Very well, Gaudere

The BBQ Pit
61

I almost dueled once.

I was recovering from a horrible hangover that left me quite incapacitated,–which, when word of my sordid state spread throughout the community, my foe pounced upon as opening to press once-for-all his advantage.

As he burst in upon my bedchamber, I could only wince inwardly—but fortune had smiled upon me, as my beloved heard him prise the STIHL automatic garage door up and back on ancient, protesting hinges, and she’d taken this scant but timely opportunity to rush to my side bearing my trusty rapier I normally kept hidden within the larder, just behind the aluminum cylinder containing the lost Manets.

The cad gazed upon me as a slavering hound upon the tender morsel of a crippled piglet. I steeled myself, preparing for the ultimate test of personal resolve, fortitude, and courage.

HIM: [At this point, my opponent drew his own sword, no doubt snatched from the pilcher of the coat-of-arms at the door of his fraternity, and purposed to take advantage of me in my weakened state] To the death!

ME: [Here I sat up, slowly but quite steadily, so as to plant the seed of a possibility that I might not be as infirm as I actually was.] No! To the pain!

[At this, he paused, cocking a surly eyebrow, shifting the landscpe on his neanderthal brow]

HIM: I don’t think I’m quite familiar with that phrase?

[I pressed the advantage, sharpening my tone just enough so as to strike the first subtle blow to the intellect—a difficult venture, in that said intellect was deeply entrenched within the formidable bowels of his convoluted psyche—but the scalpel of my own wit sliced home, true and precise]

ME: I’ll explain, and I’ll use small words so that you’ll be sure to understand. You-wart-hog-faced-buffoon!

HIM: [Slow realization that I did, indeed, place my foot square within the rectum of his resolve] That may be the first time in my life a man has dared insult me.

[I continued, careful not to seem over-eager, but cunning enough to gauge my momentum by the slow beads of sweat stippled across the acreage of his brow]

ME: It won’t be the last. To the pain means the first thing you lose will be your your feet below the ankles, then your hands at your wrists. Next, your nose.

[At this he mustered a wry grin; however, a runnel of mucous sprung free from its sequestered mooring to quiver infantile upon his upper lip, betraying him without remorse]

HIM: Then my tongue, I suppose? I killed you too quickly the last time, a mistake I don’t mean to duplicate tonight.

[I cut him off here in the same manner Santa slaps a mouthy elf]

ME: I wasn’t finished! The next thing you lose will be your left eye followed by your right!

[Now the hysteria crept in, an almost palpable presence within the room, hanging just below the moulding and just above the edge of the 5’ by 3’ mounting of Gary Oldman playing air-piano]

HIM: And then my ears…I understand! Let’s get on with it!

[And with the adroit finesse of one who neuters large and angry carnivores , I relieved him of his bravado]

ME: Wrong! Your ears you keep, and I’ll tell you why; so that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness is yours to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman that cries out, ‘dear god what is that thing!’ will echo in your perfect ears. That is what to the pain means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.
[Silence. He shook. He stammered. He groused. He fidgeted. Finally:]

HIM: I think you’re bluffing.

[Giddy, but conscious of dry-heaving and the need to make my bladder gladder, I delivered the coup-de-grace]

ME: It’s possible, pig. I might be bluffing. It’s conceivable you miserable vomitous mass, I’m only lying here because I lack the strength to stand. Then again, perhaps I have the strength to stand after all. [At this point, I stood, firm, bearing no hint of the excruciating pain and effort it took to do so, and leveled my rapier before his eyes] *Drop… your… sword. *

And friends, do you know what he did?

Well, that is another tale.

And it is all true, or my name isn’t William Goldman!

62

Damn it that sucks!
I had to leave this am just after Scylla posted the questions about dueling. I thought about it all day long and now this.

It blows my mind that a person inclined to duel for honor would so quickly run and hide from Internet discussion board.

Looking at it now I suspect the duels in question were done with a 12-sided die and not a sword at all.

63

I would not presume to answer for Screwtape; nevertheless, I would like to add my opinion and my learning. I study classical and historical fencing. It is not a sport: I am learning to fence as if I were preparing for actual duels with edged weapons. I have never endangered myself in a real duel, but I rather know how they work from extensive reading and practice.

“Modern” duelling is a term that leaves much to the imagination. It is no longer a social institution of any relevance whatsoever. I can merely discuss the ideal of the duel, which diverged frequently from the reality, and is rarely practiced today.

First, a word…

Screwtape does in fact sound as though he knows what he is talking about. “En sixte” refers to a specific guard position in French epee or smallsword (or foil, a training weapon never used in real combat), in which the weapon arm is bent slightly outwards at the elbow and inward at the wrist in order to close the outside line of attack. It is the standard “on guard” position for most point weapons.

For further information, please visit the site of my fencing school, [, or the site of the international swordplay association, of which I am now the secretary, at url=“http://www.ahfi.org.” They are both extremely informative.

Duelling protocols varied from place to place and from time to time. The French were especially keen on protocol; the Germans especially liked to maim each other with mensurs and schlagers. The following is something of a distillation of 19th century duelling etiquette, which was violated easily as often as it was observed.

After a challenge is presented and accepted, the two parties would have no further contact whatsoever until the duel. They would each choose seconds to negotiate the time, the place, the weapons used, and the terms. The terms varied wildly: the winner of one pass, the winner of three passes, first blood, first disarm, duel until one party yields, death, or somewhere in between. Trivial offenses rarely lead to the death or even severe injury of either of the parties.

Recall that the goal, in a properly executed duel, is to satisfy honor, not to inflict punishment or wreak revenge. The duel is actually rather similar in form and substance to civil litigation: both sides observe certain rules and forms in an agonistic setting, and the winner is triumphant based on his adherence to the rules and on his own skills. It is a direct outgrowth of trial by combat, an ancient medieval “right” allowed to members of the hereditary aristocracy.

In the “modern” world, duelling is the right of two gentlemen to resolve their differences among themselves, thereby not bringing in such third parties as the law. In a world where personal honor and reputation are paramount, duelling is a social safety valve. After the duel is over, the offense is forgotten, for honor has been satisfied. Grudges, feuds, longtime battling, etc are thereby avoided. Neither party has the right to mention the cause of the duel as a point of honor again.

At any rate, the duel would rarely take place less than two weeks after the challenge was accepted. This would give both parties time to cool down and engage each other as calmly and rationally as possible. Angry duellists make poor duellists. Anyone who has ever held a sword with intent to use it will know exactly what I mean.

At the site of the duel, both parties would be accompanied by at least one second. A director would officiate the duel as well. The duellists would cross blades, and the director would place his own blade beneath the intersection of the two duellists’ weapons in order to prevent false starts. When both parties were ready, the duel would begin.

Duels were usually swift. The seconds would bear away the dead or injured to the appropriate places. More often than not, one or both of the parties would simply walk away with cool scars. It often didn’t matter whether you won or lost as long as you had the scars to prove that you had fought a duel. Youths would often cut their own faces and sew irritants under their skin just to produce wickedly ugly scars without having to undertake the risk of an actual duel.

Duelling was a sacred institution, and its rules had to be observed in order for the principle of the satisfaction of honor to work. Certain techniques, such as punching, kicking, grappling, etc. were absolutely forbidden. Etiquette, restricted technique, and usually restricted duelling objectives differentiated the duel from the street fight.

I hope this was somewhat useful. Please do not hesitate to ask further questions.

MR

64

I posted the previous and then, and only then, did I see your post immediately preceding.

And so, I tip this Sierra Nevada Bigfoot in your direction.

65

The second rule of Dueling Club is…oh, never mind.

66

Sierra Nevada? Is that a threat?
:smiley:

67

A quick search of my Classical Fencing Mailing List turned up the following “modern” duelling oddity:

If the first rule of Duel Club is “do not talk about Duel Club,” then the second is “no duelling over women.” And the third certainly is “if you are going to be a fucking idiot and duel over a woman, don’t let her come to the damned duel.”

You’d think a pair of Dutchmen could just smoke a bowl and satisfy honor with some cannabis. :smiley:

MR

68

At 9.4% bottled, it has the potential to be, oh most assuredly, sirrah!

Besides–in the sage advice of that little after-school-special-fig-man “Timer”:

“Don’t quibble til you nibble
A dabble or a dibble.”

69

“Hanker for a hunk-a
A big ol’ slab, a chunk-a
A hanker for a hunk-a . . .”

70

MAEGLIN:

You sort of touched upon this in your latest post, but it is worth reiterating that, to the extent it can be considered a third party, The Law does not always wait to be asked before it becomes involves.

Dueling is specifically outlawed in many jurisdictions. Even in jurisdictions where it is not, it is still probably illegal as an assault or a homocide, or an attempt to commit either or both. (In my jurisdiction, for example, “dueling” has been held to not constitute an affirmative defense – in other words, you cannot escape criminal liability for the intentional injury or death of another, even if he or she tacitly assumes the risk by engaging in a duel. This despite the fact that my jurisdiction is one where dueling has not been explicitly outlawed.)

Dueling has become both obsolete and illegal in the modern world precisely because society – and the law – have deemed it unacceptable that people should resolve their disputes through physical violence, no matter how dressed up that violence may be with the trappings of precedence, procedure, or “honor.” In our modern world, there is no “honorable” way to obtain the death of another human being, as taking another’s life is not the privilege of the individual – even if you have the other person’s explicit permission to try.

Besides, the only so-called duel I am personally aware of involved two drug dealers blazing away at each other with guns, during which an innocent bystander was killed. It’s hard to see the honor in that.

71

**
Touche, andros. That made me laugh out loud. (Sorry. I don’t know how to make the accent thingee above the ‘e.’)

My state, Michigan, still has laws on the books regarding dueling. I stumbled across them while looking for some other stuff a while back.

Not much to them, really. Says something to the effect of, “If you kill somebody in a duel, you committed murder. And if you helped organize a duel in which someone dies, you’re an accessory to murder.”

I think I’m going to watch the original “Highlander” this weekend.

72

Maeglin:

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I understand the historical context of dueling, and why it was necessary. Nevertheless your discussion was enlightening. I’d agree that Screwtop seemed to know a thing or two. I find that disapointing as this kind of knowledge and tradition should reside in more responsible hands (like your own.)

I was most interested in why someone today would feel it necessary to engage in duels over points of honor, and how they might go about doing so. Not sharing the same socioeconomic background of historical duelists what compelling reason do they have to engage in this behavior?

I would think that if one had the discipline and interest to pick up as difficult and hard to master skill as swordsmanship is today, and participate within a closely knit group that shared that interest, such a person would have no need to sully or tarnish his skills or risk injury to a fellow intitiate in a parody of historical dueling.

Then, I believe that knowledge, skill, and discipline improve a person to such a degree that such a meaningless and macho display would be beneath a professional or gifted amateur.

As far as swordplay goes, I am a hack (heh. heh. heh.) I lerned a little with the foils, and a little more with the broadsword, but lacked talent.

But even my little high school fencing club experience gave me enough respect for the art that I would never consider an actual duel or even a practice without safety equiptment.

That old screwtop is willing to do so, and claims to have done so several times suggests to me that he’s beneath contempt for the perversion of his skills. THough, I suspect he’s a hack as well.

73

Remember, Milo . . . there can be only one. (One SCA-obsessed, d20-throwing ren-fair throwback, that is.)

74

Scylla perhaps, then I should introduce you to my former brother in law, “Wally "
One of the last times I saw him at a family gathering, he was about 22, and showed me this laaaaaaarge knife he was carrying. Me “What the hell do you have that for?” him"well, I might get into a fight with anuther guy and if he pulls a knife on me, I want to be prepared”. ya-huh. “what in the world do you have worht fighting a knife fight over?” Him, said in a suitably solemn tone “A woman’s honor”.

75

Huzzah to th’ big tipper!!!

76

Nope. I refuse to add the damned “e” at the end. :wink:

77

Thou hast lost an eighth.

(Still searching for proper ‘duel’ glove)

(Wonders if white sequined ‘Torture’ tour glove would work)

78

Bravo! That was perfectly said. I can say with some authority that everyone who studies at my school would agree completely.

The only reason I can think of to engage in such foolishness would be to approximate as accurately as possible thereal dueling experience in order to test how well combatants “remember their training,” as it were. Alternatively, I would love to see firsthand the evisceration power of a sabre. Preferably not by testing it on another human.

That joke is older than the crusted blood on the oldest surviving German fechtbuch. :wink:

Well, I would doubt his skill as well. The historical fencing community is small, but like-minded. Real dueling is looked upon with extreme distaste. Unless he is a self-taught poseur or a wannabe SCA fencer, I don’t think he could have possibly been trained by masters in the genuine swordplay community.

MR

79

If I might add a little bit to Maeglin’s excellent posts:

Duelling with swords was the standard in Europe and the colonies until the middle-to-late 1700’s, when duelling by pistol became the new form. Prior to then, pistols were inaccurate and as likely to cause damage to the wielder as to the target- remember that the Three Musketeers were known for their great swordsmanship*, even though their name implied that they carried pistols.

However, as firearms became more accurate and useable, the art of dueling by swords fell by the wayside- the average person with any military training was far more likely to know how to use a firearm than a sword unless they were in the cavalry, and by the mid-1800’s no army training included fencing. In the latter part of the 19th century, fencing as a sport gained a resurgence, and I believe much of what Maeglin describes covers that period.

As for dueling with pistols- the arrangements were handled in the same way (with seconds, setting the terms, etc.). The actual duel, however, usually proceeded as follows- the two combatants would stand approximately twenty paces apart. The person who had been challenged would then be allowed to aim and shoot at his challenger. Once finished, and assuming the challenged had not mortally wounded his foe, the challenger would then be allowed to aim and shoot at the challenged. Once finished, and again assuming no mortal wound, usually the seconds would attempt to intervene and ask the duel to be called off; if it were, honor would usually be considered served.

Certainly, such duels didn’t require as much skill as fencing; point and shoot is much easier than parry-riposte-etc. However, given the inaccuracy of the weapons, it did require some skill, and certainly was not always lethal. In addition, by allowing the challenged party the first shot, you had better be prepared to die if you wanted to challenge someone.

And there are some pretty cool stories about such pistol duels in early 19th century America- my favorite is that of Andrew Jackson, who challenged a man to a duel for slandering Jackson’s wife: the man fired first, to no obvious effect. Jackson then carefully aimed and fired, and gave his offender a mortal wound to the groin. As the seconds rushed to attend to the falled duelist, Jackson keeled over, and it was found that his opponent had shot Jackson in the chest; Jackson had been so intent upon avenging his wife’s honor that he had ignored a nearly-mortal wound until he had his chance to return fire.
[sub]*And chocolaty goodness. Just wanted to say that before someone else did.[/sub]

80

What’s all this talk about duelling being outlawed. Two contestants hacking viciously at each other, with a supposed official presiding over the messy business - ladies and gentlemen, I give you Judge Judy.