Talk:Duel

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds has some interesting information [1], search for "duel" to find it.

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)

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.

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 just deleted the story that Titmouse had posted on this talk page. Wikipedia talk pages are not meant for fiction. Even if this story depicts a duel, it's a fictional duel. If you want to find a place to put this story, there may be one, but it isn't on Talk:Duel. Apol0gies 18:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)

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?

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

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

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)[reply]

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).

Proposal

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

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.