>>27673622I looked into dueling heavily thinking "man there were so many better ways to kill eachother back then"
What I found was that dueling was considered as much a sport or art form as it was a form of combat.
Its for the same reason rapiers dwindled down to tiny slender things that could only barely be considered lethal until it became the vestigial rod with a button on the end and turned into fencing. Form, prowess, poise and just having the balls to show up and bear chest to your opponent were valued over lethality.
Plus dueling was never actually legal, killing a person in a duel wasnt considered murder, but carried seperate charges much like the difference between manslaughter and homicide today, so most times both parties fired, missed, (intentionally or otherwise) then parted ways.
It was considered barbaric and blood thirsty to hold it with two hands or try to enhance lethality, dueling was about redressing a wrong and in reality a dueling challenge was just a way to say "im really pissed and serious about this"
The majority of dueling challenges wouldnt even progress to fighting, theyd meet, the guns would be ready, theyd realize how serious shit was about to get, and settle differences without touching weapons or via intentional discharge into the air to signify that they conceded and were willing to parlay.
Its actually really a complex question you ask since there were 400 page books filled with rules and crulesof conduct, it can be really dry reading but its also a fascinating look into the culture of the time.
