Duelling in the Third Imperium

[Jame]

Mud wrestling.

Though I prefer jello.

Duelling a la Car Wars. :devil:

 

[welsh]

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

It is not in the least a limited view to see them as fought over honour, which was my assertion. It is limiting to suppose that honour means only creditworthiness in a financial sense, but only if we decide to ignore the sense of the argument -- which is precisely the game you are now playing. As I pointed out previously, the model proposed in that paper is adaptable to all kinds of other, non-financial transactions.

I appreciate your suggestion that I do some reading on the duelling tradition. Tell me, what books would you suggest? What books support your contention that duelling -- no, not single combat, but specifically duelling -- is the tradition of a "warrior caste?" Can you point to any online resources?

I'm sure that people looking for info on the duelling tradition would benefit.

 

[welsh]

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

Indeed. As with manners and other customs, duelling begins with the nobles and then is adopted by others.

I suggest its the junior nobles -- the knights and baronets -- and the gentlemen who most often duel in the Imperium.

There are numerous references to the honour culture of the Imperium. If we return to the reasons honour is said to matter -- time and distance -- then the vital issues of honour are fairly obvious:
1) can you be trusted to act in good faith on behalf of the boss?
2) do you put the boss's interests above your own?
3) will you safeguard the confidence of the boss?
4) will you make every effort to make sure vital info gets to the boss?

It's not creditworthiness here, but trustworthiness -- but the same rationale for duelling applies.

Suppose we have a gentleman; let's call him Bob. Bob is asked by Marquis Whatsit to carry a vital message to Viscount Whosit. And because Bob must use his initiative, he is also given confidential background information about the situation. How well Bob does this -- represents Whatsit, safeguards his confidence, acts in his interest -- determines his social advancement. The suggestion that he is not trustworthy can destroy his career.

This is very much the stuff of duels.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It is not in the least a limited view to see them as fought over honour, which was my assertion.

Yes, but that is not what the paper is about. My comment was about the paper.

It is limiting to suppose that honour means only creditworthiness in a financial sense, but only if we decide to ignore the sense of the argument -- which is precisely the game you are now playing.

The paper was very specifically built on the concept of honour as creditworthiness.

As I pointed out previously, the model proposed in that paper is adaptable to all kinds of other, non-financial transactions.

Yes, the paper suggested that in the closing remarks, without expanding on it or in any way showing how that would be done, as I quoted in full before.

 

[Condottiere]

To ensure all things are equal, duelling should be conducted in battle dress.

You can go until one or both suits are disabled, or until someone actually is wounded.

 

[McPerth]

To ensure all things are equal, duelling should be conducted in battle dress.

You can go until one or both suits are disabled, or until someone actually is wounded.

Duels used to be a proof of valor. Going so much armoured to them (or according it) would be seen at best as cowardice, and at worst as moking the duel itself, and so an insult to those that take it seriously.

 

[welsh]

Yes, the paper suggested that in the closing remarks, without expanding on it or in any way showing how that would be done....

Thus my assertion that you need to read more broadly.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Thus my assertion that you need to read more broadly.

Very well, I spent an hour doing basic research.


Traditional germanic law contains a formal duelling code restricted to the warrior class (all free men), e.g. Holmgång. The code contains a prearranged formal combat to settle issues, e.g. insults. It appears to be referred to as duelling in English.


This developed into Medieval Germanic trial by combat, also known as judicial duel or duellum. It was a formal legal duelling code to settle legal issues. While commoners could petition the court to be allowed to duel, nobles (the warrior caste) had an automatic right to settle their issues by duel.


This developed into the early Code Duello in the Empire that specifically applied to gentlemen, which was formally defined as a rank of nobility (de jure the warrior caste, if not de facto) in at least France and England. It was not until the 19th century that the common usage of the word referred to commoners. Unlike the earlier legal codes this is an informal code that spread over Europe and is soon outlawed because of the bloodshed it caused, e.g. 4000 French nobles are said to have been killed in duels in an 18 year period around 1600.


Using the phrase "warrior caste" for the European feudal nobility seems fairly common.


So in conclusion, for the first thousand years or so of the European duelling code it was restricted to the warrior class, just as similar codes in Japan and India. It was only in the 19th century when revolution and capitalism broke the nobility's power that commoners started to fight duels, even if that was, in Europe at least, predominantly military officers. By that time duels had of course been illegal in most of Europe for centuries.


None of this seems to be especially controversial or obscure history to me. I suspect we are simply talking past each other about this.

 

[lostscout5]

Discussion of the foil in another thread leads me to ask ... what do people think of duelling in the Third Imperium?

By which I mean, one world may ban duelling, and another may have a duelling tradition, but what is the Imperial culture? Do nobles duel? Given the culture of honor, I suggest they do ... which leads to the next question: what is their Code Duello?

One of the fun things to remember about the Third Imperium is that it is an amalgamation of the more militaristic Solomani culture and the more bureaucratic/corporate Vilani culture. The nobles of the first Imperium came up through the ranks of the bureaus. The nobles of the Second Imperium came up through the ranks of the Solomani navy. The Nobles of the Third Imperium appear to be a mix of both. Dueling seems out of character for the Vilani, but not for the Solomani. The differing view points may be fun to play with in YTU. I think the ceremonial weapons carried by nobles may be a combination of a badge of rank and a nod to the past. An official Code Duello would only apply in starports and other Imperial territory. Each Planet would handle it according to it's own law level. Dueling on a law level 6 or higher planet probably wouldn't be allowed outside of the port, regardless of honor.

 

[welsh]

An official Code Duello would only apply in starports and other Imperial territory.

We have to distinguish between the Imperial culture and the cultures of worlds within the Imperium.

Worlds will be incredibly varied. This is the whole rationale behind the Imperium as described, right from the start: to create a context within which all kinds of adventures are possible. Consequently, we can't generalize about duelling on worlds.

The Imperial culture belongs to those who belong more to the interstellar travelling culture than to worlds. It belongs to nobles and, more importantly, to their hangers-on and supporters.

And for these guys, the Code Duello would apply, no matter where they are; it's just that local laws might prevent them actually fighting the duel on-site. You can give offence on a world with LL A, receive a challenge to duel in consequence, and actually fight the duel on someone's yacht. (Please don't bleed on the carpet.)

This reminds us that there's no point in Gentleman Jim, offended by some local official on Backwater, challenging that official to a duel. If the world does not share in that Imperial culture of honour, there is no stain on the local's honour in, say, laughing and walking away.

 

[Thanos]

But would it really?

It's been shown that the developers of the game feel that dueling is a part of Imperial culture but with what little cannon I have, I don't buy it.

Sure. Maybe up to junior officers in the military and planetary nobles (planet dependent) but at the Imperial level? No. There are two things that are influencing my conclusion, one having been noted by others. The practical limits of time/distance and the societal pressure of stability. The Imperium craves, nay demands, despite many wars (civil and other wise), stability. Maybe I'm reading cannon wrong but that's my take on it.

 

[welsh]

Where is the evidence that the Imperium demands stability?

Is it in the widespread use of mercenaries? The practice of tradewar? Its history of political assassinations?

 

[Condottiere]

The military would forbid it amongst serving officers, and you can't use it to directly profit from it.

 

[Thanos]

Where is the evidence that the Imperium demands stability?

Is it in the widespread use of mercenaries? The practice of tradewar? Its history of political assassinations?

Because the Imperium will let planets do what ever they want until it interferes with trade. Good healthy trade, the kind the Imperium wants, requires stability.

 

[Whipsnade]

... I don't buy it.

What you buy or don't buy for YTU is your call.

In the OTU, however, dueling is canonical. I've posted a published NPC who is specificallay noted to be a duelist and there are descriptions of NPCs in T4 and other versions with dueling scars. Dueling exists at the Imperial level in the OTU.

The practical limits of time/distance and the societal pressure of stability.

Welsh has posted academic studies on the topic which explain that dueling assisted in maintaining social stability in the face of time/distance issues. Dueling and the threat of duels helped create and maintain an individual's personal reputation for honesty, probity, and honorable behavior when the 20th/21st Century concept of background checks were either incredibly hard or impossible.

Why wouldn't such a mechanism also exist in a setting where interstellar communications are limited to the speed of jump?

 

[welsh]

Because the Imperium will let planets do what ever they want until it interferes with trade. Good healthy trade, the kind the Imperium wants, requires stability.

Agreed to a point.

You're right that commerce relies on the rule of law. We can't trade in an environment where I can decide to shoot you and take your goods rather than paying for them.

But the Imperium does tolerate violence up to a point. I mentioned mercenary wars and tradewar. One reason may be that the megacorporations profit from these things. Another may be that this kind of violence provides justification for the Imperial protection racket. (Here see Charles Tilly's essay, "War-Making and State-Making as Organized Crime.")

A third and perhaps most important reason is that Traveller is a game, and these scenarios allow for fun gaming.

Duelling is surely less disruptive economically than mercenary wars.

In any case, the theory behind this mercenary stuff, canonically, is that it provides an "outlet" for tensions -- that is, a means of resolving disputes. This is precisely why duelling existed, historically: it formalized interpersonal violence. Instead of a world in which we have a disagreement, you kill me, and our families remain locked in an endless Hatfield-McCoy feud, duelling was supposed to be a deadly lawsuit: when the duel is settled, the matter is settled. This never quite worked in practice, but the idea was to reduce violence.

So I don't think the idea that duelling can exist in the Imperium is far-fetched. It's certainly less far-fetched than tradewar.