User:Bermicourt/Sandbox/Blood Court of Verden

File:Blutgericht.jpg

The "Verdener Blutgericht", Notgeldschein (one Mark), Sparkasse Verden, 1921.

The Blood Court of Verden (Blutgericht von Verden), also called the Verden Blood Court (Verdener Blutgericht) or Bloodbath of Verden (Blutbad von Verden), refers to the execution in 782 A.D. of 4,500 Saxons near Verden an der Aller on the orders of Charlemagne during the Saxon Wars. Historical research initially cast doubt on the high number of victims and it is also doubtful whether the executions took place at Verden. More recent evidence, however, may shed a different light on the this event.

Historical account

During the course of the Saxon Wars, after a further uprising in 782, the Saxons were defeated by a Frankish army in the Battle of the Süntel. As a result, Charlemagne returned to Saxony. He called a the Saxon magnates together at the confluence of the rivers Aller and Weser, near Verden. The assembled Saxon cited Charlemagne as the instigator of the uprising and not the Saxon chieftain, Widukind.

The Royal Frankish Annals, as well as the documents referred to in older research as Einhard Annals (Einhardsannalen), recorded: because Widukind was not available, the Saxon magnates were alleged to have handed over to Charlemagne, those Saxons who had participated in the revolt: around 4,500 men. They were all beheaded in one day by order of the king:

usque ad quattuor milia D traditi et super Alaram fluvium in loco, qui Ferdun vocatur, iussu regis omnes una die decollati sunt.

In addition, the Saxons were supposed to have delivered the ringleaders "for execution, 4,500; which also took place" (

ad occidendum, quatuor milia quingentas; quod ita et factum est

).

Historical research

Since Wilhelm von Bippen questioned this account in 1889 , its truthfulness has been disputed. But in the early 20th century numerous articles appeared that cast Charlemagne's role in a negative light. This was especially the case in neo-nationalist circles, where Bippen's doubts were rejected or ignored. The clearest position was taken by amateur researcher, Wilhelm Teudt, in his work, Germanische Heiligtümer. For members of the nationalist movement (some of whom were sympathetic to neo-paganism), the pagan Saxons were ideologically seen as the last bastion of Germanic resistance to subjection by welsch Christendom.

After a scandal erupted over a play about the Saxon leader, Widuking, written by a supporter of the Ludendorff movement, which had been performed in early 1935 with the express consent of Hitler's Minister for Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, in Hagen Theatre, there was an intensive public debate that led to a change in the prevailing scholarly view. Historians such as Hermann Oncken rejected what they saw in the play as propaganda in its portrayal of the executions as the climax of the allegedly violent proselytization of the old Lower Saxony. Instead, they emphasised "the very political character of Charlemagne's actions" and argued that the subjugation of the Saxons was a necessary precondition for the subsequent "colonisation of the Slavic lands on the far side of the Elbe". Dieser schönfärberischen Deutung der Hinrichtungen zu widersprechen war kaum möglich, weil sie sich an den bereits seit Ausgang des 19. Jahrhunderts propagierten Drang nach Osten anlehnte und auch Hitler eine erneute Hinwendung nach Osten angekündigt hatte (Mein Kampf: „Wir stoppen den ewigen Germanenzug nach dem Süden und Westen Europas und weisen den Blick nach dem Land im Osten"). Eine wichtige Rolle in dieser Debatte spielte auch das Buch Karl der Große oder Charlemagne? von acht namhaften Historikern, das sich mit den Hinrichtungen im Spiegel des deutsch-französischen Gegensatzes befasste und Karl „als Gesamtpersönlichkeit von germanisch-deutscher Art und Abstammung" würdigte, um ihn für Deutschland zu vereinnahmen. Der Theologe und Kirchenhistoriker Karl Bauer verteidigte Karl den Großen in seiner Schrift Die Quellen für das sogenannte Blutbad von Verden (Münster 1937). Er sieht in den zeitgenössischen Quellen einen Abschreibfehler – statt decollati, also „enthauptet“, müsste es delocati heißen, die Opfer seien also „umgesiedelt“ worden. Ein Massaker habe es niemals gegeben. Auch der liberale pazifistische Historiker Ludwig Quidde lehnte in seinem Genfer Exil – gestützt auf von Bippen und Heinrich Ulmann – die Hinrichtung von 4.500 Sachsen ab:

Karl der Große ist nicht der Massenmörder, der Sachsenschlächter der Ueberlieferung.

Auch heute halten einige Fachhistoriker an einer Karl den Großen entlastenden Lesart der Berichte über das „Blutgericht von Verden“ fest: So nimmt Dieter Hägermann an, dass nur eine Gruppe von wenigen Dutzend von Karl dem Großen hingerichtet worden sei. Wilhelm Kohl, ehemaliger Leiter des Staatsarchivs Münster, nimmt eine Mittelposition ein, indem er 400–500 Enthauptete vermutet. Dagegen verteidigt Ernst Schubert im Lexikon des Mittelalters die Berichte der Quellen gegen „abmildernde Spekulationen“.

Einige Historiker gehen von einer „aus Rache bzw. momentaner Verbitterung diktierten Strafaktion Karls des Großen“ aus, „die aber kaum 4.500 Sachsen betraf.“

---

Research history

Ever since Wilhelm von Bippen challenged the traditional account in 1889, its verisimilitude has been disputed. In the early 20th century, many articles appeared that viewed Charlemagne’s role in a critical light. This stance was especially well represented in neo-nationalist circles, where they rejected or ignored the doubts that Bippens had raised. The clearest position in the field of influential amateur researchers was taken by Wilhelm Teudt with his work Germanische Heiligtümer ("Sacred Germanic sites"). To the adherents of the (partly neo-pagan oriented) nationalist movement, the pagan Saxons were idealised as the last bastion of Germanic resistance against welsch ("foreign") Christianity.

After a scandal had been sparked off by a play about Widukind written by a supporter of the Ludendorff movement that had been performed in early 1935 with the express consent of Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, at Hagen Theatre, there was an intense public debate that resulted in a change to prevailing opinion. Historians like Hermann Oncken rejected the propagandist portrayal of the executions in this theatrical piece as the culmination of allegedly violent proselytizing of Old Lower Saxony, emphasizing instead the strongly political character of Charlemagne’s measures and spoke of the subjugation of Saxony as the necessary precondition for the subsequent "colonisation of the Slavic region on the far side of the Elbe". It was difficult to contradict this euphemistic interpretation of the executions, because they drew on the experience gained from the Drang nach Osten policy advocated since starting of the 19th century and Hitler had also announced a renewed eastward migration (Mein Kampf: "We stop the endless Germanic advance to the south and west of Europe and look to the land to the east").

An important role in this debate is played by the book Karl der Große oder Charlemagne? by eight renowned historians, that deals with the executions in the light of Franco-German opposition and praises Charlemagne "as a true example of Germanic-German character and breeding", in order to claim him for Germany. The theologian and church historian, Karl Bauer, also defended Charlemagne in his book Die Quellen für das sogenannte Blutbad von Verden '(Münster 1937) He sees a scribal error in contemporary sources – the word decollati ("decapitated"), should have been delocati ("relocated"). There had never been a massacre in the first place, the prisoners were resettled. The liberal pacifist historian Ludwig Quidde, in exile in Geneva, supported by Bippen and Heinrich Ulmann, rejected the execution of 4,500 Saxons: "Charlemagne is not the mass murderer, the butcher of the Saxons of tradition."

Today, a number of professional historians hold firmly to an exculpatory reading of the reports of the "Massacre of Verden": for example Dieter Hägermann argues that only a group of a few dozen prisoners were executed by Charlemagne's men. Wilhelm Kohl, former head of the Münster State Archives, takes a midway position, by suggesting only 400–500 beheadings. By contrast Ernst Schubert in Lexikon des Mittelalters defends the reports of the sources against "toned down speculation".

Several historians argue that Charlemagne may have "dictated punitive action out of revenge or momentary bitterness", but that it was "hardly likely to have resulted in 4,500 executions."