Misplaced Pages

#14985

59-482: Beginning in the 1870s, some scholars have attempted to exonerate Charlemagne of the massacre by way of a proposed manuscript error but these attempts have since been generally rejected. While the figure of 4,500 victims has generally been accepted, some scholars regard it as an exaggeration. An entry for the year 782 in the first version of the Royal Frankish Annals ( Annales Regni Francorum ) records

118-597: A Saxon rebellion, followed by a Saxon victory in the battle of Süntel before Charlemagne arrived and put down the rebellion. Charlemagne ordered the execution of 4,500 Saxons near the confluence of the Aller and the Weser , in what is now Verden . Regarding the massacre, the entry reads: The Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi (Annals of Einhard), which are a revised version of the Royal Frankish Annals and not

177-481: A complete copy, though McKitterick points out that the derivatives are often not complete themselves. These also contain insertions not found in the other classes, including mention of Pepin the Hunchback. The revised texts are based on a Class D manuscript. Class E comprises the revised editions of the annals, and are by far the most numerous. These are often found paired with Einhard's Vita Karoli Magni , and it

236-559: A completely independent source, give a different account of the battle of the Süntel, recording that Charlemagne lost two envoys, four counts, and around twenty nobles in a Frankish defeat. The reviser agrees about the punishment meted out on the Saxon rebels, and adds some details, such as that the Saxons blamed Widukind , that the number 4,500 was a minimum and that the executions took place in

295-608: A failure. Hermann Gauch , Heinrich Himmler 's adjutant for culture, took the view that Charlemagne – known in German as Karl the Great ( German : Karl der Große ) – should be officially renamed "Karl the Slaughterer" because of the massacre. He advocated a memorial to the victims. Alfred Rosenberg also stated that the Saxon leader Widukind , not Karl, should be called "the Great". In Nazi Germany ,

354-524: A group of clerics associated with the Carolingian court is likely. Between the years 741 and 768, the annals overlap with the continuations of the Chronicle of Fredegar . On account of this, scholars such as Scholz have suggested that the annals are based on the continuation of Fredegar up to 768, and then on minor annals up to some point between 787 and 793. McKitterick, however, contends that

413-587: A memorial, known as the Sachsenhain ("Saxon Grove"), that was built at a possible site of the massacre. This site functioned for a period as a meeting place for the Schutzstaffel . Popular discussion of the massacre made Charlemagne a controversial figure in Nazi Germany until his official "rehabilitation" by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels , after which Charlemagne was officially presented in

472-450: A much smaller number of executions accompanied deportations in the year 782. Carole Cusack interprets the method of execution as hanging rather than beheading. The Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae , a law code promulgated by Charlemagne, has traditionally been dated to 782–85, in response to Widukind's rebellion. More recently, Yitzhak Hen has suggested a later date (c. 795), based on the influence of Islamic theology of jihad through

531-505: A positive manner in Nazi Germany. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, historians generally approved of the executions of Verden, as displays of piety. During the Enlightenment this changed. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was one of the first to suggest that Verden cast a shadow over Charlemagne's legacy. Voltaire considered the king a "thousandfold murderer", with Verden the centrepiece of his barbarism. According to Barbero,

590-456: A reflection of a belief in a divine will and control of history. Many of the worse omens also parallel growing dissatisfaction with Louis the Pious, which immediately after the end of the annals spilled into civil war between him and his sons. Divine intervention through the relics of saints play an important role as well, with mention of Hilduin's translation of the relics of St. Sebastian to

649-469: A single day: When the king heard of this disaster he decided not to delay, but made haste to gather an army, and marched into Saxony. There he called to his presence the chiefs of the Saxons, and inquired who had induced the people to rebel. They all declared that Widukind was the author of the treason, but said that they could not produce him because after the deed was done he had fled to the Northmen. But

SECTION 10

#1732772123015

708-573: A true King of Israel", citing the biblical tale of the total extermination of the Amalekites and the conquest of the Moabites by David . Barbero further points out that a few years later, a royal chronicler, commenting on Charlemagne's treatment of the Saxons, records that "either they were defeated or subjected to the Christian religion or completely swept away." Roger Collins identifies

767-407: Is founded on Hilduin's involvement in the first civil war between Louis and his sons in 830. In that year, he left the emperor's service to join the sons’ uprising and was subsequently banished, which would account for the termination of the annals. His increasing distaste for Louis would also correspond with the veiled negativity towards the emperor which surfaces in the later entries of the annal, in

826-548: Is partially from this that they are sometimes believed to have been written by him as well, and thus called the Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi (English: Annals which are said to be of Einhard ). The revised editions correct the Latin of the originals and elaborate on many of the earlier entries, which were written by a terse hand in their unedited states. The major edits go up to 801, with minor stylistic changes through 812. Though

885-439: Is portrayed in the annals as a victory, as opposed to a crushing Frankish defeat at the hands of the Saxons. The 792 conspiracy of Pepin the Hunchback against Charlemagne is also omitted, along with any reference to potential misconduct on Charlemagne's part. The revised text, however, incorporates these events while maintaining a positive tone towards the emperor, presented as a peerless leader in battle. Charlemagne's son, Louis

944-585: The 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne , a body of French volunteers, was named after the "pan-European Germanic hero" instead of after Joan of Arc . Royal Frankish Annals The Royal Frankish Annals ( Latin : Annales regni Francorum ), also called the Annales Laurissenses maiores ('Greater Lorsch Annals'), are a series of annals composed in Latin in

1003-458: The Abbey of St. Medard , and Einhard's transport of the relics of SS. Marcellinus and Peter into Francia. A more detailed account of Einhard's procurement of the relics exists in his Translation and Miracles of Marcellinus and Peter . Additionally, the annals provide the only attestation to the existence of Charlemagne's personal elephant Abul-Abbas , aside from a mention by Einhard drawn from

1062-594: The Carolingian Francia , recording year-by-year the state of the monarchy from 741 (the death of Charles Martel ) to 829 (the beginning of the crisis of Louis the Pious ). Their authorship is unknown, though Wilhelm von Giesebrecht suggested that Arno of Salzburg was the author of an early section surviving in the copy at Lorsch Abbey . The Annals are believed to have been composed in successive sections by different authors, and then compiled. The depth of knowledge regarding court affairs suggests that

1121-635: The East Frankish Kingdom . The Annales Xantenses run from 832 to 873 and are largely independent from the other two continuations. Roger Collins Roger J. H. Collins (born 2 September 1949 ) is an English medievalist , currently an honorary fellow in history at the University of Edinburgh . Collins studied at the University of Oxford ( Queen's and Saint Cross Colleges ) under Peter Brown and John Michael Wallace-Hadrill . He then taught ancient and medieval history at

1180-641: The Merovingian king Childeric III . The annalists pay particular attention to the military campaigns of the Carolingian kings, justifying their actions in terms of a grand narrative of Carolingian peacekeeping and conquest in the name of expanding the Christian faith. The overthrow of the Merovingians is also portrayed in such a way as to legitimize the transfer of royal power between dynasties, emphasizing Carolingian adherence to Frankish traditions and

1239-501: The Frankish swords, think what a series of laments for fallen warriors, what a Gododdin , what a subsequent celebration of reputation by poets, that would have made possible! He further argues that the Saxons were probably unable to mount another serious revolt for several years after Verden, since they had to wait for a new generation of young men to reach fighting age. Matthias Becher, in his biography of Charlemagne, suggests that

SECTION 20

#1732772123015

1298-406: The Latin up to a similar level as the new entries and adding lengthy passages where detail was lacking, again in the style of the later years. For this reason, the editor is believed to have belonged to or been affiliated with this third group of authors. This section ends abruptly after the events of 829, and for this reason has been associated with Hilduin of St. Denis. The case for his authorship

1357-525: The Lord King Charles killed many Saxons" ( hoc anno domnus rex Karolus plures de Saxonis interfecit ). Historian Alessandro Barbero says that, regarding Charlemagne, the massacre "produced perhaps the greatest stain on his reputation". In his survey on scholarship regarding Charlemagne, Barbero comments on attempts at exonerating Charlemagne and his forces from the massacre: Several historians have attempted to lessen Charles's responsibility for

1416-492: The Nazi historian Heinrich Dannenbauer could refer to Charlemagne's "rehabilitation". A memorial site, Widukindgedächtnisstätte , was inaugurated at Engen in 1939. In 1942, the Nazi regime celebrated the 1200th anniversary of Charlemagne's birth. The historian Ahasver von Brandt referred to it as the "official rehabilitation" ( amtliche Rehabilitierung ), although Goebbels acknowledged in private that many people were confused by

1475-413: The Pious, is rarely shown engaging in battle by the annalists, but rather directs others to do so, or negotiates for peace. The contrast between Louis and his father and grandfather is clear. While the past kings were unshakeable figures, depicted as the better of their foes even in defeat by the revised edition, the annalists’ Louis is a smaller man who invests the power of the military in others, not unlike

1534-508: The Saxons at the time. Its destruction is a major point in the annals, written to continue a jingoistic theme of Frankish triumphs against the “un-Frankish” and unchristian barbarian. The unrevised text neglects to mention defeats suffered by Charlemagne, such as the Battle of Roncevaux Pass in 778 (later dramatized in the Song of Roland ) and the Battle of Süntel in 782. The Battle of Süntel

1593-566: The Saxons) and a tool of the Church and the Papacy were led by Alfred Rosenberg. In 1935, seven professional historians fought back with the volume Karl der Große oder Charlemagne? The issue was settled by Adolf Hitler himself, who privately pressured Rosenberg to cease his public condemnations, and by propagandist Joseph Goebbels , who began to issue positive statements about Charlemagne. In 1936,

1652-532: The Spaniard Theodulf of Orléans . This theory has not found wide acceptance. Janet L. Nelson calls the massacre "exemplary legal vengeance for the deaths of [Charlemagne's ministers] and their men in the Süntel Hills". According to her, even if the Frankish leaders at the Süntel were at fault for the disaster, as the Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi imply, Charlemagne as their lord, according to

1711-413: The about-face of National Socialism. A Sicherheitsdienst report of 9 April 1942 noted that: There were many voices to be heard saying that only a few years ago one had counted as an unreliable National Socialist had one left Karl der Große with so much as a single unblemished feature and not spoken also in tones of loathing of the "slaughterer of Saxons" and "pope's and bishops' lacky". Many people pose

1770-478: The accounts provided by sources, arguing that the Saxons were killed in battle and not massacred in cold blood, or even that the verb decollare (to decapitate) was a copyist's error in place of delocare (to relocate), so the prisoners were deported. None of these attempts has proved credible. He continues: "the most likely inspiration for the mass execution of Verden was the Bible", Charlemagne desiring "to act like

1829-449: The annal entries for the 9th century. In addition to astronomical oddities, such as eclipses , the supernatural begins to enter the account, set against almost ritualistic yearly notices of the regular passages of Christmas and Easter . Nearly two-dozen villages are reported to have been destroyed by heavenly fire in 823, while at the same time an unnamed girl is said to have begun a three-year fast . Scholz regards this preoccupation as

Massacre of Verden - Misplaced Pages Continue

1888-536: The annals were written by persons close to the king, and their initial reluctance to comment on Frankish defeats betrays an official design for use as Carolingian propaganda. Though the information contained within is heavily influenced by authorial intent in favor of the Franks, the annals remain a crucial source on the political and military history of the reign of Charlemagne . Copies of the annals can be categorized into five classes, based on additions and revisions to

1947-444: The annals. The author of this section is unknown. Scholz posits the work of multiple authors in the royal chapel. The year 795 is not definitive as the date of authorial change, but it is the latest of those suggested. Unlike the first section, these entries were written contemporaneously and with greater depth. Considering this and the fact that the subject matter remains fixed on the actions of Charlemagne, composition by members of

2006-495: The annals. The gift of the elephant to Charlemagne, amongst other treasures, by Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid is evidence of the attempts to form an Abbasid-Carolingian alliance at the time, which the annals document loosely. The annals survive in multiple versions, widely distributed across the Frankish empire, though none of these are original copies. Each version is marked with distinguishing features, and based on these features, Friedrich Kurze formulated five classes for

2065-505: The annals’ earlier depiction of the Merovingian kings. Miracles aid Charlemagne and his men, and the grace of God leads him to victory; mostly ill portents surround Louis, such as an omen in the stars supposedly foretelling his army's defeat at the hands of Count Aizo , and the sudden collapse of a wooden arcade atop him in 817. Such references to striking natural phenomena, strange happenings, and miracles become increasingly common in

2124-596: The approval of Pope Zacharias in the matter. Of the three kings—Pepin, Charlemagne , and Louis —Charlemagne's military chronicles are the most detailed, covering his victories against the Saxons , Bretons , and other peoples. The account of Charlemagne's campaign against the Saxons is also notable as one of the few extant references to the Irminsul , an important if enigmatic part of the Germanic paganism practiced by

2183-478: The categorization of these texts. This system still remains in use. The five classes of texts are lettered A through D, with an additional E class for the revised text. They are as follows: Class A texts end at the year 788, and are reflected in one of the earliest modern printings of the annals, that of Heinrich Canisius's Francicorum Annalium fragmentum . Canisius also includes the years up to 793 in his printing, however, and Rosamond McKitterick speculates that

2242-405: The continuation of Fredegar and the minor annals are more likely based upon the Annales regni Francorum , which is the most ordered and precise of them. Neither argument considers these entries to be contemporaneous with the events described. The manner of reporting for these years is typically terse, though they include the convention of mentioning Easter and Christmas, which continues throughout

2301-483: The foreign religion of Christianity. Wilhelm Teudt mentions the site of the massacre in his 1929 book Germanische Heiligtümer ('Germanic Shrines'). Some Christian nationalists linked Charlemagne with the humiliation of French domination after World War I , especially the occupation of the Rhineland. Of the first generation of German historians after 1871 to defend Charlemagne, Louis Halphen considered their efforts

2360-476: The form of faint praise and the recording of omens and disasters. Additionally, the entry for 826 mentions Hilduin's translation of relics, and is followed in 827 by Einhard's translation. The inclusion of these somewhat obscure events, both of which Hilduin was involved with, would be explained by his authorship of the section. The revised text is believed to have been edited after Charlemagne's death in 814 but prior to Einhard's Vita Karoli Magni , which references

2419-456: The incident would be little more than a footnote in scholarship were it not for controversy in German circles due to nationalistic sentiment before and during the Nazi era in Germany. The controversy over the massacre was linked to disputes among German nationalists about the image of Charlemagne. Some Germans saw the victims of the massacre as defenders of Germany's traditional beliefs, resisting

Massacre of Verden - Misplaced Pages Continue

2478-515: The manuscript originally ran to that date. These manuscripts are now lost. Class B texts go to, at the latest, 813. Kurze notes that one of these was used by Regino of Prüm in his Chronicon . Class C texts are complete through 829. These contain various additions not found in the previous two classes, and Kurze divides them based on what other texts are found in their codices, such as the Liber historiae Francorum . Class D texts are derived from

2537-420: The massacre became a major topic of debate. In 1934, two plays about Widukind were performed. The first, Der Sieger ( The Victor ) by Friedrich Forster , portrayed Charlemagne as brutal but his goal, Christianization of the pagan Saxons, as necessary. Reception was mixed. The second, Wittekind , by Edmund Kiß, was more controversial for its criticism of Christianity. The play resulted in serious disturbances and

2596-412: The massacre, by stressing that until a few months earlier the king thought he had pacified the country, the Saxon nobles had sworn allegiance, and many of them had been appointed counts. Thus the rebellion constituted an act of treason punishable by death, the same penalty that the extremely harsh Saxon law imposed with great facility, even for the most insignificant of crimes. Others have attempted to twist

2655-408: The number of sections into which the annals should be divided is debated, they undoubtedly were written in at least four stages, corresponding roughly to the entries for 741-795, 796-807, 808-819, and 820-829. Additionally, an unknown editor produced the revised text at some point during the third stage. The identities of any of the authors save that of the fourth section are unknown, but production by

2714-409: The others who had carried out his will and committed the crime they delivered up to the king to the number of four thousand and five hundred; and by the king's command they were all beheaded [ decollati ] in one day upon the river Aller in the place called Verden [ Ferdun ]. When he had wreaked vengeance after this fashion, the king withdrew to the town of Diedenhofen [Thionville]... A short notice under

2773-469: The question as to who in the Party it had been back then who had authorised this derogatory slogan, and from what quarter this completely different evaluation was coming now. Goebbels's opinion was that it was best for state propaganda on historical matters to align with popular opinion, and thus with and not against Charlemagne. As an example of Charlemagne's post-1935 rehabilitation in Nazi Germany, in 1944

2832-448: The revisions, written in 833 at the latest. It covers the years 741 through 812, variously adding detail and modifying style. Leopold von Ranke put forth Einhard as the editor, an association which has carried with the revised annals in references to the Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi . However, while no other names have been suggested for the editor, the case for Einhard cannot be argued definitively either. Three major annals take up

2891-417: The royal chapel again seems likely, as few other groups would have had access to the same information. However, the identities of these authors remains unknown. This section, as well as the fourth, are also both contemporaneous accounts. Scholz notes an increased eloquence in the language employed from here on. At this time, the editor of the revised edition also began his work on the earlier entries, bringing

2950-598: The same year in the Annales Laubacenses (Annals of Lobbes) and the related Annales sancti Amandi (Annals of Saint-Amand) reads: "The rebellious Saxons killed many Franks; and Charles, [having] gathered the Saxons together, ordered them beheaded" ( Saxones rebellantes plurimos Francos interfecerunt; et Karlus, congregatos Saxones, iussit eos decollare ). For the year 782, the Annales Sangallenses Baluzii are more cryptic: "this year

3009-478: The small size of early medieval armies. On the other hand, Bernard Bachrach argues that the 4,500 captured warriors were but a small fraction of the able-bodied men in the region. The annalist's figure of 4,500, he notes, is generally accepted by scholars. He puts it at less than the entire Saxon army that fought at the Süntel, and suggests that Widukind's personal retinue probably also escaped capture. The medievalist Henry Mayr-Harting argues that since "reputation

SECTION 50

#1732772123015

3068-543: The standards of the time, owed them vengeance. Nelson says that the method of mass execution— decollatio , beheading—was also chosen for its symbolic value, for it was the Roman penalty for traitors and oath-breakers. The massacre became particularly significant and controversial among German nationalists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and in Nazi Germany . In 1935, landscape architect Wilhelm Hübotter designed

3127-639: The text. The chronicles were continued and incorporated in the West Frankish Annales Bertiniani and in the East Frankish Annales Fuldenses and Annales Xantenses . The annals give a brief individual description of events for each year (a few omitted), with a focus on the actions of the Carolingian monarchy, beginning with the account of Pepin the Short's ascension through the dethronement of

3186-825: The universities of Liverpool and Bristol . He arrived at the University of Edinburgh in 1994 and joined the Institute of Advanced Studies in the Humanities before becoming an honorary fellow in the Department of History (now the School of History, Classics and Archaeology ) in 1998. His research has primarily concerned the Early Middle Ages , with an emphasis on Spain , but also the Franks . His studies on

3245-530: The victims of the massacre as all Saxons held to have participated in the battle of the Süntel. Charlemagne may have found his precedent for mass execution in the Council of Cannstatt of 745/6, whereat his uncle Carloman executed numerous leading Alemannic noblemen. The German historian Martin Lintzel argued that the figure of 4,500 was an exaggeration, partly based on the theory of Hans Delbrück regarding

3304-728: The work of the Annales regni Francorum after 829: the Annales Bertiniani , the Annales Fuldenses , and the Annales Xantenses . The Annales Bertiniani concern the West Frankish Kingdom from 830 to 882, serving as a direct unofficial continuation. The Annales Fuldenses use the Annales regni Francorum as a basis up to the year 829, and then continue on their own until 901, documenting

3363-403: Was of the highest importance to the warrior element of a heroic-age society" the massacre of Verden, whatever its actual scope, would have backfired on Charlemagne: On the reputational side during Charlemagne's wars, the Saxons' greatest gain will undoubtedly have been the blood bath of Verden in 783 [ sic ]. If but one tenth of the 4500 warriors said to have been slaughtered actually fell under

3422-564: Was stopped after just two performances. Described by one historian as "little more than an extended anti-Catholic rant", the plot depicted Charlemagne as a murderous tyrant and Verden as "attempted genocide plotted by the Church." In 1935, landscape architect Wilhelm Hübotter was commissioned to build the Sachsenhain (German 'Grove of the Saxons') in Verden, a monument commemorating the massacre consisting of 4,500 large stones. The monument

3481-541: Was used as both a memorial to the event and as a meeting place for the Schutzstaffel . The memorial was inscribed to "Baptism-Resistant Germans Massacred by Karl, the Slaughterer of the Saxons". In the same year the annual celebration of Charlemagne in Aachen , where he is buried, was cancelled and replaced by a lecture on "Karl the Great, Saxon Butcher." The attacks on Charlemagne as Sachsenschlächter (slaughterer of

#14985