A history of duels… (part 1)

Including one fought with billiard balls…

Before getting into the history of duels, it first makes sense to explore what a duel actually is. What it isn’t is simply combat between two individuals – the fights between David and Goliath or Achilles and Hector, for example, were not duels. A duel can only occur as the result of a challenge, it must be conducted in a measured way adhering to a set of rules (rather than in the heat of battle), the participants must use identical weapons, and finally it must take place in front of witnesses.

We can trace the origins of the dual back to quite a specific date, 501 BCE, when Gundebald, the King of the Burgundians, legally established the trial by combat, or judicial duel. Prior to this disputes were settled according to the ‘Judgement of God’, which took the form of either the ordeal or the oath. The ordeal involved some kind of physically harmful challenge, such as holding a plate of hot iron for a set amount of time, after which point the defendant’s hand was bandaged and inspected three days later. If there was no trace of blisters, they were considered to have been in the right, if a burn could be seen then they were in the wrong.

Oddly, and somewhat brilliantly, the defendant didn’t have to do the painful hot iron holding thing themselves – they could get a proxy to do it (for a suitable fee) and blacksmiths, with their tough, calloused, hands were particularly in demand for this service. The alternative, the oath, was much more straightforward – one simply had to swear an oath before God that they were telling the truth (the rationale behind this being that if they were lying then God would surely strike them down). It may not surprise you to learn that this wasn’t a hugely effective form of resolving legal cases, as Gundebald noted:

[many of my subjects] suffered themselves to be corrupted by their avarice, or impelled by their obstinacy, so as to attest, by oath, what they knew not, or what they knew to be false.

To improve things he came up with a system by which his subjects “might as well risk their bodies as their souls”:

Whenever two Burgundians are at variance, if the defendant shall swear that he owes not what is demanded of him, or that he is not guilty of the crime laid to his charge; and the plaintiff, on the other hand, not satisfied therewith, shall declare that he is ready to maintain, sword in hand, the truth of what he advances; if the defendant does not then acquiesce, it shall be lawful for them to decide the controversy by dint of sword.

This is likewise understood of the witnesses of either party, it being just that every man should be ready to defend with his sword the truth which he attests, and to submit himself to the judgement of Heaven.

The first recorded duel took place in 590 in Burgundy when the gamekeeper of King Gontran (532–592) accused the king’s chamberlain, Cherndon, of poaching a deer. Cherndon got his nephew to fight on his behalf, and it looked like this was a smart move as he quickly stabbed the gamekeeper in the foot with his lance, causing the man to collapse to the ground. As he bent down to impart the fatal blow, however, the gamekeeper pulled out a knife and slashed open his opponent’s belly, killing him. Cherndon, courageously, err, ran away but was soon captured and stoned to death.

Over the course of the middle ages this approach spread across Europe. Initially duels were fought with horn-tipped staves, but in time gentlemen were allowed to fight with swords and lances. Women, invalids, men over 60, and priests were exempt from duelling, but otherwise the accuser and the accusee had to have at it. Though they later became the preserve of gentlemen deciding matters of honour, these duels were very much part of the judicial process. In England, in the Middle Ages, the Crown would use ‘approvers’, who were criminals themselves, to call out other ne’er-do-wells in return for their own offences being ignored.

The stakes were very high for the accused, as they were literally fighting for their lives:

If the appellee be so far vanquished that he cannot or will not fight any longer, the shall be adjudged to be hanged immediately; and then, as well as if he had been killed in battle, Providence is deemed to have been determined in the favour of the truth, and he blood shall be attainted. But if he kills the appellant, or can maintain the fight from sun-rising till the stars appear in the evening, he shall be acquitted.

Now you might be wondering what was stopping someone who was a good fighter simply accusing people that they knew they could beat and slaughtering them? Well, as with the tough-handed blacksmiths, if you had the money you could hire a proxy, or champion to fight for you. The champions themselves would not fight to the death, rather to submission, with the losing champion having their right hand amputated. The stakes were somewhat higher for the people who employed them however. During a proxy fight duel involving a capital offence, the two principles would sit with nooses around their necks, and if their champion lost the fight they would immediately be hanged!

By the 11th century duelling had become so prolific in France that laws were put in place to better regulate them. Under the ‘Truce of God’, issued in 1041, duels were banned between the days of Wednesday and Monday. In 1167, with so many duels being fought over trifling sums, Louis VII ruled that the amount of money involved had to be greater than five sous for a duel to be permitted. 

The Normans introduced duelling to England with the conquest of 1066 and one of the first recorded bouts was between William, Count d’Eu and Godefroy Baynard in 1096. Baynard accused the count of conspiring against King William II and so d’Eu called him out and the two fought in front of the king and the entirety of his court in Salisbury. Things didn’t go well for d’Eu; he was soon struck down, emasculated, and had both of his eyes put out. Somewhat harshly, I think, his squire was then whipped and hanged.

Until King Henry II established jury trials in the second half of the 12th century, duels were, astonishingly, the only honourable means of settling legal disputes. Despite there being alternatives (and in part due a degree of slackness in updating the law) duels remained a means of legal recourse in England until astonishingly recently. In 1817 a man named Abraham Thornton was charged with the murder of a girl called Mary Ashford. His lawyer claimed the ancient right to ‘wage his battel’ and this went all the way the court of appeal, which ruled in his favour. Lord Ellenborough judged:

The general law of this land is in the favour of the wager of battel, and it is our duty to pronounce the law as it is, not as we may wish it to be. Whatever prejudice, therefore, may justly exist against this mode of trial, still it is the law of the land, the Court must pronounce judgement for it.

Mary’s only living male relative, her brother, was too young to fight, and no other man was willing to stand for her, so Thornton got off scot free. The only positive thing to emerge from this nasty business is that on the 22nd March 1819 the right ‘to appeal to the Judgement of God in single combat’ was finally stricken from English law.

Sometime, probably in the 10th century (the history is pretty murky), these judicial duels inspired what most of us probably think of when we think of duels – ‘chivalric duels’ also known as ‘duels of honour’. These duels were very much associated with the concept of ‘knighthood’ (though this later developed into the status of being a ‘gentleman’) and were, ostensibly, civilised means of resolving disputes and perceived slights. In reality, however, they were brutal and often sadistic, fights.

These early chivalric duels were literally carried out by knights on horseback, heavily armoured and carrying lances. One such duel took place on London Bridge on the 6th May, 1390, in front of the king and queen. At an almost certainly drunken banquet there was an argument between Lord Wells, the English ambassador to Scotland, and one of the locals about the courage of English soldiers. Incensed, Wells challenged any Scottish knight to a duel, and the offer was taken up by Sir David de Lindsay. As crowds watched from the riverbanks and boats these two knights thundered towards each other, their lances impacting and shattering. Wells was shaken, but Lindsay didn’t so much as rock in his seat, causing the crowd to suggest (loudly and rudely) he was tied onto his horse, and hence a cheat! To prove them wrong Lindsay jumped from his horse, knelt before the king, then jumped back on it again. The knights then charged again, more shattering, no clear advantage to either. The third charge was decisive. Wells was thrown from his horse, and Lindsay jumped down to the wails of the crowd who expected him to end things with his dagger. But he didn’t! He removed Wells’s helmet and embraced him! The crowd went wild! Lindsay went on to visit Wells every day until he was healed.

As not that many people were well trained in (or had access to) the lance/horse combination, swords became the mainstay of duelling. These were massive, two-handed weapons that people would bash at each other with (think Monty Python and the Holy Grail). Poleaxes, though even cruder weapons, were also popular. As the centuries progressed the swords became more refined, and by the 16th century single-handed Hispano-Italian rapiers were most commonly used, often in combination with a dagger or cloak held in the non-dominant hand. Some people even dispensed with the sword altogether and fought duels with only daggers.

Duelling was so prolific in the 16th and 17th centuries that one George Silver, in 1599, published a practical guide on the subject entitled Bref Instruction.¹ Here is some of his advice about knife-fighting (which I have translated into modern English and paraphrased somewhat to make it more intelligible):

• In a dagger fight you must be continually moving to prevent your opponent getting in close to you or grabbing hold of you. The more you evade him, the angrier he will get, making it easier for you to strike.

• Keep your distance and strike at his hand, arm, face, or body. If he comes at you, or tries to block your blow, go for his hand.

• If he comes at your with his left leg forward, or his right, strike at him as soon as he comes within reach, moving backwards as you do so to prevent him striking back.

All in all I can’t help but think that these duels were very similar to the knife fight in West Side Story.

In my next piece I’ll explore the history of duels using firearms (yes, pistols at dawn!) but I’ll end now with a few duels fought with some unusual weapons. Two Corsicans are reported to have fought a duel with swords and daggers fixed to the fronts of their helmets. Not getting anywhere with the swords, they threw them away and started headbutting each other with the helmet daggers! In another case a short young soldier was insulted by a much taller man. He insisted that in addition to the usual swords they wore blade-covered collars around their necks – with the result that the giant couldn’t look down to see his opponent without slashing his own chin. Finally, in September 1843 two French gentlemen, named Lenfant and Mellant, got into an argument about their game of billiards. They decided to resolve this with a duel using the only weapons close to hand, billiard balls. Lots were drawn to see who went first and Mellant, being successful, threw a ball which struck Lenfant in the head and killed him instantly.

If you can’t wait two weeks to read more about duels why not check out our previous encounter with the subject:

'When amity was dead', 1613

1. Or to give it its full title: Paradoxes of Defence, wherein is proved the true grounds of Fight to be in the short auncient weapons, and that the short Sword bath advantage of the long Sword or long Rapier. And the weakenesse and imperfection of the Rapier-fights displayed. Together with an Admonition to the noble, ancient, victorious, valiant, and most brave nation of Englishmen, to beware of false teachers of Defence, and how they forsake their owne natural fights : with a briefe commendation of the noble science or exercising of Armes. Which is a bit of a mouthful.