17th June 2002
Adrian Ţepeş;5675913I'm talking about slanderous statements made against you and the like, "having your honor offended;" not property ownership.
And also dueling for the sake of one person not getting out alive.
If two nutters are in agreement that they want to kill each other over something as pointless as honor, or just for the sake of it - and they take proper precautions to ensure that no bystanders get dragged into it, and agree that no public services will be involved during or afterwards - then I say let them have at it.
Mr. Matt;5675920If two nutters are in agreement that they want to kill each other over something as pointless as honor, or just for the sake of it - and they take proper precautions to ensure that no bystanders get dragged into it, and agree that no public services will be involved during or afterwards - then I say let them have at it.
For that slander, I challenge you to a duel! Maces and Morning Stars at Dawn!
17th June 2002
That's the other problem with duelling. The other person doesn't have to participate. And in this day and age, where the concepts of honor and chivalry have been replaced with hooliganism and gang rape, I doubt you'd convince the other person that it's worthwhile - or they'd bring friends.
10th September 2007
Technically, they already do :D
"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.
Let me weave you a tale that my paper has been covering:
Two men go to the beach when man 2 becomes embroiled in a physical confrontation with another man. Man 2 is bested by man 3, who, realizing he has won, ends the confrontation and offers to help man 2 up. Man 2 and 3 shake hands and go their separate ways.
Man 1, who watched the whole confrontation, sneaks up behind man 3 and stabs him in the throat, killing him.
And that is why dueling would not work in the 21st century. Because duels in the old days were not about killing, but proving yourself. Often just showing up was enough to have your honor restored. Honor is something the 21st-century man generally lacks.
I agree with Mr.Matt and Red Menace. It just wouldn't work well nowadays.
In general I don't like the idea of risking death over something trivial like an insult. If someone wants to kill a person over a verbal exchange an anger management course may be more suitable than fencing lessons.
If the duel could be fought with non-lethal means that would be better, so long as it would involve some skill and not just be a contest of strength. I would prefer that to a shouting match.
They say a lion's life of one day is better than a jackal's life of 100 years.
For some it till holds true in this century. One reason why duels are no longer in fashion is the lack of ego on the part of offending party [which is a good change].
Scenario 150 years ago: A: In age of empires 2, the mongols are the best civilisation to play with.
B: I think they're one of the most useless ones. I'd say the aztecs are the best.
A: I wonder learned sir is saying that out of forgetfulness.
B: I insist.
A: Ah. Is that so? I challenge you to a duel.
Scenario now: A: Mongols are the best to play with in AOE2.
B: I guess not. Aztecs are the best.
A: You think so? Well the mongols have very powerful anti-siege cavalry archers and their siege weapons move two times faster than any other civilisation.
B: Oh yes. Forgot that. Aztecs have very powerful yet cheap infantry though.
A: Yes. Thats right. But infantry is hardly any good fighting against an army of cavalry archers and siege units.
B: Haha. True that. They're deadly at close range though.
A: No doubt. Lets play online someday soon. I'm free every sunday.
B: Me too. Lets compete soon.
These days the general public, on finding that they have offended someone, apologise for it, and don't make it an ego matter. In the past, they did.
However people still assault and murder others everyday. Just read the evening newspaper if you want a proof. Only the reasons are mostly not ego and they don't play fair either.
Duels were never very common. They were the remainder of the concept of trial by combat - which remained the case among the upper classes who didn't want to get the law involved since they didn't have to submit their grievances to a local magistrate.
I don't think dueling was all that effective at anything. It is sometimes romanticized, but it was really more a thing of petty feuds between gentlemen most of the time. "Honor" be damned, you aren't really helping your appearances especially nowadays if you're just going to physically harm someone just to get your point across.
Of course people will always find the need to engage in tests of skill, be it in sports or vidya gaems, but I don't think of them as "duels".
Einherjar Silberio;5675898I read about some US president, can't remember his name though, who used to "invite" lots of other gentlemen on duels for pretty much anything, and usually let the other shoot first... He'd always end up killing his opponent though. So yeah, I think it's pretty fucking badass if you ask me, but I don't think it's the best solution for conflicts
Andrew Jackson might be that president, but I don't think it was as much of him being a "badass" as it was southern sensibilities getting enraged at any slight, perceived or real, to the his family or himself. One such duel with a lawyer named Charles Dickinson was over Jackson getting offended over something the man printed in a newspaper. This apparently was after a period of insults and physical harm to their acquaintances, and the resulting duel ended up killing Dickinson. Jackson was probably more badass in how he dealt with an assassination attempt, turning tables on the would-be assassin by beating him nearly to death with his cane.
For one thing duels were not often fatal and it was seen in poor fashion to kill the opponent. Regardless, George Washington discouraged his officers from engaging in duels out of fear it would deal great damage to an essential part of the continental army. And of course the infamous case of Alexander Hamilton, one of the finest minds of this country, whose time was prematurely ended because of a duel with vice president Alexander Burr. Burr was angry with Hamilton over political standing and position, but at the end of the day, did anything really get solved? Even if Hamilton survived, it is unlikely Burr would have benefited at all from the outburst.
There is a reason why dueling ended up getting banned. A lot of people got harmed or killed over utterly pointless things (Mr. Quigly called me a philistine! How dare he!), regardless of how much blueblood sensibilities they tried to cover up the whole affair with.