The Children of Sweyn, Part 1

King Sweyn II of Denmark (c.1019 - 1076) had two wives and numerous mistresses, resulting in about 20 children. His first wife was Gyda of Sweden, who we are told by later chronicles was the daughter of King of Sweden Anund Jacob and Queen Gunnhildr Sveinsdóttir. The marriage was short-lived, and Adam of Bremen suspects she was poisoned by Thora, a concubine of Sweyn. His second marriage was to Gyda's mother, Gunnhildr, after Anund Jacob died (c.1050). Although they had a son (Sweyn), Bishop Adalbert of Hamburg ended the marriage by threatening excommunication because the husband was too closely related to his wife/mother-in-law. Gunnhildr returned to Sweden.

Sweyn never re-married that we know of, but that did not stop him from fathering children. His legitimate child by Gunnhildr died young. Of his known children, many survived and become known to history.

Harald Hen, born c.1050, became King Harald III after his father, reigning from 1076 to 1080. The election to succeed Sweyn was between Harald and his brother (who also became king) Canute IV of Denmark (later Canute the Saint). Harald's reign was challenged by his brothers, who were supported by Olaf III of Norway, who might have wanted to carry on the legacy of his father, Harald Hardrada, who hassled Sweyn for much of his reign.

Although Saxo Grammaticus, in his Gesta Danorum ("Deeds of the Danish People"), calls Harald III weak and ineffective, another chronicler says he was beloved by the people. He started no new wars, he standardized Danish coinage, allowed public use of royal forests, and eliminated trial by combat and trial by ordeal, replacing them with the English system of calling other men to swear to your bona fides.

Upon his death, he was succeeded by his brother Canute the Saint (born c.1042; reigned 1080 - 1086). Canute was more ambitious than his brother, and led yet another Danish raid on England. Since his great-uncle Cnut was once king of England, Canute IV considered himself the rightful heir to that crown and considered William I "the Conqueror" a usurper.

Canute IV married Adela, daughter of Robert I of Flanders (an ally of Denmark). With the help of his father-in-law and Olaf III of Norway, he planned an assault on England and assembled a fleet of ships. At the same time, however, Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV was being seen as a growing threat to Denmark and Flanders. The fleet never sailed, because Canute and Robert were afraid to leave Denmark and Flanders undefended against Henry's thoughts of expansion.

Canute was killed in 1086 by a lance thrust in his side during a peasant revolt. Canute had also been a devout advocate for the Church. A famine that followed his death was attributed to the unjust killing of a saintly man.  Miracles were attributed to him not long after. Pope Paschal II confirmed the "cult of Canute," and he became the first Dane to be canonized. (The illustration is of his statue in St. Peter's Church in Odense, Denmark.)

His successor was another illegitimate child of Sweyn's, Olaf Hunger, and his nickname was not in any way flattering. I'll explain tomorrow.

Trial by Combat—Marriage Edition

There is a lot more to say about Trial by Combat than can be put into a brief post. The history includes interesting anecdotes and surprising facets. One such facet is seen in the picture to the left. It comes from the 1467 Fechtbuch [German: "fight book"] of Hans Talhoffer (c.1415-1482), who was mentioned in the above link on Trial by Combat. Talhoffer produced at least five books on fencing, and apparently trained people for Trial by Combat.

As for the picture, translations of the captions should explain all:

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; 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. [source]

That is correct. Trial by Combat was available to women—at least, it was as late as 15th century Germany. Supposedly, this was a method used by married couples to settle disputes...serious disputes. Since men were considered the superior sex, something needed to be done to even the odds between them, hence the hole in which he stands, reducing his mobility. Note also that they do not use cutting weapons: their blunt instruments are intended to bludgeon the opponent into submission, not cause the opponent to bleed to death.

Remember that non-aristocracy had to seek permission from a court to engage in a lawful Trial by Combat; hence the term "judicial duels." Husbands and wives could not just decide to dig a hole in the front yard and fight it out amongst the neighbors. There are no known recorded examples of such trials or their outcomes, but the casual way in which Talhoffer describes his sample fight (there are more illustrations in his manuscript) suggests that there was nothing shocking about this in his time.

Trial by Combat

The dueling area was typically
60 feet square.

One of the things "everyone knows" about the Middle Ages is the idea of Trial by Combat: the act of fighting to determine who is right in a dispute. It was a custom followed primarily by Germanic culture; it was later brought to Great Britain.* It was recognized as a valid part of German tribal law as far back as the early 8th century in the Lex Alamannorum [Latin: "Law of the Alemanni"; the Alemanni were a Germanic tribe on the Upper Rhine].

The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, in an effort to tamp down this sanctioned violence, tried to ban Trial by Combat in favor of Trial by Jury. "Judicial duels"—that is, a fight sanctioned by the local legal system—were too unpredictable a measure of justice. German countries kept up the practice, however. The 15th century fencing master, Hans Talhoffer, detailed the ways in which judicial duels could be carried out, and listed seven offenses that merited such a trial: murder, treason, desertion of your lord, unlawful captivity, heresy, perjury, rape.

Commoners were required to take their dispute to court first in order to have Trial by Combat sanctioned by the local legal system. Nobility, however, could take it upon themselves to duel over a dispute, leading to the "gentleman's duel" of later years. The combatants would each bring a "second" to help arrange the particulars, everything from the location to making sure the horses are saddled properly. Sometimes these seconds would meet separately to discuss a more peaceful solution that the combatants could not discus face to face due to their pride.

The combatants had some duties, too, besides fighting. They would attend (separate) church services prior to combat, and make a donation to the church. They had to be ready to begin the combat by noon, and it had to be concluded by sundown.

The last official judicial duel is unknown, but we know that King Charles I of England intervened to prevent a couple, one in 1631 and one in 1638. In 1818, Abraham Thornton, already acquitted of the murder and rape of Mary Ashford, had an accusation brought by Mary's brother, William. Thornton claimed the right to Trial by Combat; the court decided that he was justified, since the "evidence" for his guilt was circumstantial and disputable, and because Parliament had never removed the right to Trial by Combat from the books. Ashford backed down. The following year, Parliament abolished Trial by Combat.

*It is not to be confused with Trial by Ordeal which involved causing an accused to suffer some ordeal that would "prove" his guilt or innocence.