pistols, definitely!
Posted by Barbara on August 01, 1998 at 02:19:38:
In response to pistols or swords, written by Susan H on July 31, 1998 at 13:39:40
]
] ] But somehow, I always thought they fought with swords, a form of duelling still quite popular. That would explain why neither of them was dead, since most duels ended when one of the opponents was wounded.
] Well, maybe, but Brandon does specifically say that "We returned unwounded" which keeps me leaning towards pistols. I do like the theory of one or both of them missing on purpose. They would have had to at least draw blood to get out of a swordfight. I suppose they could have stopped at that point, with only minor injuries.
]
I think you are right, and that the fact that they were both "unwounded" must definitely mean the duel was fought with pistols, as that would not be a possible outcome with swords. Also, with swords, it is quite likely that Willoughby, being younger, could easily have beaten Brandon, or at least wounded him.
Willoughby may be a sportsman, but Brandon has 10 years more experience at this AND he is a solider, so I would bet that he is a better shot, and if anyone were to miss on purpose, it would be him. Another consideration is that Brandon lives in the country, whereas Willoughby had been more often in London, etc. than Brandon, so didn't have as much exposure to that sporting life--unless Brandon is only recently away from his regiment, in which case Brandon STILL has more to do with firearms. Also, who would be more likely to be nervous in this situation? Brandon has nothing to lose. He hasn't been living it up in London.
I did do a bit of reading on the duelling that took place, and I think that at this time, pistol duels were far more common that sword duels.
- Swordsmanship Mary Anne 10:11:29 8/01/98
(0)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.
