Trial by combat was a form of ordeal \u2013 the idea was that the case would be decided by judicie Dei<\/em>, the judgment of God. Jean de Carrouges was not satisfied with the initial court verdict, and was requesting the opportunity to put the case before God. In this sense, trial by combat was related to other forms of medieval trial by ordeal: by water, by fire, by hot iron and so on. Rather than earthly proof, God would apparently make manifest innocence and guilt by protecting the innocent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n\n
David and Goliath<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Trial by combat has ancient origins. Indeed, medieval people often referred to the story of David and Goliath, in which God worked a miracle and the righteousness of David\u2019s cause was proven by his incredible victory over the giant.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
In medieval Europe, trial by combat resurfaced in Germanic law. The first reference comes in a Burgundian decree by King Gundobad in AD 502. This code explained that most judgments were to be made following an oath by the accused party, but that \u201cif the party to whom the oath has been offered does not wish to receive it, but says that his adversary\u2019s pledge of truth can be proven by arms, and the other party will not give up, let permission for combat not be denied\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
The practice spread fairly widely from this Burgundian centre. It is most well known as a judicial resort in France, and seems to have come to Britain with the Norman conquest. Most of these trials date from the mid-11th to mid-14th centuries.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Trial by combat could be used for both civil and criminal cases: property disputes could be resolved this way, as well as heinous crimes of homicide, arson and rape.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Saint William of York apparently worked a miracle to restore the eyes and testicles of a man who had been unjustly accused <\/blockquote> <\/div> <\/div> <\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>\n
\n
Who fought in these combats? The most famous examples involve prominent noblemen. However, combats were theoretically a possibility for anyone: townsmen, peasants, Jews, women. What really concerned authorities was that there should not be an unfair advantage. Women generally resorted to appointing a champion to represent them: in 1280, one Jeanne de la Valete accused two knights of arson, and appointed a champion to fight for her.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Labourers would not be pitted against a well-armed nobleman. The French legist Philippe de Beaumanoir explained that a knight could not accuse and challenge a commoner and then fight in full armour.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\u201cHis dignity is reduced in that case to the same kind of armour as the defending party has by right,\u201d said de Beaumanoir, \u201cand it would be a very cruel thing if the gentleman appealed against a commoner and he had the advantage of a horse and armour.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Accused and castrated<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n
\n
From the early days of judicial combat, contemporaries seem to have been well aware that mistakes could happen. In AD 724, the Lombard king Liutprand issued a decree that those defeated in judicial combat, but later found innocent, should receive back the compensation money they had paid to the victim.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
What happened if both parties died? This was not uncommon, and threw the whole process into doubt. Some surviving miracle stories also demonstrate an awareness that trial by combat did not always yield the correct result. In 1208, Saint William of York apparently worked a miracle to restore the eyes and testicles of a man who had been unjustly accused, and castrated and blinded during his trial by combat.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Part of the anxiety about judicial combat came from a growing rationalisation. The English legist Ranulph de Glanville wrote around 1190 that \u201cthe legal institution [of trial by jury] is based above all on equity. Justice, which is seldom arrived at by battle even after many and long delays, is more easily and quickly attained by its use.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n

As legal mechanisms became ever more sophisticated, judicial combat came to look out of place <\/blockquote> <\/div> <\/div> <\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>\n
\n
As legal mechanisms became ever more sophisticated and political power more institutionalised, judicial combat came to look increasingly out of place, not least because it potentially undermined royal authority.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
The church was also increasingly concerned about the implications of trial by combat. Already in the ninth century, Pope Nicholas I had worried that these trials essentially \u201ctempted God\u201d, which was blasphemous. Churchmen at the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 \u2013 a key moment in the growing legalisation of the institutional church \u2013 expressed grave concerns about the ordeal, and the church drew back from overseeing the ritual of ordeals. Some of this concern came from a growing legalisation; some of it from sophisticated theological arguments put forward by figures like Peter the Chanter at the University of Paris.<\/p>\n
$\""A\"$ <\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture><\/div>