Discover Top Posts Tagged with #holmgang

Tiwaz

I am Týr I am sword I am oaths I am custom I am tradition I am law I am agreements I am accords I am reckonings I am promises I am pacts I am oaths I am the Bitten Hand I am the Bound Wolf I am the Broken Heart I am Fenrisúlfr’s Fangs I am Vánagandr’s Bit I am Gleipnir’s Megin I am the oathkeeper I am the oathbreaker I am the restorer of honor I am the cutting blade I am the…

Hello! I was recently watching The Last Kingdom and the Danish practice of holmgang, dueling until death or first blood to settle disputes, reminded me of dwarven customs. In the show, the duel would be initiated by the phrase “make the square”/“form the square.” I was wondering how you would translate the holmgang and the initiation phrase in Khuzdul, or if there was a similar practice already known amongst dwarrows. Thank you!

Well met! Thank you for that very interesting question indeed. Before we go into depth on the details of this practice, perhaps we should first of all cover what exactly it is. Firstly, holmgang is not a specifically Danish practice. Though unclear where the original practice exactly comes form, it is clear that is was practiced across all the Old Norse homelands (apart from Denmark, also Norway, Sweden, various North-sea Islands, areas of the present Baltic and Iceland). Known as "holmganga" in Old Norse ("hólmganga" in modern Icelandic, "holmgång" in Swedish and indeed "holmgang" in Danish and Norwegian). In essence, holmganga was a legally recognized way to settle disputes in the form of a duel. Simplistically put, anyone aggrieved, insulted or offended could challenge the other party to holmganga to reclaim their honor. It is a common misconception that holmganga was always a duel to the death; though it could be, it very seldom was. Historically holmganga practices changed over time, where duels to the death were perhaps more frequent at first and later on were almost never seen anymore (and settled in another manner, yet still called holmganga). Eventually, the practice of holmganga was outlawed, as professional duelists started to emerge, who took advantage of the holmganga rules to legally rob someone's land, property - and even wife.

The legendary hólmganga between Egill Skallagrímsson and Berg-Önundr, painted by Johannes Flintoe. As for the specific rules of the practice itself, every place had a different sets of rules. Before the duel began, the duelists would commonly agree upon the exact rules (any weapons allowed, number of shields, who could strike first, what the winner could receive, when a win would be declared, etc...) Meaning that the final result could vastly vary, from death to simple financial compensation. Holmganga was commonly decided within a square or round area, at times referred to as an island (Holmganga literally meaning "island walking") Combatants had to fight inside these "island borders", stepping out of borders meant forfeiture. The shout you mentioned "form the square" could thus have been possible. Now, how does this relate to Dwarves? Many often have the urge to directly align Old Norse customs with those of the Dwarves. After all, Tolkien himself used Old Norse names as outer names for Dwarves, he used Old Norse runes as the base for their scripts and even their language (though Semitic in nature) clearly has taken inspiration from Old Norse too (an example "gamil" in Khuzdul and "gamall" in Old Norse - both meaning "old") - to name but a few similarities - so we can't blame folks for going further down that path. Apart form the Old Norse influence, Dwarves however also have a Jewish "layer" in Tolkien's works, clearly inspired by both these cultures for a variety to things. So, to determined whether it is likely that Dwarves had practices similar to Holmganga we would need to see if such duels were also common practice among the Jewish people. Perhaps surprisingly, they were common practice (at least in antiquity - or so say the scriptures) and even were similar in form (right down to the prior negotiation, the combat, and possible outcome). So, yes, I deem it very likely that a practice like Holmganga would have existed among the Dwarves - seeing that the two cultures Tolkien used to base them on both had very similar dueling practices (though, it must be said that in Hebraic antiquity duels between small groups of men were often more common).

Joab Slays Abner "and he strikes him there through the groin".- Book of Second Samuel chapter 3:27. Tolkien made no mention of such dwarf vs dwarf duels unfortunately (though duels themselves were common place in his lore), meaning we'll have to base ourselves on what we've covered so far and assume a similar practice was indeed in place. Keeping the naming of such a practice straightforward (and open to some deviation) I would suggest "'Akrâg-itsêl" (simply meaning "the act of settling honour") Translating "form the square!", would be: "imhi ibal!" (lit. "create (the) square") Furthermore, the Dwarvish love for a good contract might have even seen the parties agree the rules in written fashion first, ensuring no arguments could ensue after the duel (and family members would be taken care of, etc...)

DnD dwarves in a gladitorial duel, Concept art by James Gurney Hoping to have answered your question. Ever at your service, The Dwarrow Scholar

#Holmgang

hello! I was wondering about the ushaan tur ( I don't think I spelled that right) what would be the qualifications to challenge someone?

Also somewhat random question, I was wondering what your thoughts were on the episodes babel one and United on Enterprise?

Thank you

Hello, hello! Thanks for dropping by!

In many ways, the ushaan reminds me of the old Norse custom of the holmgang which has many similar rules - though, thankfully, not nearly as many as the Andorians' have.

For comparison: A holmgang was a serious affair, in which - in theory - an offended person could challenge another regardless of social status regarding a matter of personal honour, disputes over ownership/property, to seek restitution or restoration of a debt, to settle legal disagreements, invoked with the intention to aid a spouse (usually a wife) or relative, or to avenge a friend. If a friend was clearly outclassed in a holmgang, a more capable warrior would often volunteer to fight in their place. The actual format of the duel could vary, with different rules, weapons, and locations depending on the region, the era, and so on. Some duels were to the death, but others were satisfied when the requirements agreed upon beforehand for a loss were met. If the person who issued the challenge failed to show up, they were deemed niðingr and possibly even declared an outlaw, a person outside of the protections of the law who could be killed or driven off with impunity.

(Please note: while niðingr often translates to coward or nothing, in reality it means so much more than that. It means that you are less than nothing, less than a person, utterly without honour or merit in all aspects of oneself. The insult has a simple translation but cultural nuances make it so much worse than just being called a coward. In fact, it is one of the worst things you could call someone else, and being called a niðingr was a grave offense that usually resulted in at least one person winding up dead at the end of it. Usually more. Usually quite a few more, actually. Very few people could run a generational feud like the old Norse did.)

Meanwhile, the Andorian ushaan is a rather more complicated affair, though it seems to run in the same vein as a holmgang. Canonically, the ushaan has between 9,000-12,000 amendments described in the Code of the Ushaan; there are exceptions, substitutions, deferrals, indefinite deferrals, and substitutions, and disqualifications which are all accounted for in painstaking detail.

We don't have many actual examples of some of the amendments and qualifications for the ushaan, but United did give us a few:

Hardship Deferment: Either combatant can postpone a duel indefinitely if there is determined to be sufficient hardship to justify the delay, pending approval by the opposing combatant or combatant's proxy. Religious Deferment: Either combatant can postpone a duel indefinitely based on specifically defined religious objections, pending approval by the opposing combatant or combatant's proxy. A member of any recognized religious order is forbidden from participating in ritual combat and must instead submit his or herself to discipline by the administrative body of the appropriate sect. Ancestral Exemption: If a combatant's family history includes an act of heroism, sanctioned by no less than three ranking government officials, said combatant may step down from the challenge after making and agreed-upon monetary restitution. Sibling Proxy: A sibling (male or female) of appropriate age that volunteer to take the place of a combatant, pending approval by the opposing combatant or combatant's proxy. Progeny Proxy: A son or daughter of appropriate age that volunteer to take the place of a combatant, pending approval of the opposing combatant or combatant's proxy; and if such substitution does not impose the clan contamination deferment. Clan Continuation: Either combatant can postpone a duel indefinitely if there are no children to continue his clan (...) [Source: ST: ENT S04E12 "United"]

Looking at what we know of the Andorian ushaan, there are a remarkable number of similarities with the Norse holmgang, which is why I made the comparison in the first place. I half wonder if the ushaan was inspired by the holmgang.

As far as we know, from the scant (I will never not bring this up. ST writers: do better) lore, we know that Andorians can issue a challenge for a ushaan duel to avenge a loved one, or to avenge their personal honour. Beyond that, we're actually not given a great deal of information on what other circumstances allow for a challenge, but I can't imagine that it isn't as highly regulated as everything else Andorians do.

For my headcanon purposes, there are several requirements that must be met for a challenge to qualify as legitimate:

Both parties must be considered legal adults, both physically and mentally. A child cannot challenge or fight in a ushaan. A near-adult cannot challenge or fight in a ushaan. Any such individuals who are found to have participated in a ushaan are deemed to have engaged in illegal duels and may face significant legal repercussions. Any adult individuals who knowingly challenge a child or near-adult will face official censure and severe legal and financial repercussions.

Both parties must be considered to be in their right mind - compos mentis - and therefore able to comprehend the consequences of their actions, immediate and future. Failure to meet this requirement results in the dismissal of the challenge entirely. A mentally competent individual who knowingly challenges someone who does not meet this requirement faces official censure and significant fines.

Both parties must be assessed to be physically fit enough to participate in the duel, or have substitutes who are. Failure to meet this requirement may result in a deferral until the unfit party is a) deemed fit by a medical professional or b) can locate a fit substitute. Failing to meet this requirement and proceeding regardless results in an illegal duel, and both parties will be censured and fined.

The root cause of the duel must be considered legitimate. To be considered legitimate, the causes must be a) provably traceable to the challenged individual, b) cause significant duress or hardship to the challenger, and c) represent a significant loss or slight to the personal honour of the challenger, or the party the challenger acts on behalf of. Failure to meet these requirements results in the dismissal of the challenge and, pending review by arbiters, may result in censures and fines for the challenger.

If we look at the situation presented in "United", Shran's challenge meets these requirements across the board. The Telleraite in question, Naarg, is a fully grown, adult member of his species in good health and mentally competent enough to be serving as an ambassadorial aide. His is directly responsible for Talas' death (which had multiple witnesses and cannot be contested under Andorian law) and, damningly, acted after the situation had been defused - well outside the timeframe that would have allowed for self-defence. Talas' death, as Shran's paramour or bondmate, would have constituted a significant emotional hardship and personal loss, and being slain while acting as an Imperial Guardsman by an 'inferior' enemy would have been disgraceful for Talas - which fulfills that requirement as well.

By Andorian laws and customs, Shran's challenge - while poorly timed and very much at odds with his government's desire for calm negotiation and measured diplomacy at the time - was perfectly legitimate. That Shran already had his blood up about Tellarites prior to the challenge would be considered a relevant but largely inconsequential detail which would likely only be taken into account if the challenge had been deemed illegal or of dubious legality.

As for your other question: I actually really enjoyed United and Babel One! We got a little bit of everything in those episodes: intrigue, action, Romulans doing Romulan chores, Andorians and Andorian lore, Jeffrey Combs, character development across the board, Archer actually doing something intelligent despite his many, many concussions, Trip being put into even more Situations™️ (with bonus Reed being put into Situations™️), and our first look at the Aenar! What's not to love?

Were the episodes perfect? Of course not. Did I adore them anyway? Absolutely.