Historical Champion Warfare (and Why it Was Common)
🚀 Install Star Trek Fleet Command for FREE nowt2m.io/SandRhomanHistory and enter the promo code WARPSPEED to unlock 10 Epic Shards of Kirk, enhancing your command instantly! How to easily redeem the promo code 👉 t2m.io/promo_STFC
In this video, we want to explore whether single combat has ever existed, how it might have worked and what we can learn about ancient Greek and Roman societies from this type of warfare.
Patreon (thank you): / sandrhomanhistory
Paypal (thank you: www.paypal.com/paypalme/SandR...
Twitter: / sandrhoman
Some must read mlitary history books:
Ambrose, S. E., Band of Brothers: E Company, 2001. amzn.to/438ltvZ
Baime, A. J., The Accidental President: Harry S. Truman, 2017. amzn.to/3TcDGUj
Beard, M., Emperor of Rome: Ruling the Ancient Roman World, 2023. amzn.to/49L2olR
Bevoor, A., Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943, 1999. amzn.to/4a4rqwe
Beevor, A., The Second World War, 2013. amzn.to/3wNFITu
Brennan, P+D., Gettysburg in Color, 2022. amzn.to/48LGldG
Clausewitz, C., On War, 2010. amzn.to/3Vblf5
Kaushik, R., A Global History of Pre-Modern Warfare: 10,000 BCE-1500 CE, 2021. amzn.to/49Mtqt7
McPherson, J., Battle Cry of Freedom, The Civil War Era, 2021. amzn.to/3TseYAW
Tsu, S., The Art of War, 2007, amzn.to/3TuknHA
Sledge. E. B., With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa, 2008. amzn.to/439olIK
Pomerantsev, P., How to Win an Information War, 2024. amzn.to/3Ts0YqQ
Intro: 00:00-05:25
Chapter 1: I sing of arms and of a man 05:25-08:07
Chapter 2: 08:07-11:35 What is Single Combat?
Chapter 3: The Importance of Being Angry 11:35-18:08
Bibliography:
Brouwers, J., “Greek warfare and Homer”, in Ancient World Magazine.
Lendon, J.E., Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity (2005).
Oakley, P., Single Combat in the Roman Republic, The Classical Quarterly, 1985, Vol. 35, No. 2 (1985), pp. 392-410.
Palaima, T. G., Warfare in Homer, in: Corinne Ondine et al. (editors), The Cambridge Guide to Homer, 2020.
Raaflaub, K., s. v. “Homeric Society”, in DNP online.
Van Wees, H., Homeric Warfare, in: Ian Morris and Barry Powell (editors), A New Companion to Homer, 2011.
Van Wees, H., The Homeric Way of War: The Iliad and the Hoplite Phalanx (I) (Greece & Rome, Vol. xli, No. 1, April), 1994, pp. 1 - 18.
Van Wees, H., The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, Volume 1: Greece, The Hellenistic World and the Rise of Rome, edited by Philip Sabin, King's College London, London.
Van Wees, H., Status Warriors: War, Violence and Society in Homer and History, 1992.
Wardle, D., s.v. “Virtus”, in: Der Neue Pauly, online
🚀 Install Star Trek Fleet Command for FREE nowt2m.io/SandRhomanHistory and enter the promo code WARPSPEED to unlock 10 Epic Shards of Kirk, enhancing your command instantly! How to easily redeem the promo code 👉 t2m.io/promo_STFC
Oh goody. A new mobile ripoff game trying to pull you in by licensing a famous brand and spamming YT sponsorships.
@@nervsouly at least it's something different than raidshadowlegends lol
@@nervsouly If you fall for this, just stop using KZhead.
Sandrhoman would you consider a long-term sponsorship/partnership with the Ancient Warfare magazine?
Say, am I going crazy or didn't you use to have a bunch of older videos talking about Herodotus? I was trying to look them up apropos of nothing very much because I was chuckling remembering the animation on introducing the title 'father of history'. Have you been taking down old stuff? The life in ancient Rome playlist has 7 of 9 (heh star trek) videos unavailable! I get it if it's a channel image going forward thing, but have you considered archiving your old work on a second channel or something? SandRhoman Juvenalia or something B)
Champion duels should come back. Saves a lot of lives and money
Sniper duels are probably the best example for today.
Duels, in general, need to come back. it seems people weren't as rude when you could challenge them legally. Something modern people really need
Champion duels are a huge trope in Chinese literature too, from Liu Bei, Guan Yu and Zhang Fei all fighting Lu Bu in Three Kingdoms, to Lin Chong defeating everyone in the Water Margin, lol.
Kingdom manga goes hard
That's just artistic re-imagining. Duels did happen, but rarely between high ranking officers of the army. Rather, ”斗将“ or "combat-officers" were professional champions within the army. Where both armies would agree a time and location of battle, and the champions will engage in duel before the main armies clashed, mostly to boost morale of the men. Many were mercenaries, bandits and even foreigners, especially from Xiongnu nomads.
The battle of hu lao pass. One my favourite moments in the romance of the three kingdoms.
@@josenathanieltendencia245 Hu Lao pass was very fictional, Hu Lao pass didn't exist during the Han dynasty, it was constructed 400 years later in the Tang dynasty.
OMG I LOVE ROTK
We waged champion warfare exactly like this at school between age groups and classes. The disputes were mostly about swing rights and such. It never escalated beyond that but I still remember the feeling of thinking I might need to fight kids a year older than me because of playground politics. Gets your heart pumping. Champion warfare does prevent unnecesssary bloodshed, I know that much from experience.
Based and mannerbund-pilled
At the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, single combat between a champion of the Russian side against Mongols. This was just a prelude to instill bloodlust into there soldiers as the battle started after the duel.
Wasn't the Russian champion a monk? Didn't he and the mongol champion take eachother out?
@@fiddlesticks7245 The Russian won, but later also died from his wounds.
@@Ghostrex101 Slava Rossiya
I'm sure champion combat happened sometimes, especially in low-intensity local conflicts, but I don't believe it ever replaced battle in true wars of conquest or existential threat for the obvious reason that it only makes sense if *both* armies think they have a low chance of winning the battle.
In early Islamic history, there were several single combat mentioned(or one time 3 vs 3), and what we understand is single combat had 2 or 3 benefits. 1st it demoralize enemies if you win. 2nd you can gain glory and praise if you win. 3rd you can single out your arch enemy wich if he refuses it would damage his reputation end demoralize enemy
What do you mean, "fantasy film 300"? It is a documentary with insight into the physiques of the average Spartan and a good lesson to never trust ugly people.
I was "based on a true story".
Rashidun conquest feature a lot of such battle. And it was ussually done in either sporadic manner or in settled term. The effect is ussually akin to how snipers target officer in modern warfare. They eliminate cohesion and coordination of enemy troopers. There were even specialized body of units for this sole purpose called "Mubarizun". Even when Napoleon arrived in Egypt, his army was challenged by Mamluk in single duel. Same with Mongols during 13th century invasion, challenged by Samurai. But all of those massed army oriented troops refused to accept and do what those later culture considered as "dishonorable".
I'm actually surprised he didn't mention this. There's a ton of examples of single combat during the Islamic expansion and beyond, though they didn't really stop any further bloodshed as a lot of the time the battle still happened and the single combat phase preceding it was more like a morale hit or boost depending on who won and sometimes a loss of an important enemy commander when one of the higher ranks joined and lost.
I appreciate that you say “if we believe the source”, and “this is a hypothesis”. History is always a work in progress, and an ongoing discussion. Thank you for a well made video!
Just a thought of mine, but many people often say "It doesn't make any sense, the side that lost a single combat could still attack". Well.. yes, they could. But we have to remember one more thing. Most battles were fought not to "exterminate" the opponent, but to gain...something. Land? Money? Rights to do something. In those cases people are less likely to risk total annihilation. Besides, if Single Combat was so important for people of that time, it would be universally respected for the practical reason: If you don't respect it, you can't expect your enemy to respect it either. If you lose a champion duel and still decide to attack, you can be sure that next time you win such duel, the enemy will attack as well. Its more or less like that rule about sieges, that if the gates are opened before they are breached, the attacker won't slaughter everyone inside. Could they? Sure they could, but if they do they can't expect any mercy when the tables turn.
Turcs and Hungarians did this a lot in time of peace, but not to decide anything, just to keep up the fighting spirit. It had a sort of code, by exchanging letters full of ridiculous insults usually in Hungarian - many have come down to us - and then agreeing on a place of meeting, usually on the border between enemy castles in sight of a group of warriors of both sides.
Another interesting aspect about 1 on 1 combat from the Iliad to the Roman spolia opima is that the victor of the duel then strips the defeated of their armour and weapons and this was a great honour. Probably because you then displayed this stuff as a trophy back home. Multiple people die in the Iliad fighting over a dead guy's body
In Medieval and even Early Modern Poland the practice of single combat before the battle (usually mounted) was known as 'harce'. Polish medievalist historian Jan Szymczak wrote quite a bit about the practice but I don't think any of his work was translated to English. I also remember Norman Davies in his first book _White Eagle, Red Star: The Polish-Soviet War, 1919-1920_ quoting a relation describing an instance of single combat before a clash of Polish and Soviet cavalry units. BTW, the meaning of the word 'harce' over the time changed to something like "playing around" or "frolicking". Plus, the creators of Polish scouting movement in early 20th century derived from it the unique Polish terms for scouting (harcerstwo), boy scouts (harcerze) and girl guides (harcerki).
The thing is - single combat was not always about saving lives. Often times - the two armies would form up but neither side wanted to be the ones that attacked. They may have liked their positions and wanted the enemy to attack them. Here - there was Trash Talking that went on - which included Challenges being issued. So - one Champion would come out - trash talk the other side and defy the enemy as having anyone who could stand against him. The enemy might not want to send someone out if the enemy Champion had a good reputation - or - their officers may not have allowed it. However - sometimes - the enemy would have a Champion come forth to answer the Challenge - and the two Champions would fight. The Single Combat of the two Champions may have had no bearing on the battle - except one side might feel that had scored a moral victory over their opponents. The side whose Champion had been defeated though - might wish to avenge his defeat with the main army when the battle happened. Regardless of the result of the Single Combat - they were still going to have a battle. Issues could be to important to let them be decided by just two guys. So - if one of the Champions won - they might issue a challenge like _"Anybody else?"_ If there was someone else - they might fight. This could go on for sometime - or it might not. Champions might be defeated but may not have been killed. They may have just retreated back into their lines - as mentioned in the video. In any case - these single combats did NOT decide the Battle. After any single combats had taken place - THEN - the battle may or may not start. Often times - Ancient Armies would come out and line up - but then not fight and they'd do it again the next day. This could go on for a long time. To some degree - the Single Combat of the Champions - was just something for the two armies to do - a form of entertainment - until they decided to go at it for real. Single Combat could be seen as an extension of Trash Talking. They might insult each other and then one or the other issue a Challenge as a response to being insulted. In Pre-Zulu Bantu combat - Trash Talking and Single Combat might be all that ever happened. Two villages would line up on either side of a stream that was the boundary - jump up and down, insult each other - and then maybe some one would cross the stream and try to harm someone from the other side. They might fight back and someone might get hurt - or even killed - then when they done it enough both sides would declare victory and go home. Then the Zulus showed up ... and things were different. .
It did in Ireland
You sound like you got a shovel up your skrop sideways 🎉
This makes sense, it being a thing on the side they did for fame, not deciding the actual battle
@@alintanase3296 It isn't that simple. Ancient battlefields were messy, poor visibility etc. So morale played a huge part in battles, An army could be winning the battle but in trouble in a specific part of the battefield. And if the men in that spot break and run the panic might spread and the battle be lost. There was a huge amount of taunting and shittalking and the code of honor in ancient word demanded that you don't let an insult go unchallenged. If you don't answer to an insult, it might cost morale and lose the battle that way. Champion is a way to answer the insult wihout having your army leave a favorable position to answer it. Also favor of gods was seen as important. A champion winning is a good sign, while a champion losing is a bad sign. And your army believing that they have the favor of gods had military significance. It isn't necessarily that you want to fight a single combat but the culture views refusing a challenge as cowardly. And the army won't fight for a coward. Thus the general needs to send a champion.
I also heard that during the crusades the knights and their Muslim counterpart would issue challenges to each other and they would fight in single combat,
Duels were recorded as recently as the First Serbian uprising (corresponding to the Napoleonic wars) And it is documented that a Serb fighter would've have lost a duel against an*armored* opponent had one of his pals not jumped in and "bashed the Turk's helmet with a nadžak (Warhammer/pickaxe, it can mean a lot of things)"
@@ZS-rw4qq "big stick"
Yes, but would the outcome of a duel be binding on the rest of the army?
This happened to me after school one day. I was victorious.
An "After School Specials"?
In south India, in the state of Kerala, the 1V1 sword fight to settle dispute has been a thing. Its called angam, used to happen on a raised stage. The martial art they followed is called kalari payatt.
how was this not just a regular duel?
@@krzysztofkolodziejczyk4335because they settle disputes what are otherwise solved by armies?
I dont know if its relevant or not, but my friends and I used to perform a sort of semi-ritualised series of single combats against each other whenever we had a gathering - usually at one of the major equinox's, but at other times too. The men, and occasionally the women, would strip to our waists (women kept their tops on) and fight one another, almost always unarmed. Afterwards, victors were declared and we would all relax for some friendly drinking, usually around a fire. I miss those days. It was fun.
there is a good reason to engage the enemies champion in single combat, even if averting battle was unlikely. you see enemy morale is an important factor to consider and so is the culture of your enemies. so the romans would have absolutely used this to their advantage. think of it like this: to a force as highly trained and disciplined as the roman legions, losing one of them would not effect them significantly. an enemy force of a culture that values individual skill in combat and engages in hero worship, loosing their champion prior to a battle could have caused a devastating loss in morale. so sending in and maybe loosing one legionary might have been well worth the risk, when the reward was considered.
A bit surprised you didn't cover the Horatii and Titus Manlius Torquatus. Seems kind of obvious imo.
0:15 A "young" Brad Pitt is like 38-39 when Troy was filmed. Well, younger than he is now, but still not very young, definitely older than Achilles was supposed to be in The Iliad.
You should read up on the Rashidun wars of conquest. Almost every battle commenced with duels between champions of both sides and sometimes even generals.
Seriously, the Rashidun warriors killed so many enemy officers in duels I was beginning to think why those officers even bother dueling it's like suicide....And their army suffer structural loss due to so many dead officers
I was gonna mention this, glad someone else thought of it too.
@@nomooonthe romans/persians were hearing “stories” as they would call of the mighty rashidun army. But when confronted they saw the rashiduns as being unarmoured, rusting swords, shorter in stature. So they would think something like “is that the opponent the previous army lost to? What a joke” they would later find out themselves but yeah
The Byzantines (Greeks) were known to often engage in champion combat against the Persians up to at least the 500s AD
They did it against the muslims too didn't they?
The longer lifespan of Champions in Rome might well be due to the local competition as Celts, Etruscans and Samnites as well as other Italic people practiced it too. We have little trace of such traditions with the Achaemenids, Mard ō mard only resurges with the Sasanians.
When Shaka Zulu became King, he was annoyed by the soldiers moving around and throwing spears, so he cut the spears in half and told them to stab with them. And then conquered huge amounts of Africa with his revolutionary combat tactics.
The topic of Romans discouraging individual glory-hunting reminds me of the episode where the general Titus Manlius Torquatus had his son executed for leaving his post in battle, despite the fact that the son won a skirmish and brought back spoils. It was felt that obedience to orders ought to take priority. (This was during the Republic so well before Augustus.)
This is an interesting topic, although it is not the only period in history in which champion fights were held; For example, after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, in the wars between the 6th and 7th centuries AD, combats between champions before and during battles once again became relevant. Several cases can be found during Justinian's Wars against the Sassanids, the Ostrogoths and the Vandals; Cases can also be found a century later in the first Islamic expansion, in which several heroes stood out who fought for Muhammad and his successors. It would be great if you made a video talking about these combats, which are proof that the duelist mentality in wars survived even until the beginning of the Middle Ages.
0:00 the best way to start any legend
A small mistake: David wasn't a champion. Goliath was a champion, and a lowly shepherd became a champion. Historically, slingers always had the advantage, especially against melee units, even heavily armored units.
In the late Roman Empire we have also a lot of mentions of single combat. At dara a roman beat a Persian, and the Arabs frequently dulled champions on the battlefield
Do we ever think that maybe the stories of champion battles are mostly impulsive nobles and lordlings finding a way to be a hero and get their name attached to the victory? A whole lot of rich boys as lighy cavalry, refusing to stick to scouting/screening
@@BiggestCorvid No, probably cause that explanation is stupid. Arabic Mubarizun (champions) were the most heavily armored and skilled warriors of their armies. Mongol champions likewise were only drawn from the most experienced, skilled, and best equipped men. The famous 100 Years War 30-man melee was fought between the French and English's respective elites, heavily armored and experienced men who wished to avoid the slaughter brought on by sieges.
Single combat is the distillation of a rarely discussed phenomenon in warfare, that there are actually a very small percentage of men who do the actual 'killing', even in front line combat units. The rest of the army are there in support. This becomes even more true in close quarters combat, and less so at range/stand off. It's not an easy thing to plunge a sword into a man for reasons you're not quite sure of. This notion is much diminished when DEFENDING something, and men will be much more aggressive. The results in the makeup of combat units, ancient or modern rifle platoon, of a few 'killers' and the rest defending and supporting those guys.
I'm reminded of the Spartan Aristodemus, who came down with ophthalmia and was sent back from the Hot Gates and missed his chance for glory. Branded a "Trembler", and shunned at home, he fought at the decisive battle of Platea the next year and attempted to redeem himself. He died heroically charging single-handed into the Persian ranks, but was denied the prize for valour, as had broken ranks and fought for himself, not as a part of the whole line. That "collective" spirit was what the Classical Greeks praised, as part of the community-in-arms that was the citizen phalanx, rather than the Homeric champions individual prowess. Hence, no more single combats in the phalanx age. Unless you were Alexander of Macedon that is...... Another good video!
In early Islamic expansion, some of the Famous Islamic general like Khalid Ibn Walid do have impressive 1v1 combat. Especially his campaign in Iraq against the Sassanid Persian and he won the fight against the opponents general
Yeah, it's weird the video focused exclusively on older Greek and Roman sources when there are far more recent examples like the Mubarizun of the Islamic armies featured at battles like Yarmuk. Dueling more generally was popular enough among the nobility of Europe it even became seen as a way to settle grievances. It was even present in the early United States when United States Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel against the sitting Vice President Aaron Burr. It's fairly obvious to me at least that the entire army watching duels would help it get hyped up to fight if their champions did well, and would provide a ton of glory like modern day boxing and UFC fights.
iN iSlMiC eXpAnSiOn - this has been said by 500 other islamic bots.
@@DarkSideCookies Not weird. Just your average whiteguy after reading 4 wikipedia lines. Also why did these muslims ignore more champion warfare situations from south asia and south east asia? Is it because they weren't related to islam ?
Single combat was a prominent feature of Roman-persian wars until the 5th century. Procopius mentions 2 consequtive duels between a certain Andreas (a wrestling instructor) and 2 persian nobleman during the battle of Dara. Later on, during the arab-byzantine wars, many arab warriors such as Dharar ibn al azwar and Hamaul defeating dozens of byzantine generals in single combat during the battle of yarmouk and nikiou respectively. I think an important aspect of single Combat i dont think you mentioned in the video was the importance of duels for shaping the morale of the troops. The winning champion is obviously going to motivate his army, while demoralizing the enemy whose champion was just defeated in front of their eyes. and that was a huge part of why every battle started duels as some kind of "shaping operation" that could effect the psychology of the opposing armies.
Single combat is a genius idea if you know the enemy army is superior
@@nothanks9503 only genius if you actually have People who purposely have trainee for personal combat. And Its risky especially if enemy Challenges your officers or generals
@@nazeem8680 I can’t imagine not having soldiers who trained in personal combat I’m trained in personal combat and we got guns now days lol but yeah I have a similar plan to challenge some CEOs to personal combat
@@nazeem8680 Do you get to the cloud district very often, who am I kidding of course you don’t.
@@nothanks9503 Its not just “trained” - you need to have People who are exceptionel solo duelists. Like lifetime experience in duels and you need to have People who have the guts to do it. Imagine duelling while 10000 men of your own army watching and they cant help you
One thing about mass warfare: even if an army won, the losses could have an economic burden on the state. If not professional soldiers, they were farmers and craftsmen. A state could not afford to lose valuable labor pool, not to mention another invader might be just around the mountain. State survival is a long game. In that regard, single combat makes a lot of sense. It preserves both economic and military power of the state, granting ambitious individuals the opportunity to earn prestige (and possibly remove political rivals that might usurp power through becoming popular).
Young Brad Pitt? The lad was 40 at the time! What a beast.
I feel like champion warfare that is used in place of mass battle is more common among tribal kinship societies that don't have professional militaries where we still see it to this day, and island nations who are "on the same boat" and have difficulty recovering from population losses on a macro scale. It's why I'm less skeptical of the claims surrounding the British isles and Japan. I feel like where you see nameless or unknown single combat recorded, that was probably real, and where you see named well known heroes/generals conducting single combat, that's where I'm skeptical, which is all over rome/greece/china/arabic expansion.
The 'Greece' of the Illiad was not really the way we often imagine it to be, or even as Homer likely learned of it. He would only know of it by mouth. For example, he himself confuses the manner of battle where there are men fighting in the phalanx as he would have known it in his day, in some sections of the story, and in others it is down to the work of various champions who go out to kill one another and then claim their panoply as prize. This implies that over time, the story has been 'updated' by mouth to fit something the listener would understand. The Mycenaeans were very similar to the later Gauls and Celts in that they were predominantly a warrior society, much more focused on honour and personal arete than what we would see in the later, more political expansion of city states and empires. The kings of the Illiad were sworn men held by oath. The only reason they go to war with Troy in the first place, is for an oath, pure honour, not just to get Helen. They lived not as an enormous mycenaean empire but as kingdoms loosely bound by oaths and governed by a ruling, warrior elite. When they died, they were even sometimes buried in an enormous 'grave' longhouse, similar to some european cultures. Mycenae was much more war-like than Greece's later polis based society. So, even if in the Illiad we have men like Achilles, Hektor, Diomedes going out and killing dozens of champions, they are simply the archetype that has been passed down as an example of the pure warrior that many Greeks looked up to. Men who still claimed descent from people like Herakles and Perseus into the time of Sokrates and beyond. Even if the style of fighting champion to champion faded in place of larger scale warfare led by more common men; in the time of Mycenae and Troy, it was certainly down to the warrior elite to do the brunt of the work, and it came with a degree of hero-worship and ceremony to boot. Much like the Gauls and tribes of Britain. That being said, the Illiad likely took place before the Bronze Age Collapse, in which Mycenae no doubt would have to engage in much larger-scale fighting. The story simply seems to call to a more 'heroic' age, as an example.
You're spoiling us with good topics! Skipping all three of my cigarette breaks for this!
Good, give up smoking. I am saying this as I smoke.😂
It was good and informative but being within range of European Antiquity; you could've mentioned single combat at somewhat end of that era with the end of Persia during Arabic conquest when single combat was made before if I remember correctly not one but 2 battles and there was a number of contestants- I believe in one case some Arabic champion defeating 2 ir 3 guys one after another. Anyway that is a very interesting example and it seems like the last of it's kind. Persia connects to the ancient world through it's ties and warfare with Hellenic and Roman worlds and ends with them in a way. To see single combat so late in history before some big battles is a thing worth mentioning. Also that it wasn't meant as a thing replacing the original battle but rather as a ritual before the battle happens when a warrior from one side would shout a challenge to any warrior on the other that would accept it. This is the way it often happenned in Anriquity in battles between Romans and Celtic or Germanic Barbarians. In Persian vs Arabic context it was even more interesting because in one of the cases duel was between commanders. Anyway.. interesting concept and occurence in history happening for different reasons.
Thank you for mentioning Tlingit dueling. The Northwest Coast has a number of instances in which a duel was used in place of open combat, such as that between river nations over trade rights.
Single combat allowed for the introduction of the "Hero" figure, portrayed in many mythological stories. Most of this stories are scientificly located in the Bronze Age, still a primitive era. However, the advancements in warfare matters brought a standarization of combat, for the sake of effectiveness. It's actually a gap for historians, when did the armies leave the "hero" strategy, and when did they started to use formation combat. Which also represents a gap between ancient "great kingdoms" and the first empires. As civilizations discovered better combat strategies, they began to bring the standars up so they could conquer lands more easily. The only exceptions to this combat change are Babylonians and Egyptians, who seemingly might have formed empires not with advanced strategies but with advanced technology rather (first bronze weaponry)
I forget his name, but there was a Roman commander who dueled a German Chief during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. The Germans then had to leave Roman territory.
I just recently came across something about Gallienus issuing a challenge to Postumus, though it was refused. Assuming it is true, this would have almost certainly been at least in part inspired by personal revenge, as the son of Gallienus was murdered by the supporters of Postumus.
i think that single combat is a way boost/ decrease morale in the battle field
It’s also a way to save men on both sides.
@@BasedR0nincould be, I’m not convinced every military leader would just accept the result especially if they’re about to achieve their objective
The David and Goliath story as related here unfortunately leaves out a lot and has at least one error. The two armies faced each other for many days. During that period, Goliath would shout out challenges. David came to the battlefield to bring food to his older brothers. When David reacted to Goliath, King Saul had David put on his (the king's) armor; this David did, but then he declined to wear it. David picked up five stones, but only used one on Goliath. After David won the single combat, King Saul was happy enough with him to give him a daughter and make him a son-in-law, but he clearly intended his own son Jonathan to be the next king after himself. Hope this helps.
I think sigle combat is more likely to occur when waging war against neighbours of the same culture, and when the population isn't as expendable..
I can see it in the case of small grievances amongst atleast diplomatically understanding cultures. For instance, 2 neighboring groups and land disputes that aren't worth getting an army marched, fitted, fed and probably dead. If it means enough, honor would go to shit anyhow so it's still based on a mutual respect. If an army is hiked around, they aren't walking back for nothing
0:14 Young? He was around 40 when that scene was filmed.
well, I’d say: he‘s in the prime of his life.
Achilles was young, as it was foretolled that he would die young and gain a never lasting fame.
@@petrapetrakoliou8979Iliad was written hundreds of years after the fact so not very reliable.
You do have many history accounts, not of the battle being decided by the champion duels but, of giving those eager for glory a chance to show their prowess. The outcome of the duels giving a morale boost of the victors and giving pause to the defeated.
Troy was an excellent movie imho. Kind off underappreciated.
Nothing like the books unfortunately
@@snakeoo7ca and the books are nothing like history unfortunately.
You mean actual Illiad?
@@cmdrTremyss Obviously. Illiad is like the bible, but less brainwashing and retardation.
@@cmdrTremyss It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out, considering there were dieties personified in the books. What a silly comment
I believe single combat only really decided the outcome of battles when the battles were between two relatively even powers with respect for each other and the battles were over minor disputes, like say a few acres of farmland, or a small town/village near the border between said powers. It makes a LOT of sense in a minor dispute like that to settle the battle without massively damaging your entire army so that you can still defend yourself from real enemies if needed. however for any serious battles it was still armies that truly decided the outcome with single combat like that mostly serving the purpose of boosting/lowering the moral of each army. A bit of 'our champion is so much better than your champion, ergo our army will beat your army in the open field.' That kind of moral booster or other similair purposes.
I think it might have meant winning a duel boosted one side's morale and confidence that effected the outcome of a battle.
My exact thoughts. And I know there was single combat because if you've ever done martial arts or even better American football, then you know how it feels to want to 1v1 their best guy to prove yourself. When I was a running back I loved hitting a dude bigger than me and knocking him back. Then all your teammates show you love. I guarantee warriors did that.
Another piece that might add to the topic is that the period in question was also a period of rapid but non uniform progress in metal technology. The quality and availability of higher grades of metalworking to some, and the relative scarcity to others would mean that a great majority of any gathered army would be FAR less equipped than their champions. Even something as basic as how hard the tip of your spear was could end up deciding an entire fight. Personal glory and national pride might have been the motivation, but it's probably a lot easier to motivate someone who knows he's in primo gear than if he were some poor shepherd boy with a stick and a sling.
But what about the medieval exemples? We know that there were at least some cases where instead of a batttle some sort of tournament took place. Example from near the place I live: battle of Koronowo AD 1410 [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Koronowo].
Thank you, sandrhoman channel, for sharing this wonderful video about Champaign warfare in several ancient history periods .
Just a to inform you, Saul did not make peace with David becoming his successor, he tried to kill David so his son Jonathan could be King.
Correct
Thanks for another great video and Happy New Year!
Excellent coverage on this topic bro. Thank you
Oh boy, I don't often manage to catch a video this early.
From what I recall of Arab sources, battles would occur regardless of the result of duels at least where the E. Romans and Sassanids were concerned. Perhaps it was more advantageous, win or lose, to accept a duel than to refuse a challenge? Also, could dueling have been used as a tactic to delay the battle until later in the day? Or provoke a reckless response?
i think there were still a few scattered personal combat battles in Greece latter than the 4th and 5th centuries BC. Pyrrhus of Epirus supposedly was called out by a opposing general Pantauchus where first they fought with spear and sword, Pyrrhus was wounded once but in turn wounded Pantauchus twice and he was carried from the field by his guards.
Excellent work as always and a very interesting topic !
I think in the years of war between the Eastern Romans and the Sassanids, Procopius speaks of a duel, or single combat between a man known as Andreas and a Sassanid horseman. Andreas fought against him and won. Then a second rival challenged him and Andreas won again. If I'm not mistaken. So this is the Early Middle Ages.
Yes, you are correct, I just mentioned it in my comment, although you were more specific by directly mentioning some examples. It would be great if this channel also talked about those duels at the beginning of the Middle Ages.
@@IsaacRaiCastillo I agree. Even in the Battle of Cluain Tarbh, the son of Brian Bóramha, High King of Ireland, had a duel against a norseman, I forgot his name, and won the battle.
Correct. Basil the first of the Macedonian Dynasty was also notorius fighter who was challenging enemy champions in single combat
That fight in troy was amazing. I remember when i saw it in cinema.
Maybe the reason for the Roman continuing of champion warfare is because they based their origin story on the trojans
"This man drew up his forces against the emperor and, coming forward in front of his lines, delivered challange to a duel. When Heraclius realized that none of his men would volunteer, he went forth himself against the barbarian. Being an expert archer, Rahzadh discharged an arrow which grazed the emperor’s lips. He then shot a second arrow which scraped his ankle. Now Heraclius urged on his horse, and one of his bodyguard, who was ahead of him, sliced off with his sword the shoulder of Rahzadh; and when the latter had fallen down, the emperor speared him and straightaway cut off his head. At the sight of this victory the Roman army was filled with ardor. Perceiving the emperor’s boldness, they moved energetically against the Persians, whom they utterly defeated and pursued, killing a great number of them." -Contemporary account of the Battle of Nineveh, 627 AD
Extremely interesting, thanks for the video 👌
Maybe I missed it in the video, but it should be noted that a lot of cultures believed that outcomes of battles were decided by the gods. Hence single combat allowed the gods to express their opinion without bloodshed at a larger scale. It was useful only as long as the battle at hand was small scale raiding and "war as usual", rather than the displacement of an entire culture or peoples by another.
Pyrrhus of Epirus was stated to fight several single combats & was after 500 bc and late Diodochi Alexander's successor period arguably not quiet Roman period yet but almost
Brad Pitt as Achilles is one of my favorite movie characters of all time
Eric Banna is the best Hector
@@forlornfool221 He’s the only Hector in my mind
I wondered about this for a long time. Very interesting topic
15:44 In the 5th and 4th century BC Classic greece first experienced the war with Persia and their after the Peloponiesan War between an Athenian Led alliance and a Spartan led alliance. With Battlefield from the Bosporus to Sicilly their was probably no space left for single Combat in warfare. In his book "The Psychology of the Athenian Hoplite" Jason Crowley argues that many "neighbourhood cases" where "solved out of court" because it was considered unmanly to rely on a court to get your right. Considering Hoplite warfare we should keep in mind that the concept of a Fight between to Hoplite groups in formation on a plane field is basicaly a Duell between two groups. Which works well If you want to "argues" to whom a Olive Groove belongs for a year butt nothing suitable for cattle raiding.
Another excellent video as always! Can I just say how happy I am that you are tackling the Bronze Age- there are many videos out on youtube which promote a lot of nonsense, so it's nice to see a reliable researcher tackle the subject. I would make a few points though. The confusion and discrepancy of tactics in the Iliad really arises from the fact that it is an Iron Age poem born out of oral folk memory of the collapsed Mycenaean civilisation. There was likely no-one person called Homer, but generations of poets who utilised oral memory (changing things as they went) to create a cycle of epic myths. This results in several discrepancies- most notably the armour of the supposedly Bronze Age Achaeans is not that of the bulky bronze chitinous armour found in Mycenaean Greece at the time the story is set, but the early iron age armour and equipment of Archaic Greece. Essentially, the poets took the equipment familiar to them and changed the technology from iron to bronze to fit the setting of an epic, mythological past. This is true of the odyssey as well- Odysseus' household is structured like a classic aristocratic Oikos of the early Iron Age, not the highly centralised administrative palace structures of Tiryns, Mycenae and Pylos. The most clear example of this projection into the past can be seen when they mention things they are unfamiliar with- for example chariots. Iron Age Greeks did not utilise chariots in warfare, and so when Homer describes the function of them in the Trojan war, they act almost like taxis ferrying heroes to and from the front line. In reality, Bronze Age chariot warfare was likely highly mobile and fluid, but there was no contemporary parallel for Iron Age poets to use so they most likely made it up. A very good book on the subject of the historicity of the Homeric poems and how they were developed is "The World of Odysseus" by Moses Finlay, although it is rather old now. However, these are rather minor criticisms for an overall excellent video summarising single combat warfare. If I could humbly request a future Bronze Age video topic, it would be regarding the Battle of Tollense in Northern Germany, taking place in the late bronze age. It was a truly massive pitched battle that involved thousands of people over several days. It certainly undermines the idea that temperate europe was incapable of developing large armies and millitary structure at this time. I would further recommend the work of Kristian Kristiansen to anyone interested in the significance of the development of Bronze Age Warrior Aristocracies and how they controlled the international trading system at that time.
Boagrios (Βοάγριος) is mentioned in Book 2, the catalogue of ships, at line 533. However, he is a river. In case you wonder how a river's sex is known, all rivers in Ancient Greek are male, and many are credited with siring humans, perhaps as a way of explaining unexpected pregnancies.
Most indo Europeans deified rivers. Some still do (hindoos etc)
A form of single combat that wasn’t touched on in the video is that of the variety that the Arab tribes in the time of Mohammed practiced; before a battle, two champions would face each other and fight to the death. This would not have any impact directly on the battle, however, it was meant to be a morale boost for the winning side, and to reduce the morale of the losing side. After the rise of Islam, an additional religious dimension was added, and the army of the winning champion was believed to be backed by God, meaning the morale shock was that much more important.
Single combat (as a replacement to a battle) can only happen if a) the side losing the single combat is almost certain they would lose the battle as well (in this case, the two armies meeting in the first place is unlikely, since the weaker army tends to be the smaller and thus faster army) or b) both sides have a profound sense of honor and at least some pacifistic tendencies. Both of those criteria are, in my opinion, very unlikely to be fulfilled by any given pair of armies, so I doubt the historicity of single combat. More plausible explanations for the depiction of single combat in historical sources are: civilian duels (e.g., judicial combat, self defence); romanticization of warfare (the idea of honor and chivalry, faith in humanity etc.) both in art and apparently factual accounts; and a 'schematic' depiction of army size, where a single knight might represent a number of soldiers or an entire army (only in visual arts).
It is possible that a "single combat" is an allegory for the battle. Or it could be vice versa.
@@quach8quach907 > Or it could be vice versa. I find that unlikely, considering a duel between two heroes is more honorable and was probably considered a "better story" at the time than a bloody battle. If there were actually duels, I don't think the people telling that story would have referred to them as battles and completely omit the fact that they were duels.
a big reason for duels is to improve troop moral to show the enemy soldiers are weaker them the people of your side
I'd imagine as civilizations grew and the stakes of warfare increased it would become less likely leaders would agree to a one on one contest
During the Russo-Polish War[1577 - 1583] In July 1581, Stephen Báthory, King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania challanged, Ivan IV "the Terrible", Tsar of Russia, to a single combat.
It is also interesting the fact to that the two most reliable episodes of single combat in Rome were initiated by the Gauls. The Romans simply accepted the challenge.
The fact that they were even willing to accept it, that they won those duels repeatedly against multiple opponents in a row, combined with the Roman glorification of duels in folklore such as the Horatius brothers tale suggest that they indeed loved dueling and trained for it. They were just not as stupid as to seek it all the time.
Khaalid Ibn Waleed, who was undefeated also against Arabs, Sassinids and Romans, was a teal character that should be used in here for real history.
The big problem with champion warfare is: Why would the loosing army just call it a day? This only works if both armies follow the same code of honour. Imho this is also why we see it between tribes of similar culture, but not between different empires.
if both sides are fighting over a set thing, say control of a piece of land, not subjugation, then yeah. maybe. The Aztecs did that, just with small groups rather than single combat.
Moral does when you see your champion die in battle.
Fascinating video.
So good, thank you!
Was there not a “Battle for Champions” between Sparta and Argos somewhere in the 6th or 5th century BC?
11:52 I didn't read Hans Van Wees papers on that, but I don't think the central theme of the Iliad is "being angry" or "defending your honor", more like war itself. Homer talks about violence and war in a way that glorifies it but at the same time he questions it and even feels disgusted at it. It's like he recognizes the futility of it. The final scene with Achilles and Priam it's an example of this, Achilles CRIES with Priam because he feels empathy with his enemy, because he sees his own father reflected in Hector's father. He recognizes that his actions only carried suffering for others and for himself. *I give the man (Peleus) no care as he grows old* *since here I sit in Troy. far from my fatherland,* *a grief to you, a grief to all your children* Instead of caring for his old man he was dragged to a 10 year war where he only found suffering (and later death), there was no point for this war, Agamemnon only went to war because he hated Troy and saw it as competition, not because of "his brother's honor", at the same time many other great heroes didn't want to go (Achilles included, who even disguised himself as a woman). In other texts we found out that the war ends horribly, with babies being throw from walls, women r4ped, the whole population k1lled and ensl4ved and the city razed to the ground. And the victors? Most of the Greek fleet was destroyed to avenge the actions of one r4pist. The other Ajax unalived himself even before that. Odysseus faced the wrath of the gods by another 10 years of traveling the seas. The rest came to their homes to realize their wives have been cheating on them (thanks to king Nauplius who wanted to avenge his son, Palamedes, death) and in some cases they were even murdered (Agamemnon, Neoptolemus) or dethroned. Or lived on as war-scarred traumatized husks with wives that didn't love them anymore and made it all awkward (Menelaus and Helen, as portrayed in The Odyssey). There was no honor, no victory on that war, just blood and suffering
Typical war
Romans were campaigning on the outskirts of the empire, often far from home... Ancient Greece had city states and so at least one of the opposing sides was close to home... Based on the kids I grew up with in my neighborhood, I have a feeling that somehow, Greek mothers had something to do with putting a stop to champion duels. You might be a formidable warrior and champion, but there is no glory if your comrades in arms see you get beaten with a sandal in the hand of your worried mother!
The same way almost all male animals fight for territory, resources and females, so do humans. All forms of competition are for dominance . The best gets the most
In my opinion it seems unlikely that a duel should decide the outcome of an entire battle. But a victorious duel would certainly raise the morale of the winner's army
People were also superstitious and god was on their side. Even if they lost it could be interpreted as a sign to avenge your champion's death. Seems like it was done for entertainment and kudos.
Three kingdoms and Water margins books described a lot of single single combats between champions, ussually followed by all out battles after champions finished their duels. These duels were mostly mounted champions charging at each other with lance, halberd or glaive, a bit like jousting between medieval European knights.
I thought most single combats were fought during the prebattle phase as a way to boost moral, at least thats how the examples i can remember from history were used
The Muslims were known for this especially. Makes me think of Hamza who fought for Mohammad. What a badass.
There is such a rediculous number of references to single champion and small group of champion combat that it is pretty crazy to say it didn't occur. Many of the references are not ancient either, some are from the medival period(crusades, English wars etc). That is akin to saying sieges didn't exist or naval combat wasn't a thing. I don't think there is much evidence that battles were decided that way, saving bloodshed. I think it could happen though for minor wars, like border clashes where the outcome won't be disasterous. But if you risk battle there is chance you could lose your whole army and then a border clash turns into losing your kingdom.
Yes, odds are that when they did occur it was to decide small, local battles. There is about zero chance that battles that would precipitate major geopolitical changes would be decided by single battle. One needs to be careful with mentions of single in the chivalric era. Most times these are romantic fantasies inspired by Arthurian legend.
Jalal al-Din Mangburni defeated several champions one after another, in single mounted combat, the last being considered a giant. His forces were badly outnumbered by an alliance of his enemies. The duels were fought in front of both armies. After defeating the last champion, he instantly gave the sign to charge, with his whip. His smaller force routed and defeated the demoralized enemy before they could get their heads on straight. Single combat is more common in areas where terrain doesn't allow concentration of forces, and/or the people involved don't have professional armies. Members of warrior societies often stood alone and engaged in combat using spiritual power as a force multiplier. The Wolves/Dog soldiers of various native american tribes, and the Viking berzerkers are examples of this.
You have not mentioned the most obvious and probable reason for fighting single combat before the main battle. And that is breaking enemy moral! And by the way there are plenty of mentioning of single combat in late east roman history.
HECTOOOR!
Great video!
single combat is often also preformed at school playgrounds
I never once fought in school I sparred every Friday so I never had anything to prove
In particular in the battles between muslims and Sassanids there were many examples of battles decided by single combat. Maybe this was just glorified by later historiens. But it is very obvious that the smaller the societies were the more often the battles would be decided by single combat. By the time of empires though, this would never happen. Even if a battle was decided by a single combat, were would the loosing army go? If 1v1 happened in the time of empires then it was just a thing of tradition and showoff + plus maybe if your champion won you would get a +5 in overall moral boost and then the main battle between the armies began. Nothing to do with sparring fellow soldiers. In the small societies, in the time of the city states (in particular early city-state of Mesopotamien but in general all form.of.city states and tribal communities) the battles probably often would be decided by 1v1..
Speaking of reasons for single combat, the movie "The Last Duel" comes to my mind. And the duels of Musashi of course.
Would you make a part two about the meso American way of war since it involved at lot more of single combat from what I've read
Great video.
The editor of this video has proven himself to be a true champion of crotch censoring. Hail KZhead! Those who are about to blush, salute you! 😂