Comments on: Man Knowledge: An Affair of Honor-The Duel

By: jack skysail

jack skysail — Fri, 14 May 2010 14:22:54 +0000

Heidelberg is not the only univerity where students are in “schlagenden Verbindungen” on my alma mata they where also present, like on many others. One have to be a member of a student corps, which menas he/she have to study ther and be inscribed at this univerity. it is a very ritualizied prozess, and have in my humble opinion nothing to do whit duelling as such. both partys wearing extensive body and head protection, only the face(cheeks) are exposed, both contahend strike on command in given static positions. it have nothing to do whit art of fencing as such. as mentioned on other place, the only, to me visible reason, is that somebody have the bravery to stand and deliver. but this can be proofed way better in other ways, which really require mental strnght. skydiving for instnce. standing in the door 1500 meter over ground and jump requires more willpower then striking whit a sword, knowing all vital parts are protected.
that is where the expression “rennomierschmiss” is comming from. somebody get a light scarve just to show he was duelling, rennomieren= to brag
i tend to be for the duelling. it would bring politeness back to our society if one need to be aware that showing a finger, or insulting somebody by intension or by highly unfair/ foul behaviour, he need to be aware to find himself some times later on the banks of the river or some other duel ground at 6 in the moring. i guess 95% of this ppl would need tied on hand and feet to be brought there. just consider how often one is biteing his knuckles because some “gentleman” is misusing his positon and we cant reply properly. any other person who is in a postion of power where we can not do anything then file him, which usually cost a lot of money, time, effort and is very often even not possible. how much easier is to say, “dear friend, we will solve this matter in 3 weeks on the riverpond”
car accidents killing each year the hedcount of a medium city, so a few dead in duel would be a small price to bring back politeness to society.
assertion of honor can be allways given if one realizes it was overdone or by missunderstanding, plus, not each duell need to be a deadly one. ther are more ways to duel, then just kill each other.
a viennese professor challenged his opponent for a bicycle race on a hill near VIenna. i challenged a person for swimming whit bound feet, the winner of the contest was allowed to cut the underware (undies) of the opponent publicly into stripes.

By: Chris | Martial Development

Chris | Martial Development — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:35:49 +0000

It is great to read an article about dueling that mentions some of its positive aspects! It may sometimes be more humane to draw blood, than to sue a person into bankruptcy for example.

By: Mark W

Mark W — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:41:41 +0000

Interestinly enough, the Uniform Code of Military Justice still has dueling on it’s books. Great read, Brett.

By: Buck Six

Buck Six — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:46:30 +0000

Kentucky recently had a bill submitted in its capitol to remove the dueling portion from its constitution. “Since 1849 the Kentucky Constitution has required anyone holding any “office of honor or profit” to swear that they have never fought or otherwise participated in a duel.”
full story here: http://www.loweringthebar.net/2010/03/nodueling-promise-may-be-dropped-from-kentucky-oath.html

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:38:07 +0000

For those who seek a thorough and authoritative analysis of the culture of honor (and the significance of dueling) in early America, I *highly* recommend Joanne Freeman, _Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic_ (Yale UP, 2001). Professor Freeman received her Ph.D. at UVA, and is currently a member of the history department at Yale.

Professor Freeman would probably amend this article’s contention that “the courts could offer a gentleman no real justice; the matter had to be resolved with the shedding of blood.” As her book convincingly argues, the purpose of a duel was not to shed blood–even the smallest amount–but rather to prove a man’s *willingness* to suffer injury or death in defense of his words and his reputation. The duel was only the culmination of a long, ritualized script which governed affairs of honor in early America. “Men of the sword” more often found satisfaction in challenging another man to a duel, and then negotiating the dispute in letters and meetings without ever resorting to gunplay.

The book is smart and sophisticated. Highly recommended for anyone who is man enough to handle academic historical writing.