Talk:Duel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] In regards to the objectivity of this entry

"Despite the romanticism of dueling in some literature, dueling is an extremely dangerous practice..."

dueling is extremely dangerous ?

give me one good example.

Dueling is a gentlemen’s game and I would appreciate it if you did not disparage it. Your anti-dueling bias reduces this article to nothing more than contrived drivel.

(sound of me slapping you in the face with my glove)

I hereby challenge you to a duel good sir. Do you accept?

[edit] Beware

Challenging another to a duel may be a criminal offense. From your IP address, I believe you reside in Florida, good sir, in which case you should be safe, as the dueling statute (Fla. Stat. 783) was repealed in 1972 and dueling is now covered in the Assault & Battery statute. However, you may also be presented with problems in the future. For instance, if your challenge to duel was with a person in Kentucky, you may be barred from holding public office there. takethemud 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)takethemud

[edit] Street Racing

Is street road racing a duel of honour?

I don't know, but please don't confuse street racing and road racing. - Coneslayer
nope and Duel me

[edit] Trust

In the rules section it is mentioned that having a set distance, as opposed to a certain number of steps, reduces the chances of cheating; my question is: why? Surely if a guy is dishonourable enough to turn before the required number of steps he will also do so before the the pre-agreed distance. Rje 19:25, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Because they can take baby steps. -KM


[edit] Seriousness of the article

Is it just me, or does the "replacements for duelling" section a bit unencyclopedic? Comparing a card game of Magic The Gathering to duelling doesn't sound quite right for me. My humble opinion calls for a trimming down of, or perhaps a deleltion of, the section in question. Before acting, I will, of course, leave this space open for suggestions and different points of view. FLafaire 23:10, 5 January, 2005 (UTC)

  • I would go beyond that and delete the references to paintball, laser tag, and Airsoft since those are generally simulations of guerrilla and urban warfare, not watered-down dueling. The only entry in this category I'm certain should stay is Fencing because that IS a direct descendant of ealier dueling. My 2 cents... CenozoicEra 04:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jackson?

I was wondering about the accuracy of the statement concerning Jackson's participation in a duel, how he "shot an opponent after the duel had technically ended". That's not how I uderstood it; the duel was not over until both parties fired thier guns. In Jackson's 1806 duel, his opponent had shot Jackson before he had the chance to fire his pistol. Jackson could still fire his own pistol if he was able, and he was. That's how I understand the duel went. If that is how it happened, then I think that passage in the article needs to be changed, since Jackson did nothing against duel protocol, and thus did not commit murder (unless you consider dueling to be a form of attempted murder, of course).

[edit] Proposal

To reduce wiki-stress, we should bring back duelling as a solution to edit disputes. — Gulliver ✉ 09:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Centricism

I agree that this article needs substantial work. It is wholly US centric, and there is very little mention of the history of European duelling, which is considerable. Similarly almost no mention of duelling in any non western culture. Note also that "dueling" is a US only spelling, this should also be included as "duelling" for speakers of non US English.

Indeed. Consdering the fact that Duelling has a rich and complex history in Europe, but hardly any in the US, the overiding focus of this article needs to be thoroughly redressed. Is it really neccessary to list the various state laws forbidding duelling, while Medieval Judicial duelling and the practices of Rennaissance duelling are bare touched on at all. In fact, the article barely mentions duelling with swords at all, despite the fact it was by far the most important convention through out much of the history of Duelling. Also, there is very little mention of the actual social signficance of Duelling in Europe - for example, surely the fact that the French Kings banned duelling as nearly half the men of the upper classes were dying to it is worthy of some mention... 84.92.80.169 14:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Aspects Missing

From my point of view the article is absolutely insufficient because major aspects are missing. A duel in the early modern period is not a combat in which the opponents have the objective to kill or injur the other. The objective of a duel is to take/give satisfaction. This means: If any member of the upper class (in principle aristocrats, in many cases also people in related leadership functions like military officers, students, academicians in general) is insulted by another member of that class, he is not allowed to tolerate that. Based on very old European traditions, members of the upper class are expected to come along on their own - without asking for help from any authority (because it was them who represented authority). The insulted one is forced to ask for satisfaction, otherwise he cannot be seen as a member of that class anymore. This satisfaction would bring him back to his class. The offender has to give that satisfation (if he wants to remain a member of that class as well) and has got several options to do so. The easiest one is to excuse himself. If this is not possible for him, he can accept the challenge for a duel. The only reason for such a duel is that repair of the social structure. --Rabe! 10:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In former centuries sometimes appearing and preparing for a duel was enough to give satisfaction. When the challenged opponent arrived and was seriously prepared, the insulted one said that this is enough for him and that he accepts satisfaction. Then everything was over. --Rabe! 11:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Another aspect which is not covered is what we call in German Ehrengericht ("honour trial"). Some duel guidelines demanded that such a honour trial had to take place before a duel was fought. Regularly three "judges" from the same social level of the opponents had to decide if the case was serious enough for a duel or if the conditions and/or weapons fit to the case. These guidelines said that without such a trial no duel could take place at all. I can say this for military officers and students in Germany. And I am convinced that this applies to other countries as well. Maybe we should collect information before updating the article.--Rabe! 11:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duties of Seconds

My understanding is that the initial duty of the Seconds is to act as negotiators, avoiding the duel if possible by finding a settlement or compromise acceptable to both sides. The principals cannot back down without losing face, so direct negotiations are out of the question. It is a chance to let "cooler heads prevail". Only when one or both parties are so aggrieved that no acceptable solution can be found does the actual preparation for combat commence.

I do not have a reference, but assuming this is true, I think it is important not to lose this aspect of the dueling process.

[edit] Modern duels

From the article: Dueling still continues to occur, albeit not with regularity.

  • It is uncommon, though not unheard of, for members of the same US college fraternity, who finding themselves in a fairly serious disagreement, to fight a duel via fisticuffs. Especially in the South, there are informal arrangements whereby the two brothers meet in a specified place and "fight it out", with seconds. Such an event was documented in the Louisiana Tech student newspaper in the early 1990s.

I see someone has already pointed out that the article is US-centric, but the above statement is parochial to the point of solipsism. Hakluyt bean 14:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pistol Duelling

It seems to be a popular misconception amongst Americans (probably exacerbated by Hollywood) that pistol duelling was invariably performed using the back to back method. It was more common for the combatants to already be standing at some predetermined distance, face to face. Jm butler 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the "quick-draw" style duel is much more prominent in "Hollywood". 66.167.145.10 04:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added:Trivia

Couldn't resist dueling in the arts, so I added a Trivia section. 65.255.130.104 09:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)IHouse

[edit] Duelling in Paraguay - please fit this in

Can somebody fit this in: It's legal to duel in Paraguay so long as Duels can only take place between two people, there has to be medical staff on hand and participants must be registered blood donors.

Maybe in "Modern dueling" Rfwoolf 15:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Germany etc

This has many errors; I corrected two - the definition and the Flos Duellatorum, which was a fencing treatise, not a code duello. The article should include something about the origins in Germanic law.

This is why I would NOT let my students use Wikipedia as a source!

-Ken Mondschein (mondschein@fordham.edu)

Added link to Mensur = Academic Fencing - it's not really duelling any more - just done for fun & personal development !
Hence not in Duel#Modern_duels section. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truel - Game Theory - US-centricity

This is very historical and US-centric. The duel is a key concept in game theory - the Cold War and mutual assured destruction for instance can be modelled as an extended duel. There is also the three-way duel, the truel. These abstractions are of more current interest than the history. Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds has some interesting information [1], search for "duel" to find it.

Can I respectfully recommend that the game theory section being taken out of the main article?

The example illuminates some aspects of game theory, and perhaps belongs in such an article. But everything else in this article deals with the history of formal dueling, so a hypothetical case about an ahistorical, 3-way encounter (not even, technically, a duel) seems totally out of place.

I agree. although the example is very interesting to read, it is about game theory not duelling. In particular, the article makes no reference to three way turn-based combat. Duels were simultaneous move games involving only two participants. If we are going to include a game theory section, it should be on that basis (although there is no point because the solution is trivial). Spoofer25 18:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the history is bluntly stuck in the USA. Lord Wellington also forbade his officers to fight duels, on pain of death. It was a common rule in military formations of that period especially as armies began to include more draftees and clueless officers who had bought their rank (especially in France, UK and Spain).

I moved the example to Truel and added links in 'See Also' section. See above for more non-US links.
Game Theory doesn't mention either truel or duel ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legality

Why would the laws concerning duelling be challenged in court? Who would have standing? The duellists would probably want to duel. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Despite the romanticism of dueling in some literature, dueling is an extremely dangerous practice, often resulting in the death of one or both participants. Ummm, can you duhhh???? 69.58.249.133 14:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not possible in common law to be able to give permission to another to kill or permanently injure oneself. Even with permission of the vitim the perpertrator will be prosecuted. Most legal systems are the same in this regard. Thus I see it as logical that dueling would be illegel even with the consent of both parties. --Robertbrockway 04"33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It could be claimed as self-defense since technically the other person was armed and trying to kill you. Plus, you could not be accused of escalating the fight because you had identical weapons. User:monkeysocks2

Laws are somewhat locality-dependent - this isn't us.wikipedia.org !
Personally when I gave a statement to UK police as a victim of assault this year, they insisted that I must add "No-one has my permission to hit me" to cover the legal defence of martial arts as sport etc !
I suppost you mean 'assisted suicide' etc ? What about surgeons' consent forms ? IANAL ! --(talk) 05:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This statement from the article is something I often see on this subject: "Dueling is now illegal in all but a few countries around the world.". Yet, I've not yet seen anyone actually specify a country where it is legal. I suggest that that line should either be removed or backed up with facts and a list of nations that allow duels. 88.131.91.2 (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)