Historical Champion Warfare (and Why it Was Kinda Common)

[@SandRhomanHistory]

🚀 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

[@nervsouly]

Oh goody. A new mobile ripoff game trying to pull you in by licensing a famous brand and spamming YT sponsorships.

[@Casmaniac]

@@nervsouly at least it's something different than raidshadowlegends lol

[@lolasdm6959]

@@nervsouly If you fall for this, just stop using KZbin.

[@timoverdijk3176]

Sandrhoman would you consider a long-term sponsorship/partnership with the Ancient Warfare magazine?

[@sdhflkjshdfskdhfskljdhf582]

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)

[@planescaped]

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.

[@zcecron22]

Kingdom manga goes hard

[@lolasdm6959]

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.

[@natetendencia]

The battle of hu lao pass. One my favourite moments in the romance of the three kingdoms.

[@lolasdm6959]

@@natetendencia 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.

[@phamhuu1519]

OMG I LOVE ROTK

[@simonjonsson3654]

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!

[@Grimskarr]

Championship duels still have a massive place in the world societies today. Only now, they most often take the form of sporting teams and athletes seeking to claim honour for their community or nation.

[@Ghostrex101]

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.

[@fiddlesticks7245]

Wasn't the Russian champion a monk? Didn't he and the mongol champion take eachother out?

[@Ghostrex101]

@@fiddlesticks7245 The Russian won, but later also died from his wounds.

[@fiddlesticks7245]

@@Ghostrex101 Slava Rossiya

[@marekbykowy1107]

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.

[@argiedude3762]

I kinda laughed at the absurdity of Goliath falling to a simple stone to the helmet until I saw a sling in action and realize Goliath's soldiers probably saw their champion's head turn to mist by an ancient version of a 50.BMG. Like, imagine, the guy's head is caved in, his brain splattered on the ground. I'd be demoralized.

[@joshuabacker2363]

Ancient version of a 50.BMG... Where do idiots like you come up with this nonsense?

[@oolooo]

But this one was thrown by , like , a 13 year old .There had to have been Divine Intervention , little Man had His Backup .

[@JeremyDelancy]

@@oolooo A personal aimbot, if you will.

[@JeremyDelancy]

The Wikipedia entry on slings gives a historical account where persons who were not hit in the head still died. Imagine a half pound (226 grams) of stone moving at 60 mph (90 kph) hitting you in the stomach or chest. Look up the Baleric slingers here on youtube.

[@JeremyDelancy]

@@joshuabacker2363 Don't be so dismissive. Not a .50 caliber but near the equivalent of a handgun? Definitely. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJbLc5WEhredjtk

[@pradyumn2692]

Champion duels should come back. Saves a lot of lives and money

[@cool06alt]

Sniper duels are probably the best example for today.

[@tbunny6305]

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

[@shotgunsideshow8958]

@@tbunny6305 "people were nicer when I could just kill them"

[@tbunny6305]

@shotgunsideshow8958 Yes, exactly. They better really believe what they're saying is worth it, or it's just easier to be polite and not have to duel

[@shotgunsideshow8958]

@@tbunny6305 You do know you dont have to accept a duel either? Anyways seems like someone just doesnt like when other people dont listen to them

[@Benjamin1986980]

There are a few examples I think you could have used in Rome. Titus Manlius Torquatus. The son of the consul, disobeyed orders to not engage, and fought a single duel of no significance. Because of this, he was executed by his own father. This is all the hallmarks of a morality tale against single combat, as despite his victory, he failed to obey his Commander, and so despite winning, he still lost honor. This seems to be part of a transition from single combat, honor-based warrior culture into a more cohesive soldier culture where the army wins, not the individual hero

[@MrChelomo]

Not super accurate since there were several other instances of single combat mentioned with great honor after the 4th century BC. T. Manlius' tale is specifically that discipline trumps all, not that single combat is forbidden or bad. His mistake was not the duel itself, but taking it when it had been forbidden. His father, who orderered the execution, won his cognomen from killing a Gallic chieftain in single combat. Amongst others, the only historical example of winning the Spolia Opima occurred more than 100 years later, to great fanfare. Marcus Crassus (grandson of the more famous Crassus) was technically also eligible for the Spolia Opima after he engaged a Danube chieftain in single combat, but was denied by Augustus. There are several examples of single combats during the Samnite Wars, Latin War, Punic Wars, Gallic Wars, etc. Where I think you're correct is that it was no longer seen as a way to win a battle by itself, like the Horatii allegedly did. It was a way to prove courage and provide favorable omens for the engagement ahead.

[@birgaripadam7112]

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

[@ShahjahanMasood]

Exactly

[@kaikkinimetvarattu2]

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.

[@alexdunphy3716]

Based and mannerbund-pilled

[@iamyourmom2]

That happened in my elementary school in the winter over snowforts. There woild be groups of kids from every grade in like two to four snowfort groups durring recesses and sometimes some kids would go over to try to smash other forts or try stealing blocks of snow from it and their own guys would have to defend it and counter attack after lol

[@lostinpa-dadenduro7555]

This happened to me after school one day. I was victorious.

[@quach8quach907]

An "After School Specials"?

[@petrapetrakoliou8979]

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.

[@raulpetrascu2696]

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

[@cool06alt]

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".

[@xKinjax]

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.

[@ShahjahanMasood]

​@@xKinjax Not to overly disrespect "Academics" but this shows how much they resemble frogs in the well. This historical aversion to anything Islamic is very common in European academics. They ignore the Middle Ages and focus entirely on Classical history. And they ignore the Islamic world in its entirety. I can bet all my belongings that noone in the West knows Jack shit about the Islamic world. And they are extremely ignorant. Contrast this with the Islamic world. Who know everyone and are very well informed on world affairs and world history. Man. It just pains me, that I find people who miss such interesting parts of history. It doesn't matter if it's intentional or unintentional.

[@dag1704]

I can imagine that... If you send your champion in, there are two outcomes. He wins: You can either claim "we won" or use it as motivation for the troops if the enemy refuses to yield. He looses: You can use it also for motivation, making him a martyr "Avenge him!!!"

[@sooraj1104]

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.

[@krzysztofkolodziejczyk4335]

how was this not just a regular duel?

[@lolasdm6959]

@@krzysztofkolodziejczyk4335because they settle disputes what are otherwise solved by armies?

[@Robert399]

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.

[@Yingyanglord1]

For major wars my guess it did happen occasionally but followed the Islamic wars model. Champion fight then battle. Remove command or morale before a clash.

[@jacobbrenneman1410]

Or: one army has a lower chance of winning, while the other army has a highly successful champion

[@Yingyanglord1]

@@jacobbrenneman1410 ye or hail marys of a weak army throwing thier best to even the odds

[@windhelmguard5295]

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.

[@Artur_M.]

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).

[@detestedLeek76]

I think you could have stated more explicitly that Homer lived probably 500 years after the Trojan war supposedly took place. It is likely that his descriptions of warfare reflect more on the situation and customs in his own lifetime than those of the 12th century BCE

[@YouWinILose]

If Homer was a singular person, which we'll likely never know.

[@jamesnewstead7099]

The warfare actually better suits the time he was writing about than the time he wrote it in. There are a few interesting videos about it on KZbin

[@TheZerech]

Homer describes Bronze, chariots, and other aspects of warfare more typical of the late Bronze Age when the Iliad/Odyssey is set than his own period. It's not 100% perfect, but it seems that it was probably an evolution of an oral tradition that at least began in the Bronze Age-being compiled centuries later. The Mycenaeans undoubtedly had an oral story telling tradition like basically all other IE and many non IE cultures. Composing and memorizing verse goes way back. They should neither be taken verbatim or thrown out, there's clearly some connection to the history, even if the narrative details are so mythologized as to be unreliable, there are genuine bronze age bits still there.

[@jamesnewstead7099]

@@TheZerech and champion warfare and no signs of hoplites

[@54032Zepol]

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,

[@ZS-rw4qq]

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)"

[@williamchamberlain2263]

​@@ZS-rw4qq "big stick"

[@williamchamberlain2263]

Yes, but would the outcome of a duel be binding on the rest of the army?

[@billdecompsa4705]

And afterwards they would also have parties. Im not kidding.

[@SofaKingShit]

Way to feel the pressure.

[@SirConto]

Often champion duels happened without even an implied agreement that the losing side should concede the larger battle. The way this happened, it'd start with two armies locked in a standoff - something that was extremely common in battles from antiquity and through the middle ages. One army's got a good position and doesn't want to move from it. The other doesn't want to engage the enemies on their terms. And then they wait for the other to move first, likely well out of each other's range. This could go on for a long time. Most commonly hours, but there are also cases where armies would wait for a whole day, then go back to camp and repeat the next day. For example in battle of Ilipa, this went on for 8 days, both armies waiting each day in the same formation. This got Carthaginians complacent about it, so Roman commander Publius Cornelius Scipio then switched up his formation and attacked early, surpising the Carthaginians and winning. So, imagine you're one side in such a standoff. It's clear neither army's gonna move any time soon. The the other side sends forth their champion. He screams about how he's the biggest baddest mofo around and how no one in your army has the balls to duel him. They likely did this because they're very confident he's good at dueling. So what do you do? If you were to just charge him with a bigger force, he's probably still close enough to his army that he'd be able to retreat behind his lines. Ignoring him would make his words seem true. Especially as he may have a whole day to boast there. You could try shooting him if he gets in your arrow range, but again, that's bound to look bad to your army. Or you can answer his challenge. Send your own champion. Or prove your own courage and skill by taking the challenge yourself. And even even if your champion's more likely to lose, hopefully if he can at least make a good showing, that might not be too bad for your army's morale either. A clear cut example of such a case would be the battle of Hastings: " Ivo Taillefer, a minstrel and knight in William the Conqueror's army. According to legend, Taillefer sought permission from William to strike the first blows of the battle. He rode out alone in front of the English forces, performing acrobatic feats with his sword and lance while singing an early version of The Song of Roland,.... ...As Taillefer charged into the English ranks, he is said to have killed an English champion, taking his head as a trophy to demonstrate that God favored the Normans. This act of bravado was significant as it marked the beginning of the battle, which quickly escalated into a fierce conflict" Given that as the video points out, Romans had lots of champion duels, but none that decided the conflict instead of the battle, I'd wager a similar thing must've been happening with them.

[@boku5192]

This is exactly how the David vs Goliath duel went down. Two armies unwilling to attack and one mofo berating the other side until someone fights him : D

[@jancello]

One super cool detail about the duel in the Troy movie (which intends to depict the Iliad without divine interventions) is that the fatal blow is dealt exactly like in the book : a thrust between the neck and the collarbone, dealt with a spear which was lost earlier in the fight but recovered just at the right moment.

[@cameronmciver7588]

Japan had a sort of ritualistic combat where the fighters were expected to call each other out by name. Read up on this when looking into the Mongolian invasion. Apparently they were slaughtered in part because the Japanese would attempt to challenge fighters to single combat and the Mongolians would respond by mobbing them or firing arrows.

[@ghostdude45]

Samurai: I AM SATOSHI NASHITA- Mongolian Squad: ganggang *4v1 ensues*

[@ethantaylor9613]

A lot of early warfare was ritualized, even if it wasn’t to the same extent as single combat. One of the main interpretations of phalanx warfare as it existed up to the Greco-Persian wars was a semi ritualistic form of combat that meshed well with the part-time soldiers that partook in it. It started to fall apart, of course, when enough people started employing cavalry, or archers, or any other factors to win consistently. Games can’t work unless both sides want to play by the rules.

[@33mavboy]

yeah only if war was fair, there could be alot less bloodshed, but unfortunately people have ego issues and won't stop until they are down to their reserves. The more we move into modern warfare the more destructive it becomes, no one is gaining an advantage, only making another one so the other can copy each other overtime, countering each other is straight up cowards play and ends up killing more people in the end.

[@joshuabacker2363]

Was that interpretation made by the same useless twit who thought phalanx warfare was "like a rugby match"?

[@sugar-daddykhayreddin1115]

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.

[@nomooon]

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

[@ohNojames]

I was gonna mention this, glad someone else thought of it too.

[@1sultan189]

@@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

[@Lilitha11]

I feel like people definitely challenged each other out of pride to show who was stronger and to demoralize the enemy and stuff like that. However, I don't think anyone who raised an army would ever go home, just because they lost one person.

[@BanditsLair]

Reminds me of the greek citystates that sent their best to fight it out then the last two just went home lol (paraphrasing)

[@misanthropicservitorofmars2116]

You’d be surprised. It’s much easier to convince people to go home than potentially die in war. Especially when lots of your forces were slave troops. They don’t want to be there in the first place. People generally don’t want to die, and are happy to avoid potentially dying.

[@davidthor4405]

“Our guys are stronger than your guys” can be one hell of a boost

[@andrewsuryali8540]

We have historical records of champion warfare in Asia and, no, they didn't end with one person. The best example would be traditional samurai combat. One brave dude rides forward, issues a challenge, then when the other side accepts the champions square off until one is defeated. The winner gets off his horse, beheads the loser, and rides back to his line usually unmolested. Another samurai from either side will ride forward again, issue another challenge, usually to the previous victor, either the previous guy rides forward again or chooses a sub, another duel is fought, rinse and repeat. After a while one side will have run out of enough samurai to make open fight untenable and withdrawal begins. Something similar was done in China of the Warring States era, but with chariots. We know this because the Kingdom of Qin issued a law specifically banning this mode of warfare. Later on, commander fights became the style during the North-South Dynasties era. In this era armies were often composed of a bunch of peasant levies led by a small number of competent officers raised from military clans. Commanders would duel each other and the side to lose more commanders would basically devolve into a chaotic mass and must withdraw.

[@aaftiyoDkcdicurak]

​@@davidthor4405and it can be a blow to morale.

[@Toatony]

The Byzantines (Greeks) were known to often engage in champion combat against the Persians up to at least the 500s AD

[@Tirocoa]

They did it against the muslims too didn't they?

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

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!

[@matthewworley5302]

This puts into context why it was so common for men to rally behind a general instead of his country.

[@scharnhorst_42]

To be fair if a "battle" was determined by single combat there wouldnt be much evidence of it. Just one dead dude.

[@absolutelyliberated1357]

But lord of witnesses

[@mrocto329]

@@absolutelyliberated1357 witnesses that are soldiers who could barely write.

[@mariushunger8755]

You're spoiling us with good topics! Skipping all three of my cigarette breaks for this!

[@truefact844]

Good, give up smoking. I am saying this as I smoke.😂

[@daspence2374]

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

[@darthpaul123]

The Muslims were known for this especially. Makes me think of Hamza who fought for Mohammad. What a badass.

[@milanb855]

I’ve never thought about the morale aspect of an opening duel I bet that had major significance in relation to fear or anger if your man lost

[@Tunda2]

My understanding was that single combat/champion duels happened before big ones as a test of strength of sorts before a bigger clash. Like minutes before

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

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. .

[@CuchulainAD]

It did in Ireland

[@kleinenfuchse5365]

You sound like you got a shovel up your skrop sideways 🎉

[@alintanase3296]

This makes sense, it being a thing on the side they did for fame, not deciding the actual battle

[@TonttuTorvinen]

@@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.

[@Gothmetalhead13]

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.

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.

[@mnk9073]

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.

[@rikusauske]

The existence of barracks emperors kind of debunks your theory that personal glory wasnt as important to a general in the empire. In fact, during the reigns of 5 emperors and other similar situations, single combat was extremely common for solving these disputes

[@jfinn3575]

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.

[@diebesgrab]

You’re describing these historical single combat duels, and to me it sounds a lot like Japanese pop culture about the “bosses” (banchous) of a school’s delinquents (yankees) engaging in fights with banchous from other schools for hierarchy and dominion. I guess in some ways, (our interest in fictionalized versions of) these duels have survived to the modern day.

[@centralpark2168]

Pyrus is one of the few generals to win a single combat challenge

[@Casmaniac]

A bit surprised you didn't cover the Horatii and Titus Manlius Torquatus. Seems kind of obvious imo.

[@IliaF-v5q]

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.

[@nazeem8680]

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.

[@nothanks9503]

Single combat is a genius idea if you know the enemy army is superior

[@nazeem8680]

@@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

[@nothanks9503]

@@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

[@nothanks9503]

@@nazeem8680 Do you get to the cloud district very often, who am I kidding of course you don’t.

[@nazeem8680]

@@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

[@neptun2810]

The problem I see with single combat is the implication of loosing. There was no such thing like rules of war, or even human rights, back in these times. So what happens to the loosing side of a battle? They get enslaved or killed. So the soldiers are supposed to just accept that fate because one of theirs has lost the fight against the other champion? I doubt it.

[@shreksswamp5721]

Single combat almost never resulted in the other side just surrendering, it was more of an immense morale boost, with the sude that win single conbat, in most cases winning the battle that follows. The early Muslim expansion is the perfect example for this

[@Etherror22]

TBH the only historical example I've seen of it was before the battle of Dara between Belisarius and the Sassanids. It was more like accepted shenanigans rather than something formal if it was between opposing nations. Duels during civil wars seemed to be a little different and only played out like movies if the winner had some respect/standing amongst the enemy. Pyrrhus of Epirus is the only person I can think of who pulled it off.

[@LTPottenger]

That all depends, many combats were between groups of different city states of the same culture for example. So it could be a good way to establish pecking order without weakening the larger group.

[@somethinglikethat2176]

​@@shreksswamp5721 there are examples of the Greek in the city state era using small groups fighting each other rather than their whole armies to settle smaller disputes. It could probably only work when there isn't too much at stake and the two sides see each other as civilised, in the sense that they don't view the other as barbarians.

[@Grothgerek]

You just assume, that the results is death and enslavement. But I'm pretty sure that single combat is mostly for battles against your own people. For example when one greek city state fights against another. Or if one vassal fights another vassal of the same realm. In such cases there would be nor reason for doing such extremes. The soldiers aren't at fault for their ruler. Demanding tribute and land would be enough. So why waste valuable manpower and risk high losses? Especially in ancient times, when the roles of society weren't that well established, it is entirely possible that single combat was forced by the troops itself. When two chiefs had a argument, why should the rallied people fight? At these times "soldiers" were just adult men that followed the call to war, because they had to defend their home, or because they believed they fought for the right thing. The power of a ruler or commander is solely based on the loyalty of their followers....

[@conlinbryant5037]

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.

[@AlexC0605]

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.

[@quach8quach907]

I was "based on a true story".

[@SofaKingShit]

I don't trust myself.

[@mattBLACKpunk]

Am ugly, can confirm

[@mikehipps1015]

Word

[@jakepearson1254]

Based

[@juanignaciomenchi656]

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)

[@dashinvaine]

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.)

[@AHersheyHere]

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.

[@immortaljanus]

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).

[@giakichanpan4022]

This is a great channel, thank you for taking the time to mention the sources you are using and pointing people towards further readings. You weigh the different opinions of the historians you talk about in a really objective wat. I really haven't seen anyone on youtube paying this much attention to historiography so congrats on that :)

[@FoxGhost7]

What we can also say is that underdog stories have always been popular everywhere.

[@5675492]

The Roman historian Procopius in his "History Of The Wars" tells how the Roman general Belisarius and a few men rode out from the gates of Rome to challenge the warriors of the Goths to single combat in an effort to give his army the courage to face the much larger army of the Goths .

[@lastword8783]

The early Muslim expansion featured several champion duels against Persians and Eastern Romans with the Muslims winning but the point wasnt to avoid the battle altogether but rather to raise the morale of the winning side before battle started.

[@runakovacs4759]

The Cossacks/Polish-Lithuanians also quite enjoyed champion duels. Polish nobles in general liked duels a little too much (election time was... an incident prone period).

[@MarymonckiJohn]

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.

[@andreascovano7742]

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

[@BiggestCorvid]

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

[@fiddlesticks7245]

@@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.

[@KarolyssjL-gi7le]

It happened in the past: commander Marcello fought his foe, Viridomaro, in single combat, althought both armies kept fighting during the duel.

[@JeremyDelancy]

Single combat makes sense in the historical context. Armies would be made up of men who had other professions. Imagine losing half of your country's farmers, labourers, blacksmiths in a large battle. Even if your side won, the society would be at a severe disadvantage. Losing a few men who volunteered for the task would be far more desirable for everyone concerned.

[@Haannibal777]

My problem is not with the winning side but I cannot imagine myself as a general leading thousands of soldiers , and then thousands more for logistics to battle. And then just because my champion is killed, I then tell my troops, “Well, sorry we lost. Let’s go home, boys!” This level of humiliation is bordering idiotic, perhaps belonging in a Hollywood comedy.

[@JeremyDelancy]

@@Haannibal777 Yes, that seems logical and it would make for great comedy but consider the alternative. "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans we shall be utterly ruined." - Pyrrhus of Epirus. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory You can win this battle but still lose. A better example is at hand. A present estimate says that Russia will lose 33 million more men before it conquers Ukraine. How many soldiers from both sides would prefer the whole affair to be decided by units or even divisions?

[@SuwinTzi]

@@Haannibal777 Armies in the classical period were much smaller. Large armies clashing in the thousands with thousands of support troops would be rare.

[@TheDreadPirateRoberts-jr2fk]

@@JeremyDelancy”a present estimate” lol. By ukr MoD perhaps?

[@ajithsidhu7183]

0:00 the best way to start any legend

[@levitatingoctahedron922]

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.

[@TheWildManEnkidu]

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.

[@David0lyle]

What people tend to forget is that the majority of both forces would have been unpaid levies. Literally every day away from home would have been an economic loss and with nothing like a professional police force those you left behind were at continual risk. Leaders would have been under substantial pressure to enter into this sort of agreement!

[@Sorenzo]

The Boagrius fight is the only thing I remember well from the movie because Achilles is practically bored and annoyed that he gets pulled of his tent to win the war for his king.

[@breveth]

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.

[@joshuabacker2363]

It had really little to do with slings, if anything at all, and more to do with Goliath challenging the Israelites to a fair fight (By the standards of the Philistines), and the Israelites sending out a young boy to die in their own stead, who then survived by striking a sneaky blow. Sling? Didn't matter. Could've been a club, a bow and arrow, just a rock being thrown, getting hit by someone that doesn't care for your culture's standards of honor or battle is the entire point. Especially since the Israelites were later destroyed by doing as Goliath did.

[@spartan2253]

Young Brad Pitt? The lad was 40 at the time! What a beast.

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

Thank you, sandrhoman channel, for sharing this wonderful video about Champaign warfare in several ancient history periods .

[@Alderak1]

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?

[@solaufein1374]

That fight in troy was amazing. I remember when i saw it in cinema.

[@doubtingflock1073]

It is an extremely expensive endeavor for a political ruler to assemble an army and its supplies and transport them to a battlefield. I believe this would make it a very rare occurrence that the leader/s could spend all those resources and then leave the outcome to single combat. The outcomes of most battles in the ancient world had such severe political consequences it would almost be irrational to leave the outcome to single combat unless special circumstances existed and I would argue this is much more the exception the norm.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

Smart money is doing a flank manoeuvre with part of your army while everyone else is watching the single combat

[@MosestheDark]

I feel like mortal kombat got it right. Instead of sending thousands of men to go die, wars should just be fought by a handful of champions from each side.

[@timb8970]

It sounds great until you lose half your land because the guy on your side slips and falls and gets killed. Most likely the rest of the soldiers would jump in to stop such a loss.

[@nunyanunya4147]

which timeline?

[@caioscofield]

"Young Brad Pitt" --> age 40 at the time lol

[@themindofdirge3809]

Glad I wasn't the only one who thought this. 😆

[@TheSuperappelflap]

Lookin good tho

[@kamilknyba244]

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].

[@HeartsintheWind]

11:30 My understanding is that bronze was difficult to acquire enough resources to maintain even a small army and thus you generally had well trained champions... with the iron age came easier mass manufacturing of weapons allowing those not conditioned in honorable warfare to mob over those whom held champion warfare in high esteem. The same thing happened in repeat with gunpowder eliminating the knights. Each level of ease added to mass manufacturing of easy to distribute weapons allows for more of a low level mob than ranking special forces. The "classical" era transitioning to the roman era was iron

[@TheSuperappelflap]

There were no permanently maintained armies in the bronze age. Armies were only raised temporarily and disbanded after a campaign. So maintaining a small army was a non-issue because people didnt do that.

[@HeartsintheWind]

@@TheSuperappelflap human thug culture has always existed so a "raised army" vs a disbanded one is just nuance. When not on campaign they would have been local thugs the way a knight not on campaign would have been. Modern case study do you hear how the boys that went to Afghanistan talk the untrained? Same shit different day

[@TheSuperappelflap]

@@HeartsintheWind No I dont hear that, I dont really interact with military people at all in my daily life because my country doesnt have a standing army of 20 trillion people that goes to random places around the world to blow shit up. We only for some reason go when you Americans tell us to instead of telling you to kick rocks and do it yourself. Thanks for the refugees btw.

[@joshuabacker2363]

@@HeartsintheWind Yeah no local thugs do not make for effective soldiers and a disbanded army does not turn into "local thugs". Armies were of the era were often levied/raised from fighting-age citizens, or based on a professional core of nobility/charioteers. When disbanded, the former would return to the work and jobs they'd have before being raised (If they didn't have one, they probably weren't eligible to get levied in the first place. Nobody is going to want an unarmed and untrained hobo in their army back then.) While the modern military regularly recruits from the absolute lowest rung of society, ancient armies did not, and for very good reasons.

[@renshartsuiker9629]

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..

[@User-pw3pu]

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

[@elkingoh4543]

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

[@DarkSideCookies]

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.

[@ClassifiedUnit-135]

iN iSlMiC eXpAnSiOn - this has been said by 500 other islamic bots.

[@ClassifiedUnit-135]

@@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 ?

[@ralambosontiavina7372]

Excellent work as always and a very interesting topic !

[@ChristnThms]

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.

[@Lenn998]

0:14 Young? He was around 40 when that scene was filmed.

[@SandRhomanHistory]

well, I’d say: he‘s in the prime of his life.

[@petrapetrakoliou8979]

Achilles was young, as it was foretolled that he would die young and gain a never lasting fame.

[@lolasdm6959]

@@petrapetrakoliou8979Iliad was written hundreds of years after the fact so not very reliable.

[@brendonhavener]

@@lolasdm6959well good thing the movie is based on the Iliad and not reality.

[@TheNamesDitto]

No way. Dude looks great

[@timothyallen6411]

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.

[@drapin]

i think that single combat is a way boost/ decrease morale in the battle field

[@BasedR0nin]

It’s also a way to save men on both sides.

[@squidmanfedsfeds5301]

@@BasedR0nincould be, I’m not convinced every military leader would just accept the result especially if they’re about to achieve their objective

[@jakemckeown9459]

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.

[@copperlemon1]

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.

[@krzysztofkolodziejczyk4335]

Troy was an excellent movie imho. Kind off underappreciated.

[@snakeoo7ca]

Nothing like the books unfortunately

[@cmdrTremyss]

@@snakeoo7ca and the books are nothing like history unfortunately.

[@krzysztofkolodziejczyk4335]

You mean actual Illiad?

[@ClassifiedUnit-135]

@@cmdrTremyss Obviously. Illiad is like the bible, but less brainwashing and retardation.

[@snakeoo7ca]

@@cmdrTremyss It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out, considering there were dieties personified in the books. What a silly comment

[@santhinal7767]

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.

[@lolasdm6959]

I think it might have meant winning a duel boosted one side's morale and confidence that effected the outcome of a battle.

[@randysavage1]

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.

[@robertbodell55]

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.

[@J_n..]

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.

[@not-a-theist8251]

I wondered about this for a long time. Very interesting topic

[@mercianthane2503]

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.

[@mercianthane2503]

@ 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.

[@TeutonicEmperor1198]

Correct. Basil the first of the Macedonian Dynasty was also notorius fighter who was challenging enemy champions in single combat

[@JohnRStrachan]

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.

[@Thraim.]

Oh boy, I don't often manage to catch a video this early.

[@OttomanHilux]

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.

[@LordVader1094]

Correct

[@GarfieldRex]

Extremely interesting, thanks for the video 👌

[@Appie1974]

Was there not a “Battle for Champions” between Sparta and Argos somewhere in the 6th or 5th century BC?

[@charliemountain82]

"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

[@Xristoforos41493]

Brad Pitt as Achilles is one of my favorite movie characters of all time

[@forlornfool221]

Eric Banna is the best Hector

[@Xristoforos41493]

@@forlornfool221 He’s the only Hector in my mind

[@akiko009]

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.

[@JJ-io4pe]

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.

[@The_ZeroLine]

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.

[@philipocarroll]

You have to be careful citing sources like Aeneid and Irish sagas. These are drawing on Iliad, and are writing about their own mythical ancestors and copying the narrative structure of Greek epic poetry.

[@droideca88]

Maybe the reason for the Roman continuing of champion warfare is because they based their origin story on the trojans