Kanine posted:

I'm sorry if this isn't exactly the right thread for this (if there's a better thread to ask this question could someone point me in the right direction?) Does anyone have good book recommendations on books with first hand accounts from the protest movements in the 60's in the U.S.?

Kanine posted:

I'm sorry if this isn't exactly the right thread for this (if there's a better thread to ask this question could someone point me in the right direction?) Does anyone have good book recommendations on books with first hand accounts from the protest movements in the 60's in the U.S.?

quote:

The most intriguing duel fought between women, and the sole one that featured exposed breasts, took place in August 1892 in Vauduz, the capitol of Liechtenstein, between Princess Pauline Metternich and the Countess Kielmannsegg. It has gone down in history as the first “emancipated duel” because all parties involved, including the principals and their seconds were female. Also, the confrontation was organized and presided over by the Baroness Lubinska, who had a degree in medicine (a rarity for a woman in those days) and was prepared to minister to any wounds incurred. Before the proceedings began, the baroness pointed out that many insignificant injuries in duels often became septic due to strips of clothing being driven into the wound by the point of a sword. To counter this danger she prudently suggested that both parties should fight stripped of any garments above the waist. Certainly, Baroness Lubinska was ahead of her time, taking an even more radical take on the (at the time) widely dismissed theories of British surgeon Joseph Lister, who in 1870 revolutionized surgical procedures with the introduction of antiseptic. With the precautions Baroness Lubinska recommended, the topless women duelists were less likely to suffer from an infection; indeed, it was a smart idea to fight semiclad. Given the practicality of the baroness’ suggestion and the “emancipated” nature of the duel, it was agreed that the women would disrobe—after all, there would be no men present to ogle them. For the women, the decision to unbutton the tops of their dresses was not sexual; it was simply a way of preventing a duel of first blood from becoming a duel to the death.

At the dueling ground on the fateful day, all formalities were carried out to the letter including an attempt at and refusal of reconciliation. The ladies engaged and, after a few trifling feints and thrusts, a wild slash from the princess brought about a light flow of blood from the countess’ nose. Seeing the injury she caused, the shocked princess, in a stereotypical feminine gesture, threw both hands up to her cheeks. Just then, the countess lunged and pierced the princess through her right forearm. The sight of the ensuing blood caused the respective seconds to faint. The footmen and coachmen, who had been ordered to stand some distance away with their backs toward the action, heard the cries and ran toward the women to render aid. Baroness Lubinska, however, decided the male servants had more salacious motives and attacked them with her umbrella, shouting, “Avert your eyes, avert your eyes—you lustful wretches!” The baroness was once again ahead of her time in sensing the necessary precautions. It was as if she already knew the gossip and speculation that would result from this premier example of what could have become a clothing–optional sport.

The rumors started just as soon as the Princess Metternich and Countess Kielmannsegg cast aside their weapons. Artists and storytellers speculated about the duel, most of their tales centering specifically on the scanty clothes the women wore. It is humorous that most recounts of this historic event fail to mention two important things: the winner of the duel (Princess Metternich) and the reason why the women came to arms in the first place—they disagreed over the floral arrangements for an upcoming musical exhibition. Bared breasts, apparently, overshadow such trivial details.

Sulla-Marius 88 posted:

I'm going to guess about as much as the average person knows about duelling and swordsmanship (both today and then) - sweet bugger all. You can't just pick up a sword and take over Mêlée Island™

Sulla-Marius 88 posted:

I don't think you can pick up swordsmanship and duelling techniques just by watching it. Yes, you'll pick up certain ritualistic patterns, like where to stand and generally what the formulaic "wrapper" traditions are, but the core of it (the actual swordfighting) requires training and practice. Otherwise every fat neckbeard past the dialup age would be an expert in kung fu and sex

quote:

Since Lincoln was challenged by Shields he had the privilege of choosing the weapon of the duel.  He chose cavalry broadswords "of the largest size."  "I didn't want the d—-d fellow to kill me, which I think he would have done if we had selected pistols," he later explained.  For his own part, he did not want to kill Shields, but "felt sure [he] could disarm him" with a blade.   At six feet, four inches tall, Lincoln planned to use his height to his advantage against Shields, who stood at a mere five feet, nine inches tall.

The day of the duel, September 22, arrived and the combatants met at Bloody Island, Missouri to face death or victory.  As the two men faced each other, with a plank between them that neither was allowed to cross, Lincoln swung his sword high above Shields to cut through a nearby tree branch.  This act demonstrated the immensity of Lincoln’s reach and strength and was enough to show Shields that he was at a fatal disadvantage.  With the encouragement of bystanders, the two men called a truce. 

A White Guy posted:

It's funny to think that the origins of fencing are in brutal sword fights to the death/incapacitation over rather banal things. By the 18th century, a fencing duel was only until one or both sides drew blood, after which the two parties were to kiss and make up.

Of course, where would American history be without it? As you're probably aware Alexander Hamilton was killed by a gunshot wound inflicted in a duel. You probably didn't know that he fought his last duel in same place as his firstborn son had, three years earlier.

Apparently the Hamiltons had a wretched run of luck with the dueling.

RenegadeStyle1 posted:

That was a gun duel which is different than a sword duel, most of the time in a gun duel someone is going to die.

InediblePenguin posted:

RenegadeStyle1 posted:

That was a gun duel which is different than a sword duel, most of the time in a gun duel someone is going to die.

vintagepurple posted:

By Hamilton's time it was mostly bluster- merely showing up would prove that both sides were man enough to follow through, so they could then call a truce or fire symbolically, and both leave alive and with "honor" intact.

RenegadeStyle1 posted:

That was a gun duel which is different than a sword duel, most of the time in a gun duel someone is going to die.

canyoneer posted:

Lincoln's (almost)duel was awesome. He didn't want to fight it, so he set it up to be hopelessly unwinnable for his opponent so he would agree to back down.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/lincoln-hub/abraham-lincolns-duel.html


Height and size difference would be like Robert Downey Jr vs. The Rock.

I can't find the quote, but I remember reading him saying something like "I didn't want to fight him, but if it came to that I could have split him in two."

quote:

The two headed back to Alton with their entourage where a crowd of anxious people awaited on the banks of the river to find out what had happened. Several people screamed and one woman fainted when they spotted a corpse in one of the boats. The “corpse” turned out to be a large log with a red shirt draped over it. Someone had set up the deception just to get a reaction out of the awaiting audience. This led both Lincoln and Shields to laugh hysterically at the “corpse” as well as at just how absurd the events of this day had been.

Byzantine posted:

Most disputes die and no-one shoots.

Nucken Futz posted:

And this was when "Men were Men"????

Pussies

Fat Samurai posted:

"Real" duels to first blood are two guys trying to pole each other's hand, anyway. They don't look very manly either.

vintagepurple posted:

By Hamilton's time it was mostly bluster- merely showing up would prove that both sides were man enough to follow through, so they could then call a truce or fire symbolically, and both leave alive and with "honor" intact.

chitoryu12 posted:

I did a tour with Jimmy Napoli, a Hamilton historian who's been studying and giving tours on the guy for long before the musical made him prominent, and he's of the opinion that Hamilton's behavior during the duel was suicidal:

* The duel was over a political matter rather than personal (Burr saw something like an editorial where a guy mentioned Hamilton dissing his politics at a dinner party, and Hamilton didn't outright deny it when Burr wrote to him asking what the gently caress), and Burr likely would have avoided dueling if Hamilton said that. I think one of Hamilton's writings on the matter even mentioned that he only viewed it as a political disagreement.

* When given the choice of where to stand, Hamilton chose a location where the rising sun would be in his eyes on the cliff.

* Hamilton engaged in somewhat suspicious behavior openly in front of Burr, like wearing his glasses (indicating a desire to take careful aim) and fiddling with his gun. I don't think he even gave Burr an appropriate greeting upon meeting him for the duel, which was very insulting. All behavior which served as a sign that Hamilton meant to kill.

* Reportedly, Hamilton was asked by his second if he wanted the hair trigger set on his pistol and replied "Not this time". This would have made his gun less accurate.

The circumstances of dueling (everyone turned their backs to have deniability) mean that nobody knows 100% what happened, but it's generally agreed upon that Hamilton fired first and missed Burr. Some have even said that Hamilton turned and fired before the tenth pace, resulting in Burr panicking and firing as he spun around. Either way, all of Hamilton's behavior and decisions up till that point suggest that, at the very least, had a death wish.

Which wouldn't be surprising. His Federalist party was on its last legs and would basically collapse within a decade, his political career was in shambles after his adultery scandal got out (to say nothing of how his marriage was probably doing), and his eldest son had died in a duel at the very same spot just a few years ago and accounts from the time period indicate that he fell into a deep depression over it. Suicidal behavior wouldn't be surprising.

vintagepurple posted:

Hamilton is a fascinating figure and tbh I highly reccomend checking out the musical (which goons seem to have a hate-on for, for some reason), and the bio that inspired it, to anyone interested in american history.

bean_shadow posted:

Thanks for this post! I love the musical and have no idea why it's apparently generally disliked on SA (I didn't know this until now---do you know the common complaints?).

bean_shadow posted:

Thanks for this post! I love the musical and have no idea why it's apparently generally disliked on SA (I didn't know this until now---do you know the common complaints?). I have yet to read the biography the musical is based on even though I own it.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

The rapping is extremely lame and bad and it thinks it gets a pass for whitewashing history because it has black people playing white characters. Also the female characters range from "suck" to "nonexistent."