Move over, Philip Jose Farmer, with your Wold Newton material! Virgil and Geoffroy of Monmouth were there first!

Before I go creating a one-use account on some history forum, I'll see if someone here can answer this...

A while ago I read about a kind of warfare that some ancient peoples practiced which was governed by rules (maybe not officially codified but respected by both sides) which were designed to decrease the lethality on both sides. It sounded a little bit like a bloody sporting event - the size of the fighting forces didn't need to be as large as would otherwise be the case in other societies - a "team" was mustered, and defeat didn't mean the loser was going to keep going adding able-bodied fighters to their army until they won - defeat of the what I'll call the loser's "champion" force was accepted. Does this sound like anything somebody here knows the name of? I'm just looking for the name so I can search on this better.

Thanks, that's what I'm looking for. I remember there being at least one other society that did this, but if I can't find any more on my own now, or the generic term or this, then that's my fault.  

There's the story of the Horatii vs the Curiatii in early Roman history, two sets of three brothers, each trio representing their respective city instead of a full battle between armies. I'm pretty sure it happened in very early Greek history too, but can't recall any examples.

So, I work for what the late (and greatly missed) CBR and Atomic Junkshop columnist Greg Hatcher called "the corporate print shop." At least, I always assumed he meant the one that employs me. Anyway, I print so many things that, other than checking the print quality, I usually block out the content. However, today, I was finishing up a job that was begun yesterday. I had to do the coil binding for the copies printed of a woman's journal and Christmas letters, from the past decades. the interesting part was that she had her journal from 1941-1945, as she was engaged by the end of 1941. So, guess what came along to interfere with their lives?

I only glanced at a few pages, curious to see what she recorded on dates surrounding major events in the war. Of course, she remarked about Pearl Harbor and both she and her fiancee felt nervous about their wedding plans. They consulted their priest, who advised that they carry on with their lives, as normally as possible, and let events occur and face them when they do.

Later, she remarked about the declarations of war and around the end of the year or so, makes a remark that the Russians have the Germans on the run. That proved rather wishful thinking. It's interesting to see what news they had at the time, in Central Illinois, vs what we know from history books. Within a week of Pearl Harbor, she remarks that the Japanese are bombing Hawaii, Wake, Guam, the "Phillippians", and the West Coast. I suspect that was the hysterical anti-aircraft fire that was set off due to misinterpreted radar information.

Along the way, she worries about her husband ending up and things and he does join the Army Air Force. The entry for August of 1945 remarks about the Atomic Bomb and she is horrified by what one bomb did to a whole city and thinks it is too much. I found that profound, especially given how the information was given to the general public, at the time.

Sadly, I also noticed other things, like her use of racial slurs (misspelled). On the one hand, you read depth and caring, and then, on the other, you read casual bigotry. It's why I never warmed to the term "Greatest Generation" for the WW2 generation. There is a lot of complexity in that generation, as in any, and fighting fascism abroad was still wrapped up in prejudice and inequality at home.