5 ms·

I was surprised to read, a few days ago, that until late in the middle age (12th century if I recall correctly), waging personal wars, vendetta, revenges were s

by Iv 5y ago

I was surprised to read, a few days ago, that until late in the middle age (12th century if I recall correctly), waging personal wars, vendetta, revenges were seen as normal business. It took the Holy Roman Emperor to install courts of justice and force people to go through there and still took generations to drill in the idea that "He looked at my daughter in a lewd way so I put an arrow in his eye" was not a way to do things.

weare138 5y ago
It was accepted long after the 12th century, even in America. Aaron Burr, while vice president of the United States, killed Hamilton in a duel in 1804. Future president Andrew Jackson killed Charles Dickinson in a duel in 1806 for insulting his wife and calling Jackson a coward.
- Iv 5y ago
  Ah but duels are a different matter, they obey codes and rules and require mutual consent. Last duel in France was in 1958 actually.
  - throwanem 5y ago
    I suppose one might argue that if someone did not wish to consent to a feud or to owe weregild, that someone should have thought better than to perform whatever act incurred the penalty.
ginko 5y ago
Quite a bit later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewiger_Landfriede https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewiger_Landfriede
geeB 5y ago
In western history, this was definitely something (re?)introduced by various germanic people after the western roman empire collapse, and already they were encouraging monetary reparations. In roman times, if someone killed your cousin you could go to court and it would mostly end there. After the collapse, if someone killed your cousin your family had the right to kill someone of "equal value" from the family of the killer. Aside from the brutality and senseless violence (as seen from us today), the biggest problem was that people disagreed on "equal value", resulting in a feud, i.e. an escalation of revenge because each party felt that the other side's killing was way more than warranted to make things even. So the states (starting from the early barbarian kingdoms) would encourage the family of the killed to accept a monetary payment to avoid the murders to spiral out of control. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild. I think the concepts of feud and weregild did not even exist in the roman world. But you are right that for a long time you still had the right for revenge, until eventually it was fully phased out. A bit like the transition between the gold standard and fiat currency.
- meepmorp 5y ago
  > I think the concepts of feud and weregild did not even exist in the roman world. The article related to this post mentions that in Rome, working out monetary compensation for the life of a family member was a common practice. It's not a uniquely germanic-in-origin practice.
  - geeB 5y ago
    I think from their perspective it was very different though. The article specifically talks about compensation to a woman's family if her husband kills her. It sounds like if a slave or a woman was killed, it was considered similar to someone's cattle being killed or a property crime, as opposed to a homicide of a free man, and thus something to be payed for. It seems that the remarkable thing about this story (aside from the emperor's involvement) was that usually a husband wouldn't be encouraged to kill himself for murdering his wife. Whereas in the barbarian kingdoms and later on, all murders were initially a private matter and people retained the right to kill someone back (not necessarily the killer) unless they opted for the compensation. If this specific case happened after the fall of the empire, probably the father would have just killed the husband back instead of seeking government involvement. And probably the husband's family would have not thought it fair and either seek compensation or kill another member of the wife's family. Either way, I'm glad things have changed since then!
throw0101a 5y ago
> It took the Holy Roman Emperor to install courts of justice See The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession by Brundage: > In the aftermath of sixth-century barbarian invasions, the legal profession that had grown and flourished during the Roman Empire vanished. Nonetheless, professional lawyers suddenly reappeared in Western Europe 700 years later during the 1230s, when church councils and public authorities began to impose a body of ethical obligations on those who practiced law. This book traces the history of legal practice from its genesis in ancient Rome to its rebirth in the early Middle Ages and eventual resurgence in the courts of the medieval church. By the end of the eleventh century, the book argues, renewed interest in Roman law combined with the rise of canon law of the Western church to trigger a series of consolidations in the profession. New legal procedures emerged, and formal training for proctors and advocates became necessary in order to practice law in the reorganized church courts. The book demonstrates that many features that characterize legal advocacy today were already in place by 1250, as lawyers trained in Roman and canon law became professionals in every sense of the term. It also examines the centuries-long power struggle between local courts and the Christian church, secular rule and religious edict. * https://chicago.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.7208/chicago/9780226077611.001.0001/upso-9780226077598 https://chicago.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.7208/...
- Iv 5y ago
  If you read it, I have a question: I read two times already the (unsourced) assertion that the renewal of a court system in western europe was due to the crusades. The caliphate had a tribunal system that the crusaders imported back. Is it grounded in truth?
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    I have read it, but it is not short, and so I can't possibly remember all the details. That said I do not remember much/any mention of Islamic jurisprudence: it was more a renaissance of Roman law (see Code of Justinian and Corpus Juris Civilis) The first 1-2 chapters actually go into Roman law (and before), as that was used as the initial base. There's a thread of ancient law even in the present day: * https://utpress.utexas.edu/books/perlman-ancient-greek-law-in-the-21st-century https://utpress.utexas.edu/books/perlman-ancient-greek-law-i... From the little I know about Islamic jurisprudence, specifically through the works of Toby Huff,[1] the tribunals were more 'private' and the rulings were done more by something that we'd call arbitration, and 'case files' would remain in the judge's/arbitrator's possession. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Huff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Huff

by Iv 5y ago

weare138 5y ago

It was accepted long after the 12th century, even in America. Aaron Burr, while vice president of the United States, killed Hamilton in a duel in 1804. Future president Andrew Jackson killed Charles Dickinson in a duel in 1806 for insulting his wife and calling Jackson a coward.

Iv 5y ago
Ah but duels are a different matter, they obey codes and rules and require mutual consent. Last duel in France was in 1958 actually.
- throwanem 5y ago
  I suppose one might argue that if someone did not wish to consent to a feud or to owe weregild, that someone should have thought better than to perform whatever act incurred the penalty.

ginko 5y ago

Quite a bit later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewiger_Landfriede https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewiger_Landfriede

geeB 5y ago

In western history, this was definitely something (re?)introduced by various germanic people after the western roman empire collapse, and already they were encouraging monetary reparations. In roman times, if someone killed your cousin you could go to court and it would mostly end there. After the collapse, if someone killed your cousin your family had the right to kill someone of "equal value" from the family of the killer. Aside from the brutality and senseless violence (as seen from us today), the biggest problem was that people disagreed on "equal value", resulting in a feud, i.e. an escalation of revenge because each party felt that the other side's killing was way more than warranted to make things even. So the states (starting from the early barbarian kingdoms) would encourage the family of the killed to accept a monetary payment to avoid the murders to spiral out of control. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild. I think the concepts of feud and weregild did not even exist in the roman world. But you are right that for a long time you still had the right for revenge, until eventually it was fully phased out. A bit like the transition between the gold standard and fiat currency.

meepmorp 5y ago
> I think the concepts of feud and weregild did not even exist in the roman world. The article related to this post mentions that in Rome, working out monetary compensation for the life of a family member was a common practice. It's not a uniquely germanic-in-origin practice.
- geeB 5y ago
  I think from their perspective it was very different though. The article specifically talks about compensation to a woman's family if her husband kills her. It sounds like if a slave or a woman was killed, it was considered similar to someone's cattle being killed or a property crime, as opposed to a homicide of a free man, and thus something to be payed for. It seems that the remarkable thing about this story (aside from the emperor's involvement) was that usually a husband wouldn't be encouraged to kill himself for murdering his wife. Whereas in the barbarian kingdoms and later on, all murders were initially a private matter and people retained the right to kill someone back (not necessarily the killer) unless they opted for the compensation. If this specific case happened after the fall of the empire, probably the father would have just killed the husband back instead of seeking government involvement. And probably the husband's family would have not thought it fair and either seek compensation or kill another member of the wife's family. Either way, I'm glad things have changed since then!

throw0101a 5y ago

> It took the Holy Roman Emperor to install courts of justice See The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession by Brundage: > In the aftermath of sixth-century barbarian invasions, the legal profession that had grown and flourished during the Roman Empire vanished. Nonetheless, professional lawyers suddenly reappeared in Western Europe 700 years later during the 1230s, when church councils and public authorities began to impose a body of ethical obligations on those who practiced law. This book traces the history of legal practice from its genesis in ancient Rome to its rebirth in the early Middle Ages and eventual resurgence in the courts of the medieval church. By the end of the eleventh century, the book argues, renewed interest in Roman law combined with the rise of canon law of the Western church to trigger a series of consolidations in the profession. New legal procedures emerged, and formal training for proctors and advocates became necessary in order to practice law in the reorganized church courts. The book demonstrates that many features that characterize legal advocacy today were already in place by 1250, as lawyers trained in Roman and canon law became professionals in every sense of the term. It also examines the centuries-long power struggle between local courts and the Christian church, secular rule and religious edict. * https://chicago.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.7208/chicago/9780226077611.001.0001/upso-9780226077598 https://chicago.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.7208/...

Iv 5y ago
If you read it, I have a question: I read two times already the (unsourced) assertion that the renewal of a court system in western europe was due to the crusades. The caliphate had a tribunal system that the crusaders imported back. Is it grounded in truth?
- throw0101a 5y ago
  I have read it, but it is not short, and so I can't possibly remember all the details. That said I do not remember much/any mention of Islamic jurisprudence: it was more a renaissance of Roman law (see Code of Justinian and Corpus Juris Civilis) The first 1-2 chapters actually go into Roman law (and before), as that was used as the initial base. There's a thread of ancient law even in the present day: * https://utpress.utexas.edu/books/perlman-ancient-greek-law-in-the-21st-century https://utpress.utexas.edu/books/perlman-ancient-greek-law-i... From the little I know about Islamic jurisprudence, specifically through the works of Toby Huff,[1] the tribunals were more 'private' and the rulings were done more by something that we'd call arbitration, and 'case files' would remain in the judge's/arbitrator's possession. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Huff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Huff