Editing Trial by combat (section)

== History ==
=== Origins ===
Unlike [[trial by ordeal]] in general, which is known to many cultures worldwide, trial by combat is known primarily from the customs of the [[Germanic peoples]].<ref name="kelly" /> The practice was "almost universal in Europe" according to medievalist [[Eric Jager]].<ref name="dotinga">{{Cite news |last=Dotinga |first=Randy |date=15 May 2014 |title='Game of Thrones': Trial by combat was a real option, says writer |work=[[Christian Science Monitor]] |url=https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2014/0515/Game-of-Thrones-Trial-by-combat-was-a-real-option-says-writer |access-date=24 October 2021 |archive-date=27 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211027112211/https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2014/0515/Game-of-Thrones-Trial-by-combat-was-a-real-option-says-writer |url-status=live }}</ref> It was in use among the ancient [[Burgundians]], [[Ripuarian Franks]], [[Alamanni|Alamans]], [[Lombards]], and [[Suiones|Swedes]].<ref name="kelly" />

It was unknown in Anglo-Saxon law and [[Roman law]] and it does not figure in the traditions of Middle Eastern antiquity such as the [[code of Hammurabi]] or the [[Torah]]. However, it is recorded in the medieval Irish [[Brehon Laws]], such as ''Din Techtugad''.<ref name="kelly">{{Cite book |last=Kelly |first=Fergus |title=A Guide to Early Irish Law |publisher=School of Celtic Studies, Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies |year=1988 |isbn=978-1-85500-214-2 |edition=2016 reprint with revised bibliography |series=Early Irish law Series volume III |location=Dublin |pages=211–213 |language=English}}</ref>

The practice is regulated in various [[Early Germanic law|Germanic legal codes]]. Being rooted in Germanic tribal law, the various regional laws of the [[Frankish Empire]] (and the later [[Holy Roman Empire]]) prescribed different particulars, such as equipment and rules of combat. The ''[[Lex Alamannorum]]'' (''recension Lantfridana'' 81, dated to 712–730 AD) prescribes a trial by combat in the event of two families disputing the boundary between their lands. A handful of earth taken from the disputed piece of land is put between the contestants and they are required to touch it with their swords, each swearing that their claim is lawful. The losing party besides forfeiting their claim to the land is required to pay a fine.

[[Capitularies]] governing its use appear from the year 803 onwards.<ref>[[Boretius]] 1.117</ref> [[Louis the Pious]] prescribed combat between witnesses of each side, rather than between the accuser and the accused, and briefly allowed for the [[Trial by ordeal#By cross|Ordeal of the Cross]] in cases involving clerics.

In medieval Scandinavia, the practice survived throughout the [[Viking Age]] in the form of the ''[[holmgang]]''.

{{anchor|Marital duel}}An unusual variant, the marital duel, involved combat between a husband and wife, with the former physically handicapped in some way. The loser was killed.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Janin |first=Hunt |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CikdpXS7DkQC |title=Medieval Justice: Cases and Laws in France, England and Germany, 500-1500 |date=2009 |publisher=[[McFarland & Company|McFarland]] |isbn=978-0-7864-4502-8 |location=Jefferson, NC |page=17 |access-date=17 September 2020 |archive-date=8 March 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240308055758/https://books.google.com/books?id=CikdpXS7DkQC |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Holy Roman Empire ===
[[File:Gerichtlicher Zweikampf.jpg|thumb|Depiction of a judicial combat in the Dresden codex of the {{lang|de|Sachsenspiegel}} (early to mid-14th century), illustrating the provision that the two combatants must "share the sun", i.e. align themselves perpendicular to the Sun so that neither has an advantage.]]
[[Otto the Great]] in 967 expressly sanctioned the practice of Germanic tribal law even if it did not figure in the more "imperial" Roman law. The celebrated case of [[Gero, Count of Alsleben]], is a good example. The [[Fourth Lateran Council]] of 1215 deprecated judicial duels, and [[Pope Honorius III]] in 1216 asked the [[Teutonic Order]] to cease its imposition of judicial duels on their newly converted subjects in [[Livonia]]. For the following three centuries, there was latent tension between the traditional regional laws and Roman law.

The {{lang|de|[[Sachsenspiegel]]}} of 1230 recognizes the judicial duel as an important function to establish guilt or innocence in cases of insult, injury, or theft. The combatants are armed with swords and shields and may wear linen and leather clothing, but their heads and feet must be bare and their hands only protected by light gloves. The accuser is to await the accused at the designated place of combat. If the accused does not appear after being summoned three times, the accuser may execute two cuts and two stabs against the wind, and his matter will be treated as if he had won the fight.<ref>book I, art. 63</ref>

The {{lang|de|Kleines Kaiserrecht}}, an anonymous legal code of {{circa|1300}}, prohibits judicial duels altogether, stating that the emperor had come to this decision on seeing that too many innocent men were convicted by the practice just for being physically weak. Nevertheless, judicial duels continued to be popular throughout the 14th and 15th centuries.

[[File:Ms.Thott.290.2º 080r.jpg|thumb|Depiction of a judicial duel between a man and a woman by Hans Talhoffer (''Ms.Thott.290.2º'', Folio 80r, 1459)]]
Trial by combat plays a significant role in the [[German school of swordsmanship|German schools of fencing]] in the 15th century. Notably, [[Hans Talhoffer]] depicts techniques to be applied in such duels, separately for the [[Swabia]]n (sword and shield) and [[Franconia]]n (mace and shield) variants, although other {{lang|de|[[Fechtbücher]]}} such as that of [[Paulus Kal]] and the ''[[Codex Wallerstein]]'' show similar material. While commoners were required to present their case to a judge before duelling, members of the nobility did have the right to challenge each other for duels without the involvement of the judiciary, so that duels of this kind were separate from the judicial duel already in the Middle Ages and were not affected by the latter's abolition in the early 16th century by Emperor [[Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor|Maximilian I]], evolving into the gentlemanly [[duel]] of modern times which were outlawed only as late as in the 19th century.

Hans Talhoffer in his 1459 ''Thott'' codex names seven offences that in the absence of witnesses were considered grave enough to warrant a judicial duel, viz. murder, [[treason]], [[heresy]], [[desertion]] of one's lord, "imprisonment" (possibly in the sense of [[Kidnapping|abduction]]), [[perjury]]/fraud, and rape.

=== Great Britain and Ireland ===
Wager of battle, as the trial by combat was called in English, appears to have been introduced into the [[common law]] of the [[Kingdom of England]] following the [[Norman conquest of England|Norman Conquest]] and remained in use for the duration of the High and Late Middle Ages.<ref name="QuennellP76">{{Harvnb|Quennell|Quennell|1969|p=76}}</ref>

The last certain trial by battle in England occurred in 1446: a servant accused his master of treason, and the master drank too much wine before the battle and was slain by the servant.<ref>{{Harvnb|Megarry|2005|p=65.}}</ref> In [[Scotland]] and Ireland, the practice was continued into the sixteenth century. In 1446, a trial by combat was arranged between two quarrelling Irish magnates, [[James Butler, 5th Earl of Ormonde]], and the Prior of Kilmainham, but King [[Henry VI of England|Henry VI]] intervened personally to persuade them to settle their differences peacefully.<ref name="Burton 1843">{{Cite book |last=Burton |first=Nathaniel |title=History of the Royal Hospital Kilmainham, from Its Original Foundation to the Present Time |date=1843 |publisher=William Curry & Co. |location=Dublin |pages=92–93}}</ref>

The wager of battle was not always available to the defendant in an appeal of murder. If the defendant were taken in the ''mainour'' (that is, in the act of committing his crime), if he attempted to escape from prison, or if there was such strong evidence of guilt that there could be no effective denial, the defendant could not challenge. Similarly, if the plaintiff was a woman, above 60&nbsp;years of age, a minor,<ref name="burn">{{Harvnb|Burn|1820|p=86.}}</ref> lame or blind, they could decline the challenge, and the case would be determined by a jury. Peers of the realm, priests, and citizens of the [[City of London]] (the last pursuant to their guarantee of ancient liberties under [[Magna Carta]]) could also decline the battle if challenged. If the actual battle took place, it would occur in judicial [[lists (jousting)|lists]], {{convert|60|ft|m}} square, following the taking of [[oath]]s against [[witchcraft]] and sorcery. If the defendant was defeated and still alive, he was to be hanged on the spot. However, if he defeated his opponent, or if he were able to fend off his opponent from sunrise to sunset, he would go free. If the plaintiff said the word ''craven'' ("I am vanquished") and gave up the fight, he was to be declared infamous, deprived of the privileges of a freeman, and was liable for damages to his successful opponent.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hall|1926|pp=44–45.}}</ref>

==== Middle Ages ====
The earliest case in which wager of battle is recorded was ''Wulfstan v. Walter'' (1077),<ref name="thayer1891">{{Cite journal |last=Thayer |first=James B. |author-link=James Bradley Thayer |date=15 May 1891 |title=The Older Modes of Trial |journal=[[Harvard Law Review]] |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=66–67 |doi=10.2307/1321424 |jstor=1321424 |quote=The earliest reference to the battle, I believe, in any account of a trial in England, is at the end of the case of Bishop Wulfstan v. Abbot Walter, in 1077. The controversy was settled, and we read: 'Thereof there are lawful witnesses ... who said and heard this, ready to prove it by oath and battle.'}}</ref> eleven years after the Conquest. Significantly, the names of the parties suggest that it was a dispute between a [[Anglo-Saxons|Saxon]] and a [[Normans|Norman]]. The ''[[Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Anglie|Tractatus of Glanvill]]'', from around 1187, appears to have considered it the chief mode of trial, at least among [[Aristocracy (class)|aristocrats]] entitled to bear arms.<ref>{{Cite book |last=White |first=Edward Joseph |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LoJDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA128 |title=Legan Antiquities: A Collection of Essays Upon Ancient Laws and Customs |date=1913 |publisher=F.H. Thomas law book Company |isbn=1-110-36250-1 |page=128 |access-date=14 August 2016 |archive-date=8 March 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240308055752/https://books.google.com/books?id=LoJDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA128#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>For an extensive list of cases of trial by battle from this time, see [https://books.google.com/books?id=kYVpuAAACAAJ Bigelow's Placita Anglo-Normanica (1066–1195)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240308055800/https://books.google.com/books?id=kYVpuAAACAAJ |date=8 March 2024 }}.</ref>

Around 1219, [[Jury trial|trial by jury]] replaced trial by ordeal, which had been the mode of proof for crown pleas since the [[Assize of Clarendon]] in 1166. With the emergence of the legal profession in the thirteenth century, lawyers, guarding the safety of the lives and limbs of their clients, steered people away from the wager of battle. A number of [[legal fiction]]s were devised to enable litigants to avail themselves of the jury even in the sort of actions that were traditionally tried by wager of battle. The practice of averting trial by combat led to the modern concept of attorneys representing litigants.{{citation needed|date=January 2020}}

Civil disputes were handled differently from criminal cases. In civil cases, women, the elderly, the infirm of body, minors, and—after 1176—the clergy could choose a jury trial or could have champions named to fight in their stead. Hired champions were technically illegal but are obvious in the record. A 1276 document among [[Richard Swinefield|Bishop Swinefield]]'s household records marks a promise to pay Thomas of Brydges an annual retainer fee for acting as champion, with additional stipend and expenses paid for each fight.{{sfn|Neilson |Sereni |2009|pp=46–51}} In criminal cases, an approver was often chosen from the accomplices of the accused or from prison to do the fighting for the crown. Approvers sometimes were given their freedom after winning five trials but sometimes were hanged anyway.{{sfn|Neilson |Sereni |2009|pp=42–45}}

In practice, a person facing trial by combat was assisted by a [[Second (duel)|second]], often referred to as a [[squire]]. The role of the squire was to attend the battle and to arrange the particulars of the ceremony with the opposing squire. Over time, squires would meet and resolve disputes during negotiations over combat. Ample time was made for this by creating a process for checking the saddle and bridle of horses for prayer scrolls and enchantments and requiring litigants to exchange gloves (the origin of "[[wikt:throw down the gauntlet|throwing down the gauntlet]]") and sometimes to go to separate churches and give five [[Penny (English coin)|pence]] (for the five wounds of Christ) to the church.

Early trials by combat allowed a variety of weapons, particularly for knights. Later, commoners were given [[war hammer]]s, [[cudgel]]s, or [[quarterstaves]] with sharp iron tips. The duelling ground was typically sixty feet square. Commoners were allowed a rectangular leather shield and could be armed with a suit of leather [[armour]], bare to the knees and elbows and covered by a red [[surcoat]] of a light type of silk called ''sendal''.{{sfn|Neilson |Sereni |2009|page=159}} The litigants appeared in person. The combat was to begin before noon and be concluded before sunset.

Either combatant could end the fight and lose his case by crying out the word "Craven!",<ref name=QuennellP76 /> from the [[Old French]] ''cravanté'', "defeated", which acknowledged "(I am) vanquished." The party who did so, however, whether litigant or champion, was punished with [[outlaw]]ry. Fighting continued until one party was dead or disabled. The last man standing won his case.

By 1300, the wager of combat had all but died out in favour of trial by jury. One of the last mass trials by combat in Scotland, the ''[[Battle of the Clans]]'', took place in [[Perth, Scotland|Perth]] in 1396. This event took the form of a pitched battle between teams of around thirty men each, representing [[Clan Macpherson]] and [[Clan Davidson]], on the [[North Inch]] in front of King [[Robert III of Scotland|Robert III]]. The battle was intended to resolve a dispute over which clan was to hold the right flank in an upcoming battle of both clans (and several others) against Clan Cameron. The Clan Macpherson is thought to have won, but only twelve men survived from the original sixty.<ref name="Gunn">{{Cite web |last=Gunn |first=Robert M. |year=1998 |title=Clan Battle of 1396 |url=http://members.aol.com/skyewrites/1396.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070717032019/http://members.aol.com/skyewrites/1396.html |archive-date=17 July 2007 |website=Scottish Event & Historical Timeline}}</ref>

==== 16th century ====
The last trial by combat under the authority of an English monarch is thought to have taken place during the reign of [[Elizabeth I of England|Elizabeth I]] in the inner courtyard of [[Dublin Castle]] in Ireland on 7 September 1583. The dispute was between members of the [[Sept (social)|sept]] of [[O'Connor Faly]]  from King's County (modern [[County Offaly]]), who were persuaded by two judges (referred to in the account below) to bring the matter before the [[Privy Council of Ireland|Irish privy council]] for resolution.

The dispute probably concerned dynastic power within the territory of the O'Connors, and the parties, Teig and Conor, had accused each other of treason; the privy council granted their wish for trial by combat to take place on the following day, and for another such trial between two other members of the same sept to take place on the Wednesday following. The first combat took place as appointed, with the combatants "in their shirts with swords, targetts and skulles". An account of the proceedings as observed by one of the privy councillors is given in the [[State papers]] Ireland 63/104/69 (spelling adapted):

{{Blockquote|The first combat was performed at the time and place accordingly with observation of all due ceremonies as so short a time would suffer, wherein both parties showed great courage by a desperate fight: In which Conor was slain and Teig hurt but not mortally, the more was the pity: Upon this Wednesday following Mortogh Cogge [O'Connor] appeared in the same place brought by the captains to the listes, and there stayed 2 hours making proclamation against his enemy by drum and trumpet, but he appeared not&nbsp;... The only thing we commend in this action was the diligent travail of Sir [[Lucas Dillon (judge)|Lucas Dillon]] and the [[Master of the Rolls (Ireland)|Master of the Rolls]] {{bracket|[[Nicholas White (lawyer)|Nicholas White]]}}, who equally and openly seemed to countenance the champions, but secretly with very good concurrence, both with us and between themselves, with such regard of her Majesty's service, as giveth us cause to commend them to your Lordships.}}

The [[Annals of the Four Masters]] also refers to the trial and censures the parties for having allowed the English to entice them into the proceedings. It is also referred to in [[Raphael Holinshed|Holinshed's chronicles]]. This was a trial not at common law but under consiliar jurisdiction.

==== Modern era ====
It is uncertain when the last actual trial by battle in Britain took place. While some references speak of such a trial being held in 1631, records indicate that King [[Charles I of England|Charles&nbsp;I]] intervened to prevent the battle.{{sfn|Neilson |Sereni |2009|p=326}} A 1638 case is less clear: it involved a legal dispute between Ralf Claxton and Richard Lilburne (the latter the father of [[John Lilburne]]). The king again stepped in, and judges acted to delay proceedings.{{sfn|Gardiner|2000|p=249}}{{sfn|Neilson |Sereni |2009|p=326}} No record survives of the outcome of the case, but no contemporary account speaks of the trial by battle actually taking place.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mackenzie|Ross|1834|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=hzlNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA300 p. 300]}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Megarry|2005|pp=63–64.}}</ref> The last certain judicial battle in Britain was in Scotland in 1597, when Adam Bruntfield accused James Carmichael of murder and killed him in battle.<ref name="three">{{Harvnb|Megarry|2005|p=66.}}</ref>

Proposals to abolish trial by battle were made in the 17th century, and twice in the 18th, but were unsuccessful.<ref>{{Harvnb|Megarry|2005|p=62.}}</ref> In 1774, as part of the legislative response to the [[Boston Tea Party]], Parliament considered a bill that would have abolished appeals of murder and trials by battle in the American colonies. It was successfully opposed by Member of Parliament [[John Dunning, 1st Baron Ashburton|John Dunning]], who called the appeal of murder "that great pillar of the Constitution".<ref>{{Harvnb|Shoenfeld|2001|p=61.}}</ref> Writer and MP [[Edmund Burke]], on the other hand, supported the abolition, calling the appeal and wager "superstitious and barbarous to the last degree".<ref>{{Harvnb|Shoenfeld|2001|p=62.}}</ref>

The ''writ of right'' was the most direct way, in the common law, of challenging someone's right to a piece of [[real property]]. The ''[[criminal appeal]]'' was a private [[Criminal law|criminal]] [[prosecution]] instituted by the accuser directly against the accused. It was not, unlike the contemporary appeal, a proceeding in a court of superior jurisdiction reviewing the proceedings of a lower court.

Such a private prosecution was last conducted in the case of ''[[Ashford v Thornton]]'' in 1818.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Abraham Thornton |url=http://www.exclassics.com/newgate/ng574.htm |access-date=14 August 2016 |website=[[The Newgate Calendar]] |publisher=The Ex-Classics Web Site |quote=Acquitted on a Charge of murdering a Girl, and on being rearrested claimed Trial by Battle, April 1818 |archive-date=26 August 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170826074130/http://www.exclassics.com/newgate/ng574.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> Pronouncing judgment in favour of the accused's plea claiming the wager of battle, Justice Bayley of the [[Court of King's Bench (England)|King's Bench]] said that:

<blockquote>One inconvenience attending this mode of proceeding<ref>[http://www.languageandlaw.org/TEXTS/TRIAL/BATTLE.HTM outlined here] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210321210729/http://www.languageandlaw.org/TEXTS/TRIAL/BATTLE.HTM |date=21 March 2021 }} by [[William Blackstone|Sir William Blackstone]]</ref> is, that the party who institutes it must be willing, if required, to stake his life in support of his accusation.<ref>{{cite CommonLII|litigants=Ashford v Thornton |link=Ashford v Thornton |reporter=ER |year=1818 |num=3 |volume=106 |firstpage=149 |pinpoint=457 |parallelcite=[https://books.google.com/books?id=eugvAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA405 1 B. & Ald. 405] |courtname=[[Court of King's Bench (England)|Court of King's Bench]] |juris=UK}}</ref> </blockquote>

[[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]] abolished wager of battle the following year, in February 1819, in an Act ([[Appeal of Murder, etc. Act 1819]]) introduced by the Attorney General [[Samuel Shepherd]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=SHEPHERD, Samuel (1760–1840), of 38 Bloomsbury Square, Mdx. {{!}} History of Parliament Online |url=http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1790-1820/member/shepherd-samuel-1760-1840 |access-date=12 July 2019 |website=www.historyofparliamentonline.org |archive-date=23 July 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190723062717/https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1790-1820/member/shepherd-samuel-1760-1840 |url-status=live }}</ref> At the same time, the writ of right and criminal appeals was also abolished.<ref>{{cite wikisource|Appeal of Murder, etc. Act 1819}}</ref>

In more recent times, members of the [[sovereign citizen movement]] and other novel legal theorists have occasionally claimed that the right to trial by battle still holds: such as mechanic Leon Humphries, who challenged the [[Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency|DVLA]] to "raise a champion" over a £25 SORN fine.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2002-11-02 |title=Magistrates decide on trial by combat |url=https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/21994495.magistrates-decide-trial-combat/ |access-date=2025-04-25 |website=Ipswich Star |language=en}}</ref> 

=== France ===
[[File:The Judicial Duel The Plaintiff opening his Case before the Judge Fac simile of a Miniature in the Ceremonies des Gages des Batailles Manuscript of the Fifteenth Century in the National Library of Paris.png|right|thumb|"The plaintiff opening his case before the judge", from ''Cérémonies des Gages des Batailles'' (15th century), National Library of Paris.]]
[[File:Duel entre Jacques Le Gris et Jean de Carrouges.png|thumb|right|Duel between Jacques Le Gris and Jean de Carrouges]]

According to [[Gregory of Tours]], King [[Childebert II]] ordered for two of his servants to engage in trial by combat against each other when he found a [[European bison|buffalo]] had been killed in his forest and one accused the other of the crime. <ref> Gregory of Tours. A History of the Franks. Pantianos Classics, 1916</ref>

==== Judicial combat of 1386 ====
In December 1386, one of the last trials by combat authorised by the French King [[Charles VI of France|Charles VI]] was fought in Paris. The trial was fought to decide a case brought by Sir [[Jean de Carrouges]] against squire [[Jacques le Gris]], whom he accused of raping his wife Marguerite when Carrouges was in Paris conducting business.  After lengthy hearings at the [[Parlement of Paris]], with Jacques le Gris claiming that he had not committed the crime and Marguerite being with child, it was decided that guilt could not be decided through a standard jury trial, and a judicial duel was ordered. The duel put three lives in the hands of fate: Jacques le Gris, the accused, Jean de Carrouges, and the accuser, Marguerite. In the duel, the survivor of the said duel would be considered the winner of the claim. If Jacques le Gris won the duel, not only would Jean de Carrouges die but his pregnant wife would also be put to death for the crime of being a false accuser.

In late December, shortly after Christmas, the combatants met just outside the walls of the abbey of Saint-Martin-des-Champs in the northern Paris suburbs.  After a lengthy ceremony, the battle was joined, and after a furious and bloody encounter, Carrouges stabbed his opponent with a sword<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Elema |first=Ariella |date=4 March 2016 |title=What Really Happened at the Last Duel? |url=https://hroarr.com/article/fencing-culture/what-really-happened-at-the-last-duel-part1/ |journal=HROARR |access-date=26 July 2019 |archive-date=21 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210321211149/https://hroarr.com/article/fencing-culture/what-really-happened-at-the-last-duel-part1/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and claimed victory, being rewarded with substantial financial gifts and a position in the royal household. The duel was watched by the royal court, several royal dukes, and thousands of ordinary Parisians and was recorded in several notable chronicles including [[Froissart's Chronicles]]<ref>''Chroniques de Jean Froissart'' (Book III, §&nbsp;122) [https://archive.org/stream/chroniques13froi#page/102/mode/2up p. 102 ff.] {{in lang|fr}}.</ref> and [[Grandes Chroniques de France]].  It has since been covered by several notable texts, including [[Diderot]]'s [[Encyclopédie]],<ref>"il y avoit même déjà long-tems que le parlement connoissoit des causes de duel, témoins ceux dont on a parlé ci – devant, & entr'autres celui qu'il ordonna en 1386 entre Carouge & Legris; ce dernier étoit accusé par la femme de Carouge d'avoir attenté à son honneur. Legris fut tué dans le combat, & partant jugé coupable; néanmoins dans la suite il fut reconnu innocent par le témoignage de l'auteur même du crime, qui le déclara en mourant". ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20190518132131/http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.4:304.encyclopedie0513 Duel]'' entry in ''Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers'', Volume 5, 1755.</ref> [[Voltaire]]{{citation needed|date=May 2014}} and the [[Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition]], and also by the 2004 book ''[[The Last Duel: A True Story of Trial by Combat in Medieval France|The Last Duel]]'' by [[Eric Jager]].<ref name="jager">{{Citation |last=Jager |first=Eric |title=The Last Duel |year=2004 |publisher=Century |isbn=0-7126-6190-5 |author-link=Eric Jager |title-link=The Last Duel: A True Story of Trial by Combat in Medieval France}}</ref>

=== Italy ===
About AD 630, [[Gundeberga]], wife of the [[Lombards|Lombard]] King [[Arioald]] (626–636), is supposed to have been accused by a disappointed lover of a plot to poison the king and take another man. King Arioald consented that her innocence should be tested by single combat between her accuser and a [[Champion|nobleman who undertook to defend her]]. The accuser having been slain, Gundeberga was declared innocent.<ref>[[Paul the Deacon]], ''[[History of the Lombards]]'', [http://northvegr.org/histories%20and%20chronicles/history%20of%20the%20lombards/027.html Book 4., Chapter XLI.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210321210707/https://www.google.com/dp/ads?output=afd_ads&client=dp-sedo89_3ph&domain_name=northvegr.org&afdt=create&swp=as-drid-2571438727550656&dt=1616360827806&u_tz=0&u_his=50&u_h=1000&u_w=1600&frm=0 |date=21 March 2021 }}</ref> This was the first instance of a trial by combat in the history of Italy.<ref>''The Encyclopædia Britannica, or, Dictionary of arts, sciences, and general literature'', Volume 13, Adam & Charles Black, 1857, [https://books.google.com/books?id=0kIhAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA640 p. 640] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240308055758/https://books.google.com/books?id=0kIhAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA640#v=onepage&q&f=false |date=8 March 2024 }}.</ref> In the 730s, the Lombard king [[Liutprand, King of the Lombards|Liutprand]] (712–744) had lost confidence in the likelihood that the trial by battle would provide justice.<ref>Frederick Pollock, ''The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I'', University Press, 1909, p. 50.</ref><ref>Katherine Fischer Drew, ''Magna Carta'', Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004, p. 165.</ref> He knew that the practice was subject to abuse.<ref>Theodore Ziolkowski, ''The Mirror of Justice: Literary Reflections of Legal Crises'', Princeton University Press, 2018, p. 74.</ref>

The jurisprudence of judicial duelling in Italy is particularly well documented in the 15th and 16th centuries. In particular, the treatises of [[Achille Marozzo]] (1536), Giovanni Battista Pigna (1554) and Girolamo Mutio (1560) have contributed to shed considerable light on the subject.<ref name="leoni">{{Cite journal |last=Leoni |first=Tom |year=2010 |editor-last=Mele |editor-first=Gregory |title=Judicial Duel in Sixteenth-century Italy |journal=In the Service of Mars: Proceedings from the Western Martial Arts Workshop 1999–2009 |publisher=Freelance Academy Press |volume=I |isbn=978-0-9825911-5-4}}</ref>

The fundamental aspects of Italy's duelling customs were the following. The offended party ({{langx|it|label=none|attore}} or agent) had to accuse the defendant ({{langx|it|label=none|reo}}) of an injury of words or deeds he received, in matters that could not be reliably proven in a courtroom. In turn, the defendant had to issue a "mentita", meaning that he had to tell the agent "you lie", which consisted of an injury of words. After this, the agent had to issue a notarised {{langx|it|label=none|cartello}}, or a notice of challenge, to the defendant, which, if accepted, would set the formal proceedings in motion.

The defendant had the important advantage of the election of weapons. This was done to ensure that the institution would not be abused by the strong to overpower the weak, although the system was gamed in many ways bordering on the illegal.<ref name="mutio">{{Citation |last=Mutio |first=Girolamo |title=Il Duello |year=1560 |author-link=Girolamo Mutio |title-link=Il Duello}}</ref>

The duel would take place on the land of a lord impartial to both parties, or if this was not practicable, {{langx|it|label=none|alla macchia}}, meaning on public lands. The herald read the accusation out loud and gave the defendant one last chance to confess. If the latter did not do so, the duel would begin, and it was the responsibility of the issuer of the challenge to deliver (or attempt) the first blow. Incapacitating injuries or death would dictate victory, although other scenarios were possible as well. For instance, if the defendant could successfully parry all blows delivered by the agent until sundown, the defendant would be considered the victor.<ref name="pigna">{{Citation |last=Pigna |first=Giovanni Battista |title=Il Duello |year=1554 |author-link=Giovanni Battista Pigna |title-link=Il Duello}}</ref>

With the [[Counter-Reformation]] of the 16th century, dueling became illegal; however, its customs were maintained and utilized by most middle to upper social classes until the beginning of the 19th century.<ref name="leoni" />

===India===
[[File:Kerala Martial Arts1.jpg|thumb|Kalaripayattu combat]]

In the 15th century in the Malabar region of India, the same [[Kalaripayattu]] competition was held by the Thiyya caste, who are the [[Chekavar]]s. A special kind of fighter called a chekvar was engaged to duel another chekavar on behalf of two opposing rulers to prevent the explosion of a blood feud. For this two chekavar fight each other in an arena for the king and die.  For this they used sword and parija. When one of the chekavar defeated or killed the other in the public duel called the ankam, the two parties considered the matter closed without either having spilled any of their own blood.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jyT0DwAAQBAJ&dq=chekors&pg=PA207|title=The Other Rāma: Matricide and Genocide in the Mythology of Paraśurāma|first=Brian|last=Collins|date=1 October 2020|publisher=State University of New York Press|isbn=978-1-4384-8040-4 |via=Google Books}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=c3huAAAAMAAJ&q=chekavar+gladiator|title=The Keralites and the Sinhalese|first=K. C.|last=Sankaranarayanan|date=20 April 1994|publisher=Centre for South and Southeast Asian Studies|via=Google Books}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=My8DEAAAQBAJ&q=Chekavan&pg=PT42|title=Jumbos and Jumping Devils: A Social History of Indian Circus|first=Nisha|last=P.R|date=12 June 2020|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-099207-1 |via=Google Books}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7yhHEAAAQBAJ&dq=chegon&pg=PT137|title=Mapping the History of Ayurveda: Culture, Hegemony and the Rhetoric of Diversity|first=K. P.|last=Girija|date=25 November 2021|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-1-000-48142-6 |via=Google Books}}</ref> [[Kalaripayattu]], the most ancient and important form of India, was practiced in Kerala.  Its origins date back to the 12th century.  [[Unniyarcha]], [[Aromal Chekavar]] and others were warriors of [[Chekavar]] lineage.  It was during their period that kalaripayattu spread widely in southern [[Kerala]].<ref name="23ff">{{Cite book|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=My8DEAAAQBAJ&q=Chekavan&pg=PT42|title = Jumbos and Jumping Devils: A Social History of Indian Circus|isbn = 9780190992071|last1 = Nisha|first1 = P. R.|date = 12 June 2020|publisher = Oxford University Press|access-date = 1 March 2023|archive-date = 8 December 2023|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20231208010326/https://books.google.com/books?id=My8DEAAAQBAJ&q=Chekavan&pg=PT42#v=snippet&q=Chekavan&f=false|url-status = live}}</ref><ref name="mm2nn">{{Cite book|last=Menon|first=A. Sreedhara|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wnAjqjhc1VcC&q=Aromal+chekavar|title=Kerala History and its Makers|publisher=D C Books|date=4 March 2011|isbn=978-81-264-3782-5|pages=81|language=en|access-date=10 October 2021|archive-date=8 March 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240308055632/https://books.google.com/books?id=wnAjqjhc1VcC&q=Aromal+chekavar#v=snippet&q=Aromal%20chekavar&f=false|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== United States ===
At the time of independence in 1776, trial by combat had not been abolished and it has never formally been abolished since. The question of whether trial by combat remains a valid alternative to civil action has been argued to remain open, at least in theory. In ''McNatt v. Richards'' (1983), the [[Delaware Court of Chancery]] rejected the defendant's request for "trial by combat to the death" on the grounds that dueling was illegal.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=McNatt v. Richards |opinion=6987 <!-- Lexis 422 --> |court=[[Delaware Court of Chancery|Del. Ch.]] |date=28 March 1983 |url=http://blogs.lawlib.widener.edu/delaware/files/2014/05/mcnatt-v-richards.pdf |access-date=14 August 2016 |quote=I also note that defendant's offer to waive its counterclaim on the condition that plaintiff accepts a challenge of trial by combat to death is not a form of relief this Court, or any court in this country, would or could authorize. Dueling is a crime and the defendant is therefore cautioned against such further requests for unlawful relief.}}</ref> In ''Forgotten Trial Techniques: The Wager of Battle'', Donald J. Evans set out the possibility of a trial by battle in the setting of a lawyer's office.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Evans |first=Donald J. |date=May 1985 |title=Forgotten Trial Techniques: The Wager of Battle |journal=[[ABA Journal]] |publisher=[[American Bar Association]] |volume=71 |issue=5 |pages=66–68 |jstor=20758130}}</ref> A tongue-in-cheek motion during 2015 for trial by combat in response to a civil suit was rejected in 2016.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Staten Island lawyer demands trial by combat |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/06/staten-island-lawyer-demands-trial-by-combat/ |access-date=16 May 2016 |newspaper=The Washington Post |archive-date=21 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210321211152/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/06/staten-island-lawyer-demands-trial-by-combat/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

In 2020, a man named David Zachary Ostrom requested a trial by combat in response to a custody and property dispute with his ex-wife over their children.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Man requests 'trial by combat' with Japanese swords to settle a dispute with Iowa ex-wife |url=https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2020/01/13/iowa-courts-david-ostrom-requests-trial-combat-swords-settle-dispute/4456079002/ |access-date=18 August 2020 |website=Des Moines Register |archive-date=8 March 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240308055800/https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2020/01/13/iowa-courts-david-ostrom-requests-trial-combat-swords-settle-dispute/4456079002/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Following Ostrom requesting trial by combat, he was court-ordered to be administered a sanity test and was temporarily restricted from parenting rights. Upon successfully clearing his sanity test, Ostrom's parenting time was restored. Ostrom has since admitted that he initially made the request for trial by combat in order to attract media attention to his case.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Man who requested trial by combat in custody dispute clears sanity test, requests testing for ex-wife and her attorney |url=https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2020/05/10/man-who-requested-trial-combat-settle-custody-dispute-ordered-take-sanity-test-requests-evaluations/3104379001/ |access-date=18 August 2020 |website=Des Moines Register |archive-date=8 March 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240308055846/https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2020/05/10/man-who-requested-trial-combat-settle-custody-dispute-ordered-take-sanity-test-requests-evaluations/3104379001/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

At a rally for President [[Donald Trump]] on January 6, 2021, former [[New York City]] [[Mayor of New York City|mayor]] and Trump lawyer, [[Rudy Giuliani]], made claims of voter fraud and called for a "trial by combat". The rally resulted in the [[January 6 United States Capitol attack|storming of the United States Capitol]].<ref>Kilander, Gustaf (January 6, 2021). "Rudy Giuliani calls for 'trial by combat' to settle election in rant at wild DC rally".[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/rudy-giuliani-dc-trump-rally-b1783428.html] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211006060554/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/rudy-giuliani-dc-trump-rally-b1783428.html|date=6 October 2021}} The Independent. Washington, DC. Retrieved November 14, 2022.</ref>