[MicroBalrog]

I have two small questions to you people in L+P.

Should we bring dueling back?

And if yes, what laws/rules should regulate it to ensure no-one cheats?

[Jim March]

You know, I've done some thinking about this.

Dueling is seen as a pro-liberty, pro-individual-rights issue by some Libertarians, such as L. Neil Smith.

The problem with dueling is that it's predicated on an "honor culture" so extreme, that to NOT duel would be seen as "chicken" or something and would ostracize you from the community.

So the possibilities for abuse and "bullying" are just too crazy.

The Arab world is an extreme example of an "honor-based society" and...sorry, I don't like what that does culturally.

On a more practical note: look at the amount of dirt-digging I engage in, exposing crooks in government. If dueling was allowed, Jesus H. Christ, I'd have been invited to at least half a dozen or more already :uhoh:. And that's not something *I* would describe as "justice" :scrutiny:.

[MicroBalrog]

Technically, it was still legal in Russia until the revolution (or at least, unprosecuted, but those who did not duel were not ostracised, at least not after the start of the second half of the 19th century.

[Hkmp5sd]

Sure! M16s on full-auto at 20 paces! :)

[Chris Rhines]

Since I think that human beings own their own bodies and minds, I have no problem with two people entering into a duel of their own free will. I doubt it's a custom I would participate in, though.

Were dueling brought back, the laws/regulations would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. As long as the two principles agree, and as long as no uninvolved parties are injured, then anything goes.

- Chris

[MicroBalrog]

the laws/regulations would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis

Sounds right, but... assessed based on what principle?

[Chris Rhines]

Sounds right, but... assessed based on what principle? This one: "As long as the two principles agree, and as long as no uninvolved parties are injured, then anything goes."

A duel is a contract, used as a means of settling a dispute. In a free society, there are no limits to the terms of a contract entered into by consenting adults.

- Chris

[Jeff Timm]

As I recall the Confederate forces lost more officers in duels that to enemy fire. I suspect the results speak for themselves.

Geoff
Who shows respect for others ability, by shooting them in the back.

[Kaylee]

Jeff -- ALL officers, or just top brass? The latter I could maybe believe.. the former not a chance in heck.

I tend to agree with Chris on this one -- if two folks want to settle their disagreements with pistols at twenty paces, I'm not gonna get between 'em.

;)


-K


Tis not so deep as a well, nor wide as a church door, but mind you tis enough... interrupting other people's duels is a risky business.

[MicroBalrog]

Kaylee - R&J, right?

[Art Eatman]

The problem is avoiding the development of a caste of bully-boys: The skills of a Rob Leatham or a Chip McCormick, but the character of a Saddam Hussein.

Art

[Jim March]

And therein lies the problem: the rise of such would be inevitable.

[Legionnaire]

No, I don't think we should bring dueling back. But we should bring honor back ... real honor that is based on excellent character, not some blissninny conception of "self esteem" that gets all huffy when one is "dissed."

[Chris Rhines]

Very little in this world is inevitable; I don't see your Rob Leatham/Saddam Hussein surviving very long before someone challenged him to a duel, say, with sabers. Or hand grenades. Or just shot him in the back on general principles. I'd shed few tears.

Now if our theoretical BG had a bunch of thugs watching his back and handling his scutwork, well, that's a different story... ;)

Something worth mentioning; there's no reason at all why dueling has to be of the, "Meet me upon the field of honor at dawn, pistols for two and coffee for one," variety. If two people want to settle a dispute, they're free to use any test of skill or chance that they can both agree on. Dueling via a game of chess doesn't have quite the same drama as the Code Duello, but it has other advantages.

- Chris

[Joe Demko]

I don't see your Rob Leatham/Saddam Hussein surviving very long before someone challenged him to a duel, say, with sabers.

Historically, the challenged party chooses the weapons. Also, according to the code duello as followed in Ireland (and most everywhere else) if one swore upon his honor that one was no swordsman, then pistols were the order of the day.
Duelling was supposed to be an affair between gentlemen. One did not duel with people of lower social station. One simply had such ruffians flogged or killed. Bringing it back isn't a good idea in a more or less egalitarian society such as our own. Art Eatman already hit the main reason why.

Golgo-13
whose family was of the aristocracy back in old country
(Curse those Bolsheviks!)

[rrader]

Chris Rhines:

A duel is a contract, used as a means of settling a dispute. In a free society, there are no limits to the terms of a contract entered into by consenting adults.

In a free society you wouldn't want to see an unlimited right to contract. Illegal activities ought not to be subject to contracting. Contracting for the commission of a murder, for example, is itself an illegal act and is is a type of unenforceable contract.

[c_yeager]

No one has yet come up with any possible advantage to legalized dueling. What would be the point? Why SHOULD it be legal?

[Giant]

I am all for real honor in our society. A duel now and then would keep one sharp and courteous. It could lead to a polite society.


Oh I'm sorry, I thought you said three! paces, turn and fire... My bad, shall we start anew? On the count of three... :eek:


Giant

[Orthonym]

In theory, I'm in favor of bringing back duels. In practice, I think of all the times I've been horribly rude to people who nonetheless let me live.

[MicroBalrog]

Historically, the challenged party chooses the weapons.


IIRC it was different in some countries, Russia, France and Prussia, for example.

[MicroBalrog]

Why SHOULD it be legal?

The question should never be "why should it be legal?" The question should be "why should it be illegal"?

[c_yeager]

Perhaps because we are a civilized society that has learned to solve minor personal conflicts without bloodshed.

In Russia i believe swords were the weapon used in dueling. If im not mistaken a lot of measures were put into place to see to it that the duels did not result in death as well. Although, this was never always the case.

[MicroBalrog]

You're incorrect, since not only swords, but also handguns were used.

See, for example, "Yevgeni Oniegin"

[c_yeager]

Interesting that you should mention Yevgeny Onegin. A fine work by Pushkin. Sad that the world lost such a great mind as Pushkin at such a young age (37). You might care to look up how he died. It stands as just one example of the foolishness of such an enterprise.

and your right, pistols as well as swords were used in russia.

edited for spelling

[MicroBalrog]

That was... a rational argument?:uhoh:

I don't have an opinion either way, really, but...:uhoh:

[c_yeager]

It seems pretty rational to me being that Pushkin was killed in a duel.

[MicroBalrog]

A duel in which he was the challenger IIRC.

[Jeff Timm]

Kaylee opined:
Jeff -- ALL officers, or just top brass? The latter I could maybe believe.. the former not a chance in heck.

As far as I know, all officers. I suspect it's the hot headed junior officers who were killed in large numbers anyway. I've heard this from several sources, including the Ken Burns series on PBS. I believe it's also in a book of amazing facts from the civil war, title of which I don't recall.

Geoff
Who has to figure out how to gently wake up a sleeping wife who stayed up way too late reading yesterday.

[MicroBalrog]

Any reference/link?

[Joe Demko]

I've posted this before, Microbalrog, but you may find it informative:

From "The Duel a History" by Robert Baldick copyright 1965

"The most important and comprehensive of these works for the English speaking world was undoubtedly the Irish code duello 'adopted at the Clonmel Summer Assizes, 1777, for the government of duellists, by the gentlemen of Tipperary, Galway, Mayo, Sligo, and Roscommon and prescribed for general adoption throughout Ireland'. This code, although relating particularly to the pistol duel in Ireland towards the end of the eighteenth century, was basically the same as earlier and later codes enforced in England and on the Continent. The rules which it contained were known in Galway as the twenty-six commandments, and were as follows:
I. The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology because he gave the first offence and (after fire) B may explain away the retort by subsequent apology.
II. But if the parties would rather fight on, then, after two shots each (but in no case before), B may explain first and A apologize afterwards.
N.B. The above rules apply to all cases of offences in retort not of a stronger class than the example.
III. If a doubt exists who gave the first offence, the decision rests with the seconds. If they will not decide or cannot agree, the matter must proceed to two shots, or to a hit if the challenger requires it.
IV. When the lie direct is the first offence, the aggressor must either beg pardon in express terms, exchange two shots previous to apology, or three shots followed by explanation, or fire on till a severe hit be received by one party or the other.
V. As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstances among gentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult. The alternatives, therefore, are:The offender handing a cane to the injured party to use on his back, at the same time begging pardon; firing until one or both are disable; or exchanging three shots and then begging pardon without the proffer of the cane. N.B. If swords are used, the parties engage until one is well bloodied, disabled, or disarmed, or until, after receiving a wound and blood being drawn, the agressor begs pardon.
VI. If A gives B the lie and B retorts by a blow (being the two greatest offences), no reconciliation can take place till after two discharges or a severe hit, after which B may beg A's pardon for the blow, and then A may explain simply for the lie, because a blow is never allowable, and the offence of the lie, therefore, merges in it. N.B. Challenges for undivulged causes may be conciliated on the ground after one shot. An explanation or the slightest hit should be sufficient in such cases, because no personal offence transpired.
VII. But no apology can be received in any case after the parties have already taken their ground without exchange of shots.
VIII. In the above case, no challenger is obliged to divulge his cause of challenge (if private) unless required to do so by the challenged before their meeting.
IX. All imputation of cheating at play, races, etc. to be considered equivalent to a blow, but may be reconciled after one shot, on admitting their falsehood and begging pardon publicly.
X. An insult to a lady under a gentleman's care or protection to be considered as by one degree a greater offence than if given to the gentleman personally, and to be regarded accordingly.
XI. Offences originating or accruing from the support of ladies' reputations to be considered as less unjustifiable than any others of the same class, and as admitting of slighter apologies by the agressor. This to be determined by the circumstances of the case, but always favourably to the lady.
XII. No dumb firing or firing in the air is permitted in any case. The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offence, and the challenged ought, if he gave offence, to have made an apology before he came on the ground; therefore children's play must be dishonourable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.
XIII. Seconds to be of equal rank in society with the principals they attend, inasmuch as a second may either choose or chance to become a principal and equality is indispensable.
XIV. Challenges are never to be delivered at night, unless the party to be challenged intends leaving the place of offence before morning; for it is desirable to avoid all hotheaded proceedings.
XV. The challenged has the right to choose his own weapons unless the challenger gives his honour he is no swordsman, after which, however, he cannot decline any species of weapon proposed by the challenged.
XVI. The challenged chooses his ground, the challenger chooses his distance. the seconds fix the time and terms of firing.
XVII. The seconds load in the presence of each other, unless they give their mutual honours that they have charged smooth and single, which shall be held sufficient.
XVIII. Firing may be regulated, first, by signal: secondly by word of command,; or, thirdly at pleasure, as may be agreeable to the parties. In the latter case, the parties may fire at their reasonable leisure, but second presents and rests are strictly prohibited.
XIX. In all cases a misfire is equivalent to a shot, and a snap or a non-cock is to be considered a misfire.
XX. Seconds are bound to attempt a reconciliation before the meeting takes place, or after sufficient firing or hits as specified.
XXI. Any wound sufficient to agitate the nerves and necessarily make the hand shake must end the business for the day.
XXII. If the cause of meeting be of such nature that no apology or explanation can or will be received, the challenged takes his ground and calls on the challenger to proceed as he chooses. In such cases, firing at pleasure is the usual practice, but may be varied by agreement.
XXIII. In slight cases, the second hands his principal but one pistol, but in gross cases two, holding another case ready charged in reserve.
XXIV. When the seconds disagree and resolve to exchange shots themselves, it must be at the same time and at right angles with their principals. If with swords, side by side, with five paces' intervals.
XXV. No party can be allowed to bend his knee or cover his side with his left hand, but may present at any level from the hip to the eye.
XXVI. None can either advance or retreat if the ground is measured. If no ground be measured, either party may advance at his pleasure, even to the touch of muzzles, but neither can advance on his adversary after the fire, unless the adversary steps forward on him.
N.B. The seconds on both sides stand responsible for this last rule being strictly observed, bad cases having occurred from neglecting it.
N.B. All matters and doubts not herein mentioned will be explained and cleared up by application to the committee, who meet alternately at Clonmel and Galway at the quarter sessions for that purpose.

Crow Ryan, President
James Keogh, Amby Bodkin, Secretaries"

[MicroBalrog]

Golgo-13: I am familiar with numerous duelling codes, some far more complicate and elaborated. According to some, the challenged picks the weapon, in some the challenger.

[greyhound]

Isn't whats going on in the inner cities between drug dealers a form of dueling? Now before I get reamed, a "drive by" is not a fair form of combat like a real duel, but it is a response to having one's honor questioned (i.e. getting dissed).

Besides, isn't this what antis predicted would happen if CCW laws got passed? (shootouts over parking spaces, killing someone for taking the last can of peaches in the super market, etc).

[MicroBalrog]

Russian and Arab gangs both have some forms of "fair" combat.

[Chris Rhines]

c_yeager:

Why SHOULD it be legal? Everything should be legal, unless one can come up with a very compelling reason why something shouldn't. I haven't heard or thought up such a reason why dueling should be illegal.

rrader:

Illegal activities ought not to be subject to contracting. Contracting for the commission of a murder, for example, is itself an illegal act and is is a type of unenforceable contract. I agree with you only partially here. Activities which violate the NAP (murder, of course, is one) should not be available for contract. This has, over the years, become so self-evident to me that I sometimes forget to mention it. Mea culpa.

Golgo-13:

Historically, the challenged party chooses the weapons. This is true of the Code Duello, but that does not mean that it would apply today. For a duel to be legitimate (i.e. not murder), both parties would have to come to agreement on the terms of the duel, including weapons.

You seem to see dueling as a means of proving/defending one's honor and manhood, which is fine. In a historical sense, that's exactly what it was. However, my vision of 'modern' dueling has it as an informal method of conflict resolution, used when neither party is interested in more formal arbitration. As such, I think that it would work just fine in an egalitarian, technological society such as our own.

- Chris

[Oleg Volk]

H. Beam Piper's Paratime series featured a society with duelling ("focible discarnation") being possible due to the views on serial living (i.e. re-incarnation). Piper though tthat hypervelocity bullets killed by hydrostatic shock, and so duels were supposedely "all or nothing" affairs.

[ahenry]

The problem is avoiding the development of a caste of bully-boys: The skills of a Rob Leatham or a Chip McCormick, but the character of a Saddam Hussein. Amarillo Slim has a great story about a bet he made with Bobby Riggs. Bet him a game of table tennis which anybody would think Riggs would win hands down. Amarillo got to pick the paddles, so he chose cast iron skillets. Of course there is also the time he beat Minnesota Fats at pool with brooms. My point is that a man would be a fool to "play pistol" with Leatham or McCormick.



Perhaps because we are a civilized society that has learned to solve minor personal conflicts without bloodshed. Bah! I tire of the inane idea that violence serves no purpose in a “civilized society”. Violence is an excellent tool that has a perfect place in human civilization. I can think of little better use for violence than to help ensure politeness, courtesy, and justice.

[Keith]

One of my top ten favorite movies is a little thing called The Duelists. This was Ridley Scott's (Alien, Blackhawk Down, Blade Runner) first major film. The two antagonists are played by Harvey Keitel and Keith Carradine.

The original story was written by Joseph Conrad, whose other great work "Heart of Darkness" was used as the basis for the film Apocalypse Now.

Two young French Officers get into a spat during the Napoleonic Wars. The film follows them over the course of twenty years as they duel repeatedly - whenever a lull in battle gives them an opportunity; apparently it's bad form for a soldier to duel during an actual campaign. The challenge can not end until one is dead because the Keitel character refuses to acknowledge that "honor is satisfied" by a wound. Carradine is the "good guy" and Keitel is the hothead addicted to the excitement and attention that he gets from dueling.

The film examines the dueling code and the nature of "honor" and how that can be corrupted by a man like Keitel. It also has some great battle scenes and is shot in absolutely gorgeous locations across Europe.

This is good, good stuff and anyone interested in this thread should pick up the film on the next trip to the video store. The movie dates from the late 70's, but is widely available.

Keith

[Joe Demko]

I can think of little better use for violence than to help ensure politeness, courtesy, and justice.

I'll agree with you on the day everybody agrees what constitutes those things and at what level a duel becomes appropriate. Until that time, the bloodshed over "dissing" among certain subsets of the population is an accurate paradigm of what we could expect i.e. the craziest/most aggressive members of the population will want blood satisfaction over the most trivial sllights, real or imagined. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the "good guys" are going to prevail always or often on the field of monomachy.

[Keith]

craziest/most aggressive members of the population will want blood satisfaction over the most trivial sllights, real or imagined. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the "good guys" are going to prevail always or often on the field of monomachy.

I think you miss the point of the dueling code. It is only a duel if both sides accept the challenge - nobody can bully you into fighting if you don't want to.

What the dueling code did was codify the more modern concept of "An armed society is a polite society." Ie; it kept people from shooting off their mouths.

And one didn't automatically lose status by turning down a challenge. Many people refused to duel for a variety of reasons; and nobody thought the worse of them for it. A reasonable man only challenged (or accepted a challenge) when the most serious of insults was offered.
If you didn't want to fight, you could simply say that you (or he), were drunk or angry when the insult was offered. Or, you could refuse on the grounds that the challenger was not of your station in life, or was above or below your military rank or simply that you didn't believe in dueling.

You could refuse a duel for a lot of reasons. It is only when you accepted that you were locked in. If you backed out after that you were dead, socially speaking.

Keith

[4v50 Gary]

Naw, don't legalize it. You're an expert pistolero and your opponent choose battleaxes. :eek: Unless you've studied bladed weapons, you're in for a world of hurt. Pugil sticks should be the max.

BTW Jeff Timm - where did you read that the Confederates lost more officers to dueling that to Yankee bullets & iron? Only read about one duel myself.

[Oleg Volk]

One of my top ten favorite movies is a little thing called The Duelists.

Yes, great film. Very beautifully done and well acted.

[c_yeager]

Seems like there is a lot of idealism involved here. The historical problem with dueling is that it isnt just a matter of consent. In a society where turning down a duel makes one a coward and results in being ostracized in your social circle there is no such thing as consent.

[gunsmith]

I'm all for it:D


http://www.outlawslegal.com/arms/dueling.htm

check out this website,it's great!

[Joe Demko]

What the dueling code did was codify the more modern concept of "An armed society is a polite society." Ie; it kept people from shooting off their mouths.

No, that is what people who want to romanticize duelling like to believe it did. Duels still happened, though, didn't they? Not to mention all the duels that took place over things other than a social faux pas. Lots of them were simply attempts to murder another person for gain in business or other monetary reasons. Some were just semi-organized brawls, like the famous Vidalia Sand Bar Duel that brought Jim Bowie to fame. Can't ignore the ones that were just an attempt to eliminate an inconvenient spouse or betrothed of a woman the challenger desired, either.
It's about time to lay that cliche about "an armed society" (Heinlein, right?) to rest, as it patently isn't true. Manners have nothing to do with the presence of arms. Even if it were true, it still eminently possible for a society to be armed, polite, and dangerous all at the same time. Take a look at all the third-world nations awash in guns and tell me about their manners. Do they say "please", "thank you", and "you're welcome" while they are busy killing each other?

[Keith]

In a society where turning down a duel makes one a coward and results in being ostracized in your social circle there is no such thing as consent.

Yeager,

That's based on a myth. In fact, most people refused to duel and often laughed at or even insulted the intelligence of people who challenged them.
We today have a somewhat one-dimensional view of history because history only records things that were exceptional! When two hotheads met in a field at dawn to kill each other, somebody wrote it down. The 25 subsequent people who told their challenger to "bugger off" don't warrant any ink to record the fact.
One example that springs to mind is General Longstreet, who was challeged repeatedly by another General (Hill, perhaps?). There are a number of sources that speak of Longstreet's ridicule and dismissal of the challenge - and nobody thought the worse of him for it.
This kind of thing is not recorded in the standard histories because they had no real bearing on things. But, if you read journals and things like that from old American and European sources, you'll find them full of unaccepted challenges, often recorded in a humorous way. In most cases, the challenger is looked on as being slightly ridiculous.

It's only in the most serious case (someone's wife gets boinked) that a challenge generally gets accepted and is treated as a true issue of honor.

Keith

[Ed Straker]

Pugil sticks... hehe...

Though a few of us have more experience with them than others. :)

[Erik]

"Should we bring dueling back?"

No.

You may only take life in self defense. Dueling, though many things, is never self defense.

[ahenry]

No, that [codifying the more modern concept of "An armed society is a polite society."] is what people who want to romanticize duelling like to believe it did. I really must disagree with you. Of course there were duels for silly reasons. Just like there are modern day murders over a pair of tennis shoes. Moreover, the fact that such duels occurred does not negate the fact that dueling on the whole contributed significantly to the concept of respect, honor, and consequences for ones actions. All three of which are sorely needed in todays “polite, modern society”.

Some were just semi-organized brawls, like the famous Vidalia Sand Bar Duel that brought Jim Bowie to fame. It just so happens that I am more than a little familiar with Bowie, his exploits, and this duel. I hate to tell you you’re wrong, but you are. Sure the duel involved more than one person and sure the opposing sides already had something to dislike about their opponents, but “brawl” it most certainly was not.

[ahenry]

You may only take life in self defense. Not true. Government should, and does, take lives on a regular basis. Where do you think they derive the power to do so? The power to do so lies with the people and nothing forbids them from retaining the same right (other than existing statute, which is changeable).

[dustind]

In a free society you wouldn't want to see an unlimited right to contract. Illegal activities ought not to be subject to contracting. Contracting for the commission of a murder, for example, is itself an illegal act and is is a type of unenforceable contract.
Murder is not a contract between consenting adults.

The guy being killed does not give consent, that is why it is illegal, and a few other lesser reasons. If the guy doing the killing, the guy paying for the killing, and the guy being killed all agree, go for it.

"Why SHOULD it be legal?"

I know this was already covered, but bears repeating. That statement is 180 degree backwards. "Why should it be illegal.

[MicroBalrog]

Government should, and does, take lives on a regular basis.

Do you mean the death penalty? Then I'm forced to disagree.:D