|
To be honest, the reason wasn't anything to do with morals or ethics. It really came down to that dueling was resulting in things like the military's officer core being really depleted. As armies grew larger and larger, the need for an officer core that wasn't murdering itself all the time became more and more important thus leading to the elimination of duels. There was still a strong morale impetus to end dueling, but really it was the needs of the military that really ended it. (And even then it was largely replaced by just having a fist fight over an issue, heck I think the british still encourage settling disputes in a boxing ring)
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
l33t b4c0n posted:What were the rules of dueling? Like if someone challenged me, couldn't I just not accept and go on being an rear end? I'm pretty sure if I'm already an rear end in a top hat, I don't care about "honor". The rules varied along with the punishment for not accepting. You could be named a coward, however there would usually be other socially accepted reasons for not accepting a dual. The reasons usually were as follows - You were deeply religious. - The challenger could be legitimately argued as either insane or had his mental faculties incapacitated at the time of offering a dual. - You could not agree on the terms of the dual. (Duals were usually expected to be fought with the same weapons, or weapons agreed before hand. If a disagreement could be found within reason, no dual) - You knew you were going to lose. (You get out of being a coward, but you recognize the other person was going to beat you AND you need to give some satisfaction for the slight, ie cash) - Mercy. If you were already known as a great fighter, you could deny a dual to a perceived lesser combatant out of mercy. Said combatant had to be married with children for that to work and you already had to have a good reputation. There were also a bunch of reasons you could postpone a dual which were considered legitimate - A national holiday or a special event, such as the coronation of a new King was happening that day or was near. The dual could be postponed till after. - Health reasons, if you were sick for example. - You were already tied into another dual. You could postpone till after that dual, assuming you live.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
fanged wang posted:how do you know so much about duels without knowing how to spell the word duel? Autocorrect is a fickle mistress. Edit: Wow it was dual for every instance 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
NiceGuy posted:For some reason this strikes me as kinda funny. What kind of a prick do you need to be to have multiple life-threatening duels on the docket? Sadly it wasn't that hard. The usual scenario this occurred was when someone did something to piss off a whole bunch of people at once, and usually there was a woman involved. A funny story I remember. If memory serves me right there was an incident in Poland where a woman was supposed to be married off to a guy in another family, but then eloped with a lowly Polish Knight. This caused her father, her former fiance, and her brother to challenge her husband to duels all at the same time. There was then a disagreement on who was going to have the honor of fighting him first, and ended up that her former fiance and her brother ended up dueling each other first in order to see who would fight the Knight. The brother then won that duel and then decided to withdraw his challenge to the knight after the fact. Shadoer fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Pon de Bundy posted:uhhh you weren't actually supposed to kill people in a duel. it was like a big show to see that you weren't a coward. once you hit or shot the guy(you were SUPPOSED to miss on purpose) it was over. people definitely took advantage of this however and murdered the other guy. dueling didn't even stop until the 1900's, and it stopped because Wrestling matches that could end in a cheap murder were starting to be frowned upon. Err... it really depended on where, when, and the reason behind the duel. You could duel till first blood and someone gained satisfaction, however that needed to be agreed to at the start in the "negotiations leading to a proper duel". Otherwise if you and the other fellow said something along the lines "to the death", well it was to the death. Only way out was to either do something to put themselves in mortal danger, like lowering your guard and saying "I yield" or later on shooting your pistol into the air and risking your opponent is going to shoot you. For the most part though, the point of a duel was for two people in a disagreement to have a fair and legal way to murder one another. Thing was you didn't really have a strong court system to settle disputes and a ton of nobles with small armies at their commands. With duels the nobility were able to "settle" things without bringing their few hundred guys to go and fight the other guys hundred guys while burning castles and farmland between them, and then allowing things to spiral into an outright civil war.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 19:26
|
|