To control and reduce these quarrels, as well as to limit the possible deadly consequences, the Scandinavians developed the Holmgang, a formal and regulated duel that evolved from the raw Einvigi and replaced it. Holmgang has become the accepted and legal way to settle disputes. • There may be duels over matters of honor, property or ownership, claims, legal disagreements, etc. Although Einvigi limited bloodshed to some extent, it was still not a safe shield against quarrels. If one of the combatants was killed in Einvigi; his relatives were still entitled to Eptirmál, the right to prosecution after being killed (Jones, “Characteristics”, 205), where survivors could opt for revenge or the wergild for his death. While an offer to pay wergild legally required the avenger to hold his hand and give the murderer a chance to defend himself at a meeting, Viking culture was at the same time oriented toward revenge rather than atonement by paying blood money. Gulaþing`s law illustrates precisely this attitude: “No one, neither man nor woman, has a personal right to atonement more than three times if he does not take revenge in the meantime” (Foote and Wilson, Viking Achievement, 428). And, of course, revenge was followed by revenge, which in turn quickly degenerated into a generalized quarrel. Thus, while the insult was not followed by the quarrel, but by the duel of honor, the duel could easily only delay the beginning of a quarrel, not prevent it.
There was no law against war with others (Does it exist today?). Like the Elizabethans in England and others, the Vikings did not have a law against piracy as long as it was against the “enemy”, so raids outside the “jurisdiction” were not illegal! Norway abolished hólmgang in 1014 when Jarl Eiríkr created a law to stop the legalized theft of hólmgang so popular with the infamous Bersarks: 2020`s Assassin`s Creed Valhalla video game features several Holmgangs during its history campaign. At least theoretically, anyone offended could challenge the other party in Holmgang, regardless of their differences in social status. It may be a matter of honor, property or property, a request for restitution or debt, a legal disagreement, or the intention to help a woman or relative or avenge a friend. • In the early days of Holmgangs, it is believed that opponents fought to the first bloodbath or even death. Later, however, it was more common to simply free the opponent from his weapon or push him out of the duel zone. If a man died during a spar ride, it was not considered murder and therefore did not result in the ostracism of the murderer or the payment of compensation (weregeld) to the family of the deceased. In Iceland, the time had come to abolish hólmgang as a remedy.
Two years before the failure of the Battle of Hrafn and Gunnlaug in 1004, the Icelandic Lögretta had established the Fifth Court as the court of appeal. Instead of appealing a bad court decision, the verdict could be challenged in a higher court. While some duels still took place until “according to the old laws”, they no longer benefited from social sanctions. The story of the formal legal abolition of hólmgang can be found in the Ljósvetninga saga: although Hólmgang has gradually fallen into oblivion since the time of Hrafn and Gunnlaug, Þórir Helgason Guðmund suddenly and unexpectedly challenged the powerful in a duel instead of pursuing his vocation. As with the British Ashford scandal in 1818, Þórir used a forgotten but still legal maneuver to achieve his goals: the Hólmgang was disapproved, but not yet illegal. Belatedly, the Lögretta passed the law that eventually abolished the hólmgang in Iceland (Jones, “Characteristics,” page 222). While the hólmgang was considered an act with sacred and legal force, it served as an alternative legal route. The man who could not afford to pay sworn witnesses or calculators to testify in his case before the courts of Þing, or who was involved in legal disputes with men who had much more social prestige and power, was able to balance the workings of the law by resorting to the law of duel and playing with himself and his abilities against an opponent, which he could not defeat in any other way. A spar gang was usually fought within 3 to 7 days of the challenge. If the defendant was not present, he was considered confiscated and the accuracy of the claim was proved.
If the challenger is not present, they have been called “Niðingr” – a pejorative term that marks the loss of honor – and could be condemned to banishment or even death. Usually, the fighters were the two people involved in the challenge; However, in rare cases, especially where there has been a significant age or physical disadvantage, proxy champions can be used in their place to ensure fair competition. Due to the nature of Holmgang, the system has invariably been abused as a form of legalized theft, with berserkers in particular using it as a means of claiming land, property, or women`s rights from less competent warriors. As a result of these abuses, the practice was banned in Iceland in 1006 AD and in Norway in 1014 AD. This provision originally supported the social order and allowed the ordinary man to rule over powerful men of wealth and social stature in the law, but in the hands of a qualified duelist, the Hólmgangulog became a kind of legal theft (Ciklamini, “Literary Form”, 117-188). The existence of several historical figures nicknamed “the duelist” (Hólmgangu-Hrafn, Hólmgangu-Ljótr, Hólmgangu-Mani, Hólmgangu-Skeggi, Hólmgangu-Starri and Hólmgangu-Bersi) (Ciklamini, “Literary Form”, 124) suggests that at least some of these men were professional duelists who earned their living in Hólmgang, and provides further evidence that Hólmgang is a way of life and not a sacred rite and extreme legal recourse. has been used. True, one of these duelists, Hólmgangu-Ljótr, is portrayed by the author of the Hávarðar saga in the Hávarðar Ísfirðings saga as a dishonorable man who is supposed to abuse the custom of Hólmgang: • Holmgangs were banned in Iceland from 1006 following the duel between Gunnlaugr Ormstunga and Hrafn Önundarson. Norway banned the practice in 1014, the rest of Scandinavia followed soon after. Professional duelists have used Holmgangs as a form of legalized theft; They could claim rights to land, women, or property, and then prove their claims in a duel at the expense of the rightful owner. Many legends describe berserkers who abused Holmgang in this way.
Largely because of these practices, Holmgangs were banned in Iceland in 1006 following the duel between Gunnlaugr Ormstunga and Hrafn Önundarson,[3] and in Norway in 1014. Holmgang (“hólmganga” in Old Norse) was a formal duel used as a dispute settlement system in early medieval Scandinavia. Unlike the subsequent European institutions of the duel, in which social class played a special and important role, each member of society, regardless of status, could challenge another in Holmgang if he wished. The reasons for this challenge could be far-reaching, including a legal disagreement, payment of a debt, property disputes, or a question of honour being questioned. Hólmganga (Hólm-ganga) means to go to the island.1 Most of our information about Hólmganga comes from icelandic sagas. This one-on-one duel/fight had rules that were probably established by the fighters. These duels occurred quite frequently and for various reasons. Some of them are: breaking court cases, declaring a court decision unacceptable, fighting for women, insulting honor (according to Swedish *hednalage) and could be used to win property or women.2 In Egil`s saga, a Swede named Ljot the Pale asks a number of Norwegians to duel to win their land and for the hand of Fridgeir`s sister. Icelandic Egil Skallagrimsson then takes Fridgeir`s place in the duel and confronts Ljot.3 Interestingly, Norwegian laws on freezing and chasming on the subject are silent, and the duel here seems to give way to “a form of legalized theft,” as Byock notes.4,2 This example also serves to show how widespread this practice may have been, because in this duel, a Swede and an Icelander fought for a Norwegian. Around these marks, there was a boundary of ropes and posts of hazel (höslur) [Kormáks saga] or stones (markasteina) [Egils saga Skallagrímssonar], and this boundary was called hólmhring (Jones, “Characteristics, 216”). Thus, the total combat zone did not exceed about twelve square feet.
The entire demarcated area in which the duel was to take place was called hólmgöngustaðir and served as a court both legally and ritually (Jones, “Characteristics,” 214).
