BF2S Forums Duels to the death

I don't think it's gonna happen anytime soon...at least not legally.

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Now days it wouldn't work very well.  Today you can find out months in advance if you have a terminal illness.  If I found out I was terminal I would probably just go around challenging idiot politicians, news reporters, and teacher Union members to duels.

800 yrds with Iron sights for the win.  I could M-14 their asses like when I shot high power.

That's not a man's duel. Single shot handgun and/or a sword is how it should be.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-05-22 13:04:35)

IF....big IF, you could get Dueling re-instated the rules would have to use some of the old rules.
1) BOTH party's would have to agree to settle the dispute by single combat Duel.
2)Challenger picks weapon type. (Smooth bore pistol or Sword only)
3)Challenged picks time and place. ( This could be made a law that only one place can be used. An official Dueling ground)
4) BOTH party's have to agree if the Duel is to First Blood or to the Death.
5)BOTH party's agree to no repercussion's on the out come of the Duel.
6) If re-instated, Dueling grounds are run by a neutral party. A Master of the Field would be used to control the Duel and insure all rules are followed. Up to and including the killing of rules violator.

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Now days it wouldn't work very well.  Today you can find out months in advance if you have a terminal illness.  If I found out I was terminal I would probably just go around challenging idiot politicians, news reporters, and teacher Union members to duels.

800 yrds with Iron sights for the win.  I could M-14 their asses like when I shot high power.

Yeah, but it would be easy for other people to find out if you have a terminal illness too.

Flecco wrote:

Srsly getting duels back = a step backward.


Its not that much of a step from honourable duels to honour killing.

Eh...  sort of.  Honour killings are more of an involuntary thing though (on the victim's part).  Duels are supposed to be voluntary.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-05-22 15:24:37)

Flecco wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Srsly getting duels back = a step backward.


Its not that much of a step from honourable duels to honour killing.

Eh...  sort of.  Honour killings are more of an involuntary thing though (on the victim's part).  Duels are supposed to be voluntary.

I know. Once we start down that path though its going to happen. It will get to the point were duels are voluntary according to law but involuntary according to society, where no 'true man' can back down from one (as I can see these being more prevalent amongst men), then comes the slow emergence of honour killings to avenge lost duels in blood feuds etc. Eventually we'd end up with honour killings again.

Good point...  we've seen as much in certain Islamic societies.

Flecco wrote:

I know. Once we start down that path though its going to happen. It will get to the point were duels are voluntary according to law but involuntary according to society, where no 'true man' can back down from one (as I can see these being more prevalent amongst men), then comes the slow emergence of honour killings to avenge lost duels in blood feuds etc. Eventually we'd end up with honour killings again.

Following that line of inquiry, guns should also be banned completely because "they kill people". I think especially in a 21st century society we should be able to control the actors, not the instruments.

Lai wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Duels were a symptom of western honour culture upheld by the aristocracy in many shapes and forms until around the 1800s.


They were abandoned for a reason, what little remained of that system of honour in the 1800s/early 1900s was in part what caused WW1 and such massive casualties during WW1 due to shitty leadership.

Well, if we may believe Scott, that honour system had deteriorated to an in itself inconcrete concept long before 1913.

Sir Walter Scott wrote:

We can now only look back on it (chivalry -ed.) as a magnificent piece of frostwork, which has dissolved in the beams of the sun! But though we seek in vain for the pillars, the vaults, the cornices, and the fretted ornaments of the transitory fabric, we cannot but be sensible that its dissolution has left on the soil valuable tokens of its former existence.

Imo, Scott was wrong though, apart from the fact that with another few generation past, even the imprint is obscured. Chivalry didn't fail; the knights did, the church did. If we want to we can bring it back. I'd certainly like to see some of it returned, and I think (lethal) duels should definitely be legalized again, with consent of both participating parties.

Many shapes and forms. Victorian honour codes were still part of that same system. The ideal of the Christian Gentleman etc. The idea of the old boys club is a relic of those days. Read 'Honor, A History' by James Bowman. I read it recently. A good chunk of it deals with the why and how of honour's 'death' in the culture of the western world.

To bring back Chivalry you'd have to remove universal sufferage firstly, as the old chivalric system requires women to be the property of men, to not work in the workplace or have anything resembling a career or an opinion on politics, economics or government. A woman's honour is directly tied to her husband's in those old systems and once they are married and any infidelity on her part has direct repercussions on his social standing and legal contracts pertaining to his and his parents/in-laws estate.

The Church didn't fail, from the start the Christian Church preached turning the other cheek. As Christianity and Catholicism grew in influence and power in the political landscape of Old Europe, the aristocracy came to realise that traditional honour systems were going to die off because of it. The honour system has always been at conflict with the Christian Church, pride is a deadly sin, doubly so when you allow somebody's insult to lead to a fight to the death. As the legal systems of the West, by and large are baised off the ethics of the Christian bible, the honour system was in conflict with the rule of law too, from the 16th century onward the Catholic church tried to outlaw lethal duels. You want to see what a society still based on honour looks like? Visit Saudi Arabia or China.

Lai wrote:

Flecco wrote:

I know. Once we start down that path though its going to happen. It will get to the point were duels are voluntary according to law but involuntary according to society, where no 'true man' can back down from one (as I can see these being more prevalent amongst men), then comes the slow emergence of honour killings to avenge lost duels in blood feuds etc. Eventually we'd end up with honour killings again.

Following that line of inquiry, guns should also be banned completely because "they kill people". I think especially in a 21st century society we should be able to control the actors, not the instruments.

I'm not following that at all. You essentially agreed with my point there, society DID control the actors. To the point where in the aristocracy of Old Europe you could not turn down a challenge to duel without losing everything. House, family ties, money... All gone if you backed down on a direct challenge to your honour.

As for WW1, the brinkmanship, extreme nationalism and one upmanship that took place pre-WW1 across Europe was tied to the old honour system of the aristocracy. Britain's leaders tried to prove they had bigger dicks than the Germans pre-war by building the Dreadnought and its successors. So were the more romantic ideas about war such as the noble cavalryman. Noble young gentry charging around on horses where there skill and valour was all they needed to conquer the enemy. They had no place on a battlefield like the Western Front, as was discovered quickly.


Essentially you are advocating a return to might is right. That might play on the international stage still, but we are more civilised than that now here in the Western World.

Flecco wrote:

The Church didn't fail, from the start the Christian Church preached turning the other cheek. As Christianity and Catholicism grew in influence and power in the political landscape of Old Europe, the aristocracy came to realise that traditional honour systems were going to die off because of it. The honour system has always been at conflict with the Christian Church, pride is a deadly sin, doubly so when you allow somebody's insult to lead to a fight to the death. As the legal systems of the West, by and large are baised off the ethics of the Christian bible, the honour system was in conflict with the rule of law too, from the 16th century onward the Catholic church tried to outlaw lethal duels. You want to see what a society still based on honour looks like? Visit Saudi Arabia or China.

I never said Christianity failed, I said the Church failed, by which I mean the Church as an institute. The whole problem was that "God" was placed above the core values of chivalry. While this essentially might not have been wrong at all, in practise this often meant Rome was placed above said values. E.g. in Saracen Iberia a Christian knight was invited by a Muslim lady for lunch and chess. The particular conditions I have forgotten, but in any case there was no reason for the knight not to accept the invite. He did not however, in fact he not even politely declined. Instead, he threatened to skewer the messenger if he ever showed his face again doing the bidding of that "infidel dog". Would the knight have truly followed Jesus's teachings, there would have been no problem at all, but in this case he (unknowingly) followed a Crusade agenda.

Also I find it hard to accept your argument that Catholicism and Christianity themselves formed a threat to the Old World honour system. Both were already well established and would actually diminish in power with the enlightement. It was also "Christianity" (both in value and as a Papal institute) that introduced the honour system in the first place.

Flecco wrote:

To bring back Chivalry you'd have to remove universal sufferage firstly, as the old chivalric system requires women to be the property of men, to not work in the workplace or have anything resembling a career or an opinion on politics, economics or government. A woman's honour is directly tied to her husband's in those old systems and once they are married and any infidelity on her part has direct repercussions on his social standing and legal contracts pertaining to his and his parents/in-laws estate.

As I put it above, there were some serious flaws in the way chivalry was practised. I'd like to see chivalry return, not the chivalric system as it was then. I do not think chivalry and women suffrage are mutually exclusive to any extend. I see it as a serious problem that in the post suffrage Western world, this often is the case. If you look at parts of the world were women suffrage has been or is being introduced more gradually, you'll notice that much more "female honour" is preserved in the process. Again, as which the previous point, the problem seems to be interpretation.

Flecco wrote:

I'm not following that at all. You essentially agreed with my point there, society DID control the actors. To the point where in the aristocracy of Old Europe you could not turn down a challenge to duel without losing everything. House, family ties, money... All gone if you backed down on a direct challenge to your honour.

Yes I did agree to your point. However my point was that this should not be a reason to abolish dueling. The problem is that society controlled the actors in such a way that duelling was forced upon individuals. What we should do, rather than abolish duelling, is lift this social pressure by 21st century law and reforms. The problem is in the way society dealt with duelling not in duelling itself.

Flecco wrote:

but we are more civilised than that now here in the Western World.

Please explain this to me from a non-ethnocentric point of view.

Lai wrote:

Flecco wrote:

The Church didn't fail, from the start the Christian Church preached turning the other cheek. As Christianity and Catholicism grew in influence and power in the political landscape of Old Europe, the aristocracy came to realise that traditional honour systems were going to die off because of it. The honour system has always been at conflict with the Christian Church, pride is a deadly sin, doubly so when you allow somebody's insult to lead to a fight to the death. As the legal systems of the West, by and large are baised off the ethics of the Christian bible, the honour system was in conflict with the rule of law too, from the 16th century onward the Catholic church tried to outlaw lethal duels. You want to see what a society still based on honour looks like? Visit Saudi Arabia or China.

I never said Christianity failed, I said the Church failed, by which I mean the Church as an institute. The whole problem was that "God" was placed above the core values of chivalry. While this essentially might not have been wrong at all, in practise this often meant Rome was placed above said values. E.g. in Saracen Iberia a Christian knight was invited by a Muslim lady for lunch and chess. The particular conditions I have forgotten, but in any case there was no reason for the knight not to accept the invite. He did not however, in fact he not even politely declined. Instead, he threatened to skewer the messenger if he ever showed his face again doing the bidding of that "infidel dog". Would the knight have truly followed Jesus's teachings, there would have been no problem at all, but in this case he (unknowingly) followed a Crusade agenda.

Also I find it hard to accept your argument that Catholicism and Christianity themselves formed a threat to the Old World honour system. Both were already well established and would actually diminish in power with the enlightement. It was also "Christianity" (both in value and as a Papal institute) that introduced the honour system in the first place.

Rome had an honour culture before Christ, so did Greece. The Chivalric system wasn't the first system of honour in Europe, and wasn't the last. It borrowed heavily from previous versions. The Catholic Church hijacked honour for political motivations yes, but in general a society that has laws based on the idea of 'turning the other cheek' and the ten commandments along with all people being equal otherwise known as the rule of Law cannot have duels to the death or extreme levels of pride sitting comfortably alongside it, there will be tension until either the very foundations of our laws and values as a society here in the West are changed to suit our older, rather more violent ways.

Lai wrote:

Flecco wrote:

To bring back Chivalry you'd have to remove universal sufferage firstly, as the old chivalric system requires women to be the property of men, to not work in the workplace or have anything resembling a career or an opinion on politics, economics or government. A woman's honour is directly tied to her husband's in those old systems and once they are married and any infidelity on her part has direct repercussions on his social standing and legal contracts pertaining to his and his parents/in-laws estate.

As I put it above, there were some serious flaws in the way chivalry was practised. I'd like to see chivalry return, not the chivalric system as it was then. I do not think chivalry and women suffrage are mutually exclusive to any extend. I see it as a serious problem that in the post suffrage Western world, this often is the case. If you look at parts of the world were women suffrage has been or is being introduced more gradually, you'll notice that much more "female honour" is preserved in the process. Again, as which the previous point, the problem seems to be interpretation.

Going to begin playing the Devils advocate here, but here in the Western countries now any attempts at sexism or segregation by sex are forcibly destroyed by woman's rights movements as 'women can do anything men can do'. There would need to be no distinguishing feature between the laws as they apply to men or women or they would violate gender-discrimination acts and as traditional honour cultures around the world were generally based on the idea that all women should be chaste and submissive and all men should be courageous and arrogant, I can't see it working. Check out the changes in the English definition of the word buxom for example, quite funny actually. _{I recognise equal rights for all people but men and women are different, in general they think and act differently.}

Lai wrote:

Flecco wrote:

I'm not following that at all. You essentially agreed with my point there, society DID control the actors. To the point where in the aristocracy of Old Europe you could not turn down a challenge to duel without losing everything. House, family ties, money... All gone if you backed down on a direct challenge to your honour.

Yes I did agree to your point. However my point was that this should not be a reason to abolish dueling. The problem is that society controlled the actors in such a way that duelling was forced upon individuals. What we should do, rather than abolish duelling, is lift this social pressure by 21st century law and reforms. The problem is in the way society dealt with duelling not in duelling itself.

You really think that dueling would remain voluntary when at my school blokes still lost face for backing down to a fight? Are you really that naive to suggest that young men between the ages of 17-25 wouldn't be hot-headed about things and end up declaring duels highly frequently? I can remember more than one case where the legalisation of dueling to the death would have resulted in one or more people I know dying. Peer pressure is a very powerful force, especially amongst young testosterone-pumped men. Coward is still an effective insult, as is implying that another male is a 'pussy' or a 'big girl' etc. Just as slut remains an insult amongst women. Curious anachronisms from the past I know but they remain in the English speaking nations at least, even today.

Lai wrote:

Flecco wrote:

but we are more civilised than that now here in the Western World.

Please explain this to me from a non-ethnocentric point of view.

It's not ethnocentric. I was pretty sure that we had people of all races, creeds and religions living here in Europe/USA/Canukistan/UK/Australia now fairly comfortably together. Sure there's a few difficulties in each country but with time they can be solved.


I would agree that some form of societal honour needs to be restored into Western culture as it can prevent crime and be used to stop welfare state situations developing in socialist democracies. In the USA's early days it was a big part of the honour culture that developed in those colonies for a man to be employed and to be able to produce goods or services for society, as opposed to the English gentry with their aristocratic ideas, who were expected to live of their estates and were required to be 'idle' to be a gentleman. Any new form of honour in the Western world though cannot include duels to the death. It goes against the grain of the cultural evolution of the Western world.

Last edited by Flecco (2009-05-23 07:14:55)