We've seen several instances of Trial by Combat in both the Game of Thrones TV series and the A Song of Ice and Fire novels. Trial by Combat is said to allow the gods themselves to determine the innocence of the accused party by having them win the fight if they are innocent and lose the fight if they are guilty.
But does it actually work?
In the Trial by Combat that takes place when Tyrion is accused of killing King Joffrey, his Champion (Oberyn Martell) is killed by the accuser's champion (Ser Gregor Clegane AKA The Mountain that Rides) even though we know that Tyrion didn't kill King Joffrey. That being said, Ser Gregor Clegane had already been poisoned by that point and his death was practically guaranteed - it could be argued that the gods stopped intervening at that point which led to the sudden reversal.
However,
In the Trial by Combat that sees Lord Beric Dondarrion battle Ser Sandor Clegane AKA The Hound, Lord Dondarrion puts his defeat down to the intervention of the Lord of Light, talking about a whip of fire that shattered his sword.
Is Trial by Combat only ever determined by the abilities of the combatants, rather than the gods as people believe?
Answer
Trial by combat "works" in the sense that it quickly determines guilt, as opposed to a long trial that is often rigged (EG: both of Tyrion's trials). And for the reader/viewer it is more fun than slogging through long, drawn-out trials.
As to whether the outcome is determined by the abilities of the combatants, rather than the gods, there is no evidence one way or the other. You could think of it as another case of
Power resides where men believe it resides. No more and no less.
This article explains some of the historical context and why historically it was a poor choice to determine the innocence of an accused party:
The most popular, yet least used and least defensible trial by battle option was in the criminal context. That's how it's portrayed on Game of Thrones. A man stands accused of something, a show trial is convened, the man has the option to fight to the truth in the absence of a formal trial.
You can see why this wasn't the preferred method of criminal justice, even in medieval England. Why would a king go through the trouble of setting up a show trial only to have it thwarted by the vagaries of hand to hand combat? We're talking about kings here, divine-right monarchs. Trial by combat doesn't put the decision in the hands of God, the king IS God. Nobody was getting out of a state criminal proceeding by hiring a good fighter.
However, in their book History of Criminal Justice, Mark Jones and Peter Johnstone explain that trial by battle was used when the accuser and criminal defendant were both private parties. Again, this looks more like the land disputes we talked about earlier. "He killed my friend." "No I didn't." "LIAR [draws sword]."
Comments
Post a Comment