Assignment #3: Viking conflict resolution

This was taken from our midterm.  We had 50 minutes to answer two questions with about a paragraph each and to write a brief but structured essay on another question.  These didn't come completely out of the blue, of course--she'd given us some hints about what to expect.  I'm including this one because I'm really proud of it--it all came straight from my brain to the paper, under the gun, with no reference books or notes handy.  Also it seems much better in the light of the truly awful essays I wrote on the final.  

Grade (on the whole thing): 102%

[From her test sheet:]

Question 1: In the tales and sagas we have read so far, we have encountered several different ways to solve conflicts and disputes.  Outline and explain the different possibilities and give examples from the texts.

Although the early Icelandic society might seem somewhat chaotic and brutal by our current standards, they did have well-established methods of resolving their differences, some of which didn't even involve bloodshed.  For example, in Hrafnkel's saga, Sam attacks Hrafnkel through the legal system, bringing him to court for the death of his cousin.  Hrafnkel is outlawed and Sam takes over his property, but in some less extreme cases the dishonor of losing a court case is punishment enough.  Another resolution briefly mentioned in this saga is arbitration, in which a third (hopefully neutral) party hears both sides and decides on appropriate action.  Thorbjorn, father of the man Hrafnkel killed, demands arbitration but Hrafnkel refuses as it would make a poor farmer appear to be his equal.  This method was used more successfully in real life, when the Christianization of Iceland was decided by the Althing's Lawspeaker after listening to arguments for and against.  A third nonviolent option is compensation, in which the parties involved negotiate as to a fair settlement for the offense.  This settlement can cover a wide range of actions, from Hrafnkel's offer to take care of Thorbjorn for the rest of his life to sarcastic Halli getting three pieces of silver out of Einar Fly, both to make up for the death of a (supposedly) close relative.

Of course, this being the Viking era, they had to get their righteous killing in there somewhere.  The Tale of Thorstein Staff-Struck features a formal duel between Thorstein and Bjarni; "formal" means they set ground rules, take the occasional break, and general behave much more considerately towards each other than participants in an informal duel, who just run up and start hacking away.  The formal duel doesn't even have to end in the death of one of the combatants--like Bjarni, the injured party can declare himself satisfied with just the duelling itself.  When we think of Viking justice, though, we usually think of the blood feud, in which a person avenges the death of a family member by killing someone in the first killer's family.  The first killer might then strike back, and so on for generations.  We haven't really seen too many examples of this yet, although in Hrafnkel Frey's Godi Hrafnkel begins his revenge on Sam by killing Sam's brother and no one seems to find that very shocking--it's almost to be expected, given Hrafnkel and Sam's history.  Despite the traditional image of Vikings just off and killing anyone who offended them, it seems most disputes, at least in the stories we've read, are resolved nonviolently through compensation.