A Wetpaint Site | TV Fandex 100

The Golden Nation of Mill'en

The Duel and Dueling

The Most Noble Pursuit of the Duel, a brief commentary

by Armand Capafaro

Some historians have marked the outlawing of the mortal duel by the Statute of Arms almost a century ago as the death of this most admirable pursuit of noblemen and swordsmen, but in truth the duel is neither wholly outlawed, nor in any way dead or even ill.

The Meaning of the Duel

Firstly, some definitions:

A true duel is a martial contest between two eligible individuals over a point of disagreement, usually relating to the besmirched honour of one party.

A duel to the touch, also known by the duel’s more rigorous adherents as a “trivial duel” is one where the combatants fight with rebated weapons, either to the first strike, to a set number of passes, or to when one combatant has landed a certain number of strikes.

A duel to the blood, also known as a “mortal duel” is a duel with unrebated weapons, where the only conclusion is the submission or the death of one of the combatants.

The Legality of the Duel

It should be noted that there are three circumstances in which a duel, postdating the Statute of Arms, may be enacted legally. These are:

A Duel to the Touch, which is accounted mere practice and swordplay, and no matter of legality.

A Duel in Law, whereby a nobleman has claimed the right of trial by combat, and is met by a champion appointed by the court. The rules of a duel in law differ somewhat from those of a duel of honour, and are mentioned below.

A Duel by Permission Royal. The Majeste has reserved for Himself the right to permit a mortal duel, and a noble may always petition the crown for such permission.

A mortal duel beyond these principles, regrettably, is beyond the guard of the law. This is not to say that the practice has been hounded to its demise. On the contrary, it merely necessitates that any duellists who seek to resolve their differences in the time-honoured manner, and the author is by no means advocating such, must make a friend of secrecy and isolation in the resolution of their dispute.

The Right to Duel

The duel is the pursuit of the nobility, of course, and as with all other facets of courtly life it is a keen observant of degree. Commoners and enlisted men may neither give nor accept a duel. Nobles, military officers and gentry may give and accept duels, either in their own right or by proxy, as shall be discussed below. Clergy, including nobility sworn into the clergy, are not permitted to give or accept duel in their own right, but those of the rank of Bishop or above may give or accept duels by proxy, for their own honour or the honour of the Teacher.

Should a noble be given duel by any individual more than two ranks beneath him, then he is permitted to refuse the duel without any stain on his honour, for the giver of the duel has exceeded due propriety in challenging his better. Similarly, within the military, an officer may decline the duel of another officer who stands more than two ranks beneath his notice. It is always open for the noble to accept the duel, of course, in person or by proxy.

The Role of the Proxy

It is a sad fact that of the modern nobility not all are of a martial persuasion, and many, both lords and ladies, do not find fit to raise the blade in their own defence. It is unthinkable that any noble, however, should not be able to defend his or her honour when such is slighted by another. Therefore it has become acceptable for a noble to have within their staff one who may step into the breach of honour on their behalf. Such a one, whilst going under various titles by the whim of his employer, is a Proxy duellist. Some may be in permanent employ under a retainer, and others may yet be hired in the anticipation of an insult or an argument foreseen.

It should be noted that the practice of maintaining a Proxy is entirely acceptable amongst those quarters of society least able to defend themselves. With the aged or infirm, the higher clergy, or the gentle sex whose courtly education has not fit them to take the blade, it is seemly for such to present one of greater vigour to meet the vicissitudes of honour. Likewise, those of grand station in the world, who might otherwise lower themselves when answering duels offered by those of low estate (for though such a duel may be refused, it is often not the wish of the challenged to leave the insult unanswered) may maintain a Proxy for the purpose of meeting such lowly challenges, without any suspicion of their courage. However, it is the author’s experience that many nobles of sound body and tender years, admirably fit for martial exercise, have yet resorted to such practices, and the author would submit that, for a man wholly capable of defending his own honour to lean on such another is a sad reflection on Mill'enese manhood at the best of times.

A Proxy, so retained, should still be of the gentry, nobility or military. Commoners are not duellists.

It should also be noted that it is not done for a military man, if given duel, to make use of a Proxy, save that he be injured or otherwise too infirm to take the field, in which case the dishonour is entirely his challenger’s.

The Proxy Ad Hoc

There is another circumstance in which the responding sword may be that of another, which is the time-honoured tradition of the Proxy Ad Hoc. This is a fortuitous event in which, upon an insult being publicly given to a noble, cleric or officer, or upon duel being publicly given to the same, some bystander steps in and offers to either give or accept duel on their behalf.

The reasons for this felicitous philanthropy are diverse. The newcomer may feel that the aggrieved party is not best able to defend themselves, or they may seek favour in the eyes of the aggrieved (for indeed it is a fine way for a young man, for example, to prove himself in the eyes of a lady, or a courtier in the eyes of his lord), or they may merely feel that their own sense of honour, or a commonly shared honour, has been affronted by the circumstance that they are witness to. It is common, for example, for junior officers to offer to give duel if their regiment is slandered, for sons to stand for the honour of their families, or for those of a religious persuasion to offer to stand for the honour of a clergyman. On one notable occasion, when a Bantustani ambassador mis-spoke himself before the Majeste, no fewer than one-hundred and forty-seven courtiers offered to give duel on the crown and the nation’s behalf.

In any event, the aggrieved individual, either they who received the insult or who were given the duel, must give their overt permission to allow the Proxy Ad Hoc to defend their honour. If this is refused, it is no slight to the honour of the volunteer, whose esteem indeed should be increased by his courageous gesture. Needless to say, such a Proxy Ad Hoc must be one whose estate would permit the giving or accepting of a duel in his own right.

The Arrangements of the Duel.

So we have, to date, a duel that is given, and then accepted. The carrying out of a duel, be it trivial or mortal, legal or otherwise, is a formal matter. The parties must make arrangements as follows in order to properly satisfy the demands of honour.

The accepting party should have choice of weapons, unless he wishes to cede this to his challenger. The weapons chosen must be those fitting to a gentleman, which in all historical cases has been the blade, pure and simple. The choice lies between the single blade, the blade and offhand dagger, the two-handed great-sword, or the double swords. However, in recent years it has become accepted practice for duels to take place by means of the darkpowder pistol, which the author cannot help but disapprove of. It must be noted that there is no rebating a pistol. A pistol duel is a mortal duel.

It may be that the accepting party, through some quirk of character, misplaced humour or other deviancy, should wish to duel using some other manner of weapon not normally considered gentlemanly. If this is the case then he may put his proposal to his opponent, who is by no means bound to accept it. Only on mutual agreement may a duel by means other than sword or pistol proceed.

The party that chooses the weapons must normally provide them also, giving the other free choice of which to use. If both agree, then they may bring their own personal blades or pistols (or whatever) to the duel.

The manner of the weapons also determines what protection the duellists may clothe themselves in. A great-sword match is traditionally enacted in full armour in the manner of the battlefield, and is a stirring spectacle, though rare in recent years. A match with lesser blades may be enacted in light armour if the protagonists so agree, but if one elects to do without, then neither may don any protection. A pistol duel is enacted with no armour whatsoever, for reasons that the author hopes are obvious.

The party that gave duel may then specify a place and time for the duel, which is recommended to be somewhere secluded, save if the duel is to be trivial.

In trivial duels the parties must also determine both what standard of victory shall be upheld, and what manner of blows shall be counted towards that victory, for which please peruse the following section.

Each party may nominate a second, on the role of which, more is to be found below.

The parties should also agree on a neutral Arbitrator who is to oversee the duel. The Arbitrator is best placed as a noted authority on the duel, a past duellist, and one with an unassailable reputation for honour and justice. The author humbly notes that he has undertaken this duty on many occasions.

The following individuals may also be located by the duellists at their own individual whim: a doctor, a lawyer, a priest. Any of these may also serve as Arbitrator if no better can be found. It is not done to bring any others to the duel, for fear of foul play. The only alternative is a duel that takes place before a large audience, and such duels, in latter days, are bound to be trivial unless the audience is exceptionally broad-minded.

The Event of the Duel

When all are assembled at the place and time specified, and when the duellists (for now we may call them thus) are suitably armed and caparisoned, the event of the duel may begin. I shall deal firstly with the noble exercise of the duel with blades, and secondly with the novations introduced by the practice of pistol duelling.

For duels with the blade it is correct form for the duellists to stand so that the points of their longest blades at greatest reach do not quite touch. The Arbitrator shall then give them a count, upon the conclusion of which they shall commence.

In a duel to the touch the combatants must have agreed on a condition to determine the victor, which otherwise may not be clear. This may be: to first touch; the first duellist to land an agreed number of strikes; or the duellist who lands the most strikes in an agreed number of passes. In a duel to the touch it is the Arbitrator who determines whether any strike is judged to have made sufficient contact. It is also customary for trivial duels to disallow strikes to certain parts of the body, in order to mimic the verisimilitude of a mortal duel, so that strikes to the hand, for example, or to the limbs, may not be counted. This is at the agreement of the parties or, failing such, the judgment of the Arbitrator. In any event, in a trivial duel, it is proper for the parties to break and resume their ease following each strike (such an engagement and break is referred to as a pass)

In a mortal duel the combat is of a notably more visceral nature, in which the niceties of a trivial duel need not be observed. The one crucial matter of agreement that the duellists must come to before hand is whether, after a strike, they shall part, as in a formal pass, or whether there shall be no holding in the sport. Breaks are only observed if both duellists agree to the practice, although such breaks are considered good duelling form as it allows the wounding party to request his wounded opponent’s submission.

In the mortal duel, only two matters may conclude the engagement. Either one of the duellists submits to the other, or he is rendered incapable of carrying on the fight. On either such conclusion, and should such individuals be brought, either party may require to be attended to by doctor, lawyer or priest as appropriate.

For duels with the pistol the duellists stand back to back, and the Arbitrator counts out a number of agreed paces, which each take as they are called. At the conclusion of this count the Arbitrator cries “turn and give fire!” The duellists obey, and either may miss, or misfire, or all manner of calamity may intervene in the dignified business of the duel, but like enough one, or even both, may fall dead or injured.

Unlike a duel of blades the business of pistols is a difficult matter to arbitrate, and it may be that, in the case of a double miss, misfire or even a double strike, that the question of honour remains undecided. The author has submitted that this is no way to carry forwards the honour of Mill-en, but has seldom been heeded in this matter. It has been known to find the Arbitrator measuring the distance of the pistol-ball from the heart in both duellists to determine, posthumously, the winner. This is a sorry state of affairs.

The role of the second

Once the duel has been accepted then it is unthinkable that honour not be satisfied. If circumstances, or rank cowardice, intervene to prevent a combatant from taking his place at the appointed time, then it falls to his second to stand for his honour. However, and no matter the details, a man who does not show for a duel is beyond the pale. His honour is permanently blemished, no matter what prompted his absence. It has been known for men to go contrary to the commands of their officers, their fathers and even their king in order to be present at a duel, and whilst they must then face the consequences of their desertion, their honour is the stronger for it.

The second, however, must occasionally stand, and in all things he is considered as the duellist himself, and his own personal honour is the much more admirable for making good on the failure of his friend.

The Duel in Law

As a final matter there exists the right of a noble to defend himself against a criminal accusation by means of trial by combat. In such circumstances he gains his honour, but loses many of the rights of a duellist.

It is the court that appoints his opponent, and similarly the court that chooses the time, place and manner of the duel, which choices may well not be beneficial to the unfortunate accused., and need not be gentlemanly. As the champion of the court may be a commoner, the accused may also have the dishonour of duelling with one nor otherwise fit to cross blades with him.

Trial by combat is always a mortal affair, and the accused has no right of submission. He must either drive the champion to submission, or to death, or he must himself die. No Proxies are permitted, either formal or ad hoc. The act of trial by combat is the accused’s last desperate chance to clear his name, and is a mark of great honour, albeit one seldom enjoyed for long.

imaginax	Latest page update: made by imaginax , Apr 12 2007, 3:18 PM EDT (about this update About This Update typo - imaginax 1 image added view changes - complete history)
	Keyword tags: duel Duelling law Mill'en More Info: links to this page