A TREATISE FOR THE PRINCIPLES ON PARTAKING IN DUELLING

[GMRO 5275]

 

---

 

T O   S E E K   S A T I S F A C T I O N

Or

A MODERN TREATISE FOR THE PRINCIPLES ON OFFERING, RECEIVING, AND PARTAKING IN DUELLING

 

---

 

K A R L   S I G M A R   B A R B A N O V

 

K A R O S G R A D

 

434 E.S

 

---

 

P R E F A C E

 

For those without neither good name, gentle birth, nor honour, the following pages may prove at first to be trivial or unnecessary, though with closer inspection they may find the reverse to be true. Readers will no doubt emerge with a newfound reverence for customs and proper procedure that should accompany this most sacred ritual – the duel. Whilst there have been several attempts at codification of rules which should be earnestly followed, it is my most sincere hope that these, my personal rulings on the decorum surrounding the duel, be taken in earnest and in perpetuity by all most worthy and honourable gentle-sort who would seek that most elusive quality of honour. 

 

---

 

C O N T E N T S

 

Conventions of Duelling…

The Definition and Origin of Duelling…

Trials By Combat…

Honour…

Insults and Provocation…

Cravens and Cowards…

To Meet with Gallants alone…

On Multiple Combatants…

Seeking Satisfaction…

Conclusion…

 

 

---

 

CONVENTIONS OF DUELLING:

 

For those wishing to seek out conventions as I see them immediately as opposed to flicking through many pages, I thought it best to put them first if you find yourself in a hurry;
 

I. As the express purpose of the duel is to defend one's honour, only those who, by blood or by merit, are in possession of honour may challenge another, and considerations must be made for societal status – for a high Lord’s honour would be much besmirched if challenged by a man of lesser blood.

 

II. Challenges must either be in the moment of offence, or through a public challenge.

 

III. One may avoid a duel only by seeking recompense to the offended party, or else by surrendering one’s honour.

 

IV. Seconds must be chosen in order to act on behalf of the main combatants to attempt to solve the matter before it reaches battle, or if this is not possible, to act as witnesses to uphold the fairness of a duel.

 

V. It can not be decided upon who gave first offence, the matter lies with the seconds to coordinate to decide the matter.

 

VI. Challenges may be fought by weapons agreed upon by the combatants, though it is customary that duels are fought without armour unless otherwise specified.

 

VII. Those who fight with tricks or cowardice in a fight have no honour, and may thus receive no quarter.

 

VIII. Once a duel has taken place, seconds should not seek immediate retribution and if offered quarter, the defeated must find the matter settled.

 

IX. In the case of an inquest, it is the duty of the nobility to acquit or pardon if the matter was settled fairly.

 

---

 

DEFINITION AND ORIGIN OF DUELLING:

 

Duelling is defined as the act of seeking retribution for a slight or wrong against a person that would besmirch or damage their name or reputation. This is known as a person’s honour. A duel often consists of two primary combatants and then two seconds, though additional can also participate if they so wish. An adjudicator may also be present as a witness to confirm that all participants were honourable and the fight fair. 

 

Duelling has been from ancient times chosen as a means to settle disputes. Various challenges have been offered upon isſues from long blood feuds, demanding of titles, and even champions before great armies not wishing to spill greater Canonist blood. 

 

Some of the most famous duels in history do include that within Haeseni history of the bout. I shall relate a few of these most notables within the tapestry of man to you, beginning with Haeseni history.

 

The greatest known in Hanseti-Ruska is that duel between Ser Nikolaus and Ser Rodrik Kortrevich. Once both Knight Paramounts of the Marian Retinue, a feud was created between the pair as Ser Rodrik, then Knight Paramount, sided with the Renatians during the War of Two Emperors. Ser Nikolaus would take his brother’s place and excel in his role despite the ultimate loss. After the war, Ser Rodrik went into a personal exile in Aeldin, only returning a number of years later to seek an end to the feud with his brother. Within the Kortrevich keep, the pair met and battled, Ser Nikolaus standing victorious at its end.

 

Another of these duels was that of a pair of Rutherns, Tuvya and Viktor, that after a long blood feud between the pair they sought to rectify it by spilling blood. The act of blood-letting between the scions of Ruthern is something not atypical, many sons killing their fathers, albeit in cold-blood, beforehand. This quarrel saw the pair kill each other and almost resulted in the death of the house. For all the defence of honour, it can equally so be one of danger, often resulting in the deaths of the aristocracy’s greatest warriors.

 

In recent history, as of writing this pamphlet, there has also been the duel between King Sigismund III’s champion, Ser Flemius, and the Duke of Cathalon over disrespect towards the House of Barbanov. The duel was a part of the long running tensions between the kingdom of Hanseti-Ruska and the then Holy Orenian Empire. Due to the disparity in their rank, rather than challenge the Duke of Cathalon himself, King Sigismund set forth a member of his Marian Retinue to battle upon his behalf for the disrespect rendered. Such caused quite the stir afterwards, with an Imperial entourage coming to demand an apology from King Sigismund during his court, to which he instead sung a ballad about the affair.

 

Another recent duel was that between Prince Lucien I of Savoy, acting as a champion for the Kingdom of Hanseti-Ruska, and a champion of the Brotherhood of Aurelian. After a knight had been wounded in a diplomatic meeting between myself and the Lord of Arichsdorf, who took the criminal to his own lands, a duel was arranged to occur upon the island between Hanseti-Ruska and Arichsdorf. Prince Lucien won this duel, but the brotherhood of Aurelian and its associates sought to intercede and attacked the crowd that gathered to watch. One should generally always be aware that when entering into a duel, if a man has no honour, they should not be offered the rights of a gentleman. 

 

Within the Holy Orenian Empire, duels were certainly rarer though certainly not non-existent. The most famous is that between Robert of Marna and King Stefan of Haense. After the death of John V in battle against Courland, a regency was required due to the young age of Peter II. After an attempted assassination attempt that had been thwarted, Robert of Marna sought to challenge King Stefan to a duel using two “hand-cannons” from Aeldin. The two met in the ruins of the Westerlands with a large crowd in attendance. The pair stood back to back and took paces forward. Robert shot first but missed, and Stefan thereafter shot and hit Robert in the torso, resulting in him dying of internal bleeding. These “hand-cannons” have since been lost, though this duelling manner could surely be replicated with crossbows.

 

Much less notable duels have occurred in the Holy Orenian Empire, that of between Sergei Othaman and the Viscount Simon Pruvia. After having taken the honour of the Viscount’s sister, Sergei Othaman was challenged to a duel upon the bridge of Providence. He was defeated, and died shortly after from complications arising from said duel. In this case, the Pruvian was not, as far as I know, punished. In the case that a gentleman acts with honour in a worthy cause, he should rightly not be punished whatsoever.

 

---

 

TRIALS BY COMBAT

 

This pamphlet does intend to more so research duels as opposed to trials by combat, though they do bear a small statement upon them. Trials by combat are specifically for vindicating a person that is believed to have committed a crime. This is different to that of a challenge of giving the lie, for it is to challenge the monarch of his representatives' will. Whilst this author does encourage within his conventions to find those who have been arrested for crimes relating to duelling and honour, those who do openly seek to challenge in this situation should not be supported. 

 

Whilst it is the case that God will surely judge them guilty and give them just retribution if their cause is not right, those on Terra should be wary. This is on account of those who may hedge their bets such as brigands versed only in war after committing capital offences or the like. In this case, proper legal procedures should rule the day.

 

---

 

HONOUR

 

As many oft say, honour is a fickle thing. It is an object that all of gentle birth are born with. Equally so, however, some, particularly soldiers, may also come to possess it from the valour that is instilled to them as defenders of their nations. Whilst many may come to possess honour, it is also something that can be lost rather easily. An entire pamphlet could be written on honour alone, and so I do encourage further studies to be made into the matter, though in relation to duelling, it is something of pivotal importance. Only those with honour may duel -- if you are duelling someone without afterall, they are neither a part of your appropriate station and so not beholden to the same beliefs of yourself. They will cheat, and they will act unfairly in an ill manner.

 

Honour, in being defined then, has a number of aspects to it. The first, as already described, is a respect which is imbued from birth relating to their integrity to be viewed as a noble in the eyes of others and themselves. This view held by others does extend out from the individual to his family, nation, and even associates. All are aspects which uphold a person’s integrity, which must be protected at all costs, for a person without reputation or a name, is no true person at all.

 

Owing to the martial spirit of all aristocracy, as their duty ultimately is to uphold and protect the nation through arms, the way in which a noble defends their own honour is through a duel. Insults and snide words in response to an offense against a person’s honour is not an acceptable recourse for reputation to be besmirched. If a name is valued, it will be defended on a life else there is little point to it.

 

As all those who do hold honour believe in the same ideology and concept of fair play, a duel may be accepted by any that hold honour. However, for a duke to be offended by a brave soldier is unbecoming of someone whose honour is so high, as it would bring their own reputation or honour down to that same hierarchy. This is not to say they may not accept a challenge if they are offended, only that it is highly unusual. In these cases, oftentimes a champion may be invoked. A champion may be similarly invoked to protect honour if the offended has been injured grievously, or old.

 

---

 

INSULTS AND PROVOCATION:

 

The main insult or provocation for those in possession of honour, on account of its martial nature, is to be called a craven, or a liar. A honourable individual stands behind their word, and to lie therefore is to be craven. In this case then, a challenge must be issued lest the offended lose their reputation.

 

Honour will similarly be lost if some embarrassment is caused. One may give an example of walking in on a wife with another man, or some personal secret of a sixth toe revealed. This embarrassment may extend to a family member, whose honour you seek to defend. In the case a person may find someone within their charge, such as a gentleman promenading with a lady and insult is rendered to the lady, the insult should be considered double as an insult to both.

 

As previously investigated, only those of a similar position in society may cause enough provocation to insult another. If a man of a lower station finds themselves offended by a man of a higher station, they may rightly point out the matter or challenge said individual, though said challenged may deny the challenge causing embarrassment by deeming the challenger as lesser. For those, such as kings, emperors and sovereigns, from which most power within their kingdoms originate they are ultimately without equal, and therefore will either never find an equal to battle or equally so be offended by another for none are capable of inflicting such due to the position they find themselves. It is the case however, that a bannerman of the sovereign will take issue in insult hurled to the monarch, for their honour is tied to their nation, with the monarch also being head of said nation. Therefore, in these cases that insult is hurled towards a sovereign, it would be expected for any honourable citizen to defend that honour instead.

 

 

---

 

CRAVENS AND COWARDS…

 

To be a coward is one of the worst instances to find oneself, though it must be stated on the issue of when to call a person such. As rightly stated, there is a pecking order that needs to be agreed to. In this world afterall where titles can matter at point sometimes little difference between a baron and a duke, the duke must aim to set forth a difference between themselves and the lesser to maintain the position of themselves and their equal rank. In this case, they are not a coward.

 

However, what if the two are of an equal position and the duel is declined? This is the great aspect at which honour, at least in our modern times, fails. A man that breaks his vow is, as it stands, still taken just as seriously as a man that has not. A man who breaks the code of honour must be struck out from said community, and not returned lest they corrupt the system. 

 

---

 

TO MEET WITH GALLANTS ALONE…

 

If a person does ever enter into a battle against another, it is necessary for those who do wish to do battle to bring a pair of witnesses. These witnesses, or seconds, should be of the utmost loyalty and friendship to the party that they have arrived with for they aim to serve their persons interest in two manners.

 

The first of which is to assess whether any apology or final recourse may be given to halt the shedding of blood. Rather than the two quarrellers engaging, where further insult may be rendered, it is better for cooler heads to prevail and allow two friends who were uninvolved to assemble to find a peaceful alternative. This should be offered before the duel. In the case that an apology may be given, the matter is settled and the challenger's honour is satisfied.

 

In the case that peace can not be found, these two fellows do remain to ensure that a fair battle between the two occurs. This is for instance if one side does plan to bring a group of assassins to backstab the other battler, or alternatively uses poison, magics, or some other underhanded scheme that was not agreed between the two. At this point, they may also engage or aim to halt the fight before a lethal strike occurs.

 

---

 

ON MULTIPLE COMBATANTS...

 

Meeting with gallants alone is inadvisable in all cases, though as of late it has become a common trend to similarly involve more in a duel. From seconds involving themselves to further members and friends hired not out of their relation to the situation, but rather their ability to hold a blade. It is the suggestion that in most situations ultimately, it is for the best that if a battle is to take place, it should be a one on one duel in order to best settle the issue in the moment rather than an outcome be decided not through willingness to defend honour, but who can call forward the best mercenary. 

 

 

---

 

SEEKING SATISFACTION...

 

To seek satisfaction in a typical style, the first efforts would be to recognise the offence and offer a chance for apology. If the person does choose not to apologise, then a challenge must be immediately brought if it is in person. For it to appear an afterthought or seemingly spurred on by another would mean that your honour has been besmirched and the offended has all but let it slide until plucking up courage. 

 

After having offered the challenge, find a second to ensure the proper procedures are adhered to. Seconds shall be allotted time before a duel in order to seek a peaceful arrangement, and decide who cast the first offence in the case such is unclear. If neither side are willing to find satisfaction in the matter before, the battle shall take shortly after.

 

In the time that seconds are discussing the matter, the main combatants should aim to find a weapon. Some may choose to fight with armour, though if you believe yourselves both men of honour and are on equal footing, do so without. In the case of arms, choose whatever both are comfortable with. After such, if it is in the moment, organise a time and place or otherwise have the seconds do so on behalf of the respective side. Prepare to meet, and do not be late else be labelled a coward. 

 

Upon arriving, come armed and prepared to fight. Offer a final prayer to God and then enter into battle. Step forward into battle and do not run to take cover, to pick a new battleground or some other method of rapscallion behaviour. The matter should be settled in but a few short seconds unless you have both agreed to another method of starting from a great paces back beforehand. If you do lose the battle, lose so with grace for you have shown yourself to be of gentle birth and it is not ultimately the matter of the win, but rather that you defended your honour and conducted yourself as befitting your station. In the case, you may be at the other fellow's mercy. Die well if they do decide to kill you, for there is an art to it. If you are the victor and you are satisfied that your honour has been maintained whilst the other is still alive, let them be for it is a great shame to spill Canonist blood unnecessarily.

 

Once all is said and done, and you have killed another, respect the dead. Do not take trophies or do some strange act with the body. Return them to their family or a church for proper burial. Consider the matter settled unless one of their kin do decide to attempt to settle the matter themselves with a duel, at which point one may oblige providing that they are able to properly sport a weapon.

 

---

 

CONCLUSION...

 

It will always be the case that the fact of the matter is that the work shall never be done upon the matter of duelling, and neither would I have it be. Honour and duelling is a constantly developing cycle that I would wish to see continue to be spoken about in wider circles for centuries to come. As our world changes, we must cling to these institutions of nobility in order to create a system which genuinely matters. If you hold a title but have no class, you remove the point of the title and bring down the rest of us. I speak this mainly to humanity, but in reality these rules may be used by all races if they wish to be honourable. So many speak about ‘honour-war’ or ‘their honour’ but in reality they have no clue what it is. I blame their parents, and a lack of good role models. 

 

---

 

 

[garentoft 8354]

Georg has a tutor read his father's entire work out loud to him, perhaps the beginning of a fascination on the topic for the young boy.

[FlemishSupremacy 4972]

Ser Flemius, who, on several occasions, had challenged men to duels, reads over the peace, and asks his wife for permission to go out duelling with the boys.

[Imperium 3312]

Tuvya Ruthern still argues with his twin brother Viktor in the seven skies, "NO, I WON THE DUEL!"

[JuliusAakerlund 1809]

"It seems the young Koeng is making a writer of himself, are you watching Sig? I bet you are." The elderly Adrian Colborn spoke from where he sat outside gazing at the starry sky. He had thought that the Koeng would continue the traditions of his father, and he was right.