The reason the State tried to stop dueling was because it be came another name for murder.
From reading a lot of historical stories, even before the times of the three musketeers a duel was predominantly one sided, a sword master against a hick. The master would cheat, defile a maidens honour, or what ever else he wanted to. The state wouldn't care, they had bigger things to worry about. The hick would challenge the master, this gave the master the choice of weapons, the result was as expected, is this justice?, cheap maybe, but justice?
Then we added technology and got to the time of Billy The Kid. I wonder if the first 21 men who faced him thought it was an equal battle? again, justice?.
while a duel is a 'pissing ' competition [who can piss further] and nobody gets hurt, maybe, but human nature being what it is, there is no such thing as a fair duel. You only enter if you know you are going to win. [besides I drank more beer than you and my bladder is bigger]
The trial system, with equal representation, 12 honest men, is the best we have got, reintroducing dueling is a road to might is right.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Billy the Kid wasn't a duelist, he was a murderer.
In your instance of the weapon master versus the hick, the hick has more chance for justice in a duel than he would in a court owned by the aristocrat.
The purpose of seconds was to ensure as fair a duel as possible.
Is it ideal? Perhaps not.
Is it something to disregard as barbaric? No.