From: uzgiris@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Jim Uzgiris)
Subject: duelling weapons
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 19:55:34 GMT

	There has been some talk about the purposes of dueling and the  
weapons used in various periods, and I just thought I'd relate something I  
heard about recently. I think alot of this is backed up by Wise's History  
of Personal Combat.
	Both swords and handguns were used in formal duels well after  
swords become outdated for battlefield combat. Apparently the handguns  
were not used because of any greater efficiency in killing, in fact, just  
the opposite. Duelling pistols retained flat bores (no grooves) long after  
military weapons were converted to the much more accurate type of barrel.  
It seems to me that these weapons were used at a distance that made it  
pretty unlikely that even a decent marksman could be sure of killing his  
opponent.
	I can't prove it, but I think the purpose of alot of these duels  
was to show that you were willing to "put up or shut up" by putting your  
life on the line. But, at the same time the risk of actually dying was  
kept pretty low. Especially in the more recent duels like Aldo Nadi's  
against a newspaper reporter at the beginning of this century (Geesh. Must  
of been one hell of a bad review). The weapons were resterilized anytime  
they touched the ground, silk hankerchiefs where tied where they would  
maybe delay your bleeding to death if you were wounded at the neck or  
wrist, etc..
	Then again, the duels during Queen Elizabeth's reign were  
notoriously deadly. I don't remember where I got this from, but some  
historian wrote that Paris lost something like a third of it's nobility to  
duels during the decade between 1595 and 1605 (Maybe in Sword and Masque  
by Alpar--I think). It seems to me that the change from edged to purely  
pointed weapons coincided with a decrease in the leathality of duelists.  
Don't get too excited yet you epee fans out there. I'm not arguing that  
the thrust is less deadly than the cut, in fact, I tend toward the  
opposite opinion--under the right circumstances.
	The point is: the most significant difference I've found so far  
between 17th century combat and that of later ages is the lack of  
uniformity of weapons in earlier fights. Every gentleman (and rogue) in  
Shakespeare's day wore a sword, and chances were that no two were exactly  
alike. If your going to be facing a variably armed opponent: different  
length of blade, one-, two-, maybe three- edges, maybe a metal gauntlet in  
other hand, etc.; you want to have as many options as possible to deal  
with the threat. That means a cut would be a damn nice thing to be able to  
sneak in if you can't get the point into a vital area.

Well, enough from me. Does this make sense or am I totally wrong?

Side note: One the best things about this news group is that you get a  
whole range of experienced swordspeople to interact--something new and  
cool is bound to happen. Interdisciplinary discussion is great so don't  
get too poopy all you serious sports fencing types.

Jim Uzgiris
Uzgiris@Whitewater.chem.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing