Throughout most of European history it operated as a pressure relief valve. It was conflict resolution among nobility, more than that it kept the noble class united. Most duels weren't to the death, they were declared over when one person forfeited or had their blood drawn. Both parties in a successful duel were considered honorable, both the winner and the loser, so both had reputation to gain even if they lost.

Even though they weren't fighting to the death, people did frequently die in them. That's part of how they worked as a uniting force among nobles. Even the threat of a duel was frightening, because even a simple scratch on the cheek could lead to infection, fever, and death. Even winning a duel was often deadly, because even if you kill your opponent, your wounds could also prove lethal. So, more often than not, nobles would choose to play nice with one another and resolve mutual conflicts in diplomatic ways, or just use their own soldiers, because the alternative was a swordfight that could kill both of them.

August Willich was a Prussian army officer and grew up among people with noble titles. Dueling was the culture he was acclimated to. I don't know much about Schramm, but in my head I've imagined the story as he saw the duel as defending Marx against some haughty guy with a noble title trying to inject something as ridiculous as dueling between comrades. Schramm might have seen victory against Willich as proof of how proletariat revolutionaries could defeat aristocrats. Schramm was also only 27 years old at the time and full of piss and vinegar, so he also might not have been thinking straight to begin with.

I hope that explains it.

deleted by creator