Skall's inbox after this video be like: "Dearest Mr. Skallagrim, I find your historical and logical dissertation on the matter offending to the point that only a direct confrontation can restore my honour. We shall therefore fight to the death 1v1 on Hellish Quart".

You dare tell me that duelling is dangerous and shouldn't be brought back? I challenge you to a duel, sir!

I image a lot of Canadians would have accidentally accepted duels by picking up a gauntlet that someone dropped, out of politeness.

Girls: isn’t it weird how we live longer than boys? Boys: ok hear me out. so we make these hot air balloons...

“I’m offended by the fact that you are a better duelist, we need to equalize the playing field”

'We need a new hospital...' 'No!' (takes shot to spine) 'How about now?'

If dueling was a thing today, retail workers like myself would never get old.

"We shall meet at dawn to satisfy this debt of honor" "Make it so, and the weapons ?" "Halberds" "Halberds at dawn it is, good day to you sir !"

that mr Price was a classic bully who wanted to humiliate the officer and it backfired hilariously

Modern dueling is in court. And your champion are your expensive lawyers.

Skallagrim, dressed today like a character in a Pirate novel

"Maybe now people would duelling over who has the better waifu" Now that's absolutely ridiculous. It would be a blood feud.

Strictly speaking... Being willing to stab somebody in the face over an insult sounds pretty offended to me.

I always heard it more as "people would be more polite". But I think it's more "people would find pettier things to be offended by".

So, since duelling was actually outlawed most of the time, doesn't that mean we wouldn't even need to change the law to "bring it back" ?

"I fired, but I missed, I fired again, but I missed. I had a popsickle and passed out in the snow. When I woke up, I fired. I hit something, but it wasn't what I was going for, so I guess I missed."

If dueling comes back, I’ll need to lose weight. I’m too big a target.

Can we talk about this flawless french-spoken bit ? I'm french and was honestly surprised, that's quite impressing of you.

Him: "your mom fat" Me: "Get the hot air balloons, we settle this at sunrise."

The best duel I have ever read about occurred in Lyons, MI in the early 1840s. A local settler's joking antics insulted the honor of a "gentleman" in the town. The gentleman made the mistake of challenging the settler to a duel meaning the settler had the right to choose weapons. He requested potatoes saying something to the effect of "...we shall throw potatoes at each other until your honor is satisfied." Disappointingly, the duel was ultimately called off. I found this incidentally while using the Pioneer Society of the State of Michigan document collection for unrelated historical research.

I believe the phrase is, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

Idiots: "People weren't as offended back in the day..." Historical folks: "You oppose my policy about this hospital? You were taking a look at this woman who was accompanying me? FIGHT ME TO THE DEATH!"

"Don't be a jackass, just apologize and move on" That was basically law and people were still peer pressured or outright chose to shoot eachother. I dunno if it's that much different nowadays.

does anyone remember the episode of blackadder where he had to duel the duke of wellington and the duke turns up with artillery?

We should bring duels back, not to kill but just for fun. I mean, just think about it, a bar with a 12 steps corridor, one shot paintball guns, mask and a heavy coat. It hurts a bit but nothing serious. As a bar game would be epic.

9:00 they mention this in “Hamilton” too. The first of the Ten Duel Commandments is “If they apologize, no need for further action.”

True gentlemen, duels in children cards games. Just like ancient egyptian and motorcyclist

“How do you miss a hot air balloon?” She said as her and her significant other plummeted to the ground.

Long story short: Edgelords are terrible in all eras.

I actually blame dueling pistols for the decline in dueling

About the rules thing, 11th Doctor (Doctor Who) has an awesome quote Madame Kovarian: "The anger of a good man is not a problem. Good men have too many rules." Doctor: "Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many." Matt Smith really nailed the delivery in that scene.

Two fun facts: 1. In the early days of the state of Kentucky two Legislators got in an argument on the floor, they challenged each other to a duel. Since dueling was illegal in the state they crossed the river to the next state over to have the duel. 2. Kentucky state law requires holders of certain jobs/offices to swear an oath "That I have not fought a duel, nor have I acted as a second in carrying a duel in the stare of Kentucky".

I wish people were more worried about being honorable, rather than being treated as though they were.

Gentleman's Blood is a great book! I worked at the original California Renaissance Faire. We'd do three weekends of workshops and rehearsals before the faire opened. One year a lawyer gave a workshop about Elizabethan law, and he pointed out that trial by combat had got on the books of several states because they were old English colonies. Well the last time trial by combat was invoked in the States was sometime in the 1980's, I think in one of the Carolinas or Virginia. A guy in the SCA got sued, found out the law was still on the books, went into court with a gauntlet and a sword, layed them down on the desk and said, "I believe so much in my cause that I will defend it with my life. I call for trial by combat." The judge informed the plaintiff that, yep, put up or shut up. The plaintiff withdrew their case, and the first thing the state legislature did when they convened was get rid of that law.

What's always baffled me is that there are people out there that think someone being offended at them and politely telling them so is somehow worse than someone being offended by them and challenging them to a duel.

“A Duel” is just a fancy way of saying “A Punch On”.

My favourite is vikings. A dude I know posted a meme with a viking saying "Oh, I offended you? How does it feel to be so weak that words can hurt you." (yeah, he is a Fedora dude in disguise) The fun bit? There were literal laws that if someone called you f*ggot (atleast the "receiver" in the sexual act) you could take it to court and they could give you the right to kill the other dude to defend your honor.

Hearing these stories reminded me of all the times I have been challenged into a 1v1 in video games.

When I was younger, I was very much sold on the idea of bringing back judicial dueling to discourage people from messing with each other. As I've aged and converted to Dudeism, that just sounds like a lot of increased, unnecessary, unchecked aggression.

"Be polite to each other, even though you don't have to fear for your life." Wow.

these are darwin awards.

Skall looking like a fine vampire

I'm from Philippines and the duels to the death were common until recently. The amount of people getting offended over the most minor sleights to their "honour" tells me that no, people wouldn't calm down if duelling was legalized.

The thing about dueling is that you can still challenge people to a fight, like a boxing match, if they offend you or you wish to settle an argument like that, they just probably won't agree to it, because why would they?

Hot take: Those calling for duels in the modern age are just as easily offened as the people they claim are two easily offended.

Hold up wasn't dueling caused by people being offended by another person so bringing it back would only raise that.

There's still a duelling subculture in central europe: fencing fraternities. I used to be in one, and as a rite of passage, they have to duel someone from another fencing fraternity. They can also challenge each other to duels by exchanging a torn business card (usually only do that when there's a major beef)

"Sorry dude, here is the evidence that you are wrong." "You are calling me a liar? I challenge you to a duel." And at that moment, the enlightenment died.

It's time to D-DD-Duel!!!

Anyone who's ever been in a schoolyard fight, or a bar brawl or whatever should know that a) we still kind of have duelling and b) it doesn't solve shit. With that said, the aesthetics of it are still incredibly cool. ;)

- "He seems like a younger version of Hector Barbossa" My girlfriend when she saw you in this video. PS: she says it is meant as a compliment.

I once trained myself up to duel someone for the hand of a woman. It was an interesting tale to tell when practising and training. Before you ask, she dumped him and lost interest in me before I was able to throw down the gauntlet.

People still challenge each other to "duels" in modern times via boxing/MMA matches.

We essentially still have dueling, it is just usually brawls in bars, road rage, etc. This is more or less how it would go today. Lots of dude bros, thugs, etc., would take advantage to harass people more, though probably not people who they thought could beat them. There was probably a lot of that back in the day and "professional" duelists who made a career of it.

I get a feeling the ppl who say dueling should still be a thing would be the first ppl killed or simply would cop pleas if challenged to one.

love your videos man, seriously underrated. I dont typically finish videos entirely because Ill get bored, but I always watch and finish yours, theyre always entertaining. Thank you and keep it going!

The fact they would go to such lengths means they were even more offended.

I thought you might have said the increasing accuracy of firearms as a reason why dueling declined.

As a gigantic man of an armed security guard, you'd be surprised how nice and polite people are and sheer amount of truth-telling I engage in when the possibility of me slapping the senses out of them for being offended little twats and being allowed to do it is a very real thing. Basic respect counts for a lot.

You want to have an honored duel? Put on the mitts and step into the ring. There are plenty of other ways to challenge someone.

The “if duelling was back we’d have less offended people” has always sounded to me like an euphemism for: “I wish I was able to kill people I disagree with, with impunity”

Let's see how shocked they'd be if I threw the pommel before the gauntlet.

I'm writing a story that has a lot of combat with medieval-era weaponry and your channel has helped me so incredibly much to understand how these weapons work, how they're used, and how some of the matchups go. I love your channel, have a great day and I hope you find an exceptionally kind person out and about soon!

In 1566, Tycho left to study at the University of Rostock. Here, he studied with professors of medicine at the university's famous medical school and became interested in medical alchemy and botanical medicine.[12] On 29 December 1566 at the age of 20, Tycho lost part of his nose in a sword duel with a fellow Danish nobleman, his third cousin Manderup Parsberg. The two had drunkenly quarreled over who was the superior mathematician at an engagement party at the home of Professor Lucas Bachmeister on 10 December.[13] Coming nearly to quarrel again with his cousin on 29 December, they ended up resolving their feud with a duel in the dark. Though the two were later reconciled, the duel resulted in Tycho losing the bridge of his nose and gaining a broad scar across his forehead. He received the best possible care at the university and wore a prosthetic nose for the rest of his life. It was kept in place with paste or glue and said to be made of silver and gold.[14] In November 2012, Danish and Czech researchers reported that the prosthetic was actually made of brass after chemically analyzing a small bone sample from the nose from the body exhumed in 2010.[15] The prosthetics made of gold and silver were mostly worn for special occasions, rather than everyday wear.

Pretty sure most people who want dueling back aren't talking about medieval style dueling. They're talking about the system where people would have seconds whose job it was to try to resolve the dispute before it came to arms. Also it's not about stopping people being offended, it's about stopping people spouting baseless shit about each other. The courts are woefully useless for getting recompense when someone lies about you, so people are wanting a different option.

I think the implied point is that the kind of people who get easily offended would die in duels so there would be fewer offended people.

The true point of dueling wasnt to keep people from being offended, but to keep people from talking shit.

At 12:48, this happend in the early years of the US navy. One of the strangest duels was set into motion by an exchange of banter with stephen Decatur and Richard Somers in 1798, when both midshipmen serving on the frigate United States under captain Barry. The two of them were, by their own reckoning, inseparable friends, and as they were joking around in the wardroom one day, Decantur laughingly called Somers a "fool". Neither man thought anything of it until the next day, when several of their fellow officers refused to share the wardroom table with Somers. Having talked it over with themselves, They(they other officers) had agreed that Decantur's use of the term "fool" constituted as an insult, and that Somers must issue a challange or be ostracized as a coward. Somers and Decatur both protested that their bantering had been harmless. Decantur had not ment to suggest that Somers was not litteraly a fool, and Somers had not taken offense at the remark. Decantur offered to host the entire Wardroom at a dinner in which the exchange could be explained in fuller detail. Their messmates refused the invitation. Somer's expasperated response was to issue a challange, but not to Decantur. Nominating Decantur as his second, he challenged the other officers to fight him in sequence. The multiple challenge was accepted. In the first duel, Somers took a ball in his pistol arm; in the second, he took a ball in the thigh. Decantur offered to take his friends place for the third duel, but Somers refused. Bleeding heavily, Somers sat on the ground while Decantur propped up his pistol arm. After the third exchange of gunfire, all agreed that Somers had resolved any doubts of his courage and the buisness was called off.

In the US Marine corps boot camp there's this thing called pugil sticks.It's basically bayonet training with padded sticks. The videos online seem tame, but once the cameras are off, the DIs tell the recruits they get phone calls home if they can knock people unconscious or break bones. (One guy got his femur literally _splintered_ in half when he got stuck in the planks they were standing on.) Anyway, by 2n'd phase, many recruits have gotten so much on each-other's nerves and formed such vendettas against specific platoon members that the DI's allow recruits to fight who they want, if it's mutual. It's in every sense a duel. And while not to the death, if you break specific bones in your opponent, he can likely be discharged from service, so if you hate him enough and he hates you, you're literally fighting for your entire future trying to maim each-other. I've done HEMA all my life. Nothing prepares you for that. Absolutely nothing. Funnest crap on the planet though.

Here in the US, we have several states that have Mutual Combat laws Basically if two parties agree to a Mutual Combat, and there is a police officer there to referee, then two people can have a legal street fight to settle a dispute. It's not a common thing that's practiced but it has happened somewhat recently. So Im all for this to become common practice again in public.😎

I really love your newer videos, they're so much fun! And the outfit kills me every time

The Sandbar Fight is an interesting one. The duel was pretty much over and after exchanging one shot the duellists shook hands but afterward a brawl erupted between the two parties resulting in the death of two supporters and various injuries to others. Even when some resolve the dispute sensibly there's some hotheads that want to keep things going to settle their own scores.

I like these history focused, sit down videos. This one was very good and I like the outfit!

The "I wish duels could come back" crowd seems to forget that those being challenged can just say no to the duel.

Great video! Thank you for exploring the history and logistics of a practice I knew very little about. (And I love it when popular phrases like “throw down the gauntlet” are better understood when misconceptions or historical inaccuracies are brought to light.) I do, however, think there would be less offended people if dueling was implemented. If declaring, “I take great offense to what you said!” was automatically a challenge that invited the offender to settle things in person and with possibly violent results, I’d wager fewer people would choose to take offense. Bearing in mind that the accused could opt to ignore the offended (if they were somehow able to weather the vicious catcalls of “chicken!” and other such horrific barbs), the only time there would actually be a conflict is if the offender cared enough about the accusation to pursue action. As long as a fight was not legally required upon a declaration of offense, I think most level-headed folks would just ignore the offended and let them rant and rave on their preferred social platform. The fact is that many folks who so quickly and easily take offense do so behind the protection of anonymity, safely tucked behind their keyboards or touchscreens. Most of said folks would be chagrined if the internet (and by extension, friends and family) knew who they were, and they would be mortified if someone they had antagonized/called out knew where they lived. I’m guessing that if saying, “I take offense!” meant that the accused was given that person’s identity and address for the purpose of satisfying the duel, we would see a drastic decline in what seems to have become something of an addiction for many folks. And for those who are already in the public eye, such as celebrities, their level of responsibility will be raised to that of the level of their influence-a balance that does not currently exist. Right now, taking offense costs nothing, and for some reason it is assumed that an apology or some kind of restitution is in order. Taking offense is a choice, and acting on it by airing out the laundry for the public to see is another choice. If there were real-world consequences for those choices, I think people would give more consideration to their words. As was discussed in the video, dueling wasn’t always fatal-or didn’t need to be-and I think that could apply here as well. Heck, it could simply be a boxing match. Even that would be enough to make someone think, “Is boldly taking and declaring my offense worth the chance of losing a tooth or getting a broken nose?” Dueling would require there to be true conviction and legitimacy (or at least perceived legitimacy) behind an offense. Yes, there are people who purposefully antagonize with an attempt to offend, but many of the so-called offenses are not intended and in fact require obscene levels of misinterpretation or forced sensitivity to be interpreted as such. For those who would purposefully say things to rile or offend others, looking for an excuse to duel, they would find themselves being ignored with more frequency. People are willing to take the bait and engage in verbal jousting with overt antagonists via comments, but they would probably be less inclined to engage if there was a chance they could end up in a fight or duel with actual consequence. In essence, dueling-whether to the death, first blood, or some other outcome that creates a cost-could force people to put things in perspective and choose their battles with more care and tact. Considering most people today don’t seem to have the ‘death-before-dishonor’ mentality, I don’t think many duels would be accepted. The fact that you wouldn’t know who it is you are accusing or being bated by until after the gauntlet is thrown and accepted would also be a deterrent. I know personally there is nothing anyone could say that would cause me to declare offense, and anyone who would take offense to something I said would be summarily ignored. I’m not willing to sacrifice my time engaging in an on-line argument, let alone put my time, energy, resources, body, and possibly life on the line for a perceived slight. I don’t honesty know if I’d advocate dueling for offense, even in a non-lethal capacity. I think it has potential to silence a lot of self-righteous indignation and render trolls obsolete, but practical application is probably impossible, and the whole thing could go sideways somehow. Better to just let people rail in vain against any and all perceived slights, wasting their lives in pursuit of the adrenaline rush that comes from taking offense to anything they don’t agree with (or getting a rise out of others) than to try an implement some kind of antiquated system to force perspective.

I like these story videos, it's interesting learning about history stuff like this

A Turtle approved

Damn! Mr Price got what he deserved! That all sounds like a movie ending!

Man you should make more historical videos like that, you are very articulate and that kind of topic is interesting. And thanks for taking the time to learn how to pronounce french names. :D I know your focus is on weapons but there are tons of related everyday life topics that might interest people, like craftsmanship, materials, hunting, food, transport, armies, religions, etc etc etc... Think about talking about the Edda and other texts ; personaly I've read them, and I think lots of people might be fascinated by them but simply have no idea they exist. Just throwing some suggestions here, Salut.

The social pressure thing makes sense because of the mindset for honour dueling. If you insult me, I don't challenge you to a duel because I am offended *per se* and my goal is not to inflict harm on you as punishment. I challenge you to a duel because honour (or the idea of honour at the time) involved standing up for yourself. To accept the insult, even a mild one, without issuing a counter was to lack honour, or worse to be a coward. I'm either saying 'you are right', 'my integrity is not worth fighting for' or 'I'm too scared of pointy things' The *point* of challenging you is to put *myself* in danger - to say "I refuse to accept what you have said / done and I will put my LIFE on the line to stand by that conviction" This is why both parties could have honour satisfied simply by showing up without actually doing anything - it was about being *willing* to, rather than who actually drew blood. And its why refusing to fire in a pistol duel, or shooting to the side was a thing - you're essentially defenceless and giving the other person a free shot, proving you really REALLY mean it. In fact it could even be an insult - youre refusing to let the other person face any risk. So if you don't fire and he does, well HE'S the arsehole. Obviously on top of this you have the people who just like fighting, or want to prove their superiority. My understanding is someone who sought out duels because they wanted to win as many as possible was probably looked down on a bit, though likely not in their company (to avoid being stabbed). The whole mindset is also why it was fashionable to have a dueling scar at points - it didn't matter that you got your arse kicked and got your face carved up - it mattered that you were brave enough to put yourself in that situation. Fun fact this is why so many high ranking Nazis had facial scars - back when they were all younger knife duels were The Shit for rich young men, and at that point it had bene formalised specifically to generate facial scars to show off how cool you were. TL:DR people who engaged in honour duels weren't (probably mostly) bloodthristy maniacs who wanted to kill someone for the slightest insult, they were a bunch of insecure Zuko's who had to prove they were brave and honourable by doing something stupid. Amusingly this means the response wasn't "You wot m8? Come over here and say that and I'll deck you" it was "You wot m8? You better punch me in the face if you want to say that" :D

"For that purpose, two identical hot air balloons were made..." Alright, I'm lucky I'm at home now, or people would think I've gone nuts... You got a full on Scandinavian "Höhöhö!" laugh out of me there.

dueling evolved into rap battles

I really enjoy your content I learned a lot. I also put the stuff I learn from your videos in my d&d campaign

Loved the video. Subbed! Notification bell on! Also, wish this would have covered Feudal Era Japan duels between farmers, samurai, foreigners by domestic peoples of Japan, etc. Would have been interesting.

"1v1 me black ops bro!"

Honour duels (with sharp sabers) are still a thing among certain German student fraternities. They have become a lot rarer these days but for many of these fraternities, it's still very common to have one or two obligatory duels for new members. Serious injuries are very rare nowadays, mostly because of a combination of the proscribed fighting style which generally forbids attacking below the neck and a lot of protection gear around the neck, eyes, nose and mouth. But still, minor injuries are pretty common because the fighting style also proscribes a fixed distance between the opponents. Up until like 50 years ago, having a scar on your cheek or ching or on the side of your head from one of these duels (called a "Schmiss") was considered a sign of honour and they would sometimes try and purposefully force scar tissue by keeping the wound open for longer than it needed to or stuff like that. In these days, if you see a person with that very particular sort of scar, it's generally seen as a bad thing because these sort of fraternities have (in my opinion rightfully) gotten a pretty bad reputation over the years. But yeah, to a relatively small degree, that is still a thing. I'm not sure about the whole legal situation here. It's obviously legal to the degree that they're doing it because they don't hide it or make a secret out of it, not officially anyways, and they always have a doctor present who's generally allowed the measure of calling the duel off if it gets out of hand. But my guess is that completely unprotected, unregulated duels would probably not be legal? I'm not sure.

Damn I'm always impressed by your French accent ^^ Beautiful video once more, although I'm not sure your point fully stands, as the ancient society tended to value honor above life, or at least close to it, especially in the military class, where as modern society often deems it stupid, and tends to value life above anything. So even if it was lawful again, I think people would be much more hesitant to accept or offer a duel. Also it should be pointed out that it wasn't just young men carried on by testosterone. The last duel I'm aware of happened in France in 1968 with swords between two members of Parliaments who had insulted each other during an assembly. Gaston Deferre was 57 and his opponent René Ribière was 45. The archive of the video of the duel is on youtube if anyone's interested btw.

Another good video, sir. I am reminded of a book I once read concerning the reality of dueling in 19th Century America, especially out west. The showdown at high noon being mostly fiction was one of the items that I remember, but what stuck with me was a chapter concerning how some women engaged in dueling one another, and because blade and gun were generally frowned on for women to use, this one particular woman hit upon the idea of using poison. Basically, she had two pills made, one poisonous, the other not, and challenged her rival to death over tea. Each would select a pill, not knowing which was the poison pill and which wasn't and they'd take the selected pill with tea. The one who got up from the table would obviously be the winner. The lady challenged wasn't stupid enough to do this, and if I remember rightly law enforcement was soon involved. So, it wasn't just men who were stupid enough to endanger their lives for no good reason (by our modern standards).

More duels = more offended people killing each other = fewer offended people quick maths

5:27 is that the royal insignia of canada? beaver on top of a peackock screaming?? that's so cute

Excellent video. Love these discussions on the less well understood aspects of history, like going beyond the "headlines" we learn in school and from pop culture. Also agree completely with the conclusion, as well! As the possesor of a dry, often satirical wit I'm pretty sure I'd be dead, by now! 🤔

I live in a mutual combat state, and if you find the right cop you can "duel" fight (box) still. It's super rare but still legal. The problem is most conflicts escalate to quickly to go through the proper channels.

A remnant of this kind of thinking continues into the modern day, minus the weapons and the death. If another guy insults you repeatedly, you’re expected to confront him, which is likely to lead to a fist fight. Even if you lose, you get better social standing for standing up to him.

My girlfriend loves Hamilton and this subject has been interesting to us both, about why they decided to duel, even after Hamilton lost his own son in a duel.

Wasn't the slap with the glove used to make a duell harder to refuse? Thats ther version i know at least. Great Video skall, insightfull and entertaining as usual X3

Great Video,, used too work with a guy who wanted too bring the duel back, now I know how too retort. Thank You Kindly Sir

During this COVID bollocks it feels like some you tubers are my friends and keep me sane, thanks for that.

Ah yes, nothing some stabby time can't solve.

I was just about to write down the story you told at 12:40! :D

Very interesting video, thanks for sharing!