Combat Ethics

[John_Clements]

From time to time I like to pose to the public forum here a dicussion thought given to our members to see what others might add to the topic.

As to whether or not there are ethical principles to self-defense in the Middle Ages & Renaissance, we may pose the question: What moral behavior applies when fighting and killing in battle or single-combat?

Thoughts/comments?

[M Wallgren]

A hard question, John!

I would think that when it come down to it in mortal fight you do what you need to do! But...

In some cases there could be laws and traditions that prevented it. I think of juridical combat or duells.

Sometimes it is down to the "moral" of the individual IMO. Some do what is nessesary others a little more!

Martin

[jeremy pace]

Well IMO, to paraphrase T.H. White's Merlin as he speaks to young Arthur. "What is the only good reason for war?......... If they start it first." If a man or group picks up a weapon to contest your rights and/or your life then you must use any and every means necessary to take him out first. If you hold anything back you might as well hold the sword to your own throat. And besides, we see many cases in history where a nation makes an example of an attacker. Like heads on pikes, (on a more social level) crucifiction, public hanging. We could go on and on about this but really it comes down to not just defense of oneself but of what he loves. If you give a man an opportunity to get back up and he kills you in single combat then what happens to your family? No, you kill that man in the most brutal way possible and take his carcass to the middle of the street, cut off his head and hold it high for everyone to see and say........ "Who else wants some?"

[M Wallgren]

hehe, Goes perfect with your qoute in your signature. Hehehe...

[Filip Pobran]

in mass combat - kill or be killed, otherwise, disable his further attacks

[Martin_Wilkinson]

I pretty much agree with Jeremy, although, in my opinion, i'd probably just stop the guy killing me or anyone else as quickly as possible, be that by disabling him, or killing him outright. I'd rather not kill anyone, but if he presented me with a situation like that of arthur, against the black knight in monty python and the holy grail, i'd do what arthur did.

Martin.

[jeremy pace]

Not sure how to take that sir Wallgren so i will just take it the best way possible and say thank you. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Filip Pobran]

"it is not hard to pull the trigger. it is hard to kill a person"

[david welch]

Combat Ethics?

That's difficult. If your country has agreed to some sort of "laws of land warfare" then as a soldier you are obligated at least by law to follow them and there are consequences for not doing so.

If you are dueling, usually if you were honor bound to follow some sort of "code duello" there would be some sort of social consequences for not following them.

If you are in a bar and "mutual combat" breaks out, the one of you that thinks he is fighting by some sort of code is the one that is going to lose.

If you are in a criminal assault, then there are use of force laws that have to be followed or you go to jail... but as far as I am concerned whatever the scum gets he deserved.


Filip Pobran said:

"it is not hard to pull the trigger. it is hard to kill a person"

That is one of those things that the people that control society would really, really like you to believe because it makes you easier to control. The truth is though it is so false as to not even be funny. What is hard is to keep people from killing each other. We do it all the time. Most of out laws are there to stop us from killing each other. And contrary to what you see in the movies, the people that have made a justified killing, whether police officers or soldiers, don't lay in bed at night and sweat thinking about the horrible things they have done.

A more apt quote from one of my friends would be:
"the amateur controls the open, the professional controls the close."

In fact, I think it is harder to get up a good head of steam to use while sparring than it would be for me to get my blood up to fight for real.

David Welch
ARMA East Tennessee

[Matt_Bruskotter]

I would venture that morals and ethics only apply before and after the fight and even then it's up to the individual. This may sound horrible, but when reading it I immediately thought of a quick death. It's what I'd want and it's how I was one of the only rules my dad taught me while hunting that had to do with morals is never let the animal suffer if you can help it. i guess I'd apply that to people as well personally. But until the fight is over, he can suffer a bit. I'm not in any way implying that humans are like animals, jus that I would personaly, ethically, try to minimize suffering because it's what I'd want.

[Logan Weed]

"Perceive the way of nature and no force of man can harm you. Do not meet a wave head on: avoid it. You do not have to stop force: it is easier to redirect it. Learn more ways to preserve rather than destroy. Avoid rather than check. Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill. For all life is precious nor can any be replaced." - Master Kan

I've never found anything that sums it up better than that.

[Jaron Bernstein]

I don't think there is any one correct answer to that question. Everyone has different beliefs on it.

[Filip Pobran]

i've been through war and i lived in the area that was the front line. people had problems with that attitude even defending their own lifes and lifes od their family. they told me that they imagined: "they aren't people, they are jus targets"

[Lorraine Munoa]

It would depend on the person.

Some knights were, as talked about in the manuals, upright citizens, loyal to their lords, defenders of the poor, protector of the realm #$$kickers etc. They were awesome.
However there are also accounts such as the knights who stormed a nunnery and began to rape loot and murder. Suddenly the church bells from the nearby town rang out, and they realized it was Sunday. They dropped to their knees to pray before getting back to their murdering.
Same is true with people today. A lot of martial artists are EMA, and often in those groups they try to instill character values along with Forms and whatever. Sometimes, it works, sometimes you just get a hothead in "pajamas". "Boot to the head."
Western martial arts depends on the group youre with, I suppose..I don't know of any groups other than ARMA who aren't Sporting, RPing or reenactment..

I have noticed this about ARMA though. Anyone who isn't serious about the integrity and martial honesty with which we practice leaves after a day or two. Maybe this is why most of the people in ARMA are 'good' folks. We understand the consequences of real violence. When you know exactly what your actions will do to a person's body, you have that weight and gravity added to your decisions in a fight, judging when to disable and when to incapacitate or even use deadly force.

[Allen Johnson]

I think you see more and more of these ethics as time progressed. In my research of Scottish Highland Broadsword manuals I came across a passage that stated avoid killing the man at all costs, least you endanger your soul. (Im at work and dont have my books with me - I'll get the exact source and quote later). Now this starts to venture into religion but certainly this kind of thinking would effect the way one would behave and certainly what techniques he would use in a duel or on the battlefield. It also seems to be generally accepted that fighting and killing in battle for ones king and country is ok (cause certainly God is on their side, right?) But duelling seems to be reguarded as a bit more sinister at times.