53 bicycles: A lateral thinking puzzle

Thread Games
921

Consider the story a warning, then! :smiley:

922

Jarl Torradsson challenged Jarl Vesteinsson to a fight to settle their differences. They agreed to 40 men to a side, but Torradsson treacherously brought 80 men and destroyed his opponent. But, even though Torradsson killed Vesteinsson, history actually records that Vesteinsson also killed Torradsson.

How is this?

923

Was there more than one man called Torradsson ?

Was there more than one man called Vesteinsson ?

Are Vesteinsson and Torradsson the same person?

924

Did Torradsson personally slay Vesteinsson?
Did Vesteinsson personally slay Torradsson?
Was either man mortally wounded but able to continue fighting for some time afterwards?

For what it’s worth, by the way, I’m pretty sure that “Jarl” is a title, not a name, meaning something like “Chief”. So it’s no surprise that both men were called “Jarl”.

Actually, let me confirm that:
Is “Jarl” actually a title rather than a name?
Is that fact significant?

925

Were the “Men” actually humans?

(as opposed to, for example, chessmen)

926
  1. No. (not in this story, anyway). :slight_smile:
  2. No. (not in this story, anyway).
  3. No.
  1. Yes.
  2. Yes and no.*
  3. No.
  4. Yes.
  5. No.
  • Crappy answer, I know, but I think that is the best answer to give.

Yes.

927
  1. Was the melee fought with actual weapons?
  2. If so, were they hand-held?
  3. If not, were they projectile weapons?
  4. Was Torradsson’s death accidental?
  5. Did Torradsson’s death occur some time after the battle?
  6. If so, was it due to complications from being attacked by Vesteinsson?
928
  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Projectiles may have been used as well.
  4. Yes.
  5. Yes.
  6. No. This question needed to be simpler for me to feel comfortable with my answer. I could go “kind of” on this one.
929

By the standards of modern, first-world law, and assuming that all relevant facts were known, would T’s death have been considered murder?
By the standards of modern, first-world law, and assuming that all relevant facts were known, would V have been considered guilty of murdering T?
Was T’s death after the death of V?
Was T’s death after the conclusion of the battle?

930
  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. Yes.
  4. Yes.
931

Did a piece of V’s weapon break off?
If so, did it wind up in T’s body?

932
  1. No.
  2. No.
933

Did a wound given by V to T prove to be fatal later?

934

Yes, but this is not enough to solve it.

935

Was it poison?

936

No.

937

Is T’s wound physical?
Did T’s wound get infected?
Was V intending to kill T when he gave that wound?

938

Was T’s death more than 1 day after the battle?

Was T’s death more than 1 week after the battle?

Was T’s death more than 1 month after the battle?

Was T’s death more than 6 months after the battle?

Was T’s death more than 1 year after the battle?

Was T’s death more than 3 years after the battle?

939

Did T lose a limb or his eyesight in the battle, and then later, die as a result of the missing limb (not an infection, but by not being able to do something), or walking into a hole, or some other hazard he would have seen?

940
  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.

Between 1 week and 1 month, I’d say.

No.