Zawisza the Black in a Duel with John II of Aragon by Michal Bylina

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Canada

seen from Malaysia
seen from Saudi Arabia

seen from United States

seen from Denmark

seen from Denmark
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from South Korea
seen from South Korea
seen from United Kingdom
seen from China
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Italy
Zawisza the Black in a Duel with John II of Aragon by Michal Bylina
Guard Dog
Sebastian Sallow x Reader
Sebastian Sallow has never considered himself overprotective—just attentive where it matters. After all, when you first arrived at Hogwarts, it was him who showed you the castle’s secrets, who taught you who to trust and who to avoid. Looking out for you simply became second nature. So when someone else tries to step a little too close, it’s only reasonable that Sebastian reminds them exactly where they stand.
tw: dark!sebastian sallow, jealousy, crosswands duel, established relationship/friendship, he means well(no he doesn't), protective/possessive/obsessive behaviors, no use of y/n, manipulation(light/implied), reader's house not specified wc: 2.1k Read me on Ao3! lol my OG house quiz years back was Ravenclaw, then I did it again when I was 16 and got Gryffindor, did it a few months ago and got Slytherin...
I've thought of a good way to characterize duelling styles.
Take Dumbledore and Voldemort. When I think of their style, I think of the movie, The Revenge of the Sith, and the duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan. It's incredibly stylish and intense. Both fighters are the best and it really comes down to who makes the first mistake.
That's how I think of Dumbledore and Voldemort. Their duel in OOTP was the most bombastic and entertaining in the whole series. They were duelling as how you'd expect two wizards of equal skill to duel.
With Harry, I think of the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indy shoots the swordfighter and walks off.
Harry's duelling style is quick, dirty and pragmatic. Sure, it may be boring, but it's damn effective. Why waste time and risk your life with all these fancy spells when a simple disarming charm renders 99% of wizards completely harmless.
Harry's not fighting as a wizard, he's fighting as a survivor.
Harry's definitely the most pragmatic dueller out of these three. And it makes sense. Harry didn't have the luxury of studying dueling and magic at his leisure to enjoy just the magic of it the way Dumbledore and Voldemort did. He doesn't have the arrogance of Dumbledore and Voldemort, so he doesn't have that same need to show off and prove he's the smartest most talented person in the room. Becouse that's what I think it is. The duel in OotP doesn't look like that just because of skill — it's also arrogance, of both combatants.
Both Dumbledore and Voldemort are trying to say: "look at me! I'm so much more talented and skilled than the other guy!" during their duel. The whole thing is a theatrical ego-stroke.
It's why Voldemort gets so miffed when Dumbledore questions his intelligence and magical skill. It's why Dumbledore repeatedly doubts Voldemort's skills aloud and calls him "Tom". Their duel is a game of showing "Look, I'm better", neither of them is trying to simply win, they want to humiliate their opponent and prove themselves superior.
“You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?” called Voldemort, his scarlet eyes narrowed over the top of the shield. “Above such brutality, are you?” “We both know that there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom,” Dumbledore said calmly, continuing to walk toward Voldemort as though he had not a fear in the world, as though nothing had happened to interrupt his stroll up the hall. “Merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit —” “There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!” snarled Voldemort. “You are quite wrong,” said Dumbledore, still closing in upon Voldemort and speaking as lightly as though they were discussing the matter over drinks. Harry felt scared to see him walking along, undefended, shieldless. He wanted to cry out a warning, but his headless guard kept shunting him backward toward the wall, blocking his every attempt to get out from behind it. “Indeed, your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness —”
(OotP, Ch36)
Harry, on the other hand, is an abused, traumatized boy with ridiculously low self-esteem who's been running on survival mode since he can remember himself. Of course, he'd fight to remain alive. Harry never fights to prove a point or humiliate his opponents like Dumbles or Voldy, he is fighting to survive.
He is always going for incapacitation or disarming — he knows the longer the fight lasts, the lower his survival chances are, so he fights intending to end fights quickly. It's the best way to ensure survival and it's what he does.
He tries to avoid killing when the enemy doesn't deserve it (like Stan Shunpike or Draco in the bathroom, yes, Harry tried not to kill him) but Lupin is wrong in his assessment of Harry's dueling in DH. In fact, Harry is willing to kill when he needs to. When his opponent deserves it and it will save Harry and others, Harry goes for the kill. and he does so instantly.
He doesn't have Voldemort's theatrical need to play with his food:
“We bow to each other, Harry,” said Voldemort, bending a little, but keeping his snakelike face upturned to Harry. “Come, the niceties must be observed. . . . Dumbledore would like you to show manners. . . . Bow to death, Harry. . . .”
(GoF, Ch34)
Becouse he isn't trying to prove a point. He is trying to survive and playing with your food means the food just might get a chance to get away.
Nor does Harry have Dumbledore's feigned goodness. (Dumbledore is a character who is obsessed with what he considers "good", he wants to be a good, humble person so bad, but he isn't. To the point of completely romanticizing the concept of "goodness" and kind of missing the point sometimes). Dumbledore doesn't kill because of his romanticized, idealized version of goodness which places him "above such brutality" just like Voldy mocks him in OotP. So he would never cast a killing curse — even if it is an efficient solution that would save lives at the moment.
Harry has no qualms about using Unforgivables when he feels the situation calls for it. If it's more efficient and helps/saves people Harry cares about, he'd do it. Harry is crazy scrappy when fighting. I talked about it here, but Harry uses his body a lot when dueling. He tackles Death Eaters with his hands, he elbows them in the face, he uses plenty of muggle brawling when dueling because it works. Harry does whatever he needs to do to survive, it doesn't even matter to him if he wins or not — what matters is survival. This is why he is so practical when it comes to dueling, why he fights the way he does, and why he is willing to cast Unforgivables. He would always choose the path to survival and to save as many people as he can, even if that path is running away (which he often considers in fights, especially when younger).
I really like your phrasing of it: "Harry's not fighting as a wizard, he's fighting as a survivor" because that's exactly what this is. If punching someone helps, he'd do it, if a spell can be useful, he'd use it. Oh, his hands burn Quirrell, very well, he'd use that — he uses anything and everything he can, he doesn't care how it looks, just that it works.
I think the Death Eaters in OotP were surprised when he just, like, tackled them down physically. I think most wizards think such is beneath them, so it'll surprise them when someone actually throws hands. I mean, we see Arthur and Lucius throw hands, and it's clearly not something common in their society:
There was a thud of metal as Ginny’s cauldron went flying; Mr. Weasley had thrown himself at Mr. Malfoy, knocking him backward into a bookshelf. Dozens of heavy spellbooks came thundering down on all their heads; there was a yell of, “Get him, Dad!” from Fred or George; Mrs. Weasley was shrieking, “No, Arthur, no!”; the crowd stampeded backward, knocking more shelves over; “Gentlemen, please — please!” cried the assistant, and then, louder than all — “Break it up, there, gents, break it up —” [...] Mrs. Weasley beside herself with fury. “A fine example to set for your children . . . brawling in public . . . what Gilderoy Lockhart must’ve thought —”
(CoS, Ch4)
I'm pretty sure Lucius did not expect that. Like, he might've expected a hex, but not to be pushed physically. He probably considers it awfully muggle.
So, yeah, your assessment is correct and it fits their characters, beyond just skill level (since I believe Harry could fight like Dumbledore and Voldemort if he was inclined to do so).
Spamton & Tenna nose swordfight.
Kind of explains itself.
Idk.
It’s equal parts bitchfight and mating ritual.
18th-century duelling pistols replicas aka what I'd do if I had 60 pounds spare
"If either principal on the ground refuses to fight or continue the fight when required, it is the duty of his second to say to the other second: '"'I have come upon the ground with a coward, and do tender you my apology for an ignorance of his character; you are at liberty to post him.'"
This is the aspect of duelling culture, I've noticed, that is a real struggle for modern perspectives. There is very much a tendency to view Hamilton's (assumed) deliberately firing to miss as a praiseworthy act. Stupid, perhaps, but self-sacrificing and virtuous by comparison with Burr's (assumed) intent to kill. But that was not how it would have been viewed by the standards of the time.
We often see duelling culture as being a ridiculous prioritising of pride and ego over value for life; but paradoxically, at the heart of every odd ritualistic aspect of an affair of honour is the principle that fighting is very serious business. The rituals are all about trying to prevent people being killed unnecessarily due to careless words or hot temper. And so if you're not prepared to shoot, you should not be on the ground. You should have made the amende honourable during the negotiation of the seconds, not pushed all the way to bullets flying around the scenery endangering lives.
So although by the 1800s duelling was falling out of fashion in the north, Hamilton's (assumed) delope would have been more dishonourable than Burr's (assumed) shooting to kill.
Every time I see duelling or trial by combat or the like in media I am just like ‘this is the stupidest way to deal justice.’
Like I actually went to see Hamilton without knowing he died in a duel and then I realised that was how he was going to die I was like ‘you bloody idiot what a fucking moron’ this whole system is FUCKED. Alexander Hamilton died like a stupid bitch boy.
I had this whole reaction to Baelor dying during the trial of the seven. What a stupid system of justice for poor Duncan to face. At least this is fictional and Duncan is innocent.
From my draft folder when I was in my duelling phase.