Trial by Combat
are copied from accounts from earlier manuscripts. Nonetheless,
the earliest, by Paulus Kall, Master of Defence for the Duke of
Bavaria, has a description that outlines what may have occurred
during one of these duels. “The woman must be so prepared
that a sleeve of her chemise extend a small ell [an arm’s length]
beyond her hand like a little sack,” Kall begins. “There indeed
is put a stone weighing three pounds and she has nothing else
but her chemise and that is bound together between the legs
with a lace. Then the man made himself ready against his wife.
He is buried therein up to the girdle and one hand is bound at
the elbow to the side.” The man would then have to beat off the
attack from the stone with a club.
One particular case that took place in 1288 seems to add
credence to Kall’s description. This involved a man fighting a
woman, and he had several similar restrictions to those outlined
by Kall imposed on him. However, the rules in this particular duel
seem slightly more complex in nature: the man was armed withthree wooden clubs and placed in a large pit, while the woman
was given three rocks. The woman was allowed to run around the
edge of the pit but the man couldn’t leave it; should he touch the
edge he had to forfeit one of his clubs. If the woman were to hurl
a rock while he handed the club over, she too would lose one of
her weapons. These restrictions were imposed to make the fight
between a man, who was usually stronger, and a women fairer.
The Holy Roman Empire saw numerous judicial duels take
place during the Middle Ages, not just those of a marital nature.
The practice had been named as a key method of resolving
claims of theft, injury or insult in 1230 in the Sachsenspiegel, the
empire’s primary legal code. In the Holy Roman Empire, trial by
combat functioned differently to Britain. Instead of the hiring of
‘champions’, it was the accused and accuser who faced each other,
hence a husband could face his wife. However, the Holy Roman
Emperor was becoming increasingly disturbed by the number of
men who were being condemned due to physical weakness and
not due to any sign of guilt. As a result of the emperor’s concerns,“Variations on the combat
appear across the continent,
such as the Scandinavian
‘Holmgang’ used by the Vikings”
‘Duelling’ could take many other forms, and many
of these were for honour as opposed to a legal
dispute. In the German military duelling scars, or
‘Schmisse’, were seen as something of a symbol of
pride by officers. These scars were often referred
to as ‘Mensur Scars’ and were the result of fencing.
University duels of honour between students were
incredibly common and although protective gear
was worn (padding on the arms, chest and throat,
and eye guards) these fights were extremely violent.
Occasionally, due to the spontaneous and sometimes
heated nature of these duels, they would take
place without protection for the combatants. This
practice was banned shortly following World War I
and continued to be prohibited by the Nazi party.
Following the end of World War II it was reinstated,
though soon fell out of favour. ‘Academic’ duelling is
still practised in some universities, though thankfully
the obsession of obtaining facial scarring seems to
have vanished.
In German universities of the 19th and
early 20th century, duelling scars were
a show of courage and a brotherly bondDUELS
OFHONOUR
ABOVE-LEFT
Illustration of a
duel between
Marshal Wilhelm
von Dornsberg
and Theodor
Haschenacker. Von
Dornsberg broke
his sword but was
still victorious
ABOVE-MIDDLE
Abraham Thornton,
who was tried for
murder and acquitted
after calling for trial
by combat
ABOVE-RIGHT
Depiction of
a judicial duel,
the kind of
which took place
in Britain during
the Middle Ages