Several stories and legends have battles where two similar armies face each other, and instead of a damaging battle the leaders or champions of each army fight a duel tot he death to determine the outcome of the battle.
Is there any historic evidence of any battle ever being decided this way? If there is, what happened to the soldiers of the losing side in such a battle?
Don’t know of any actual battles settled that way. To tell the truth, the only fictional one I know is in The Iliad, where paris goes up against Menelaos one-on-one. But the goddess Aphrodite interferes (as Paris is losing), and that screws that up.
I was curious how Wolfgang peterson would handle that in his film troy, since he eliminated the gods, and they would seem to be crucial to this point. He had Paris, big brother Hector step in and kill Menelaos, which is annoying because big M was supposed to survive the war and go home.
In any case, even in this piece of classic fiction it didn’t work out.
There is also David and Goliath, although I don’t know the story well enough to remember if the armies fought afterward, or just went home. There is also the rumor of possible Godly interference in that one too 
Prince Caspian is another.
Historically? Not really, unless maybe back in the stone age. There were some similar things, however, in the wars of some cultures. Chariot-based armies, for example, tended to be dominated by those who, well, owned chariots. Wars and battles were deciede by them fighting; the ordinary guys were pretty much cannon fodder.
Many legendary Irish and Celtic battles were fought between the leaders or Heroes.
I cannot think of an actual historically verifed battle.
Jim
I believe there’s an account of such in Caesar’s commentaries on the Gallic wars. A huge barbarian brute with a honking big sword was loudly challenging the Roman’s champion of choice to a single combat. A relatively low-ranking but well-trained legionaire took him up on it, and very quickly and efficiently dispatched the brute.
I am trying to track down a cite. I believe there were a few small battles resolved by Duel in the 100 years war. If I can verify this, it should meet your criteria.
Jim
Not exactly one on one combat, but when the Normans invaded England and King Harold was taken out, it pretty much ended the battle. In that sense, a battle was resolved by taking out a single combatant.
One close example from Roman ‘history’ is given in Livy I.25-26. During the war between Alba Longa and Rome (reign of king Servius Tullus?), both sides agreed the issue should be settled by single combat between the Horatii (three Roman borhters) and the Curiaii (three Alban brothers). In exciting fashion, two of the Horatii were quickly killed, but the third managed to rally for his side and kill all three of the Curiaii. The story was the subject of David’s famous painting The Oath of the Horatii. To be fair, this story from Livy’s history is almost certainly legendary, so I doubt it counts…
And couldn’t we kinda sorta count The Terminator among the fictional versions of single combat?
Romance of the Three Kingdoms (www.threekingdoms.com) is full of one on one duels - every battle opens at least with one or more. Historically…
Cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Three_Kingdoms
Forgot to add on:
Though in the novel there were battles which was won with a simple duel (the challenging captain was slain, and the entire side was routed), I’m not sure if that happens historically.
During the Hundred Years War, there was a battle which involved a select group of knights on either side. See The Combat of the Thirty.
Single combat, though, I cannot recall happening.
That might be the one, but I thought at some point in Normandy; 2 cousins were fighting and they decided that as the armies were well matched they would decide the contest by their own skill at arms. I cannot locate this and it was not major. Yours is an excellent example that comes close. This was the same idea on an even smaller scale.
Jim
The closest I can think of was before the battle of Bannockburn.
"One of the leading English knights, Sir Henry de Bohun, recognised the Scots king, couched his lance and spurred his horse forward.
Henry de Bohun was Humphrey de Bohun’s ,the Earl of Hereford’s, nephew and Bruce was familiar with him. De Bohun, realising that, in one blow, he had a chance for glory by slaying the Scots king before the battle, put his visor down and lance forward. He charged Robert who had been out scouting positions. Seeing the English knight powering towards him, lance extended, the reaction expected of a warrior taken off-guard would have been to fall back to a safer position.
But to turn now, in front of both armies, especially his hand-trained Scots, would be equally disasterous. Bruce also had a particular loathing for de Bohun. When Bruce had been on the run in the early days of his reign, Edward I had handed his lands in Annandale and Carrick over to the de Bohuns. Later, Edward II had given Bruce’s Essex estates to the same family.
Instead of retreating or charging at the armoured, lanced de Bohun, Bruce carefully turned his grey palfrey slightly sideways to the charging de Bohun. Skillfully, at the last second, Bruce shifted his horse’s position and the Englishmans lance point went harmlessly past him. De Bohuns charge had been deflected and Robert raised himself high in his stirrups and brought down, with all his strength, the battle-axe on the passing knight’s head. Bruce clove de Bohun’s head and helmet in twain by one blow of his battle-axe, laying him dead instantly. A great cry went up from the combined Highland and Lowland army, and the tone of the battle was, perhaps, set"
from http://members.aol.com/skyelander/bruce1.html
If Henry had won, it is possible that the Scots may have fled without fighting
found a better example
“During the Sassanian period the ancient tradition of single combat (maid-o-maid) developed to a firm code. In 421 CE Emperor Bahram V opposed a Roman army but accepted the war as lost when his champion in a single contest was slain by a Goth from the Roman side. Such duels are represented on several Sassanian rock-reliefs at Naqsh-a Rostam, and on a famous cameo in Paris depicting Emperor Shapur I capturing Valerian.”
from http://www.iranchamber.com/history/sassanids/sassanian_army.php
Alexander Peresvet, a Russian Monk and the Golden Horde champion Chelubey or Temir-Murza at the beginning of the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380. The champions killed each other in the first run, though according to Russian legend, Peresvet did not fall from the saddle, while Temir-murza did.
Also, I read that Sparta once fought Argos, and to settle an impending war of attrition, Spartiate and Argive forces met half way between the two states/cities. Each force consisted of 300 hoplites. By the end of the battle, 2 Argives remained and 1 Spartiate. The Argives returned home, claiming victory, but the Spartiate returned home, claiming victory to because he carried the field at the end of the day.
You might be thinking of Titus Manlius Torquatus, though he was the son of a dictator and later became a consul and dictator.
Might be; the name rings a bell.