What Happened During a Duel in Early Modern Europe & North America?

Today, dueling is relegated to the realms of film, television, and literature. It conjures up fantastical images of swashbuckling heroes and villains who might grace the pages of an Alexandre Dumas novel or appear on screen during the latest Ridley Scott historical epic. However, the practice of dueling was seen by many as a legitimate means to satisfy one’s honor between the 17th and 19th centuries in parts of Europe and North America.

The contexts in which dueling emerged as a distinct practice during the Early Modern period were surprisingly varied. At the heart of continental Europe in countries like France, Germany, and Italy, dueling had its roots in Medieval practices of judicial combat and chivalric ideals. In some parts of medieval Europe, trial by combat was a legally legitimate means to settle a dispute.

In most of these countries, judicial combat was banned in the final decades of the medieval era. In France, for example, the last legal duel occurred in 1547 during Henry II’s reign, but the French king then issued an edict against the practice in 1550. Nevertheless, prohibitions failed to curtail the practice. Duels could no longer be fought to officially settle legal disputes, but men would continue to settle their scores with the sword and, later, the pistol.

In England, the practice of dueling appears to have been a continental import rather than a direct medieval legacy. According to historian Donna T. Andrew, dueling in England during the 15th and 16th centuries was mostly conducted by gangs and criminals before its adoption by the gentry in later periods.

In Russia, dueling in its modern context was also a continental European import. The Russians did not adhere to the chivalric code, but a form of judicial combat known as the pole was conducted, largely without the social class constraints that went with dueling in central Europe. However, in the Early Modern period, it was European military officers employed in Russian service who popularized dueling. One of the first was fought in 1666 between two Scotsmen, General Patrick Gordon and Major Montgomery.

In North America, dueling was, of course, brought over by the European colonists, the first of which was fought between Edward Doty and Edward Lester in 1621.

Duels were highly personal affairs, and the reasons they were fought varied between combatants. Still, the historical record does indicate certain recurrent themes between many duels.

According to one academic paper, duels were primarily “a system for the distribution of respect.” Typically, this meant preserving or enhancing one’s reputation and honor. The offended party might demand that the perpetrator face him in a duel if he had been accused of dishonesty or cowardice, or perhaps insults had been made to the offended party’s family, or a female relation or spouse had been accused of sexual impropriety.

Beyond social standing, duels were also sometimes fought over more tangible gains. These typically included land ownership, appointments to government positions, market shares, and even a woman’s hand in marriage.

Honor Culture: A Sociological Explanation

To the contemporary mind, a potentially fatal clash for the sake of reputation and honor will likely be utterly alien, but the social context in many Early Modern and Modern societies was vastly different. Sociologists sometimes refer to these social contexts as moral cultures, in which relatively consistent social behaviors and attitudes can be observed.

Dueling tended to occur most frequently in “honor cultures.” As sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning explain, “In honor cultures, it is one’s reputation that makes one honorable or not, and one must respond aggressively to insults, aggressions, and challenges or else lose honor. Not to fight back is itself a kind of moral failing.”

Reputation had very real, tangible consequences for individuals. In societies where business was conducted on a personal basis, and information about an individual’s financial standing and trustworthiness was relatively opaque, reputation was everything. A reputation for being dishonorable could preclude an individual from taking out loans or forging business deals. Therefore, men were quicker to issue a challenge if their honor was questioned.

Ironically, this moral culture, in which sensitivity to insult was very high, did not encourage men to speak carefully and withhold insults as one might expect. Competition for respect was especially fierce, and emerging successfully from a duel could enhance one’s honor and social standing.

Naturally, the procedure for dueling varied across time and place and even between individual combatants. A commonality, however, was that dueling practices in most countries were gradually refined to be more “gentlemanly.” Unrestrained violence was frowned upon in cultures where dueling took place. Certain conventions of decorum and “proper” social behavior were expected.

Duels typically took place at dawn or dusk in a secluded space since, in most cases, they were illegal. Both combatants would choose “seconds” who would procure surgeons, supply weapons, and arrange a time and place for the duel to take place.

At the hour of the duel, the seconds would explain the rules to both parties and would make a final attempt to broker a peace between the two duelists. After the first sword exchanges had been given or shots fired, the seconds were supposed to try and mediate again, although this rarely happened. If one of the duelists was killed, his second was then expected to absolve his opponent of guilt and pardon him for the death of his friend.

Legality 

In many parts of Europe, dueling was illegal, but this largely failed to curtail its practice. Moreover, duelists often escaped being held guilty of murder, largely due to permissive public attitudes.

Strict adherence to the gentlemanly procedure of dueling was essential in case the participants were brought before the law. In England, for example, “When a duel had been properly fought, juries refused to find the duelists or their seconds guilty of murder,” and they often got away with a lesser charge of manslaughter.

However, juries were far less tolerant of duelists whom they perceived to have fought improperly or ignobly. For instance, when Major Campbell killed Captain Boyd in 1807 during a duel without the presence of seconds or the pardon and absolution of his dying opponent, Campbell was found guilty and executed by hanging.

A diverse array of weapons were used by duelists over the centuries. Swords were preferred by most until the 18th century in most countries. Various swords were used according to personal preferences and local customs, including sabers, broadswords, and claymores. Swords generally became faster and nimbler on the battlefield as firearms negated the use of armor, and these military trends inevitably influenced duelists’ preferences, too.

According to historian Stephen Banks, swords were the preferred dueling weapon in England until about the 1770s, although an experimental pistol duel was fought in 1711. From around the late 18th century and throughout the 19th, most duels were fought with pistols.

Sometimes, a duel was fought with more than one weapon. In 1759, during a duel in Ireland fought between Colonel Barrington and Mr. Gilbert, the combatants fought each other on horseback, armed with pistols, daggers, and swords. They both missed with their pistols and drew their swords. Gilbert’s horse was killed in the ensuing melée, and he was thrown to the ground. Barrington then pressed his dagger to Gilbert’s throat, prompting the latter to concede defeat. The pair then made amends and became friends.

Dueling in the Military 

Dueling was common in the military. One of the most famous examples is the dispute between two Napoleonic French officers, Pierre Dupont de l’Étang and François Fournier-Sarlovèze, which sparked dozens of duels between 1794 and 1813.

According to fencing master Nick Evangelista, the rivalry between the two men was sparked when Dupont was ordered to deliver a “disagreeable message” to Fournier, who took out his anger on the young messenger. Eventually, the decades-long dispute was “resolved when Dupont was able to overcome Fournier in a pistol duel, forcing him to promise never to bother him again.”

More colorful dueling anecdotes can be found in the memoirs of a Scottish Highlander in the British army, Serjeant Donald Macleod. Macleod, who was 103 years old when his memoirs were published, had been an accomplished duelist throughout his career in the British Army in the 18th century.

During one such encounter, Macleod was accompanied by two women when they were insulted by a German soldier. Macleod drew his sword, causing the soldier to flee, but a German captain felt shamed by his countryman’s cowardice and issued a challenge to Macleod. The Highlander proved to be the more able swordsman but bore no grudge against the brave German and avoided landing a killing blow. He struck first at the German’s leg, slicing off part of his calf muscle, but the captain persevered until he was struck in the arm and rendered incapable of wielding a sword.

According to the memoir, “The officer was assisted to his quarters; and, wounded as he was, he insisted on Macleod’s accompanying him home, and drinking with him; which they did very plentifully. They both cried and kissed at parting.”

Dueling, despite its prevalence in some societies, was not without its critics. The English philosopher and statesman Francis Bacon was a prominent member of the Jacobin anti-dueling campaign and wrote in 1614 that dueling was a “desperate evil.” Across the English Channel, Cardinal Richelieu, the Chief Minister of France, similarly described dueling as a “pernicious evil” and a “disastrous madness.”

Later, in 1778, the Scottish writer, philosopher, and judge Lord Kames expressed his opinion that “the frequency of duels, in modern times, is no slight symptom of degeneracy.” Similar sentiments were expressed in the following century, with one American commentator writing in 1855, “Dueling as everybody knows, is a relic of the Dark Ages… in the present state of civilization it cannot be justified.”

Vocal criticism, or indeed legal prohibition, was not, however, enough to prevent dueling. Even those who opposed the practice sometimes found themselves compelled to fight duels.

In 1804, former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton was challenged to a duel by US Vice President Aaron Burr. Burr bore a longstanding political grievance against Hamilton and finally challenged him after evidence emerged that the latter had privately expressed a “despicable opinion” of him. Hamilton wrote that his “moral and religious principles” were “strongly opposed to the practice of dueling,” but he nevertheless felt compelled to face Burr to preserve his own and his family’s honor. On June 27, the two men faced off with pistols, and Hamilton was shot and killed.

Decline & The Rise of Dignity Culture

The practice of dueling declined at differing paces across Europe and North America. In most cases, legal prohibitions and moral campaigners failed to instigate change. Rather, broad changes in culture and beliefs precipitated the decline and eventual disappearance of dueling.

It is worth again turning to a sociological explanation. Dueling was prevalent in “cultures of honor,” but as these gave way to “cultures of dignity,” the practice became increasingly anachronistic and counter-cultural. In dignity cultures, people are expected to shrug off insults and offenses and likewise to refrain from offending others. People typically no longer respond to offenses with violence but instead seek compromises. If this fails, they may instead seek the intervention of the law. Dueling and violent retribution, however, are an anathema in dignity cultures.

In many parts of Europe, dueling largely ceased by the mid-19th century. In England, for example, the last recorded duel occurred in 1852 between two exiled Frenchmen. A few years later, the last notable duel on US soil occurred in 1859 between two politicians, David C. Broderick and David S. Terry. The last recorded duel in Canada was resolved bloodlessly in 1873 when both men reconciled after it was revealed that their seconds had loaded their pistols with blanks to prevent either one from killing the other.