Dueling to resolve international conflicts

[Jabrosky]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

>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!