Historical Champion Warfare (and Why it Was Kinda Common)

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.

Some must read mlitary history books:

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

[pradyumn]

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

[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.

[birgaripadam]

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

[Benjamin]

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

[Ghostrex]

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.

[lostinpa-dadenduro]

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

[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.

[sooraj]

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.

[argiedude]

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.

[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.

[cameronmciver]

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.

[ethantaylor]

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.

[matthewworley]

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

[daspence]

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

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.

[Gothmetalhead]

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.

[mnk]

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.

[Tunda]

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

[neptun]

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.

[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 Another good video!