
Trial by Combat? Trial by Cake - GW150914
https://daily.jstor.org/trial-by-combat-trial-by-cake/
======
whatshisface
I tink this practice is an understandable pressure release valve for early
societies with poor rule of law. If your court rules consistently against the
strongest people it will have trouble remaining in power, but if the legal
order is set up to be subordinate to the "natural" (most easily achieved)
order it will have an easier time prolonging its own existence. It essentially
means, "you can break the law, but only if we would have a very hard time
stopping you."

If the government exists to serve the people, that's insane - but if the
courts are just resolving disputes between people with no power then the
nobles will be incentivzed to prioritize stability over any other goal.

The rule back then had less to do with "might makes right," and more to do
with "power goes to whoever manages to obtain it."

------
mirimir
Aren't attorneys rather like champions? It's not physical combat, of course,
but it's arguably combat, all the same. And the wealthy do have a considerable
advantage, just as they do in physical combat, through hiring strong
champions.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Aren't attorneys rather like champions?

They have the same relationship to trial-on-law-and-facts that champions have
to trial-by-combat (and, like champions, they are optional.)

------
larkeith
"If an accused man died before the time of his duel, his corpse would be
carried to the appointed place. In fact, there was at least one case of a dead
man winning his duel: His body was too heavy for his appointment to carry from
the field of battle, so the corpse was declared the victor."

The source for this is interesting - the old English it quotes is fascinating,
though rather unintelligible:

[https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25526750.pdf](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25526750.pdf)

~~~
Nadya
_> alle the condyscyons of thys foule conflycte_

I'm almost positive this is "All the conditions of this foul conflict." which
also fits with the passage knowing that "y" = "i" and that the silent "e" was
present in far more words than it is present in today. "Translating" in that
way tends to make more sense of old English.

~~~
wallstquant
But why wasn’t the “th” in that sentence a letter thorn? þ

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_\(letter\))

~~~
GW150914
That substitution was actually a result of printing text, and limiting the
number of characters used. In the 13th century Scotland this was all going to
be written by hand, so y was still an “i” or a “u” and thorn would have been
its own character; uppercase þ, lowercase ð.

For an earlier example of y as a u, and thorns all over the place, try some of
this intermediate Saxon circa 9th century

[http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/ascp/a02_05.htm](http://www.sacred-
texts.com/neu/ascp/a02_05.htm)

 _Feala ic on þam beorge gebiden hæbbe wraðra wyrda. Geseah ic weruda god
þearle þenian. þystro hæfdon bewrigen mid wolcnum wealdendes hræw, scirne
sciman, sceadu forðeode, wann under wolcnum. Weop eal gesceaft, cwiðdon
cyninges fyll. Crist wæs on rood._

Amusingly, G’s at the start of a word are used like Y’s are used today, Y’s
are U’s, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were REAL small furry
creatures from Alpha Centauri.

~~~
nordsieck
> thorn would have been its own character; uppercase þ, lowercase ð

I think you've actually got uppercase thorn and lowercase eth.

~~~
Symbiote
That's lowercase of both.

Thorn: Þ, þ (as in "thick")

Eth: Ð, ð (as in "the")

------
jeromebaek
I think one of the most glaring differences between ancient East Asian
societies and Western societies is trials and the court. To the best of my
knowledge no East Asian society (or for that matter, any society outside
Europe) had anything remotely resembling trial by combat.

From what I've read court decisions in ancient Korea and China were decided
simply by the village chief, often appointed by the king. Which has its own
set of problems, but none of this trial by this that nonsense.

~~~
mamon
That’s probably because, as said in the article, the inspiration and precedent
for trial by combat was David vs Goliath story from the Bible. Non-Christian
cultures had no basis to ever try something like that

~~~
mgbennet
Well, David vs Goliath was just a justification for allowing the practice to
continue. It existed in pre Christian Germanic tribes.

------
madengr
Dueling with swords, until first blood, ought to be leagal. Not to decide
guilt, but as a way of settling slights. Of course I fence, so I’m slightly
biased.

~~~
gregimba
Does first blood count if you just chuck your sword at the other person like a
spear?

~~~
madengr
Sure. Though that would be a delope.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloping](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloping)

------
Apocryphon
Imagine if the Purple Wedding had ended with a celebratory fight- a joust?-
gone tragically awry, and Tyrion was prosecuted with pastry.

