Are there historical accounts of dueling with mismatched weapons? Not a random fight, but a proper, agreed upon duel. Beeing guilty of playing roleplaying games, this thought sometimes occur to me, since I often think of peoples combat skills beeing divided into proficiency with different weapons. The rule about both duelists having equal weapons seems to be there to make sure theyre fighting on equal terms, but wouldnt this in many cases heavily favour one of the fighters?
Like if a duel is to be fought with swords, wouldnt there be cases where one of the fighters would go: "Hey, waitaminute. I have never fought with a sword in all my life. I mean, I've practiced with one, sure, but during my days in the war, I killed millions of saracens with my axe. I'm bringing an axe, and thats final. You fight with your sword if you must. Girlieman."
Or is that the whole point of the rule about the challenged beeing given the advantage of choosing weapons potentially unfamiliar to the challenger, so that a would be challenger has to think twice before throwing down the gauntlet?