Game of Thrones always touches on interesting legal issues. For instance, when the government’s dragons charbroil your flock of goats, you can totally recover damages under the common law theory of “trover.” Mhysa isn’t being nice, she just has a competent understanding of tort law.
Of far more importance to the Westerosi justice system is the idea of “trial by combat.” Apparently, any accused person can claim this “right,” and have champions fight on their behalf to determine their legal fate.
Trial by combat isn’t a mere invention of George R.R. Martin or other fantasy writers who find stabbing drama to be more interesting than “courtroom drama.” Trial by “battle” was a remedy under English common law, and by extension American common law.
Gen AI: Your Legal Research Assistant, Not Your Replacement
Here's how you can spend more time practicing law, and less time sorting, sifting, and summarizing.
And you know what, it was a pretty good idea! Not necessarily in the way it’s portrayed by HBO, but historical, real-world trial by battle was actually a fairly just and smart way of handling certain disputes…
Trial by battle was popularized in England by William the Conqueror (who, I just learned, was apparently called “William the Bastard” before he started, like, conquering people). The practice was never particularly widespread, but it could be used in response to three types of situations. It turns out that two of those situational uses make a lot of sense.
The most common use was in a land dispute. “I own up to that tree.” “No you don’t.” “Let’s fight.” Just like on GoT, the people in conflict would choose champions to fight for them… technically to the death, but most often to the “ow, you win.”
Why Better Financial Acumen is the Key to Law Firm Success in 2025
From training to technology, uncover the essential steps to futureproof your law firm in a competitive market.
An article by economics professor Peter T. Leeson of George Mason University argues that trial by battle in this situation was a perfectly rational and economically efficient way of managing those types of land disputes. There were “champions for hire.” Some were better and more expensive than others. How much money you were willing to pay for your champion probably roughly coincided with how much the extra property was worth it to you.
You shouldn’t think of it as a poor person in a property dispute with a wealthy land owner. You should think of it as two impossibly rich land owners squabbling over who has access to a pleasure lake. We need to spend time and resources on judges or juries for this? Screw it. I bet we’d get the Pacquiao-Mayweather fight if it was the only way Samsung and Apple could settle their business.