@@smokeyhoodoo Pagans were no different, Caesar said he wanted to annihilate the Eburones as well as their name resulting in an occupation by the Tungri.
The saxons could have done something similar in the waning years of the Roman Empire and didn’t. Only once the Germanics become heavily romanized do they start genociding the way the Romans always loved to.
@@Thor-Orion by this time it wasnt about ethnic difference tho but more of religious difference, however even by ethnic difference logic It was Widukind who betrayed franks at suntel when he ambushed them while they were going to fight pagan slavs and then Charlemagne went over board because he was done with pagan saxons breaking treaties, keyword - pagann because saxons in England were already christianised for most part by then
@@bruhmcchaddeus413 yes but regardless of them being pagan or converted to Christianity, they were still Saxons. Tbh you seem OK. I think you've misconstrued me. Doesn't help that some of my comments are hidden. Which makes me look dumb haha.
@@Thor-Orionthats what happens when you keep breaking peace treaties and ambush others when they trying to go fight someone else, like Widukind did against franks But yes Charles did go overboard
Charlemagne’s wars were brutal, but they were about stopping Saxon raids and consolidating power, not wiping out a people. The Saxons weren’t helpless victims, they were raiders and warriors like everyone else back then. The noble freedom fighters revision is pure fantasy. Pacified here just means the fighting stopped.
@adammichaels8840 "The noble freedom fighters revision is pure fantasy? Bro... what are you talking about? I express an opinion and it's the "Noble freedom fighters revision" We didn't win, how would we revise?
@smokeyhoodoo Come on, man. You’re playing coy like you’re just sharing an innocent opinion but your whole take frames the Saxons as noble underdogs fighting off an evil oppressor. That’s exactly what I mean by the noble freedom fighters revision it’s romanticizing history instead of looking at it as the messy, reality it was. Saying we didn’t win doesn’t mean you’re not revising history, It just means you’re cherry-picking the parts that fit your narrative. This is a democracy, you can have your opinion, I'm not the tone police but if it twists the facts, don’t act surprised when someone calls it out.
Speak for yourself lol He did go over board but his hand was forced into this when they kept breaking treaties and kept trying to ambush them when they were trying to fight someone else
guilt? Why you feel guilty for something your ancestors did😂 and either ways, youre descended from both Christians and Pagans, so it doesnt even matter
For all those confused, Charlemagne was waging an offensive war on the Saxons ostensibly for nothing but to bring their lands under his control and the fact they didn’t believe in the same bullshit sky daddy as him. As was also his justification for wars on the Frisians. The Saxons were the forebears of England and led a stalwart defense against the eradication of their indigenous culture and religion by the Imperial designs of a fanatical tyrant. It’s an inspiring and tragic story in those terms. As well said by the last Frisian king “I would rather be in hel with my family than in heaven with my enemies”.
Charlemagne's campaigns were as much about securing borders and consolidating power as they were about spreading Christianity. The Saxons Charlemagne fought were not the same as the Anglo-Saxons in England. You're conflating two separate groups to push a romanticized noble pagans vs evil Christians narrative. As for Radbod and his famous line about preferring hel with his ancestors? That whole story is largely hagiographical and changes depending on the source. In the original legend, Radbod rejected baptism not because of animus for Christians but because he didn’t want to leave his pagan ancestors behind. He supposedly said he’d rather be in hel with them than in heaven with a “pack of beggars.” Even this is a legend with different versions swapping the priest involved and adding embellishments over time. The Saxons weren't innocent victims either, they were raiders and warriors like everyone else at the time.
Saxons constantly raided Frankish territory and the actions of Charlemagne were no different than those of Julius Caesar.
Caesar was wrong too
Of course he did. That was the style back then.
Spicy Abe Simpson.
No it wasn't, pagan religions were the norm
@@smokeyhoodoo Pagans were no different, Caesar said he wanted to annihilate the Eburones as well as their name resulting in an occupation by the Tungri.
This was a strategy used as far back as the ancient Babylonians and Persians, and as recent as the Soviet Union. It’s cruel but effective…
@@drewbc32And immoral.
KEEP THIS MEDIEVAL MILITARY HISTORY COMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's not like the Saxons wouldn't have done something similar or even worse if the roles where reversed.
The saxons could have done something similar in the waning years of the Roman Empire and didn’t.
Only once the Germanics become heavily romanized do they start genociding the way the Romans always loved to.
@@Thor-Orion by this time it wasnt about ethnic difference tho but more of religious difference, however even by ethnic difference logic It was Widukind who betrayed franks at suntel when he ambushed them while they were going to fight pagan slavs and then Charlemagne went over board because he was done with pagan saxons breaking treaties, keyword - pagann because saxons in England were already christianised for most part by then
I get it Saxon = bad, but what do you base that on?
The the Saxons would found England and becomes France nemesis.
I obviously made it brief.
Let's not squabble about semantics.
@@DuckDonald44I don’t think you get it, actually.
Lesson learned: stop breaking treaties and you won't be massacred.
There were still Saxons in “Engla-land.”
Youre right the
Anglo saxons
Would found
Angloland
England
Obviously other germanic peoples were mixed in also. But yh 👍
Yes but they were christian and frank’s ally, it was paganss who had beef against franks
@@bruhmcchaddeus413 yes but regardless of them being pagan or converted to Christianity, they were still Saxons.
Tbh you seem OK. I think you've misconstrued me. Doesn't help that some of my comments are hidden.
Which makes me look dumb haha.
Thanks for the information
That's still tame for medieval standards.
Some people don’t deserve life and Charlemagne knew that
What year?
He shed the blood of the saxon men
But it was necessary
How was it in any way necessary? That’s absurd. It’s the biggest black eye on his entire reign; the way he treated the saxons.
@@Thor-Orionthats what happens when you keep breaking peace treaties and ambush others when they trying to go fight someone else, like Widukind did against franks
But yes Charles did go overboard
He Shed it at Verdin
He Shed the blood of 4000 Saxon men
@@Thor-OrionThe saxons were barbarians so he did nothing wrong.
"Saxony had been pacified, after decades of unremitting brutality"
Dude... resisting genocide isn't brutality.
Goodness graciouss
Charlemagne’s wars were brutal, but they were about stopping Saxon raids and consolidating power, not wiping out a people. The Saxons weren’t helpless victims, they were raiders and warriors like everyone else back then. The noble freedom fighters revision is pure fantasy. Pacified here just means the fighting stopped.
@adammichaels8840 Nope. They were raiding the saxons for being gentiles. It was genocide, and the bad guys won
@adammichaels8840 "The noble freedom fighters revision is pure fantasy? Bro... what are you talking about?
I express an opinion and it's the "Noble freedom fighters revision"
We didn't win, how would we revise?
@smokeyhoodoo Come on, man. You’re playing coy like you’re just sharing an innocent opinion but your whole take frames the Saxons as noble underdogs fighting off an evil oppressor. That’s exactly what I mean by the noble freedom fighters revision it’s romanticizing history instead of looking at it as the messy, reality it was. Saying we didn’t win doesn’t mean you’re not revising history, It just means you’re cherry-picking the parts that fit your narrative. This is a democracy, you can have your opinion, I'm not the tone police but if it twists the facts, don’t act surprised when someone calls it out.
CHARLEMAINE:
"War crimes" by whise standards????
Yes. The answer is yes. I'm even wrapped up in Catholic guilt. Thanks Charlie!
Never feel guilty for your group being successful.
Speak for yourself lol He did go over board but his hand was forced into this when they kept breaking treaties and kept trying to ambush them when they were trying to fight someone else
guilt? Why you feel guilty for something your ancestors did😂
and either ways, youre descended from both Christians and Pagans, so it doesnt even matter
War is a crime.... technically
For all those confused, Charlemagne was waging an offensive war on the Saxons ostensibly for nothing but to bring their lands under his control and the fact they didn’t believe in the same bullshit sky daddy as him. As was also his justification for wars on the Frisians.
The Saxons were the forebears of England and led a stalwart defense against the eradication of their indigenous culture and religion by the Imperial designs of a fanatical tyrant. It’s an inspiring and tragic story in those terms. As well said by the last Frisian king “I would rather be in hel with my family than in heaven with my enemies”.
And to hell they went, where they belong. Sounds like you'll be joining them too.
Charlemagne's campaigns were as much about securing borders and consolidating power as they were about spreading Christianity.
The Saxons Charlemagne fought were not the same as the Anglo-Saxons in England. You're conflating two separate groups to push a romanticized noble pagans vs evil Christians narrative. As for Radbod and his famous line about preferring hel with his ancestors? That whole story is largely hagiographical and changes depending on the source. In the original legend, Radbod rejected baptism not because of animus for Christians but because he didn’t want to leave his pagan ancestors behind. He supposedly said he’d rather be in hel with them than in heaven with a “pack of beggars.” Even this is a legend with different versions swapping the priest involved and adding embellishments over time.
The Saxons weren't innocent victims either, they were raiders and warriors like everyone else at the time.
No crimes when the mantra basically is: "God wills it!"