In discussing the judicial combat, it is important to keep in view the wide distinction between the wager of battle as a judicial institution, and the custom of duelling which has obtained with more or less regularity among all races and at all ages. When the Horatii met the Curiatii, or when Antony challenged Octavius to decide the empire of the world with their two swords, or when Edward III. in 1340 proposed to Philippe de Valois to settle their rival claims to the heritage of France army to army, a hundred to a hundred, or body to body,[286] or when the ancient Hindus were in the habit of averting the carnage of battles in the same manner[287]—these were simply expedients to save the unnecessary effusion of blood, or to gratify individual hate. When the _raffiné_ of the times of Henri Quatre, or the modern fire-eater, has wiped out some imaginary stain in the blood of his antagonist, the duel thus fought, though bearing a somewhat closer analogy to the judicial combat, is not derived from it, but from the right of private vengeance which was common to all the barbarian tribes, and from the cognate right of private warfare which was the exclusive privilege of the gentry during the feudal period.[288] The established euphuistic formula of demanding “the satisfaction of a gentleman,” thus designates both the object of the custom and its origin. The abolition of private wars gave a stimulus to the duel at nearly the period when the judicial combat fell gradually into desuetude. The one thus succeeded to the other, and, being kindred in form, it is not surprising that for a time there was some confusion in the minds of men respecting their distinctive characteristics. Yet it is not difficult to draw the line between them. The object of the one was vengeance and reparation; the theory of the other was the discovery of truth and the impartial ministration of justice.