# Dueling to resolve international conflicts



## Jabrosky (Jul 12, 2013)

Throughout our world's history, countries have traditionally resolved disputes by throwing out large masses of men, women, and beasts to beat each other up. This is needless to say very taxing from both an economic and humanitarian point of view. What if there existed a less costly, more personal means to resolve international conflicts? I speak of dueling.

In this system, only the leaders of each country would fight each other in gladiatorial contests within an arena rather than massing thousands of hapless soldiers on the battlefield to do it for them. The winners earn the disputed territory or whatever as their trophy. If the losers die before they can surrender, their whole country goes to their enemies.

Any thoughts on this alternative variation of warfare?


----------



## Lunaairis (Jul 12, 2013)

Just because a leader falls doesn't mean their citizens will comply. They almost always don't.  Wars and revolutions would be fought if the people don't agree with there new leader.


----------



## Penpilot (Jul 12, 2013)

Works for me. There was something like this in an old '80s b-movie called Robot Jox. Champion representing countries would battle each other piloting giant robots to resolve international disputes instead of war. War was outlawed. But the thing you're going to have to top from that movie, chainsaw crotch. 

Here's a link to youtube video of the whole movie. Maybe you can steal some ideas for the logic of stetting stuff up. hahah.
Robot Jox - YouTube


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 12, 2013)

I think it could work, if you can set it up as plausible that everyone would go along with it. The people living in the losing country might just say "screw this, we're not giving up anything" and the winners would still have to take it by force. But there could be all kinds of reasons to bolster the idea of having a duel and getting the populace to go along with it: religion, tradition, maybe a war in the distant past that almost killed both side so everyone now agrees this is the way it has to be, etc.


----------



## Jabrosky (Jul 12, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I think it could work, if you can set it up as plausible that everyone would go along with it. The people living in the losing country might just say "screw this, we're not giving up anything" and the winners would still have to take it by force. But there could be all kinds of reasons to bolster the idea of having a duel and getting the populace to go along with it: religion, *tradition*, maybe a war in the distant past that almost killed both side so everyone now agrees this is the way it has to be, etc.


I guess I'll go with tradition. Come to think of it, even if the losing populace didn't like the new ruler, they wouldn't have to go to war themselves. They could always elect a new rebel champion to defeat their conqueror.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Jul 12, 2013)

Why would a country with more warriors, better weapons, stronger economic resources be willing to accept defeat because of a duel to a significantly weaker nation? Why would the land owners and people of importance go along with such a scheme?

There is the example of David vs. Goliath in the Bible, but the only reason it was proposed was because Goliath was such an overpowering individual.

What would stop a small nation, for example, from getting lucky and having a phenominal warrior, and 'go to war' with every nation around them through this method, building an empire?

What would stop a 'defeated' nation from sending a new champion day after day. If they could wound that warrior, even while losing, their next champion would win. And then the other side would do the same.

You said leaders. Why wouldn't a leader use a powerful warriror as a sort of stalking hourse or front man to take the challenges on his behalf?


----------



## SineNomine (Jul 12, 2013)

The easiest way to make it more believable is to make it so that instead of a variety of different countries settle major disputes with this, have it be a very decentralized single "country" where the lesser administrative areas are fighting each other.  Having the same culture and the nominal same head would go a LONG way in making the losers of disputes not feel so threatened they would openly rebel upon losing.  They have to comply because they submit to the same ultimate authority.

It can either be a single country led by a government that allows in-fighting to settle disputes as long as it doesn't spill over into what the sovereign deems his/her own business or perhaps just a single religious tradition that unites everyone and this dueling is a major aspect of the faith.


----------



## Saigonnus (Jul 12, 2013)

What if a leader of one of the countries arguing is 75 years old or infirm? Would that leader be able to choose a champion to fight in his stead or would he have to strap on the armor himself and basically give the enemy an easy victory?


----------



## CupofJoe (Jul 13, 2013)

Not quite Duelling but I think the French [and Holy Roman Empire?] tried something like this with the Knightly contests before battle.
Large armies would still be needed, to manoeuvre and take strategic positions but before the battle the knights/nobles would come out and fight personal battles. If one side lost badly enough it would concede the field and leave. 
I sure I was told this happened a few times but I am also trying to remember what history program on the BBC I heard about this from so who knows if it is true...
My take on this as a functional system - It could be done but I think you would need Champions that don't fight to the death and a lot of "historical" backup as to why [cataclysmic war that lead to decade of famine and poverty?]...


----------



## Alexandra (Jul 13, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> ... Any thoughts on this alternative variation of warfare?



As a device in a novel I think it would be a dismal failure, a disaster. Your readers would think, as they were reading about the build-up and the inevitable combat, 'This is ridiculous, no aggresive country, kingdom or principality would agree to this. Lichenstein could not defeat the US through ritualized single combat.' The novels would be cast aside as suspended disbelief was thrown out the window.


----------



## Graylorne (Jul 13, 2013)

It could work. If such a system is a mix of honor and religion it could work. For centuries, European medieval courts worked with trials by combat. The winner had God and truth on his side and the other was guilty. No question of evidence, fingerprints etc. Just Divine Justice. Why wouldn't that work between countries?  
As long as everybody knows it is the Deity's will that the one who wins, wins all, it would be believable.

I do think some rules would 'be handed down by the Deity' that the contestants should be able, of martial age, and whatever you need. Those too young, too old, or otherwise unfit could appoint a deputy.

And this system would probably deeply ingrained in the culture of the countries involved.


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 13, 2013)

CupOfJoe is on the right track. This sort of thing did happen in the Middle Ages. Not very often and not to great effect, but it happened, especially in the late Middle Ages (at least, those are the only examples I know of). The most famous was the Combat of the Thirty during the Hundred Years War.

Most duels, though, were either to settle a matter of honor between individuals, or else were judicial duels to settle a point of law.

A couple of people asked why a nation would stand down just because their leader was defeated in personal combat. The answer is that a modern nation would not. But in the Middle Ages people had little real sense of national identity. The king was a remote figure anyway and what mattered were local issues. If the king were defeated or killed, it would matter to his immediate followers, who would most likely retreat to their castles and try to strike separate deals with the victor. This is more or less what happened when William defeated Harold at Hastings. We see it over and over in the German Empire and down in the Kingdom of Italy.

In short, I would have no problem believing the scenario, though you might have to show how people reacted in order to make it believable for most readers.


----------



## Jabrosky (Jul 13, 2013)

I have to be honest, the questions posed in this thread have discouraged me from pursuing this idea at least in its original form. You guys are right, it was a stupid premise.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Jul 13, 2013)

Jabrosky, it's not a stupid premise.  It's been done historically for centuries, just on a smaller scale.  Remember, the story of David and Goliath did happen between nations, but the result decided a single battle, not the war.  Look at the histories a bit more to come up with a system you like that - for example, champions coming together to decide conflicts could work if you're writing about tribal cultures.  Like I said, it's pretty much a matter of scale.


----------



## Penpilot (Jul 13, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> I have to be honest, the questions posed in this thread have discouraged me from pursuing this idea at least in its original form. You guys are right, it was a stupid premise.



It's not a stupid premise. IMHO it can work. You stated some good reasons in your initial post of why this would be more appealing than full war especially to the grunts/peasants who would have had to go into battle. How would this be enforced? Maybe international pressure. If one country loses and refuses to comply, every other country in the world enforces the decision via their armies or through economic or political pressure. There are dozens and dozens of way you could set this up to make sense.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 13, 2013)

Among the "Celts" or let's say Britons since the word lumps together many distinct peoples under a nice label, war was near constant. Everyone showed up to the battles, men and women, but it was mostly the Heroes who would stalk up and down the ranks, terrorize the others, and possibly - not fight. When there was fighting to be done, the war mad fighters would fight, and everyone else would watch. This style of fighting was not very well understood by their sole chroniclers, the Romans. When the Romans drew up to fight these people, everyone in the Roman group was there to fight, and they forced everyone on the Briton side to do the same. 

But without the Romans, they would have "hero" battles, and largely settle things that way, without everyone getting killed. It's a very good system to give the most warlike of the tribe something to do, otherwise who knows what they'd do with all that aggression.


----------



## Ankari (Jul 13, 2013)

Jabrosky,

This can work, but you have to set the parameters in place. What you need is a higher power, may that be a supreme emperor who cares little for the squabbles of his subordinate leaders, or a deity that has intervened in a world nearly lost to continuous bloodshed. A deity that allows only the leaders of men to settle their disputes in single combat, and should any other part from either side join, the deity will bring down his wrath.

Come to think of it, I really like the second option. Something about it begs to be written.


----------



## Tyrant (Jul 14, 2013)

the major problem is only musle head idiots would be in charge. Because they would be the only ones willing to fight to the death. And intellegent person who is likely to be in charge or rule would never risk any important outcome on their own prowess.


----------



## Ankari (Jul 14, 2013)

Tyrant said:


> the major problem is only muscle head idiots would be in charge. Because they would be the only ones willing to fight to the death. And intelligent person who is likely to be in charge or rule would never risk any important outcome on their own prowess.



You can fix that by including a champion system. That way, you can have the intelligent people manipulating the muscle-head idiots to their deaths. Of course, I would include that leaders who _initiate_ a conflict but use a champion, must die if the champion loses.


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 14, 2013)

>the major problem is only musle head idiots would be in charge. 

That's not necessarily so. In an honor-based society, having a champion's duel would not only make sense, it would be seen has fine and good. Moreover, in most traditional societies (i.e., monarchies), the ruler is there due to inheritance, so both brains and brawn are highly variable. And I refer to my earlier post about how varied "national identity" was in pre-modern cultures. Also, clever fighters beat powerful fighters all the time in fiction, so that's an easy sell.

I still say it's a viable idea. I am now tempted to swipe it!


----------



## Jabrosky (Jul 15, 2013)

skip.knox said:


> I still say it's a viable idea. I am now tempted to swipe it!


You may if you so wish. I didn't really have a story to go along with this idea anyway, so I was just throwing out a setting concept.


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 15, 2013)

I'm liking the idea, but not for humans. I've got dwarves, elves, orcs, trolls, etc. I think it would fit nicely into one of those.


----------



## Trick (Jul 19, 2013)

This is not a new concept. For it to be the ruler himself fighting might be but in Joe Abercrombie's The Blade Itself the Northmen offer a battle between champions instead of all out warfare - it's rejected because the loss of a single bout would mean turning over the kingdom as if you'd lost a war but still.

Also, in the movie Troy, Achilles fights in this type of duel to avoid an all out battle. Shamefully, I can't remember enough of The Illiad to know if that was based on something from the book or not.


----------



## wordwalker (Jul 20, 2013)

The Iliad did have one or two let-the-leaders-settle-it battles (including Menelaus vs Paris), but of course something always got meddled with-- usually by a god. So it came back to the armies.


----------



## Addison (Jul 20, 2013)

Maybe it can depend on the source of the conflict between the countries. If one country's-let's say-carrot trade is falling adn the other's apple trade is falling, and that's the source of the conflict, then maybe it can be a duel of agriculture. Each country chooses one crop, the same crop, they must harvest and who ever makes the most and/or has the best for cooking or something, then they win not only another crop for trade but they no longer have to trade the crop in question (carrots) or they just don't have to trade so much. 

Conflict settling by Gladiator battles sounds like a conflict of strength. If kingdom A was under attack and barely survived either because country B didn't help or they think country B didn't pull their weight, then they can resolve this issue by battles.

Again this is just my opinion.


----------



## Electric Bone Flute (Nov 24, 2020)

This requires every country’s dominant culture, every last one, to have the same notions of honoring contracts. Also, consider that wars are fought over land and resources. Would downing one champ remove the person sitting on the resources?
Outlawing war could work if every last country had literal or figurative nukes. The Cold War went as it did because two powers had nukes. Proxy wars could be fought because the smaller nations didn’t, but the puppeteers did. They couldn’t fight directly. If no one could fight directly, that could outlaw war for a time.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Nov 24, 2020)

Holy necro, Batman! But still, some interesting points, here.


----------



## Electric Bone Flute (Nov 24, 2020)

Whoa, didn't notice! I think I clicked on "Similar Threads" and forgot where I was.


----------



## Malik (Nov 24, 2020)

Necro, but I'll play. 

The world where my series is set has a very low population. They don't have the ability to field huge armies. A thousand people on a battlefield is something they'll talk about for centuries. Disputes are often settled by a dozen knights or men-at-arms, and rarely to the death. Often, these things will end with one side riding off, waving. 

It's also _extremely _hard to kill a knight in armor, something nearly every other fantasy novel in the world can't seem to understand; swords aren't lightsabers. Armor is tough. It's much easier and historically far more common to beat the crap out of a knight than it is to kill them. Historical armored combat between knights is delineated in Fiore's texts, particularly his _Abrazare _school of armored grappling techniques, which my sparring partner refers to as "judo for psychopaths." Snapping a few of a knight's joints backwards will end a fight much faster than trying to cut through their armor.

When there are major fights between armies in my world, there's almost always an option for a champion's fight, because the loss of hundreds of strong men and women could cripple a region for generations.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Nov 25, 2020)

Nothing better than undead topics. And I’ll go off topic!

That’s why I don’t have armies full of people in full plate... not enough dying! But it does lead to wonderful politics and intrigue with the taking of hostages and ransoms. I prefer the era of mail, which is hard as the hells to get through, but they leave a lot more vulnerable areas. 



Malik said:


> Necro, but I'll play.
> 
> The world where my series is set has a very low population. They don't have the ability to field huge armies. A thousand people on a battlefield is something they'll talk about for centuries. Disputes are often settled by a dozen knights or men-at-arms, and rarely to the death. Often, these things will end with one side riding off, waving.
> 
> ...


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Nov 25, 2020)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Nothing better than undead topics. And I’ll go off topic!
> 
> That’s why I don’t have armies full of people in full plate... not enough dying! But it does lead to wonderful politics and intrigue with the taking of hostages and ransoms. I prefer the era of mail, which is hard as the hells to get through, but they leave a lot more vulnerable areas.


I'm as big of a fan of a high body count in fiction as you're going to find, but the fact of the matter is that plate armor evolved from fairly light and easy-to-make chain mail for one good reason.

The 200lb bow and the sheer, lethal power behind it.

This video is a brilliant demonstration reenacting some armor and arrow tests against the plate and mail used at a fairly representative moment in time. (Malik, please correct me if I'm off base. This is more your bailiwick than mine.)






And more discussion of the above video. 




What fascinates me about this video is what this arrow is capable of both against plate and against mail.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Nov 25, 2020)

Plate requires more than demand, it requires supply, which includes raw iron plus the technology. There is also a common belief that plate armor ended because of firearms, but it wasn’t that plate couldn’t stop primitive firearms (emphasis, primitive) it was that it was prohibitively expensive to create the armor that would stop the balls. Men’s lives are cheaper than the armor to protect them, heh heh. Climate also plays a factor. Heck, battles in full plate have been known to kill men from heat exhaustion while it was snowing. I don’t recall which battle that was, but there’s a good reason to stay atop your horse. 



A. E. Lowan said:


> I'm as big of a fan of a high body count in fiction as you're going to find, but the fact of the matter is that plate armor evolved from fairly light and easy-to-make chain mail for one good reason.
> 
> The 200lb bow and the sheer, lethal power behind it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Electric Bone Flute (Nov 25, 2020)

Dying of heat exhaustion in the snow, wow.


----------



## Malik (Nov 25, 2020)

Electric Bone Flute said:


> Dying of heat exhaustion in the snow, wow.



It's very easy to do in armor. Sweat has to evaporate in order to cool you off. If the sweat has no place to evaporate to, heatstroke will kill you.


----------

