Historical story

Why did trial by ordeal and combat end?

Trial by ordeal and trial by combat were two methods of determining guilt or innocence that were used in medieval Europe. Trial by ordeal involved a person undergoing a dangerous or painful test, such as walking on hot coals or being thrown into water. Trial by combat involved two people fighting each other, with the winner being declared innocent.

These methods of trial were eventually replaced by the modern judicial system, which is based on the presentation of evidence and testimony in court. There were several reasons why trial by ordeal and combat ended:

* They were unreliable. Trial by ordeal and combat were not reliable ways of determining guilt or innocence. In trial by ordeal, it was believed that God would protect an innocent person from harm, but this was not always the case. In trial by combat, the outcome often depended on the strength and skill of the fighters, rather than on their guilt or innocence.

* They were unjust. Trial by ordeal and combat were often unfair to the accused. In trial by ordeal, the accused was forced to undergo a dangerous or painful test, even if they were innocent. In trial by combat, the accused was often at a disadvantage if they were not skilled fighters.

* They were inhumane. Trial by ordeal and combat were often brutal and inhumane. In trial by ordeal, the accused could suffer serious injury or even death. In trial by combat, the fights could be deadly.

As the Enlightenment spread in Europe, people began to question the legitimacy of trial by ordeal and combat. These methods were eventually abolished in most European countries by the end of the 18th century.