So we now know all about the history of duels thanks to my post earlier this week but what if we want to duel ourselves?
There is always some idiot out there who flames you on Twitter, leaves a rude comment on our blogs or a frankly nonsensical review on Amazon about our books. Conventionally we are demanded to ignore them or commence hostilities in a pointless and insulting flame war over the internet.
I say our honour has been impuned and we demand satisfaction. Now, who is with me? I’m not altogether encouraging anyone to go out and duel as that would be (sadly?) highly illegal but suppose, just suppose that it is the only way then where do we start? Let’s journey back to the days where the answer to almost every insult, perceived and real, could be solved by way of a duel.
There is no reason too big or so petty that it is not worthy of a duel. On 23 March 1829, the Duke of Wellington and Earl of Winchelsea fought a duel at Battersea Fields in South London simply because the Earl had reproached the Iron Duke for not being tough enough on Catholics.
The first thing to do is of course to
1: Choose your rules It is 1820. You are a handsome young Northumbrian travelling through London named Robert Broadale and you want to duel somebody. But how?
The Wild West may indeed all ready by wild but a quick-draw shoot-out at High Noon is completely out of the question for a gentleman. How about the French Code? With 85 rules, it would be hard to find a more gentlemanly code to duel by, but it is hard to concentrate enough to remember everything when all you know is that you want to give that cheeky rapscallion James Pinkerton his comeuppance.
Thankfully there is no need to worry now that we can go by the Luckily, the streamlined Irish Code Duello (1777) It only has 25 rules, plus a couple of footnotes about knee-bending. Huzzah! But one of those rules is that your opponent, the challenged party, gets to choose the weapons. Damn it!
What happens if that oik Pinkerton might pick swords. You hate swords. You bunked off fencing lessons at Eton to smoke and play cards. Luckily, rule XVI says you can avoid a swordfight by swearing on your honour that you are no swordsman. Pistols it is! Huzzah!
James Pinkerton is a monstrous cad, and you want him dead. But you can’t duel someone just because you don’t like them. One duels to defend one’s honour – or the honour of a woman in one’s care – and to demand satisfaction after a slight, insult or violent blow.
The type of offence decides the type of duel. For example, if your foe called you a liar, he is allowed the chance to call the whole thing off with an outright apology after the second exchange of bullets, or to offer an explanation after round three (if you’re both still alive by then). If he punched you, no verbal apology can suffice, but he can offer you a stick to beat him with in lieu of a duel (rule V).
It seems half the rules in the Code Duello are there to make you change your mind. Do they want us to have a duel or not? Rule XXI (“Seconds are bound to attempt a reconciliation”) means your chum Aubrey has a duty to talk you out of it. But it’s no use: you want Pinkerton’s blood.
One night the rapscallion gives you a shove while you are drunk at a party. You can’t really tell what’s going on (as you’re also off your face on laughing-gas), but that probably constitutes a violent blow and is justification enough.
Slurring slightly, you challenge him to a duel. It’s against rule XV (“challenges are never to be delivered at night”), but that scoundrel had insulted your wife, or at least you think he did! Sometimes, rules are there to be broken.
Technically, the challenged party gets to choose. But it needs to be somewhere secluded. You don’t want any undue attention. Duelling is illegal. It’s basically just murder with waistcoats. Admittedly, it was once an acceptable alternative to a court case (a hangover from the medieval idea of trial by combat), but Queen Elizabeth outlawed all that in 1571.
Advertisements
REPORT THIS ADPRIVACY In these more enlightened times, even the Americans are starting to quibble about it. There was a real palaver a few years ago when their vice-president Aaron Burr shot and killed a politician called Alexander Hamilton. Two centuries from now, that duel will inspire a popular hip-hop musical, but hip-hop hasn’t been invented yet so there is no need to let that deter you.
It’s a good idea to have your duel on a no-man’s-land between two parishes; the local law enforcement will all assume it’s somebody else’s problem.
You meet Pinkerton on a misty, swampy island, covered in dense woodland with just one small glade that happens to have an old gypsy woman living on it. Perfect. Honour will be satisfied, Huzzah!
You’re here and Pinkerton is here. But that’s not enough people. You both need a ‘second’ (essentially a back-up duellist). And you should really have a separate adjudicator who can give the signal to begin – a dropped handkerchief is customary.
You will also need a doctor, paid in advance, who will probably turn his back during the duel so he can deny knowing exactly what happened, in case he ever needs to testify about it (Burr’s physician David Hosack did this during his duel with Hamilton). Don’t worry, you should be able to get your money back if you come through this uninjured and if you’re dead then there are bigger things to worry about.
All present and correct? Good.
5: The duel begins – don’t panic!
Cheer up. Guns are still a bit rubbish really, people are generally merciful, and only a small number of duels end in death. Remember rule XXII: “Any wound sufficient to agitate the nerves, and necessarily make the hand shake, must end the business for that day.” Besides, it’s not uncommon for gentlemen to deliberately waste their first shot.
Unfortunately, you’re fighting by the Irish Code Duello, which explicitly forbids ‘deloping’, or shooting elsewhere (the sky, the ground, etc.) out of pity for your opponent.
You have agreed to shoot “at pleasure”, which means you don’t need to fire as soon as the handkerchief falls. A thought strikes you: if you shoot first and miss, Pinkerton cannot simply shoot at a passing pigeon. According to the Irish rules – and you’re beginning to wish you’d learnt the French version – he must aim for a living human being. He will have all the time he needs to line up a fatal shot.
You glance at the handkerchief. It fall… good luck!
But why was duelling such an integral part of society? In our modern age, solving a problem by asking a chap to step outside is generally considered an immature, low-class thing to do.
The following text is taken from a 2010 edition of The Art Of Manliness
But for many centuries, challenging another man to a duel was not only considered a pinnacle of honour, but was a practice reserved for the upper-classes, those deemed by society to be true gentlemen.
“A man may shoot the man who invades his character, as he may shoot him who attempts to break into his house.” -Samuel Johnson While dueling may seem barbaric to modern men, it was a ritual that made sense in a society in which the preservation of male honor was absolutely paramount. A man’s honor was the most central aspect of his identity, and thus its reputation had to be kept untarnished by any means necessary. Duels, which were sometimes attended by hundreds of people, were a way for men to publicly prove their courage and manliness. In such a society, the courts could offer a gentleman no real justice; the matter had to be resolved with the shedding of blood.
How did this violent way to prove one’s manhood evolve? Let’s take a look at the history of the affair of honor and the code duello which governed it.
Nothing is settled in a duel because if the family of the loser does not have control of their emotions or if they are domineering like Trump, a family member will want vengeance for the loser. And then THAT family will want vengeance... and it goes on and on just like in "The Godfather".
If two armies stand in front of each other and generals on both sides decide to resolve their conflict with a duel instead of a bloody battle, I'm for duels. If two drunk fools decide to fight against each other with swords or pistols just to caress their own egos, I'm against duels.
One of my ancestors was in a duel. He got arrested for murder for blowing some guys head off with a pistol. He went to court and proved that it was a legal gun fight and was released free. People like to run their mouth until it gets real. I don't think duels should come back, but understand some people only learn the hard way. The rule of law is better for average people, but the people that are slow in the head and physically disadvantaged seem to want to abolish the police and start a civil war. You can't fix stupid.
I would/could not ''duel'' a person below my social standing.
A duel is (or was) among ''worthy'' people to settle ''worthy'' disputes.
It never was about nowadays' typical spontaneous feelings of being pissed off.
Wild West style Cowboy/Gunmen ''duels'' were a quarrel between the rabble. No one sheds a tear when such a crude person is removed. And only people with little cultural background would even CALL that a duel.
Therefore - as ''culture'' (as in: cultured) has become little meaningful in this century specifically, a legalization of ''duelling'' will only produce more of the Kyle Rittenhouse idiots.
If the plebs is uneducated - you better don't give them ''rights''.
Absolutely. Why? Because back when you could punch somebody in the mouth for being rude people were much more polite. Now most people trash talk & then run to the cops or the media the second they feel they might be held responsible. People are way softer now than when I was growing up.
In some places it's legal to have an agreed fist fight for any reason.
Why would anyone say no to this? It should be for sure! What two consenting adults agree to do to each other is perfectly fine lol. If two adults actually sign an agreement to a duel in which only them is going to get hurt that's totally fine. Don't effect me or anyone else.
I want duels with pistols as sport. replace the lead with beeswax with the same face masks. Go 80 feet out aim for the core until the other gives up. The judges count every spec of powder then makes the wax bullet randomized both gun, powder bullet.
Half the fun is it takes forever and a half every shot. Just them staring each other down. That's also 1/3 the points.
yes i think only with mutual consent, they should be allowed. i am in favor of each way that can quickly and effectively sort dunces out of the gene pool by natural selection and help making humanity better in the long term.
like i would never consent to a duel. i'm not an idiot willing to lose their life over something stupid. but everyone who wants to do that, should be granted the right to do so.
They had duels for all kinds of stupid reasons. Trump or Biden would already killed one or another. It was common with politicians. If you caught your spouse in bed with another it shouldn't be a duel but an acceptable murder. That's one of the big issues with the East. If your wife commits adultery she is put in a hole and stoned to death. Where do we draw the line?
Yes, dueling is technically legal in Texas, but swords and pistols are banned. Texas is one of two states, the other being Washington, that allows consenting adults to settle disputes by mutual combat. The law is found in the Texas Penal Code section 22.06.
Yes and I walk around Texas every day with a 4 and a half foot long Templar sword looking for mutual combat. I've legally hacked 3 people but sadly none of them died.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
m +1 y
00 Reply
+1 y
