Trial by Combat wasn't a terrible idea
Men fought with shields and short clubs until one or the other gave up, or time ran out. It was a complicated way to deal with real estate disputes and also to cut away land belonging to feudal lords.
According to Peter Leeson, a professor of law and economics at George Mason University, the English used trial by battle as their main tool for deciding property disputes from the time of the Norman conquest until 1179, at which point it began fading from use. One party could challenge another’s claim to a plot of land or fishing rights, and if the allegations seemed plausible, the authorities would order a duel in which both sides could be represented by a champion of their choosing. Despite some poorly enforced rules governing whom the plaintiff could and could not pick as their battlefield representative, in most cases both sides simply commissioned a brawler for hire. Come trial day, the champions would theoretically fight until one was killed or conceded the match by shouting “craven.” (The current property owner’s champion could also win by prolonging the fight all the way until nightfall). The winning side came away with the land, ostensibly under the theory that God was on their side.
“Trials by battle were literal fights for property rights,” Leeson wrote in a 2011 paper.
Of course, this all sounds rather barbaric and superstitious. But Leeson argues that trial by battle was a surprisingly “sensible and effective” system for assigning land rights given the regulatory constraints of the time. Norman England’s elaborate system of feudal property laws made it exceptionally difficult to buy and sell real estate. Trial by combat served as a clever workaround—a loophole that let the local government effectively auction off land to whichever bidder could make the best use of it.
Or at least award it to whoever was willing to shell out for the best muscle. Like trial lawyers today, some medieval champions charged more for their services than others, presumably because they had a solid track record of bludgeoning their opponents into submission. They also had no compunctions about working for the highest bidder. And so in a trial by combat, paying for champions took the place of paying for land. In theory, Leeson writes, the most industrious farmers should have won these spending wars, since they stood to make the most money off any given parcel of dirt. The system would have lent itself to abuse by the very rich, but these contests appear to have been prohibited between individuals with vastly different status and wealth.
One important piece of evidence that the trials by combat were essentially economic exercises was that they rarely ended in blows. According to Leeson, historical records suggest that between two-thirds and 80 percent of cases settled. As the jurist and historian Sir Frederick Pollock once wrote, it is “abundantly clear that trial by battle in civil cases did from an early time tend to become little more than a picturesque setting for an ultimate compromise.”