The Duel Violence

During the Early Modern Era amongst the English nobility, violence became more restrained, as it was principally limited to the “formal” arena of dueling. The Duel succeeded in diverting nobility from unrestrained fraction warfare with armed gangs, of pervious centuries. However, while private warfare amongst the nobility was down it is difficult to determine exact statistics of Aristocratic violence because in most instances both went unreported.
The duel was how noble violence became more restrained, because through the duel violence became “regulated, codified, restricted and sterilized.” Dueling culture developed out of Italian chivalric revival, which demanded responding to perceived insults with a challenge was the only way salvage one’s reputation. European governments had difficulty containing dueling culture because of the system of beliefs it inspired. While open unrestrained violence unacceptable by society at large, a challenge to a duel was acceptable. “A duel was a polite response to an uncouth word or act, which had degraded gentlemanly courtesy, and offered the only means to restore this courtesy.” Thus, this manner of “restrained” violence was ignored unless it became a threat to crown or property was significantly damaged. However, they lack the government bodies by which to prevent this type of violence. Even more so because during this period violence and readiness to resort to it helped define a noble and

However, beginning during the Tudor period there began to be a successful assertion of royal monopoly on violence, restraining both public and private violence amongst the nobility. As monarchs and governments became more centralized and stronger they were able to curb the violence amongst nobles. Stone argues that this successful assertion of royal authority regarding violence was achieved through four