"Was Charlemagne a Mass Murderer?" Topic
14 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Medieval Media Message Board
Areas of InterestMedieval
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe next Teutonic Knights unit - Crossbowmen!
Featured Profile ArticleFor the time being, the last in our series of articles on the gates of Old Jerusalem.
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Tango01 | 25 Feb 2014 12:26 p.m. PST |
"When he heard of this, the Lord King Charles rushed to the place with all the Franks he could gather on short notice and advanced to where the Aller flows into the Weser. Then all the Saxons came together again, submitted to the authority of the Lord King, and surrendered the evildoers who were chiefly responsible for this revolt to be put to death – four thousand five hundred of them. The sentence was carried out." This entry for the year 782 in the Royal Frankish Annals is one of the most debated topics of Charlemagne's reign. Did the ‘Massacre of Verden' actually happen with 4500 people being killed in a single day? Was the Carolingian ruler (and later Holy Roman Emperor) justified in his actions? Or was this a brutal act of ethnic-cleansing that has left a terrible mark on the man who is credited with re-establishing Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire? Charlemagne's reign (768-814) was one of almost continuous warfare – you could find his armies fighting in Aquitaine, Lombard Italy or south of the Pyrenees against the Muslims. However, his longest and most difficult war was against the Saxons in what is now northwest Germany. The Franks and the Saxons had long been adversaries, but their conflict had been relatively low-level: raiding on both sides and imposition of annual tribute. However, soon after the death of his brother and co-ruler Carloman, Charlemagne decided to invade Saxony. The campaign, which took place in 772, was a major success. The Franks captured Eresburg, took captives, plundered gold and silver, and most importantly, destroyed the Irminsul, one of the most holiest places of the pagan Saxons
" Full article here. link Amicalement Armand |
Mardaddy | 25 Feb 2014 12:34 p.m. PST |
Is it that time of year again? I'm am not a studied individual on the era or the personage, and do not even regularly visit sites that would be discussing historical matters of that era – and even *I* have seen articles like this popping up every year. |
anleiher | 25 Feb 2014 12:41 p.m. PST |
Anachronistic revisionism. |
morrigan | 25 Feb 2014 1:21 p.m. PST |
Nope, just an other time with other ways. |
Patrick R | 25 Feb 2014 2:10 p.m. PST |
"Ethnic Cleansing" and "Genocide" or the incredible historical breakthrough that most military figures in history were just as bad or worse than Hitler
|
Brian Smaller | 25 Feb 2014 3:15 p.m. PST |
For his time – probably not. Looking back through the lens of revisionism – probably yes. |
Rudi the german | 25 Feb 2014 3:22 p.m. PST |
Yes and no! Yes, according to the saxons. But as far as i know were never a body found of this massacer and is only documented in texts. No
Because the texts claiming actions of charlemage are very likely to be faked. The ratio of faked charlemange documents is today up to 90 procent and there are claims that 100 procent of his output are faked by the later stufers
"If you dont have a body, you dont have a crime
And mybe not even a killer." Greetings and have fun |
jerardad | 25 Feb 2014 3:26 p.m. PST |
It probably happened. But, as morrigan pointed out, "other time with other ways." History is another country. |
tberry7403 | 25 Feb 2014 4:18 p.m. PST |
"Royalty pollutes people's minds, boy. Honest men start bowing and bobbing just because someone's granddad was a bigger murdering bastard than theirs was." -- "Men at Arms", Terry Pratchett |
Coelacanth | 25 Feb 2014 4:18 p.m. PST |
Killing 4,500 people tends to leave a lot of bodies. When those are found, I will begin to believe the story. Until then, I take it with a grain of salt. As an aside, I suppose that that's how Game of Thrones will end
Ron |
goragrad | 26 Feb 2014 12:43 a.m. PST |
As with any historical figure there are controversies. My sister-in-law was scrolling through titles on Netflix last month. In the 'historical' section there was a movie about Countess Elizabeth who ruled in her husbands absence while he was away fighting the Turks. A couple of films later in the queue there was a film about the 'infamous' Countess Elizabeth Bathory who attempted to stay young by bathing in the blood of virgins. I found the juxtaposition to be amusing. Vlad the Impaler (Dracula) – an inhuman bloodthirsty monster, or a patriot fighting Turkish 'fire with fire?' |
Patrick R | 26 Feb 2014 4:08 a.m. PST |
I remember that several years ago they found a grave which had three bodies in it with obvious signs of having been hacked to death in a fight. "Mass murder" was tossed around as if they were hot on the trail of a 10th century Hannibal Lecter
It's the same old brand of historians who believe that history is all about societies, their customs and deeds and that all wars and conflicts are somehow unnatural aberrant disruptions in the proper flow of history ("There is nothing you can learn from wars, nothing !") and unworthy of any study because doing so would be as despicable as watching snuff movies. |
Tango01 | 26 Feb 2014 2:57 p.m. PST |
Imho Vlad was a patriot. A truly bloody patriot! (smile). Amicalement Armand |
Puster | 26 Feb 2014 5:06 p.m. PST |
Well, Elizabeth Barthory was a real case, hidden behind a couple of layers of legend. Fact is that she was put on trial and most of her servants were subsequently executed. There are some who think she was victim of a political intrigue, but there would have been easier and more believable ways to dispose of her then setting up a trial for serial murder. Personal character defects (like indulging in aborrent mass murder) may still allow for political sound actions. A discrepancy between private and political life is not uncommon for moder politicians, and different evaluations are not exclusive. In the original case of Karl (the Great), he most likely ordered mass executions at Verden, though historians are still out there to without a final conclusion. If so (which I found likely, as his father used the same method vs. the Alemans) he is still no "mass murderer" in any modern criminal sense. War is no birthday party, and the forcefull "integration" of a neighbouring nation into the own realm rarely happens without bloodshed. In the outcome, he gave the Saxons their own right and enabled a lasting peacefull relation (more or less) to the degree, that not 200 years later it was a Saxon that became king and emperor of the realm. There are plenty of worse "heros" of our history who for example rather killed innocents just to create "economical" damage during a war, or relentlessly persecuted their political enemies and their families instead of working on a lasting solution. |
Parzival | 27 Feb 2014 4:26 p.m. PST |
Puster raises an interesting question. The scenario is essentially that a political and military leader has the obligation to defend the lives, rights and property of his citizens. Large numbers of his citizens are subjected to continuous assaults, robbery, rapes, and murder by a neighboring culture which is in part motivated by a fanatical and opposing cultural, political or religious view. Basic defense has achieved nothing. Punitive raids have only resulted in temporary relief followed by renewed attacks. Peaceful negotiations have been rebuffed. Cultural envoys have been abused or even murdered. The leader then decides on full scale invasion and conquest. Once achieved, he informs the fanatics that they must live peacefully under the new cultural rules and laws standard for other citizens. The fanatics refuse, promising continued hostilities. The leader then decides that the solution is simply to execute the fanatics. No fanatics, no violence. Now, leaving aside the question of whether only true fanatics are indeed subject to this order, is the order the correct one? If a fanatic is indeed likely to continue to pursue violence, and in all probability on a repeat basis, then is the execution of that fanatic warranted? One can postulate that in fact killing a large number of violent fanatics might well prevent the deaths of two, three or four (or more) times as many peaceful citizens, which puts the executions in a far more favorable light. At the same time, however, can one really assume that the fanatics would indeed reach such a level of harm? As to that, how many peaceful citizen's lives are worth the deaths of thousands of fanatics? Interestingly, in warfare we more or less accept that indeed, thousands of enemy combatant deaths are worth preserving even one peaceful citizen's life (or even simply his rights and property). Indeed, such mass death is even acceptable and potentially morally laudable if the enemy threatens armed and violent (if disciplined) soldiers as opposed to unarmed civilians. If, for example, the fanatics are presently armed and rushing to kill, maim or pillage either unarmed civilians or soldiers tasked with protecting them, the general moral assumption is that one may slaughter the fanatics with impunity, regardless of the nature of their target. In an "us versus them" equation, the outcome is assumed to be "too bad for them." So, what changes if the fanatics have initially surrendered? Yes, morally the assumption is that one does not kill a supplicating foe— when he drops his sword and pleads for mercy, mercy is granted. But what about the defiant foe? The one initially captured who swears that, once free, he will continue to fight, and not just your soldiers but your citizenry? What then? It may be easy these days to suggest life imprisonment as a solution, where food is bounteous and prisons can indeed be made secure, but it's hard to place that standard upon Charlemagne. Could the agricultural capabilities of the region have sustained four thousand non-laboring prisoners? Could they even be housed? I hardly think the latter was even likely. In the period, enslavement might be considered, but could they be effectively enslaved sufficient to prevent later violence? So what choice did Charlemagne have? In the context of the times, his solution might be considered magnanimous— the fanatics could agree to peace and choose to live under the rules of the new culture, or die. I'm not saying he was right, but in the context of the times and the nature of the situation, it's hard to judge him as a "mass murderer." Of course, the counter argument might be the question of freedom and self-determination. If what Charlemagne was proposing amounted to a loss of both, that's a horse of a different color. Amazing how circumstances change our views
|
|