| Medieval law is a
tricky thing to nail down, since obviously different countries,
regions, and ethnic groups/tribes had very different laws
that each group of society adhered to. Since Medieval
times covers several centuries, that also obviously affects
the laws and customs one would have been subject to.
The Norse often times had a very
simple solution to a conflict: trial by combat. If a
heinous crime was committed, and everyone knew beyond
a shadow of a doubt who it was, then that individual
would be hunted, but assuming that there were charges,
a common response would be for the one leveling the
charges, and the one being charged, to go an abandoned
island, each with a weapon. Whoever won the fight took
the boat home and was viewed as the destined (and therefore
justified) winner.
The Germanic tribes that conquered
the Roman Empire in the 5th century carried their own
procedure with them into the conquered territories.
Their procedure was surprisingly formal: in court, which
was a gathering of all the freeborn men, the parties
had to formulate their allegations in precise, traditional
language. The use of even a few improper words could
mean losing. At this point the court determined what
method of proof should be used: ordeal, judicial combat
between the parties, or wager of law (which means each
side had to attempt to obtain more persons who were
willing to swear on their oaths as to the uprightness
of the party they were supporting).
Roman law procedure, even after
the fall of the Roman Empire, never entirely disappeared
from the territories conquered by the Germanic tribes.
Eventually a modified form of Roman law was used in
most of Europe, and even Germany itself, with the notable
exception of Scandinavia which kept its local customs.
The Roman-canonical procedure,
with its heavy reliance on written, rather than oral,
presentations, created the need for learned counsel,
or the beginning of lawyers. The whole procedure was
divided into rigidly formalized stages. Precise rules
governed the presentation of evidence but the concordant
testimony of two male witnesses amounted to “full
proof,” and one witness was ordinarily insufficient
to prove any matter, unless he was a high ecclesiastic.
There were many other complex procedures, but this was
not efficient for businesses, which resulted in almost
a side court for specific business arbitrations to spring
up to bring order, without harming, mercantile centers.
Of course, to many a person’s
misfortune, the rule of mob still applied. This was
especially true during an inquisition, or anytime a
woman was put on trial as a witch. An armed mob was
always capable of taking the law into their own hands,
and often did, which was a sad irony, considering the
“barbaric” law system of the Norse actually
helped to prevent that type of thing from happening.
|
