Everything Everywhere Daily: History, Science, Geography & More - Trial By Combat (Encore)

Episode Date: January 7, 2024

In the TV series Game of Thrones, there were four different seasons where disputes were determined with trial by combat.  As fictional as the Game of Thrones universe is, the idea of resolving legal disputes by fighting, sometimes to the death, was historically accurate.  For centuries, trial by combat was a legitimate option for conflict resolution, and according to some theories, it might still technically exist.  Learn more about trial by combat and how it was actually conducted on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily. Sponsors BetterHelp Visit BetterHelp.com/everywhere today to get 10% off your first month ButcherBox Sign up today at butcherbox.com/daily and use code daily to choose your free steak for a year and get $20 off."  Subscribe to the podcast!  https://link.chtbl.com/EverythingEverywhere?sid=ShowNotes -------------------------------- Executive Producer: Charles Daniel Associate Producers: Peter Bennett & Cameron Kieffer   Become a supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/everythingeverywhere Update your podcast app at newpodcastapps.com Discord Server: https://discord.gg/UkRUJFh Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/everythingeverywhere/ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/everythingeverywheredaily Twitter: https://twitter.com/everywheretrip Website: https://everything-everywhere.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The following is an encore presentation of Everything Everywhere Daily. In the TV series Game of Thrones, there were four different seasons where disputes were determined with trial by combat. As fictional as the Game of Thrones universe is, the idea of resolving legal disputes by fighting, sometimes to the death, was actually historically accurate. For centuries, trial by combat was a legitimate option for conflict resolution, and according to some theories, it might actually still technically exist today. Learn more about trial by combat and how it was actually conducted on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily. What if your perceptions about the past were wrong?

ThruLine is a podcast that takes you back in time to uncover the parts of the story that may have gone unnoticed. It effectively turned day into night. And how it shaped the world now. Time travel with us every week on the ThruLine podcast from NPR. As insane as it sounds, The idea of people fighting to determine guilt or innocence, aka the truth, was actually a thing at one time. Trial by combat, also known as a judicial duel, is an offshoot of something known as trial by ordeal. And trial by ordeal was actually common in many ancient cultures.

It would consist of having to go through some unpleasant experience, usually involving fire or water. Examples of this could include walking over hot coals, grabbing an object out of a vat of boiling water, being submerged in water, or being forced to ingest poison. If the person could survive the ordeal or come out unscathed, they would be declared innocent. If there was an accuser, they would often be subject to the same ordeal if the accused passed. The legal theory behind a trial by ordeal in Christian Europe was that God would protect the innocent and invoke a miracle on their behalf. However, the idea of a trial by ordeal actually went all the way back to the code of Hammerabi. The idea of trial by combat is basically an offshoot of this idea.

Trial by combat actually didn't exist, as far as we know, in most ancient societies, including Rome, Babylon, Egypt, or even ancient Israel. The religious idea behind trial by combat was similar to that of trial by ordeal, but in particular it harkened to the Bible story of David and Goliath. If David could defeat a much larger Goliath in one-on-one combat, then God would allow the righteous party to win in any dispute. The European practice of trial by combat originated with ancient dramatic pagan tribes, including Vikings and other Nordic groups. It began before Christianity was introduced to the region as part of their warrior culture, and then later given a biblical justification for its practice. The earliest actual codified writings that allow for trial by combat

date back to the Lex Alaminarum, Latin for the Law of the Alamani, which was a Germanic tribe in the early 8th century. The law described very formal rules for determining land disputes between neighbors. These Germanic traditions were codified by Otto the Great and Emperor Charlemagne, with the creation of the Holy Roman Empire. Despite claiming to be the heirs of the Roman Empire and adopting many Roman laws and customs, they kept Germanic traditions to appease their Germanic subjects, and this included trial by combat. Here I should note that trial by combat is not the same thing as Dueling. Dueling was a private affair, often illegal, which took place outside the confines of the law. Trial by combat was the law. It was done in public with the full sanction of the government,

usually in lieu of a proper trial by a judge or jury. Via the Holy Roman Empire, the tradition of trial by combat spread throughout most of Western Europe. With the Norman conquest of England in 1066, it was brought to Britain. While trial by combat was an option, it wasn't necessarily something that was evoked very often. Despite its supposedly religious justifications, the Catholic Church was never a big supporter of trial by combat. At the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, the church basically washed their hands of the entire practice of judicial dueling. A year later, Pope Honorius III asked the Holy Roman Empire not to impose these dramatic traditions on new converts. Even the secular authorities weren't particularly thrilled by the idea of trial by combat. It was

patently unfair. Someone larger or who was a better fighter had an obvious advantage, biblical references to David and Goliath aside. Someone rich could just hire the best champion, or even buy up all the champions in an area to ensure that they would always win any contest. England got rid of trial by ordeal in 1219 and replaced it with trial by jury. Nonetheless, trial by combat remained on the books almost everywhere in Europe, even though it was discouraged and seldom used. And while it was seldom used, it was occasionally used. The most famous case of trial by combat occurred in 1386 in France.

Jean de Carouge was a French knight who served in several campaigns against England. His wife was Marguerite de Tioville, who came from a wealthy family, and her father had fought against the King of France on two separate occasions. The marriage was a way for Deca Rouge to marry up and for Marguerite's father to show his loyalty to the crown. Marguerite was, by all contemporary accounts, also very beautiful. Despite, and in large part because of his fighting on campaign for France, De Carouge had serious money problems. De Carouge's rival was another nobleman by the name of Jacques Legree. While de Carouge was off fighting in England, Legree stayed home and became quite wealthy.

On January 18, 1386, while Descarouge was away, his mother went to another town with her servants, leaving Marguerite alone back at their chateau. Supposedly, Jacques Legree visited the chate with one of his men, and Marguerite answered the door by herself, which was highly unusual for an upper-class woman of the time. Legree claimed that he was there to inquire about alone from her husband, but then confessed that he was in love with her and wanted to have an affair behind her husband's back. Marguerite reportedly refused Legri's advances, after which he forced himself upon her and threatened her never to tell anyone under the pain of death.

Marguerite kept the incident to herself for several days until her husband returned, and then she recounted her story. De Carouge sought legal action against Legree, but there were several major problems. The case would have been decided by a local noble by the name of Count Pierre. The problem was that Legree was a favorite of Count Pierre, and he would probably not rule against him for both personal and financial reasons. And the other big problem was that the only evidence was the testimony of Marguerite. The testimony of a woman wasn't given very much credence in 14th century France. The case would consist of the word of Marguerite versus Jacques Legree,

and that probably meant that Legree would win. De Carouge figured the best way to retain the honor of he and his wife was to bypass the normal judicial process and appeal directly to the king. He demanded to face Jacques Legree in judicial duel to determine the truth. This was a highly unusual request even in 1386. It was so unusual that it captured the attention of the French court and became the talk of all the French nobility. Each man went through a formal process of presenting their case before the king. Friends tried to convince Legree not to do this and to seek a trial before the church, but he was adamant about following through and made a counterclaim of his own, claiming that he had been to

defamed. After each side presented their case, November 27, 1386, was scheduled as the date they would fight to the death. This became a huge event for the entire city of Paris. Nobody had ever seen a judicial duel before, so there was no place that was set aside for such a contest, and there were no rules. The duel was becoming so popular that the king actually delayed it for a month because he wasn't going to be in Paris to attend. It was now scheduled for December 29th. Thousands of people showed up to watch the duel. This wasn't just a duel to the death between two men, if Legree won, that would have implied that his testimony was true and that Marguerite had lied. She would then be guilty of perjury and would have been burned at the stake immediately.

The two men met in full plate armor, mounted on horses, wielding a lance, a longsword, a battle axe, and a dagger. The king announced to the crowd that anyone who interfered would be executed, and that anyone who would be executed, and that anyone who would be, shouted during the fight would lose their hand. LaGree was knighted before the fight so that they would be of equal rank while they fought. Both men charged each other three times on horseback until their lances broke. On foot, they killed each other's horses before attacking each other. Deca Rouge eventually managed to wrestle Legree to the ground and managed to beat the face mask off of his armor with his dagger. With the advantage, Deca Rouge demanded that Lagree confess, but Legree was reported to have said, quote,

In the name of God and on the peril and damnation of my soul, I am innocent." At that point, Jean de Carouge thrust his dagger into Jean-Lagre's neck, killing him instantly. In addition to clearing the name of him and his wife, the king also awarded him a thousand francs and an annual stipend of 200 francs per year. It was one of the last judicial duels in French history. There were a few more cases of trial by combat. The last confirmed case in England was in 14. when a servant actually killed his master in a fight.

And there was another judicial duel that same year in Ireland, which was also the last in Ireland. I want to end this episode by providing you with a legal theory that some have presented, which makes the claim that trial by combat is still technically legal in the United States. Now, I should note that I'm not some fancy law-talking guy. I've never been to a law school, nor do I even watch courtroom dramas. I'm not presenting this as something that I believe, just something that I found really interesting. As I mentioned before, while trial by combat became extremely rare, it technically remained on the books in many countries. In 18th century Great Britain, in particular, trial by combat was a part of British common law that had never formally been revoked.

In fact, the last case of a trial by combat request being honored in the UK was in 1818. There was no fight because the accuser never showed up, but the request was honored by the court. When the United States became independent, they adopted British common law from that time, a system of common law that still allowed for trial by combat. Since the United States was founded, there has never been a law passed that has banned or even addressed the issue of trial by combat. Because, well, why would they? So the argument goes that because it was part of the court of,

common law when the country was founded, and because it was never explicitly banned, trial by combat would still, technically, be legal in the United States. Now, again, I would not try pursuing this line of argument if you should ever appear before a court, unless you have a very cool judge who is also a very big Game of Thrones fan. This has actually been brought up in a court a handful of times over the years in the United States, usually half-joking, and every time it was dismissed out of hand, usually because dueling is illegal. So, yes, trial by combat used to be a thing. It was never really practiced that often, and it was never really even supported by the powers that be at any time. Yet it did exist, and on rare occasions it was evoked. So if you ever see Game of Thrones or

some other show where a legal matter is settled by fighting, know that it was based on an actual ancient legal principle. The executive producer of Everything Everywhere Daily is Charles Daniel. The associate producers are Peter Bennett and Cameron Kiever. I wanted to give a big thanks to everyone who supports the show on Patreon. Your support helps me put out a new show every day. And if you're interested in Everything Everywhere Daily merchandise, Patreon is currently the only place where it's available.

And if you'd like to talk to other listeners of the show and get notified to future episodes and projects, please join my Facebook group or Discord server. Links to everything are in the show. Don't out.