A duel is a formalized type of combat. As practised from the 15th to 20th centuries in Western societies, a duel may be defined as: A consensual fight between two gentlemen, with matched deadly weapons, in accordance with rules explicitly or implicitly agreed upon, over a point of honor, usually accompanied by seconds (who might themselves fight), and in contravention of the law.
The duel usually developed out of the desire of one party (the challenger) to redress a perceived insult to his honor. The goal of the duel was not so much to kill the opponent as to gain "satisfaction," i.e., to restore one's honor by demonstrating a willingness to risk one's life for it.
Duels may be distinguished from trials by combat, in that duel was not used to determine guilt or innocence, and duels were not official procedures. Indeed, duels were often illegal, though in most societies where dueling was socially accepted, participants in a fair duel were not prosecuted, or if they were, were not convicted. Only gentlemen were considered to have honor, and therefore qualified to duel. If a gentleman was insulted by a person of lower class he would not duel him but would beat him with a cane or whip or have his servants do so. Dueling is now illegal in all but a few countries around the world.
Alexander Hamilton fights his fatal duel with Aaron Burr.Contents [hide]
1 Rules
2 History
3 Prominent duels
4 Unusual Duels
5 Duelling in Particular Countries
5.1 Greece
6 Opposition to dueling
6.1 United States
7 Modern duels
8 Game-theoretic aspects of duelling
9 See also
10 References
10.1 Scholarly Studies: US and Canada
10.2 Popular works
11 External links
[edit]
Rules
Sabre duel of German students, around 1900, painting by Georg Mühlberg (1863-1925)Duels could be fought with some sort of sword or, from the 18th Century on, with pistols.[1] For this end special sets of duelling pistols were crafted for the wealthiest of noblemen.
After the offense, whether real or imagined, the offended party would demand "satisfaction" from the offender,[2] signalling this demand with an inescapably insulting gesture, such as hitting the offender in the face with a glove, or throwing the glove before him, hence the phrase "throwing down the gauntlet". This originates from medieval times, when a knight was knighted. The knight-to-be would receive a ritual slap in the face, said to be the last one he ever had to accept without retaliating tenfold. Therefore anyone being slapped with a glove, was considered, like a knight, to accept the challenge, or be dishonoured. Each party would name a trusted representative (a second) who would, between them, determine a suitable "field of honor", the chief criterion being isolation from interruptions. Duels traditionally took place at dawn, for this very reason. It was also the duty of each party's second to check that the weapons were equal and that the duel was fair.
At the choice of the offended party, the duel could be:
to first blood, in which case the duel would be ended as soon as one man was wounded, even if the wound was minor:
till one man was so severely wounded as to be physically unable to continue the duel;
to the death, in which case there would be no satisfaction until the other party was mortally wounded;
or, in the case of pistol duels, each party would fire one shot. Even if neither man had been hit, if the challenger stated that he was satisfied, the duel would be declared over. A pistol duel could continue until one man was wounded or killed, but to have more than three exchanges of fire was considered barbarous, and somewhat ridiculous if no hits were achieved.
Under the latter conditions, one or both parties could intentionally miss in order to fulfil the conditions of the duel, without loss of either life or honor. However, to do so, "to delope", could imply that your opponent was not worth shooting. This practice occurred despite being expressly banned by the Code Duello of 1777. Rule 13 stated: "No dumb shooting or firing in the air is admissible in any case... therefore children's play must be dishonourable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited." Practices varied, however, and many pistol duels were to first blood or death. The offended party could stop the duel at any time if he deemed his honor satisfied.
For a pistol duel, the parties would be placed back to back with loaded weapons in hand and walk a set number of paces, turn to face the opponent, and shoot. Typically, the graver the insult, the fewer the paces agreed upon. Alternately, a pre-agreed length of ground would be measured out by the seconds and marked, often with swords stuck in the ground. At a given signal, often the dropping of a handkerchief, the principals could advance to the marker and fire at will. This latter system reduced the possibility of cheating, as neither principal had to trust the other not to turn too soon. Another system involved alternate shots being taken - the challenged firing first.
Many historical duels were prevented by the difficulty of arranging the "methodus pugnandi." In the instance of Dr. Richard Brocklesby, the number of paces could not be agreed upon; and in the affair between Mark Akenside and Ballow, one had determined never to fight in the morning, and the other that he would never fight in the afternoon. John Wilkes, who did not stand upon ceremony in these little affairs, when asked by Lord Talbot how many times they were to fire, replied, "just as often as your Lordship pleases; I have brought a bag of bullets and a flask of gunpowder."
[edit]
History
In English, the word duel is attested from the latter half of the 15th century. It derives from Old Latin duellum (Classical Latin bellum "war"), in Middle Latin associated with duo "two" by popular etymology, shifting its meaning to "one-to-one combat". The word is ultimately from a PIE root *deh2v "to burn, to destroy", cognate to Old English teona "damage".
Physical confrontations related to insults and social standing pre-date human society, but the formal concept of a duel, in Western society, developed out of medieval judicial duel and older pre-Christian practices such as the Viking Age Holmganga. Judicial duels were deprecated by the Lateran Council of 1215, but in 1459 (MS Thott 290 2), Hans Talhoffer reports that in spite of this, there were still seven capital crimes that were still commonly accepted to be settled by a judicial duel. Most societies did not condemn dueling, and the victor of a duel was regarded not as a murderer but as a hero, his social status often increased. During the early Renaissance, dueling established the status of a respectable gentleman, and was an accepted manner to resolve disputes. Dueling in such societies was seen as an alternative to less regulated conflict.
The first published code duello, or "code of dueling", appeared in Renaissance Italy; however, it had many antecedents, ranging back to old Germanic law. The first formalised national code was France's, during the Renaissance. In 1777, Ireland developed a code duello, which was indeed the most influential in American dueling culture.
[edit]
Prominent duels
To decline a challenge was often equated to defeat by forfeiture, and was sometimes even regarded as dishonorable. Prominent and famous individuals ran an especial risk of being challenged for duels.
Among the most famous duels are the American Hamilton-Burr duel, in which notable Federalist Alexander Hamilton was fatally wounded, and the duel between Duke of Wellington and the 10th Earl of Winchilsea, wherein each participant intentionally missed the other.
The Russian poet Alexander Pushkin prophetically described a number of duels in his works, notably Onegin's duel with Lensky in Eugene Onegin. The poet was mortally wounded in a controversial duel with Georges d'Anthès, a French officer rumoured to be his wife's lover. d'Anthès, who was accused of cheating in this duel, married Pushkin's sister-in-law and went on to become French minister and senator. The whole affair was instigated by anonymous letters, apparently written by two homosexual princes in order to revenge d'Anthès for his homosexual affair with the Ambassador of Holland.
The last fatal duel in Canada saw Robert Lyon challenge John Wilson to a pistol duel after a quarrel over remarks made about a local schoolteacher whom Wilson ended up marrying after Lyon was killed in the duel.
In 1864, American writer Mark Twain - then editor of the New York Sunday Mercury - narrowly avoided fighting a duel with a rival newspaper editor, apparently through the quick thinking of his second, who exaggerated Twain's prowess with a pistol. [3] [4] [5]
Another famous, and possibly apocryphal, story had the 6 foot 4 inch Abraham Lincoln avoiding a duel with a renowned but diminutive gunfighter who had challenged him to a duel. Lincoln took the challenged party's prerogative and chose the place and manner of the duel; he decided on a duel with broadswords in six feet of water. His would be opponent withdrew his challenge, and was apparently so amused that the two became friends.
(See also: List of famous duels)
[edit]
Unusual Duels
In 1808, two Frenchmen are said to have fought in balloons over Paris, each attempting to shoot and puncture the other's balloon; one duellist is said to have been shot down and killed with his second.
Thirty-five years later, two men are said to have fought a duel by means of throwing billiard balls at each other. [6]
Some participants in a duel, given the choice of weapons, are said to have deliberately chosen ridiculous weapons such as howitzers, sledgehammers, or forkfuls of pig dung , in order to show their disdain for the proceedings. [7]
[edit]
Duelling in Particular Countries
[edit]
Greece
In the Ionian Islands in the 19th century, there was a practice of formalised fighting between men over points of honour. The tradition was unusual in that it was carried on by peasants rather than the aristocracy.
Knives were the weapons used in such fights. They would begin with an exchange of sexually-related insults in a public place such as a tavern, and the men would fight with the intention of slashing the other's face, rather than killing. As soon as blood was drawn onlookers would intervene to separate the men. The winner would often spit on his opponent and dip his neckerchief in the blood of the loser, or wipe the blood off his knife with it.
The winner would generally make no attempt to avoid arrest, and receive a light penalty, such as a short jail sentence and/or a small fine.[8]
[edit]
Opposition to dueling
The Catholic Church and many political leaders like King James I of Britain, usually denounced dueling throughout Europe's history, though some authorities tacitly allowed it, believing it to relieve long-standing familial and social tensions.
[edit]
United States
Dueling began to fall out of favor in America in the 18th century. Benjamin Franklin denounced the practice as uselessly violent, and George Washington encouraged his officers to refuse challenges during the American Revolutionary War because he believed that the death by dueling of officers would have threatened the success of the war effort.
Furthermore, dueling was often used as a façade for legalized murder. In 1806, Andrew Jackson—later to become a U.S. President—engaged in a duel but violated a technicality of his duel. Jackson and his opponent had agreed to a one-shot duel, but when the duel began and Jackson fired, his pistol jammed. His opponent took his shot but missed entirely. Jackson unjammed his pistol, fired, and hit his opponent (his turn was technically over when his pistol jammed).
By the end of the 19th century, legalized dueling was almost extinct in most of the world. Some American states have laws which establish procedures for legal dueling, but it is unlikely that they would be upheld in court.
Many jurisdictions have very high level bans laid against dueling, with stiff penalties for violation. Several United States state constitutions ban the practice, the most common penalty being disenfranchisement and/or disqualification from all offices.
Constitution of Alabama (Article IV, Section 86):
"The Legislature shall pass such penal laws as it may deem expedient to suppress the evil practice of duelling.
Constitution of Kentucky (Section 228 and 239):
Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.
Any person who shall, after the adoption of this Constitution, either directly or indirectly, give, accept or knowingly carry a challenge to any person or persons to fight in single combat, with a citizen of this State, with a deadly weapon, either in or out of the State, shall be deprived of the right to hold any office of honor or profit in this Commonwealth; and if said acts, or any of them, be committed within this State, the person or persons so committing them shall be further punished in such manner as the General Assembly may prescribe by law.
Constitution of Mississippi (Article 3, Section 19):
Human life shall not be imperiled by the practice of dueling; and any citizen of this state who shall hereafter fight a duel, or assist in the same as second, or send, accept, or knowingly carry a challenge therefor, whether such an act be done in the state, or out of it, or who shall go out of the state to fight a duel, or to assist in the same as second, or to send, accept, or carry a challenge, shall be disqualified from holding any office under this Constitution, and shall be disenfranchised.
Constitution of Tennessee (Article IX, Section 3):
Any person who shall, after the adoption of this Constitution, fight a duel, or knowingly be the bearer of a challenge to fight a duel, or send or accept a challenge for that purpose, or be an aider or abettor in fighting a duel, shall be deprived of the right to hold any office of honor or profit in this state, and shall be punished otherwise, in such manner as the Legislature may prescribe.
Uniform Code of Military Justice (Article 114):
Any person subject to this chapter who fights or promotes, or is concerned in or connives at fighting a duel, or who, having knowledge of a challenge sent or about to be sent, fails to report the facts promptly to the proper authority, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Florida State Constitution of 1838, Article 6, Section 5:
No person shall be capable of holding, or of being elected to any post of honor, profit, trust, or emolument, civil or military, legislative, executive, or judicial, under the government of this State, who shall hereafter fight a duel, or send, or accept a challenge to fight a duel, the probable issue of which may be the death of the challenger, or challenged, or who shall be a second to either party, or who shall in any manner aid, or assist in such duel, or shall be knowingly the bearer of such challenge, or acceptance, whether the same occur, or be committed in or out of the State.
[edit]
Modern duels
Dueling still continues to occur, albeit not with regularity.
In May of 2005, twelve youths aged between fifteen and seventeen were arrested in Japan and charged with violating a dueling law that came into effect in 1889. Six other youths were also arrested on the same charges in March.
It is uncommon, though not unheard of, for members of the same US college fraternity, who finding themselves in a fairly serious disagreement, to fight a duel via fisticuffs. Especially in the South, there are informal arrangements whereby the two brothers meet in a specified place and "fight it out", with seconds. Such an event was documented in the Louisiana Tech student newspaper in the early 1990's.
Senator Zell Miller (D-GA), apparently offended by criticisms and questions from host Chris Matthews of Hardball with Chris Matthews, loudly remarked that "I wish we lived in the day when you could challenge a person to a duel!"
Fencing is a sport which simulates a sword fight, but with 'weapons' that are not intended to injure - and obviously without any assumption that the physical conflict is related to a personal conflict as with a duel.
[edit]
Game-theoretic aspects of duelling
Dueling is a scenario sometimes used in discussions of games and game theory.
One example is a dueling-type scenario with 3 participants, each with different levels of skill as a marksman. Shooter A has a 95% rate of accuracy, shooter B has 75%, and C has 5%. The shooters take positions on an equilateral triangle; each chooses a target and (if alive) fires one shot. To be fair, it is agreed that the shooters will shoot in reverse order of their skill, I.E. first C, then B, then A.
The question is, if you are shooter C, what is the best strategy? At first glance, it might seem like shooting at A would be best, but really the best thing to do is to shoot in the air. That way, B will shoot at A, and if he misses, A will shoot at B. Either way, C will end up with the first shot of the survivor. C exchanges the first shot in a "truel" for the first shot in a proper duel.
