Duels in the Imperium

[castiglione]

This is in reference to the crazy variant (En Garde! in the world of Traveller) thread...

...do you think it'd be appropriate or even logical for an officer to fight a duel with an enlisted man? I'm assuming they're in different services, i.e. Marine officer gets into it with an Army enlisted man in a bar, words are exchanged and the next thing you know, they're standing back to back at dawn in some secluded glade while their seconds inspect their dueling revolvers.

 

[Jacqual]

In my opinion yes, all due in told by the fact that in almost all Traveller settings Honor is considered one of the most important aspects of any citizen. Even the crimminals are honorable in most of the adventures I have ever read.

 

[aramis]

IMO, no, said enlisted man would not be expected nor allowed to duel with the officer. But his LT might be.

 

[far-trader]

And I'd say no.

If the TU is a feudal society and if it still practices duels of honour then it would be based on that, noble honour. Commoners never had honour in a feudal system. I see only nobles, and perhaps officers, dueling. And not with, or allowed by, or even expected of, commoners or enlisted personnel.

In situation A where the Marine officer insults the Army grunt the Army grunt would have to just take any insult in stride and it would be dishonourable of the Marine officer to give such insult in the first place. A duel wouldn't be allowed since the Army grunt has no honour to defend and the Marine officer would be out of line to accept it.

In situation B where the Army grunt insults the Marine officer the proper course of action is to convene a courts martial and have the Army grunt up on charges and convicted so fast he'd be in prison or discharged before he knew it.

Any "getting into it" between the two would be a simple common brawl and dealt with by their superiors appropriately.

EDIT - Busy typing while Aramis posted. Fair point, the Army grunt's officer might be allowed to issue a challenge for an insult if it were of the unit rather than just the grunt, but I don't think he would accept one if the grunt gave offense. Instead he'd bust the grunt down to the lowest rank and have him cleaning the latrines and apologize to the officer which would be acceptable to the officer. In fact the officer wouldn't issue a dueling challenge, they'd just be sure the grunt was properly disciplined.

EDIT - For what it's worth I think the only dueling we allowed in our games was between Nobles. And it was generally first blood with swords.

 

[castiglione]

What would happen if an officer and an enlisted man were pursuing the same woman (but said officer and EM were from different services)? Would the enlisted man defer to the officer? Even if the officer were from a different service?

PS: I don't really see EM's getting into a duel with each other; what I visualize is them getting into a brawl with the potential for the brawl to escalate, i.e. Marine Private and Army Private start throwing punches in a bawdyhouse, Navy bosun puts down his drink and jumps into the fray to help the Marine, Scout gently pushes the girl he's talking to off his lap and jumps in to help the Army Private, Merchant stops gambling and jumps in to help the bosun, and then the local police run in and spray everyone with tear gas and cart away the offenders if the brawl goes on to long.

 

[Icosahedron]

I'm with Far Trader. The officers and nobles simply wouldn't 'mix' in any sense with 'the great unwashed'.

However, I'd allow pistol duels between equals using tazer rounds or tranqs. (duelling tranqs would not put a person peacefully to sleep, but would probably include some highly unpleasant biochemical effects in order to inflict a measure of retribution).

Duelling has always taken place in a highly structured, class-conscious society. I really can't see an officer and EM fighting over a woman - a lady would not soil herself with an EM and a 'woman of loose morals' wouldn't be worth fighting over.

If, by some chance, an officer's lady fancied a 'bit of rough', the officer would either ignore it as a 'dalliance', and perhaps take a mistress himself, or he would have a few of his own EM dispose of the guy with no questions asked.

Yes, the EMs would probably settle disputes with a brawl.

 

[jawillroy]

Yet another with Far Trader: Officers and Nobles may duel; enlisted men and commoners may brawl. For the enlisted man to presume to challenge an officer is laughable; for the officer to challenge an enlisted man is petty and disgraceful.

As for dueling with tranq rounds? Forget it. The honor of duelling is inextricably tied with the use of deadly force. The duel needn't be to the death, necessarily: first blood may be decided to be sufficient beforehand, but nobody would ever, ever take nerfed duelling seriously. "Monsieur, we do not have tranquilizers at hand. Pillows at three paces?"

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I did once see a duel fought with pillows. To first blood...

 

[castiglione]

I agree about dueling with tranqs. The entire point of dueling was not to necessarily kill your opponent (although that was sometimes the case) but to show everyone that you were willing to put your life on the line to defend your honor. Putting your COMFORT on the line just doesn't seem to cut it.

Duels were often to first blood only. Some duels weren't even to first blood at all - both combatants would circle each other, make some feints, and then their seconds would rush in, break things up before any real fighting had taken place and both participants would walk away satisfied that they had defended their honor.

Pistol duels were back-to-back with an agreed upon number of paces before turning and firing. Basically, both participants would turn and fire ONE round. Assuming one (or both of them) weren't incapacitated, they would agree (or disagree) to fire another round. At most, three rounds in all were fired by both participants. Firing more than three was considered barbaric. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make was that depending on the number of paces agreed to and how skillfull the participants, it was quite possible for both combatants to be untouched after the duel but have their honor satisifed.

It's funny you should mention non-conventional dueling weapons, i.e. pillows. The "injured" party in a duel usually got to choose the weapons. One personage was requested a duel was sausages...one of the sausages would be inoculated with cholera. I'm not quite sure how this was supposed to work.

 

[rancke]

If the TU is a feudal society and if it still practices duels of honour then it would be based on that, noble honour. Commoners never had honour in a feudal system.

The Third Imperium is not like any historical feudal society. It's the result of 1100 years worth of development of an artificial political construct with some (slight) feudal aspects.

Imperial nobles may consider each other the only worthy opponents. Or they may consider Imperial knights and officers to be worthy too. I doubt if they'd consider parochial nobles without Imperial titles to be their equals.

Dueling may be illegal in the Imperial services. Or it may only be illegal up and down a chain of command. Or it may be illegal, but winked at. Or winked at, except up and down a chain of command.

Even if dueling is legal, rendering yourself or another serving Imperial officer unfit for service is almost certainly a grave offense.


Hans

 

[rancke]

What would happen if an officer and an enlisted man were pursuing the same woman (but said officer and EM were from different services)? Would the enlisted man defer to the officer? Even if the officer were from a different service?

What happens in such a situation in a Western country today? In theory the officer could get busted for pulling rank on the EM. In practice?


Hans

 

[castiglione]

1) Dueling is not necessarily coupled to a feudal society. There have been duels in the US. For a time, the most common cause of death among US Navy officers was duels. Dueling came back into fashion for a time during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and Soviet officers fought duels over "war wives" (Soviet nurses taken as lovers).

2) Countries which had dueling sort of flip-flopped about it. On one hand, it was felt that it of kept the edge of the officer class sharp. On the other hand, if it got out of hand, you'd end up with a lot of dead and maimed officers and potential officers.

 

[rancke]

I'm with Far Trader. The officers and nobles simply wouldn't 'mix' in any sense with 'the great unwashed'.

Though an EM in a high-tech military is hardly one of the great unwashed. There would probably be strict rules against officers and EMs dueling, but maybe not any more so than against officers dueling each other. There could even be a tradition of officers "taking off their [rank badges]" and dealing on an equal footing with the EMs.

Dueling has always taken place in a highly structured, class-conscious society. I really can't see an officer and EM fighting over a woman - a lady would not soil herself with an EM and a 'woman of loose morals' wouldn't be worth fighting over.

Just because some aspects of the TI resembles Age of Sails doesn't mean everything is a carbon copy. For instance, the equality of men and women in all Imperial services would certainly cause some differences. And dividing civilians into 'ladies' and 'women of loose morals' seems very unlikely to me (Even if you add 'gentlemen' and 'men of loose morals' .

I would expect a social gap between Imperial nobility and commoners, but Nobles has half a dozen examples of nobles with commoner spouses, so it's certainly not an unbridgeable one. Meanwhile, not all officers are nobles, and I'm sure there are any number of commoners that would be equally acceptable company to officers and EMs. The social ranges may differ, but they'd overlap.


Hans

 

[aramis]

don't know about europe, but in the US, when the officer tells him to back off, and he doesn't, it's the EM who gets in trouble, not the officer, unless said object of affection is also Enlisted.

The officer gets ribbed about it, while the EM tends to get a call to his CO, and then extra duty, for insubordination.

 

[rust]

Over here, if the officer would tell the private to "back off", the officer would
be in very serious trouble, because he would have given an illegal order.

 

[wolf90]

Dueling may be illegal in the Imperial services. Or it may only be illegal up and down a chain of command. Or it may be illegal, but winked at. Or winked at, except up and down a chain of command.

Even if dueling is legal, rendering yourself or another serving Imperial officer unfit for service is almost certainly a grave offense.


Hans

I agree. IMTU duelling is unquestionably illegal, as it weakens the overall readiness of the officer corp. HOWEVER, it is widely practiced, and usually tolerated in most cases, as long as no-one gets caught doing it (which leads to a nice adventure idea...).

The US had a similar attitude early on in its history - the most famous example being when Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton. Burr, despite being a prominent politician, had to run when Hamilton died. Had Hamilton survived, everyone would have looked the other way, despite the duel itself being expressly illegal.

Only nobles and officers would duel, as articulated above.

Drew

 

[Spinward Scout]

What happens in such a situation in a Western country today? In theory the officer could get busted for pulling rank on the EM. In practice?

Hans

Depends on the service. The Navy ignores most relationships with the old saying 'a girl in every port'. As well as the fact that a lot of Navy wives screw around on their husbands while the husband is at sea. But don't get caught messing around with an Officer's wife if you're Enlisted. I heard that would make your life a living hell. As far as an Officer and an Enlisted pursuing the same woman - depends on the rank of the Enlisted. Chief Petty Officers can tell an Officer to stick it - legal order or not. Only the U.S. Congress can promote or demote them. And the Chief probably has more pull on ship or base. But I can't see an Officer showing much interest in a woman that would show any interest for a low-ranking Enlisted.

 

[far-trader]

Of course with all that said, if dueling is fun for your crowd...

...then have at it!

The "reasons" can always be contrived

 

[Icosahedron]

I agree about dueling with tranqs. The entire point of dueling was not to necessarily kill your opponent (although that was sometimes the case) but to show everyone that you were willing to put your life on the line to defend your honor. Putting your COMFORT on the line just doesn't seem to cut it.

Duels were often to first blood only. Some duels weren't even to first blood at all - both combatants would circle each other, make some feints, and then their seconds would rush in, break things up before any real fighting had taken place and both participants would walk away satisfied that they had defended their honor.

Pistol duels were back-to-back with an agreed upon number of paces before turning and firing. Basically, both participants would turn and fire ONE round. Assuming one (or both of them) weren't incapacitated, they would agree (or disagree) to fire another round. At most, three rounds in all were fired by both participants. Firing more than three was considered barbaric. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make was that depending on the number of paces agreed to and how skillfull the participants, it was quite possible for both combatants to be untouched after the duel but have their honor satisifed.

It's funny you should mention non-conventional dueling weapons, i.e. pillows. The "injured" party in a duel usually got to choose the weapons. One personage was requested a duel was sausages...one of the sausages would be inoculated with cholera. I'm not quite sure how this was supposed to work.

This seems illogical to me. If it has been agreed beforehand that a duel is to first blood, then neither party is putting his life on the line - same if they're shooting from 5000 paces, same if they're using tazers. Barring accidents, both parties are pretty much guaranteed to survive.

I can see a situation where a non-lethal duel is the officers/nobles equivalent of the EM brawl, with the purposes of asserting yourself, winning your case, and teaching the other guy a lesson. The defence of honour would be about formal retaliation for an insult, rather than risking your life.
I agree that duelling in the far future need not be a copy of the past.

 

[veltyen]

In some ways dueling is a way of showing commitment to one side of a disagreement. Putting forward your willingness to die/kill for your point of view does send a strong message, but ultimately it is futile as very rarely does your willingness to commit violence strengthen your argument.

One issue that hasn't been raised is non-human dueling, either between members of alternative races, or between alternative races and humans. I can certainly see Vargr barehand dueling with the winning position being throating, or Aslan wrestling till concession or death. Much like barehanded dueling between humans (getting back to the brawling alternative).

K'Kree headbutting maybe?