Game of Thrones Trial by Combat: An Unlikely Duel


The duel between the Mountain and Prince Oberyn Martell. © HBO.

The following is a guest article by Dr. Steven Isaac, professor of medieval history at Longwood University.

In one of the newest wrinkles being ironed out on the hit HBO series Game of Thrones, Tyrion Lannister, accused of killing his nephew the king, finds a surprising ally—at least they have one common purpose—in Prince Oberyn Martell. Conclusion of the fight aside, Martell’s motives are personal: he seeks vengeance, not Tyrion’s innocence, as he agrees to champion the Imp in a trial by combat.

All of this is vintage George R.R. Martin: the complexity of motives and the sophistication of move, counter-move and bluff layered into his tale. Clichéd views of medieval justice have portrayed the practices of the ordeal and of trial by combat as last gasps of superstitious ignorance, as desperate appeals to God for lack of better options, before the Renaissance and the Enlightenment gave us proper rules of evidence and legal procedure. Martin’s narrative shows everyone—Tyrion, Cersei, Oberyn and still others—calculating to the nth degree the advantages to be had in each manipulation of the rules.


Charles Dance in a still from the upcoming trial-by-combat episode, “The Mountain and the Viper”. © HBO.

Such sophistication was perfectly typical of the Middle Ages.


A woman holding a red hot metal bar in a trial by ordeal. Image: The Ordeal by Fire by Dieric Bouts c. 1460.

For starters, medieval litigants knew full well that justice was far from blind, that she was, in fact, wholly open to manipulation. It was one of the reasons they eventually turned away from using the ordeal as a way to verify the truth of testimony. The ordeals by fire/iron or by water were ways to test the truthfulness of witnesses, especially when so many cases were of the “he said/she said” variety. Admittedly, a first glance at medieval documents makes it seem that these were the preferred solution almost everywhere.

The real point was that the lengthy and complex preparations for an ordeal gave the contending litigants time to cool down, even to seek a compromise. Or, they could explain a “guilty” verdict as the result of having bungled the rituals.

An oft-cited study by Prof. Stephen White describes how many complainants (including one unfortunate man literally named Bunghole) often proposed to undergo an ordeal, all while intending to force a resolution and thereby avoid the actual pain of the ordeal. Looking at the evidence just for one area of France, Bruno Lemesle has trimmed down White’s percentages, but still less than half of the proposed ordeals took place. More telling, only about 10-13 percent of litigants even tested the possibility of using the ordeal. Instead, suit, counter-suit and eventually compromise dominated the negotiations.

There were always those, like Cersei in Westeros, less interested in compromise than in having their own way. William the Conqueror’s son, William Rufus, saw a peasant cleared by the ordeal of hot iron over a charge of killing one of the king’s deer. Infuriated, he asked: “Is God a good judge? To hell with anyone who thinks so! He’ll answer for this according to my good judgment and not God’s, which gets bent this way and that according to the will of each person.”

In some ways, trial by combat avoided such human interference. Whatever the outcome, it was definitive. This may explain why its popularity continued well into the later Middle Ages.


The 1409 trial-by-combat duel between William Marschalk von Dornsberg and Theodor Haschenacker in the Augsburg wine market. Marschalk’s sword broke at the beginning of the fight, but he still used it to kill Haschenacker. Author: Jörg Breu d. Jüngere c.1544.

And yet the human element was still utterly present. Trial by combat, or the judicial duel, remained popular longer than the ordeal, but it was far less practiced, perhaps for the very reason that it was so definitive. Lemesle found that barely one out of every two ordeals went the distance of being undertaken. For actual combats, however, the ratio fell to one out of seven. One conclusion is that the very stunt of proposing a duel was such an aggressive negotiating stance that it compelled the other side to the bargaining table.

Not surprisingly, those involved in such affairs played to win. In 1080, the monks of Saint-Florent de Saumur balked at a challenge, explaining that no matter what happened, they would end up countenancing a homicide. But they were an exception. Many other churchmen (and women!) had fewer qualms. In 1069 the abbey of Marmoutier tried to slip in a ringer for a combat, but their opponents, the monks of La Trinité, saw through it, recognizing the man in question as a fighter that others regularly bet on in such duels. Having lost their ace, the monks of Marmoutier accepted a negotiated settlement.

I was recently summoned for jury duty. It turned out dully: no Lannister backstabbing, no histrionics, and certainly no physical combat. But the teams lined up. We jurors took our places. And the defendant accepted a plea bargain in seconds.

Not everyone is as desperate as Tyrion, or as obsessively vengeful as Prince Oberyn. Not even back in the Middle Ages.


steven_isaacDr. Steven Isaac is a professor of medieval history at Longwood University in Virginia. He organizes an annual medieval conference and has published extensively in the discipline. For more information about Dr. Isaac, see the Longwood University website.

Dr. Steven Isaac is a professor of medieval history at Longwood University in Virginia. He organizes an annual medieval conference and has published extensively in the discipline.


  • Reply May 30, 2014


    Very nice article! I wonder if there is a community of historians who are also avid ASOIAF fans. I wish they had their own convention.

  • Reply May 31, 2014

    Olga Hughes

    That sounds like nerd heaven!

  • Reply May 31, 2014

    Jamie Adair

    I completely agree! I would love that. 🙂 I could really “nerd out” on that. 🙂
    There are lots of medieval historians who are into GoT. I think there are quite a few who initially resisted its siren call because it seemed too popular or commercial. (Although I have to admit, quite a few of the medieval historians that I know have not seen it or are just getting into it now. But, that could just be a coincidence.)

  • Reply July 6, 2019


    I know this is late to be commenting. Long story short. Some time ago when I lodged and worked in London I used to listen to a feature called “Murder After Midnight” on a Friday night (well early Saturday morning really) narrated by the late Martin Fido on the Clive Bull Show on LBC (London Broadcasting Company – a London local radio commercial station). Anyway, I recently found some of those features uploaded to YouTube including some I hadn’t heard before. Anyway, I hadn’t realised that there had been a case involving “trial by battell” as recently as the second decade of the 19th century. Somebody had been found not guilty of the murder of a young woman but the lady’s brother thought the person was guilty and demanded a second trial (apparently that was allowed back then). The accused challenged the accuser to a trial by “battell” which was never taken up, so the matter was eventually dropped. Maybe the accused was taking a calculated risk that the accuser would not accept the challenge. I’ll link the the video in case anyone is interested. I don’t know whether the accused was guilty or innocent but a lot of people in his local area (now part of the midlands city of Birmingham but still rural then) believed him to have committed the crime so he emigrated to America eventually.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.