|
Trial by combat (or, more formally, judicial duel) is a Medieval way to replace a trial with a straight duel between a plaintiff and a defendant. The judicial duels became increasingly unusual by the end of the middle ages, but they were still an accepted part of legal theory and practice through the renaissance. They could be used in cases of treason and a variety of other criminal and civil cases where there was not overwhelming evidence on one side or the other. Only a few people were exempt - clergymen, for instance - and women were not among them. As a result, women sometimes fought. Sometimes a husband, father of brother fought on behalf of a woman but often a woman had to fight against another woman or a man.
It was a physical duel with specially assigned weapons. Of course, the one who had an advantage in strength and fighting skills appeared "righteous" – no matter if he or she was really innocent or guilty. If a female counterpart had to fight against a male one, in order to even the odds, such judicial duels were arranged by placing the man in a pit dug as deep as his navel while allowing the woman free movement around that pit. The usual weapons included leather belts, singlesticks, and fist-sized rocks wrapped in cloth.
Apparently, they were most common between husband and wife (because otherwise she would have less trouble finding a champion.) There are conflicting opinions about conditions constitute a victory in male-female judicial duel. According to one of them, during these duels, if a participant’s weapon or hand touched the ground three times, he or she was declared defeated. Other sources tell that in order to win such a duel, a participant had to kill or to mutilate an opponent. The third opinion states that a woman had to drag her male opponent out of the hole and the man had to drag her into it. Besides, there is some evidence that after the duel male losers were beheaded, while female losers lost their right hands.
In 1467, Hans Talhoffer wrote his Fechtbuch giving illustrated instructions on how duels with a great variety of weapons should be fought. One section deals with combats between a man a woman. Talhoffer gives two different versions of a fight, one with the man victorious, one with the woman winning. His brief instructions (descriptions) apply to both duelists. We also present commentary by professor Kenneth Hodges as well us our comments (FSCC).
The pictures reproduced below are copies from a facsimile of the manuscript edited by Gustav Hersgsell in 1887. The English translation from the original German is made by Kenneth Hodges.
First fight
Here is how a man and woman should fight each other, and this is how they begin. Here the woman stands free and wishes to strike by a peculiar sling - she has in the cloth a stone that weighs four or five pounds. He stands in a hole up to his waist, and his club is as long as her sling.
Here the woman stands free and wishes to strike; she has in the cloth a stone that weighs four or five pounds.
He stands in a hole up to his waist, and his club is as long as her sling.
Comments by Hodges: The setup shows that, while it was definitely not inconceivable for a woman to fight, she was presumed to be much less skillful than a man. Talhoffer does not present this fight as anything novel. This section is tucked in toward the end without comment, and this beginning is very matter-of-fact for what was probably a very rare kind of fight. Her clothing (a one-piece body suit with stirrup legs) is practical rather than flattering, and Talhoffer's following descriptions seem to be useful fighting advice: he is taking this seriously, not exoticizing it.
Comments by FSCC: we guess, the man's angular club is more mobile and dangerous weapon than the woman's sling. Instant telling blows might be delivered by the club whereas for an effective attack by the sling more time is required and more skills are needed to wield it. Since the lengths of both weapons are the same, the man has good chances to beat up the woman the more so as all men had fencing skills at those times. Moreover, it is much easier to intercept and even to take away a sling than a solid club.
Here she has struck a blow. Now he has deflected the blow and caught it, and wishes to pull her to him and subdue her.
Comments by Hodges: Talhoffer seems, as far as I can tell, to favor a defensive style in which the defender exploits an attacker's vulnerabilities - unfortunate for the woman who must come to the immobilized man.
Comments by FSCC: here the man has a good chance to snatch out the sling from her hand and even to seize it – just harshly pulling by the right hand.
Here he has pulled her to him and thrown her down and wishes to strangle her.
Comments by FSCC: Despite his arm is restricted by the bound sling, he still holds the club, so due to his presumable strength advantage he is still able to operate with his weapon. If he tries to strike her by right hand and continues strangling her, she would have little chance to counter attack.
Here she has broken away from him and attempts to strangle him.
Comments by Hodges: Once again, the defender has exploited the attacker's weakness. She needs to take care: with his hands underneath him, he should have the leverage to move her. A lot of fights with weapons come down to wrestling, once the "in-fight" is joined (think of Hamlet, where the decisive move is Hamlet's disarming of Laertes). Modern fencing prohibits bodily contact, so this tends to be forgotten.
Comments by FSCC: Again, the man here seems not to use all his abilities. While her both arms are busy with choking, his both arms are free (the right one still holds the club), he has several options for attacking her. For instance, to grab her by crotch, turn her upside down and move her into the pit. (He will accomplish that later from much less advantageous position.)
Here she has laid him on his back and wishes to strangle him and drag him out of the hole.
Comments by Hodges: she has gotten rid of his leverage by arching him back over her knee, but his two hands are free while hers are immobilized.
Comments by FSCC: it is strange that being able freely manipulate with the club he does not use it.
Here he has pulled her to him, grabbed by body, overturned and thrown her in the hole.
Comments by Hodges: This is an ending of the fight with the man victorious.
Comments by FSCC: from the previous position of being strangled it was more complicated to lay her over his head than from the more advantageous position before.
Second fight
Since she wishes to strike, she has stepped too close to him, so that he grabs her leg and will throw her. This is evidently the beginning of a new fight. The emphasis on maintaining the right distance is basic to all martial arts, and her mistake is a common one (not just for beginners).
Comments by FSCC: he not just grabs her leg by the left hand; he also strikes her by the club between legs.
Here he strikes her on the chest. Here she has wrapped the sling around his neck and wishes to strangle him.
Here she has grabbed by the neck and by his member and wishes to drag him out of the hole.
Comments by Kenneth Hodges: I do not know if dragging him out of the hole or her into it constitute a victory condition short of death or disablement. Here, she has him fairly effectively pinned, so this is a victory for her. Since Talhoffer includes advice for her on how to fight, one assumes he considered the possibility of having women as part of the potential audience for his book.
Comments by FSCC: This episode is the evidence of remarkable strength and fighting skills of the women which would be necessary to accomplish this attack from the previous position. Otherwise the man appears feeble or psychologically not prepared to fight against a woman.
|
