Combat Ethics

[Martin_Wilkinson]

Not always, but that's always a risk in a sword fight anyway. There are ways of quitting, one being surrendering, but that relies on your opponent not being a cruel butcher, or you could run like hell, but that also relies on your enemy not being as quick as you.

Martin.

[Filip Pobran]

hmmm... i know that in the war most of people aren't any more humans, so i would probably be killed in the battle. i prefere fast death. no surrending. i saw some former POWs. <img src="/forum/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" /> i do not reccomand

[Derek Gulas]

Just out of curiosity, whose POWs?

Anyway, I agree that surrender can be a very bad option and should be avoided unless there is no other choice. Who except the very despirate would willingly and helplessly put themselves into the hands of the enemy? It almost seems to me like offering them your neck.

Running is also a really bad option. If you turn to run you probably will end up getting cut down, or in our cases today shot up, pretty quick. That was one of the main jobs of cavalry after all.

Also, in my opinion I think it's sort of a moot point to be arguing if a duel is really a fight or not. A duel is a type of combat. I don't think anybody would argue that. I think if we found ourselves in a Talhoffer'esk duel with Lucerne hammers or duelling shields we would quickly find out what an unpleasant experience it could be, no matter what our opinions on the matter were.

[Filip Pobran]

Just out of curiosity, whose POWs?

in live, i saw people who were cought by serbs, but i saw on photos and TV a lot of bad things done to POWs

I agree that surrender can be a very bad option and should be avoided unless there is no other choice. Who except the very despirate would willingly and helplessly put themselves into the hands of the enemy?

yes. in medieval, you would be (most likely) killed. if you had shiny armour you could have some chance.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Guy, guys, "fight" and "duel" cannot be compared really.

they could be the same actions and they may not. I was just at a hockey, "game" which became a "duel" which turned into a "fight". or...was it always a "fight" from the begining??? I don't know and who cares really......point is they are both dangerous situations requiring skills that few have, or even strive to have, the fight and duel that is, even though the hockey game resulted in much blood being spilled as well-

As an interesting aside though here in Wisconsin anyway you and another individual, according to our laws can have a "duel" as long as you both agree to allow each other to hurt each other, and it does not bother anyone else, then "duel" away- happens quite a bit here actually, guys in a bar have a verbal deal, go out back and beat each other into the basis of a great freindship, afterwards they go back in and the matter is settled, a "fight" however happens when no permission is given and the "participants" disrupt the general public- now that is when we have a fight- maybe this could help sort it out- duels in the old days though could result in death, mostly without legal action being taken, at least for a certain time period-? but now even if there is permission it still cannot arise to the level of aggravated battery, (like kicking an unconscious party) or mayhem-(biting off a finger) or (weapons of any kind) or death-which would be considered manslaughter-(murder without intent to murder)- so just some additional thoughts to try and sort out semantics, Aaron P

[jennifer welch]

I agree with the fact that a fight is where you didn't agree to physical altercation, also I think that a duel ( i.e. UFC) is where two individuals or more, have ALL agreed to a certain set of ethics, morals, rules, or a code. I personally don't think that I would kill in a "duel", however, if the rules were to the death, certainly. Most of my experience of "fights" have been uninvited provokation. Now having said that, would I kill or be killed, that as David and others have said is a dumb question. All people will fight to live, thats human nature. I have to agree to say that as I have classified a "fight" there are NO rules to follow, so I will make the most forceful ending as possible, so any onlookers think twice before attacking or engaging (provoking) a "fight" with me. (Just a little info, I am 5'3" tall I don't have an intimidating appearance as some of you do, I have to rely on my training and skills to get me out of a "fight" so I feel that I will have to be as mean and hurtful all the way to my grave if need be to WIN (LIVE)

[Brendan Carrell]

I think the seriousness of the altercation itself needs to be taken into account - a scuffle outside a bar is nowhere near a home intrusion or similar occurrence. As such, I would have to first decide whether or not the circumstances warrant the "kill-or-be-killed" mentality. Getting slugged by a drunk, painful as it may be, is probably not grounds for beating said inebriate to death. Ethics in combat are dependant upon the type of combat - warranted or unwarranted force is, in my view, what decides the ethicality of a conflict.

Also - No one to look out for that [inquisitio] [Hispanus]? <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[jennifer welch]

I would think that we are in agreement. An altercation is to me what you are refering to, I thought we were talking about a "fight" not just a confrontation.

[Jeremy Martin]

Post deleted by Jeremy Martin

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Wow, Jeremy I must say in some of these things here you are way off, and some are sort of on, but I can be reasonably sure and confident in saying-do not take this advice it will only mess you up.

We are now discussing a topic which I think is not applicaple to the color of the original post and ensuing conversation. Anyone who dispenses legal advice like this to our community needs to be very careful in how it's done.

I really do not thin it's a matter for our forum, but with 12 years of Law Enforcemnet expirence as an Officer, Swat Operator and Police Trainer, there is much wrong with this kind of advice. There is a jumble of legal principles here that are getting mixed up and jumbled in with all sorts of street urban myth, to much to even address specifically- so I won't.

But I do agree with one point and that is if you have specific questions call your local Police Dept's and get an opinion, not from the forum- but I really don't think anyone was really asking those questions there, Jeremy we were just discussing some semantics- and an "altercation" and a "fight" and "disturbance" are all really the same things- breaking into houses has nothing to do with it.

back on topic, I think the ethics of the combat will be determined by: a specific frame of referance whatever that may be, like us now trying to apply our modern values to fights that occurred hundreds of years ago-no matter how we view it it will be substantially diffrent than how they did-so it's just speculation- Aaron P

[Jeremy Martin]

Deleted then.

[Martin_Wilkinson]

I agree that the cause of the fight will have a major impact on how far you go, i think i said something along those lines earlier in the topic.

Martin.

[John_Clements]

Thanks eveyrone for your replies.

This touched on several elements we have been looking at having to do with the just cuases of conflict, the provocation to fight, and the context of a fight. So, now let's change gears with this new follow up dicussion thought:

What role did religious belief play in the warrior mindset and attitude of a Medieval or Renaissance fighting man?

[Allen Johnson]

I mentioned earlier a quote from a Scottish manual and this is it. This is in 'MacGregors Lecture on the Art of Defence'. My version of this manual is in the book, 'Highland Broadsword: Five Manuals of Scottish Regimental Swordsmanship' by Paul Wagner and Mark Rector. Since I dont know the pagination of the original document I'll reference the page in this book.
p. 138
"Therefore I prefer half thrusts, or half longes, to wide stretches, or home thrusts: for the last is very dangerous, especially in earnest engagement with swords; and a few wounds in the sword arm, will soon disable a man, which is far better, and more Christian like, than taking his life, as in general the most of quarrels arise from mere trifles."

also p. 138
"A broad swordsman should also only try to cut the arm inside, outside, or under, any thing, but taking the life."

So here he is seemingly stating the only reason to not do "wide stretches and home thrusts" is because it is more Christian to disable a man than kill him.

I'll have some more info in the next day or so on some of these attitudes from the English/Scottish border riders of the 16th century. The book is at home...

[Martin_Wilkinson]

Having spent years around ECW re-enactments i've heard that the left hand is the devils hand, which will stop people using their left hands as the primary hand for doing things, presumably including sword and other martial practices. I have no idea as to the truthfulness of this.

But if it is true it shows that there was a rather large fear of being considered un-christian, or even worse, satanic.

It is often referenced how religious men were in the medieval and renaissance periods. I believe this to be true, too many people went to war for something they didn't believe in if they weren't religious (the crusades etc.).

During the English Civil War, religion was a key element, well religious sect was, (protestant and catholic, basically, is my understanding, but i'm certain it's not that simple).

Protestants and Catholics have always had a massive rivalry/hatred of each other, look at Northern Island in recent times. If you were of one faction and came to fight the other, chances are because of you're belief you'd be willing to do 'God's' work. Obviously, this is only if you are a fanatical believer.

Hope i haven't confused anyone, or not made sense.

Martin.