NationStates Jolt Archive

I have come around in the past eight minutes to thinking that all private disputes should be settled by dueling, in the manner of our illustrious ancestors. Who's with me?

I have come around in the past eight minutes to thinking that all private disputes should be settled by dueling, in the manner of our illustrious ancestors. Who's with me?
I AM! That would not only be kewl, but I would be really, really good at it! :D

I've just handed in a 2500 word essay on why duelling was popular in Early Modern Europe. I mentioned in my introduction that few people would want to legalise it or engage in it today. Was I wrong? >.>

I'm for it.

I've just handed in a 2500 word essay on why duelling was popular in Early Modern Europe. I mentioned in my introduction that few people would want to legalise it or engage in it today. Was I wrong? >.>
In a word? Yes! :D

I AM! That would not only be kewl, but I would be really, really good at it! :D

Pah! It was always seen as the height of barbarity and poor sportsmanship to actually have any skill at shooting, and it was especially bad to actually aim at your opponent.

I've just handed in a 2500 word essay on why duelling was popular in Early Modern Europe. I mentioned in my introduction that few people would want to legalise it or engage in it today. Was I wrong? >.>
I would not object, as it would eliminate a lot of hotheaded idiots in short order.

I'm against it!!
I piss to much people off ... if you put that in combination with my hand - eye coordination being worse than that form a blind man without arms... I wouldn't last very long :p

Only if the challengee may choose the method of dueling.
I don't need someone to challenge me to a sword fight, but I could probably beat him with a puzzle or math-duel.

Pah! It was always seen as the height of barbarity and poor sportsmanship to actually have any skill at shooting, and it was especially bad to actually aim at your opponent.
Oh? [ aims at Laenis ] You were saying? :D

I've just handed in a 2500 word essay on why duelling was popular in Early Modern Europe. I mentioned in my introduction that few people would want to legalise it or engage in it today. Was I wrong? >.>

Yeah, dude. You were hella wrong.




Hee hee hee. I said hella.

I'm against it!!
I piss to much people off ... if you put that in combination with my hand - eye coordination being worse than that form a blind man without arms... I wouldn't last very long :p
Either that, or you might learn some, you know ... like, actual manners? Ya think?? :p

I would not object, as it would eliminate a lot of hotheaded idiots in short order.
Heh! Really? :D

Oh? [ aims at Laenis ] You were saying? :D

Sir! If you continue this insolence i'll have your name driven through the dirt all over london and even the colonies so you cannot flee there with good name! Aiming in a duel indeed? How utterly uncouth.

If its dueling with swords then fine. But other than that...no pistols...swords are so much fun.

Sir! If you continue this insolence i'll have your name driven through the dirt all over london and even the colonies so you cannot flee there with good name! Aiming in a duel indeed? How utterly uncouth.
BANG!

Problem solved. Kewl! :D

BANG!

Problem solved. Kewl! :D

Hilarious.

Either that, or you might learn some, you know ... like, actual manners? Ya think?? :p

Yeah, but that's why duelling was so widespread and caused so many deaths, at least early on when they used swords Because there was the whole ethos that letting a person offend you and get away with it was an insult to your honour, even the lightest offences started duels. Someone might accidently bump into you on the street and they'd be challenged - and they'd have to accept or be labelled a coward.

If they legalised duels, it would be shite. Imagine the amount of challenges agressive thugs would issue?

hell no! i'm not gettin killed because i stole someone's pen (hypothetically). you did say all private disputes after all.

Only if the challengee may choose the method of dueling.
I don't need someone to challenge me to a sword fight, but I could probably beat him with a puzzle or math-duel.
"Fish at fifty paces!" Let 'em sort that one out...

"Fish at fifty paces!" Let 'em sort that one out...
If you're going by the code, the choice of weapons is either bladed weapons (sword or knife) or pistols.

If you're going by the code, the choice of weapons is either bladed weapons (sword or knife) or pistols.
Pfff. Fine. Swordfish at fifty paces.

Yeah, but that's why duelling was so widespread and caused so many deaths, at least early on when they used swords Because there was the whole ethos that letting a person offend you and get away with it was an insult to your honour, even the lightest offences started duels. Someone might accidently bump into you on the street and they'd be challenged - and they'd have to accept or be labelled a coward.

If they legalised duels, it would be shite. Imagine the amount of challenges agressive thugs would issue?
Well, if that involved me, there would soon be a lot less "thugs" around! Mwahahahaha! :D

If you're going by the code, the choice of weapons is either bladed weapons (sword or knife) or pistols.
God, I LOVE bladed weapons! :D

I like the duel where the duelists use knives and have a cloth tied at either end around one wrist. Can't run away from that one! :D

Pfff. Fine. Swordfish at fifty paces.
There are only two forms of acceptable bladed weapons. Fish are not involved.;)

If its dueling with swords then fine. But other than that...no pistols...swords are so much fun.

Gotta agree with you there.

If you're going by the code, the choice of weapons is either bladed weapons (sword or knife) or pistols.What code is that?
Mustn't be C-code :rolleyes: besides, a trout-fight seems like the modern thing to do.

What code is that?
Mustn't be C-code :rolleyes: besides, a trout-fight seems like the modern thing to do.
Code Duello. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/rulesofdueling.html

The idea is that you have to use sword or gun, (or knife).

Yeah, but that's why duelling was so widespread and caused so many deaths, at least early on when they used swords Because there was the whole ethos that letting a person offend you and get away with it was an insult to your honour, even the lightest offences started duels. Someone might accidently bump into you on the street and they'd be challenged - and they'd have to accept or be labelled a coward.

If they legalised duels, it would be shite. Imagine the amount of challenges agressive thugs would issue?

Ok, so, you'd still be a jerk...you'd get challenged a great deal...and you'd have to decline. Because you're uncoordinated and a coward.

It would still be illegal for them to kill you...

As far as I can tell you're objection is based on now wanting to mocked. (Which I've already done with no duel at all.) ;)

Either that, or you might learn some, you know ... like, actual manners? Ya think?? :p
pff manners ... they're so overrated :p

Code Duello. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature/rulesofdueling.html

The idea is that you have to use sword or gun, (or knife).Bah, that's a code from 1777. That's hardly going with the times.
Besides, rapping and breakdancing, as examples, have both been used extensively in duels in the past decades. It's a matter of satisfying your honour, keeping and getting respect from the people around you. Violence isn't the only way to do that.
In fact, any swordfighter trying to duel with swords against someone that can't swordfight would loose all my respect. That ranks up there with kicking puppies.

I could see dueling coming back. After all, modern warfare has become so terribly cold and impersonal. Let us harken back to the old days where two hated rivals would stand apart from each other, bow, and then have at it.

I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it. I am moderately talented knife fighter, and any man who chooses to duel pistols with me isn't going to last long. I would assume modern pistols would be out of the question, though. After all, it would not be very sporting to have two men going at each other with Glocks, revolvers maybe. Nothing clip fed would be acceptable.

Now to make my list of people to challenge...

I could see dueling coming back. After all, modern warfare has become so terribly cold and impersonal. Let us harken back to the old days where two hated rivals would stand apart from each other, bow, and then have at it.

I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it. I am moderately talented knife fighter, and any man who chooses to duel pistols with me isn't going to last long. I would assume modern pistols would be out of the question, though. After all, it would not be very sporting to have two men going at each other with Glocks, revolvers maybe. Nothing clip fed would be acceptable.

Now to make my list of people to challenge...

For the first six rounds, I have a much higher rate of fire with a revolver than I do with a semiautomatic pistol.

The record for rapid fire is held by revolvers.

I would suggest single shot pistols, such as the T/C Contender, in 44 Magnum, and no sights (have them filed off).

long. I would assume modern pistols would be out of the question, though. After all, it would not be very sporting to have two men going at each other with Glocks, revolvers maybe. Nothing clip fed would be acceptable.



Traditional duelling pistols are not supposed to have a rifled barrel, and are therefore highly inaccurate. That's why it was far safer to duel with pistols than it ever was with swords - most of the time two shots would be exchanged, both missing, and one of the seconds would intervene to stop the duel then, at least in the later period. Both parties had proved their courage and retained their honour, and reconciliation was arranged with the two parties, with seconds as mediators.

pff manners ... they're so overrated :p
BANG!

God, this is fun! :D

Pah! It was always seen as the height of barbarity and poor sportsmanship to actually have any skill at shooting, and it was especially bad to actually aim at your opponent.

Well i for one would enjoy dueling with swords instead of guns!

Well i for one would enjoy dueling with swords instead of guns!
Up to the point where you were run through.

For the first six rounds, I have a much higher rate of fire with a revolver than I do with a semiautomatic pistol.

The record for rapid fire is held by revolvers.

I would suggest single shot pistols, such as the T/C Contender, in 44 Magnum, and no sights (have them filed off).

Here, here, I most certainly agree with you sir. Only one shot is due to a gentleman in a duel. I say, though, revolvers might still work if each combatant is given only one round within their chamber. You are quite correct about the sights. Although, I don't believe they would be of much use in a duel anyway, unless your opponent missed and you could take your time.

Personally, I find that a one on one knife fight to be preferable to a duel with guns. True, I could easily win in a gunfight, but that isn't the point. It doesn't take a very disciplined man to properly wield a gun. The best shot in our county is a sheriff's deputy who is more than eighty pounds overweight. The man is a quick draw to boot. A truly honorable man is skilled and disciplined enough to wield a knife against his foes with deadly precision, and he is also enough of a man to handicap himself against a lesser opponent.

There was a form of duelling in the early 1800s in the Washington DC area (in fact, in the area of Anacostia) that I like.

Put two men into a darkened shack at night. Lock the door.

Drop a large knife in through a hole in the roof. Once it lands, the men may begin.

Two men go in, only one comes out.

There was a form of duelling in the early 1800s in the Washington DC area (in fact, in the area of Anacostia) that I like.

Put two men into a darkened shack at night. Lock the door.

Drop a large knife in through a hole in the roof. Once it lands, the men may begin.

Two men go in, only one comes out.

Not bad. Doesn't leave room for mercy, however. There must always be the option to let your opponent live after a duel, otherwise it is a deathmatch and not a duel.

I am for reintroducing Duels.

Everyone should wear swords at there hips and those Butler gloves again, and slap those who they wish to duel, who then has to pick up the glove from the floor if they accept the duel, or leave it on the floor and walk away in shame.
This would also make people a lot more polite, for obvious reasons, a win win situation.
Bring back the glorious sword duels. :D

There's only one way to settle a duel these days: Nuclear warheads at 10 paces. Anything less is sheer cowardice.

:p

Not bad. Doesn't leave room for mercy, however. There must always be the option to let your opponent live after a duel, otherwise it is a deathmatch and not a duel.
Mercy is a European quality in duels. Once past about 1800, US duels turned particularly merciless.

Dueling should definitely be legal.

Eutruscamon, I choose YOU!

Glove Slap {bjr}
B-52s: [to the tune of "Love Shack"]
A glove slap in a little old face will
Get you satisfaction.
Glove slap ba-a-beee ...
(Glove slap, baby)
Glove slap, baby, glove slap!
Glove slap, I don't take crap!
Glove slap, shut your big yap.

The following lyrics are heard over the end credits:
B-52s: [to the tune of "Love Shack"]
Glove slap, shut your big yap.
(Oooh, glove baby, that's where it's at. Yeah!)
(Glove, baby, give it a... )

Mercy is a European quality in duels. Once past about 1800, US duels turned particularly merciless.

That I know. What is wrong with bringing back the old ways? I for one think you can at least have a little civility if you are going to duel a man.

That I know. What is wrong with bringing back the old ways? I for one think you can at least have a little civility if you are going to duel a man.

I'm in favor of using duelling to deal with the following:

1. Idiots - they'll get into trouble and get killed
2. Politeness

It has to be particularly lethal in order to kill enough idiots. It can still be civil - I just have to run someone through the aorta instead of scarring his face.

Thunderdome!!!

:D

Thunderdome!!!

:D

Two men enter! One man leaves!
Two men enter! One man leaves!

I am for reintroducing Duels.

Everyone should wear swords at there hips and those Butler gloves again, and slap those who they wish to duel, who then has to pick up the glove from the floor if they accept the duel, or leave it on the floor and walk away in shame.
This would also make people a lot more polite, for obvious reasons, a win win situation.
Bring back the glorious sword duels. :D

Sod the gloves, just let me wear one of these legally and i'll be happy...

http://www.atrimasa.com/sitebuilder/images/at1544-429x455.jpg

or a more appropriate duelling weapon, the 1811 Blucher sabre...

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/gallery/albums/album56/6N.sized.jpg

NO NEW IDEA


Put all death row inmates and murderers, in a new age gladiator pit, with many creative weapns, animals, and acids, and give the grand winner a mansion in a carribbic islands.

And of course bring back real long sword dueling.

Absolutely bring back duelling, espescially if we can have fish slapping,

i do think that people would be a _little_ more polite if they knew you could call them out at a moments notice...and they'd be socially rejected if they refused...:sniper:

i do think that people would be a _little_ more polite if they knew you could call them out at a moments notice...and they'd be socially rejected if they refused...:sniper:

I thought it was mostly the social rejects that were impolite

Lets use lightsabers. A civilized weapon for a civilized time ! :)

or a more appropriate duelling weapon, the 1811 Blucher sabre...

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/gallery/albums/album56/6N.sized.jpg

You can always refuse the sabre without dishonor. It's a well established part of the conventions.

You can always refuse the sabre without dishonor. It's a well established part of the conventions.
I prefer rapiers, or cut and thrust swords.

I have come around in the past eight minutes to thinking that all private disputes should be settled by dueling, in the manner of our illustrious ancestors. Who's with me?

Good plan, let's undermine the last few hundred years of work the legal proccess has brought us, throw out all the courts, and introduce dueling.

I agree it would be interesting, and probably quite fun to watch, but it's impractical.

I prefer rapiers, or cut and thrust swords.

Indeed. The haulmark of a gentleman. The only excuse for carrying a sabre is a commission in the Household Cavalry. Even then, it should be left at home when not on campaign.

Lets use lightsabers. A civilized weapon for a civilized time ! :)

Damn you! I read through four pages of posts hoping no-one would've posted this! Ah well, I'll just pretend I never saw it :p

Until we invent lightsabres, no dueling - if we're gonna have this stupid business we may as well look cool doing it. And be honest - lightsabres are cool :D

[/slight geek]

I prefer rapiers, or cut and thrust swords.

Yeah, swords are great and all, but I still believe that the knife fight is the most honorable form of close combat. Fencing is still in common practice. Let the rapiers see their use there.

Yeah, swords are great and all, but I still believe that the knife fight is the most honorable form of close combat. Fencing is still in common practice. Let the rapiers see their use there.

You can't use knives.

Yeah, swords are great and all, but I still believe that the knife fight is the most honorable form of close combat. Fencing is still in common practice. Let the rapiers see their use there.

I remember reading about two Frenchmen who fought a duel in a carriage with knives. The doors were shut and the carriage took off around a large circular road. When it came back to the starting point, the doors were opened to check on the occupants.

It was a lot messier than a rapier fight.

I remember reading about two Frenchmen who fought a duel in a carriage with knives. The doors were shut and the carriage took off around a large circular road. When it came back to the starting point, the doors were opened to check on the occupants.

It was a lot messier than a rapier fight.

I suspect that a lot of these stories are apocryphal. Duelling is restricted to the gentleman classes. And the sword is the badge of membership. To go at it hammer and tongs with knives is rather unseemly, and a sure sign of poor breeding, so I can't imagine why anyone with any sort of standing would agree to it.

I suspect that a lot of these stories are apocryphal. Duelling is restricted to the gentleman classes. And the sword is the badge of membership. To go at it hammer and tongs with knives is rather unseemly, and a sure sign of poor breeding, so I can't imagine why anyone with any sort of standing would agree to it.

Being a gentlemen certainly did not mean that you acted in a gentlemanly like way. Besides, it was only in the 1700s that the whole value concensus of gentlemen acting in a civilsed manner came about. That and knife fighting was a very common form of duelling, and could be practiced by all classes- the only reason gentlemen were the only ones who duelled was because they were generally the only ones who could afford fine duelling swords, along with the training.

Being a gentlemen certainly did not mean that you acted in a gentlemanly like way. Besides, it was only in the 1700s that the whole value concensus of gentlemen acting in a civilsed manner came about. That and knife fighting was a very common form of duelling, and could be practiced by all classes- the only reason gentlemen were the only ones who duelled was because they were generally the only ones who could afford fine duelling swords, along with the training.
They were apparently trying to get around restrictions on duelling in public.

Being a gentlemen certainly did not mean that you acted in a gentlemanly like way. Besides, it was only in the 1700s that the whole value concensus of gentlemen acting in a civilsed manner came about. That and knife fighting was a very common form of duelling, and could be practiced by all classes- the only reason gentlemen were the only ones who duelled was because they were generally the only ones who could afford fine duelling swords, along with the training.

I am well aware that throughout history the lower orders have stuck each other like pigs. That however does not make what they are doing duelling. A gentleman would never engage in a knife fight.

They were apparently trying to get around restrictions on duelling in public.

That makes a limited amount of sense I suppose.

That makes a limited amount of sense I suppose.
What I never understood was the French King banning public dueling, but officers continuing the practice in defiance of the King's orders.

I am well aware that throughout history the lower orders have stuck each other like pigs. That however does not make what they are doing duelling. A gentleman would never engage in a knife fight.

Why? Gentlemen aren't some kind of virtuous perfect class you know. Deep down they were just as barbaric as the rest of society, they just regarded themselves as above all that -but as I say, only in the latter half of the 1700s did they make a big thing about being civilised. Before that they were really violent bastards, who would get drunk and challenge people to duels for the fun of it.

What I never understood was the French King banning public dueling, but officers continuing the practice in defiance of the King's orders.

They tried to ban it almost everywhere, but I mean it's hard to crack down on a crime when all those who engage in it hold a large amount of power for you to maintain rule. That and people disaproved of the king trying to tell them how to solve disputes - a little like people complaining of big government today. Besides, it was a complete craze in France, and wasn't just restricted to one on one combat - the French had group duels and everything.

If they legalised duels, it would be shite. Imagine the amount of challenges agressive thugs would issue?

Oh, that would be fun. Then I'd have a good excuse for maiming them. I'm always lacking those (excuses).

Why? Gentlemen aren't some kind of virtuous perfect class you know. Deep down they were just as barbaric as the rest of society, they just regarded themselves as above all that -but as I say, only in the latter half of the 1700s did they make a big thing about being civilised. Before that they were really violent bastards, who would get drunk and challenge people to duels for the fun of it.

What have manners to do with non-violence or compassion? You seem to be confusing two seperate ideas. Gentlemen don't fight with knives, for the same reason they don't wear rags or drink cheap gin. It's unseemly.

In any event, engaging in yobbish tomfoolery with knives is exactly the sort of thing that would get your name posted. It's self-explanatory really.

What I never understood was the French King banning public dueling, but officers continuing the practice in defiance of the King's orders.

Probably for much the same reason that the Kaiser could never get German Naval officers to stop carrying riding crops.

Some orders will just never be obeyed.

Why? Gentlemen aren't some kind of virtuous perfect class you know. Deep down they were just as barbaric as the rest of society, they just regarded themselves as above all that -but as I say, only in the latter half of the 1700s did they make a big thing about being civilised. Before that they were really violent bastards, who would get drunk and challenge people to duels for the fun of it.

It might be argued by anyone with a grievance with the aristocracy, or a historian, that the gentleman's class remained violent bastards even after their shift to civility. They simply kept their barbarous inner selves behind closed doors and a viel of gentility.

It might be argued by anyone with a grievance with the aristocracy, or a historian, that the gentleman's class remained violent bastards even after their shift to civility. They simply kept their barbarous inner selves behind closed doors and a viel of gentility.

Exactly. Part of the whole general "Domestification of Violence" which Spierenburg suggests occurred during the early modern period. Duels happened more in deserted fields and less in town squares, public corporal and capital punishment began to be made more private and sports became less violent.

You can always refuse the sabre without dishonor. It's a well established part of the conventions.

That may be so, but I would rather fight with a sabre than a rapier or a small sword. An arming sword for cut and thrust maybe, never-the-less, its either a hand and a half or a sabre for me, an dishonour be damned, just because you're scared of a curved sword, or if you are a young gentleman of the time, you can't use it anyway... :D

Hmm... I don't think I'd be in favor of duels to the death. Even I make mistakes sometimes when sparring, and it'd suck if I did that in a real duel and was impaled.

Oh, and instead of those boring traditional dueling weapons, how about something different? Like falcatas, broadswords, or kukris! Now that would be different.

That may be so, but I would rather fight with a sabre than a rapier or a small sword. An arming sword for cut and thrust maybe, never-the-less, its either a hand and a half or a sabre for me, an dishonour be damned, just because you're scared of a curved sword, or if you are a young gentleman of the time, you can't use it anyway... :D

I have the impression that unless you're wearing a curassier's breastplate, a man with a rapier could keep poking the man with the saber until he was exhausted from blood loss, or worse.

Hmm... I don't think I'd be in favor of duels to the death. Even I make mistakes sometimes when sparring, and it'd suck if I did that in a real duel and was impaled.

Oh, and instead of those boring traditional dueling weapons, how about something different? Like falcatas, broadswords, or kukris! Now that would be different.

Broadswords were used for duelling. Courts in medieval europe often used trial by combat as a way to solve certain disputes. Such historical treatise as Talhoffer and Ringeck have duelling techniques (both armoured and unarmoured) included in their pages.

Broadswords were used for duelling. Courts in medieval europe often used trial by combat as a way to solve certain disputes. Such historical treatise as Talhoffer and Ringeck have duelling techniques (both armoured and unarmoured) included in their pages.

Seen a demonstration in Maryland - it looks like a first class ass-kicking. I got the impression that you could be beaten to death with one end, stabbed with the other, and sliced in two, depending on how you got hit. There also seemed to be a lot of trips, weapon locks, and other dirty tricks.

I have the impression that unless you're wearing a curassier's breastplate, a man with a rapier could keep poking the man with the saber until he was exhausted from blood loss, or worse.

I suggest reading 'Cold Steel' by Alfred Hutton (1893) and Angelo's 'Excercises with Hungariean Sabre and Scottish Broadsword' (can't remember the date on this), not to mention George Silver's treatise on methods to defeat rapier fighters. The rapier (late 1500's to mid 1700's ish) and more importantly smallsword (1750's to late 1800's ish) in no way made the sabre or any curved sword obsolete, it was more the fashion for carrying civilian swords more than military swords.

Btw, Lacademon, the sabre was no just used but the Household Cavalry, all mounted units used the sabre, bar the heavy cavalry (from 1796 to 1853) when they used straight bladed swords.

That may be so, but I would rather fight with a sabre than a rapier or a small sword. An arming sword for cut and thrust maybe, never-the-less, its either a hand and a half or a sabre for me, an dishonour be damned, just because you're scared of a curved sword, or if you are a young gentleman of the time, you can't use it anyway... :D

It won't necessarily be refused. Still, some people are concerned about how they will look in an open casket, so the option exsists.

Btw, Lacademon, the sabre was no just used but the Household Cavalry, all mounted units used the sabre, bar the heavy cavalry (from 1796 to 1853) when they used straight bladed swords.

I do know that. But no real gentleman would serve outside the Household.

I suggest reading 'Cold Steel' by Alfred Hutton (1893) and Angelo's 'Excercises with Hungariean Sabre and Scottish Broadsword' (can't remember the date on this), not to mention George Silver's treatise on methods to defeat rapier fighters.

If I had to guess, you have to be quick enough to parry the rapier, and then you run well inside his arc and do your dirty work.

Seen a demonstration in Maryland - it looks like a first class ass-kicking. I got the impression that you could be beaten to death with one end, stabbed with the other, and sliced in two, depending on how you got hit. There also seemed to be a lot of trips, weapon locks, and other dirty tricks.

Can you remember who you saw? I know a few people over there who practice the German school (i.e. the Lichtenauer tradition) of longsword. It's, IMHO, as effective and deadly as any other art on the planet.

Why not just bring back smothering people in their sleep? It would eliminate the timely process of finding a 'second'.

Broadswords were used for duelling. Courts in medieval europe often used trial by combat as a way to solve certain disputes. Such historical treatise as Talhoffer and Ringeck have duelling techniques (both armoured and unarmoured) included in their pages.

Ooh. Hadn't heard that. When I think dueling, I think pistols or little swishy swords.

Can you remember who you saw? I know a few people over there who practice the German school (i.e. the Lichtenauer tradition) of longsword. It's, IMHO, as effective and deadly as any other art on the planet.
They were students from the University of Maryland who were giving a demonstration over at the Renaissance Festival.

They did a slow motion with no armor, and then one with some contact wearing armor.

It looked exhausting wearing armor. You would have to have been an athlete to survive back then. Not only strength, but a lot of endurance. With two men matched in skill, the one who got tired first would get killed.

I must say thank you to all the enthusiastic duelists who have posted thus far. This is my first General thread to A) have steady responses over a period of time less than a week. B) Be on the "hot threads"spot on the NS homepage. I win.

If I had to guess, you have to be quick enough to parry the rapier, and then you run well inside his arc and do your dirty work.

Well the Rapier wasn't the fast sword, the Smallsword was. The Rapier was not effective at defence other than against another rapier, in most cases. Indeed, the British passion for the arming/broad sword, meant that a great variety of techniques, mainly parrying the rapier thrust or simply just stepping back and hitting the rapier fighter on his recovery.

Why not just bring back smothering people in their sleep? It would eliminate the timely process of finding a 'second'.

That's just not as fun. Or very satisfying.

I do know that. But no real gentleman would serve outside the Household.

Ah apologies :) To be fair though, there were a great many gentlemen outside the Household Cavalry, such as the man who brought into development the 1796 Light Cavalry Sabre, Gen. Le Marchent.

Well the Rapier wasn't the fast sword, the Smallsword was. The Rapier was not effective at defence other than against another rapier, in most cases. Indeed, the British passion for the arming/broad sword, meant that a great variety of techniques, mainly parrying the rapier thrust or simply just stepping back and hitting the rapier fighter on his recovery.

So who liked the cut&thrust sword with dagger? I haven't fought with one, but it has an appeal that I like.

They were students from the University of Maryland who were giving a demonstration over at the Renaissance Festival.

They did a slow motion with no armor, and then one with some contact wearing armor.

It looked exhausting wearing armor. You would have to have been an athlete to survive back then. Not only strength, but a lot of endurance. With two men matched in skill, the one who got tired first would get killed.


Well, given the amount of training that you would be given as an average squire/knight to be, and given the daily physical life that was required back then, armour would not have been too much of a hinderence. A suit of armour for combat would weigh between 45-75lbs, depending on your size (rather than tournament armour, which has been weighed at up to 200lbs), and also as it would be fitted for you, would mean that it would not be a huge hindernce at all. I've forgotten the name at the minute, but French knights especially are famed in tournament records for performing aerobatics in armour, including climbing all the way up the underside of a ladder which was leaning against the side of a castle.

Well, given the amount of training that you would be given as an average squire/knight to be, and given the daily physical life that was required back then, armour would not have been too much of a hinderence. A suit of armour for combat would weigh between 45-75lbs, depending on your size (rather than tournament armour, which has been weighed at up to 200lbs), and also as it would be fitted for you, would mean that it would not be a huge hindernce at all. I've forgotten the name at the minute, but French knights especially are famed in tournament records for performing aerobatics in armour, including climbing all the way up the underside of a ladder which was leaning against the side of a castle.

I suppose that knights ate better than most people as well. I'm just remembering how tired I get when boxing - just holding your arms up properly and punching occasionally for a few rounds of three minutes each is longer than most people are comfortable with, especially when you're getting hit.

An active knight is essentially the weapon - everything else is an extra feature.

So who liked the cut&thrust sword with dagger? I haven't fought with one, but it has an appeal that I like.

Well, cut and thrust is pretty much a broadsword. The type used during the English civil war, the Schiavona used by the Slav body guards to the Doge of Venice and the Scottish basket hilted swords could all equally used for cut and thrust.

Sometimes these could be used with a dagger, indeed the scottish basket hilt was often used in conjunction with a Targe (small round shield) and a dirk pointing out fromt he side of the shield. That said though, rapier masters frequently said that the use of a single rapier was more effective than a rapier/cut and thrust sword with dagger (esp. Alfieri and Capoferro)


Btw, all the manuals I have mentioned can be found on the internet at various sites, such as the www.thearma.com and http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/intro/

great practices like dueling and prize fighting are banned in new england and if you think about it duels to the death would be a excelent solution to problems like we have i mean I know pllenty of people I want to beat up but im afraid of getting knifed in the back if they brought back dueling and prizefighting I could beat up stoners and then just challenge all there friends to a duel because im not afraid of a bunch of stoners unless the sneak up on me from behind.


oh and there are some great sites to buy dueling pistols (just in case)

Kellarly,

I've seen a demonstration of iai-do, where they use what on a Western sword would be the pommel area (there isn't really one on a katana) during the draw to either strike your opponent (under the chin, in the stomach, etc) or to trap their sword arm (if the opponent is sitting) long enough to complete your own draw.

Given the large pommel on most broadswords, it looks like you could draw, knock someone back with the pommel, and then swing the blade into use. So it's even useful inside the arc of the blade, even if it starts in the scabbard.

I suppose that knights ate better than most people as well. I'm just remembering how tired I get when boxing - just holding your arms up properly and punching occasionally for a few rounds of three minutes each is longer than most people are comfortable with, especially when you're getting hit.

An active knight is essentially the weapon - everything else is an extra feature.

Well, from my personal experience and the evidence in period manuals, i would say that a combat would not last too long. If you complete a disarm, a mortschlag ("murder Stroke", its hitting your opponent with the quillions of your sword i.e. like a sodding big chisel) or a thrust to a maille are dead on, then the combat would be effectively over. Needless to say, concussive injuries are also expected, being hit by 2 1/2 to 5 1/2 lbs of steel is going to hurt no matter.

(esp. Alfieri and Capoferro)

Don't tell me that the little discussion during the long duel in The Princess Bride actually made sense...

Kellarly,

I've seen a demonstration of iai-do, where they use what on a Western sword would be the pommel area (there isn't really one on a katana) during the draw to either strike your opponent (under the chin, in the stomach, etc) or to trap their sword arm (if the opponent is sitting) long enough to complete your own draw.

First of all, I kinda borrowed this technique for one bout when i had my spear disarmed. It almost worked too...

Given the large pommel on most broadswords, it looks like you could draw, knock someone back with the pommel, and then swing the blade into use. So it's even useful inside the arc of the blade, even if it starts in the scabbard.

That is a plausible technique, however, going from what other Western Martial Arts practioners have said, the 'quick draw' was not used so much in western combat, in fact, some pictures from the time show scabbards being thrown away before combat ensued.

I will say more info can be found at www.swordforum.com and www.myArmoury.com where there are a great many more people more informed than myself.

Don't tell me that the little discussion during the long duel in The Princess Bride actually made sense...

Hehe, no it didn't. I will say this, now film makers and script writers are now actually aware of historical european martial arts, they try to incorporate some of it into their films. Needless to say, its the same as saying a Katana can cut a rifle in half...its bollocks (before anyone says anything, you go try and tell me you did it with a video of you doing it before you say I am wrong).

If you want reasonably realistic, and I use the word 'reasonably' with a fair pinch of salt, sword fight, see either "The Duellists" or "Rob Roy" (although the latter makes a mockery of Scottish broadsword techniques in preference to the small sword).

Don't tell me that the little discussion during the long duel in The Princess Bride actually made sense...

It depends on which dual your talking about. I don't think saying your name over and over would be an affective strategy

Ah apologies :) To be fair though, there were a great many gentlemen outside the Household Cavalry, such as the man who brought into development the 1796 Light Cavalry Sabre, Gen. Le Marchent.

Think nothing of it old boy. And of course, holding General officer rank is something else again. Perhaps I should have been more clear that I was refering to subalterns. After all, they do most of the duelling.

Well, from my personal experience and the evidence in period manuals, i would say that a combat would not last too long. If you complete a disarm, a mortschlag ("murder Stroke", its hitting your opponent with the quillions of your sword i.e. like a sodding big chisel) or a thrust to a maille are dead on, then the combat would be effectively over. Needless to say, concussive injuries are also expected, being hit by 2 1/2 to 5 1/2 lbs of steel is going to hurt no matter.

In one on one combat, that would be true. During a press, combat lasted for quite some time, and the macemen was man who held the greatest advantage. Armored soldiers and knights would pass out from exhaustion and be trampled to death. Of course, for the purposes of dueling that doesn't matter since there is no press in a duel. The speed of a fight is really determined by the skill of the combatants, however. Average swordsmen get things done quickly because their moves are simple and to the point. They haven't the skill to deftly block most blows handed to them. A pair of artful swordsman could keep a fight going for quite some time considering the endurance of both men and their ability to block each other's strikes.

Again, this is why I favor unarmored knife fighting. However, this possibly has to do with the fact that my build is not suitable to wear heavy armor and swing about a sword. I am built for speed and agility, which I use to my advantage. Unfortunately, unless I am at an SCA event, my skill with knives goes fairly unused. If only there was dueling...

great practices like dueling and prize fighting are banned in new england and if you think about it duels to the death would be a excelent solution to problems like we have i mean I know pllenty of people I want to beat up but im afraid of getting knifed in the back if they brought back dueling and prizefighting I could beat up stoners and then just challenge all there friends to a duel because im not afraid of a bunch of stoners unless the sneak up on me from behind.


oh and there are some great sites to buy dueling pistols (just in case)
Wow dude, you're pretty tense-kinda working yourself into a violent lather there. You need to relax. You know what's good for that?

Gettin' stoned.

Wow dude, you're pretty tense-kinda working yourself into a violent lather there. You need to relax. You know what's good for that?

Gettin' stoned.

I was going to note that stoners are among the least likely people to be violent.

http://mail.cu.ac.kr/~cave10/NihotoVSpistol.wmv
A katana cutting a bullet fired from a glock in half^

But yeah, dueling would be cool. A great way to take out the trash, or if the trash is better with the weapon than you, to get yourself killed.:)

I was going to note that stoners are among the least likely people to be violent.
Kinda makes ya wonder what everyone's problem with it is, eh?


But really, you're never going to get a stoner in a duel.

"You, sir, have offended me."
"Did you just slap me with a glove?"
"I demand satisfaction!"
"Dude, I love that song!"
"Sir, we are to meet on the field of honor."
"Is that what Dave is calling his patch these days?"
"Choose your weapon!"
"Now your talkin'. Hey Bailey, get the 5' bong..."
"We are to duel, sir!"
"I don't play that game, what's it called? Magic, right?"
"Combat, sir-choose the weapon with which to defend your honor!!!"
"......Fish at fifty paces."

In one on one combat, that would be true. During a press, combat lasted for quite some time, and the macemen was man who held the greatest advantage. Armored soldiers and knights would pass out from exhaustion and be trampled to death. Of course, for the purposes of dueling that doesn't matter since there is no press in a duel. The speed of a fight is really determined by the skill of the combatants, however. Average swordsmen get things done quickly because their moves are simple and to the point. They haven't the skill to deftly block most blows handed to them. A pair of artful swordsman could keep a fight going for quite some time considering the endurance of both men and their ability to block each other's strikes.

The first part I kinda agree with, in a shield wall or something similar, armoured fighting would be hard and after a time, exhausting. However, I still say, based on my experience and that of others, that armoured fighting would not last long, longer than unarmoured maybe, but still I doubt a fight as Crecy or Agincourt would last more than a minute or so.

As for the last part, I must respectfully disagree. Going on my longsword, sword and buckler and spear bouting experience, I believe that any swordsman with experience would be able to end a fight quickly, even facing an opponent of similar stature or better. I agree that skilled swordsmen may be trained to a higher standard or that they are fitter, but never the less, with the plays, blows and training that they would have, Any swordsman using ANY system of defence would end the fight as quickly as possible. In my experience, most fights do not last beyond the first 3 moves, maybe 5 but no more (I'm not counting circling time, only from when the first attack is made). If it lasts longer then both combatants are equally cautious and unwilling to make the attack count.

Think nothing of it old boy. And of course, holding General officer rank is something else again. Perhaps I should have been more clear that I was refering to subalterns. After all, they do most of the duelling.

Yeah, the sub alterns, bloody little up starts :D At least they provide a huge amount of sources for my dissertation on the development of the cavalry sword :D

That's just not as fun. Or very satisfying.

I find it to be both, and quite effective. It's solved 99 out of my 100 family disputes. The last one was solved by a bus.

It would be cool to be able to duel.

I find it to be both, and quite effective. It's solved 99 out of my 100 family disputes. The last one was solved by a bus.

Hilarious. I challenge all those not in support of my noble proposition to a duel of honor. My second is to be GE. To the man most worthily representative of the dishonorable fellows of no duel-minded conscience, I beseech upon thee to choose your weapons and your second, and the place at which you shall meet me to defend your own honor.

*slaps all anti-duelists with a leather glove*

I'm not, because I don't want some fag hitting me with a stray shot because he has bad aim. If you really want to though, you could go and duel out in some random feild miles away from people, that would probably be ok.

But really, you're never going to get a stoner in a duel.That's right, people have to agree to duel with one another. Which means, after road-rage duels with rapier become legal, the stoners will inherit the world.

That's right, people have to agree to duel with one another. Which means, after road-rage duels with rapier become legal, the stoners will inherit the world.
Can't wait!

Can't wait!Actually, you'll have to share it with the Quakers and some Buddhists, but they're pleasant sorts anyway.

OK, I'm in favor of legalizing dueling with swords to settle disputes. Hup-hup hurray!

Actually, you'll have to share it with the Quakers and some Buddhists, but they're pleasant sorts anyway.

OK, I'm in favor of legalizing dueling with swords to settle disputes. Hup-hup hurray!
Unless they include Super Smash Brothers as an accepted duel, then slackers and stoners will have the most defended honor around...

Unless they include Super Smash Brothers as an accepted duel, then slackers and stoners will have the most defended honor around...

Duelling via computer games could be an acceptable subsitute...

The person challenged could choose the game, as with tradition, the challenged party chose the weapons.

Duelling via computer games could be an acceptable subsitute...

The person challenged could choose the game, as with tradition, the challenged party chose the weapons.

Who chooses the map? There are some maps in Counterstrike that I prefer...

how about a few more modern duels (I suck at FPS I get PWNED)

Handbags at Dawn
Newcastle brown bottles
Sharpened Tongues
Bitch Slapping
Ringtones at sunset
Homemade Bungee Crossbows.
Cod Trout Salmon or Haddock

Loser gets stocked or Scolds Mask
Hmmm bring back Public Stocks

How about Holmgangs
Holmgang Rules (http://www.geocities.com/grendelcompany/Holmgang.html)

Who chooses the map? There are some maps in Counterstrike that I prefer...

Well as you always have seconds and a referee, that could be delegated to them.

However, I would love a duel in the EV:Nova (http://www.ambrosiasw.com/games/evn/) universe (there is a mod about somewhere that makes it possible). I have a very nice personal ship that i built for duelling against the makers of the game who have ships in it....

Counterstrike would be cool. Basically two people would hunt each other on the map.

Of course, if both people were idiots, each would camp and nothing would happen. What punishment would we give for that?

Counterstrike would be cool. Basically two people would hunt each other on the map.

Of course, if both people were idiots, each would camp and nothing would happen. What punishment would we give for that?

multiple chat messages along the lines of

J00 6u\|5 are so G4y, Qu17 c4/\/\P1|\|6 Lu53r5
PWNED

Counterstrike would be cool. Basically two people would hunt each other on the map.

Of course, if both people were idiots, each would camp and nothing would happen. What punishment would we give for that?

Ban scoped weapons? Or make them respawn closer to their opponent if they are more than a certain distance away remaining stationary.