So wizard dueling as it's depicted in the books is more like modern fencing, non-fatal competitive point scoring, in the style of a one on one fight.


But presumably, wizards of the past would have used the killing curse, or another potentially fatal hex when dueling for honour.

I.e two wizards fight, slap each other gloves or similar and meet in Hyde Park at dawn to settle matters of honour, they get to cast 1 hex at the other from a distance of x paces at a given signal - The possibility, if not the intention, to kill is implied right?

If someone died in a pistol duel it was murder by the VE - so using a spell that could result in death would be part of it. Right?


(Dante's watching Hamilton)

The following 1 user Likes Samuel St.John-Black's post:1 user Likes Samuel St.John-Black's post
   Cecily Gallivan

---

Lady is a star

YAS HAMILTON but also re-wizarding duels and killing spells:


Im not entirely sure what the question is but I would say no they would not be allowed to use Avada Kedavra. According to the wiki, that and the other two curses [Imprio and Crucio] were classified as Unforgivable in 1717. By the 1990’s is when we learn they would earn you a one-way ticket to Azkaban. I think it's safe to assume this piece of legislation passed earlier than this because Aurors had to be granted express permission to use it during the First and Second Wizarding Wars.

And that's the DMLE that gave them permission, so I doubt they could do that, nevermind the fact that if they did it in Hyde Park both wizards regardless if either one hit their target would get thrown into Azkaban ASAP.

In terms of dueling, the intention was to restore wounded honor after a slight, however the use of even one the Unforgivable Curses would - by definition of the name of the trio of spells - directly negate any sort of honor on both party's behalf after the fact. Nevermind the person's reputation in wizarding society.

The following 3 users Like Amelia Evans's post:3 users Like Amelia Evans's post
   Aldous Crouch, Holly Scrimgeour, Jupiter Smith

---

I realise that having re-read it - it was more of vaguely hamilton related rambling rather than an explicit question! XD

I guess I was wondering what spells could or would be used in an honour duel?

I guess if one was effectively throwing away your shot (i.e making your point but not trying to kill someone) you could disarm them, or if you were actually so outraged as to want to hurt them like Eacker who killed Hamiltons son, you might actually want to hurt them, so a spell that causes blood loss would seem to be the make the most sense - to introduce the chance that you MIGHT die during the duel.

  

---

Look what MJ did!!

Re: spells, I think any could be used. If you go look on HP wiki, you'll find plenty of spells that have the potential to be lethal. I think magic in general can be lethal if done poorly, because we see multiple instances of people being killed by misfires and magical malfunctions (that were presumably not killing curses in action). My question is more about the legality of all of this.

Duels in modern day Potterverse were treated like sport, but I assume dueling for honor was a thing in the 1800s? I guess the questions I have are (1) to what extent was it legal, (2) what charges (or societal consequences) could someone face for engaging in a consensual duel if someone were to die or be seriously injured, and (3) would those charges hold up in court?

Dueling with pistols was already on the decline by the mid-19th century and it was formally charged as murder, but from my understanding few were found guilty because the courts were sympathetic to the honor culture.

The last fatal duel between Englishmen in England occurred in 1845, when James Alexander Seton had an altercation with Henry Hawkey over the affections of his wife, leading to a duel at Browndown, near Gosport. However, the last fatal duel to occur in England was between two French political refugees, Frederic Cournet and Emmanuel Barthélemy near Englefield Green in 1852; the former was killed.

SO upon further research (aka a very brief Wikipedia search) reveals that the last fatal muggle duel happened about forty years before our current IC year. I still think dueling would persist in the magical world because of an education that teaches combative and defensive magic, but I guess I'm wondering to what extent.

The following 2 users Like Holly Scrimgeour's post:2 users Like Holly Scrimgeour's post
   Billie Farrow, Madeleine Backus

---

— set by MJ <3 —

I supposed spells used in the duel would be up to the duelers' discretion? Wizards have many more options than the usual point and shoot way of muggle dueling. I imagine "throwing away your shot" would result in some sort of defensive spell, miss, or showy charm. As for offensive spells, I think it might depend on how much the two parties felt slighted from the situation. One person might want to be sure to instill a dire warning and cast a spell that has the potential to be fatal or bring about serious harm. Another person might use a common dueling jinx just to make a point or give the other party a scare. Wizard honor duels sound like they'd have much more potential to have more depth than their Muggle counterparts.

That being said, I suppose where, when, and what spells are being used might dictate if/how they could be punished. A duel that errs on the side of caution that's done in some remote location in the Hebrides probably wouldn't require consequences, as opposed to a duel seeking to serious maim another that takes places in Padmore Park. ?

Edit: I imagine wizard duels might be more a show of force than seeking to actually kill someone? I imagine if it ends up as the latter, a trial would have to be had and it determined if there was intent, or if it was an accident?

The following 2 users Like Billie Farrow's post:2 users Like Billie Farrow's post
   Holly Scrimgeour, Madeleine Backus

---

MJ, yet again working her magic.  <3 <3 Thank you

You've also got to take into account that even muggle duels for honour weren't always necessarily meant to be duels to the death. Just as frequently, if not more so, it would be to the first blood being drawn or, with pistols, an agreed number of shots. (And pistols do not exactly have the same kill rate as Avada Kedavra, because shooting someone in the leg and causing a bit of an injury is not at all the same as going explicitly for death. xD) Besides, there would usually be seconds and doctors on hand to stop the duel before things deteriorated too far and the offence was satisfied.

In terms of this end of the century and in Charming-verse, I had always assumed 1) definitely no Unforgivables/illegal shit, and that 2) if not duelling for honour to best your opponents in the strict rounds style of our tournaments, you would be basically be leaning towards a magical equivalent of "men arguing and getting into a drunken brawl".

The following 2 users Like Elias Grimstone's post:2 users Like Elias Grimstone's post
   Aldous Crouch, Madeleine Backus

---

look ANOTHER beautiful bee!set <3

If Charles ever gets his duel, my gut instinct would not be for avada kedavra for a variety of reasons already mentioned. Also Charles is a giant asshole but he's not got an illegal dark magic fascination or a desire to lose everything and rot in Azkaban.

I'd have thought there would be different styles of duel and duel etiquette and the one you'd go for would depend on the context of the challenge. Charles, for example, would either opt for a low stakes duel if the challenge was made publicly but ideally he'd prefer a very discreet, less gentlemanly sort of aggressive duel but not to the death, more like first to cause injury but it might get heated and go a bit too far.

I could see illegal to the death duels with avada kedavra as the only spell you use being a thing because canon says it won't work if you don't mean it so it wouldn't necessarily be zap and it's over, in fact it'd potentially be very tense even for the caster (unless they're a sociopath). It'd be deeply illegal but dueling being illegal didn't stop people dueling and killing each other. That said I feel like a more popular and more palatable option might be diffindo each other until you're sufficiently bloodied and regretting your life choices. Sometimes amputation(s) or death occur. Oops.

The following 1 user Likes Ursula Black's post:1 user Likes Ursula Black's post
   Holly Scrimgeour

---

If Charles ever gets his duel, my gut instinct would not be for avada kedavra for a variety of reasons already mentioned. Also Charles is a giant asshole but he's not got an illegal dark magic fascination or a desire to lose everything and rot in Azkaban.

I'd have thought there would be different styles of duel and duel etiquette and the one you'd go for would depend on the context of the challenge. Charles, for example, would either opt for a low stakes duel if the challenge was made publicly but ideally he'd prefer a very discreet, less gentlemanly sort of aggressive duel but not to the death, more like first to cause injury but it might get heated and go a bit too far.

Obviously this needs to happen IC so we can all see your explanation in action ;)

The following 1 user Likes Holly Scrimgeour's post:1 user Likes Holly Scrimgeour's post
   Ursula Black

---

— set by MJ <3 —