# Was "battle by champion representative" ever a thing in human history? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 20, 2023, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-battle-by-champion-representative-ever-a-thing-in-human-history/984327 "2023-05-20T15:39:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2023, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-battle-by-champion-representative-ever-a-thing-in-human-history/984327/1 "2023-05-20T15:39:44Z")
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.” ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2023, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-battle-by-champion-representative-ever-a-thing-in-human-history/984327/2 "2023-05-20T16:29:51Z")
It was part of the Persian martial tradition, called _[mard o mard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mard_o_mard)_. More often, though, I think a battle of champions served as a sort of intro to the main affair, not a decider. ---
**Author:** ![Dr\_Paprika](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr_paprika/32/3042_2.png) [@Dr\_Paprika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr_Paprika)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2023, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-battle-by-champion-representative-ever-a-thing-in-human-history/984327/3 "2023-05-20T16:48:47Z")
It sort of was in Game of Thrones. ---
**Author:** ![FrenchDunadan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/frenchdunadan/32/5449_2.png) [@FrenchDunadan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FrenchDunadan)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2023, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-battle-by-champion-representative-ever-a-thing-in-human-history/984327/4 "2023-05-20T17:06:20Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2023, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-battle-by-champion-representative-ever-a-thing-in-human-history/984327/5 "2023-05-20T17:15:08Z")
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) ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2023, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-battle-by-champion-representative-ever-a-thing-in-human-history/984327/6 "2023-05-20T17:16:18Z")
Why not just flip a coin, then? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2023, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-battle-by-champion-representative-ever-a-thing-in-human-history/984327/7 "2023-05-20T17:43:20Z")
Wiki has an interesting article on [Single Combat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_combat). 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. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2023, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-battle-by-champion-representative-ever-a-thing-in-human-history/984327/8 "2023-05-20T18:30:32Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > My Google fu fails me but the Romans had a reward specifically for a general who wins a battle in single combat this way 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: > **[Marcus Claudius Marcellus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Claudius_Marcellus)** > > Marcus Claudius Marcellus (/mɑːrˈsɛləs/; c. 270 – 208 BC), five times elected as consul of the Roman Republic, was an important Roman military leader during the Gallic War of 225 BC and the Second Punic War. Marcellus gained the most prestigious award a Roman general could earn, the spolia opima, for killing the Gallic military leader and king Viridomarus in single combat in 222 BC at the Battle of Clastidium. Furthermore, he is noted for having conquered the fortified city of Syracuse in a protr... ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2023, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-battle-by-champion-representative-ever-a-thing-in-human-history/984327/9 "2023-05-20T19:40:02Z")
There was also another Roman, so manly that he was actually named Manlius: > **[Titus Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Manlius_Imperiosus_Torquatus)** > > Titus Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus was a famous politician and general of the Roman Republic, of the old gens Manlia. He had an outstanding career, being consul three times, in 347, 344, and 340 BC, and dictator three times, in 353, 349, and 320 BC. He was one of the early heroes of the Republic, alongside Cincinnatus, Cornelius Cossus, Furius Camillus, and Valerius Corvus. As a young military tribune, he defeated a huge Gaul in a duel in one of the most famous duels of the Republic, which ear... > [@](#): > > In 361 BC, Titus Manlius fought in the army of [Titus Quinctius Poenus Capitolinus Crispinus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Quinctius_Poenus_Capitolinus_Crispinus) against the [Gauls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauls) during the [Battle of the Anio River](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Anio_River_(361_BC)). When a Gaul of enormous size and strength challenged the Romans to single combat, Manlius accepted the challenge with the approval of Poenus after the rest of the army had held back from responding for a long period of time. Despite being physically inferior, he killed the Gaul with blows to the belly and groin, after which he stripped the corpse of a [torc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torc) and placed it around his own neck. From this, he gained the [agnomen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnomen) Torquatus, a title that was passed down also to his descendants.[[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Manlius_Imperiosus_Torquatus#cite_note-4) 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.