it. It's all the rage in the Extents.

The Aslan in the Imperium as well, no matter their species.

 

[Spartan159]

*sneaks onto the thread*

Here now, what's all this sneaking about?

IMTU Honor is a thing. Given the situation has not come up I really have not given thought to how I would do a duel. Would a holographic battle satisfy honor? Bladed duel with medics standing by and killing blows heavily frowned upon? (Such lack of finesse) What are the consequences of winning or losing a duel?

 

[Enoki]

I do not see the Imperial nobility as a warrior caste, rather a ruling caste, hence duelling does not fit.

I see it as more likely that naval officers, or marine officers, duel.

While I see a more militaristic stripe to society. That is, a noble could be called on to raise a military force, or lead it, and thus has to have at least a degree of military awareness and competence.
If you look at the 16th to 19th Centuries, leading political figures, rich nobles, and business leaders often raised units or lead them in battle... Yes, often with very mixed results.
A noble class within the Imperium, and similar stratification of many of the Imperium's neighbors, would indicate to me that officers are selected as much for their social status as for their competence. I couldn't see a Duke or the Emperor not worrying about the political stability of the military officers within their political purview. You don't want the commoners deciding its time for a revolution and the officers in the military leading it.

Anyway, that would lead to a need for a noble or socially important person to have a basic competence in things martial.

If you add to that, that something like fencing is an expected, possibly even mandatory, class at better (more snobbish) universities and such for the same reason, then you have most nobles and wealthy having at least some training in the art.

Since marines still train with the cutlass, I have always included a ceremonial sword in the dress uniforms of the Imperial Navy and Marines.

On the other hand MgT2 has a duel event for Nobles

All this plays to what I outlined above. It's part of the culture and you are expected to have the requisite skills, even if you try to avoid getting into such situations, simply because you never know.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

BTW, as far as first blood goes ... fists were out. To strike a gentleman with your hand was the ultimate insult against honour. To suffer such a blow without challenging the offender to duel was at one time unthinkable.

Imperial traditions may vary, of course.

wasn't this the origin of the "glove slap as a challenge for a duel" concept? the Duellist desired to fight over something that was important, but not a mortal insult, and the slap was merely a pretext that was offered to conform with the existing honour code.

To be honest, I think that the imperium may not discourage such a tradition, or at least the risk taking and willingness to die or be injured over principles that the duelling culture promotes. In a system where executive authority is by necessity pushed down the chain of command to Johnny On The Spot, that mentality of being willing to make a "Risky, but Right" decision might be a valuable trait.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Duelling is not related to a "warrior caste," but to a culture of honour. All kinds of non-military people have been involved in duels. Fencing and shooting were not historically skills reserved to the military.

I'm no a historian, but I have understood the duel as a formalisation of the expectation to defend your honour with arms, which is something a warrior caste is supposed to do.

In England and France the nobility was originally a warrior caste, and hence developed a duel tradition, that was copied by the burgeoning bourgeoisie in the 18th century (?). The clergy was supposed to have honour, but were not supposed to fight duels, even if they were nobles?

In Sweden the nobility were leaders, not warriors. Swedish nobles were rarely knights. Hence they did not develop a duelling code. A nobleman defended his honour with his henchmen. At least theoretically every free man was a warrior, and expected to defend his honour and family with arms, and hence could duel.

As far as what little I know of ancient Rome and samurai Japan the nobles did not duel, but the samurai did.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

While I see a more militaristic stripe to society. That is, a noble could be called on to raise a military force, or lead it, and thus has to have at least a degree of military awareness and competence.

I'm not aware of any canon about this, so we can interpret this any way we want.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

I'm no a historian, but I have understood the duel as a formalisation of the expectation to defend your honour with arms, which is something a warrior caste is supposed to do.

In England and France the nobility was originally a warrior caste, and hence developed a duel tradition, that was copied by the burgeoning bourgeoisie in the 18th century (?). The clergy was supposed to have honour, but were not supposed to fight duels, even if they were nobles?

In Sweden the nobility were leaders, not warriors. Swedish nobles were rarely knights. Hence they did not develop a duelling code. A nobleman defended his honour with his henchmen. At least theoretically every free man was a warrior, and expected to defend his honour and family with arms, and hence could duel.

As far as what little I know of ancient Rome and samurai Japan the nobles did not duel, but the samurai did.

while I cant comment on romans fighting each other, during the build up phases of battles in the Republican era, roman officers (who were mostly Senators or of Senatorial rank) were known to answer challenges form Celtic champions, a fought one on one duels with them on the battlefield (with about even results, I believe) Chinese officers were known to do this as well, in the Warring States period (its commented and complained about in the Art of War).

with japan, its always important to clarify weather any given practice originates in the Sengoku Jidai era (when the samurai were professional warriors involved in semi continual campaigns), or the later Edo period (where the samurai were a caste of minor nobility),

A lot of the more extreme bushido elements come form these later samurai, who were warriors in need of a war, or at least a method of showing off their martial ability (and thus justifying their social status). the super touchy "death before dishonour" sterotype comes form these later samurai, while the Sengoku era ones tended to be less worried about honour (their was enough warfare going on that they could prove their martial valour without resorting to duels).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

while I cant comment on romans fighting each other, during the build up phases of battles in the Republican era, roman officers (who were mostly Senators or of Senatorial rank) were known to answer challenges form Celtic champions, a fought one on one duels with them on the battlefield (with about even results, I believe)

Senior officers like legates and tribunes were often of senatorial rank, but they were not expected to fight anymore than a current general, as far as I know. Fighting officers, centurions, were professionals from lower social ranks.

Defeating an enemy leader in single combat was an ideal, as exemplified in the Iliad, but that is far from a duelling code. It was as far as I know more myth than practice, but I have vague memories of it happening?

Do you have any sources for when it actually happened?

Chinese officers were known to do this as well, in the Warring States period (its commented and complained about in the Art of War).

with japan, its always important to clarify weather any given practice originates in the Sengoku Jidai era (when the samurai were professional warriors involved in semi continual campaigns), or the later Edo period (where the samurai were a caste of minor nobility),

A lot of the more extreme bushido elements come form these later samurai, who were warriors in need of a war, or at least a method of showing off their martial ability (and thus justifying their social status). the super touchy "death before dishonour" sterotype comes form these later samurai, while the Sengoku era ones tended to be less worried about honour (their was enough warfare going on that they could prove their martial valour without resorting to duels).

I know next to nothing about Chinese history, and certainly not enough about Japanese to define different eras.

 

[Condottiere]

Honour can be a complex subject, and isn't necessarily a question of loss of face, slapped or not.

Part of it is a question of being able to rely on someone's word, so by questioning someone's honour, can have implications on how people view his reliability, whether in financial matters, politics, or on the battlefield.

 

[kilemall]

Legend of the Galactic Heroes Duelist prequel story arc, provides reasons and conventions that may be of use to those so inclined to SOC B+ duel problems.

The non-lethal conventions, matchlock pistols and agents would answer many of the objections noted above to the practice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJKVJW1Dqgk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSJHpvbdgj8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3QAsC7s4tc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJp6QF9I0Gg

 

[Timerover51]

Alexander Hamilton vs. Aaron Burr (at that time the Vice-President of the United States)

James Barron vs. Stephen Decatur

Henry the 2nd of France at a jousting tournament

 

[pendragonman]

I'm not aware of any canon about this, so we can interpret this any way we want.

The Duke of Regina's own. 4518th Lift Infantry is very canon.

 

[Enoki]

My (non-canon) Ral Ranta and Anubian Trade Coalition not only duel, but its pretty much a legalized and expected as a way for the upper classes to deal with personal issues and slights.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The Duke of Regina's own. 4518th Lift Infantry is very canon.

I meant about duels and the nobility as a warrior caste.

The Duke or Regina's Own were formed by the acting head of government in the Marches about when Arbellatra rebelled and departed with the Marches fleet. That says nothing about nobles in general?

 

[mike wightman]

In the Spinward Marches subsector dukes are a subsector apart - how do they arrange a duel?
What if instead of dueling they send their household troops to an agreed world and battle it out?
An 'honour war' in a similar way to the megacorp 'trade war'...

(note I already do this sort of stuff in my proto-Spinward Marches campaign - tonight the crew of the Bloodwell are going to be right in the middle as two nobles settle a dispute, and yes I get to use Battlesuit (I hope).)

 

[Condottiere]

Diplomats would tend to remove the necessity, the tyranny of distance being an advantage.

Plus their immediate boss would frown on it, unless one or both had pissed him off.

 

[welsh]

Would a holographic battle satisfy honor? Bladed duel with medics standing by and killing blows heavily frowned upon? (Such lack of finesse) What are the consequences of winning or losing a duel?

How the duel is conducted depends on how well developed the tradition is. Well-developed traditions adhere to rigid codes. Departing from the code besmirches one's honor.

I would assume that the Imperium would have a well-developed duelling culture, like 19th century codes duello. First blood settles it; both parties can withdraw after standing a certain number of shots, if no one is hit, etc.

Consequences of losing, apart from the obvious, are nil. Both parties to the duel prove their honor by duelling. If both parties survive, the dispute is dropped: it is traditional for the party who gave offence to apologize after the duel.

(It is also traditional to settle the matter with an apology as the other party lies dying.)

This all seems ridiculous to modern sensibilities, but the point was that words matter, and you could not retract your words lightly, for to do so would suggest one's words were meaningless.

Honour matters....

Part of it is a question of being able to rely on someone's word, so by questioning someone's honour, can have implications on how people view his reliability, whether in financial matters, politics, or on the battlefield.

I have nothing to add to that.

.... except to suggest that the duelling tradition has never truly ended. Today, we do not call our seconds; we call our lawyers. The libel suit has replaced the duel.

In the Spinward Marches subsector dukes are a subsector apart - how do they arrange a duel?

They probably do not have cause to duel. It's the knights and barons, and even lesser gentlemen, who do most of the duelling.

If one subsector duke offends another, the injured party sends his second to issue the challenge. The challenged party names his own second, and the seconds make arrangements. The parties meet at the designated time and place. This may take some time.

 

[Spartan159]

When I mentioned holographic battles the world domination game in James Bond Never say never again was in my mind, although I could see holographic battles/wars fought like miniatures today. Or Mechwarrior one on one

MgT's ranged stun guns also might be used I suppose. TBH I don't know enough about the code duello to go on other than what Hollywood puts out there.

Per Condottiere's post regarding word of honor, I think IMTU that this would be very important among the upper classes. Then again I tend to be a boy scout and have to work at political backstabbing and conniving and such. I am following this discussion with interest.

Also, I keep seeing Bugs Bunny slipping a brick into his glove prior to slapping Yosemite Sam.

 

[Whipsnade]

In the Spinward Marches subsector dukes are a subsector apart - how do they arrange a duel?

Hard to say. Would nobles at that rank want to risk something as potentially fatal as a duel? Or would they engage in something more akin to a feud or vendetta? Something more long term and aimed at damaging the others influence and prestige? Something easier to hide, deny, or explain away?

That being said, I could see two "high strung" dukes attending a regional moot, an offense giving or perceived, passions overriding attempts at mediation, perhaps a dash of 3rd party or parties Machiavellian politics taking place behind the scenes, and our dukes meeting somewhere at dawn with their seconds.

It would be an unique situation and reliant on a lot of unique circumstances, but it wouldn't be impossible.

What if instead of dueling they send their household troops to an agreed world and battle it out? An 'honour war' in a similar way to the megacorp 'trade war'...

I'd guess it would depend on how "wild & woolly" your proto-Marches setting is. Look at the Scots and English Border families. They were at war with each other off and on for centuries regardless of the situation between their respective kingdoms.

There is a canonical merc ticket involving two nobles (barons?) fighting over a forest. What if that struggle has been engineered by another noble to embarrass their liege? "The Count of Ten? That fool can't even control his petty barons on Timberland-II..."

(note I already do this sort of stuff in my proto-Spinward Marches campaign - tonight the crew of the Bloodwell are going to be right in the middle as two nobles settle a dispute, and yes I get to use Battlesuit (I hope).)

Please let us know how it turns out!