Well yeah but thats become a tradition because its a nice thing to do. It wasn't like at christmas you went for a walk in the woods because you needed to go post your credit card bill off and it was the quickest way and eventually everyone was like oh we have to go post johns credit card cheque. its a Christmas tradition, and you're like its 2022! Who pays credit card ls by cheque anymore. But somehow you're still walking.

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.

So how am I wrong? It's the same style of fight, from the same rules. I said originally it was a divorce method, your said no its not, now are saying it's based on it? Why are we even talking? If I were not being paid for this is not worth my time

Not much at all. Swords were tools. The single most common one was the falchion, aka machete, owned by probably every farmer in Europe in one form or another. It was also the most common battlefield sword, used by nobility as well.

Generally, other than a belt knife, the wearing of weapons when not "under arms" as a watchman was limited to travel, and even then not always, depending on the size of your traveling party. The medieval world wasn't nearly as violent as most people think; a simple walking stick or staff was usually more than enough. The idea that everybody was armed and armored constantly is a modern invention.

[removed]

>trials where one man is significantly bigger than the other, or more trained

"Pick on someone your own size."

"Mess with the bull, get the horns."

[removed]

[removed]

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.

Did you read the article? This manuscript was made after divorce by combat stopped.

Could we drop a 10 ton weight on them?

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.

I'm going to trust the sources I've read my info from more than this one that I've never heard of.

That and a quick Google search of "middle ages divorce by combat" sites multiple sources with that exact picture claiming what I said to be the accurate one

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.

It seems like the article is actually directly contradicting that.

That's what I thought until I worked out that no, the BBC was unlikely to be writing about that ha ha. Didn't spot the pound note immediately.

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

Lol I've been to Graceland. This bed would not be out of place.

[removed]

These images are great! Also, I never knew of the concept of divorce by combat. Is this something well documented? What areas is this said to have occured in?

Zahi Hawass is euh, not the most nuanced or objective of archaeologists.

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

You simply release the tiger

What? The article explicitly disagrees with you. According to the historians, Talhoffer was covering his historic bases by including them.

> Says so much about reality: we can put words right in front of someone, bit they might ignore them in explaining them.

Less than you'd expect but more than today. A trial by combat was very much the exception, not the norm.

But swords and the ability to fight were status symbols, they expressed power, authority and privilege. First and foremost of nobles and knights but also of other social classes and authority figures.

That has to do with the feudal class system. Generally, in the very broad strokes, serfs didn't have the right to wear swords, but they also didn't have the duty to join the army in case of a war. Free people could be drafted but they had the right to wear swords. That was very important to the craftspeople and merchants in the big cities, especially since there wasn't such a thing as the police yet so knowing how to defend yourself was sometimes a good idea and sometimes legally required. Wearing a sword meant "Look at me, I'm free and proud of it. I can afford a sword and I can and will use it on you if you give me a reason to."