Which writer was killed in a duel? History of the Russian duel. A duel in Russia is more than a duel! "To the barrier!" What was the historical path of the duel in our Fatherland?

The tradition of dueling originated in modern times among the Western European aristocracy. Such fights had strict regulations. It was determined by a code - a set of generally accepted rules. The duel in Russia was adopted in its classical European form. State for a long time fought against this custom, declaring it illegal and persecuting those who, despite the prohibitions, went to shoot or fight with the enemy with edged weapons.

Code

The generally accepted code established the reasons and reasons for fights, their types, the procedure for conducting, rejecting and accepting a challenge. Every duel in Russia complied with these rules. If a person violated these guidelines, he could be dishonored. There were several national codes. The differences between them were insignificant.

The first dueling code can be considered a French document from 1836. It was published by the Comte de Chateauvillars. On the basis of this code, analogues were built in other countries, including Russia. Another important pan-European set of rules was the collection published by Count Verger in 1879. The most famous Russian domestic document of this kind was the Durasov Code of 1912. According to the rules from which it was compiled, duels were organized in Russia. The 19th century became a period of generalization of these traditions. Therefore, the code was known to every nobleman and officer even before the appearance of its Duras edition. The 1912 edition was merely a set of recommendations reinforcing well-known customs.

The tradition of the classical duel of the New Age is considered the successor to the Western knightly tournaments of the Middle Ages. In both cases, the battle was considered a matter of honor with a certain ritual from which none of the opponents deviated. were abolished in the 16th century due to the fact that the usual equipment of opponents became outdated and ineffective. It was then that the foot duel was born, which reached the pinnacle of its evolution in the 19th century.

Weapon

Initially, duels in Russia, as in other countries, were fought exclusively with edged weapons. These were blades that aristocrats or soldiers usually carried with them. These types of weapons were rapiers, swords, and daggers. If it was a judicial duel (common only in the Middle Ages), then the choice depended on the decision of the court. He was also influenced by the class of his opponents. If the opponents did not belong to the “noble” strata of society, they could even fight with axes or clubs.

Dags and shields ceased to be used in the 17th century. At that time, fencing technology was rapidly developing. Attack speed began to play a big role in battle. As a result, a massive transition to rapiers began, which were already exclusively piercing, rather than chopping weapons.

In the 18th century, when duels in Russia were gradually becoming a widespread tradition in the army, single-shot hammer pistols began to spread more and more. The use of firearms changed a lot in the tradition of one-on-one duels. Now the result of the battle was not influenced by the physical training or age of its participants. Melee weapons required more skills. If one duelist was distinguished by skillful fencing and better defense, he risked almost nothing. In a fight with pistols, on the contrary, everything was decided by almost blind chance. Even a bad shooter could kill his opponent, all he needed was luck.

Canonicity and exoticism

Many duels in 19th century Russia were deliberately fought using an identical pair of pistols (specially made and similar down to the smallest detail). All these factors equalized the opponents' chances as much as possible. The only difference between such pistols could be the serial numbers on the barrels. Today, a duel in Russia is remembered only as a foot fight. However, such a format did not arise immediately. Previously, gun duels were popular, in which opponents sat on horseback.

More rare were fights where rifles, shotguns or carbines were used. Nevertheless, cases of the use of long-barreled weapons have been recorded. Some fights were even more exotic. There is a well-known duel in Russia, when the opponents (staff captain Zhegalov and bailiff Tsitovich) used copper candelabra, since one of the participants could neither fence nor shoot.

Call

Traditionally, duels began with a challenge. The reason for it was an insult when a person believed that he had the right to challenge his offender to a duel. This custom was associated with the concept of honor. It was quite broad, and its interpretation depended on the specific case. At the same time, material disputes about property or money were resolved among the nobility in the courts. If the victim filed an official complaint against his offender, he no longer had the right to challenge him to a duel. Otherwise, fights were fought out of public ridicule, revenge, jealousy, etc.

It is also important that, according to the concepts of that era, only someone equal in social status could insult a person. That is why duels were held in narrow circles: between nobles, military men, etc., but it was impossible to imagine a battle between a tradesman and an aristocrat. If a junior officer challenged his superior to a duel, the latter could refuse the challenge without damage to his honor, although there are known cases when such battles were nevertheless organized. Basically, when a dispute concerned people from different social classes, their litigation was resolved exclusively in court.

In the event of an insult, the code recommended calmly demanding an apology from the offender. In case of refusal, a notification followed that seconds would arrive to the enemy. The challenge could be written (cartel) or oral. It was considered good form to contact the offender within the first 24 hours after the insult. Delaying a call was frowned upon.

There were often cases when a person insulted several people at once. The rules of duels in the 19th century in Russia in this case established that only one of them could challenge the offender to a duel (if several challenges were received, only one of his choice would be satisfied). This custom excluded the possibility of reprisals against the offender through the efforts of many people.

Types of insults

The Code divided insults into three types according to severity. Ordinary insults were caused by words and only hurt the nobleman’s pride. They were not about reputation or good name. These could be sarcastic statements, public attacks on appearance, manner of dressing, etc. Serious insults were inflicted by an indecent gesture or word. They affected reputation and honor. This could be an accusation of deceit or obscene language. Such actions, as a rule, led to duels until injury or first blood.

Finally, the code regulated insults of the third degree. These included aggressive actions: throwing objects, slapping, hitting. Similar insults, completed or not completed for some reason, were regarded equally. These also included his wife’s betrayal. If the insulted person responded with a similar insult towards his offender, he was not deprived of his right to schedule a duel. However, there were also nuances. If the insulted person responded with a more serious insult (for example, gave a slap in response to a slight mockery), then the insulted party became the offender, who received the right to order a duel.

Characters

Only the duelists themselves, their seconds, and the doctor could be present at the duel in Russia. The 19th century, the rules of which were based on generally accepted principles, is considered the heyday of this tradition. The later code prohibited challenging close relatives to a duel. For example, you couldn’t fight with your own brother, but you could with your cousin. Duels between debtors and creditors were also prohibited.

Women, as well as men with serious injuries or illnesses, could not take part in the battle. There was also an age limit. Calls from older people over 60 were not welcomed, although there were exceptions. If a person who was unable or did not have the right to participate in a duel was insulted, he could be replaced by a “patron.” As a rule, such people were the closest relatives.

The honor of a woman could theoretically be defended with arms in hand by any man who volunteered, especially if the insult was inflicted on her public place. If a wife was unfaithful to her husband, her lover would end up in a duel. If the husband cheated, he could be called by the girl’s relative or any other man who wanted.

Seconds

The classic rules of pistol duels suggested that between the challenge and the fight itself, the insulter and the insulted should not communicate or meet with each other. Seconds were appointed to conduct negotiations, and they organized preparations for the fight. For them, the code recommended choosing people with an untarnished reputation and equal social status. The seconds vouched with their honor that the duel would comply with the norms of the code and be organized under equal conditions for the opponents.

It was considered wrong when an interested person took on the task of organizing a fight. That is why duels in Russia, the rules of which were binding on all parties, prohibited appointing a close relative as a second. Powers " right hand" were determined by who participated in the duel. The duelist could allow his second to act entirely at his own discretion, or even accept peace from the second of the person who insulted him. As a rule, assistants only conveyed messages, acting as couriers.

If the proxies failed to agree on peace, a discussion began on the technical details of the upcoming clash. It depended on their agreement whether the duel would be fatal or only until first blood, what the barrier distance would be (if these were pistol duels). In Russia, the code allowed turning to a person respected on both sides so that he could act as an arbitrator if the seconds could not agree on the terms of the duel. The decisions of such a person were accepted by opponents without objection. One of the two seconds took on another important function. He gave orders during the duel itself (gave the command to shoot, etc.). A doctor at a duel was needed, firstly, to ascertain injuries or death, and secondly, to help those injured.

Progress of the battle

As a rule, duels took place in secluded places and early in the morning. The time of arrival of the opponents was strictly defined. If a participant was late by more than 15 minutes, his opponent could leave the place of the duel, and the one who was delayed in this case was recognized as having deviated and deprived of honor.

At the beginning of the fight, the seconds once again proposed ending the conflict peacefully. In case of refusal, they announced the pre-agreed rules of the duel. In Russia, apologies before the last barrier were prohibited. Anyone who began to hesitate when the manager had already announced the start of the duel was recognized as a coward. The opponents shot or attacked each other with edged weapons after the command of one of the seconds. He declared the duel over. The duel ended after the use of pistols, injury or death (depending on the agreements) of one of the participants from a stabbing weapon.

If in the end the duelists remained alive, they shook hands at the end. The offender apologized. Such a gesture no longer humiliated him, since honor was restored by the duel. Apologies after the fight were considered only a tribute to tradition and the norm of the code. Even when duels in Russia were characterized by cruelty, the seconds, after the end of the battle, always drew up a detailed protocol of what happened. It was certified with two signatures. The document was necessary to confirm that the duel took place in full accordance with the norms of the code.

Duels with bladed weapons

Standard options for conducting duels were established in the aristocratic environment by the 19th century. First of all, the nature of the fight was determined by the weapon used. Duels in Russia in the 18th century were fought with rapiers. Subsequently, this generally accepted set was preserved and became classic. Most often, identical weapons were used, but with the consent of the parties, each opponent could use his own blade.

Duels with the use of bladed weapons could be mobile or stationary. In the first option, the seconds marked out a long area or path on which free movement of the fighters was allowed. Retreats, detours and other fencing techniques were allowed. A stationary duel assumed that the opponents were located at striking distance, and the battle was fought by duelists standing in their places.

The weapon was held in one hand, and the other remained behind the back. It was impossible to hit the enemy with your own limbs. Capturing an enemy blade was also prohibited. The fight started after the signal given by the managing second. Only this person had the right to immediately stop the battle at the first request. This principle was one of the most important for any duel in Russia. The 19th century, the rules of which seem surprising today, instilled in people the concept of honor, and it was they who forbade disobeying the manager, even if he was the enemy’s second.

If the opponent dropped his weapon, his counterpart stopped the fight and waited for the blade to be raised. Duels until wounded or until first blood were stopped after the first hit. Then the doctor spoke. If he concluded that the wound was too severe to continue the fight, the duel ended.

Pistol fights

In the 19th century, a pair of pistols was always kept in the house of every noble family. He held on for quite specific purpose. Firearms were obtained after a challenge to a duel. These pistols were single-shot. In this case, only those that had not yet been used and were considered unfired were used. This rule was necessary in order not to give any of the opponents a noticeable advantage.

The familiar pistol immediately gave the shooter a certain head start. She was all the stronger because she XIX century firearms were mostly made individually, and each example had unique characteristics. The use of dual pistols solved this problem. The participants arrived at the fight site with their pairs sets intact. The rules of pistol duels in Russia stated that the choice between sets was made by lot.

According to widespread tradition, duelists using firearms fired only one shot at a time. Quite often, as a result of such salvoes, no one was killed or even injured. Even in this case, the duel was considered over and honor restored. The opponents were not at all eager to deal with each other. At the same time, an intentional (or even demonstrative) shot past the target could generally be regarded as an insult. There are cases when such gestures led to a new duel.

Less common was the practice in which the seconds agreed on the fight before the first wound. In this case, if the shots did not hit anyone, the pistols were loaded again until someone hit an opponent. At new attempt seconds could reduce the distance between opponents and thereby increase the risk for the duelists.

Types of gun duels

Like the rules for duels with edged weapons, the rules for firearms assumed the possibility of a stationary duel. In this case, the opponents stood at a distance of 15-20 steps from each other. Shots could be fired simultaneously at the command of the manager or in sequence, determined by random drawing.

The most common in Russia was a mobile fight with barriers. In this case, a special path was marked between the opponents. Its boundaries were marked by obstacles, which could be any large objects. After the manager’s command, the rivals began to converge, moving towards each other. Stopping at the barrier, the duelist fired.

A distance of 15 steps in Russia was considered “peaceful”. At such a distance, the arrows rarely hit the target. It was a “noble distance.” However, despite his imaginary safety, Alexander Pushkin is 20 steps away. Blind duels were also practiced. In such a duel, men fired shots over the shoulder, standing with their backs to each other.

Some duels were arranged according to the principle of Russian roulette. It was resorted to in cases of irreconcilable hostility between shooters. The opponents stood at a distance of 5-7 steps. Of the two pistols, only one was loaded. Weapons were distributed by lot. Thus, the rivals maximized the risk and randomness of the outcome. The lot provided equal chances, and it was on this principle that the rules of pistol duels were based. The code also included gun-to-gun combat. The only difference with the previous one was that both pistols were loaded. Such showdowns often ended in the death of both shooters.

The most brutal fights forced Western Europeans to perceive Russian duels of the 19th century as “legalized murder.” In fact, the state has been fighting this tradition for a long time. Duelists were often stripped of their titles and ended up in exile.

The most famous duels in the world:

1. Alexander Pushkin - Georges de Heckern (Dantes), 1837, St. Petersburg.

The reason for the duel was feelings. The conflict between Pushkin and the cavalry officer, the adopted son of the Dutch ambassador, had been brewing for a long time. The first planned duel - after the poet received an anonymous “cuckold diploma”, which hinted at Dantes’ relationship with Natalya Pushkina - did not take place due to de Heckern’s matchmaking with his wife’s sister. The second challenge came from his newly-minted relative.After Dantes' marriage to Ekaterina Goncharova, unpleasant rumors about the poet's family continued to circulate in society. Pushkin, who was not distinguished by his easy character and believing that de Heckern was their distributor, reacted very sharply, excommunicating him and his relatives from home in a rather rude manner. Immediately, as was predictable, a challenge followed. The fatal shot was fired on February 8, 1837, not far from the Black River near St. Petersburg. The conditions of the duel (which Pushkin himself insisted on) were harsh and left little opportunity for survival. The distance between the opponents was only twenty steps. The barrier was set at ten paces, and opponents could shoot at any time on the way to it. Dantes shot first, wounding Pushkin in the stomach. After changing the weapon, which was clogged with snow, the bleeding poet also fired a shot, lightly wounding de Heckern in the arm. Two days later, Alexander Pushkin died from his wound. And Dantes, sentenced to death for a duel, had to quickly leave Russia. He lived to old age and had a good political career.

2. Mikhail Lermontov - Nikolai Martynov, 1841, Pyatigorsk.

The official reason for the duel, in which Lieutenant Lermontov died at the hands of Major Martynov, was the barbs and witticisms that the poet regularly allowed himself to make towards the officer. They say that the last straw was when, two days before the duel, a famous wit called his opponent “a highlander with a big dagger.” However, it is believed that the real reason for the deadly fight could have been rivalry over the lady’s heart. Martynov and Lermontov met on the slope of Mount Mashuk on the evening of July 15, 1841. The exact conditions of the duel are unknown - the major and his seconds talked about different “barriers”. However, the fact remains that Mikhail Lermontov was fatally wounded in the chest and died on the spot, without having time to fire a shot. To confirm that his weapon was loaded, it was later fired into the air. After the duel, Martynov was sentenced by a military court to three months of arrest, and served the spiritual penance imposed on him in Kyiv.

3. Vladimir Novosiltsev - Konstantin Chernov, 1825, St. Petersburg

The cause of the sensational duel was the refusal of one of the richest suitors of that time, adjutant Vladimir Novosiltsev, to marry the sister of Lieutenant Semyonovsky Regiment Konstantin Chernov. Mother insisted on canceling the engagement young man. As a result, he succumbed to her persuasion, but Chernov considered that the honor of his family was hurt and sent a challenge. Despite all the efforts of the influential Ekaterina Novosiltseva, the duel took place on September 14, 1825 on the outskirts of St. Petersburg, on the outskirts of Forest Park. Novosiltsev and Chernov fired from a distance of eight steps, which left them practically no chance. They pull the triggers at the same time. Lieutenant Chernov died on the spot, and adjutant Novosiltsev lived another day. Not far from the site of the duel, the inconsolable mother built a church and an almshouse.

4. “Duel of the Minions”, 1578, Paris.

This plot was later included in the novel “The Countess de Monsoreau” by Alexandre Dumas the Father. Three “minions” (that is, supporters) of King Henry II took part in the bloody battle on one side, and supporters of his political opponent, the Duke of Guise, on the other. The cause of the conflict between the two instigators of the duel, as usual, was a lady. The Count de Quelus found the Baron de Entrages with his mistress, and the next day he allowed himself to joke that this lady was “more beautiful than virtuous.” The call came immediately. The opponents met on April 27, 1578 in Tournelle Park. First, one pair of fighters entered the fight, later four seconds joined them. Actually, only a couple of the instigators of the duel survived - Kelus, who received a total of 19 wounds, and Antrag, who was wounded in the arm. Their seconds did not survive the fight. But the count did not live long after the duel. A month later he mounted a horse, his wounds opened and he died a few days later.

5. Andrew Jackson - Charles Dickinson, 1806, Kentucky.

Twenty years before becoming President of the United States, Jackson took part in a famous duel, killing the famous marksman, lawyer Dickinson. The reason for the call was an unflattering statement about the past of the wife of then-Senator Jackson. The challenge did not take long to arrive. The duelists met on the border of Kentucky and Tennessee, at Harrison's factories on the Red River. However, technically this was Kentucky territory, since dueling was already outlawed in Tennessee. The first to shoot, as the party that accepted the challenge, was Dickinson, who wounded the future President of the United States. The bullet passed very close to the heart. However, the politician did not flinch and killed Dickinson on the spot with a return shot.

6. Alexander Hamilton - Aaron Burr, 1804, New Jersey.

This duel is considered the most famous American history. The reason for it was a long political conflict between the former US Secretary of the Treasury and chief federalist Hamilton and the vice-president of the country (Thomas Jefferson was then president) Aaron Burr. The latter ran for governor of New York, but his old enemy did everything he could to prevent him. Burr wanted to resolve the issue with a duel. Political opponents met near the village of Weehawken (New Jersey). Hamilton missed his enemy (and, according to some accounts, simply shot into the air), after which he received a bullet in the stomach from Burr. The next day he died. The duel served as one of the reasons for the persecution of the politician, who was also accused of treason and a number of other crimes. He had to flee to Europe and only a few years later was he able to return to the United States.

7. Miyamoto Musashi and Kojiro Sasaki, 1612, Gonrui Island.

IN Japanese culture duels took great value, but they went differently than in Europe. There, the opponents froze for a long time in front of each other, circled, and the matter was most often decided with one blow. Directors are very fond of moments of Japanese samurai fights, often including them in their films. One of famous duel in the country rising sun occurred in 1612 between two famous swordsmen Miyamota Musashi and Kojiro Sasaki. The reason for the duel, according to legend, was their different views on the art of fencing. They say Musashi appeared a few hours late to break the will of the enemy. Kojiro attacked the samurai with his signature Swallow Lunge move, but before his blade could descend, Musashi was able to deliver the killing blow. Later, the winner of this duel, who had to flee from the students of the defeated enemy, became a famous Japanese artist.

January 6th, 2014

The word "duel" comes from the Latin "duellum", which was an archaic form of the word "bellum". Duellum in medieval Latin meant a judicial duel, although in our time a duel is almost always called an extrajudicial and even secret duel. Thus, in the Statute of Wales (Edw. I., Act 12) it was written: “...Placita de terris in partibus istis non habent terminari per duellum.” It is difficult to say whether such duels existed in Ancient Greece and Rome, but they were certainly familiar to the Germanic tribes (this was mentioned by Tacitus, Diodorus Siculus and Velleius Paterculus) as a type of ordeal, as well as to the Vikings.

If we begin to list Russian writers in whose works the duel motif is in the spotlight, then our list will include the names of Pushkin, Lermontov, Dostoevsky, Turgenev, L. Tolstoy, Chekhov, Kuprin - and this list is far from complete. Noble fights were one of the cornerstone elements of the culture of behavior and occupied an important place in the life of the nobility.

Understanding all this, we, as a rule, know nothing about the duel. Oh, in vain. Knowing a minimum about noble fights, the works of the greats are filled with additional meaning.

Leon Maria Dansart Duel The opponents met without witnesses.

A duel is obtaining satisfaction for an insult by force of arms. The insulted person fights to gain satisfaction; offender - to give satisfaction. This issue is resolved in a duel, personally, openly, in accordance with the rules and with equal weapons.

Rules are the most important feature of a duel. And not just the rules, but a voluminous, very detailed code; if it is not there, it is hardly legitimate to talk about a duel. It happened, let’s say, that two people quarreled somewhere on the road and resolved the issue by force of arms, but this is not a duel, just as a drunken fight cannot be called a duel, even if it came down to knives.

It is not necessary that there are exactly two of these persons. The dueling code fully allowed for collective battles; Let's say the caller and the callee brought with them a number of friends, seconds. If initially the second was witness fight, guaranteeing the fairness of the duel, then in the 17th century it was considered more of an additional participant or, in extreme cases, one who was ready to replace the duelist if he ran away or for some objective reason was unable to fight.

In Dumas, a great fan of the dueling theme, we see many examples of such collective duels: for example, in “The Three Musketeers” - d’Artagnan’s duel with Lord Winter (in which four people participated on each side), three against three fight in “The Countess” de Monsoreau”... According to some sources, the duel of the minions from “The Countess de Monsoreau” is the first duel in which the seconds participated along with the duelists themselves, and it was after it that this custom became popular.

The origins of duels are usually sought in judicial duels, or trial by combat. This method of resolving a court case was widespread in the Middle Ages both in Western Europe and in Rus'; up to the 16th century it was used from time to time in the upper strata of society. Although laws in Europe were written on the basis of Roman law, this idea had nothing in common with it: neither the Romans, nor the Jews or early Christians practiced such customs. Apparently, they originate from the laws of Germanic tribes (the first laws of such fights are found in the “Code of the Burgundians” of the 5th-6th centuries), and were brought to Rus' by the Varangians.

At first glance, a judicial duel is not yet a duel, because its outcome is resolved not by a private dispute, but by a dispute with the law. However, it often turned out to be a battle between the accuser and the accused. The main thing is that the winner in such a battle was automatically considered right, and the loser was considered guilty; this idea remained the core of dueling customs for a long time. Subsequently, they moved away from her, believing that the man killed in the duel “defended his honor.”

A significant difference from the duel of later times: an extremely serious reason was required for a judicial duel! German laws listed crimes that involved legal combat: murder, treason, heresy, rape, desertion, kidnapping, and false oath. As you can see, insults (the main reason for duels in the future) are not on this list at all!

In addition, permission for the judicial duel had to be given personally by the king. From this they often conclude that “God’s court” was intended to serve as a counterbalance to the arbitrariness of vassals, who did whatever they wanted in their domains.

Walter Scott in Ivanhoe describes a duel of this kind as a tournament fight, only with sharp weapons. In fact, the tests were carried out, as a rule, without horses and with strictly regulated weapons. Or sword + shield, or mace + shield. The shield, of course, is always wooden, the weapon is an ordinary military one; the weight and length of the weapon were regulated only approximately; everyone had the right to go out with their usual sword, unless they differed too much.

The first option, with a blade, is also known as “ Swabian duel", second - " Franconian" (By the way, in Rus' it was the latter that was usually used.) Early laws were more humane to combatants: under Charlemagne, it was not a mace that was used, but a club, that is, a weapon that was more difficult to injure or kill.

German codes also strictly regulated protective equipment. Generally, a leather jacket, pants and gloves were allowed, but no armor; the head and feet were to remain uncovered. In Poland and Rus', chain mail was sometimes allowed, but no helmets.

The technique of “judicial” combat was actively taught in fencing schools; This is precisely what led to the abandonment of the custom at the end of the 15th century. They say it’s no good if the one who trained the most is always right. The belief that the judicial duel is decided by the will of God has somehow weakened. In some places there was a custom of introducing another fighter as oneself; it was nowhere near as popular as in the novels, but sometimes it was allowed.

For the townspeople, legal combat was a welcome entertainment - much more interesting than execution. Christian laws did not allow gladiator fights, but here was such a “show”... The whole city gathered for it. This is largely why the laws on judicial combat lasted much longer than the prejudices on which they were based. For the sake of entertainment, sometimes they even ignored the rules and common sense; Thus, there is a known case of a legal duel... between a man and a fighting dog. How far is it from those gladiator fights?

The principle of “God’s judgment,” of course, was that God would protect the just and strike the guilty. Women, the sick, children and the elderly legally also participated in judicial duels - in fact, putting up a champion defender in their place. The judicial duel was a very solemn ceremony, and, as Hutton writes in The Sword Through the Ages, initially permission for it was always given only by the king, who during the battle acted as an arbiter. It can be assumed that the practice of judicial combat was initially supported by the royal authorities as a limitation on the judicial power of vassals. In France, this order was abolished by Henry II in 1547 after the duel between Jarnac and La Chasteniere, although the truth of the “court of God” had been questioned before. For example, in 1358, in the presence of Charles VI, a certain Jacques Legret lost a duel and was hanged, and soon another man was captured who confessed to the crime attributed to this unfortunate man. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Before the judicial duel, its conditions and weapons of the parties were discussed in detail, and it was impossible to refuse the choice of a standard, “knightly” type of weapon. A series of duels were often held - for example, first with axes, then with swords, then on horseback and with spears. Commoners could fight with clubs. There was no need to bring the fight to death - it was enough just to indicate victory, as the ancient gladiators did, and then the king-arbiter could stop the fight, and the loser was given to the executioner, and the winner to the doctor (who knows what was more dangerous!). We can talk a lot on this topic, but let’s turn to the laws.

Of all the laws containing rules on dueling, the Burgundian Code, adopted at the end of the 5th - beginning of the 6th century under King Gundobald, is considered the earliest, and the introduction of judicial duels dates back to 501. The provisions of this code contain both sincere faith in the truth of God's decision (“... The Lord will be the judge...”), and a wish for those disputing not to avoid fighting (“... if someone openly says that he knows the truth and can take an oath, he should not hesitate to ready to fight..."). Subsequently, similar norms appeared in almost every country. Although, for example, in England, duels were not in use until the Norman conquest, and according to the law of William the Conqueror, they were used only in disputes between Normans, and only later became a general practice.

As the practice of legal combat spread throughout the world, attempts to somehow regulate it multiplied. Also St. Avitus (d. 518) protested against the Code of Gundobald, as Agobard (d. 840) wrote about in a special work on the contradiction of secular laws with the Gospel. From a Christian point of view, God could well allow the death of an innocent person. The popes also had a negative attitude towards judicial duels: in a letter to Charles the Bald, Nicholas I (858-867) cursed the duel (monomachia) as tempting God, the same point of view was expressed by Popes Stephen VI, Alexander II and Alexander III, Celestine III, Innocent III and Innocent IV, Julius II and many others.

Special prohibitions were also often issued. For example, the Truce of God, declared by the Church in 1041, prohibited duels and tournaments during festivities in honor of church sacraments. Secular authorities did not lag behind - Louis VII in 1167 banned judicial duels in all cases where the amount in dispute did not exceed 5 sous.

Gradually, judicial duels in Europe became possible only in cases of serious crimes such as murder or treason. In England, judicial duels have generally always been rare, especially after the famous assizes of Henry II Plantagenet (12th century), which raised the authority of the royal court. However, the right to choose a duel to end a trial legally existed in England until the early 19th century, although in practice this has not been the case since the late 16th century. The last demand to end the dispute by combat was made in 1817 by a man accused of murder, and the court had no choice but to reluctantly grant permission, since the old law required it. The enemy refused to fight, and the accused was released, and Parliament quickly abolished in 1819 “the right to appeal to the opinion of God by combat” so that this would not happen again.

Another ancestor of the duel - holmgang, a popular way of resolving disputes among the Vikings.

No specific accusation was required here; An insult would do, and they simply “did not see eye to eye.” There was no need for equality social status; a simple warrior had the right to call the jarl. Contrary to the hot nature of the Scandinavians (or perhaps precisely because of it, so that the Holmgangs would not devastate the region), the battle was never carried out right there on the spot; the laws required that at least three days, preferably a week, pass, and the violent heads have time to come to their senses.

Most often, several people from each side participated in the holmgang. The fight took place in a pre-selected place, around a skin thrown on the ground (perhaps when the tradition began, the animal was sacrificed before the fight). The laws of the Swedes required the intersection of three roads for battle; and before, apparently, they fought on a small island so that no one could escape - after all, the very word “holmgang” means “to walk around the island.”

To refuse holmgang is not only dishonor, but also a crime. But you can attract friends and allies. So the Viking “brother,” relying on his sword and the inexperience of his enemy, could have been cruelly mistaken. There is an opinion that seconds in duels are, to some extent, a legacy of the customs of Holmgang and a counterbalance to brawling.

This is what the Swedish “Pagan Law” says about Holmgang:

If a husband says a swear word to his husband: “You don’t equal to husband and not a man at heart,” and the other will say: “I am a man, like you,” - these two must meet at the crossroads of three roads. If the one who spoke the word comes, but the one who heard does not come, then he is what he was called, he is no longer capable of swearing and is not fit to be a witness in the case of a man or a woman. If, on the contrary, the one who heard comes, but the one who said the word does not come, then he will shout three times: “Evildoer!” - and makes a mark on the ground. Then the one who spoke is worse than him, since he does not dare to defend what he said. Now both must fight with all their weapons. If the one who said the word falls, insult by word is the worst of all. Language is the first killer. He will lie in bad ground.

The weapons for Holmgang were supposed to be ordinary, and no one regulated how many of them and what kind. Whatever you fight with, come with it, the law says: “fight everyone weapons."

However, while the Franks were tightening their dueling law, moving from the club to the mace, the bloodthirsty Scandinavians were softening it. Fights to first blood began to become a custom; and already in the 11th century, Norwegians and Icelanders began to prohibit Holmgang. It is believed that the reason for this was the berserkers, who actually played the role of raiders, and deaths in battles with them became too frequent.

The knightly duel, praised by Walter Scott and Arthur Conan Doyle, although at first glance very similar to a duel, is actually much further from it than judicial combat and holmgang. Since it does not imply any personal enmity between rivals and in general, strictly speaking, it is a competition, and not a duel to the death.

Since the safety precautions for this “competition” were so-so, people often died or were seriously injured; It even happened that a ruler died from a tournament wound, such as Henry II of France (shards of a tournament spear hit him in the eye). Nevertheless, the tournament was not considered a mortal fight.

At Walter Scott's tournament, anyone can propose a duel with a military weapon instead of a tournament weapon: hit the shield with the sharp end of a spear - there will be a fight to the death. In reality, nothing like this, of course, happened. The Church already looked askance at tournaments, and if mass deliberate murder was still practiced at them... The weapons in such battles were tournament blunt spears made of fragile wood - they were supposed to be “broken” in a fight. And most often, for victory, it was enough, say, that one opponent managed to break his spear, but the other did not, or one of the fighters lost an element of his armor, or the spear of one hit the shield, and the other - the helmet.

By the beginning of the Renaissance, duels had become so commonplace that the time had come to formalize this activity, no longer for judicial purposes, but for private purposes. Like the Scandinavians, the duelist of this time does not need any special reasons, and the insult can be as minimal as desired. Even if “about one place from St. Augustine, on which we did not agree,” as the Chevalier d’Artagnan said.

Jerome, Jean Leon - Duel after the masquerade

Renaissance duels

Simultaneously with judicial duels, there were knightly duels that separated from them, in which opponents converged to resolve disputes about rights, property or honor. These fights should be distinguished from “feigned combat,” that is, tournaments, which the Church had a strong dislike for due to the abundant and needless bloodshed (the Council of Reims in 1148 even forbade the Christian burial of those killed at these games). Knightly fights were also regulated very strictly, for example, “if someone starts an unjust enmity and does not turn to the law or fair fight to resolve the dispute, but invades the land of his opponent, burning and destroying, seizing property, especially if he destroys grain, thereby causing hunger - if he appears at the tournament, he must be executed."

This type of duel in France disappeared in the 16th century after the above-mentioned ban of Henry II Valois - instead of fighting under the supervision of state authorities, duels became a custom in parks and on the outskirts of monasteries. As Hutton rightly pointed out, the royal ban did not lead to the disappearance of fights, but on the contrary to an increase in their number, and now chain mail hidden under a shirt and attacks by several on a single person were used. It is then that seconds appear - as a guarantee against meanness. Starting with the famous “minion duel,” the seconds also began to fight among themselves.

Detailed collections of rules for conducting private duels were compiled, the first of which is considered to be the Italian Flos Duellatorum in Armis of Fiore dei Liberi (circa 1410). Subsequently, even more codes and textbooks appeared in Italy, and the French subsequently based on them, creating their “eighty-four rules” and Le Combat de Mutio Iustinopolitain (1583). The most famous codex on English language was the Irish Code Duello or "twenty-six commandments", drawn up at the Clonmel Summer Assizes (1777) by the gentlemen representatives of the five Irish counties. To ensure that no one could plead ignorance of its rules, everyone was ordered to keep a copy of the code in their box with dueling pistols (although duels with swords were also allowed). The prevalence of this detailed set of rules is due to the fact that it was widely used in America, where it was then revised in 1838 by an excellent lawyer and avid duelist, ex-governor of South Carolina John Lyde Wilson (Wilson, John Lyde. The Code of Honor: or, Rules for the Government of Principals and Seconds in Duelling. Charleston, S.C.: J. Phinney, 1858).

John Selden in his work The Duello, or Single Combat (1610) describes the duel as follows: “For truth, honor, freedom and courage are the sources of true chivalry, if a lie is told, honor is disgraced, a blow is struck or courage is put in doubt<…>, in the custom of the French, English, Burgundians, Italians, Germans and northern peoples(who, according to Ptolemy, protect freedom above all) seek revenge on the offender through private combat, one on one, without dispute in court." History has preserved enough evidence about lovers of this activity, for example, the Chevalier d’Andrieu, who lived under Louis XIII by the age of thirty, managed to put 72 people in a coffin, and American President Andrew Jackson fought more than a hundred duels during his life.

Even beautiful ladies fought duels, as can be seen in the engravings. This was, of course, a rare practice, but it still took place - there is even evidence of duels of women against men, sometimes even two women fought against one man.

But the use of duels in war as a humane replacement for the clash of armies, as proposed by Hugo Grotius in his famous work De Iure Belli Ac Pacis (1642) (an example of such a battle in the Middle Ages was considered the battle of David and Goliath), did not work out, although many kings in The Middle Ages and later made attempts to organize a duel with their enemy - things never went beyond words. Numerous examples challenges to such duels are given by Johan Huizinga in his speech “The Political and Military Significance of Chivalric Ideas in the Late Middle Ages”: “Richard II of England proposes, together with his uncles, the Dukes of Lancaster, York and Gloucester, on the one hand, to fight the King of France Charles VI and his uncles, the Dukes of Anjou, Burgundy and Berry, on the other. Louis of Orleans challenged Henry IV of England to a duel. Henry V of England sent a challenge to the Dauphin before the Battle of Agincourt. And the Duke of Burgundy, Philip the Good, discovered an almost frantic passion for in a similar way dispute resolution. In 1425 he summoned Duke Humphrey of Gloucester in connection with the question of Holland. ...the fight never took place. This did not prevent the Duke, twenty years later, from wanting to resolve the issue regarding Luxembourg through a duel with the Duke of Saxony. And in his later years he makes a vow to fight one-on-one with the Great Turk. The custom of challenging sovereign princes to a duel continued until best time Renaissance. Francesco Gonzaga promises to free Italy from Cesare Borgia by defeating him in a duel with sword and dagger. Twice Charles V himself, according to all the rules, proposes to the King of France to resolve differences between them through personal combat.”

Duels are BANNED

Selden’s enthusiasm was not shared by everyone, and it was often noted that more nobles died in duels than in battles (“Those killed in duels can make up an entire army,” noted the 17th-century writer Théophile Renault, and Montaigne said that even if you put three Frenchmen in Libyan desert, then not even a month will pass before they kill each other). And it must be said that if judicial duels were under close supervision of the state, then it was completely intolerant of secret duels.

The Church acted in the same direction. Even the Council of Trent (1545 -1563) in its 19th canon forbade sovereigns from organizing judicial duels under threat of excommunication (“The disgusting custom of duels, originating from the Devil himself, in order to simultaneously destroy soul and body, must be completely uprooted from Christian soil”) and declared excommunicated ipso facto all participants, seconds and spectators of duels. However, in France the provisions of the Council were never recognized, largely because of this very canon. The French clergy still continued to attack the practice of dueling, calling on all priests to preach against this obscenity, and thunderous curses did not subside throughout the 16th and 17th centuries. Even in the 19th century, Pope Pius IX, in his Constitutio Apostolicae Sedis of October 12, 1869, proclaimed the excommunication of anyone who challenges or agrees to fight a duel.

State bans in France took the form of “severity in words and leniency in deeds.” Corresponding laws were adopted more and more often, starting with the edict of Charles IX in 1566, but, for example, Henry IV and Louis XIII issued not only edicts against dueling (for example in 1602, 1608 and 1626), but also numerous pardons for duelists - one Henry IV granted seven thousand such pardons in nineteen years. The court of honor, organized in 1609, which should have been addressed instead of walking on Pré-au-Claire, did not gain popularity. Under Louis XIV, at least eleven edicts were introduced restricting dueling, until he came to the need to issue the Edit des Duels (1679), which threatened duelists and seconds with the death penalty and confiscation of property. However, Louis XIV, like his predecessors, was inconsistent in enforcing his own laws and often turned a blind eye to obvious violations. The number of duels in France, as you might guess, did not decrease much, despite the fact that in the preamble to his edict of 1704 the king stated the opposite. The last edict was issued in 1723, and then came the Revolution, which banned dueling as one of the privileges of the nobles. By that time, attitudes towards duels had already begun to change, and ridicule of the duelists began to fall from less noble individuals. As Camille Desmoulins said in response to challenges and accusations of cowardice, “I would rather prove my courage in other fields than in the Bois de Boulogne.”

In England, duels have always been considered a violation by common law (however, until the beginning of the 17th century there were almost none of them at all, and later duels were still rare, except that a fashion arose during the return of Charles II). Thus, in accordance with the principle of matching the punishment to the crime, a duellist who challenged another was considered to have committed incitement to a crime; duelists who fought but both survived were charged with assault with a weapon; and if one died, the second was responsible for intentional or unintentional murder. The common law approach led to much more charges and sentences than in continental Europe, where dueling was considered a separate crime. But even here, the law was often violated both by aristocratic duelists and by government officials who should have punished them.

In 1681, duels were banned by the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and Austria, Leopold I. According to the laws of Maria Theresa, everyone who took any part in the duel had to be beheaded. Under Emperor Joseph II, duelists were punished in the same way as murderers. Frederick the Great especially did not tolerate duelists among his army and punished them mercilessly. In the 19th century, according to the Austrian criminal code, duels were imprisoned, and according to the German criminal code, they were imprisoned in a fortress.

These laws were implemented worst of all in the ranks of armies, where duels were very common both between officers and between soldiers (examples of which Hutton gives), for example, in France after the Battle of Waterloo there was a surge in duels between Allied and French officers. Theoretically, the military should have been treated the same as civilians, but in practice it was the other way around - an officer who refused to fight a duel could be expelled from the army. In Germany, it was not until 1896 that the Reichstag voted by a majority to apply the laws to the fullest extent and to everyone. As an alternative, in 1897, the emperor issued an order to establish courts of honor, which were supposed to resolve all issues of insult to her in the army, but these courts still had the right to resolve the duel. Even at the beginning of the 20th century, Chancellor von Bülow and General von Einem noted that the army would not tolerate in its ranks anyone who was afraid to defend his honor by force of arms, and in vain opponents of the duel organized committees and collected signatures. But in the English army, on the contrary, duels gradually almost disappeared by the second quarter of the 19th century (V. Cathrein), although several examples can be given - for example, the duel of the Duke of Wellington and the Earl of Winchelsea in 1829.

Cesare Beccaria, in his work on Crimes and Punishments (Dei Delitti e Delle Pene (1764)), pointed out the futility of restricting duels in Italy, even if participation was prohibited on pain of death. In his opinion, this is due to the fact that issues of honor, for which swords were crossed, dominate in the hearts of men over ordinary laws and the danger of punishment.

His contemporary, the great English lawyer William Blackstone (1723 - 1780) treated duels uncompromisingly: “... in the case of a deliberate duel, when both parties meet by agreement with the intent to kill, considering it their duty as gentlemen and their right to play with their lives and the lives of their friends, without any permission from any authority, divine or human, but in direct contradiction to the laws of God and man, thus, as a matter of right, they commit a crime and must bear the penalty of murder, they and their seconds." In making this statement, Blackstone also acknowledged the inability of laws alone to control dueling: “The strictest prohibitions and penalties established by law can never completely eradicate this unfortunate custom, until a way is found to force the original offender to provide the victim with another satisfaction that will be considered equally worthy in the eyes of the world” (Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. 1765). A similar opinion was expressed by Granville Sharp in his A Tract on Duelling (1790). It is interesting that although many other jurists since the reign of Elizabeth held the idea that a duel in the eyes of the law should not be different from murder (Coke, Bacon, Hale), the public had a different point of view, and it was difficult to find a jury that would decide to apply draconian punishments for duelists, which surprised Bentham and other great jurists.

In the end, this is what happened, as Blackstone said: it was not laws that caused the disappearance of duels, but changes in society and morality (another version is the influence of the legal community, who sought to replace duels with less fleeting, and therefore more profitable trials). Here is an example of the truth of Hegel’s words that law only mediates public relations existing in the country and cannot radically change them. Unfortunately, too many legislators do not understand this.

P.S. The strangest duel happened in France in 1400. One nobleman secretly killed another and buried the body, but the dead man’s dog first led people to the grave, and then began to attack the killer. It was decided to have a trial by combat, and the killer could not do anything with the dog (although he was given a stick for protection), and therefore was found guilty and hanged (The Romance of Duelling in All Times and Countries, Vol. 1, by Andrew Steinmetz, 1868 ).

But, despite all the prohibitions, there were no fewer duels. Vice versa.

Duels with melee weapons

The first dueling codes, apparently, appeared in Italy in the 15th century; and they already stipulate a very specific main weapon - sword.

The sword of that time was not at all similar to the sports rapier and “pokes” from all kinds of films about musketeers. This is a narrow, but quite heavy sword, which, in addition to the sharp end, has a quite convincing cutting, one might even say, chopping edge.

Most often, the sword at that time was not the duelist’s only weapon. The left hand was also supposed to hold something, for example: dagger, dagu, fist (dueling) shield or cloak. The technique of fighting with a cloak on the left hand was very common - they deflected a blow and hid their own actions.

Daga - like a sword, a weapon specifically for a duel. She has a narrow blade, almost like a stiletto, but quite long - thirty centimeters (and all weapons are about 40-45). However, more often than not, just like any with a left-hand weapon in a dueling technique, they do not thrust, but parry; the left-hand strike is one of the rare techniques.

— At least Kelus remembered, he said, about the counter-attack that I showed him: parry with a sword and strike with a dagger.

(A. Dumas, “The Countess de Monsoreau”)

Along with the advent of formalized dueling, fencing schools began to appear.

Gradually, fencers abandon slashing blows in favor of piercing ones, and the sword, accordingly, begins to turn into a rapier. That is, into a purely piercing light blade of the “knitting needle” system. At the same time, dueling shields are gradually becoming extinct. TO end of the XVI centuries, almost all duels are fought with swords and daggers; and XVII gradually comes into fashion to fight only with swords, with a free left hand. Only in Italy did the duelist's dagger survive until the end of the 18th century.

On a note: what is usually called a rapier in English is precisely a sword. And when they want to highlight this class of blade, a rapier is called a smallsword. Numerous rapiers, for example, in D&D games are a typical translation error.

The transition to piercing weapons happened little by little. While the rapier is undoubtedly more maneuverable than the épée, the épée (and its cavalry cousin, the saber) has some counters to it. Namely: it is difficult to parry a heavier blade with a rapier. At that time, the weapons of duelists did not have to be strictly identical (it was enough that both had a sword and a dagger), and the question of what was “cooler” - a heavy blade or a light one - was never resolved even in XIX century. Officers sometimes proved to civilian duelists that the chopping blades popular among cavalry were by no means outdated.

It is often believed that piercing weapons are more dangerous than cutting weapons because they directly hit internal organs. There is some truth in this, but it would be more accurate to say this: duels with cutting weapons kill less often, but more often maim.

Let’s not forget that the main causes of death in duels of that time were untimely provision of assistance, blood poisoning, as well as low qualifications of doctors (it was not by chance that Moliere ridiculed the French doctors of that time - at that time corporate traditions had largely prevailed over common sense). Rarely was the enemy killed on the spot; but if the wounded person is allowed to lie on the damp ground for an hour, dirt is brought into the wound, and then (this has happened!) the doctor prescribes bloodletting, the chances of a successful outcome... are somewhat reduced.

Another contender for the title of the first weapon for which special dueling codes appeared (as we remember, the code is the defining feature of a duel) - flamberge. This is most often a two-handed or one-and-a-half blade with a wavy blade, which held an edge well and cut armor and light shields. It was expensive, but gained enormous popularity among professional fighters because it allowed them to demonstrate their martial art properly. With its help, foot mercenary landsknechts successfully resisted both heavy cavalry and combat infantry with pikes or halberds. They work not with a hand, but with the whole hand, or rather with both hands, but nevertheless the fighting technique is extremely sophisticated.

The name of this sword means “flaming blade” because the wavy blade resembles a tongue of flame. There is a version that it was once a ceremonial weapon and symbolized the sword of the Archangel Michael; however, there is little evidence to support this theory.

Who is interested in this topic, read the continuation of the post on the site

The history of fights goes back to ancient times. They fought over women, for the right to own land, for revenge, and finally just to show their strength and humiliate, or even destroy their opponent. Even in ancient times, judicial duels were known, appointed to resolve disputes on property and other issues (in particular, in “Russian Truth”), circus fights of gladiators in Ancient Rome, medieval knightly tournaments, fist fights in Rus'. But they are not included in the concept of a classic duel. We think the most succinct and accurate definition of a duel was given by the early-century Russian military writer P. A. Shveikovsky: “A duel is an agreed-upon fight between two persons with a deadly weapon to satisfy outraged honor, in compliance with certain conditions established by custom regarding the place, time, weapons and the general circumstances of the battle.”

From this definition we can isolate the following main features of a classical duel:

the purpose of the duel is to satisfy the outraged honor (and not a circus performance, not a resolution of a dispute, and not a competition of strength);
there are only two participants in the duel (and not “wall to wall”), i.e. the offended person and his offender (hence the very word “duel”);
the means of dueling are lethal weapons (and not fists, like the merchant Kalashnikov and Kiribeevich);
the presence of rules (conditions) of a duel established by custom, which must be strictly observed.

“Rules of the duel between Mr. Baron Georges Heeckeren and Mr. Pushkin

The text of the terms of the duel between Pushkin and Dantes has reached posterity. For illustration, we present it in full:

Opponents are placed at a distance of 20 steps from each other and 10 steps from the barriers, the distance between which is 10 steps.
Opponents armed with pistols, following this sign, moving towards each other, but in no case crossing the barrier, can shoot.
Moreover, it is accepted that after a shot, opponents are not allowed to change place, so that the one who fired first would be exposed to the fire of his opponent at the same distance.
When both sides fire a shot, then in case of ineffectiveness the fight is resumed as if for the first time, the opponents are placed at the same distance of 20 steps, the same barriers and the same rules are maintained.
Seconds are direct intermediaries in every relationship between opponents on the spot.
The seconds, the undersigned and vested with full powers, ensure, each on his side, with his honor, strict compliance with the conditions stated here.

Unwritten order of duel

The unwritten order of the duel was as follows. At a predetermined time (usually in the morning), opponents, seconds and a doctor arrived at the appointed place. Delay was allowed no more than 15 minutes; otherwise, the latecomer was considered to have evaded the duel. The fight usually began 10 minutes after everyone arrived. Opponents and seconds greeted each other with a bow. The steward, chosen by the seconds from among himself, suggested that the duelists make peace for the last time (if the court of honor recognized this as possible). If they refused, the manager explained to them the conditions of the fight, the seconds marked the barriers and loaded the pistols in the presence of the opponents. When dueling with sabers or swords, opponents undressed from the waist down to their shirts. Everything was supposed to be taken out of the pockets. The seconds took places parallel to the battle line, the doctors - behind them. The opponents performed all actions at the command of the manager. If during the duel one of them dropped his sword, either it broke, or the fighter fell, his opponent was obliged to interrupt the duel at the command of the manager until his opponent stood up and was able to continue the duel. As a rule, a sword duel was fought until one of the opponents completely lost the ability to continue it - that is, until he was seriously or fatally wounded. Therefore, after each wound, the fight was suspended, and the doctor established the nature of the wound and the degree of its severity. If during such a duel one of the opponents, despite warnings, retreated three times outside the battlefield, such behavior was counted as evasion or refusal of a fair fight. At the end of the fight, the opponents shook hands with each other.

Pistol duels had several options.

Option 1 The opponents stood at a distance of 15 to 40 steps from each other and, remaining motionless, took turns shooting on command (the interval between the command and the shot had to be at least 3 seconds, but no more than 1 minute). If the insult was medium or severe, then the insulted person had the right to shoot first (but only from a distance of 40 steps, i.e. maximum), otherwise the right to fire the first shot was decided by lot.
Option 2(relatively rare). The opponents stood with their backs to each other at a distance of 25 steps and, remaining motionless at this distance, continuously fired over their shoulders.
Option 3(perhaps the most common). The opponents stood at a distance of up to 30 steps from each other and, on command, walked towards barriers, the distance between which was at least 10 steps; on command, the first one fired on the move, but waited for a return shot while standing still (shooting without a command was allowed if the barriers were 15-20 steps apart, and the opponents in the starting position were up to 50 steps apart; but this is a relatively rare variety). In such a duel, the time for a return shot did not exceed 30 seconds, for the fallen one - 1 minute from the moment of the fall. It was forbidden to cross the barriers. A misfire was also considered a shot. The fallen man could shoot while lying down (as the wounded Pushkin shot at Dantes). If during such a duel, after four shots, none of the opponents was wounded, then it could be stopped.
Option 4 The opponents stood at a distance of 25-35 steps, positioned along parallel lines, so that each of them had his own opponent to his right, and walked along these lines to barriers spaced 15 steps apart, stopping and shooting on command.
Option 5 The opponents were positioned at a distance of 25-35 steps and, remaining motionless, fired simultaneously - on command for the count of “one-two” or on a signal of three claps. Such a duel was the most dangerous, and both opponents often died (the duel between Novosiltsev and Chernov). At the end, the opponents shook hands with each other.

Note that these rules (at least the same distance), established by end of the 19th century centuries, were in many ways more humane than normal rules Russian duels first half of the 19th century century. It is curious that if in the second half of the 19th century the number of duels in the Russian army clearly began to decline, then after official permission in 1894 their number again sharply increased.

The word “duel” is of Latin origin and is translated as “duel.”

Typically this event involves two people. So, one of them is considered an offender, and the other is considered a defender of his honor. At the same time, it was possible that in such an action one of the duelists could die tragically.

Nowadays, similar confrontations happen extremely rarely, and punishment for this can be received to the fullest extent of the law. In modern society, humiliated and insulted people should seek the truth in court, and not engage in arbitrariness. However, just a hundred years ago everything was not quite like this. Then the offense could only be washed away with blood. Nobles or persons encountered similar practices. While the lower-class public was busy deciding controversial issues using fists. The noble nobles used everything from bladed weapons to firearms.

Controversial issues were resolved with swords, sabers and, of course, pistols. At different times, the state treated duelists and duels in a variety of ways, but mostly negatively. And this was a serious challenge for the state. Because young people, full of strength, perished, and often the military elite, which could have brought great benefits to their fatherland.

From the history of duels

In ancient times there was no need to engage in duels. Then they relied on the will of the Almighty. And then something like so-called judicial duels was organized for people. In those days, it was believed that the Almighty would always be on the side of the innocent, which means that he had nothing to fear, and he must certainly win.

At the same time, any of the duelists were allowed to bring their understudy instead of themselves to the place of the duel. All the same, the judgment is God’s, and it doesn’t matter who fought. People of that time were of the opinion that victory went only to the side that had the truth.

However, practice has shown that the Almighty was not impartial in all cases. Often the outright bandit won, and the honest man had to endure only humiliation or death. As a result, such confrontations ceased to be popular, and gradually they had to be abandoned.

However, they quickly found a replacement in the form of knightly tournaments. To some extent, it can be said that knights are the progenitors of duelists, despite the fact that tournaments were mainly of a competitive nature, and the lists least of all resembled a place for a duel. Knights mainly demonstrated strength and dexterity. During the clashes, the rivals tried not to kill each other, but only to knock each other off their horses.

Duel of knights

In further clashes, the knights were allowed to use only slashing blows when using their swords. They were reliably protected from them by armor. In addition to the high incidence of injuries, there were also deaths at such competitions, but the matter of honor was then paramount. Actually, these moral principles began to pass to the nobility of the 15th-16th centuries.

They, in turn, stopped exhausting themselves with training from the age of five, because there was no longer a need to “hang around” in heavy armor and wield huge swords. Since they were replaced by weapons of a new generation in the form of powerful crossbows, and later muskets, but dignity and honor remained, or rather selfishness and pride - this is the true reason for the duel. As a result, there was little space for the dressed-up gentlemen who met on the narrow streets of the cities. No one wanted to give way to one another - it was bad form. And then the swords were used. Sometimes the city guards made it to the scene of the duel, and sometimes they approached the already cold bodies.

The origin of duels

The concept of a duel in the form in which it is usually presented first arose in Italy in the 14th century. Actually, here young nobles originated the tradition of resolving conflict situations with the help of weapons. They found discreet place duels, and there they fought until the first blood appeared or until the death of one of the enemies.

Such examples turned out to be extremely contagious and quickly spread throughout France. This southern people is also characterized by a quick temper. Whereas the British did not practice such showdowns as often, however, neither did the Germans.

Knight Tournament

Dueling rush

Massive dueling excitement occurred in the 16th-18th centuries. The mass death of nobles began. The kings began to issue decrees prohibiting bloody fights, but this led to nothing. The nobility continued to persistently destroy itself. It got to the point where the pretexts for fights were things like a sidelong glance or an uncivil tone.

Death matches found a second life in the 19th century. It was then that the time of firearms came. And here there is no time for the physical characteristics of the opponents, it depends on who is lucky. Since only the lot determined the order of shooting. The duelists were twenty paces away, one opposite the other - try, don’t get hit.

Dueling Code

Actually, in the 19th century, things came to the formation of a dueling code. Violating it was considered bad manners. Any deviation from the rules resulted in the censure of the violators. Challenges to a duel were made orally or in writing. In addition, the offended person was obliged to report the upcoming fight throughout the day.

People gathered at the site of the duel early in the morning. The presence of a doctor and seconds was considered mandatory. Moreover, one of the latter became the manager. His duties included an offer of reconciliation to the duelists, which was generally not accepted. Next came loading the pistols and handing them over to the duelists. After which they began shooting according to the lot. Enemies were allowed to stand at a set distance or approach each other towards the intended barrier.

Duels were considered the most dangerous when enemies opened fire, guided by the command of the manager. Often in such cases both died. The maximum distance between shooters did not exceed 30 steps. This is approximately 15-20 meters, it was almost impossible to miss. However, if it did happen, then the second one sometimes reserved the right to fire for himself, and for an indefinite time. By firing into the air, the conflict situation could be resolved most happily for everyone.

Women's duels

In 1829, a saber duel took place in the Oryol province. As a result, the duelists died. So what? This won't surprise anyone. But this was not a male, but a female duel, with the participation of landowners Olga Zavarova and Ekaterina Polesova, over a simple quarrel. However, that's not all. Five years later, their grown-up daughters met in a duel. Anna Polesova died.

Women's duels were common in Russia and Europe. In Russia, duels between women and men were exotic, but not for Europe, where it was the norm.

Women's duel

Interestingly, the future Empress Catherine II had to take part in the duel. As a princess in 1744, she fought with her sister with swords. It was Princess Anna Ludwig of Anhalt. For the fifteen-year-old duelists, everything ended without bloodshed.

Some historians believe that during the reign of Catherine II, only three women's duels were not very lucky, and they ended in tears. Many ladies of that time were well aware of weapons. And they often sorted things out with his help. In those days, there were often references to the fact that, for example, in 1765, the ladies of the court took part in 20 duels, and in 8 of them the second was none other than Catherine II herself.

The most famous women's fight of that time was the duel of 1770. Princess Ekaterina Dashkova and Duchess Foxon took part in it. However, this was not in St. Petersburg or Moscow, but in London. And so it was. Countess Pushkina invited two highly educated women to her house for a peaceful conversation. Little by little, the conversation began to develop into polemics, and then into heated debates. In general, the dispute ended in mutual accusations. Then it came to slaps in the face and, naturally, to a call to the barrier. The ladies did not agree to reconciliation, and it came to a sword fight. Everything happened right here in the garden. It all ended non-fatally. Countess Dashkova was wounded in the shoulder area.

It is known that men's fights usually took place outdoors, and the duelists themselves preferred pistols. Whereas Russian women preferred to deal with it with the help of swords, without leaving the premises. In those days there was even the presence of secular salons that organized ladies' fights. For example, in Madame Vostroukhova’s salon, 17 women’s fights were organized in 1823 alone.

Fascinating notes about the duels of Russian women were compiled by the Frenchwoman Marquise de Mortenay. She wrote that Russian ladies love to fight with each other using weapons. These fights are not at all graceful, like those of the French ladies. They exhibit only blind rage aimed at exterminating their rivals. By the way, at that time, French women in duels were naked to the waist, which could have looked more elegant.

What’s interesting is that there is no mention of women’s duels in Russian literature and painting. But in Europe this was written about in novels and depicted in paintings. The most famous painting was “Duel of Women,” by the Spaniard José de Rivera in 1636. You can see it in the Spanish capital in National Museum Prado.

The duel itself took place even before the painting was painted in 1552. The duel took place between the Neapolitans Isabella de Carazzi and Diambra de Pettinella, who became interested in the young rake Fabio de Zeresola. In the end, they decided to sort out the fight using swords. The Neapolitan sword was slightly heavier than a sword, and many ladies managed to wield it masterfully. In those days, ladies' fights were a curiosity, so rumors about it persisted for a long time, which gave the artist an idea for the subject of the canvas.

However, at the time of its writing, European ladies were already in full swing engaged in sorting things out with the help of weapons. Thus, there were many rumors about the duel between the Marquise de Nesle and the Countess de Polignac, which took place in 1624. The confrontation between these women was because of Cardinal De Richelieu, who had just become the first minister of France, a famous character in the books of Alexandre Dumas.

To sort things out, the ladies decided to choose pistols. The fight ended with the marquise receiving a slight wound to her shoulder. Obviously, this high-profile event amused the ambition of the first minister, because he mentioned it in his notes. This piquant story was discussed by all Parisian aristocratic circles for a long time.

Women of that time were so accustomed to owning weapons that they often posed with them for artists. Thus, on Beraud’s canvases one could often see very elegant French women holding swords with ease. Moreover, they looked as if swords were ordinary accessories of ladies' outfits, such as a fan or an umbrella.

Some ladies were so captivated by the art of fencing that they often challenged people of the opposite sex to duels. The most popular was Mademoiselle de Maupin, who had several successful fights with men. Moreover, she was so popular that Théophile Gautier wrote the novel “Mademoiselle de Maupin” about her real-life adventures.

Duels in Russia

Regarding Russia, the dueling excitement here began towards the end of the 18th century. This was just the end of the reign of Catherine II. The Empress happened to die in 1796, and there is the most contradictory information about the fights under her. On the one hand, she herself took part in one of these in her youth and more than once was a second for her court ladies.

On the other hand, the “Decree on Fights” of the 1787 model. According to him, all participants in the fights were expected to be inevitably exiled to places not so remote, and then this place was Siberia. If, on top of that, the duel ended in death, then the survivor could go straight to hard labor.

The largest number of duels occurred during the reign of Nicholas I. Actually, in those years, many famous personalities such as Lermontov, Pushkin, Ryleev, Griboyedov, etc., participated in duels. The flower of the nation participated and died in duels, and the emperor himself could not stand duels. The duelists were sent to the troops operating in the Caucasus.

If there was a fatal outcome of the fight, then the winner could be demoted to private. However, even such measures did not stop the nobles. They still continued to shoot with amazing persistence. Participation in such events was considered good example, which only added credibility to the duelist.

Russian duels were characterized by extremely short barrier distances. It was some 10-12 meters. In addition, the duel was considered over only after the death or fainting of one of the participants. Unlike Europe, if both missed after the first shots, then everything was repeated again.

Dueling set

It was forbidden to stay in a duel for more than 15 minutes. It began after the arrival of all participants. Everything took about 10 minutes. Getting a weapon, shooting. Someone fell, they picked him up and took him away. Another went to celebrate a successful ending.

In May 1894, Alexander III allowed officer duels due to personal grievances. Before 1914, there were almost 330 fights, but only 32 ended in death. The rest were slightly wounded. During the First World War there were almost no fights.

The strangest duel

The strangest duel was recorded in France in 1400. There was a murder of one nobleman by another. He hid the corpse, but the dead man’s dog first pointed people to the grave and then barked at the killer. They decided to arrange a trial in the form of a duel. The killer was unable to control the dog. He was found guilty and hanged.

Instead of a conclusion

Nowadays, dueling has lost its former popularity. It was the privilege of the nobles, and in the 21st century it is democracy. Dignity and honor are now defended in the courts. Officers have formal courts of honor that do not decide anything. The cowboy duel remained only in Westerns. Now life is almost serene. Although the number of murders is only increasing every year. This is all explained by the fact that crime is constantly growing, and has nothing to do with the duels that have sunk into oblivion.