The Warrior Pope

Europe is struggling to live up to the vision of its founders, Pope Francis has said in a powerful speech that asked: “What has happened to you, the Europe of humanism, the champion of human rights, democracy and freedom?”

I could write yet another post on this current Pope’s destructive attitude toward Europe, individual freedom, cultural destruction, and economic barbarism; yet, this has grown too easy when he continually offers gems such as these:

“Their new and exciting desire to create unity seems to be fading. We, the heirs of their dream, are tempted to yield to our own selfish interests and to consider putting up fences here and there.”

“Time is teaching us that it is not enough simply to settle individuals geographically: the challenge is that of a profound cultural integration.”

This post won’t be a Pope-bashing, at least not for the speech he gave.  Instead, it is the occasion of the speech that interests me:

Speaking as he became the first pope to accept the prestigious Charlemagne prize for his work on behalf of European solidarity…

Charlemagne Prize

The Charlemagne Prize…is one of the most prestigious European prizes. It has been awarded annually since 1950 by the German city of Aachen to people who contributed to the ideals upon which it has been founded. It commemorates Charlemagne, ruler of the Frankish Empire and founder of what became the Holy Roman Empire, who resided and is buried at Aachen.

The Pope has accepted a prize named after the bloodiest murderer in early Medieval European history.

Charlemagne

Charlemagne, also known as Charles the Great or Charles I, was King of the Franks. He united most of Western Europe during the early Middle Ages and laid the foundations for modern France and Germany. He took the Frankish throne in 768 and became King of Italy from 774. From 800, he became the first Holy Roman Emperor — the first recognized emperor in Western Europe since the fall of the Western Roman Empire three centuries earlier.

Charlemagne became king in 768, initially as co-ruler with his younger brother Carloman I.  Carloman died at twenty years-of-age under unclear circumstances in 771, leaving Charlemagne sole ruler.

Charlemagne has been called the "Father of Europe" (Pater Europae), as he united most of Western Europe for the first time since the Roman Empire.

From RHC Davis, A History of Medieval Europe:

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.

These were campaigns of empire – “beyond the borders of Francia.”  Charlemagne fought to unite Europe, or kill anyone who stood in the way of his objective.

[He] fought in turn against the Lombards, the Saxons, the Muslims of Spain, the Serbs, the Avars, the Byzantine provinces of Southern Italy, the Bretons, the Danes, and the Duchy of Benevento.  Charlemagne rules, by the end of his reign, over territory which included the whole of modern France, Belgium, Holland, and Switzerland, most of western Germany, a great part of Italy, a small part of northern Spain, and Corsica.

In Spain he fought against the Muslims, but it was the Christian Basques that annihilated Charlemagne’s rearguard in 778.  The Saxons, described as “heathen” who “still worshipped their primitive Germanic gods” by Davis, were an especially troublesome bunch.  Destroying “everything with fire and the sword” was not sufficient:

Henceforward, it was clear that a more radical policy toward the Saxons would be necessary…. What was needed was the conquest of the whole country and the subjugation of its people.

If ever they [the Saxons] were to live in amity with the Franks (‘the Christian people’) it was necessary that they should be converted to Christianity.  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.

The Saxons revolted, often.  From the previously cited Wikipedia article:

In the Saxon Wars, spanning thirty years and eighteen battles, he conquered Saxonia and proceeded to convert the conquered to Christianity.

The conversion was almost never peaceful.  There were forced deportations of the more intransigent.  Further:

…at Verden in Lower Saxony, Charlemagne is recorded as having ordered the execution of 4,500 Saxon prisoners, known as the Massacre of Verden ("Verdener Blutgericht").

Meanwhile, the better connected Saxons went along – call them the connected elite.  The Church also took its share of the loot – such conversion by sword being the will of God, it was only right.

...no one doubted for a moment that the interests of Christianity and the Franks were identical.

The church played the role of servant to Charlemagne:

The Church, as normally understood, was reduced to a department of state, as a sort of ministry of prayer, and the responsibility for education and the interpretation of the true Catholic faith was assumed by Charlemagne in his role of ‘David’, the Lord’s anointed.

As an aside, the coronation of Charlemagne remains surrounded in controversy – who did what to whom?  Interpretations – even at the time – varied widely: was it a coronation of the emperor by the Pope, or was the emperor taking control of the Church?

Conclusion

Then as now, uniting disparate cultures can occur gradually – through normal interactions of the market and other means – or much more quickly, by force and government intervention.  Then as now, force was the chosen path.  Then as now, the Church gave its blessing to the destruction.

Thus, the Pope receives the Charlemagne prize.

Centralization and War

A History of Medieval Europe, RHC Davis

One stereotype of the Middle Ages is that of continuous war.  Conflicts during the time tended to be small and local – more like feuds between families involving the lords and nobles, rarely the serfs or other freemen.  Decentralized government resulted in decentralized warfare, drawing in only those who were obligated due to voluntary commitment.

I have previously examined the centralizing desires of Charlemagne, and the warfare that this required.  He not only consolidated many disparate kingdoms, he brought together Church and State – being the first emperor crowned by the Pope in some three hundred years – and at least minimizing the beneficial conflict between competing institutions of authority.

Centralization

After the demise of Charlemagne’s Carolingian Empire, decentralization returned to much of Europe.  Thereafter, political development took different turns in different regions.

…the civilization of Latin Christendom was by no means uniform.  On the contrary, there were at least two distinct cultural traditions, one in the north and west, the other in central Europe.  The first was primarily French….

In Germany and Italy there was a different culture and different political background.  The Germans, indeed, might have been described (from a French point of view) as ‘backward.’  They were slow in developing feudalism beyond its Carolingian stage, being in this respect a century behind France and England.

There you have it: modern France and England, backward Germany and Italy.

The distinction between Italy and Germany on the one hand, and France and England on the other, was fundamental for the whole period from 900 to 1250.

I suggest it was fundamental for at least another two-hundred years beyond this, but I am getting ahead of the story.

What was this distinction?

It was not merely cultural in the narrow sense of the word, but it was political also.  Italy and Germany were the home of the Papacy and Empire, France and England of feudal monarchies and (ultimately) of nation-states.

During this period – beginning in the tenth century – what is today known as France began to take political form; the Capetian dynasty.  Around the same time, the monarchy in England took form – of course to include a defining event of conquest by the Norman William the Conqueror in 1066, who thereafter took all of the land in the king’s name.

It was not until the latter part of the nineteenth century that Germany took its centralized political form (of “nation-state”); the timeframe was similar for Italy.

War

The Hundred Years' War was a series of conflicts waged from 1337 to 1453 between the House of Plantagenet, rulers of the Kingdom of England, against the House of Valois, rulers of the Kingdom of France, for control of the latter kingdom.

Hence, I suggest that the distinction was fundamental for at least another 200 years.  Since the fall of Rome, Europe had seen nothing like this.  Sure, there were wars – but never before was it possible to command enough wealth and servitude to fight almost continuously for 100 years on behalf of another.

It was the most notable conflict of the Middle Ages, wherein five generations of kings from two rival dynasties fought for the throne of the largest kingdom in Western Europe.

It took centralized nation-states to make this happen – a one-hundred year war between England and France.  While Germans and Italians were involved in their feuds (think Hatfields and McCoys), life was a multi-generational hell for those living to the north and west:

Bubonic plague and warfare reduced population numbers throughout Europe during this period. France lost half its population during the Hundred Years' War. Normandy lost three-quarters of its population, and Paris two-thirds.

War and the centralized state went hand-in-hand…:

The Hundred Years' War was a time of rapid military evolution. Weapons, tactics, army structure and the social meaning of war all changed, partly in response to the war's costs, partly through advancement in technology and partly through lessons that warfare taught.  The feudal system was slowly disintegrating throughout the hundred years war.

…and re-invigorated nationalism…

The war stimulated nationalistic sentiment. It devastated France as a land, but it also awakened French nationalism. The Hundred Years' War accelerated the process of transforming France from a feudal monarchy to a centralised state.

…and made possible the re-introduction of the common man as an asset to the war-fighting state:

By the end of the Hundred Years' War, these various factors caused the decline of the expensively outfitted, highly trained heavy cavalry and the eventual end of the armoured knight as a military force and of the nobility as a political one.

No longer was significant wealth necessary to be a fighting man.  Equal opportunity employment was offered, making possible standing armies:

In 1445 the first regular standing army since Roman times was organised in France partly as a solution to marauding free companies.

And, unlike the small and localized feuds between members of the noble class, this war ushered in the emotion of national pride in the people:

The conflict developed such that it was not just between the Kings of England and France but also between their respective peoples. There were constant rumours in England that the French meant to invade and destroy the English language. National feeling that emerged from such rumours unified both France and England further.

And this all occurred not in “backward” Germany and Italy, but between the progressive, modern, and centralized nation-states of England and France.

Liberty and Personal Law

A History of Medieval Europe, RHC Davis

Charlemagne and his descendants were not able to sustain empire.  There were many physical reasons for this – the difficulty of defending vast reaches, invasions by Vikings, Saracens, and Hungarians, etc.

But the root of the demise was an idea – an idea so strongly held that it overcame the most powerful entity in Western Europe since the fall of Rome.  It was the idea of private law.   

The Carolingians tried to bury this idea; it was not conducive to empire.  In order to sustain empire, the emperor required the consent of his subjects:

…the ruler who devised a scheme of defence should also be capable of sustaining the morale of his men.

The Carolingians had ever larger borders to defend.  They required new and ever-increasing support from the various kings and lords to make this defense effective.  These kings and lords had to want to support the emperor.  But why did their opinion matter?  Couldn’t the emperor just pass a law, force compliance?

A king could only command his subjects to perform those services to which they had already been liable, and a lord could only expect customary services from his vassals.  He had no right to invent new duties, and his subjects or vassals would not perform them, unless they had voluntarily given their consent.

Law by consent, not by compulsion.

A king who wanted to increase taxation, lengthen army-service, or impose additional duties such as the building and garrisoning of fortresses, had therefore to convince his subjects that it was worth their while to perform these services….

It was a philosophy of law that inherently favored decentralization, as opposed to a common and uniform law which is both necessary and conducive to centralization. 

Consequently everything favoured the rulers of small territories as against the rulers of vast empires.

And somehow this is considered…barbaric…uncivilized…medieval?

One lord with a castle, completely garrisoned, and victualled, was worth twenty emperors who spent their time marching and counter marching from the Rhine to the Pyranees or from the Danube to the Scheldt.

This would seem sufficient enough reason to support the concept of private law based on custom; law that was both old and good.  It is as close to a libertarian theory of law actually put into widespread practice as I have found, sustained over such a long period.

Decentralized law led to decentralized power.  Decentralized power led to small feuds instead of grand battles.

Was the system perfect?  No, but how could any system implemented by man be perfect?  But what if it was this system of law subject to further study and learning – instead of the centralizing Roman law that came both before it and after it? 

The system of decentralized law worked because it was accepted – it is a system that people believed was best.  What if it was this system of law that men kept in their hearts? 

Onward, Christian Soldiers

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.