Onward, Christian solders,
marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
going on before!
Christ, the royal Master,
leads again the foe;
Forward into battle,
see his banner go!
A
History of Medieval Europe, RHC Davis
A brief note regarding Charlemagne; but first, while doing a
little digging for this post, I found the following:
When Winston Churchill and Franklin
Roosevelt met in August 1941 on the battleship HMS Prince of Wales to agree the
Atlantic Charter, a church service was held for which Prime Minister Churchill
chose the hymns. He chose "Onward, Christian Soldiers" and afterwards
made a radio broadcast explaining this choice:
We sang "Onward, Christian
Soldiers" indeed, and I felt that this was no vain presumption, but that
we had the right to feel that we serving a cause for the sake of which a
trumpet has sounded from on high. When I looked upon that densely packed
congregation of fighting men of the same language, of the same faith, of the
same fundamental laws, of the same ideals ... it swept across me that here was
the only hope, but also the sure hope, of saving the world from measureless
degradation.
—Winston
Churchill
Stalin would make a perfect partner in this unholy “saving the
world from measureless degradation” trinity, answering the “trumpet” sounding from
an “on high” hell. But I digress.
Charlemagne (and the Carolingian Empire) is generally
regarded as offering a dramatic improvement over the Merovingian kings that
came before. I feel otherwise: the
Merovingian kings, known as “do-nothing kings” (let that moniker sink in for a
moment), were fine
by me.
Charlemagne united a large portion of Europe – much of today’s
France, Germany and northern Italy were united under his rule. He fought battles to unite this large portion
of Europe, as you would expect. Charlemagne
and the Franks felt that they were on a mission to convert the recalcitrant to Christianity.
The fallacy of fighting for Christ was overtly demonstrated
in Spain. It is true that Charlemagne
fought in Spain against Muslims, yet…
It is also true that the greatest defeat
in this theatre of war, the annihilation of Charlemagne’s rearguard in 778, was
inflicted on the Franks not, as later legends pretended, by the Muslims, but by
the Christian Basques. But in spite of
these facts, it is abundantly clear that the Franks were convinced that they were
fighting on behalf of Christendom.
The backlash was not only to be found in Spain:
Accordingly, from 785, the Franks
began a ‘thorough’ policy; the Saxons were not only to be conquered but also converted,
if necessary by force. In the first
Saxon capitulary it was declared a capital offence to resist or evade baptism….
The heathen Saxon was put outside the law.
Convert or be put to death.
Very Christ-like.
The policy was met with armed resistance. The Saxons revolted, and Charlemagne
suppressed each revolt. In some areas,
the Saxons were deported to various parts of the kingdom – with the vacated land
subsequently given to Charlemagne’s faithful men.
On Christmas Day in the year 800 he was crowned Emperor of
Rome by the Pope – the first to hold the title in some 300 years. The circumstances surrounding this event are
still debated – was this the idea of Charlemagne or the Pope? They each had something of significance to
gain by this event. Whatever the
backstory, it represented a significant uniting of church (and the Church) and state.
Both before and after this coronation, Charlemagne almost continuously
fought wars:
In almost every one of the
forty-two years of his reign Charlemagne summoned his ‘host’ to campaigns
beyond the borders of Francia. If, by any chance, a year went by without a placitum generale, the chroniclers
carefully recorded the fact, for it was a year to remember.
Such was his Christianity.
As a postscript: Louis the Pious, his son, attempted to do
away with the personal law that was the hallmark of medieval society. He wanted a single, universal code. Thankfully – for the sake of returning to the
decentralization of the period – Louis found this wish virtually impossible to
achieve. Ultimately, Charlemagne’s
empire did not last but a few short years after his death.
Fascinating, that it was the Basques that inflicted that terrible defeat. I did not know that, as everything that I learned about those battles is from 'The Song of Roland.'
ReplyDeleteWith regard to development of civilization in the West without Christian monasteries, there is a fine example in the southwestern U.S.: Chaco Canyon. The population that it supported was greater than London at the time. The buildings are beautiful and impressive. And, there is an important parallel to the Great Pyramids: the kivas have a chamber that can accommodate a single person, which mainline archeologists call a sarcophagus, but which mystics call a healing chamber (using sound to repair damaged DNA). There is a petroglyph that marks the summer and winter solstice and other astronomical events (of course, that is not covered in the introductory film in the visitor center nor mentioned in any park literature). That petroglyph, and the grandeur of the site, was the subject of documentary narrated by Robert Redford. I guess that documentary painted the Anasazi civilization in too good of a light, as the Park Service makes no mention of it and does not use it in the visitor center (we cannot have any Americans question 'Manifest Destiny'). Related artifacts in Phoenix -- Casa Grande -- are of a grand, intricate canal system, probably for farming.
Then, the Anasazi just disappeared in the 800s. Mystics say they 'ascended', i.e., proceeded to the next stage of human development.
I think if you look hard and outside of mainstream history, there are lots of examples of advanced civilization that arose without Western monasteries. The copper trade from Upper Peninsula Michigan to Europe and Middle East -- which Jesus' uncle, Joseph of Arithmea, played a role in -- is an example. Lots of fascinating, pre-Christian relics are there in the U.P.