"Snorri summoned Gest for the killing of Styr, but that summer at the Althing Thorstein Gislason dismissed Snorri's case. In the autumn Snori rode south to Borgarfjors and killed Thorstein Gislason and his son Gunnar." --Eyrbyggja Saga "Thord Bellow gathered men from the west country, but had no very big force. All those who were leagued in the lawsuit met together, they had two hundred and forty men all told." --Hen-Thorir I bet you never expected to find a treatise on law in a set of wargame rules! But there's stuff you need to know, if only in the sense of needing to know when you are breaking the law. Old Norse law is less about actual justice and fair play than on keeping the lid on a very fractious society (this may be true everywhere). Since there are no police or prisons, and no real government authority at all, everything is devoted to coming up with a reasonable compromise that will last. Here is how it works, very simply: let's go back to the gentlemen in Appendix 1. What was it that led them to the bloodfeud? Our friends Egil and Thorgils might dispute over a horse or a dowry or a pasture or whatever. Let's say Egil shares a copse of woodland with Thorgils and takes more than his share of timber. Thorgils talks to him but gets nowhere. Thorgils then summons him to the district assembly, held every spring, charging him with the act of theft. Both sides may then talk with friends, family and neighbours to get them on their side. The most important person to have on your side is your Godi (chieftain), because, though he has no governmental power, he is a big shot with powerful connections, certain priestly powers, and (most important) a knowledge of the law in excess of most people's. There were initially 36 chieftainships in Iceland, which might be passed from father to son, neighbour to neighbour, or even shared between two men. Each district has a set number of chieftains but - as with modern doctors and lawyers - you can attach yourself to the chieftain of your choice within the area. At this point, with the case being so minor, it would be likely that those close to Egil and Thorgils would arrange a 'settlement', a reasonable compromise. But that doesn't make a saga, nossiree Bob! Let's say that Egil is known as an Overbearing Man, the kind of local bully who is a pain to live near. So he rebuffs Thorgils with insults. Thorgils responds by keeping a watch on the woods and wounding two slaves that Egil sends to fetch more wood. Getting more serious, now. Egil makes a counterclaim against Thorgils for compensation for the wounds to his slaves (wounding being less serious than killing, and slaves being worth much less than free men), also to be adjudicated at the assembly. If more violence breaks out now, we could go straight to 'feud', but probably both sides would gather all the support they can in anticipation of the assembly. At best the case will go to the assembly (where all free men may gather and possibly vote, but usually the chieftains dominate the proceedings) where both sides will put up witnesses, not to the events but to their character and to attest that all summonses have been done in correct and timely manner (very legalistic this does the phrase 'getting off on a technicality' strike you as a modern one? it fits here). The elected official known as the Lawspeaker will preside, but a jury of chieftains will give verdict, if it goes that far. More often than not, a compromise between the less hot- tempered friends on both sides ('Men of Goodwill') will be brokered. Sometimes a defendant will offer 'self-judgement' to his opponent, which means "I'll let you render the verdict, since I believe you'll go easy on me" which may or may not be true. Since the jury verdict is a lot less to do with the rights and wrongs of the case than in upholding the social order and preventing rebellion, it is important to muster as much support as you can, which may eventually be applied in the form of bodies of armed men showing up to the assembly with the intention of voting themselves, preventing a vote at all, or just breaking up the whole event. Prior to that, however, it means getting the most powerful men and craftiest lawyers to take on the case. Therefore, litigants often make deals of a very underhand nature (I'll give you 50 cattle to support me. You were intending to bring all your cousins, weren't you?) to build up a base of support. Poor men charged with an offence sometimes made over their property to a rich and powerful neighbour so that the neighbour can stand against the accuser with a better chance of winning; the poor man then becomes one of his neighbours's household retainers, but avoids a worse defeat in court which might leave him penniless or outlawed. Let's say the Egil / Thorgils case gets worse and worse, with no settlement being acceptable to either side. It goes to the assembly, and the decision is that the timber Egil took is equal to the compensation value of two wounded slaves. This would be a pretty typical compromise, and the 'Men of Goodwill' urge both sides to accept. Egil, being the Overbearing Man we've mentioned, refuses, adding a few more insults, and the meeting breaks up with no solution. A month later Thorgils' overseer is killed by three of Egil's men. Thorgils summons Egil again. Egil is liable to make compensation payment for the overseer, a free man, and it is possible that the killers may be outlawed. Outlawry has three forms. District outlawry is a minor form; you have the leave the area for three years. Lesser outlawry means you have to leave the country for three years. Full outlawry, the extreme form, means you have to go into exile for life. There is a set day for moving, allowing enough time to sell property, then it's direct to a harbour and onto a ship. If you don't go, you can be killed freely and your property seized by the killers, usually the family of whoever you got outlawed over. Outlaws are due no compensation if killed or wounded. Chances are that Egil will refuse to pay compensation at all, and that he will protect his men from justice. Once a free man has been killed, things are getting genuinely serious, and there will be pressure on Egil to shape up and on Thorgils to stand up for his rights. This is where the Men of Goodwill finally force a settlement, or the serious feuding begins. COMPENSATION amounts are not wholly clear from the sagas, but seem to have been something like this: VICTIM KILLING WOUNDING slave 12 marks 6 marks free man 100 marks 50 marks chieftain 400 marks 200 marks The compensation on a chieftain is a guess, but he was clearly more than an ordinary man. Payment might be in livestock or land rather than in marks of silver, most often in bolts of woollen cloth. The defendant would not be expected to pay it all himself, family members were expected to contribute in proportion to closeness of kin, so having a violent cousin will cost less than a dangerous brother. Either way, the idea is clearly to exert a powerful peer pressure on hotblooded relatives. After a multi-wounding fight, the settlement would probably involve some 'trading' of 'your leg wound for my brother's ear'. Obviously there's a lot more to this. The best source, though not easy bedtime reading, is Jesse Byock's 'Feud in the Icelandic Saga' (Berkeley 1982), which is available in paperback in the U.S. If this is all too much, just go on a viking raid, where there aren't any rules to follow. EXAMPLE: Let's fast forward to the aftermath of the fight between Egil and Thorgils. The latter, now known as Thorgils Cripplehand after his battle with Egil. He takes his case to the district assembly to claim compensation for his wound. Egil may contend several things in defence. He may claim that Thorgils' wound is balanced by the wound to himself and the death of his karl Eirik, a man of lesser position but, obviously, greater injury. He may claim that Thorgils attacked him, and that in doing so Thorgils was committing an offence. he may, indeed, claim that in doing so, Thorgils had put himself outside the law and made himself an outlaw.This second line of defence is not likely to work unless Egil can produce good witnesses to his innocent intent, and even so Thorgils is unlikely to be seen as an offender himself. Probably the 'men of goodwill' would patch up a settlement, either involving an agreement that the blows equalled one another or that some money should make up the difference between them. To confirm a settlement, and prevent further bloodshed, there might be promises to foster one another's children, or even marry sons and daughters. Alternatively, if prospects of bad blood appeared to continue, or if no settlement can be made, one side might move out of the district, or gather support for a future lawsuit, or simply return to the murderous mechanisms of the feud. More Battle Troll Battle Troll: Viking Warfare in Sagas: Introduction Battle Troll: Basic Rules Battle Troll: Optional Rules Battle Troll: Appendix 1: Hand to Hand Combat Example Battle Troll: Appendix 2: Norse Names Battle Troll: Appendix 3: Saga Categories Battle Troll: Appendix 4: Icelandic Law Battle Troll: Appendix 5: Figures, Books, and Scenery Battle Troll: Raven's Tale Scenarios Back to MWAN #99 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1999 Hal Thinglum This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com