Why did they challenge you to a duel in the Russian Empire? What is a duel? Rules of the duel Rules of the Russian duel

Duel Code

The dueling code is usually called a set of rules regulating the reasons and reasons for a challenge to a duel, types of duels, the order of the challenge, its acceptance and rejection, the procedure for preparing and conducting the duel itself, determining what behavior of duel participants is acceptable and what is not.

In France, the dueling code was first published by the Comte de Chateauvillard in 1836. At the end of the 19th century, the dueling code of Count Verger, published in 1879, became generally accepted in Europe. Both publications record the practice of duels of the corresponding time. In Russia, the dueling code of Durasov, published in 1912, is known. All published versions of the dueling code were not regulating official documents, but sets of recommendations formed by experts. The dueling code has always been well known among the nobility and officers (as well as within other communities where dueling was practiced).

Weapon

The main type of dueling weapon was originally a cold weapon. Historians of the issue note that initially it was assumed that a nobleman would be ready to fight a duel with the weapon that he had with him, so the bladed bladed weapon that was constantly carried with him became a natural duel:

• Flamberge - a two-handed (less often - one-handed or one-and-a-half) sword with a wavy (flame-shaped) blade;

In the duels of the nobles of Western Europe in the 14th-17th centuries, a light sword or rapier paired with a daga was most often used, since this was the only weapon that a nobleman could carry with him outside of duty within the city. The weapons of legal duels (judicial duels) were appointed by the court and could depend on the class of the opponents. Thus, rivals of simple rank could fight with clubs, sticks or axes, but for nobles such weapons were considered not “noble” enough.

In the 18th century, firearms became increasingly common in duels, mainly single-shot hammer pistols. The use of pistols removes the main problem of all duels using physical force or edged weapons - the influence of the difference in age and physical training of the duelists on the result. To further equalize the chances of duelists, dueling pistols are made in pairs, absolutely identical and no different from each other, with the exception of the number 1 or 2 on the barrel. It is curious that pistol duels on horseback first came into practice, and only later did the now widely known form on foot appear.

Much less often, long-barreled firearms (duel with shotguns, rifles, carbines) and repeating pistols or revolvers were used for duels. There are also known cases of the use of completely “non-canonical” weapons or objects used in such a capacity in duels. So, for example, a duel between two English officers in India is described, which consisted of the following: the officers sat motionless for several hours in a dark room, where they launched a spectacled snake, until, finally, it bit one of them. In Russia in the 19th century, there was a case of a duel between the bailiff Tsitovich and the staff captain Zhegalov on copper candelabra - such a weapon, in accordance with his right to be insulted, was chosen by Tsitovich, since he could neither shoot nor fence sufficiently.

Reason for a duel

A challenge to a duel usually followed if one person (the offended person) believed that the actions or statements of another person (the offender) were detrimental to his honor. The very concept of honor could be interpreted very widely and vary depending on the social community to which the offended and the offender belong, as well as on geographical and historical circumstances. Usually, honor was understood as innate personal dignity, requiring a person to comply with certain rules of behavior that demonstrate respect for his origin and social status. Any deviation from such rules, humiliating a person in his own eyes and the eyes of public opinion, was considered a damage to honor. Family or clan honor could also be defended through a duel, and in certain circumstances, the honor of strangers who, due to accepted customs, found themselves under the protection of the offended person.

No material damage could become, in itself, a reason for a duel; claims of this kind were resolved in court. Filing an official complaint against the offender to the authorities, superiors, or the court forever deprived the offended person of the right to challenge the offender to a duel because of this insult.

Practically, a variety of circumstances have become the reason for duels over the centuries. There were duels for extremely serious reasons, such as revenge for a murdered relative or friend, but it also happened that a careless joke, taken personally by someone, or an awkward gesture led to a duel. Since in all cases the insult was determined by the insulted person himself, there was no standard for offensive or non-offensive behavior. At the same time, even having received a call on an extremely dubious matter, the offender was most often forced to accept it, so as not to look like a coward in the eyes of society.

It was widely believed that only someone equal in position could damage a person’s honor. An insult inflicted by someone of lower rank or social status, for example, a commoner - a nobleman, was a violation of the law, but did not affect the honor of the nobleman, and therefore could not become a reason for a duel - a challenge from higher to lower was excluded, the violated right had to be restored in court. A challenge from a lower rank to a higher one, under certain circumstances, was allowed; for example, sometimes a junior officer could challenge a superior who had insulted him to a duel, but the unequal position of the challenger allowed the challenged person to reject such a challenge if desired, without fear for his reputation.

Later dueling codes classified the reasons for a duel as follows:

Ordinary or mild insult (insult of the first degree). Insult by word, directed mainly against the pride of the offended person and does not affect the good name and reputation. For example, these are offensive or caustic expressions that affect minor personality traits, appearance, manner of dressing, or unfamiliarity with any subject. The insulted person received the right to choose a weapon; other conditions of the duel were determined by an agreement reached by the seconds. Serious insult (second degree insult). Insult by word or indecent gesture, affecting the honor and reputation of the insulted person, including accusations of dishonest actions and accusations of lying, or combined with obscene language. “Spiritual infidelity” by a spouse was also considered second-degree offense. The insulted person could choose the type of weapon and type of duel (until first blood, until wounded, until the result). Insult by action (third degree insult). A real aggressive action aimed at the offended. A blow, a slap in the face, an offensive touch, throwing an object at the person being insulted, as well as an attempt at any similar action, if in the given specific conditions it could be brought to a result, but did not achieve the goal due to circumstances beyond the control of the offender. Physical infidelity of a spouse was also equated to insult by action. In case of insult by action, the insulted person had the right to choose a weapon, type of duel, barrier distance (if it was a duel with pistols) or a choice between a moving and stationary duel (if a duel with swords, sabers or rapiers), as well as to use his own weapon ( in this case, the enemy could also use his own weapons).

Sometimes the difference between a grave insult and an insult by action was purely formal: if an attempt to strike or throw an object was made from a distance at which the blow or throw could reach the target, then this was considered an insult by action, but if the insulter obviously could not touch (with his hands or object) to the insulted, then - insult of the second degree. At the same time, a verbal announcement of an insult by action (for example, a statement: “I spit on you!”), even if not accompanied by any real actions, was considered insult of the third degree.

The severity of a level 2-3 insult inflicted by a woman was reduced to level 1. The severity of a level 2-3 insult inflicted by an incapacitated person was reduced by one level. The severity of the insult inflicted on a woman, deceased relatives, or the honor of the family increased by one level.

If the insulted person responded to the insult with his own insult of the same severity, then this did not deprive him of the rights of the insulted person. If the response to the insult was more serious, the person receiving the more serious insult became the offended party and acquired the corresponding rights.

Call

The offended person was recommended to immediately, on the spot, demand an apology in a calm and respectful tone, or immediately tell the offender that seconds would be sent to him. Next, the offended person could either send a written challenge (cartel), or challenge the offender to a duel orally, through seconds. The maximum period for a call under normal conditions (when the offender was directly accessible and there were no objective difficulties in transmitting the call) was considered to be 24 hours. Delaying a challenge was considered bad manners.

In cases where one person simultaneously insulted several, the rule applied: “One insult - one challenge.” It meant that the offender was obliged to satisfy only one of the challenges of several people simultaneously insulted by him. If all the insults inflicted had the same degree of severity, then the insulter was free to choose any of the incoming calls, but, having chosen, could no longer replace it with another. If the severity of the insult was different, then advantage was given to those of the callers who were insulted more severely. In any case, after a duel over a specific insult took place, repeated challenges from other insulted individuals were not accepted. This rule excluded the possibility of a series of duels (with a high probability - fatal) for one person with a group of people over the same insult.

Participants in the duel

The duelists themselves could take part in the duel, that is, the offender and the insulted, seconds, and a doctor. Friends and relatives of the duelists could also be present, although it was not considered good form to turn a duel into a performance by gathering spectators.

Duels with relatives and interested parties

Later dueling codes contained a direct prohibition on challenging close relatives to a duel, which included sons, fathers, grandfathers, grandchildren, uncles, nephews, and brothers. The cousin may have already been called. Duels between creditor and debtor were also strictly prohibited.

Substitution for persons incapable of dueling

The direct participants in the duel could not be women, persons incapacitated, those with an illness or injury that puts them in a clearly unequal position with the enemy, the elderly (usually from the age of 60, although, if desired, an older man who had retained physical health could fight on duels himself) or too young (minors). If in reality such a person was insulted or insulted, he had to be replaced in the duel by one of his “natural patrons”; it was believed that such a substitute takes upon himself the severity of the insult and takes over all the rights and obligations of a duel participant due to the person he replaces. An elderly, minor, sick or crippled man had to be replaced by one of his closest blood relatives (up to and including his uncle and nephew).

The woman had to be replaced by either a man from among the closest blood relatives, or a husband, or a companion (that is, one who accompanied the woman at the time and place where the insult was inflicted), or, upon expression of such a desire, any man present when insulted or later finds out about it and considers it necessary for himself to stand up for this woman. At the same time, a necessary condition under which a woman’s right to such intercession was recognized was her impeccable behavior, from the point of view of moral norms accepted in society. A woman known for her excessively free behavior was deprived of the right to protection from insult.

In the event that the reason for the duel was the wife’s adultery, the wife’s lover was considered the offender, and he had to be called. In the event of a husband’s infidelity, any of her closest relatives or any man who considered it necessary for himself could stand up for his wife’s honor.

In all cases, when several people who were his (or her) “natural patrons” expressed a desire to intercede for an insulted person who was unable to independently take part in a duel, only one of them had the right to challenge. For a man, this was usually the closest blood relative; for a woman, her husband or companion took precedence. All other calls were automatically rejected.

Seconds

Ideally, the insulted person and the insulter should no longer meet before the duel, much less communicate with each other. To make preparations for the duel and agree on its terms, each of them invited one or two of their representatives - seconds. The second played a dual role: he ensured the organization of the duel, while defending the interests of his ward, and was a witness to what was happening, who with his honor guaranteed that everything was done in accordance with traditions and the equality of the participants was not violated anywhere.

Dueling codes recommended choosing seconds from among people of equal status who were not interested in the outcome of the case and who had not tarnished their honor in any way. In accordance with these recommendations, one could not choose a close relative, either one’s own or an opponent, as a second, or one of those directly affected by the insult. The duelist had to explain in detail to the invited seconds all the circumstances of the case, and the invitee, who believed that the circumstances were not sufficiently thorough for the duel, had the right to refuse the role of a second without harming his honor in any way. The seconds were given instructions regarding the negotiations for the duel, and they were obliged to act within the limits of the authority given to them. Here the duelist had every right to allow his seconds to act either completely according to their own understanding (including even allowing them to give consent to reconciliation on their own behalf), or within certain boundaries, or strictly adhere to certain requirements. In the latter case, the seconds, in fact, turned into couriers, conveying the demands of the principal and not having the right to deviate from them.

In their negotiations, the seconds discussed the possibility of reconciliation and, if this turned out to be unattainable, the organization of the duel, first of all, those technical details that were not determined by the offended person according to the severity of the insult: the type of duel (until first blood, until a serious injury, until the death of one of the participants and so on), in motion or without, barrier distance, firing order, and so on. The main task of the seconds at this stage was considered to agree on an order of the duel in which neither side would have a clear advantage.

In the event that the seconds were unable to agree on the terms of the duel among themselves, they could jointly invite a respected person to act as an arbiter, and in this case, the decision of this invitee was accepted by both parties without objection. For a duel, a manager was elected from among the seconds, who played the main role at the place of the duel. Usually a doctor was also invited to the duel to certify the severity of the wounds, ascertain death and provide immediate assistance to the wounded.

General procedure for conducting a duel

Traditionally, the duel was held early in the morning, in a secluded place. At a pre-agreed time, participants had to arrive at the place. Being late for more than 10-15 minutes was not allowed; if one of the opponents was delayed for a longer time, the arriving party received the right to leave the place, while the latecomer was considered to have evaded the duel, therefore, dishonored.

Upon arrival at the place of both sides, the opponents' seconds confirmed their readiness for the duel. The manager announced the last proposal to the duelists to resolve the matter with an apology and peace. If the opponents refused, the manager announced aloud the conditions of the fight. Subsequently, until the end of the duel, none of the opponents could return to the proposal for reconciliation. Apologizing in front of the barrier was considered a sign of cowardice.

Under the supervision of the seconds, the opponents took their starting positions, depending on the nature of the fight, and at the command of the manager, the duel began. After the shots were fired (or after at least one of the opponents was wounded or died during a duel with edged weapons), the manager announced the end of the duel. If both opponents remained alive and conscious as a result, then they were supposed to shake hands, and the offender was supposed to apologize (in this case, the apology no longer affected his honor, since it was considered restored by the duel, but was a tribute to ordinary politeness). At the end of the duel, honor was considered restored, and any claims of the opponents against each other regarding the former insult were considered invalid. The seconds drew up and signed a protocol of the fight, recording in detail, if possible, all the actions that took place. This protocol was kept as confirmation that everything happened in accordance with traditions and the participants in the duel behaved as expected. It was believed that after a duel, the opponents, if both of them remained alive, should become friends, or at least maintain normal relations. Calling out someone you had already fought with without any particular reason was considered bad manners.

Types of duels

In general, there were a huge number of different types of duels, but by the 19th century, a certain “gentleman’s minimum” had been established in the aristocratic environment, from which the choice was made when organizing a duel: two or three types of bladed weapons and pistols. Everything else was considered exotic and was used extremely rarely. First of all, the type of duel was determined by the type of weapon: cold steel or firearms.

Duels with bladed weapons

The sword, saber and rapier were mainly used as bladed weapons in a duel. Usually a pair of identical blades of the same type was used. If there was an urgent need to conduct a fight in the absence of identical blades, it was allowed, with the consent of opponents and seconds, to use a pair of similar blades, if possible of the same length. The choice of weapons in this case was made by lot. If one of the opponents, rightfully offended by the action, decided to use his own weapon, he thereby gave the opponent the right to use his own weapon of the same type. Duels with edged weapons were divided into mobile and stationary.

• Mobile duel. A more or less long path or area was marked out, within which the duelists could move freely, advancing, retreating, bypassing the enemy, that is, using all the capabilities of fencing techniques. A mobile duel was possible without any site restrictions.
• Fixed duel. Opponents were placed in a fencing position within the distance of an actual strike with the weapon used. It was forbidden to both advance on the enemy and retreat; the battle had to take place without leaving the spot.

In the 15th-17th centuries, in a duel with edged weapons, punches and kicks, wrestling on the ground, in general, any actions from the arsenal of a street fight were not prohibited. In addition, usually a dagger for the left hand was used in conjunction with the sword, or the left hand was wrapped in a cloak and used to deflect enemy blows and grabs. By the beginning of the 19th century, they fought with one sword (saber, rapier), the second hand was usually removed behind the back.

Punching and kicking were prohibited, and it was certainly forbidden to grab the blade of an enemy’s weapon with your hand. The fight began at the signal of the managing second and had to stop at his first request (otherwise the seconds had to separate the opponents). If one of the opponents dropped a weapon, the second had to stop the fight and give the first the opportunity to pick it up. During "to first blood" or "to wound" duels, after any blow had reached the target, the opponents had to stop and allow a doctor to examine the wounded person and conclude whether the wound was serious enough to stop the fight, in accordance with the accepted rules. In a duel “to the end,” the fight ended when one of the opponents stopped moving.

Pistol duels

There are more types of duels with pistols than with bladed weapons. In all cases, paired single-shot pistols were used for the duel. The weapon should not be familiar to any of the opponents; great importance was attached to this; In the 19th century, there was at least one case in which an officer was tried and found guilty of murder after it was discovered that he had fired several times over a short period of time with the same set of pistols.

In the most traditional duels, each opponent fired only one shot. If it turned out that as a result both rivals remained unharmed, it was nevertheless considered that honor was restored and the matter was over. In the case when the seconds agreed on a duel “to the result” or “to the wound,” in such a situation the pistols were loaded again and the duel was repeated either from the very beginning, or, if this was agreed, with changing conditions (for example, at a minimum distance).

Fixed duel. The opponents are located at a specified distance from each other (as a rule, in Western Europe a distance of about 25-35 steps was used, in Russia - 15-20 steps). They shoot after the manager’s command, depending on the previously agreed conditions, either in random order, or alternately, according to the lot. After the first shot, the second should be fired no more than a minute later. Mobile duel with barriers. The most common type of duel in Russia in the 18th-19th centuries. A “distance” is marked on the path (10-25 steps), its boundaries are marked with “barriers”, which can be any objects placed across the path. Opponents are placed at an equal distance from the barriers, holding pistols in their hands with the muzzle up. At the command of the manager, the opponents begin to converge - move towards each other. You can walk at any speed, it is forbidden to step back, you can stop for a while. Having reached his barrier, the duelist must stop. The order of shots can be specified, but more often they shoot when ready, in a random order (the enemy is targeted while moving and shot while stopping). There are two versions of the rules for this duel. According to the first, more common in Western Europe, the enemy who fired first had the right to stop where he fired from. According to the second, adopted in Russia, after the first shot, one of the opponents who had not yet fired had the right to demand that the opponent come to his barrier and, thus, get the opportunity to shoot from a minimum distance. Duel on parallel lines. Two parallel lines are marked on the ground at a barrier distance determined by agreement (usually 10-15 steps). Opponents stand opposite each other and walk along the lines, gradually reducing the distance. You cannot move back, increasing the distance to the line. You can shoot at any time. Fixed blind duel. Opponents stand motionless at a specified distance, with their backs to each other. After the manager’s command, they, in a certain or random order, shoot over the shoulder. If after two shots both remain intact, the pistols can be charged again. “Put a gun to your forehead.” A purely Russian version of an “extreme” duel. Opponents stand at a distance ensuring a guaranteed hit (5-8 steps). Of the two pistols, only one is loaded, the weapon is chosen by lot. At the command of the manager, the opponents simultaneously shoot at each other. "Blow in the barrel." Also used exclusively in Russia. Similar to the previous option, but both pistols are loaded. In such duels both opponents often died. "Through a scarf." The opponents stand with their backs to each other, each holding with their left hand a corner of a scarf stretched diagonally between them. At the command of the manager, the opponents turn around and shoot.

"American Duel"

A special type of duel, not recommended by later dueling codes, was the so-called “American duel”, which actually consisted of suicide by lot. The rivals cast lots in one way or another, and the one on whom it fell was obliged to commit suicide within a short period of time.

The “American duel” was resorted to more often in cases where it was not possible to arrange a traditional duel (due to legal prohibitions, too unequal position of the opponents, physical limitations in which the result of a regular duel was predetermined, but the opponents did not have the opportunity or did not want to use the right of replacement, and so on), but both rivals believed that disagreements could only be resolved by the death of one of them.

Also, the “American duel” could be called another type of duel, more similar to hunting each other: the rivals, by mutual agreement, arrived, usually from different sides, at a certain time in a given place, chosen as the “duel territory”, for example, a copse or gorge, and with weapons in hands they set off to track each other down. The goal was to locate the enemy and kill him.

Story

Historical predecessors

The immediate historical predecessor of the duel can be considered a judicial duel, which was widespread in the Middle Ages and originated, in turn, from the ancient tradition of “divine judgment”, rooted in paganism, based on the idea that in a technically equal duel the gods will grant victory to the one who is right. Many peoples had a practice of armed dispute resolution in a situation where the court was unable to establish the truth by considering evidence and interviewing witnesses: the court could order a duel for opponents. The winner of this fight was considered right in the matter under consideration; the loser, if he remained alive, was subject to punishment according to the law. The judicial duel was arranged solemnly, the order of its conduct was regulated by laws and traditions. The winner of a judicial duel did not have to kill his opponent at all - it was enough for him to record an unconditional victory (for example, to disarm the enemy or knock him down and hold him, not allowing him to get up).

Although judicial combat remained legitimate in the legislation of European states until the 15th-16th centuries, its practical use ceased or, in any case, was greatly reduced by the 14th century. One of the reasons was the widely publicized cases when a person who lost a legal battle and, often, was executed after that, subsequently, due to newly discovered circumstances, turned out to be innocent. So in 1358, a certain Jacques Legret lost an official judicial duel appointed to determine his guilt in a crime, as a result of which he was hanged. Soon, the criminal, caught in another case, also confessed to the crime incriminated by Legret.

Another predecessor of the duel can be considered a knightly tournament - also a formalized ceremonial event in a certain way, the central point of which was a series of ritual fights between fighters with edged weapons - a horse duel with heavy spears or a horse or foot sword fight. The goal of the tournament was also victory, and not the killing of an opponent, and over time, measures began to be taken to reduce the likelihood of death or serious injury: the battle was fought with a specially blunted weapon that did not penetrate armor, and it was strictly forbidden to finish off the defeated person. Tournaments were abolished in the 16th century when knightly cavalry lost its military importance, being replaced by foot archers, first with bows and crossbows, and then with firearms, which rendered armor useless. The formal reason for ending the tournaments was the absurd death of King Henry II at the tournament in 1559: the spear of the king's rival, the Earl of Montgomery, broke upon impact, and its sharp fragment hit the king in the eye, causing a mortal wound.

The appearance of the duel

The noble class, formed on the basis of knighthood, gave rise to its own class ideas about the honor and dignity inherent in any nobleman from birth and, accordingly, that an attack on the honor of a nobleman in the form of insult by word or action requires inevitable retribution, otherwise the insulted person is considered dishonored. Another feature of the European noble mentality was the idea of ​​certain privileges inherent to a nobleman by birthright, which no one has the right to encroach upon, not even a suzerain (king or other ruler), in particular, the right to bear arms. The combination of ideas about honor and the need to protect it with the constant presence of weapons naturally gave rise to the practice of immediately resolving personal conflicts through a duel, in the organization and conduct of which the nobleman did not consider it necessary to involve the overlord, the court or government services.

A duel as a form of showdown and a way to call an offender to account for an insult appeared around the 14th century in Italy. It was there that the young noble townspeople became accustomed to turning conflict into a reason for a duel. For such a duel, opponents usually went to some remote place, where they fought with the weapons they had on them, ignoring all conventions, which is why unauthorized duels (as opposed to official judicial duels) initially received the name “fight in the bushes” (Italian “bataille”) àla mazza") or "fight of animals" (Italian: "bataille en bestes brutes"). In contrast to official battles, according to a court order, a “fight in the bushes” usually took place “as is,” with the weapons that were constantly carried with them, that is, a sword and a dagger, and without armor, which, naturally, no one wears in everyday life wore.

It can be noted that for the Italian nobility “fighting in the bushes” became, to a certain extent, a progressive innovation. If earlier aristocrats often resolved issues of honor by organizing attacks on individuals, houses or estates of opponents with entire detachments, now, at least, the number of people involved in the conflict and, accordingly, the number of victims has decreased.

Spread of duels in Europe

The French nobility became familiar with "bush fighting" during the Italian Wars of the 15th century and quickly adopted the fashion. However, fights, which in Italy took place in secret, in secluded places, in France were practiced literally everywhere, right up to the city streets and the royal palace, although more often they fought in outlying parks.

By the beginning of the 16th century, a duel was quite common for the noble class throughout Western Europe, although the distribution of this custom varied sharply in different states; for example, in England the duel was much less common than in Italy and France. The first printed works of dueling theorists date back to this time, who consider “fighting in the bushes” as opposed to the knightly traditions of tournaments and judicial duels of past centuries and insist on the need to comply with rules, rituals and certain regulation of duels in order to satisfy the requirements of fairness when resolving issues of honor. But among those who often fought duels, the majority did not bother reading treatises and were content with traditions acquired through experience. In practice, duels of this time arose spontaneously, mostly for everyday reasons, due to verbal insults and because of competition for women, and occurred everywhere.

The right and duty to defend one's honor through combat have acquired generally accepted status. Forgiving an obvious insult without challenging the offender to a duel began to mean completely “losing face” and being disgraced in the eyes of society. A similar shame awaited the one who did not accept the challenge thrown at him, even for the most trifling reason. Either a very elderly (usually no younger than 60 years old) or an obviously seriously ill or infirm nobleman could refuse the challenge. The lower limit of the age of “suitability for duels” was at the level of 14-16 years, that is, the age at which a nobleman began to wear a sword.

In fact, there were no established rules, except for the most general ones. Thus, the rule was universally accepted that the challenger chose the time and place of the duel, and the weapon was chosen by the one who was challenged. Since the right to choose a weapon gave a certain advantage, the instigators of duels often resorted to various tricks in order to become the challenged party, for example, in response to an offensive remark from an opponent, they publicly called him a slanderer or rudely insulted him in response, putting him in a position where he was forced to challenge himself so that save face. Subsequently, traditions changed and the question of choosing a weapon became more complicated, as a result, the seconds of the parties, arguing about who should be given this choice, often resorted to references to previously existing precedents and printed dueling codes, and went to a variety of tricks in order to retain the right to choose a weapon for your ward.

Often duels began in just a few minutes and took place without seconds. A common thing, not at all condemned by society, was the use of techniques that, according to modern ideas, did not correspond to the rules of knighthood: to distract the enemy’s attention, to hit someone who accidentally slipped or stumbled, to finish off a disarmed or wounded person, to hit in the back, to attack on horseback (in a duel on horseback). Moreover, when an opponent who had every chance of winning due to an opponent’s mistake refused them out of nobility, such behavior was often condemned by society as stupidity and arrogance, since it could well lead to a stab in the back from someone spared or to a repeat duel.

A classic example of an early French duel is the duel of the young Achon Muron, the nephew of one of the marshals of France, with the elderly captain Mathas in 1559. During the hunt, Muron and Matas quarreled, Muron demanded an immediate duel, during which Matas, much more experienced in wielding a sword, easily disarmed Muron, which he considered the matter over, after which he read a moral to the young man regarding the fact that you should not rush with a sword at a person if you don’t know how dangerous he can be. Having finished his speech, the captain turned away from his enemy to mount his horse; at that moment Muron raised his sword and stabbed Matas in the back, killing him on the spot. Thanks to Muron's family connections, the matter was hushed up. At the same time, in society his vile blow did not receive any censure; on the contrary, the majority were surprised how an experienced captain could make such a mistake and reproached him for inappropriate humanism.

Frankly vile methods were often used, such as putting on hidden protective armor (chain mail) under everyday clothes or even a sudden attack on an opponent from the back of a specially hired killer. To avoid this, in private duels, like judicial duels of the past, seconds appeared, whose duties included monitoring order and observance of rules and traditions, and subsequently being witnesses to the fact that the duel was fair. Subsequently, the powers and responsibilities of the seconds expanded; through them, challenges began to be transmitted and the terms of the fight were agreed upon in order to prevent rivals from meeting between an insult and a duel. The most common weapons of duelists remained swords and daggers - the only weapons that a nobleman was allowed to carry in the city in peacetime, while out of line. A style arose of fighting naked to the waist or wearing only a light shirt over the torso: this made it impossible to wear armor under clothing and demonstrated the duelists’ contempt for death.

Legislative prohibitions on dueling

Initially, the authorities treated duels calmly; often kings were even present at the duels of the most famous brethren or their associates. This practice was put an end to by King Henry II of France, after Chaterenyi's favorite was wounded in a duel in his presence and died a few days later.

Since the 16th century, dueling began to be legally prohibited by both secular laws and the institutions of the Christian Church, and the church, in its decisions condemning the practice of duels, did not distinguish between state judicial duels and private duels, recognizing both of them as contrary to divine principles. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) prohibited sovereigns from organizing judicial duels under threat of excommunication and declared all participants, seconds and even spectators of duels automatically excommunicated from the church. Church denunciations of dueling continued until the 19th century, when Pope Pius IX, on October 12, 1869, confirmed the excommunication of anyone who challenges or agrees to fight a duel. Those killed in a duel, like suicides, were ordered not to be buried in the cemetery. King Henry IV of France, at the insistence of the Estates General, issued a law equating participation in a duel with lese majeste. The decree of Cardinal Richelieu of 1602 established as a punishment for a duel the death penalty or exile with deprivation of all rights and confiscation of all property for all participants in duels, including even spectators. During the reign of Louis XIV, 11 edicts against dueling were issued.

Bans on dueling were adopted everywhere in Europe. In 1681, such a ban was issued 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 a duel was subject to the death penalty by beheading. Emperor Joseph II legally equated a duel with premeditated murder. Frederick the Great introduced harsh punishments for duels in the army. Over time, punishments for duels were softened. In the 19th century, according to the Austrian criminal code, a duel was punishable by imprisonment, and according to the German criminal code, imprisonment in a fortress.

However, the practice of dueling continued in those countries where it originally took root and where dueling was common, mainly in Italy, Spain and France. Many eminent lawyers who spoke out against duels in the 17th-18th centuries, however, recognized that written laws do not affect law enforcement practice and this will apparently remain so until the attitude towards duels in society as a whole changes. Since the main executors of laws and those overseeing the implementation of laws everywhere were nobles, in practice, formidable edicts and severe penalties for a duel often remained only on paper, and their application was either simply sabotaged or blocked using various tricks. Even in those cases when the cases of duelists came to court, difficulties arose. The jury system operating in many countries was composed, according to the canons, of people of the same class as the accused, that is, in a particular case, of nobles who shared in the majority the idea of ​​​​the inalienable right of a nobleman to a duel. Such a court almost never found duelists guilty under laws that equated a duel to murder.

Attempts to apply legislation against duels “for the sake of mischief” did not lead to the desired result. So Cardinal Richelieu sent the famous brateur de Boutville and his cousin de Chapelle to the scaffold after a duel on the Place Royale in Paris on May 12, 1627, in which Boutville fought against de Beuvron (de Chapelle was a second and, according to the custom of that time, fought with de Bussy , de Beuvron's second). De Beuvron, who survived the duel, escaped the sentence by fleeing Paris. But the execution had no effect - the number of duels did not decrease, and Richelieu only acquired more ill-wishers among the nobles.

Sometimes a duel was even unofficially encouraged for one or another side consideration. Thus, during the reign of the aforementioned Henry IV, duels became an important source of filling the constantly depleted royal treasury: over 20 years of reign, more than 7 thousand official royal pardons were issued to surviving participants in duels, and only on their notarization (for which the recipient paid) the treasury gained about 3 million livres gold. Moreover, over the same years, according to various estimates, from 7 to 12 thousand nobles died in duels; some modern researchers insist on a figure of 20 thousand - for that time this was the size of a fairly large army.

“Dueling fever” in France of the 16th-18th centuries

Significant for the history of the French duel was the fight that took place in 1578 and went down in history as the “duel of the minions” (depicted in a greatly modified form in the novel “The Countess de Monsoreau” by Dumas the Elder), named after the group nickname of its participants - several young favorites Henry III, known, in particular, for his penchant for bright, provocative clothes (“mignon”, in French - “handsome”). One of the minions, Jacques de Lévis, Comte de Quelus, vied for the woman with Charles de Balzac d'Entragues, Baron de Dunes. One day, after mutual insults, a duel was scheduled between the rivals in Tournelle Park. Immediately before the duel, Quelus' second Mojiron insulted Antrag Rebeirac's second and demanded a fight with him, after which the two remaining seconds, Livarot and Schomberg, also drew their swords. As a result of the ensuing group battle, Mozhiron and Schomberg were killed on the spot, Rebeirac died from his wounds a few hours later, Quelus a few days later, Livaro was crippled (his cheek was cut off by a blow from a sword, he recovered from the wound and died a few years later, in another duel ), and only Antrag escaped with a slight wound to the arm.

Despite the fact that duels were already strictly prohibited at this time, none of the survivors were punished. The king ordered that the dead be buried in magnificent mausoleums and marble statues erected for them. The nobility took the king's reaction as a sign that the duel, despite the official ban, was not only permitted, but also honorable. At the same time, the “minion duel” brought into fashion the battle of not only the direct participants in the duel, but also their seconds. As a result, society’s attitude towards dueling changed, duels became not just a tradition, but also a fashion, their number increased so much that we can talk about a “duel fever” that gripped entire countries, lasting more than a century. Everyone fought, from the poorest nobles to crowned heads, despite regularly reissued laws against duels.

Among the young nobles, a category of “professional” fighters emerged, usually skilled fencers, who made duels a way to achieve personal glory. They constantly bullied other nobles, challenged them to a duel at the slightest provocation, and provoked those around them with their defiant and impudent behavior. Some of them had hundreds of duels and dozens of wounded and killed opponents. One of the famous French brateurs was Louis de Clermont, Seigneur d'Amboise Count de Bussy, about whom contemporaries wrote that for him a reason for a duel could “fit on the leg of a fly” (he once fought a duel after arguing about the shape of a pattern on curtains) . So the literary quarrels of nobles described in Dumas's novels, for example, in The Three Musketeers, when a challenge follows an accidental collision on the street or a joke about the cut of a cloak, were in fact quite common for that time. The challenge could come for any reason: because of an alleged sideways glance, the insufficiently polite tone of the interlocutor, and so on.

Decline of the duel in Europe

By the middle of the 18th century, the “dueling fever” in Western Europe was over. Although the severity of the punishment for duels was gradually reduced in the legislation of most states, duels became much more rare, and most importantly, more orderly. Melee weapons were noticeably replaced by pistols, which became the main weapon of the 19th century duel. The transition to firearms had one important side effect: the influence of the duelist’s physical capabilities on the outcome of the duel was significantly reduced. The rules of duels were clarified, finally taking shape in the form of dueling codes of the 19th century: most duels began to be held with seconds, an official challenge, observance of an indispensable 24-hour interval between the challenge and the duel, and according to a verified procedure that ensures all possible equality of chances for the participants. Dueling rules have changed greatly towards humanization: when dueling with pistols, a typical barrier distance of 30-40 steps was established; when dueling with swords, as a rule, the battle was fought until the first wound; as a result, most duels began to end with minor wounds or completely bloodless. At the same time, the very concept of “restoring honor” was transformed: the very fact that the enemy was placed in mortal danger began to be considered sufficient as retribution for an insult. Of course, duels periodically took place under difficult conditions, including deaths, but their number decreased and public opinion no longer disapproved of them.

The number of duels decreased even more after the Napoleonic wars, when social changes led to a significant erosion of the aristocracy and, accordingly, changes in morals and customs. The development of the legal system, for its part, created the possibility of legally prosecuting offenders by going to court, which many preferred to resort to instead of risking life and freedom by staging a duel. Overall, although duels were still a regular occurrence in the 19th century, society's view of them had changed and they were seen as a relic of a bygone era and, in some cases, as a necessary evil that had to be endured until changes in laws and in the worldview of people will not reach such a level when legal retribution will in all cases be sufficient to restore violated honor.

There were isolated “spikes” of dueling activity. For example, in France, after 1830, when press freedom increased significantly, an epidemic of “journalist duels” began - challenges between journalists over printed accusations of lying.

Duels became widespread in the first half of the 19th century among students at German universities. Almost every university had a “dueling society”, duels were regularly held, but most of them, thanks to carefully developed safety measures, ended with minor injuries or completely bloodless (fights were carried out with edged weapons, mainly rapiers, the duelists put on protective equipment and weapons before the fight disinfected to avoid infection of wounds).

Duels in Russia

Russia has never had its own tradition of duels, although legal duels (“field”) and fights between the best fighters before military battles were practiced (one can recall, for example, the famous battle between Peresvet and Chelubey before the Battle of Kulikovo). However, the aristocratic class (boyars) had a slightly different appearance in Rus' than in medieval Europe; the morals and customs of this environment did not give rise to acute ideas about personal honor, which would certainly need to be defended personally and by force of arms. On the contrary, boyars, nobles and Russian officers did not consider it shameful or detrimental to their honor to seek protection from an offender in court or by filing a complaint with the sovereign or higher authorities. Various excesses between nobles over the centuries, of course, took place, but the dueling tradition did not arise. Moreover, it was not borrowed from the West, despite the fact that active contacts with Western Europe began under Alexei Mikhailovich and many traditions of European life were adopted long before Peter I. In the 15th-17th centuries, when it flourished in France and Italy “dueling fever”, in this sense absolute calm reigned in Russia. The first duel recorded in documents in Russia occurred only in 1666, and between foreigners - two Russian service officers from a “foreign” regiment fought over an insult.

Since there was no phenomenon, there were no legal sanctions prohibiting it - for the first time, a law prohibiting a duel appeared in Russian law only in the time of Peter: the 139th military article, adopted in 1715 by Emperor Peter I, strictly prohibited duels between officers, and executions Those who died in a duel were also subject to hanging: “All challenges, fights and duels through this are most severely prohibited<…>Whoever does anything against this, of course, both the one who caused it and whoever comes out, will be executed, namely hanged, although one of them will be wounded or killed, or even if both are not wounded, they will leave. And if it happens that both or one of them remains in such a duel, then after death they will be hanged by their feet.” Severe punishment for a duel was literally written off from European laws, while not a single case of application of these sanctions in practice was recorded.

Only during the reign of Catherine II did the practice of duels begin to spread among noble youth, who learned from foreign teachers the concept of “noble honor” as it was understood in Western Europe, and the dueling tradition itself. This prompted the empress to publish the “Manifesto on Duels” in 1787, which called duels a “foreign planting” and prescribed punishment for organizing a duel and participating in it: participants (including seconds) of a duel that ended bloodlessly were given a fine as punishment, and the offender - lifelong exile to Siberia; for causing harm to health and life, punishment was imposed as for corresponding intentional crimes. But these sanctions, for the most part, remained on paper; cases of duelists extremely rarely reached court, and even in these cases, many received forgiveness or a significantly lenient punishment.

At the end of the 18th - first half of the 19th century, when “duel fever” had practically ceased in Europe, in Russia the number of duels, on the contrary, increased, despite the cruel official punishment. At the same time, as in Western Europe, the attitude towards duels developed in a paradoxical way: the number of duels was constantly growing, and official legislation and actual law enforcement practice made duels less and less criminal. By the end of the 19th century, it had reached the point where duels between officers were recognized not only as legal, but also, in some cases, mandatory, that is, the practice of “judicial duels” was actually officially revived (see below).

Western authors, describing the “Russian duel” of the 19th century, note its extreme cruelty, in comparison with the European duel, and call the duel in Russia “legalized murder.” As noted above, European ideas about a duel had softened significantly by the first half of the 19th century; it was considered quite sufficient to restore honor to simply force the offender to take a real risk to his life, even if this risk was not particularly great. Therefore, a typical European pistol duel at that time was carried out from a stationary position, at 25-35 steps or even further, shooting in turns determined by lot. In such conditions, a grave outcome was likely, but by no means necessary; most duels ended bloodlessly. Russian fighters, like Tolstoy the American, called such duels “operetta” and openly laughed at them. In Russia, the typical barrier distance was 15-20 steps (about 7-10 meters) or less; at such a distance, a good shooter, even with an unknown weapon, rarely missed. During a mobile duel in Russia, they almost always applied a rule uncharacteristic for Western Europe, according to which the duelist shooting second had the right to demand that the opponent approach the barrier, that is, in fact, stand as an unarmed target, allowing the opponent to approach the minimum distance, calmly aim and shoot (it is from this rule that the famous expression comes: “To the barrier!”). In “gun to forehead”, “barrel to barrel” or “through a handkerchief” duels, it was practically impossible to avoid the death of one or both duelists. If in Europe a mutual mistake usually ended the duel, and the honor of the participants was considered restored, then in Russia the terms of the battle were often accepted “until a decisive result,” that is, until the death of one of the opponents or until one of them loses consciousness. If both opponents fired and no one was killed or wounded, the weapon was reloaded and the duel continued. The offender had the right to shoot in the air (to the side) if he did not want to expose the enemy to danger, but if he did so, then the insulted person was forced to shoot to kill - if there was a mutual intentional miss, the duel was considered invalid, since none of the participants was in danger.

How the duel took place and what they dueled with

Rules of duels (Dueling Code Durasov Vasily Alekseevich)

First of all, a duel is the occupation of nobles; commoners and commoners should not have anything to do with it, and it is an activity of nobles equal in position and status. According to the Durasov Duel Code of 1912, insults can be:

First degree - hurting pride and violating decency (apparently a sidelong glance, the code does not specify what exactly).

Second degree - offending honor (gestures, swearing).

Third degree - usually insult by action (from a wound, to a blow or tossing a glove, a touch is enough).

If there are aggravating circumstances: a woman is insulted or a weak person, the severity automatically increases by a degree, if on the contrary, the severity decreases.

The insulted person chooses a weapon, depending on the severity of the insult, he may have privileges (if insulted by an action, he can assign distances, fight with his weapon, choose the type of duel, etc.).

If someone cannot fight, then a relative or interested person can replace him.

One quarrel - one duel.

IT IS ESPECIALLY INTERESTING NOW - for slander of a journalist, if he is unavailable, the editor or the owner of the sheet where the libel was published duels.

Duels are divided into:

Legal (according to the rules for pistols, swords or sabers);
- exceptional (having deviations from the code in conditions);
- for secret reasons (they don’t want to wash dirty linen in public, but they are ready to tear holes in each other).

Seconds are appointed from among the worthy, of whom there is a court of honor - three decide controversial issues, the seconds can kill the one who violated the rules of the duel.
Having received an insult, the insulted person must declare to his opponent: “Dear Sir, I will send you my seconds.” If the opponents do not know each other, they exchange cards and addresses. Then they communicate through seconds.

Before the duel, a “Meeting Protocol” is drawn up, which describes how the duel will go and a “Duel Protocol” - how it went (there are forms in the code, I’m not kidding).
During a duel, you cannot speak or make unnecessary sounds other than “I’m fucking mother!” after a hit or an injection, violate the orders of the leader of the duel (!), violate the commands “stop”, “shoot”, “1,2,3”.

For swords they choose a wide and long alley, for pistols an open area.

It is better to undress to the waist, but you can also wear clothes that have been tested for protection.
They fight with swords either, having the opportunity to jump around and around, or they place their left legs on the indicated point and stab each other, retreating three steps means defeat. You can fight all the way, you can take breaks of 3-5 minutes per round. They fight with the hand they are used to; they cannot change it.

The swords are either your own or someone else’s, of the same length; the seconds must have metalworking tools for urgent repairs, including a vice and files (I’m not kidding).

There are a bunch of rules like if you knocked out a weapon, fell, wounded - you can’t finish it off, otherwise you’ll lose, just yell loudly and defend yourself, but you can’t attack anymore, in general, if you violated something, you’ll be punished.

Pistol duel at 25-35 steps in Europe, 10-15 in Russia.

Six types of legal pistol duels:

1. Duel on the spot on command: shoot from 15-30 steps while standing after the command: “one”, but not later than “three”.
2. Duel on the spot at will: they shoot from 15-30 steps after the command “shoot” as they wish, they can stand with their backs and turn around.
3. Duel on the spot with consecutive shots: they shoot from 15-30 steps, determining who is first by lot.
4. Duel with approach: they converge from 35-45 steps to the barrier (mark) with a distance between barriers of 15-25 steps, you can shoot as soon as the command “get closer” is received. You can’t shoot while moving, stop and shoot before the barrier, stand and wait in the same place, the enemy may approach the barrier itself.
5. Duel with approaching and stopping: the same distances, but you can shoot on the move, after the first shot everyone freezes like rabbits and shoots from where they stopped.
6. Duel with approach along parallel lines: they walk towards each other along parallel lines, at a distance of 15 steps, you cannot shoot straight away.

All duels have a time limit on the second shot.

The leader of the duel is in charge of the action, watching the loading of weapons by the seconds or a specially invited prima ballerina from the loaders, how they shuffle around at the beginning, during and after, writing denunciations to the officers’ meeting (!)

There are usually two shots fired, and a misfire is usually counted as a shot (even a serviceable high-quality flintlock gave 15 misfires per 100 shots).

You can show off: shoot in the air, this is only legal for the second, the first is not allowed, although they did this, if you shoot in the air first and the second does so, the first loses, and the second can shoot at him, if he doesn’t hit, he won’t be punished.

You cannot speak, burp, or fart - they will consider it unworthy and count as a loss.

The conditions for a duel with sabers are the same as the conditions for a duel with swords. The only difference is that a duel of this type of weapon can take place with straight or curved sabers. In the first case, opponents can chop and stab, in the second they can only chop. (Remark: I went looking for a “straight saber”, found “a cavalryman’s straight saber, five letters - broadsword.” Either I don’t know something or the broadsword became a straight saber or the saber became a crooked broadsword, but let’s chalk it up to shock, I guess Durasov figured it out in “straight sabers” better than ours).

These are the rules, in a nutshell. You just need to understand that, as stated in “Pirates of the Caribbean,” the “Pirate Code” is not a set of laws, but recommended concepts.” It’s the same here - if you want to duel with two-handed weapons, no one forbids it, your cause is “noble”. At the end of the twentieth century. they shot at ten steps from “naval” Colts - siege artillery, in the First World War and Civil War from Mausers and Nagans. Recommendations are just recommendations, so as not to follow them, the main thing is to find the same crazy like-minded people.

There were crazy people regularly, so “exceptional” duels were not described in the code, but they happened:

1. At a noble distance: assigning a distance of more than 15 steps, the probability of an effective outcome was low. Meanwhile, it was at an initial distance of 20 steps from his enemy that Alexander Pushkin was mortally wounded.
2. Stationary blind duel: opponents stand motionless at a specified distance, with their backs to each other. After the manager’s command, they, in a certain or random order, shoot over the shoulder. If after two shots both remain intact, the pistols can be charged again.
3. Put the gun to the forehead: a purely Russian version, opponents stand at a distance that ensures a guaranteed hit (5-8 steps). Of the two pistols, only one is loaded, the weapon is chosen by lot. At the command of the manager, the opponents simultaneously shoot at each other.
4. Muzzle to muzzle: a purely Russian version, the conditions are similar to the previous ones, but both pistols are loaded. In such duels both opponents often died.
5. Through a handkerchief: a duel with a 100% fatal outcome was prescribed in exceptional cases. The opponents grabbed the opposite ends of the handkerchief with their left hands and, at the command of the second, fired simultaneously. Only one pistol was loaded.
6. Duel in the grave: they shot at a distance of no more than ten steps, almost 100% fatal for both.
7. American duel: suicide by lot. The rivals cast lots in one way or another, and the one on whom it fell was obliged to commit suicide within a short period of time. The “American duel” was resorted to more often in cases where it was not possible to arrange a traditional duel (due to legal prohibitions, too unequal position of the opponents, physical limitations), but both rivals believed that disagreements could only be resolved by the death of one of them .

As a variant of the “Russian roulette” duel with one cartridge in the drum, but sometimes only one cartridge was taken out of the drum. It is also called hussar roulette, also soprano, although there are great doubts both about the Russian origin of this phenomenon (the first mention was in 1937 in the article “Russian Roulette” in the American magazine “Collier’s Weekly”), and about its widespread use due to the lack of documentary sources. There are a number of inconsistencies, in particular, the article describes Russian officers in the First World War, but the number of Nagant cartridges is 7 pieces. (I’m shocked, I double-checked it, I also thought it was 6), and there it is described as a revolver with 6 cartridges, so perhaps “Russian roulette” is not so “Russian” after all.

Dueling weapons

In the 18th century, firearms became increasingly common in duels, mainly single-shot hammer pistols. A terrible weapon - a single-shot dueling pistol equipped with a flintlock or cap lock - in the hand of an experienced shooter left little chance for the enemy. Differences in combat experience, moral and physical qualities of the participants never made the duel absolutely equal. The statement that identical pistols gave equal chances to duelists during a duel is true only in comparison with more ancient weapons such as swords or sabers. In the middle of the 18th century, duels with pistols became the most common, and the appearance of dueling weapons finally took shape. First of all, it should be noted that the pistols were paired, absolutely identical and did not differ from each other in any way, with the exception of the numbers “1” and “2” on the design elements. To avoid misunderstandings, the seconds brought two boxes of pistols to the duel. In the 18th and first third of the 19th centuries, pistols were equipped with a flintlock, the so-called “French battery” ignition lock, which was invented by the mechanic and writer Chevalier de Aubigny. This lock was improved by the great English gunsmiths Joseph Menton, James Perde, Charles Lancaster, Harvey Mortimer, Henry Knock and was a very progressive mechanism for its time. The principle of its operation was quite simple and in many ways resembled a regular lighter. A piece of specially sharpened and beaten flint was clamped in the hard jaws of the trigger. Opposite it there was a steel flint; under it there was a so-called “shelf” with fine seed powder. When the trigger was pressed, the trigger with the flint hit the flint hard, the shelf automatically folded back and a bright beam of sparks fell onto the gunpowder. Through a special seed hole in the breech of the barrel, the fire entered and ignited the main charge. A loud, booming shot followed. However, flintlock pistols had some disadvantages: first of all, the bright flash of gunpowder on the shelf and the cloud of smoke interfered with the accuracy of the sight. Despite the invention by the British of a special “waterproof” lock, shooting in rainy, damp weather was extremely risky, because moisture wet the gunpowder on the shelf and often led to a misfire, and a misfire, according to the harsh rules of a duel, was equivalent to a shot.

On percussion flintlocks, over time, a safety cocking of the trigger, or half-cocking, appeared: the shooter cocked the hammer to half, while the sear of the trigger mechanism fell into the deep transverse cut of the trigger ankle, and the trigger was blocked. To fire, the hammer had to be cocked, while the sear went into the second, shallower notch of the cocking, from which the hammer could be released by pressing the trigger. This became necessary, among other things, thanks to the appearance of the first (muzzle-loaded) cartridges, created with the aim of increasing the rate of fire of military personnel from the muzzle of loaded guns. When using such a cartridge, its paper casing was used as a wad over the bullet, so the gunpowder was first poured onto the lock shelf, and only then poured into the barrel. If the trigger had remained cocked while the bullet was being sent into the barrel, an accidental shot could have occurred, which would have inevitably resulted in serious injury to the shooter. Before the advent of muzzle-loading cartridges, for safety, gunpowder was usually poured from a powder flask first into the barrel, and only then onto the shelf.

The first safety devices in their modern form appeared with flintlocks and even wheel locks. On expensive flintlock hunting guns and rifles there was a safety device in the form of a slider located on the locking board behind the trigger, which in the forward position fixed the trigger half-cocked, so that it could not only be released, but also cocked. This ensured complete safety when carrying a loaded weapon. For a wheel lock, the fuse usually had the form of a flag located at the rear of the lock board, which in the rear position prevented the cocked trigger from being pulled, blocking the sear. The most expensive versions of wick locks could have the same fuse.

At the beginning of the 19th century, a truly revolutionary turn in the history of firearms was made by a modest Scottish priest from Bellevue County, Alexander John Forsyth. He invented a fundamentally new ignition lock, which would later be called the “capsule lock.” The meaning of the innovation was that now it was not gunpowder that ignited on the seed shelf, but a special chemical composition. Later, the composition that ignited from the impact was placed in a copper cap-cap, placed on a steel rod - a fire pipe, through which the fire instantly went into the barrel.

The dueling pair was placed in an elegant box along with accessories. Usually they consisted of a charging ramrod, a wooden hammer, a bullet, a powder flask, a powder measure, tools - a screwdriver, a cleaner, a kreutzer for unloading a pistol. In front of each other, the opponents' seconds, jealously watching all the subtleties, measured out an equal amount of gunpowder, carefully wrapped the lead bullet with a special leather plaster and, using a ramrod, hammered it into the barrel with blows of a hammer. The bullets were round, lead, with a diameter of 12-15 mm and a weight of 10-12 g. Black smoky powder was added to 3-8 g. According to the rules, it was allowed to use both rifled and smooth-bore pistols, as long as they were exactly the same. All dueling pistols had sights. On the earliest samples, the sight and front sight were fixed, like those of a military weapon. Later, adjustable sights appeared - front sight horizontally, rear sight - vertically, to adjust the aiming line. Sometimes the trigger mechanism of the pistol was equipped with a special device to soften the trigger force - a sneller, but most duelists preferred the usual “tight” trigger. This is explained simply - in excitement, unable to control his own finger, the shooter could fire an involuntary, accidental shot past the target. Even without a sneller, the pistol made it possible to fire a very accurate shot.

Famous weapons historian Yu.V. Shokarev in one of his articles says that “in the middle of the last century, an expert commission that studied all the circumstances of Lermontov’s death fired control shots from a dueling pistol and a powerful army TT. It turned out that the penetrating ability of a dueling pistol is only slightly inferior to the power of the TT, the pointed bullet of which can pierce through eight dry inch boards at a distance of 25 meters. But most of the duels took place at a distance of 15 steps...” Some slaves of honor happened to shoot at 6 steps. However, it should be said that in special, absolutely exceptional cases, the opponents’ seconds, not wanting their friends to die, by mutual agreement allowed some liberties when loading pistols. The most innocent was a double or even triple charge of gunpowder: when fired, the pistol was thrown up strongly and the bullet flew past the target.
“Criminal” from the point of view of the code of honor was simply not putting a bullet into the barrel, which M.Yu. described so well. Lermontov in "Hero of Our Time".

Pistols could be purchased without special permission from the police at any large gun store or directly from a gunsmith. The products of English gunsmiths were considered the best, but... in 1840, in England, on the initiative of peers, admirals and generals, a society was created, the members of which swore an oath to no longer take part in duels. Thus, under the influence of the British elite, who protested against dueling, duels were rejected and all conflicts were resolved in court.

Since that time, the production of dueling pistols in England has practically ceased, and gunsmiths have switched to the creation of sports, road and hunting weapons. The palm went to the French and German masters. Pistols were bought in all European capitals and were even ordered by mail. Needless to say, dueling headsets have always been particularly carefully crafted. These perfect killing mechanisms were decorated with steel engraving, gold and silver inlays, and the stocks were made of seasoned Italian walnut, ebony or Karelian birch butts. The trunks were forged from the best varieties of bouquet damask and deeply blued in black, brown or blue. The pistol handles were covered with beautiful grooves - flutes. Arabesques and grotesques were often used in decoration - stylized ornaments of flowers and plants, bizarre images of half-humans, half-animals, mysterious masks, faces of satyrs, mythical monsters and acanthus leaves. Dueling pistols were expensive, but who would dare to bargain when purchasing an instrument of honor.

Much less often, long-barreled firearms (duel with shotguns, rifles, carbines) and multi-shot pistols or revolvers, for example, the “naval” Colt, were used for duels. Dueling with rifles and shotguns was popular in America and Mexico; the “American” duel consisted of two or a group entering a house, a forest, a gorge, finding an enemy there and seeing what happens. This is already a completely wild type of duel, rather not of the nobility, but of commoners.

Epee (from Italian Spada) is a long-bladed piercing-cutting or piercing weapon directly descended from a one-and-a-half-handed sword with a blade length of 1000 mm or more, straight, in early designs with one or two blades, later ones with a faceted blade, as well as a characteristic developed hilt of complex shape with a protective bow, weighing from 1 to 1.5 kg. The epee appeared, like many types of swords, in Spain in the 1460s. Gradually, the sword became lighter and turned into a sword, which at first was just a light sword with a somewhat complicated hilt, which made it possible not to wear a plate glove. The sword was originally used for cutting, only over time it became primarily a piercing weapon.

What can be called a combat sword is a Reitar sword, common among armored Reitar horsemen (from German Schwarze Reiter - “black horsemen”), they preferred not to charge into the infantry formation after shooting like cuirassiers, but to systematically shoot the infantry with pistols. Their auxiliary weapon was a sword, since most of the Reitar were from Southern Germany, the legendary mercenaries, famous throughout Europe, gave their name to their sword. Reitar sword (German Reitschwert (“horseman’s sword”) is a piercing-cutting weapon with a straight blade, total length – 1000-1100 mm, blade length – 850-950 mm, blade width – from 30 to 45 mm, cross width – 200 -250 mm, weight from 1100 to 1500 g, there are early examples weighing up to 1700 g. It was most popular in the cavalry of the 16th century, it was mainly used as a sword, moreover cutting than piercing.

A rapier or civilian sword with a straight blade about 1100-1300 mm long, weighing about 1.5 kg is familiar to us from films about musketeers, where they are forced, due to the directors’ ignorance, to swing it and stab it like later examples. In fact, fencing with such a rapier was quite poor, a piercing lunge, a few simple defenses, rather dodges, the blades rarely rang, and a couple of basic chopping blows, for example, the “peasant”, when a sword grabbed with two hands struck with all the might. This is approximately what the musketeers were taught, whose fencing skills were extremely poor; in the time of d’Artagnan, fencing was considered shameful, you had to win through force, chopping, otherwise it was considered dishonest. The musketeers shot poorly (they did not carry a matchlock musket, preferring to buy guns with their own money), they fenced even worse, but sometimes they only burst into the bastions with swords, inspiring well-deserved terror, however, like the cardinal’s guards, who were in no way inferior to them. But mostly the musketeers were engaged in dispersing peasant uprisings and political arrests, for which the rapier was quite enough for them. It fell out of use in the 17th century and was often used in conjunction with fist shields, then dags (daggers).

Short swords (English: Small sword) are piercing weapons with a straight blade about 800 mm long, total length about 1000 mm, weight 1-1.3 kg. They can be either with blades or exclusively faceted with a sharpened tip. Appearing in the middle of the 17th century under the influence of the French school of fencing. The Academie d'Armes, founded at the end of the 16th century, subsequently almost replaced other types of swords. These are the swords familiar to us from later times, which were owned by officers, sometimes soldiers, and of course nobles; according to status, it was later awarded to university students or their graduates , was a distinction of status for civil officials and gradually degenerated into a ceremonial weapon, still used today and sporting swords and rapiers.

The saber in its usual sense appeared in the 7th century among the Turkic peoples as a result of a modification of the broadsword; the first sabers were found in kuruk near the village. Voznesenki (now Zaporozhye). Saber (Hung. szablya from Hung. szabni - “to cut”) is a chopping-cutting bladed weapon with an average length of a curved one-sided blade sharpening of 80-110 cm, with a mass of 0.8-2.6 kg. The saber appeared as an idea to reduce the weight of the blade while maintaining the same chopping abilities, by reducing the contact area, and in general it copes with the task. As a bonus, with a slight bend, it became possible to inflict a cut wound, which significantly increases the chances of quickly incapacitating the enemy due to large blood loss.

In the countries of Central and Western Europe, sabers were not common until the second half of the 16th century; they received recognition in the 18th-19th centuries, and swords and swords were mainly used. In the 17th-18th centuries, under Eastern European influence, sabers spread throughout Europe and became a cavalry weapon; they were used to arm hussars, dragoons and mounted grenadiers. They came from sabers of the Polish-Hungarian type. During the Egyptian campaign, the French introduced the fashion for Mamluk-type sabers, and the Cossacks, who flaunted such popular weapons in Paris, only strengthened it. Sabers began to be used everywhere in European armies, regardless of military branches, right up to aviation. Sabers and broadswords (or dragoon sabers) are still used as ceremonial weapons in many countries.

Weapons and dueling code

V.S. Pikul noted in one novel that the lack of rights of a Russian woman, among other things, is expressed in the absence of the right to challenge an offender to a duel.

Men did not always have this right either, but fights in the world numbered in the thousands. The rules of the duel assumed maximum equality of opponents; society did not consider them crimes, no matter what the law said.

A matter of honor

History knows many types of private duels - knightly tournaments, “funny fights”... But a duel has a number of features that distinguish it from other fights.

Heiress of the tournament

It is believed that duels appeared in Europe in the 16th century - after the extinction of knightly tournaments. Their homeland is Italy, but soon the tradition of personal duels spread to France and Germany.

“Duo” means “two,” but duels were not always paired. At the initial stage, there are many fights between large companies. In France, there is a known case of 6 opponents fighting at the same time, and only one survived.

A. Dumas used the precedent to create the final scene in “The Countess de Monsoreau”. But already in the 18th century, duels became a duel between two.

The history of duels in Russia began in 1666. It was an import - the participants were two foreign hired officers. The winner, Patrick Gordon, then became a prominent figure in the Peter the Great era.

Features

In past centuries, a “private” fight was not considered something special. But the duel had a number of characteristics unique to it.

1. The reason for the duel is an insult to the honor and dignity (of the participant or a woman close to him). A property dispute or criminal claim was considered by the court.
2. A duel is an armed duel. Fighting without weapons was not considered such.
3. The challenge and the fight itself had to have witnesses. Meetings in private were rare.
4. Opponents were given equal opportunities: the same weapons and conditions. For this reason, before the fight, new weapons were necessarily purchased. Each participant had to have a set “for two”, and whose would be used was decided by lot. If one of the opponents could not fight (was old or sick), he could nominate a deputy (usually a relative or best friend). Such a case is described by Corneille in the Cide.
5. The goal was not to kill the enemy, but to prove one’s moral superiority. Although murders were not uncommon.
6. Only a duel of equals could be considered a duel. Although they didn't have to be nobles.
7. The fight had to have a protocol. This was required to ensure that the participants could not be considered criminals. The protocol could be “on parole,” but more often it was written down.

These were unwritten rules, but they were strictly followed. There were deviations, but more often by agreement of the parties.

Commoner's honor

Usually the participants in the fights were nobles, especially officers. But this was not an immutable rule. For example, the famous Russian politician of the beginning of the last century A.I. Guchkov (of a merchant family, but received nobility according to the Table of Ranks) was known as the most dangerous breter (that is, a fighter).

In Western Europe, student duels have long been extremely popular.

They fought with swords. The participants sought to inflict a wound on the enemy, very lightly, but in a noticeable place, preferably in the face. The goal was not so much to punish the enemy for insulting him, but to prove that you are a fighting guy, and it is better not to touch you.

The more scars a student had on his face, the more he was respected. One thing is important: the opponent of the nobleman was the nobleman, the commoner was the commoner. In Western Europe (but not in Russia), women's duels have been recorded.

The right to choose

It was always provided to the participants in the duel. How much depended on their status. We chose a weapon, a place, a method of action. The offended person had more rights, but everything depended on the severity of the conflict.

One of the participants could refuse the fight. But this was fraught with consequences. Without them, only the offended, having received an apology, recalled the call.

A cowardly offender could be boycotted or fired from service. The presence or absence of a ban on dueling did not play a role.

There were exceptions. Thus, the famous gunsmith S.I. Mosin twice sent a challenge to the husband of his beloved woman, and both times he... reported a potential enemy to the appropriate authorities!

Weapon Selection

This right was granted to the offended. Until the 18th century, bladed weapons were usually used - saber, rapier, . The blades had to be of equal value, the same length or taking into account the height of the fighters. There were mentions in history of oddities, such as the use of candelabra.

19th century dueling codes favored pistols. Only new, identical in characteristics, smooth-bore samples were used.

After the meeting, the opponents could keep the weapons for themselves. But they no longer had the right to fight him again.
Sometimes they agreed on the use of several types of weapons.

Selecting a location

Except for particularly severe cases, this issue was resolved jointly. A fairly well-known, but deserted and remote place was required. Therefore, there were areas where duels took place regularly (Pré-au-Claire in Paris or the same Black River).

If the offense was very serious, they could use a place that was dangerous for the fallen person (the seashore or an abyss). Then even a slight wound threatened opponents with death.

But this happened infrequently; during a duel, the main goal was rarely to kill. You couldn't be late for the fight. A delay of a quarter of an hour was considered evasion.

To the barrier

We also had to choose a way to conduct the fight. It was possible to fight with edged weapons while standing still or moving, as in a normal battle. Pistols provided even better room for maneuver. There were several possibilities for using them.

1. Stand motionless and shoot at a signal from a certain distance (measured in steps).
2. Stand motionless with your back to the enemy and shoot over your shoulder at random.
3. Disperse a certain number of steps, and then, on command, converge to a certain point. The shot could be made at this mark (barrier) or on the move.
4. Converge gradually, making the agreed number of stops to shoot. Moreover, each enemy who had already fired a bullet had to wait until the second one did the same.
5. Load only one pistol, choose a weapon by lot, put the muzzles to each other's foreheads and pull the triggers. How will fate decide...

There were other options. Thus, in America, “hunts” were practiced, when opponents with the same weapons (they were previously searched) were launched into a certain place (a ravine, a grove, a house). They could do whatever they wanted there until the charges ran out.

This is what the duel between Maurice Gerald and Captain Colquhoun looks like in The Headless Horseman. In serious cases, Russians shot “through a scarf.” The distance was determined by the length of the outstretched arms of the participants, grasping the corners of one handkerchief. It was impossible to miss.

Without bureaucracy

The stages of the duel were necessarily documented. The challenge had to be made publicly (by cursing the enemy, throwing a glove in his face, or slapping him in the face) or in writing.

If one person received several challenges, a strict lot was held, or the person summoned chose his own opponent (to prevent reprisals from many against one). The terms of the meeting were also written down and signed by the participants.

This was to prevent crimes under the guise of honor duels. Sometimes this rule was violated at the risk of the participants. More often this was done when they were going to fight to the death, or in the era of the prohibition of skirmishes. There were also disguised murders - the criminal called out an obviously weaker enemy.

Mandatory participants

Although only 2 people were supposed to participate in the battle itself, there were usually a lot of people at the place where the duel took place. Witnesses kept order and provided assistance to the participants.

Ambulance

If death was not expected, the presence of a doctor was required. Sometimes they brought two - from each side. During the era of banning fights, it was agreed that doctors would not tell the authorities the true cause of their patients' injuries.

Doctors had to save the lives of those seriously injured and determine whether the wounded fighter could continue the fight. They often confirmed death...

Be my second

The most important participant in the duel is the second. This person usually became the best friend or relative of the participant, and was not directly related to the conflict.

Once a challenge had been issued, the opponents should not communicate. All negotiations were conducted by seconds (1-2 from the side). They also had to check the weapons, measure the distance if necessary and monitor the opponents' compliance with the rules.

Sometimes a steward (the most senior and respected among the seconds or simply a respectable person) was selected from among them or additionally. The manager checked that there were no violations, did everything necessary to reconcile the warring parties, and gave signals for the beginning and end of the fight.

It was not safe to be a second. Anti-dueling laws punished them almost as severely as the participants. There have been worse cases. So, in 1870 in Paris, Prince Pierre Bonaparte, a cousin of Emperor Napoleon III, shot and killed 20-year-old journalist Victor Noir.

The young man came to him as a second for his friend, Pascal Grousset (known as a friend and co-author of J. Verne, writer Andre Laurie). He challenged the prince to a duel for grossly insulting the Corsican socialists (Grousset was a Corsican and a revolutionary).
The dueling code is not criminal. The prince was acquitted...

The ban is not a hindrance

In the 17th century in Europe, duels became so widespread that they began to significantly reduce the number of nobility. Related to this are attempts to get rid of them.
The attempt made by Cardinal Richelieu is quite well known.

What happened to him was exactly what is described in “The Three Musketeers” - the number of fights only increased.

There was even an impudence that, out of principle, he arranged a duel right under the windows of the formidable minister. The insolent man was executed, but the nobles continued to fight, if only to spite the cardinal.

Petrovsky Charter

Peter the Great was in no hurry to import its shortcomings from Europe. A special charter prohibited them from fighting in Russia under penalty of death for all participants!

It turned out no better than Richelieu's. The nobles still considered it, in many cases, a matter of honor to wash away an insult with blood.

The law prohibiting fights was applied several times, but was able to only slightly reduce their number.

Subsequently, Russian emperors repeatedly made attempts to stop these outrages in Russia, but with the same success. Catherine II threatened to exile the bullies to Siberia - and only slightly reduced the number of fights. Nicholas I was a resolute opponent of duels, but during his reign Pushkin and Dantes and Lermontov and Martynov fought.

Society did not support the rulers on this issue. The duelists were helped to disguise the fights, senior officers tried to get rid of subordinates who evaded satisfaction, and their comrades obstructed them, forcing them to resign.

Exile to the active army or demotion to soldiery, practiced as punishment for a duel in the mid-19th century, was perceived by many as a reward, recognition of courage. Such “punished” people received ranks and orders faster than others. There were also fans of duels among the emperors, for example, Paul I.

Mandatory battle

Emperor Alexander III took a different path. In 1894, he lifted the bans and introduced official rules for organizing duels among officers. Any dispute had to be first considered by the officers' council. If he ruled that it was better for the opponents to make peace, they might obey, or they might not.

If it was decided that a fight was obligatory, the one who refused was immediately dismissed from the army.

This decision increased the number of duels, but not the number of deaths. In general, in Russia, shooting intentionally past, or even into the air, was considered a worthy deed.
Alexander's decrees were abolished along with the monarchy.

Few people know that Dantes, who was excommunicated from noble society after the duel with Pushkin, was ostracized not because of the murder of the famous poet, but because he violated the rules of a duel.

The fact is that after the descent began and Dantes shot, Pushkin, having been wounded, dropped the pistol, which failed when it fell into the snow. It is worth noting that the rules of the duel prohibited any of the fighters from changing weapons during the fight.

But Pushkin demanded that the pistol be replaced and Dantes allowed him to do so. After Alexander Sergeevich’s shot, Dantes fell, but the wound was slight.

The thing is that in a duel they usually took two pairs of pistols, and often the reserve pair was equipped with weakened charges, so that the issue could be resolved without bloodshed and without damage to reputation.

Some sources believe that the second pair of pistols in this duel had just such a charge.

Dantes agreed to replace the weapon, thereby putting himself in a more advantageous position. It is unknown whether he knew in advance about the presence of a weakened charge; most likely, he guessed, but, nevertheless, he authorized the use of such a weapon. For which he later paid.

One of the famous cases of a nobleman being challenged to a duel by a commoner is again associated with Dantes; he was subsequently challenged to a duel by a commoner, but Pushkin’s killer refused the challenge on legal grounds.

Conclusion

In a state governed by the rule of law, personal conflicts are not allowed to be resolved with the help of weapons. But still, many regret the disappearance of duels, since this method required determination and responsibility from the disputants.

Video

Today you can insult anyone using the Internet. Sometimes strangers argue without choosing their words. Only now you can only respond to the offender using the same “virtual” weapon, without causing him real harm.

But in the old days, the issue of insults was resolved much more simply. If men argued with each other, then they scheduled a duel or duel. At first, the weapons were swords and swords, and then they were replaced by pistols. And this solution to the problem was much more convincing than pressing the “complain” button.

And the most interesting thing is that duels in some countries and in some periods of history were a completely legal means of sorting out relationships. True, even the ban on such fights often did not stop the heated men. And although duels were a noble way to defend one’s honor, these battles sometimes turned out to be quite funny and absurd.

Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve vs. Paul-Francois Dubois. Duels are understandable when two bitter enemies collide in a dispute. But sometimes the situation gets out of control between old friends and colleagues. This is exactly what happened with Sainte-Beuve and Dubois, whose duel took place on September 20, 1830. Sainte-Beuve was a literary critic who created his own method for evaluating the works of writers. He believed that all of their stories and novels actually reflected their own lives and experiences to one degree or another. Dubois was the editor of the newspaper Le Globe. Paul-François not only taught the famous critic at the Charlemagne Lyceum, but also hired him to work for his publication. What exactly they were arguing about remained a mystery. But the result was a duel scheduled in the forest near Romainville. The problem was heavy rain. Sainte-Beuve said he doesn't mind dying, but refuses to get wet in the process. The critic picked up an umbrella instead of a pistol. In the end, no one died, and the two writers later became friends again. Sainte-Beuve himself recalled Dubois as a wonderful and sincere person. But the publisher behind his back called the critic “a mummy’s boy afraid of the rain.”

Otto von Bismarck against Rudolf Virchow. This story is about how a politician was ready to defend his beliefs, which is simply not found in the modern world. Otto von Bismarck was the Prussian minister who unified Germany and became its chancellor. In 1865 he clashed with the leader of the Liberal Party, Rudolf Virchow. This scientist and oppositionist believed that the politician had unnecessarily inflated Prussia's military budget. As a result, the country plunged into poverty, overpopulation and epidemics. Bismarck did not challenge his opponent's views, but simply challenged him to a duel. At the same time, the politician generously allowed his opponent to choose a weapon. But Virchow acted unconventionally; he decided to fight with sausages. One of them was raw and contaminated with bacteria. Bismarck understood that Virchow simply had no chance when using bladed weapons or firearms. But the sausages leveled the playing field. Then Bismarck declared that heroes had no right to eat themselves to death and canceled the duel. The story is not only funny, it is also notable for the fact that the head of the country summoned the oppositionist. Usually the opposite happens.

Mark Twain vs James Laird. Twain was a famous opponent of dueling. The writer considered them an unreasonable and dangerous way to sort things out. According to Twain, this is also sinful. If someone challenged him, the writer promised to take the enemy to a quiet place with the utmost courtesy and politeness and kill him there. That is why it is not surprising that when he challenged the editor of a rival newspaper to a duel, he tried in every possible way to prevent it. Describing the fight that never took place, Twain recalled that he was terrified. The fact is that his opponent was a famous shooter. But as soon as Laird and his second approached the place of the fight, Mark Twain’s second, Steve Gillies, hit the head of a flying bird from 30 meters away. The Laird asked in amazement who shot the subway like that? Then Gillis said that Twain, an excellent sniper, did it. Fortunately for the writer, Laird chose not to risk his life and canceled the fight.

Marcel Proust vs Jean Lorrain. Digital technology makes it difficult for writers to deal with scathing reviews of their work. The struggle comes down to endless comments, shares and likes. In 1896, Proust published a collection of short stories, Joys and Days, but the poet and novelist Jean Lorrain issued a devastating review on this matter. In addition, the critic called the author himself “soft” and allowed himself to make comments about his personal life. The duel was scheduled for February 5, 1897. Proust’s only request was not to start the fight before noon, since he was a pronounced “night owl.” Nevertheless, the writer arrived at the duel impeccably dressed. Both writers fired and both missed. The seconds then agreed that honor had been restored. It is worth saying that such a reaction to the review was still excessive, but with the help of a duel both writers were able to resolve their differences. It’s good that both of them turned out to be bad shooters, otherwise literature would have been greatly impoverished.

Lady Almeria Braddock vs Mrs Elphinstone. This duel went down in history as a “skirt fight.” The two ladies decided to go a little further in clarifying their relationship, as was customary among French women. But nothing foreshadowed such a conclusion to an ordinary tea party between two friends - Mrs. Elphinstone and Lady Braddock. It’s just that the first one began to describe the hostess’s appearance using the past tense: “You were a beautiful woman.” Lady Almeria Braddock was so offended by these words that she immediately scheduled a duel in nearby Hyde Park. Initially, it was decided to shoot with pistols. After the bullet hit Lady Braddock's hat, she still insisted on continuing the duel. Then the ladies took up swords. And only when Leti Braddock was able to easily wound her offender did she agree to a written apology on her part. The duel was over, but it was an unusually spectacular event.

Sasaki Kojiro vs Miyamoto Musashi. This duel may seem funny, but its participants cannot be denied ingenuity. In 1612, two fighters, principled opponents, fought in a duel on the territory of feudal Japan. They did not see eye to eye on the art of fencing. There are many different descriptions of that fight. The most common version says that Musashi was three hours late, and instead of a sword, he arrived with a hewn oar. It was a psychological blow to the enemy. Musashi smiled at his opponent as he hurled insults at him. And when Kojiro was blinded by the rays of the rising sun, he struck him with his improvised weapon, killing him. It turns out that it was possible to defeat the legendary warrior with the help of being late and a boat oar.

François Fournier-Sarlovez vs Pierre Dupont. Frnier-Sarlovez was a very impulsive man who resorted to the sword at every opportunity. The fact that duels in France in the 17th century were prohibited did not stop him either. The most famous fight between Fournier and Sarlovez lasted for 19 long years. These events even formed the basis for Joseph Conrad's novel The Duel and Ridley Scott's film The Duelists. It all started in 1794. Pierre Dupont, an army courier, delivered the message to Fournier. But he didn’t like the message. Word for word, the culprit turned out to be the unlucky courier, whom the bully immediately challenged to a duel. He agreed and managed to wound Fournier, but not fatally. Having recovered, he offered revenge. This time it was Dupont who was wounded. For the third time, both were wounded. Over the next 19 years, the duelists fought about 30 times, trying to prove something to each other. They even made an agreement that a duel could not take place only if there was a distance of more than a hundred kilometers between them. And although the French called each other sworn enemies, they corresponded and even sometimes dined together after the fight. In 1813, Du Pont decided to get married, and he had no need for the old enmity. He proposed to finally resolve the issue. The decisive duel took place in the forest. Dupont decided to cheat - he hung his doublet on a branch, where he discharged Fournier's charges. Then the groom said that he would not shoot, but next time he would do it twice. So Fournier stopped pursuing his longtime enemy.

Humphrey Howard vs Earl Barrymore. Experienced duelists know that they should always take some precautions before a duel. In 1806, a dispute broke out between two respectable English gentlemen, Member of Parliament Humphrey Howard and Henry Barry, the eighth Earl of Barrymore, which led to a duel. But Howard, a former army doctor, knew that it was the infection that got into an open wound that most often became fatal. That is why he decided that clothing is the very subject. And if the count, like a true gentleman, came into battle in a frock coat and top hat, then his opponent wisely stripped naked. They say, however, that Howard made this decision under the influence of alcohol. But the count turned out to be quite sober, preferring to hush up the matter. Is it a great honor to kill a naked person or, on the contrary, to die at the hands of a nudist? Howard was quite happy with this decision, and the gentlemen went home.

Alexey Orlov vs. Mikhail Lunin. When a person agrees to accept a challenge to a duel, it would be good to have some skills for this. Alexey Orlov was not ready for the fight. He was a good general who distinguished himself in the Napoleonic wars. But this does not mean that he knew how to shoot accurately. Orlov never fought a duel with anyone, which became a reason for jokes among young people. Lunin invited the general to experience a new sensation for him, essentially challenging him to a duel. It was impossible to refuse such a challenge, even if it was a playful one. Orlov's vulnerability became noticeable during a duel with the much more experienced and skilled cavalryman Mikhail Lunin. He provoked the general so much that Orlov really wanted to kill the offender. The first shot went to the inexperienced duelist, but the bullet only knocked off Lunin’s epaulette. He only laughed in response and fired into the air. Then the enraged Orlov fired again, this time hitting the hat. Lunin laughed and fired into the air again. He found pleasure in danger. The enraged Orlov wanted to load the weapon again, but the senseless duel was stopped. Lunin offered his opponent shooting lessons. And although the young officer did not win the duel, he gained the upper hand in the battle - Orlov was humiliated.

Monsieur de Grandpré vs Monsieur de Piquet. It seems that dueling is something French, who, if not they, know a lot about this activity and maintain a certain style. In 1808, an opera diva fell in love with two respectable gentlemen. The rivals decided that there was no better way to discourage a competitor from their passion than to shoot with him. And the victory itself should have had a positive effect on that same lady. The men decided to have a duel in balloons, high in the sky, to make it more spectacular. The opponents rose above the Parisian Tuileries Garden, taking with them muskets with gunpowder and lead bullets. The co-pilots, who were assigned an unenviable fate, helped control the balloons. As soon as the balls approached within firing distance, on command Grandpre and Piquet shot at each other. Pique's ball caught fire and fell down. Along with the duelist, his co-pilot also died. The most interesting thing is that the prima donna did not appreciate such a sacrifice and ran away with another fan.

Andre Marchand against the dog. This amazing story happened in the 14th century. Andre Marchand went hunting with his friend, Jacques Chevantier. The friends couldn't find a third travel companion, but they took a friendly dog ​​with them. During the hunt, Jacques Chevante disappeared somewhere. No one would have suspected the disappearance of the Marchand man, but the missing man’s dog, who was an eyewitness to the events, literally began to bark at the sight of his owner’s friend. Chevantier's acquaintances came to an original conclusion - the dog wants to challenge Marchand to a duel, instead of the missing Chevantier. In order to maintain honor, Marchand had to accept the challenge. But he couldn’t choose a revolver; it simply didn’t exist then. Then the duelist decided to fight with a club with iron fangs. They just resembled dog fangs. The dog had little choice but to rely on his natural weapons - teeth and claws. The fight turned out to be surprisingly short. As soon as the dog was let off the leash, he immediately grabbed his opponent’s neck. Marchand didn't even have time to use his club. They say that while dying, the poor man managed to confess to the murder of his friend. But most likely this legend was invented by the organizers of such a wild fight in order to justify their madness.

Count Cagliostro vs. Doctor Sozonovich. The famous European sorcerer Count Cagliostro visited Russia in the 18th century. Here he received a warm welcome - the magician had many fans and clients. But there were also those at court who openly called the visiting guest a charlatan. The most serious conflict erupted between Cagliostro and Doctor Sozonovich, the court physician of Empress Catherine II. A curious incident occurred - Prince Golitsyn’s only ten-month-old son fell ill. Official medicine threw up its hands, but Cagliostro managed to cure him in just a month. Gossips whispered that the count had simply replaced the baby. Then the offended Sozonovich challenged Cagliostro to a duel. He stated that since we are talking about medicine, the weapon should be his own prepared poison. The enemies must exchange pills and the one with the better antidote will win. Cagliostro later boasted of how he managed to replace poison with a ball of chocolate in front of everyone. But the gullible Sozonovich drank the poison, trying to muffle its effect with several liters of milk. Fortunately, both duelists survived. Perhaps the cunning Italian decided to spare his opponent and did not give him poison. After all, Cagliostro, after that duel, wrote to Sozonovich that the pill contained only a potency enhancing agent.

Jack Robson and Billy Beckham. Times change the weapons of duelists. At first it was swords and swords, later - firearms. As you can see, even balloons took part in the showdown. In this case, two American farmers decided to sort things out with the help of their cars. The reason for the duel was banal - both guys fell in love with a certain beauty. The Americans decided that in the middle of the 20th century the weapons should be appropriate, which is why they chose cars. Early in the morning, the rivals gathered at the edge of the plateau, where seconds - a doctor and a mechanic - were supposed to monitor the fairness of the fight. And the subject of the dispute itself - a charming lady, appeared at the scene of the duel. On command, the cars rushed towards each other at great speed. But at the last moment the duelists turned away, avoiding instant death. The men decided to change tactics - now they tried to push the enemy car into the abyss. The winner was Jack Robson, but his prize was not the girl’s heart, but 15 years in prison. The beauty herself married a bus driver, who kindly gave her a ride home after a terrible duel.

AND It is known that the duel came to Russia from the West. It is believed that the first duel in Russia took place in 1666 in Moscow. Two foreign officers fought... the Scotsman Patrick Gordon (who later became Peter's general) and the Englishman Major Montgomery (may his ashes rest in eternal peace...).

Duels in Russia have always been a serious test of character. Peter the Great, although he implanted European customs in Russia, understood the danger of duels and tried to immediately stop their occurrence with cruel laws. In which, I must admit, I succeeded. There were almost no duels among Russians during his reign.

Chapter 49 of Peter’s Military Regulations of 1715, called “Patent on duels and starting quarrels,” proclaimed: “No insult to the honor of the offended person can in any way belittled,” the victim and witnesses to the incident are obliged to immediately report the fact of insult to a military court... even failure to report was punishable.

The challenge to a duel itself was punishable by deprivation of rank and partial confiscation of property; for entering a duel and drawing a weapon - the death penalty! With complete confiscation of property, not excluding seconds.
Peter III banned corporal punishment for the nobility. This is how a generation appeared in Russia for whom even a sidelong glance could lead to a duel. Modern parodies of duels on social networks (as Mail did not long ago) simply humiliate this noble act and the memory of the victims, because thanks to duels, Russia has lost many great minds and worthy people.

Despite all the shortcomings, duels made us value life, the dignity of other people and look at life in a completely different way. In addition, thanks to duels and outright trash and scoundrels, there were fewer scoundrels in society. The fact is that among the Russian nobility, HONOR has always been the most precious thing in life.

“The soul is for God, the heart is for a woman, duty is for the Fatherland, honor is for no one!” A man with a stain on his honor was no longer considered a nobleman. They simply did not extend their hands to him... he became an outcast from society. According to the Russian dueling code, it was impossible to refuse a duel. Such an act was regarded as an admission of one’s own insolvency.

The heyday of duels was during the reign of Alexander I and they continued until Alexander III (I will return to them later). It is interesting to note that Emperor Paul I seriously proposed to resolve interstate conflicts not through war, but through a duel between emperors... this proposal did not receive support in Europe.

There was also a comical case in Russia when two high-ranking officers wanted to fight with shots from artillery guns. The most amazing thing is that the duel took place. Unfortunately, I don’t know its outcome.

If in Europe duels were something like ostentatious pampering to win women, in Russia it was legalized murder... and even though duels were exiled to the Caucasus, even emperors were very often forced to turn a blind eye to them, duels were necessary for society.

If now Russia, as we know, has two main troubles - fools and roads... then at that difficult historical time there was also a third trouble - pistol duels.
The fact is that in Rus' they did not like to fight with sabers or swords. This gave too great an advantage to the military and people constantly training. And all layers of noble society wanted to participate in duels. That is why we came up with the idea of ​​shooting with pistols. Moreover, the most important rule of absurdity is pistols before a duel DID NOT SHOOT! No wonder they say “the bullet is stupid”... Pistols were bought before the duel by seconds, two on each side. Immediately before the duel, lots were cast on whose pair to shoot. A misfire was considered a shot.

The pistols were bought new, and only smooth-bore pistols were suitable for duels (they have very low accuracy), and those that were not sighted, i.e. no smell of gunpowder from the barrel. The same pistols were no longer used in duels. They were kept as a souvenir.

Such an unshooted weapon equalized the chances of a young man holding a pistol for the first time and an experienced shooter. It was possible to aim at the leg from 15 steps and hit the chest. The refusal to zero pistols made the duel not a competition of duelists' skills, but rather a DIVINE performance. Moreover, duels in Russia were distinguished by exceptionally harsh conditions: this was not the case anywhere in Europe.... the distance between barriers was usually only 10-20 steps (about 7-10 meters!). On command, the duelists converged on the barrier. The one who shot first stopped and if he missed... it meant almost one hundred percent death. After all, his opponent could calmly approach the barrier and take his shot from 4-7 steps... almost point-blank! Even with an unsighted weapon it is difficult to miss.

Perhaps this is why many drank before the duel. The hand shaking didn't really matter. Duels were carried out in different ways. There were about five ways of dueling with pistols. The most common one is described above, but there was also shooting on command, shooting without taking turns until the first hit, there was even an option even with shooting at the sound with your eyes closed...

Officers, as a rule, fought with each other on their own terms, which were agreed upon in advance, but with civilians they always fought according to the rules of the dueling code without the slightest deviation. It was considered bad taste to challenge your army commander to a duel. But this also happened often.

To some, the story described below may seem like a romantic fairy tale, to others - a play of the absurd, but it actually happened. Lieutenant Gunius and Lieutenant Colonel Gorlov brought to St. Petersburg from America samples of guns designed by Hiram Berdan (later famous “Berdankas”, adopted by the Russian army and served the Tsar and the Fatherland until 1891) and presented them to Tsarevich Alexander, who imagined himself in military affairs expert.

Alexander Alexandrovich did not like the guns, which he was quick to express in a rather rude manner. Gunius, a capable specialist who knew the question thoroughly, quite reasonably objected to him. An argument ensued. The future Alexander III the Peacemaker got angry, could not restrain himself and, in the heat of the conversation, allowed himself to burst out with obscene language against Gunius.

A man with a high concept of honor, Gunius silently ended the conversation and left without saying goodbye, and later sent Tsarevich Alexander Alexandrovich a letter demanding an apology. The officer could not challenge the Tsarevich to a duel, and in the letter he set the following condition: if within 24 hours he does not receive an apology from Alexander Alexandrovich, he will shoot himself. One can only guess what Gunius experienced during these 24 hours... but he never received an apology...

When everything became known to Emperor Alexander II, he was very angry and forced his son to follow Gunius’ coffin to the grave. Alexander Alexandrovich did not dare to disobey his father, but, as they said, during the funeral he suffered only from rain and headwind...

Alexander III was simple and reliable, like a Berdan woman, but many nobles did not forgive him for this episode until his death.

In the photo, Alexander III is with his family. Having become emperor, he almost legalized duels. The Emperor realized that they could not be avoided anyway and decided to lead the process. The fear of severe punishment only aggravated the situation, forced them to shoot in deep forests, far from medical help, and often completely turned this action into a simple murder of noble heirs or settling scores.

In Russia, Order No. 118 of May 20, 1894 was issued to the military department: “ Rules for the resolution of quarrels that occur among officers».

It consisted of 6 points:

• The first point established that all cases of officer quarrels were sent by the commander of the military unit to the court of the officers' society.


• Point two determined that the court could either recognize the possibility of reconciliation between the officers, or (due to the severity of the insults) rule on the need for a duel. At the same time, the court’s decision on the possibility of reconciliation was advisory in nature, while the decision on the duel was mandatory.


• Point three stated that the specific conditions of the duel were determined by the seconds chosen by the opponents themselves, but at the end of the duel, the court of the society of officers, according to the protocol presented by the senior second-manager, considered the behavior of the duelists and seconds and the conditions of the duel.


• Point four obliged the officer who refused the duel to submit a request for resignation within two weeks; otherwise, he was subject to dismissal without request.


• Finally, paragraph five stipulated that in those military units where there are no officers’ society courts, their functions are performed by the commander of the military unit himself.

If the court recognized the possibility of reconciliation without compromising the honor of the offended person, then this is what happened. In the opposite case, the court authorized the fight.
The following were considered incompetent for a duel (whose challenge could not be accepted and who was not accepted to be challenged):
persons disgraced in public opinion (sharps; those who previously refused a duel; those who filed a complaint against the offender in a criminal court);
- crazy;
- minors, i.e. persons under 21 years of age (except for married people, students and employees - in general there was no clear boundary);
- persons who stood at low levels of public culture (i.e., as a rule, representatives of the common people);
- debtors in relation to their creditors; close relatives (up to and including uncles and nephews);
- women.

Her natural patron was OBLIGED to defend the honor of a woman(husband, father, brother, son, guardian, close relative), but what is interesting is that a necessary condition for the admissibility of a duel over a woman was her moral behavior - that is, a woman known for her easy behavior was NOT recognized with the right to protection from insults.

It became especially chic to accept a duel, but shoot in the air. A shot into the air was allowed only if the person challenged to the duel fired, and not the one who called - otherwise the duel was not recognized as valid, but only a farce, since none of the opponents exposed themselves to danger.
Newspapers wrote about duels, they were discussed in novels, and the details were savored for years. It was simply indecent for female actresses performing in theaters if not a single man suffered in a duel because of them. The more people killed and wounded for it, the more worthy and interesting the prima.

The Cavalry Guards (heavy cavalry and the Emperor's guard) fought especially often in duels. Cavalry guards are the cream of the Russian officer corps, people who have prepared themselves for army glory since childhood and are ready to die for the Tsar and the Fatherland, without disgracing their honor and family. These were officers brought up on the bonds of honor and brotherhood... all of them, as a rule, were young, daring, glorified in battles for the fatherland, well aware that in Russia the peace is short, that there will soon be war again, which means they need to “take what is theirs.”

These are people for whom the risk of death was an everyday job, and even a married lady could allow such an officer many liberties (and without the condemnation of society).

In St. Petersburg there were cases when people shot themselves in such a way that it looked like suicide. Such was the duel between K.P. Chernov and V.D. Novosiltsev. Both duelists - adjutant Vladimir Novosiltsev and lieutenant of the Izmailovsky regiment Konstantin Chernov were mortally wounded. All because they shot at 8 steps. It was hard to miss...

The cause of the duel was a woman. Novosiltsev promised to marry and managed to seduce and dishonor Chernov’s sister. But due to pressure from his mother, he refused to marry. Chernov challenged Novosiltsev to a duel with 8 steps. Both died.

The duel caused a wide resonance in society. They even wrote about her in the newspapers. Since then, duelists began to come to this place. There was a belief that visiting this place before a duel guarantees victory.

Now there is a memorial sign in that place. It was opened on September 10, 1988 on the initiative of the Forestry Academy, and first of all, by the director of the library T. A. Zueva. The monument was erected in St. Petersburg, on Engels Avenue, across the road from the entrance to the academy park.

Duels in the language of statistics...
As you know, statistics know everything. According to General Mikulin, “...from 1876 to 1890, only 14 cases of officer duels came to trial (in 2 of them the opponents were acquitted).

Starting from the reign of Nicholas I, duels did not sink into history, but gradually stopped... from 1894 to 1910, 322 duels took place, of which 256 were by decision of courts of honor, 47 with the permission of military commanders and 19 unauthorized (not a single one reached a criminal court of them).
Every year there were from 4 to 33 fights in the army (on average - 20). from 1894 to 1910, the following took part in officer duels as opponents: 4 generals, 14 staff officers, 187 captains and staff captains, 367 junior officers, 72 civilians.

Of the 99 insult duels, 9 ended with a serious outcome, 17 with a slight injury and 73 with no bloodshed. Of the 183 serious insult duels, 21 ended with a serious outcome, 31 with a slight wound and 131 with no bloodshed. Thus, a small number of fights ended in the death of one of the opponents or serious injury—10-11% of the total.

Of all 322 duels, 315 took place with pistols and only 7 with swords or sabers. Of these, in 241 fights (i.e. in 3/4 of the cases) one bullet was fired, in 49 - two, in 12 - three, in one - four and in one - six bullets; the distance ranged from 12 to 50 steps. The intervals between the insult and the duel ranged from one day to... three years (!), but most often - from two days to two and a half months (depending on the duration of the consideration of the case by the court of honor)..."

In the 20th century, human life began to be valued more and cynicism was already sweeping across Russia. A nobleman could evade a duel and remain a nobleman. Honor began to be replaced by practicality and financial success... the case with Burenin is typical.

Viktor Petrovich Burenin, a journalist and literary critic, collaborated for many years with the popular newspaper “Novoe Vremya” and was notorious. People who knew Burenin in private life considered him a kind and delicate person, but there was no journalist in St. Petersburg who was not so loved in literary circles. Burenin wrote evilly and biliously, did not hesitate to offend anyone, authorities and moral restrictions did not exist for him. Alexander Blok called Viktor Petrovich “the luminary of newspaper abuse.”

Not all writers bore Burenin’s scolding stoically; Vsevolod Krestovsky was so offended by the criticism of his novel that he challenged the poisonous journalist to a duel. Burenin avoided the duel, which inspired poets who wrote under the name of Kozma Prutkov:

"Don't fight a duel if life is precious,
Refuse, like Burenin, and scold the enemy"…

And in our time, once noble duels have become the object of jokes and giggles...

But duels still occur. When I served in Skovorodino (Amur Region), we had a case... because of a woman (not like Rzhevsky in the picture), two officers fought in a duel with hunting rifles. Everything is as expected - one duelist was wounded. Fortunately, he survived...

On average, 1-2 people a year died while hunting in our military town, so no one in the medical battalion was surprised by a crossbow while hunting... but this, fortunately, is the exception rather than the rule...

What does the coming century have in store for us...