Do Westerosi nobles actually believe in trial by combat?

[falcotron]

In real life, medieval German nobles seemed to seriously believe that a duel settled who was right. The Pope had to ask the Germans to stop imposing trial by combat on Christianized non-German subjects. And it wasn't until around 1300 that a Holy Roman Emperor had the mind-blowing thought that maybe some innocent people lost just because they were physically weak enough that they lost even against an opponent fighting "without God's grace". And even after that, there are dueling manuals as late as the 17th century that explain that a righteous duel is a valid trial by combat under God's will, and the participants should just avoid involving the state, which might not agree.

Of course there were always some people who just acted with impunity because they knew they were good enough with a sword to get away with it. But clearly, the prevailing attitude among many of them was that it really did settle the truth.

So, is that the way it is in Westeros? Clearly, Oberyn didn't think that whether Tyrion was innocent or guilty would affect his fight with the Mountain; Cersei seems pretty confident that with the right champion she'll win even though she knows she's guilty; etc.

But is that the attitude of a few assholes, as in Germany, or is it near-universal among Westerosi nobles, and the whole thing is considered a farce that they're stuck with because nobody's come up with a way to fix the legal system?

In many ways, the Westerosi seem to be more pragmatic about these kinds of things than their European counterparts, but I don't actually know how far that goes. The fact that nobody violated guest right for hundreds of years, people speak seriously about Harrenhal being cursed, etc. implies that they're not entirely modern and free of superstition.

[Paxter Redwyne]

Perhaps lowborn believe in trial by combat, but most of nobles aren't very pious so most of them probably do not believe that seven gods actually help right side.

[falcotron]

Perhaps lowborn believe in trial by combat, but most of nobles aren't very pious so most of them probably do not believe that seven gods actually help right side.

That would be interesting, kind of the opposite of our world. Nobody minded when trial by combat was eliminated for commoners (in fact, a few peasant rebellions demanded it be eliminated), but the nobles tried to carry it on as long as possible.

But rereading Tyrion's first trial, I'm not totally sure. You can read Tyrion's declarations as a combination of flowery rhetoric and a way to avoid openly saying, "I know you're not going to give me a fair trial because you're crazy", by Lysa's? She tells her son, "The gods have seen fit to proclaim him innocent, child. We have no choice but to free him." Sure, she's talking to a 6-year-old, but if she has no piety at all, why would she care about feeding him pious lies?

Also, IIRC from The Hedge Knight, while everyone agrees that the King could legally refuse to grant a trial by combat, nobody even thinks it's conceivable that he'd do so if Dunk demanded one. And when Aerion turned it into a trial by seven, everyone nodded seriously, and tried to talk him out of it, but nobody even considered forbidding it, and only one person (the Tyrell? I forget...) even raised any doubt about its rightness (and was called old and cynical for it, or something like that). It's a tradition that no Andal has followed in centuries, and that no Targaryen has ever had a part in, and yet they treat it like it's sacrosanct.

And meanwhile, when the Faith are allowed to rearm, they have no problem rebuilding the Warrior's Sons, almost overnight.

So, is it possible that a lot more of the nobles are a lot more pious than we think, and we're being mislead because so many of our POV characters are either cynics or followers of other religions, which allows us to project our modern sensibilities onto a world where they really don't fit?

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

While I don't know enough about German nobles, knowing a little how some modern people in competitions think (and it might not be about God but luck being on their side), it might just be that they believe in it, because they think they will win.

 

So... those who lose or think will lose, don't think that the Gods decide the trial.

Those who want to win, and then think they will win, do believe the Gods decide the trial. And will be on their side because they deserve it, are the ones truly righteous etc. Now, in a trial by combat, both participants might be overconfident even if only one would win. This confidence in oneself is what gives ammo to the expectation of divine help.

 

As for random outsiders, I imagine you will have various opinions including doubt but some tendency to side with the winner if there isn't a good reason to do otherwise.

[Paxter Redwyne]

That would be interesting, kind of the opposite of our world. Nobody minded when trial by combat was eliminated for commoners (in fact, a few peasant rebellions demanded it be eliminated), but the nobles tried to carry it on as long as possible.

But rereading Tyrion's first trial, I'm not totally sure. You can read Tyrion's declarations as a combination of flowery rhetoric and a way to avoid openly saying, "I know you're not going to give me a fair trial because you're crazy", by Lysa's? She tells her son, "The gods have seen fit to proclaim him innocent, child. We have no choice but to free him." Sure, she's talking to a 6-year-old, but if she has no piety at all, why would she care about feeding him pious lies?

Also, IIRC from The Hedge Knight, while everyone agrees that the King could legally refuse to grant a trial by combat, nobody even thinks it's conceivable that he'd do so if Dunk demanded one. And when Aerion turned it into a trial by seven, everyone nodded seriously, and tried to talk him out of it, but nobody even considered forbidding it, and only one person (the Tyrell? I forget...) even raised any doubt about its rightness (and was called old and cynical for it, or something like that). It's a tradition that no Andal has followed in centuries, and that no Targaryen has ever had a part in, and yet they treat it like it's sacrosanct.

And meanwhile, when the Faith are allowed to rearm, they have no problem rebuilding the Warrior's Sons, almost overnight.

So, is it possible that a lot more of the nobles are a lot more pious than we think, and we're being mislead because so many of our POV characters are either cynics or followers of other religions, which allows us to project our modern sensibilities onto a world where they really don't fit?

It's true that nobles respect traditions and lawsbut I don't think they actually BELIEVED that tyrion is innocent. This is what i want to say, nobles respect this law but do not believe that gods do anything in that. They just like to talk some pious phrases earned from childhood. 

Of course there is a bunch of houses what are pious but as you say we see mostly cynics so it's hard to say how many pious nobles hide in westeros.

[falcotron]

While I don't know enough about German nobles, knowing a little how some modern people in competitions think (and it might not be about God but luck being on their side), it might just be that they believe in it, because they think they will win.

Ha, great point. Who ever said after a football game, "Well, we played brilliantly, gave it 110%, but, despite our prayers, Jesus totally screwed us by helping the other team"?

So... those who lose or think will lose, don't think that the Gods decide the trial.
Those who want to win, and then think they will win, do believe the Gods decide the trial. And will be on their side because they deserve it, are the ones truly righteous etc. Now, in a trial by combat, both participants might be overconfident even if only one would win. This confidence in oneself is what gives ammo to the expectation of divine help.

Sure, but how does that fit with the ones who know they're guilty, like Lysa? (Ignoring absolute cynics, like, probably, Cersei.) Was she worried inside that Tyrion would somehow win because she knew he was innocent? And when he did win, did she really feel, at least in part, like the gods had spoken, and let him go not just because she had no choice politically but because she had to morally?

[The Marquis de Leech]

The last English trial by combat:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashford_v_Thornton

[Codename: Nymeria]

I would argue that most of the nobles, being among the more learned people around, probably do not believe the Gods actually effect the outcome of a trial by combat; certainly, I don't think Tyrion of Cersei do. That may be somewhat informed by my modern sensibilities, given that I have a Flying Spaghetti Monster decal on the back of my car. That said, in keeping with Paxter's reply, I think the idea of trial by combat is so ingrained in the Westerosi legal tradition, and (towards your point), it's extremely pragmatic of them to keep it so sacrosanct.

 

Why? Remember that Westeros is a feudal society; liege lords have to adjudicate disagreements between their bannermen, and even lesser houses have to decide arguments involving their own peasants. Now, this may not be an issue in terms, of, say, breaking a trade agreement, but for really significant disagreements over things like murder and rape, it is both extremely politically savvy and economical to utilize trial by combat. For one, it prevents the cost of having to stage the entire trial, which takes time away from the nobles, as well as the cost of having to establish things like witnesses and evidence. More significantly, it prevents the noble from being in the awkward situation of having to endorse one side over the other; the party that comes away feeling slighted blames it on "the Gods", rather than the Noble. So it preserves order, in that sense. I don't really see any reason to think Westerosi culture has progressed beyond the Dark Ages of Europe, so "human rights" is probably still centuries away; this is essentially a "religion is the opiate of the masses" argument - I agree the commonfolk almost certainly believe the Gods really do decide.

 

Lysa, of course, is two grapes short of a fruit salad, so I don't necessarily think she's a good example to use. That said, she can't just overtly ignore the law of the land like that, because what happens the next time Robert has to decide a tricky issue between two key bannermen? Even in the D&E stories, if Aerion had honestly believed the gods would let him prevail, why bother bringing his brother into it, or bribing one of Dunk's champions? Those are the actions of someone who understands the quality of the fighters decide the outcome, not a divine judgment.

[Codename: Nymeria]

Ha, great point. Who ever said after a football game, "Well, we played brilliantly, gave it 110%, but, despite our prayers, Jesus totally screwed us by helping the other team"?

 

 

“The philosophy is that religion is why an athlete is good at what he does. ‘My faith in God is what made me come back.’ Or ‘I knew Jesus was in my corner.’  Since no one ever has an article saying, ‘God didn’t help me’ or ‘It’s my muscles, not Jesus,’ kids pretty soon get the idea that Jesus helps all athletes… So I’ve been tempted sometimes to say into a microphone that I feel I won tonight because I don’t believe in God, just for the sake of balance..."

- Jim Bouton, Ball Four

[LC Dolorous]

there were always some people who just acted with impunity because they knew they were good enough with a sword to get away with it

Lets take a moment to think about all the reallife Jamie Lannisters doing whatever they damn well please because they knew they would just hack down whoever challenges them. Easier times.

[LC Dolorous]

double

[Minstral]

You could probably consider that people believing in the validity of a trial by arms in the story as basically the same as their counterparts in the real medieval world... it depended on the person. The middle ages had and famous/infamous trial where a Pope dug up the corpes of his predeccor so that he could put him on trial and found him guilty. The dead Pope had supporters as well though, so the verdict was nullified and reinstated again in a back and forth way by a few different Popes for a while. This is also the same time period where they would put animals on trial for crimes, or have an accused was chained and thrown into a river, where if they survived they would be certainly a witch. In order to maintain this system it has to be worth it in the eyes of some and considered a legitimate form of determining guilt by others.

 

In fact, I think that a form of dueling in the Norse kingdoms was considered a problem eventually (might be Germany, been a while since I studied it). There was a specific trial where by an individual could be accused and if proven guilty he would need to give compensation to the accuser, at which point it settled by a trial of arms.

[Codename: Nymeria]

Minstral, I think I'm physically incapable of seeing your sig line without adding,

 

"An argument is an intellectual process intended to establish a proposition! It isn't just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes!"

[Minstral]

So are we establishing that I am John Cleese and the you are Michael Palin? Who is going to take the role of of the abuser in place of the late Chapman?

 

Minstral, I think I'm physically incapable of seeing your sig line without adding,

 

"An argument is an intellectual process intended to establish a proposition! It isn't just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes!"

Yes you are.

 

(This actually gives me an idea for a type of forum game)

[falcotron]

You could probably consider that people believing in the validity of a trial by arms in the story as basically the same as their counterparts in the real medieval world... it depended on the person.

Sure; the question isn't about whether all of them do or none of them, it's about whether the proportion who do is roughly what we should expect from medieval Europe (a lot--and the ones who disagree are careful about when they say so), or roughly what we should expect from our (and GRRM's) modern perspective (other than a few nutjobs like Lancel, nobody believes it).

In fact, I think that a form of dueling in the Norse kingdoms was considered a problem eventually (might be Germany, been a while since I studied it). There was a specific trial where by an individual could be accused and if proven guilty he would need to give compensation to the accuser, at which point it settled by a trial of arms.

You might be thinking about 11th century Iceland, where a class of professional duelists arose who made their living by abusing trial by combat as basically legal robbery until the government banned the practice. Or maybe the Kalmar Union, where Swedish Albertists (or, allegedly, Hansa agents) would challenge an opposing lord, then, when he accepted, insist on the old form of trial by combat rather than the form borrowed from the Germans (based on a very similar tradition, but interpreted through the lens of Roman ordeal and Christian theology), which he would refuse, so they could demand weregild.

I would argue that most of the nobles, being among the more learned people around, probably do not believe the Gods actually effect the outcome of a trial by combat; certainly, I don't think Tyrion of Cersei do. That may be somewhat informed by my modern sensibilities

That's the thing. When most of our viewpoint characters are cynical or mercenary or followers of other religions (and half of them are children, to boot), it's a lot easier to read the world through modern sensibilities, whether that's what GRRM actually intended or not. It's hard to know what a "typical" southron noble would think based on Cersei, Tyrion, Theon, or Bran.

Why? ... More significantly, it prevents the noble from being in the awkward situation of having to endorse one side over the other; the party that comes away feeling slighted blames it on "the Gods", rather than the Noble. So it preserves order, in that sense.

Yeah, that's a good point. Especially since we're told that most trials by combat weren't to the death (even though every single one we see in the books is to the death), which makes it actually a pretty cheap solution.

I don't really see any reason to think Westerosi culture has progressed beyond the Dark Ages of Europe, so "human rights" is probably still centuries away; this is essentially a "religion is the opiate of the masses" argument - I agree the commonfolk almost certainly believe the Gods really do decide.

But in the Dark Ages, or even in the 13th century, it wasn't the commonfolk who believed any of those things. They most likely didn't know they were supposed to believe it--which explains why, e.g., the peasant revolters in Saxony demanded an end to trial by combat: if nobody's told you that God is guaranteeing the trials by bestowing his grace on the innocent one, it's going to look as daft and unfair as it does to us. (Unless you're the village blacksmith or a town guardsman or something, in which case it might look pretty good.)

It was the nobles (not all of them, of course, but enough of them to take it seriously) for whom piety meant believing in notions like trial by combat, religious weddings, divine right of kings, and so on.

[Minstral]

Sure; the question isn't about whether all of them do or none of them, it's about whether the proportion who do is roughly what we should expect from medieval Europe (a lot--and the ones who disagree are careful about when they say so), or roughly what we should expect from our (and GRRM's) modern perspective (other than a few nutjobs like Lancel, nobody believes it).

You brought up the Hedge Knight as an example, and it does give us one of the better examples in order to judge a reaction  if people believe in the process or not.

 

-Maeker states that it is a valid method of justice, but later says he isn't really sure if the Gods exist. So he probably wished to use it as a method to condemn a party, and comes off more as a hardened cynic.

-Lord Ashford appears to be someone who nods his head at the notion, being more of a neutral party between the princes. I find it harder to judge his stance....

-The knights that take the side of Dunk or Aerion have various reasons and motivations for taking part. Duty to the princes, revenge, profit, or showboating.

 

-Baelor has enough practical experience to recognize that it is skill that determines these duels as he asks Dunk to measure his skill, but when he takes his side later he measures it as a way to move people to fight for the side most just. He also seems to be utilizing it as a way to show himself as an example to the nobility so that they are not too unruly when he comes into his own kingdom. So there appears to be a mix between recognition that the concept is up for abuse, but also recognizing that he can use it in his as a matter of governance to send a message.

 

-Aerion: "The Dragon is not mocked", he certainly believes it I'd say.

 

You might be thinking about 11th century Iceland, where a class of professional duelists arose who made their living by abusing trial by combat as basically legal robbery until the government banned the practice. Or maybe the Kalmar Union, where Swedish Albertists (or, allegedly, Hansa agents) would challenge an opposing lord, then, when he accepted, insist on the old form of trial by combat rather than the form borrowed from the Germans (based on a very similar tradition, but interpreted through the lens of Roman ordeal and Christian theology), which he would refuse, so they could demand weregild.
 

 

Specifically the example of Iceland is the one that I heard about, and it was more of a footnote that I got interested in so I researched it on my own time later (and this makes me realize that it has been years since I was involved in history as a primary subject in academia and not a hobby like today). I have looked up topics on the Kalmar Union but the point of duels being used in this manner is only firing off vague reminders. I probably did read about it at one point, but I remember almost nothing about it. Certainly isn't fresh in my mind.

 

The last thing that we might want to touch upon the point of view of the Catholic Church in real history and the Faith in the books when it comes to a trial of arms. While the Faith of the Seven seems to be more supportive of trials by combat, the Church often found itself at odds with the concept of the tournament (and perhaps by extension trial by combat).

[srini]

I don't think it is a mater of belief. Since a Lord can only by tried by a higher lord or King, who are mostly unavailable. So they need another form of trial. This gap is filled in by "Trial by Combat".

[daywatch]

The role of trial by combat only makes sense if it is widely beliefed. That people try to optimize their chance might not contradict it if you have an equivalent to the protestant belief that the gods help you if you help yourself.

The POVs suggest a more modern thinking atleast for the less honor-driven charcters like Tyrion or Cersei.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Well, the most important point with regards to trials are that they were not intended to achieve justice, but to settle the issue at hand in a peaceful manner. Preventing the participants from feuding for generations was the main objective. Actual justice was just nice to have.

 

In that vein, with all the troubles of providing proper proof for a trial by jury, hardly being able to decide one way or the other, trial by combat was a good way to settle unclear issues once and for all. The winner is satisfied by the result and the looser would loose the backup to oppose the result by force of arms.

[Codename: Nymeria]

So are we establishing that I am John Cleese and the you are Michael Palin? Who is going to take the role of of the abuser in place of the late Chapman?

 

Yes you are.

 

(This actually gives me an idea for a type of forum game)

 

No, I'm not.