Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Skurrio t1_j6m3anm wrote

It's not a Fight-Club, it's Trial by Combat when a Woman doesn't have a Champion to fight for her against a Man.

270

Tankgoboom23 t1_j6mqbga wrote

It's funny that the article was trying to insinuate that it was wife vs husband. Also, imagine getting dragged into the hole that was given to you as a handicap?

38

BrockManstrong t1_j6nm33d wrote

The article literally calls the man vs wife angle "bullshit". That's a direct quote.

It goes on to say this manual was made 300 years after Man vs Wife combat disappeared from Europe.

49

Tankgoboom23 t1_j6o5auy wrote

Talking about the original, which this article referenced. Though, looking in retrospect, it does seem like I'm calling this article wrong.

4

daHob t1_j6myz96 wrote

Yes, commonly wife and husband.

19

CzebarosIsLife t1_j6o21vr wrote

Hans Talhoffers fencing manual states, that is forbidden that the combatants are closer than a relation in the fifth degree (Item wenn zween mann gesinnt sind biß uff die fünffte sipp oder näher die mügent durch recht nit mit ein ander kempfen und des müssn siben man schwern die die vatter und muotter halb mäge sind - Talhoffer 1459, Page 9 recto) Therefore a fight between wife and husband is not shown in this document and probably illegal.

17

palomageorge t1_j6osd5f wrote

Doesn’t this only relate to “Sippschaft” meaning being paternal blood relatives? I don’t see why this excludes spouses, a wife would still be considered a part of her own paternal “Sippe”. My Frühneuhochdeutsch is a bit rusty though.

1

CzebarosIsLife t1_j6oxkbs wrote

I was thinking that a women would be part of heir husbands "sippe" when they marry, but I may be wrong. But independently of that, the text dosen't mention that this is a fight between a wife and a husband.

1

CzebarosIsLife t1_j6ovn0e wrote

And further If two men are fifth degree or closer in relation they are forbidden by right to fight each other (in a trial by Combat). 7 men from the fathers or mothers side have to swear for this.

1

bexmex t1_j6nwsnh wrote

The article says it’s not from trial by combat, there were no records of that being used after 1200.

Altho I’m wondering if it’s a theoretical match-up for trial by combat? Like what if Bruce Lee fought Chuck Norris? Who would need the handicap, and how? Just in case it might crop up again with the next plague or what not.

9

raymaehn t1_j6o3hm9 wrote

> it’s not from trial by combat, there were no records of that being used after 1200.

It's not from trial by combat to settle a dispute between husband and wife.

Trial by combat in general was still around, but it was only invoked in cases of (for example) murder, treason, blasphemy and a few other high-profile accusations.

13

Thusgirl t1_j6o8iwj wrote

Really let's murderers off the hook if they're good at murdering.

11

raymaehn t1_j6oahlr wrote

This is a legal system that assumes God exists and is interested in humanity. Werner says that Albrecht killed somebody. Albrecht says that's a lie. Both have three respected members of the community backing them up. Evidence - based rulings and In Dubio Pro Reo aren't really things yet.

So what's the logical consequence? Appeal to the ultimate authority. Give Albrecht and Werner weapons, put them in the arena and let God sort them out. He'll make sure the guy who's in the right wins. It might seem barbaric from a modern perspective but from a medieval mindset it's elegant.

22

Thusgirl t1_j6od31e wrote

So...

Really let's murderers off the hook if they're good at murdering.

11

raymaehn t1_j6oday6 wrote

Pretty much, yeah. But only if those murderers have just as many friends as their accusers.

10

Alarming-Ad1100 t1_j6oki9k wrote

Just wanna say you broke it down really well thanks for expanding my understanding of this a little more. Their perspective in mind it’s understandable and human strangely.

Thankfully things have changed but it’s so wild

2

[deleted] t1_j6omu6w wrote

[removed]

1

raymaehn t1_j6oqhxr wrote

Thanks, that's good to hear!

When I'm talking about trials by combat I'm talking about roughly 1400 onward so I can't say much about what happens before that but to my knowledge it wasn't over after the fight was over. In my example, if Albrecht won and Werner survived the fight then Werner was on the hook now. Because if Albrecht won then Werner really did lie. To a judge, under oath. That was a serious crime in and of itself.

2

nsa_reddit_monitor t1_j6oh8iz wrote

Technically trial by combat is still an option in the US court system. This is because it was legal in Britain when the US declared independence, and the British laws/precedents were mostly kept as-is. Britain outlawed it a few decades later but that didn't change the now seperated laws in the US.

Nobody's ever specifically outlawed trial by combat in the US because only a few people have ever tried to use it, and those people were told to shut up and just pay their traffic tickets.

1

Powerful_Phrase_9168 t1_j6on4f8 wrote

Is it actually codified anywhere or just implied that it's a legal option?

2

jmcs t1_j6optb3 wrote

I just found a recent legal article about it: https://lawpublications.barry.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1187&context=barrylrev

Still didn't read it but I'll post a TLDR when I finish skimming through it.

TLDR: it's not codified and the claim that the US inherited the full body of English Common Law at the time of the secession (including trial by combat) is generally not accepted. There's no explicit decision of the supreme court but it's very unlikely it's actually legal in the US.

5