Duelling in the Third Imperium

[welsh]

Traditionally, the challenged party gets to choose the weapon....

In the Irish Code Duello, which is the American tradition. In the French tradition, the challenger chooses the weapon (although sabres may be declined).

This did lead to people choosing hilarious and non-lethal weapons, as the duel was going out of fashion. It was a way of mocking the duelling tradition and thus mocking one's opponent.

Not sure why all this focus on a "warrior caste." Duelling was never exclusive to warriors. Alexander Pushkin was killed in a duel: a poet and social activist who had never served in the military.

 

[Condottiere]

In the British tradition, choosing swords was a way not to make it a lethal encounter, as first blood was considered sufficient satisfaction, and with the then medical knowledge, a cut was survivable and treatable.

 

[Whipsnade]

Not sure why all this focus on a "warrior caste."

One poster claimed dueling was the province of the warrior caste despite huge amount historical evidence like the kind you shared.

Other posters tried to explain the flaws in that claim only to be dragged into an increasingly silly semantics discussion as the poster in question tried to buttress their original claim.

Only one poster is focused on a "warrior caste" because only one poster believes that original claim.

 

[pendragonman]

their is a similar character in the Honour Harrington series, a ex marine valled Denver Summervale , who was dishonourably discharged who now acts as a duellist for hire/assassin. he is really good at pushing peoples buttons enough that the other party ends up offering the insult required

He was in the series...something untoward happened

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Not sure why all this focus on a "warrior caste."

One poster claimed dueling was the province of the warrior caste despite huge amount historical evidence like the kind you shared.

The Western European duelling tradition was developed in the medieval age by the warrior caste, the nobility. Women did not fight. The clergy did not fight (or was not supposed to at least). Commoners did not fight, they were in many places forbidden to wield weapons.

By the 19th century the real duelling tradition was dead, but it was aped by the growing middle classes, more as an affectation.

To have a duelling code there must be an expectation that you are ready to fight anyone at any time, a characteristic of a warrior caste.

If I am wrong, which is fully possible, you can show that. Snide comments about me without even mentioning my name will not do that. Explaining how a group that is not a warrior caste developed a duelling code would do that.


Thanks to whulorigan we do not have to speculate about duels in the Third Imperium, so the question is moot.

 

[welsh]

The Western European duelling tradition was developed in the medieval age by the warrior caste, the nobility. Women did not fight. The clergy did not fight (or was not supposed to at least). Commoners did not fight, they were in many places forbidden to wield weapons.

By the 19th century the real duelling tradition was dead, but it was aped by the growing middle classes, more as an affectation.

You're conflating the medieval code of chivalry, which governed single combat, with the later duelling tradition. You're correct in that duelling arose out of the earlier chivalric code, but there's an important distinction.

The code of chivalry did belong to a warrior class (knights), and it dictated the circumstances under which a knight could yield to an opponent without being considered a coward. It didn't really have much to say about affairs of honour.

The duelling tradition arose in the Renaissance as a means of settling disputes, supposedly without bloodshed. Although gentlemen went about armed, duels were not supposed to arise on the spot. Rather, the code demanded that the party giving offence have the opportunity to apologize.

The distinction is that the medieval knight (as reflected in e.g. Le Morte D'Arthure) is expected to throw down at any time; the duelling code is supposed to do away with that. Gentlemen no longer carry weapons to murder each other; they carry them to mark their status, and to deter assaults by criminals (that is, for the same reasons gentlemen until quite recently carried walking sticks).

The irony of the duelling tradition is that although it was supposed to prevent bloodshed, honour codes dictated that one could not back down from a challenge, so it merely formalized bloodshed and perpetuated the custom of killing people over things we would laugh off today.

For general consumption:

Here is a link to the southern Code of Honour, which was supposed to govern duelling in the South. It also includes the Irish Code Duello as an appendix. Note how ridiculously complex the duel has become. By the time this was published, duelling in the US was dying out.
https://archive.org/details/codeofhonororrul00wils

This link also provides the rules of the Irish Code Duello:
https://www.geriwalton.com/irish-dueling-code-or-irish-code-duello/

And this one, the French tradition:
https://www.geriwalton.com/french-dueling-codes-for-swords-pistols-and-sabers/

The most important thing to read on duelling, however, is probably this:
http://www3.amherst.edu/~cgkingston/duels.pdf

I've referred to this paper before, in this thread and in other discussions. It not only provides a rational basis for the duelling tradition, but it also explains how cultures of honour work, and why a gentleman who says something cannot lightly back down from his words by offering an apology. And it should make clear that duelling was never an affectation.

(And also why I object to the idea of bloodless duels.)

The idea of a "professional duellist" fits the model rather nicely -- a man who increases his credit by continually demonstrating his "honour."

Lots of good fuel for game sessions.

 

[Condottiere]

Chivalry and bushido are codes of conduct to control a warrior caste, and a lot was formalized towards the end or just after the period the codes would have been relevant.

With some luck, social mobility in the midst of conflict was possible, and once those opportunities became confined, like a lot things, the drawbridge is pulled up by the ones who did manage to step over threshold.

Relatively conflict free periods, tend to romanticize the immediate past, and without an imminent threat, social interaction becomes formalized.

If you don't have sufficient social standing, if someone who feels offended confronts you, he'll probably threaten to have you horse whipped, or in the Japanese case, the lower social party may have to commit ritual suicide, to immunize the rest of his family or clan.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

You're conflating the medieval code of chivalry, which governed single combat, with the later duelling tradition. You're correct in that duelling arose out of the earlier chivalric code, but there's an important distinction.

I would say that chivalric code (as practiced, not the romantic nonsense generally written down) was a necessary precursor to the western duelling code. The duelling code might be called a watered down extension of the medieval code. The duelling code still only applied to the men carrying arms, the nobility.

The code of chivalry did belong to a warrior class (knights), and it dictated the circumstances under which a knight could yield to an opponent without being considered a coward. It didn't really have much to say about affairs of honour.

The concept of formalised single combat to settle issues existed in the teutonic warrior code that preceded the western medieval code. I would be highly surprised if a 12th century knight would accept an insult from another knight without consequences.

The most important thing to read on duelling, however, is probably this:
http://www3.amherst.edu/~cgkingston/duels.pdf

I've referred to this paper before, in this thread and in other discussions. It not only provides a rational basis for the duelling tradition, but it also explains how cultures of honour work, and why a gentleman who says something cannot lightly back down from his words by offering an apology.

Thank you, that was interesting. But it has a very limited perspective on duelling as only an economic activity in the US South. i don't think it has much relevance to, say, 16th century France.

And it should make clear that duelling was never an affectation.

In 18th century Central Europe it was certainly practiced as an affectation. Mensur scars were fashion accessories, and duels were fought to get them.

 

[Lycanorukke]

If there is duelling, what method would you have to prevent cheating? Hi-tech adds a lot of angles.

In a sword fight? Buy a Blade Combat-9000 wafer and plug it it.
Gun fight? Smart targeting systems.
Fist fight - bone weave and synthetic muscle
Combat drugs to boost your reaction speed.
Concealed sub-sonic generator (to lower opponents balance)

Given the huge amount of options, would a medical/equipment tests be required before the duel? Even accusing someone of cheating would probably result in another duel.

 

[pendragonman]

Thank you, that was interesting. But it has a very limited perspective on duelling as only an economic activity in the US South. i don't think it has much relevance to, say, 16th century France.

In 18th century Central Europe it was certainly practiced as an affectation. Mensur scars were fashion accessories, and duels were fought to get them.

Ok, NOW you want to limit the bounds of the argument to just medieval and Renaissance Europe? Really? Is that the only way you can keep trying to defend your premise?

It is proven history that there was dueling in the Southern United States. In fact, there is a easily verified duel involving a vice president of the United States Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. While both were political elites, that did not give them the right to carry weapons about. Because this case was not in Renaissance Europe it doesn't count?

We have a case when Andrew Jackson dueled a professional duelist Charles Dickinson. It is well known that Jackson participated in more than 13 duels. Since Jackson was a general and thus known to be armed at all times, I guess this one fulfills your requirements?

Senator John Randolph and Henry Clay had a duel. Again, both political elites.

Abraham Lincoln dueled James Shields early in Lincoln's political career. Neither men could be construed as political elites at that time.

Mark Twain had a duel with a newspaper publisher, James Laird. Neither man is known to have wandered about armed.

These are just 5 duels, by historical figures, none of which were economy minded. Further, every person in the 19th C in the U.S. was allowed go go about armed, but most didn't. No "Nobles Only" weapons club here.

If there were duels among the political elites, do you doubt that there were duels among the non historical/non elite members of the U.S. population? If so, how did the main street showdown gunfight become a Western movie Trope? It was based on something. There are plenty of examples of gunfights that started out as duels in the street.

The idea that dueling is just among a warrior caste is just not true. The idea that dueling was just among those normally carrying weapons is just not true. Let it go.

 

[Quint]

This is turning into interesting discussion. I'd like to suggest that people might find The Last Duel by Eric Jager interesting. It's about then last judicial duel in France in 1386. I have a copy downstairs and read it when it came out, it's worthy game-fodder.

Also not mentioned is existing, thought certainly not to a great degree, is the fact of women dueling from the 16th into the 19th centuries. Far from common, obscured by salacious "topless dueling" discussions, but it's there.

Traveller clearly has dueling, for the Ref you just need to decide what function it serves for the scenario. Is it Honor? Judicial? Population Control? Sport? When is it a duel and when is it a brawl? Is a joust a duel?

Really, it's up to the Ref.

D.

 

[welsh]

I would say that chivalric code (as practiced, not the romantic nonsense generally written down) was a necessary precursor to the western duelling code.

Well, obviously. Indeed, I already pointed that out, so it's not clear what you think you're explaining here.

Duelling differs from the earlier code. A duel is a formal settlement involving a cooling off period, through which the parties are given the opportunity to apologize. Also, the matter is considered settled regardless of the outcome, so a feud may not honorably continue.

Responding to an insult with violence, as your 12th century knight would, is not duelling. It's simply fighting.

Thank you, that was interesting. But it has a very limited perspective on duelling as only an economic activity in the US South. i don't think it has much relevance to, say, 16th century France.

Then it's clear you didn't understand it.

The paper looks at the South and the credit market of the South specifically, but it's application is general:
... dueling thrived when and where credit markets were opaque and highly personal in nature, as in early modern Europe, colonial America, the antebellum South, late nineteenth-century Mexico, and rural Paraguay today.

The model the authors propose is not limited to the South, nor even to credit transactions. We can substitute any form of private dealing for credit. Credit matters in the South, but it is not the only asset which could provide a rational basis for duelling. That is to say, "honour" is not limited to the repayment of debts.

Most importantly, duelling is about the integrity of a gentleman's word. The integrity of your word is demonstrated by your willingness to risk your life before you will retract what you have said.

This is seen to apply equally to honour violence outside the duelling tradition, such as (for example) prison violence and intra-gang violence -- and, indeed, the chivalric code.

Duelling arises in an attempt to reduce violence. It came about because the supply of nobles was limited and they couldn't be killing each other off (and crippling economic activity in general) in ongoing feuds. Indeed, one might argue that the rise of a duelling tradition marks the point at which the nobility ceases to be a warrior class. One does not duel to prove warrior virtues; one duels to prove one can be trusted in fair dealing -- a matter of commerce, not combat.

If there is duelling, what method would you have to prevent cheating?

That's an excellent question. But the whisper of cheating would ruin the supposed cheater's reputation, in irrecoverable ways.

 

[welsh]

Chivalry and bushido are codes of conduct to control a warrior caste, and a lot was formalized towards the end or just after the period the codes would have been relevant.

This is true also of the duelling tradition, in which the codes become ridiculously complex at about the same time they become irrelevant. See the example of the southern code of honour I posted earlier, published 1858.

Also, thanks for the reminder re Japanese codes of honour. No need for us to assume that Traveller should model European traditions.

... obscured by salacious "topless dueling" discussions....

This is now the only subject I am willing to discuss.

 

[Condottiere]

Mud wrestling.

Though I prefer jello.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Well, obviously. Indeed, I already pointed that out, so it's not clear what you think you're explaining here.

You were saying I was conflating them, I was trying to explained that I was not. Is it a problem if we agree on this point?

Responding to an insult with violence, as your 12th century knight would, is not duelling. It's simply fighting.

Neither a 8th century teutonic warrior nor a 12th century knight was supposed to whip out a sword and start whacking in polite society. They might not use something we would recognise as a duelling code, but they were still constrained by societal rules.

Then it's clear you didn't understand it.

The paper looks at the South and the credit market of the South specifically, but it's application is general:
... dueling thrived when and where credit markets were opaque and highly personal in nature, as in early modern Europe, colonial America, the antebellum South, late nineteenth-century Mexico, and rural Paraguay today.

I saw the paper assert that, but not show that.

The model in the paper was explicitly developed under a specific assumption:

Although some duels were fought over tangible resources, like beautiful women and lucrative offices, most duels centered around “honour,” a cultural code word for creditworthiness.

I call that a very limited view of a duelling code. It is never shown that this model accurately describes any specific society.

Later it is asserted that

Of course, the concept of “honor” has broader connotations than creditworthiness. While we have focused on the credit market transaction because of its historical significance to dueling, a similar logic can be extended to any situation in which an offended party was unable to discern whether an offense was due to an intentional act of opportunism or to an unintentional affront, or when monitoring costs (the cost of discovering the true cause of an offense) were high.

Yet that is not done or validated.

This paper may well be telling us something important about duels, but I do not see that it tells us everything, or even most, of the function or background of duels.

I haven't looked at the references, so they may provide more evidence?

 

[Quint]

This is now the only subject I am willing to discuss.

LOL, the duel was over flower arrangements IIRC, and the toplessness was insisted upon because one of the ladies in question had been nurse during the Crimean War (I may be misremembering that) and agreed with Lister about the importance of keeping wounds clean. The lack of clothing was to prevent any cloth from being pushed into the wound and creating an infection/blood poisoning.

Kind of fascinating actually.

D.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Ok, NOW you want to limit the bounds of the argument to just medieval and Renaissance Europe? Really? Is that the only way you can keep trying to defend your premise?

No, why do you think that?

A general description of duels would have to accurately describe both 16th century French duels and 19th century US South duels.

 

[welsh]

I call that a very limited view of a duelling code. It is never shown that this model accurately describes any specific society.

Duelling was always about honour. A great deal of other violence is explicitly about honour.

You have some reading to do.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

most duels centered around “honour,” a cultural code word for creditworthiness.

I call that a very limited view of a duelling code.

Duelling was always about honour. A great deal of other violence is explicitly about honour.

You have some reading to do.

Yes, I think it is a very limited view of duelling to see them as mostly fought over creditworthiness.

I'm sure I have quite a lot of reading to do, but I'm afraid that I'm not alone at that.

 

[aramis]

Historical codes duello were NOT "just the nobles"...

The Italian, French and English duelling schools were mostly filled by townsmen and cityfolk, NOT nobles. (See di Grassi's instruction manuals for historic reference to this. And Saviolo. And several others.)

Now, certain cultures have a duelling tradition for all persons. Those are few and far between...
... farming cultures cannot afford the loss of work.
... general working class groups cannot afford the loss of skilled labor.

It takes a warrior class and/or a leisured class to afford the losses. Even non-lethal dueling has losses of labor time.

Duelling cultures have traditionally been subcultures.

Shogunate Japan is an exception. The dueling culture in Japan had numerous forms of non-lethal non-combat duel options - most of which required an assembled jury. And which were allowed to all classes, within class. Even farmers had a dueling option or three - poetry recitation, painting, rice spitting... everyone had a method of attempting to extract an apology via a duel. In truth, each social caste was a separate dueling subculture.

Still, overall, Dueling was not the warrior caste's hobby - it was a townsman thing, even in Japan. Ji-Samurai with time to kill.