And you know that ...how?
Because I read a lot of history. For example, in Spain, at one time, only about 25% of male Spanish nobles were living to the age of 30...and the main cause of death for those nobles over the age of 15 was dueling. The numbers were similarly grim in other European nations. It was then that Catholic Church declared that anyone engaging in a duel would be excommunicated, and a few nations started passing laws making duels illegal (in addition to the existing rules against murder).
The history of dueling is actually a fairly well researched topic, and if you'd like some reading suggestions, I'd try either:
*
Gentlemen's Blood, A History of Dueling, by Barbara Holland. The book jacket (of the paperback) gives this quote from the Wall Street Journal's review of the book: "Never did I imagine that dueling could be so enthralling, outrageous, gruesome, tragic, and, yes, ridiculous."
or, if you want a more rigorous discussion of why dueling was bad for society, try
*
The Duel of Honor: Screening For Unobservable Social Capital, by Douglas Allen and Clyde Reed, American Law and Economics Review (Fall 2006)
What is "minor" to you, might not be "minor" to someone else. It's not your place to make such judgements ...or if it is, it shouldn't be.
Contrary to your view that duels were fought over serious matters, they were often used as cover to take out political opponents, especially here in the U.S. (again, see the life of Alexander Hamilton and his eldest son). They were also fought over matters of philosophical and scientific disagreement...as if a duel is going to resolve a scientific dispute. The literary critic Charles Saint-Beuve was famously challenged to a duel because an author did not like the review he received (when M. Saint-Beuve was asked to choose his weapon, he replied "I choose spelling; you're dead."). Several duels were fought over one person's speculating about the true age of the other (the most famous being the "Petticoat Duel" between Mrs. Elphinstone and Lady Almeria Braddock, since the combatants were women). In fact, virtually any disagreement, no matter how minor, became grounds for a duel, as long as one man felt like fighting (and again, it only takes one, since refusing a duel was the end of one's ability to function in society in those periods when duels were common).
Other notable ridiculous duels include:
- Commodore Barron challenged and killed one of the judges who sat at his court martial (Stephen Decatur).
- Pitt the Younger challenged George Tierney to a duel on the grounds that Tierney suffered from "a want of patriotism."
- In the course of a very technical, legal, dispute over who was the proper inheritor of a piece of land, the courts ruled against the 4th Baron Mohun, who challenged the winner, the Duke of Hamilton. Both men died, prompting yet more legal proceedings amongst Hamilton's heirs over who now owned that land. I stress, though, that even had Baron Mohun won the duel and survived, that would not have made his claim on that land any stronger.
- Kenelm Digby (an Englishman who was traveling in France) fought Mont le Ros over le Ros's suggesting that Charles I (of England) was not a good monarch. (If that stands as a "good duel" then I think that anyone that challenges the efficacy of Administration policy can be forced to fight to the death).
The book entitled
Notes on Duels and Duelling: Alphabetically Arranged with a Preliminary Historical Essay by Lorenzo Sabine (1855), has some of my favorites, though:
- One Neopolitan nobleman once fought a duel over the crucial matter of whether Dante was a better poet than Ariosto. The nobleman later admitted on his deathbed that he had never read the works of either.
- A French Knight declared that his lover was more beautiful any Englishwoman. Someone took offense, and the knight was killed in the ensuing duel.
- Two French nobles could not agree on whether the letter embroidered into a piece of cloth was an "X" or a "Y", so they set up a six on six person duel to settle the matter.
- One marquis owed another 15 shillings, admitted that he owed the debt, but challenged the other man to a duel rather than pay, killing the other man.
- A member of Parliament was called "a Jacobite," so dueled and killed the man over the "insult."
- An English nobleman in lone for a dukedom challenged a man he had never met before to a duel because he felt "a call" to do so...there was no specific offense.
- An English officer, recounting his combat duty in the American Revolution asserted that the American forces were not cowards. Another officer took offense, and killed him in a duel for not badmouthing us.
- A member of the House of Commons killed a man because the man's horse walked backwards (i.e. hindquarters first) towards a royal residence, and the man made a quip about the incident.
- A nobleman was killed because he glanced at another nobleman's wife on the street.
- Two barristers met who had never met nor spoken to one another once fought. One challenged the other without giving a reason or allowing the other a chance to apologize for whatever the supposed wrong was, likely because there was none. The second barrister stated openly that his only reason for going through with it was that he'd never be able to live his life (or practice law again) if he declined.
- Two men dueled because they had a disagreement over whether or not "Ireland was a nation easily roused and easily appeased."
- A traveler who has attempted to stop two men from fighting was challenged to a duel for his trouble by one of them.
- A man who referred to "a beggarly corporation" was challenged to a duel by a man who disagreed (this would be Daniel O'Connell, who killed the challenger, d'Esterre, despite d'Esterre's being a notable duelist and O'Connell's never having dueled before).
- A witness in an American trial testified against a criminal, who happened to be a wealthy man, so the criminal killed him on the supposed "field of honor" after his sentence was served.
That book goes on and on.
From what I have read, it seems that the plurality (perhaps majority) of duels were fought over women, and one man's inability to take rejection is not a very compelling reason to kill another man, any more than it is a good reason to kill the woman. Evariste Galois (who, despite his age, laid the foundations of "Galois theory") was (by most accounts) killed in a duel of this sort, in that the ex of the woman he was seeing didn't like the woman seeing anyone new. Galois died at the age of 20, already an acknowledged genius. Who knows what he might have achieved but for the fact that he was pressured into that duel.
Have you seen your boss? Geez, he's big man, and strong, plus he's been the champion marksman with pistols and rifles for the past three years!! Only an idiot would challenge him to a duel.
Fear not for me. I work out six days a week, so I'm pretty sure I can take him. Also, I am a pretty good shot, so even if he chooses pistols over swords, I think I still stand a chance.
A challenge to a duel would not be such a trivial thing ...if one stood a chance of getting killed or maimed. Or are you just that kind of person??? ...and you're projecting that same mentality onto others?
Again, I am assuming that history is a guide to ho duels will progress. Historically speaking, the fear of death and maiming did not prevent, for example, artists from trying to kill art critics over "bad" reviews like "The artist depicted a philosopher trampling oyster shells and a watercolor of his Christ with Angels." (That was the "review" that caused Edouard Manet to fly into a rage and challenge the critic Louis Duranty to a sword fight...a review which seems curiously devoid of criticism, save that Manet thought its
tone was hostile.) Also, in a rage or not, once the challenge is issued, neither man can back out without losing face and making himself a permanent pariah.
Plus, see the list above. A number of duels actually were fought for no reason at all, save that one of the men felt like fighting and the other didn't feel he could refuse the challenge and still live in the community. I would submit that "no reason at all" is "not a good reason" in a more or less objective sense. These are not "duels of honor" in most cases, but "duels to settle arguments" or "duels fought because one person was angry or jealous."
I don't know where you live, but in the USA, such boxing and wrestling is NOT legal! One can get arrested for assault, if not more.
You are wrong. Part of my weekly work outs include boxing. Amateur boxers do not need to be licensed any any state I know of. I have boxed against several of my friends. You can go to any gym with a ring and sign up if you want....there's no requirements necessary to become a boxer. While it is true that you are not allowed to fight in a public place and that the fight must be properly "arranged," boxing is legal. That's why you see it on T.V. Find a gym with a ring, sign up, put on the gloves, and the police cannot touch you for assault during the course of a bout (unless you go beyond the customary rules of boxing, like (say) attacking an opponent who's already unconscious).
It is true that match makers for amateur bouts do need a license, hence you have to find a gym with a ring (and any gym with a ring will have the license as they are not hard to get). Having to go to a place that has a promoter's license is no more onerous than having to bring a second or any of the other rules that are customary in duels.
The same is true with wrestling. In fact, I was on my high school wrestling team. If it were illegal, then a lot of high schools are flouting the law. Further, children wrestle all the time...Call the Police!
As I see it, all you're doing is projecting your own ideals onto others without much logical reasoning behind it. You don't like duels, and you think arguments are trivial, so.....
Baron Max
I go by history, which I have read. Dueling was entirely disruptive, not the source of stability you imagine that it was as compared to the current system. Yet again, please read my posts. I did say that if it truly were entirely voluntary—with both men fighting because each wanted to satisfy his honor and *not* merely to avoid the historically dominant social stigma attached to not fighting—then I would be okay with the practice. (Though there is the argument that a lack of respect for life leads to increased crime rates, a theory many historians use to explain the amazingly high crime rates during the very late middle ages...a time when rather gruesome public executions for crimes became more open and pervasive, and were more or less the "standard" punishment for almost any crime, as opposed to the earlier eras when the death penalty was used more judiciously.)
I get the sense that your view of dueling is entirely based on an overly-romantic, ahistorical and economically ill-informed picture of it.
Edit: Besides, Mr. No-Gay-Marriage, you are happy to foist your preferences on others, so how can you take the libertarian high ground? In this case your personal standards are just set so low that no one can fail to meet them. In the case of gay marriage you asserted many times that society exists to enforce its collective preferences. Society has spoken...no lethal duels
