Timeline for Did anyone ever win a kingdom through single combat without a backing army or blood tie to the throne?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 4, 2013 at 22:33 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | @Gagnus: Language doesn't work like that. Single combat means a one on one fight. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_combat You claim there are heaps of such cases in history. Strangely enough you don't mention a single one in your answer. | |
| Dec 4, 2013 at 20:28 | comment | added | Gangnus | If he means the personal fight, then it happened in old times, when the challenger had obviously more rights for the throne, than the king. Any case, when a pretender killed a ruler personally and openly, fits for the question. And there were HEAPS of such cases in history. | |
| Dec 4, 2013 at 20:23 | comment | added | Gangnus | wiki: "The term combat ...typically refers to armed conflict between military forces in warfare" So, single combat=single battle. And NOT a battle of singles. | |
| Dec 4, 2013 at 20:13 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | @Gangnus: OK, maybe not outnumbering but having the larger military power, which was the case in both these cases. None of the cases was single combat. | |
| Dec 4, 2013 at 17:32 | comment | added | Gangnus | I am only demonstrating, that the paragraph "Why would the sovereign accept single combat as an option unless the claimant had an army that was clearly outnumbering the sovereigns army?" is irrelevant, for there are other cases - viz. my answer. The same with the other two. | |
| Dec 4, 2013 at 17:03 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | @Gagnus: I don't understand what you are asking. | |
| Dec 4, 2013 at 15:23 | comment | added | o0'. | @Gangnus the logic is that if I have an army you don't, I can kill you and seize the kingdom? Don't need no rocket science... | |
| Dec 4, 2013 at 15:18 | comment | added | Gangnus | @Lohoris. You have taken into account your own conditions. Why exactly these? Where is the logic? | |
| Dec 4, 2013 at 14:32 | comment | added | o0'. | @Gangnus then there's nobody to battle with, and if there is there's an army, and if two claimants both without armies are dueling, a third one with an army will kill them both anyway. | |
| Sep 12, 2013 at 14:52 | comment | added | Gangnus | "Why would the sovereign accept single combat..." And what about the situation when there is no ONE recognized sovereign? | |
| Sep 11, 2013 at 9:15 | comment | added | Felix Goldberg | @MarkC.Wallace Thumbs up for SCA :) | |
| Sep 10, 2013 at 12:16 | comment | added | MCW♦ | @LateralFractal I'm not sure such cultures ever existed, and as you say, if they did exist, they didn't leave much in the way of records. Except perhaps for the Society for Creative Anachronism, where this phenomenon can happen. | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 21:22 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | @LateralFractal OK, I'm not going to go into a wordfight. It's just pretty obvious that in a culture that decides leaders by one-on-one combat, the combatants can not be reasonably described as "enemies with no legal claim to the throne". | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 21:18 | comment | added | LateralFractal | @LennartRegebro: From the king/chieftain's viewpoint, an interloper using the same cultural mores for ascendancy can still be an enemy. Take the sadly bitter partisanship in some modern democracies. Although... Seeing incumbent Obama and challenger Romney have at it with sword and shield would have been a sight to see. | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 13:12 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | @LateralFractal: Even so, that's hardly an enemy. | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 12:35 | comment | added | LateralFractal | Cultures where the best killer in the tribe or petty kingdom gained acclaimed leadership through combat upon the ruler are probably lost to prehistory if they ever existed. You'd need a pretty ruthless warrior meritocracy. Although I wonder about the Mongols. | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 12:29 | vote | accept | LateralFractal | ||
| Sep 9, 2013 at 10:50 | comment | added | MCW♦ | I think you've hit the nail on the head; most theories of governance include "legitimacy" - and while I won't categorically state that it is impossible for single combat to demonstrate legitimacy, I cannot imagine any situation in which single combat could demonstrate the ability to govern. | |
| Sep 9, 2013 at 10:47 | history | answered | Lennart Regebro | CC BY-SA 3.0 |