🚀 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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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".

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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,

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

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

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

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.

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.)

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

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.

0:00 the best way to start any legend

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!

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.

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.

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. .

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

When Shaka Zulu became King, he was annoyed by the soldiers moving around and throwing spears, so he cut the spears in half and told them to stab with them. And then conquered huge amounts of Africa with his revolutionary combat tactics.

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.

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.

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.

Troy was an excellent movie imho. Kind off underappreciated.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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)

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).

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

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

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.

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..

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

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.

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.

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].

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Excellent coverage on this topic bro. Thank you

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.

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

Thanks for another great video and Happy New Year!

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.

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

Excellent work as always and a very interesting topic !

single combat is often also preformed at school playgrounds

Boagrios (Βοάγριος) is mentioned in Book 2, the catalogue of ships, at line 533. However, he is a river. In case you wonder how a river's sex is known, all rivers in Ancient Greek are male, and many are credited with siring humans, perhaps as a way of explaining unexpected pregnancies.

a big reason for duels is to improve troop moral to show the enemy soldiers are weaker them the people of your side

Pyrrhus of Epirus was stated to fight several single combats & was after 500 bc and late Diodochi Alexander's successor period arguably not quiet Roman period yet but almost

Extremely interesting, thanks for the video 👌

The editor of this video has proven himself to be a true champion of crotch censoring. Hail UKposts! Those who are about to blush, salute you! 😂

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?

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.

It is also interesting the fact to that the two most reliable episodes of single combat in Rome were initiated by the Gauls. The Romans simply accepted the challenge.

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

I'd imagine as civilizations grew and the stakes of warfare increased it would become less likely leaders would agree to a one on one contest

Three kingdoms and Water margins books described a lot of single single combats between champions, ussually followed by all out battles after champions finished their duels. These duels were mostly mounted champions charging at each other with lance, halberd or glaive, a bit like jousting between medieval European knights.

The big problem with champion warfare is: Why would the loosing army just call it a day? This only works if both armies follow the same code of honour. Imho this is also why we see it between tribes of similar culture, but not between different empires.

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.

achill and patroklos were something like roommates

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.

Fascinating video.

Single combat (as a replacement to a battle) can only happen if a) the side losing the single combat is almost certain they would lose the battle as well (in this case, the two armies meeting in the first place is unlikely, since the weaker army tends to be the smaller and thus faster army) or b) both sides have a profound sense of honor and at least some pacifistic tendencies. Both of those criteria are, in my opinion, very unlikely to be fulfilled by any given pair of armies, so I doubt the historicity of single combat. More plausible explanations for the depiction of single combat in historical sources are: civilian duels (e.g., judicial combat, self defence); romanticization of warfare (the idea of honor and chivalry, faith in humanity etc.) both in art and apparently factual accounts; and a 'schematic' depiction of army size, where a single knight might represent a number of soldiers or an entire army (only in visual arts).

So good, thank you!

In my opinion it seems unlikely that a duel should decide the outcome of an entire battle. But a victorious duel would certainly raise the morale of the winner's army

The same way almost all male animals fight for territory, resources and females, so do humans. All forms of competition are for dominance . The best gets the most

Romans were campaigning on the outskirts of the empire, often far from home... Ancient Greece had city states and so at least one of the opposing sides was close to home... Based on the kids I grew up with in my neighborhood, I have a feeling that somehow, Greek mothers had something to do with putting a stop to champion duels. You might be a formidable warrior and champion, but there is no glory if your comrades in arms see you get beaten with a sandal in the hand of your worried mother!

Khaalid Ibn Waleed, who was undefeated also against Arabs, Sassinids and Romans, was a teal character that should be used in here for real history.

Speaking of reasons for single combat, the movie "The Last Duel" comes to my mind. And the duels of Musashi of course.

Sword was a secondary, because the spear was the easiest to make and wield as weapon

In New Guinea, warfare had typically been similar to champion warfare, with sides just throwing spears until someone was wounded and that was the end. Then they got modern weapons, which led to attritional warfare. A huge leap in time through the history of warfare all at once.

Everyone else named Hector inside the walls "Why he say fuck me?"

Would you make a part two about the meso American way of war since it involved at lot more of single combat from what I've read

Roman politics literally ran on the gigachad bottom text meme

"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

During the Russo-Polish War[1577 - 1583] In July 1581, Stephen Báthory, King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania challanged, Ivan IV "the Terrible", Tsar of Russia, to a single combat.

Jalal al-Din Mangburni defeated several champions one after another, in single mounted combat, the last being considered a giant. His forces were badly outnumbered by an alliance of his enemies. The duels were fought in front of both armies. After defeating the last champion, he instantly gave the sign to charge, with his whip. His smaller force routed and defeated the demoralized enemy before they could get their heads on straight. Single combat is more common in areas where terrain doesn't allow concentration of forces, and/or the people involved don't have professional armies. Members of warrior societies often stood alone and engaged in combat using spiritual power as a force multiplier. The Wolves/Dog soldiers of various native american tribes, and the Viking berzerkers are examples of this.

Patrocles, Achilles' childhood friend and compagnon... Nice dodge here ;)

there are example of this even in 15th Century germany

HECTOOOR!

Where can I find more information about the aimoré's single combat practice described at around 3:16?