thomasthesecond
Member
"I thought I was an architect, but I was just moving dirt."
Posts: 153
|
Post by thomasthesecond on Aug 8, 2019 0:27:06 GMT
SoI ended up thinking about it rather in-depth, while I was watching a timeline documentary on how Talhoffer was an insane person (I'm a "filthy Fiorist, so I have no qualms with this), to the point that I missed half of the documentary while I was watching it - but I digress.
I would honestly argue FOR judicial duels, or at least argue that there was some logic to them. To attempt to quote the documentary, "Judicial duels took place when there was no evidence, and there were no witnesses. So it was decided by judicial combat.'
Now if you've ever been accused of something that you had not commit, tempers instantly flair - though this could arguably be due to my dark red hair, or so I'm told. Again, I digress.
This would lead me to think that the amount of adrenaline in your blood, if you were in fact honest, would greatly aid you in a one on one fight. Bare in mind that for the most part, to my knowledge, judicial combat was reserved to the knightly class, so we can assume that the men involved had a relatively equal level of skill.
So in my mind, if you were, in fact, honest, given that you were of an equal level of skill as your accuser, the adrenaline would allow you to tire less frequently, swing harder, etc.
Unrelated note: the documentary I was watching.
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Aug 8, 2019 2:04:42 GMT
Just a speculation here: In a time where the belief was that God would provide aid to the innocent/righteous party, perhaps even being willing to accept the duel would be some indication of the veracity of your claim
E.g. if i knew i was being dishonest, i might not want to fight as i wouldn't have any divine aid
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Aug 8, 2019 3:08:06 GMT
I do not think that blind fury makes for a better fighter, even if believed to be righteous.
In a modern sense I got to thinking about it, and it came to me that a very small amount of the population actually practices fencing, and a smaller portion still practices "practical fencing" like SCA of HEMA, and a smaller portion still actually owns functional swords and understands how to use them.
With people like Lee "I hit people well after hold is called" Smith, and the fact there is both the "new sport bad apples" and a very toxic political climate present in HEMA, I think it would be a very dangerous thing to want to reinstate.
Obviously in period it would probably be no different than a modern fist fight, some would know some, other none.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Aug 8, 2019 3:33:33 GMT
Yeah I agree with Jordan. Calm composed fencers tend to do better then super emotional ones in my experience.
In regards to judicial duels, I think they can make sense if both parties are willing. Obviously they get screwy if you can press someone into fighting over there life over a BS accusation they dont want to die over.
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Aug 8, 2019 3:49:46 GMT
With respect, I personally find the notion that self-righteousness would provide more adrenaline than facing imminent mortal danger to be a bit dubious. Also, it is my considered opinion that a cool experienced mind and a prepared practiced body are key to prevailing in a life-and-death struggle. Not adrenaline.
In a society where interpersonal transactions and interactions are generally fungible among individuals, where sovereign systems provide a predictable framework for such interactions, and personal identity and honor are largely irrelevant, dueling seems a bit counterproductive. If I get home with my new TV from Walmart only to discover it’s broken, I just take it back with my receipt for a refund/exchange. No need to ritually murder the cashier.
Just mtc.
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Aug 8, 2019 4:15:59 GMT
From what ive seen from club sparring, between 2 noobs, a burst of adrenaline or enthusiasm to tap into that 'berserk' mode and launch multiple dedicated attacks can sway the odds in their favour. It is common that the other noob can't deal with the pressure of multiple attacks due to lack of composure and technical skill.
When you have 2 experienced fighters, a cool, tactical mindset is preferable imo. A careless attack made in anger can be rather obvious and telegraphed and is quite susceptible to a single tempo counter if the opponent sees it coming
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,631
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Aug 8, 2019 4:27:37 GMT
Judicial duels are stupid, unless your goal is to have a society of the strongest bullies. Even then, you are needlessly wasting intellectual resources. The fact that I am still relatively young and fit, about 6.5 feet tall, and have spent the majority of my life training for combat, doesn't make me inherently morally/ethically superior to anyone less inclined for single combat.
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Aug 8, 2019 5:48:28 GMT
Judicial duels are only useful when investigative policing is weak or nonexistent, nobody really knows the truth of the matter, and the dispute needs to be handled in a cleaner format than a protracted blood feud. So no, they're not better than what we do now. I think Rob Roy would have liked the option of calling the cops and watching Archibald be sentenced to prison.
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Aug 8, 2019 6:13:48 GMT
Judicial duels in the 21st century don't make sense for sure. In that case i could technically do any crime i like and then fight my way out of legal repercussions as long as there arent too many witnesses
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Aug 8, 2019 8:12:32 GMT
Judicial duels in the 21st century don't make sense for sure. In that case i could technically do any crime i like and then fight my way out of legal repercussions as long as there arent too many witnesses That's not remotely how judicial duels ever worked, though. They were for settling things that today are taken to the civil (as opposed to criminal) courts, and then only with the local authority's permission after all other avenues had been exhausted.
|
|
thomasthesecond
Member
"I thought I was an architect, but I was just moving dirt."
Posts: 153
|
Post by thomasthesecond on Aug 8, 2019 12:11:22 GMT
Judicial duels in the 21st century don't make sense for sure. In that case i could technically do any crime i like and then fight my way out of legal repercussions as long as there arent too many witnesses That's not remotely how judicial duels ever worked, though. They were for settling things that today are taken to the civil (as opposed to criminal) courts, and then only with the local authority's permission after all other avenues had been exhausted. This, combined with the fact that as I stated earlier, both parties would be of relatively equal skill, and likely also relatively equal fitness levels as their diets and way of life would likely be very similar. Adrenaline doesn't simply frenzy someone, it typically just makes you "feel less" in terms of exhaustion and pain. You can be greatly under the effects of adrenaline while also maintaining physical control. This also wasn't meant as an argument to reinstate it verbatim, just that at the time as you've said, was arguably the best course of action after all legal avenues has been explored. In today's world, I honestly don't think it would happen very often if at all due to the fact that after a few people actually die, not many others would be willing to take it that far. This was a mutually agreed course of action by both parties as well, wasn't it? (Actual question.)
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Aug 8, 2019 12:24:19 GMT
Nnnaaaaah... I have to disagree, and not just because we keep doing all kinds of things that have gotten and are getting LOTS of people killed on a regular basis, often purely for kicks and street cred.
A judicial duel was only ever a reasonable idea under the official assumption that an omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god was directly observing and controlling the event and would not allow an unjust outcome... which was NEVER a reasonable assumption in a world in which a judicial duel seemed called for, in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Aug 8, 2019 17:04:38 GMT
Judicial duels in the 21st century don't make sense for sure. In that case i could technically do any crime i like and then fight my way out of legal repercussions as long as there arent too many witnesses That's not remotely how judicial duels ever worked, though. They were for settling things that today are taken to the civil (as opposed to criminal) courts, and then only with the local authority's permission after all other avenues had been exhausted. Not necessarily, in some places and times they settled accusations of rape, murder, treason, and theft in addition to what we would now consider civil disputes.
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Aug 8, 2019 17:05:46 GMT
Of course, if there were independent witnesses or evidence, you couldn't just escape all consequences by a duel.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Aug 8, 2019 18:16:53 GMT
Mok is correct--judicial duels were anything but spontaneous. They were very different from early modern duels. And they served as a kind of appeal to heaven after worldly tribunals had been exhausted. As I understand it, there might even have been a thirty day period of prayer/preparation. I don't believe we have a clear idea of how many such duels actually happened. But they were enough of a threat to prompt the landed classes to keep their unarmored combat skills in top form. Thus inspiring many of the fight books.
|
|
thomasthesecond
Member
"I thought I was an architect, but I was just moving dirt."
Posts: 153
|
Post by thomasthesecond on Aug 8, 2019 18:52:40 GMT
Grown man with an anime avatar. Not only is it an anime avatar, it's of a video game character in a universe that includes Mickey Mouse. Edit: I appreciate your ability to engage in an Intellectual argument. Well done.
|
|
thomasthesecond
Member
"I thought I was an architect, but I was just moving dirt."
Posts: 153
|
Post by thomasthesecond on Aug 8, 2019 19:01:13 GMT
Mok is correct--judicial duels were anything but spontaneous. They were very different from early modern duels. And they served as a kind of appeal to heaven after worldly tribunals had been exhausted. As I understand it, there might even have been a thirty day period of prayer/preparation. I don't believe we have a clear idea of how many such duels actually happened. But they were enough of a threat to prompt the landed classes to keep their unarmored combat skills in top form. Thus inspiring many of the fight books. In hindsight, I do suppose that I didn't think about the religious aspects of it very much, though I still don't really think that they were as savage as most sources would lead us to believe. Most things in the medieval world were far more well thought out than aspects of the modern day, in my opinion. Even now we continue traditions developed hundreds of years ago, and most people have no idea why.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Aug 8, 2019 20:59:05 GMT
That's not remotely how judicial duels ever worked, though. They were for settling things that today are taken to the civil (as opposed to criminal) courts, and then only with the local authority's permission after all other avenues had been exhausted. Not necessarily, in some places and times they settled accusations of rape, murder, treason, and theft in addition to what we would now consider civil disputes. Yeah, true. And more broadly, there were also things like viking age professional duelists going around challenging people to holmgang over some feigned offense, under the assumption that they'd rather pay their way out than accept the challenge. 'Cos sometimes there wasn't much employment for a career warrior and you could get outlawed for outright robbing people, so...
|
|
thomasthesecond
Member
"I thought I was an architect, but I was just moving dirt."
Posts: 153
|
Post by thomasthesecond on Aug 8, 2019 22:45:00 GMT
Not necessarily, in some places and times they settled accusations of rape, murder, treason, and theft in addition to what we would now consider civil disputes. Yeah, true. And more broadly, there were also things like viking age professional duelists going around challenging people to holmgang over some feigned offense, under the assumption that they'd rather pay their way out than accept the challenge. 'Cos sometimes there wasn't much employment for a career warrior and you could get outlawed for outright robbing people, so... One could argue that they are just in this practice, because they chose to find another way versus breaking the law.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Aug 9, 2019 8:17:02 GMT
Yeah, true. And more broadly, there were also things like viking age professional duelists going around challenging people to holmgang over some feigned offense, under the assumption that they'd rather pay their way out than accept the challenge. 'Cos sometimes there wasn't much employment for a career warrior and you could get outlawed for outright robbing people, so... One could argue that they are just in this practice, because they chose to find another way versus breaking the law. "Law" and "justice" are two entirely different things, like apples and the color orange. Holmganga Bersi may have been a lawful little berserker, but there's nothing just about extortion.
|
|