There is scant, if any, evidence that the David and Goliath story in the Bible was actually real. But I would like to ask if such “combat by selecting a representative” was ever a thing in ancient or modern times at any time.
Two armies meeting to battle each other - except that they decide to each send out a champion - who must be the finest physical specimen of the entire army - and do 1-on-1 combat, and that decides the whole affair.
I Samuel 17: Goliath stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel: “Why do you come out and line up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not the servants of Saul? Choose a man and have him come down to me. If he is able to fight and kill me, we will become your subjects, but if I overcome him and kill him, you will become our subjects and serve us.”
The main problem I see with this is the reluctance of the losing side to actually follow through with the agreement. I could easily see them saying, “Yeah, we agreed to let the 1-on-1 decide the whole affair, but fuck that, we’re going to fight anyway.”
And it was mostly sterile, as even if the two parties agreed beforehand to accept the result, the loser took every legal (or not) trick to negate the outcome.
As in the combat of 30, where 30 Britons and 30 English fought for the possession of a land. After about twenty dead, the problem was settled…by a siege and two battles!
In the Horaces vs Curiaces, the result was just a truce for some years. In Paris vs Menelas, no change in the siege of Troy.
Yeah it did happen but it was very rare. Basically for the reasons shown in game of thrones, you would only risk it in cases where you thought you were going to lose in regular battle, and if you were the opposing side (who, conversely, expected to win) why would accept that risk ?
My Google fu fails me but the Romans had a reward specifically for a general who wins a battle in single combat this way and there is only one case of it actually been given out in the whole history of the Roman army (and that is debated)
One on one battles in which the loser’s army surrenders or goes home is exceptionally rare, except in fiction. Various flavors of single combat do appear in many times and many places and for many reasons. “Single” combat is often a misnomer; small group combat appears, often in the same cultures.
Why isn’t it a thing? As the OP said: David beat Goliath. It’s taking a chance so stupid that it’s been archetypically stupid for thousands of years.
My Google Fu has recovered. The reward was the Spolia Optima and the only Roman to receive it (or at least the only IRL non-legendary Roman) is Marcus Claudius Marcellus:
There was also another Roman, so manly that he was actually named Manlius:
Of course, the only accounts of this battle were from the Romans, and the hero went on to a highly successful political career, including being Consul and Dictator multiple times. So it’s possible that the story might have been slightly embellished before it got to us.