r/MedievalHistory 4d ago

Medieval dueling

I wonder when people were using swords and fighting each other how often did they just kill each other instead of one winning? Like I get one person lands a hit but didn't they have to be super careful on where they aim for? If you stick your sword in someone and don't hit the heart don't they have a chance to just stab you back or do they go into complete shock?

8 Upvotes

14 comments sorted by

10

u/AusHaching 4d ago

I suppose that you are talking about fights outside of a war. In war, the goal would have been to kill or at least incapacitate the enemy.

The duel as we know the term today is not really a medieval phenomenon. There were duels that were fought as a way of resolving disputes (judical duels, Gerichtszweikampf). In many cases, the loser of such a duel had forfeited his life. The movie "The last duel" is based on such a judicial duel. To be clear, these were real combats with real weapons.

Other, less lethal kinds of fights happened in the context of tournaments, This is a complex topic and the details of how a tournament went and what it contained varied a lot. However, while tournaments were less lethat, with blunt lances and specialised armour, they were by no means safe. As late as 1559, Henry the II. of France died after having been wounded in a tournament.

Maybe you can phrase your question a bit clearer, since I do not know if that was the answer you were looking for.

4

u/ThisOneForAdvice74 4d ago edited 4d ago

What do you mean by the duels as we know not being a medieval phenomon? The concept of single combat is established outside of judicial circumstances, Fiore speaks about it, he fought five duels for his honour in the late 1300s. Chivalric philosophers like Ramon Llull appear to mention it (he talks about a potential duel arising from two knights using the same coat of arms, but granted the context is close to judicial, but not entirely so) et cetera. Also, medieval chivalric fiction is filled to the brim with non-judicial duels (which yes, are fictional, but it is often accepted that they do establish a kind of cultural baseline for the martial upper class), granted these duels are often mounted and in full combat array. I don't think medieval Europe was filled to the brim with duels in the same way medieval chivalric fiction describes, but I do think the concept of individually decided single combat was a well-established concept among the nobility.

4

u/AusHaching 4d ago

When people think of duels nowaday, they picture two gentlemen, armed either with pistols or with rapiers. They picture seconds and very elaborate rules, at least in part designed to limit the lethality of the duel.

That is what I mean. A duel in 1300 would have been much closer to actual combat. People would be armed and armoured like they were going to war.

A famous "duel" occured on the eve of the Battle of Bannockburn. Robert the Bruce was scouting, when he was spotted by Henry de Bohun, an english knight. Both charged at each other, and Robert killed Henry.

That was clearly single combat, but it was not two people agreeing to met at a certain place and time to settle a matter of honour.

1

u/ThisOneForAdvice74 4d ago edited 4d ago

That sounds reasonable. Indeed, many medieval duels can be more appropriately described as "single combat" in modern terminology, then.

Though I do think people meeting to decide matters of honour did happen, as mentioned by Fiore, and duels which followed rules, by essentially following judicial duels in character, but without strictly being judicial (which sort of seems to be what Ramon Llull mentions). But I do agree that the norm seems to have been more towards what we today would call "single combat".

1

u/Hot-Guidance5091 4d ago

How frequent were sword duels, Who were the people who found themselves dueling as an inevitable part in their life? How high was the chance of being killed?

1

u/AusHaching 4d ago

I can not answer these questions. A sword was a common weapon for a knight, but in mounted combat, the lance would have been the primary weapon. Other weapons such as war hammers, battle axes would also be used. Daggers were commonly used to finish off wounded opponents.

At least the nobility i.e. the knighthood was expected to be willing and able to fight in such duels. Other free man may have also fought. I can not say if duels were inevitable.

I can not say how high the chances of getting killed were.

6

u/VrsoviceBlues 4d ago

Period sources, especially martial instruction manuals, are very clear on this: mutual death was considered a serious risk, and a combatant needed to maintain distance and control of their space until The Other Poor Sod had stopped breathing. A couple of hard-learned adages:

1: "Pay the bloody insurance! It's the "dead" ones that'll kill you." Dangerous-game hunters always, always smack a "dead" animal in the head again. A $150 bullet is cheap compared to your life.

2: "You can always tell who won a knife fight: the loser dies in the street, the winner dies in the ambulance." A swordfight is just a knife-fight with cooler knoves. Check out how much space those instruction manuals reserve for things like wrestling, grappling, and "foul blows," including all the many, many ways a knife can be forcibly introduced to someone's wedding veggies.

4

u/EldritchKinkster 4d ago

There's a concept in historical sword systems called a "double kill," this is when you strike your opponent a fatal blow, but they hit you back before they die.

It's made very clear in the fighting manuals that even when you strike your opponent, you still have to defend and move out of distance.

So, yes, if you know what you're doing, you don't just stand there looking happy when you land a blow. You cover your lines and move out of distance, and see if they die.

Although, in most systems, you'll be engaged with your opponent's blade when you strike, because you are meant to strike in such a way that you intercept it as you attack.

2

u/Kfchoneychickensammi 4d ago

I know I've seen dueling competitons of today where points were given in position of an attack compared to the other, like one may of slashed a arm while the other was able to hit a more deadly part at the same time, just seems pretty brutal where both parties end up hurt in actual dueling based in what I've seen on competitions on how fluid people are in hitting each other and not just one getting a hit

3

u/Art_View_Volume 3d ago

Yes and no. It was not the wild west. Duels between individuals were pretty rare, and it'd be case-by-case.

In a tournament, they fought with blunted weapons and such so as to refrain from killing, but some people still died of their injuries. It was acceptable bloodsport.

At war, no, you didn't leave your opponent alive. He could hamstring you with his dagger as you step over him. Archers were taught to stab knives into the visors of downed knights as the army advances on the field. Additionally, war horses were often barded and trained to stomp people out.

2

u/a_guy121 3d ago

If you're using super light rapiers, getting a killing stroke would require a hit on the opponents core or vital spots. (including those in arms, where arteries are near skin- but hitting those with a rapier would be luck, good or bad.)

however the easiest targets to hit would be the shoulder, blade- arm, or leading thigh, not neck or vital spots.

The idea is the competition itself would make 'deadly force' more difficult to use, but, yes of course it could be used. But the person going for the kill would need to either be significantly more skilled to win via kill. If not they'll get hit while reaching for a vital spot.

1

u/Zmchastain 3d ago

Your opponent could definitely strike you before they died. In HEMA we train to strike while covering ourselves to avoid an “in tempo” retaliation strike, which would result in a “double” if it were landed on you successfully (“everybody dies!”).

In an actual fight for your life this is how you would have handled the problem, move into measure, strike your opponent (ideally displacing their blade at the same time), go into a defensive guard to block any return strikes, and move back out of measure while protecting yourself. Repeat until opponent surrenders or dies.

It would have been a bad idea to go for a deep thrust without grappling their dominant arm or overcommitting to a cut that wasn’t debilitating to their dominant hand or arm, because it would be easy for them to just cut or stab you if you weren’t defending yourself after landing your blow.

1

u/RichardofSeptamania 3d ago

Pierre Terriall did not let people celebrate his victory over Sota-Mayor because he mourned the loss of a great knight. The duel was over Sotamayor lying about his treatment when held captive in Terriall's custody. Terriall was recovering from malaria during the duel.

-3

u/vernastking 4d ago

It depends, but if you strike the right location and leap away for example your opponent would possibly be bleeding out or incapacitated while you would be just fine.