Why did duels become a significant tradition during the 6th and 7th centuries? During the early Muslim expansion, all battles began with duels between champions or generals. This practice was already traditional among the Persians, Romans, and Arabs. When did this tradition start, and why did it eventually die out?
Very interesting question, OP. Sadly I dont really have an answer, so I'll bump the thread.Robert Bruce supposedly killed a knight just before Bannockburn. Though that, if it happened, was more imprompt and not really arranged, as I understand it.
>>16884313Thanks. One thing I don't understand is why the Romans and Persians continued to agree to duels with the Arabs after losing 95% of them. I get that refusing to fight the enemy general one-on-one would be seen as cowardly, but after losing countless duels in a row, you would think the common soldier would understand.
>>16884342Yeah, but I also think we need to keep in mind the different time it was. Things like honor were probably, for many, not something that could really be compromised. Or at least, it was not done lightly. This is a very different time period but I read about the Great Northern War a while back. I cant remember the exact wording but basically, a detachment of a few hundred swedes got surrounded and massacred. Charles XII wrote something to the effect of "It is good that our own fought to the death rathern than surrender."And then we have to take into account that our sources might be biased. DID the Muslims win every duel? That they won the battle in the end is indisputable, given what happened to the region, but who is to say that they didnt polish the narrative in the aftermath?Thought a bit more about it, specifically this part of your question.>why did it eventually die out?I imagine guns were a primary reason, but also a more practical approach to war. I cant remember the exact source, but I recall listening to an audio book about the Peloponnesian War and hearing that the Argives had proposed to the Spartans at some point that they settle their differences with some form of ritualistic combat. But by this point even the old fashioned spartans called such a thing "moronic".Basically what im saying is that even 400 years before christ, that conflict, between whats honorable and theatrical vs practical, was very much relevant. But perhaps the combination of guns and the fact that, as the Byzantines learned, the risks to morale outweighed the benefits.I found an interesting event but 4chins wont let my write more1/2
>>168844022/2This is from Warsaw 1920: Lenin's Failed Conquest of Europe by Adam Zamoyski. I dunno if he's a reputable source, but hey.>“The 1st Krechowiecki Lancers deployed to the left and began to move up the slight incline at a trot in the direction of the Bolsheviks. As we came over the ridge, we caught sight of a huge wave of Budionny's Bolshevik cavalry descending from the opposite ridge to the dip, also at a trot. The Bolsheviks had the setting sun in their eyes, and probably could not male out the strength of their opponent. Both sides slowed to a walk and came to a standstill facing each other. A colorfully dressed rider galloped out of the swarm of Kozaks on a magnificent black charger and, waving his saved above his head shouted:>‘Well my Lords! I'm Kozak Kuzma Kruchkov. Who'll take me on?’ At this, a murmer ran along the row of officers standing in front of the 1st lancers. ‘Racięcki! Yes, Racięcki!’ Captain Racięcki (the best swordsman in the regiment) passed his sabre to his left hand to make the sign of the cross with his right and then began to move towards Kruchkov at a walk. Kruchkov sprang towards him at a gallop. Racięcki parried the first cut, aimed at his head, and himself slashed fiercely to the right and down, cutting Kruchkov open from the collar to the waist. At this, a howl went up among the Kozaks. ‘He's dead! Dead! The Devil!’ they shouted, and the whole lot turned tail as our regiment began to charge…>We moved off at a gallop, arched low in the saddle, lances at the horses ear, sabres raised high for the cut. A man who has not been through the emotions of a cavalry engagement can never know the exhilaration and frenzy experienced by the charging horseman. Nerves are stretched to the breaking point, the fear on might have felt vanishes, while the horse, warmed by the passion of the rider, carries him at a wild gallop, frenzied and ready to trample or bite.”
>>16884402So, did the perception of dueling flip-flop over time? In one era, it might have been seen as an honorable and noble tradition, while in another, it was considered a foolish and idealistic waste. Perhaps the changing views on dueling reflected the values of society at the time? Like you said the Spartans started seing duels about setteling their difference as stupid, but it became the norm in the 17 and 1800´s. On another note, the Muslims definitely embellished the results of many duels, but there's no doubt that the Arabs won most of them. They had a specialized unit of duelists who stood at the front of the army, demanding the enemy send their own champions. Arab generals likely had much more experience in one-on-one combat, having practiced it from an early age.
>>16884472>So, did the perception of dueling flip-flop over time?Maybe. And probably from culture to culture, I imagine. And maybe even from conflict to conflict and commander to commander.I'd bet a lot that the early samurai were big on duels. At least on paper. Even during the Genpei War a lot of battles were won by setting fire to something and causing the enemy to panic. But the ideal at least was to introduce yourself to the enemy and challenge him to a fight with your bow or other weapon. But how often you got to live up to that ideal was another matter.Oh yeah, I dont think all its exaggerated, just that we have to be cautious with our sources.
you see a child, their first instict is to pick up a stick or sword
>>16884269>>16884342Did that actually happen or is it something invented by Muslim chroniclers
>>16884313In an attempt to avoid battle, Warenne sent two local Dominican friars to Wallace with a message urging him to submit to the English army.Wallace sent the friars back to Warenne with the reply ‘.. We come here with no peaceful intent, but ready for battle, determined to avenge our wrongs and to set our country free. Let your masters come and attack us; we are ready to meet them beard to beard.’Enraged by this reply, the English knights clamoured to attack without further delay.
>>16884631"According to the Byzantine historians Nikephoros and Theophanes the Confessor, during the Battle of Nineveh - climactic battle of the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 - the Persian general Rhahzadh challenged the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius to single combat with the hope of forcing the Romans to flee. Heraclius accepted the challenge and spurred his horse forward and with a single blow struck off Rhahzadh's head, taking from the dead Persian his shield of 120 gold plates and gold breastplate as trophies. With Rhahzadh's death perished the Persians' hopes of victory: seeing their brave commander and many other high-ranking officers being slain by Heraclius and his household troops, the Persian troops lost heart and were slaughtered suffering around 6,000 casualties" It was a big thing before the Arabs invaded, altho they did it more often.
How come the muslim champions always won?
>>16884269The tradition was always around, since at least the Akkadian period in Mesopotamia. We see in Early Republican Roman legend the idea of duels and it was clearly a popular enough idea that they made awards for killing men in single combat which we have actual proof for existing during the Middle Republic. Of course not everyone was willing to play along with duels. A large Jewish soldier during the Siege of Jerusalem challenged Roman soldiers to a duel and won a few of them until a Centurion grabbed a bow and killed him. Although you are right to say that there was a significant tradition of duels in the 6-7th centuries and I honestly have no idea why they were so popular, it could just be literary embellishment became popular for the period but this is the period where it really becomes front facing in sources. >and why did it eventually die out?It's mostly a Late Medieval thing when it died out. We still see plenty mentions of duels in the 11-12th centuries, some in Byzantium, some in the West. Eventually there was a culture where the commander taking part in most of the danger just wasn't as appropriate anymore, while it does continue well into the Early Modern Period with commanders fighting with their men it was on the decline of putting them into dangerous situations even for the performance factor which was common in earlier periods. You still have men like Oliver Cromwell engaging in direct combat with his troops even if he was far safer than the rest.
>>16884342>continued to agree to duels with the Arabs after losing 95% of them.this is based only on biased arab sources anon
I imagine it started with the two army leaders duelling, then it devolved into two champions duelling represanting the army leaders.I imagine duelling was more about internal cohesion so that you wont have some boomer or beta cuck deciding policy and moves and the duel between two opposing was just a tiny part of it that stopped making sense after it devolved into champion duel instead of leader duel.
>>16884771the desire for heaven and whatever is the antonym of decadence
