53 replies to this topic

[Frey Pie]

I guess it also gives men a chance to go out in a blaze of glory. Someone commits a crime and knows it, asks for trial by combat to go out fighting, even if he stands no chance e.g. the guy who held SE for Renly against Stannis

[Michaelj]

_Oberyn_, on 22 April 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Trial by combat seems to apply when there is no clear evidence of guilt though. E.g Oberyn cannot stab Tywin in a room full of people and demand trial by combat.

Hahah! That would be hilarious if it did happen.

- stabs Tywin -
"ir demand twial by c0mbat!1!"

[Ser Lepus]

Knight Of Winter, on 22 April 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

While this seems true most of the time, as in cases of Tyrion (twice), Rickard Stark, queen Naerys and others, there is one case where "defendant" is sentenced to death without any trial - and that's Ned ordering execution of Gregor.

Although, I don't know if things would be different if Gregor was present and demanded trial by combat. Since there are very few men in Westeros capable of defeating him, he would be free to commit his atrocities time and time again.

I think Gregor Clegane couldn´t demand trial by combat because he wasn´t there during the "trial"; Ned heard the accusations, nobody spoke defending Ser Gregor, and sentence was passed. Afterwards, once sentence has been passed, it´s to late for trial  by combat.

Of course, that allows some freedom to the lord: He can pass an impromptu sentence and comdemn the criminal to death without ever seeing him, and if nobody captures him and bring him to court, but instead he is caught and outright killed, the accused never has the opportunity to demand a trial by combat.

[AvengerofWinterfell]

The Imp With A Pimp Limp, on 21 April 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

His life was still put in danger, not saying it was forced. To me it seems stupid that if a person kills another then another one must die if he's "innocent" and if he's "guilty" two will die.

you're operating under the assumption that trial by combat is to the death.  If you're the champion of another party and it looks like you're about to lose, you could always yield.  In the case of the Red Viper and Gregor, Viper was basically winning, but he chose to elongate the process and try to make Gregor suffer/confess and he it cost him his life. Although Gregor's end was much more painful than Vipers

[LuisDantas]

Awesome Oberyn Martell, on 22 April 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

The nobility have a right to trial by combat, obviously the smallfolk don't.

Why do you think so?  What little evidence we have suggests otherwise.  Have you read the first Dunk & Egg tale, for instance?

[LuisDantas]

Trial by combat is a fairly simple idea, quite sharply integrated to the mindset of those who believe that the gods favor the just.

It must be recognized, however, that to a large extent being strong makes one just in medieval societies.  The idea that the weak deserve protection - or, for that matter, that they even deserve to live - is a remarkably recent concept, arguably not even seventy years old.

For the most part, keeping the peace was a skillful balancing act between keeping the status quo and opening way for the strongest suitors.  Trial by combat is very well suited for both goals.

[TheSpottedCat]

The whole idea of trial by combat is that god/ the gods will let the one who is right win. Actually, the accused is the one that is supposed to fight and his accuser fights against him. If the accused loses, he dies and so is punished. If he wins, it's supposed to be a sign from god that he is innocent and he's allowed to go free. Trial by battle is reserved for the gravest of crimes (treason, murder etc), where the punishment would be death. The two sides are, however, allowed to pick champions to fight for them instead of fighting themselves. In which case, the one who finds the strongest/ best skilled champion wins. So, yes, it is highly flawed. First because it assumes that the gods intervene to decide the result, and then because it completely fails to consider that battle skills and strength will most likely determine the winner. Consider for example, Tyrion's trial by battle when he was accused of murdering Joffrey. His accuser, Cersei, being the Queen Regent, had a choice amongst the best warriors in Westeros and chose as her champion Gregor Clegane, perhaps the strongest man in the Seven Kingdoms. Tyrion, being accused of regicide and treason had no friends left and no choices to make for a champion (even Bronn wouldn't risk his neck this time), so if Oberyn Martell hadn't stepped in to champion him, Tyrion would most likely end up fighting the Mountain himself- and dying within nanoseconds, most probably. Even with Oberyn as his champion, Tyrion lost the trial and would've been executed if Jaime hadn't helped him escape.

[DannySpud]

You can only request trial by combat if a trial is needed. It's not like modern times where we have a trial for everything, if you are clearly guilty in Westeros you will be punished without trial.

[Ser Pink of Floyd]

Its all a bit silly and hilarious. Imagine, I kill someone and elect trial by combat and win. There might be a dozen witnesses that saw me kill them, but clearly they are all liars, I mean, if they really saw me kill him... I wouldnt win the combat, right?

Its a great plot device, and without it ASOS wouldnt have had that memorable fight, Tyrion wouldnt have ever gotten out of the Eyrie and who knows whats coming up in future books.

[Ser Lepus]

Another thing to take into account is that judges were never neutral: the lord judging you was your political ruler, military leader, the boss paying your wages, the government getting your taxes, the landlord owning your fields and home, and probably somebody who knew your dad and granddad and those of the guy you are going against at the trial...or even worse, he is nothing of that but you are an outsider without connections going to trial against a local...

Fairness wasn´t the main concern of the judging lords, it was the protection of their own interests as rulers first, and those of his bannermen, retainers and dependants second.

So trial by combat was a way to avoid putting your life and property in the hands of a lord who would use his judiciary powers to promote his own benefit, not yours, and it also allowed lords to avoid getting involved when they didn´t have anything to win and didn´t want to pick a side, and allowed kings to limit the judicial powers of greater lords by allowing lesser nobles to demand trial by combat.

People probably knew it was an unfair system, but it kep because it was socially beneficial, at least for the interests of knights and lesser nobles, and maybe some commoners, who could avoid judicial control of their greedy overlords.

Edited by Ser Lepus, 23 April 2012 - 05:21 PM.

[Rittmeister]

considering all the corrupt judges and state attorneys, trial by combat may actually give you a better chance to win.

[MikeDC]

Ser Lepis is exactly right. I'd further that to say Trial By Combat is not only not flawed, but it's an improvement over the alternatives. Consider the trials by combat we've witnessed:

• In The Hedge Knight, Duncan is found innocent via trial by combat when he otherwise likely would have been killed by Aerion Targaryen.
  
• Bronn/Tyrion vs. Ser Vardis/Lyssa. Justice is certainly only done by trial by combat. Without it, Lyssa kills innocent Tyrion.
  
• Sandor was probably technically innocent of murdering Mycah, since he rode him down at the request of the queen and crown prince of the realm, so his defeat of Beric was the proper outcome in his trial with Beric. Alternatively, we could say that's inconclusive since it wasn't so much a true trial by combat in the first place. Beric was, of course, already dead. For this reason, I wouldn't count Lord Rickard vs. "fire" either. In any case though, it's likely a normal trial would have found the Hound guilty and hung him.
  
• Gregor Clegane's "triumph" over Oberyn Martell seems to be the only one where the innocent party lost. But Tyrion only chose trial by combat because he knew he had no chance of winning a normal trial. I'd also argue that if Martell had simply fought to win instead of pursuing his own agenda, he likely would have killed Gregor, exonerated Tyrion, and lived himself. Trials are about your client, not yourself, and by forgetting this The Red Viper proved himself a shitty lawyer.

Hence, I think trial by combat is the most just form of trial in ASOIAF. The most flawed form is a trial by whatever lord is at hand. In the case of trial by lord, we likely would have an unjust outcome in all 4 examples. 100% unjust! In trial by combat, we have 3 out of 4 cases ending in the just outcome. 75% just, and it would have been 100% just if Tyrion's combatant had stuck to the rules and intent of trial by combat.

[mormont]

Ser Pink of Floyd, on 23 April 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

Its all a bit silly and hilarious. Imagine, I kill someone and elect trial by combat and win. There might be a dozen witnesses that saw me kill them, but clearly they are all liars, I mean, if they really saw me kill him... I wouldnt win the combat, right?

Historically, in such a case you probably wouldn't have been allowed trial by combat, in fact. This is because one of the primary reasons for such trials was to resolve otherwise intractable cases. We've not seen any case where trial by combat was refused in Westeros, but that's not to say it couldn't happen.

[The Butler of Tarth]

Trials by combat seem to only be invoked in cases where the evidence is inconclusive. Only the gods know who's in the right and surely they wouldn't let the evildoer win. Justice!