Trial by combat was a legal method of dispute resolution in the Middle Ages, where two parties fought in a single duel to establish who was right. It was legally sanctioned in various European countries, with the nobility able to challenge others without appearing in court. The aged or infirm could refuse, and certain classes of citizens were exempt. However, it fell out of favor as legal scholars became concerned about punishing the weak. Jury trials replaced fighting as the fairest way to deliver justice.
Trial by combat, also known as battle wagering, was a method of settling disputes between two people in the absence of a confession or witnesses who could attest to the matter. It was a popular alternative to the judicial process in the European Middle Ages, but fell out of favor in the 16th century. The trial purported to establish who was right by force of arms.
Unlike dueling and other forms of dispute resolution which were illegal in certain periods of history, trial by combat was legally sanctioned during the Middle Ages in various European countries. The common people needed judicial permission to settle a dispute by combat, but the nobility could challenge another person without first appearing in court. While the particulars of using this method to settle matters depended on the jurisdiction, typical causes of action that were settleable through combat were charges of murder, treason, heresy, perjury, fraud, rape, kidnapping, and desertion.
During a trial by combat, the parties to a dispute fought in a single duel. Every jurisdiction had stipulations about what fighters could use and wear. If one party failed to appear, the other would be deemed the winner for non-performance. Providing both sides appeared as ordered, the law would set out the procedure for determining the winner and loser.
In Britain, for example, the wager of battle began at sunrise and continued at sunset or until one side was dead or disabled. If the defendant in case he was defeated but was still alive in serious cases, such as murder, he would be hanged on the spot. Both sides could surrender, but then they would also face sanctions for bringing the case and not completing it. Whoever won the battle would be deemed the winner of the underlying cause.
The aged or infirm were usually permitted to refuse a trial by combat or to name a champion. In some lands, certain other classes of citizens were considered exempt from combat and could decline, such as priests and “peers of the realm.” Should a champion concede the fight, he would be subject to the same punishment for infamy as his patron.
While trial by combat was a more direct way to resolve disputes, it rewarded a party for being skilled and strong rather than being right. This type of process began to fall out of favor as legal scholars became concerned that the weak were being punished simply for being weak. Jury trial eventually replaced fighting as the fairest way to deliver justice for all.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
