Yes and no. My view is the Saxons picked a fight with a stronger power and should've known the response. You don't see me picking fights with Mike Tyson and expecting to not have my face mangled. In other words, it sucks to suck. Look to the Island fathers of Melos if their resistance paid off.
Sometimes the easiest part is labeling it as a crime. Serving accountability and attempting justice are the gooey bits for the history/infamy to stick on the wall.
To clarify, based on the original source, they are not 4,500 nobles, they are all just Saxons. The Saxon's population was not high enough to have 4,500 nobles, let alone be executed. "But 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]."
It was mostly Widukind’s fault for breaking treaties over and over by raising a rebellion, When franks were moving to fight “someone else”, Widukind ambushed them at suntel, Of course Charlemagne went little over board but that was medieval era..You can’t keep poking the bear and expect to get away every time
That must be a pagan bear if he gonna go massacre everyone for just poking him 😂 I would have fought on charles side too if i was forced to pick but you cant be a christian and still think his actions were justified 😂
@@Weoutcheaa NOPE. I am Catholic Christian through and through, since birth and Charlemagne was more than justified in putting end to Saxon TREACHEROUS treaty breaking rebellions once and for all. Widukind was more responsible for that massacre than Charlemagne even though yes Charlemagne did go over board, Franks weren’t even trying to fight saxons at that time but Widukind ambushed them so that’s what he gets for poking the CHRISTIAN 🐻
But thats what i am saying, are we supporting charles because he was one of us, a christian or are we supporting because he was right? 😂 like i said if i was forced to pick, i would 10/10 times fight for charles because he was one of us fighting for us but not because he was right
@@Weoutcheaadude you can’t possibly look at what happened in history, particularly history that long ago from a modern perspective. Both the Saxons and franks would have been absolutely horrible to each other. These are the people who would slaughter, rape and rob anyone who dared stand in their path because that’s literally how one climbed the ladder of success back then. Just study the history of these people. Both before and after Christianity the Germanic people remained a warrior culture and in a society that brutal it was kill or be killed.
There was no such thing as a war crime back then. It was more a question of who has a beef with who, so to speak. People are judging a different time by their own standards over 1000 years later, it's unreasonable. Furthermore, Charlemeign tried to reason with them. Why don't people like to talk about the "war crimes" the Saxons committed that lead them to be massacred?
Because it’s edgy and convenient to make Christianity out as the oppressor when in reality people who do so have absolutely no clue about traditional indo European values and religion nor have any concept of what early Christianity was like and how similar indo European paganism was to Christianity. The franks would have viewed Christ as a war chief more powerful than Woden and his apostles were seen as his warrior priests.
There was no term “war crime” back then, they just used the term sin. And the Church at that time did generally view it as an evil act that required reconciliation. I’m a Christian myself and a great admirer of Charlemagne but I do consider this to be a horrible stain on his record.
@@RealCrusadesHistory Can you do a video on Charlemagnes claim to power? Im not so much talking about "was it roman, holy, or an Empire" so much as Charlemagne himself. I heard he had a claim to the throne of western rome even before the Pope gave it to him, but i dont know what it is. Was it his father, grandfather, or who else and how was it tied to the western roman empire?
In the original account of the massacre, it is not 4,500 nobles, but rather just Saxons. Here is the exact quote: "But 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]."
It always seemed to me like both he regretted having to make it but it was in his eyes and his subjects a needed tactic to protect themselves. History like life isn't black white.
No. When you’ve been fighting a war with a people for thirty years who keep breaking treaties you do whatever you can to put them down. It wasn’t a conflict so much between Christians and pagans as often made out to be. It was just one society that was very similar to the other society trying to dominate the other despite religious differences or cultural similarities. Pagan Saxons and wends were allied with Christian franks against other Saxons. Forcing the Saxons into Christianity is just one of the many ways they’d force them to absorb into society. The Saxons could have reverted back to paganism after the collapse of the carolingian empire instead they remained Christian because that made them more powerful. Eventually they’d establish the ottonian dynasty under Otto the great which would have probably been a shock to Charlemagne if he were still around. Things aren’t as black and white as people like to portray them. What defines a war crime in an era where everything you have you receive through violence?
There was no way he felt bad about that. This was 782 a 100 years before this his own tribe were barbarians. Luckily, Ceaser had killed so many of them that they had stopped practicing human sacrificing. Not all the tribes had though if that tells you how ruthless and short life was then.
Y el saqueo de la ciudad española 🇪🇸 de Pamplona, también fue un hecho asqueroso e inexplicable. Después nosotros nos vengamos derrotándolo en Roncesvalles 778. Desde España 🇪🇸 saludos.
In regards to international relations that casus belli and customs and norms was discussed heavily amongst Europe from the Romans to Greeks to medieval Europeans via Thomas Aquinas to even Norse in Hávámal that it was unreasonable at 8th century politics to massacre so many Saxons even Pagans. Remember the pagan Obotrites were allies of the Franks and a large massacre by decapitation would be politically unsavory
Yes churchmen at the time condemned it as a sinful act. What’s the appeal of Christian conversion if Christian kings massacre and brutalize just like pagans? I still generally admire Charlemagne but this was a crime and it deserves to be called as much.
It was what it was then.....War. Right or Wrong, the judgements, condemnation, Justifications were made then, during and soon after.....And have gone on to history. Not going waste time viewing it by today's "standards"......
"It is what it is" is what people tend to say when they are ok with what happened. On the one hand, it can be said for literally EVERYTHING that happened; on the other hand is history those events that we chose to remember and re-tell, because they mean sth to us other than just "it is what it is". If we really thought that, we might as well forget about it.
Idk, I think there are some objective truths about right and wrong that are true regardless of if different people or cultures at different times recognize them or not.
To be fair, it’s not as bad as it could have been since they were all nobles. Many other greats would’ve massacred the tribe if they were in the shoes of Charles
Was Charlemagne’s massacre of the Saxons a war crime?
@@nategraham6946it was widely criticized by the Church as immoral even back then.
Yes and no. My view is the Saxons picked a fight with a stronger power and should've known the response. You don't see me picking fights with Mike Tyson and expecting to not have my face mangled. In other words, it sucks to suck. Look to the Island fathers of Melos if their resistance paid off.
@@Thrainitelol you right, It’s like going to school, picking a fight with biggest guy then crying about bullying when I get whooped.
@@RealCrusadesHistory This is true, but even that is a separate question.
Sometimes the easiest part is labeling it as a crime. Serving accountability and attempting justice are the gooey bits for the history/infamy to stick on the wall.
To clarify, based on the original source, they are not 4,500 nobles, they are all just Saxons. The Saxon's population was not high enough to have 4,500 nobles, let alone be executed.
"But 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]."
Saxons couldn't be bargained with...only dealt with.
He invaded them. What do you think is going to happen? What is there to bargain if he wants total domination?
Edgy
Right he did what the Muslims were doing to the Spanish people just over religion and land
Carolus Magnus is judged by the same standards as Rex Henricus V at Agincourt for slaughtering the French POWs.
It was mostly Widukind’s fault for breaking treaties over and over by raising a rebellion, When franks were moving to fight “someone else”, Widukind ambushed them at suntel, Of course Charlemagne went little over board but that was medieval era..You can’t keep poking the bear and expect to get away every time
That must be a pagan bear if he gonna go massacre everyone for just poking him 😂 I would have fought on charles side too if i was forced to pick but you cant be a christian and still think his actions were justified 😂
@@Weoutcheaa NOPE. I am Catholic Christian through and through, since birth and Charlemagne was more than justified in putting end to Saxon TREACHEROUS treaty breaking rebellions once and for all. Widukind was more responsible for that massacre than Charlemagne even though yes Charlemagne did go over board, Franks weren’t even trying to fight saxons at that time but Widukind ambushed them so that’s what he gets for poking the CHRISTIAN 🐻
But thats what i am saying, are we supporting charles because he was one of us, a christian or are we supporting because he was right? 😂 like i said if i was forced to pick, i would 10/10 times fight for charles because he was one of us fighting for us but not because he was right
@@Weoutcheaadude you can’t possibly look at what happened in history, particularly history that long ago from a modern perspective. Both the Saxons and franks would have been absolutely horrible to each other. These are the people who would slaughter, rape and rob anyone who dared stand in their path because that’s literally how one climbed the ladder of success back then. Just study the history of these people. Both before and after Christianity the Germanic people remained a warrior culture and in a society that brutal it was kill or be killed.
@@Weoutcheaa he was right tho? And of course I would support my own man but as I explained ^ He was 100% justified.
There was no such thing as a war crime back then. It was more a question of who has a beef with who, so to speak. People are judging a different time by their own standards over 1000 years later, it's unreasonable. Furthermore, Charlemeign tried to reason with them. Why don't people like to talk about the "war crimes" the Saxons committed that lead them to be massacred?
Because it’s edgy and convenient to make Christianity out as the oppressor when in reality people who do so have absolutely no clue about traditional indo European values and religion nor have any concept of what early Christianity was like and how similar indo European paganism was to Christianity. The franks would have viewed Christ as a war chief more powerful than Woden and his apostles were seen as his warrior priests.
There was no term “war crime” back then, they just used the term sin. And the Church at that time did generally view it as an evil act that required reconciliation. I’m a Christian myself and a great admirer of Charlemagne but I do consider this to be a horrible stain on his record.
@@RealCrusadesHistory
Can you do a video on Charlemagnes claim to power? Im not so much talking about "was it roman, holy, or an Empire" so much as Charlemagne himself.
I heard he had a claim to the throne of western rome even before the Pope gave it to him, but i dont know what it is. Was it his father, grandfather, or who else and how was it tied to the western roman empire?
@@spiffygonzales5160Here is that video right here: th-cam.com/video/S__p6BtPvZI/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
@RealCrusadesHistory
Sir, you are not only the bomb; you are in fact.... the bomb diggity
Can we trust the number? It is hard to imagine that Saxony had 4,500 noblemen. Was 1 man in 5 in Saxony a noble?
Back in the olden days when we only had 22500 people walking around....
In the original account of the massacre, it is not 4,500 nobles, but rather just Saxons. Here is the exact quote: "But 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]."
The only way to preserve the victorious culture
Charlemagne understood the task
Yeah how far we humans have come. 👿 Madness.
That was sarcasm if anyone was going to pull me up on it.
Thanks for the video
Charlemagne's wrath must've been something to behold. 😮
It always seemed to me like both he regretted having to make it but it was in his eyes and his subjects a needed tactic to protect themselves. History like life isn't black white.
War crime is a modern concept.
No. When you’ve been fighting a war with a people for thirty years who keep breaking treaties you do whatever you can to put them down. It wasn’t a conflict so much between Christians and pagans as often made out to be. It was just one society that was very similar to the other society trying to dominate the other despite religious differences or cultural similarities. Pagan Saxons and wends were allied with Christian franks against other Saxons. Forcing the Saxons into Christianity is just one of the many ways they’d force them to absorb into society. The Saxons could have reverted back to paganism after the collapse of the carolingian empire instead they remained Christian because that made them more powerful. Eventually they’d establish the ottonian dynasty under Otto the great which would have probably been a shock to Charlemagne if he were still around. Things aren’t as black and white as people like to portray them. What defines a war crime in an era where everything you have you receive through violence?
christianity says itself, thou shalt not kill
but christians seem to not follow it
Kill or be killed, so charlemagne understood that!
He shed the blood of Saxon men!
He shed the blood of Saxon men
Widukind, the chieftan right? You right..that god dang traitor..
You right, that dang Widukind..shedding blood of saxons
He shed the blood of Saxon men!
There was no way he felt bad about that. This was 782 a 100 years before this his own tribe were barbarians. Luckily, Ceaser had killed so many of them that they had stopped practicing human sacrificing. Not all the tribes had though if that tells you how ruthless and short life was then.
There were no war crimes back then.
Not a war crime if you win
Says every genocidal murderer
@@treeburgercope harder Amerindian
If in god’s name big yes!
Y el saqueo de la ciudad española 🇪🇸 de Pamplona, también fue un hecho asqueroso e inexplicable. Después nosotros nos vengamos derrotándolo en Roncesvalles 778. Desde España 🇪🇸 saludos.
Unpopular opinion it wasn't a War Crime!
The Scythians. Saksa. Sons of Isaac
Sometimes, you gotta do what you gotta do! What about the massacre in Canaan with Joshua. The LORD ordered it!
Charlemagne did nothing wrong.
This is getting sent to the Saxon defense league
@ohioisastate8574 lol
In regards to international relations that casus belli and customs and norms was discussed heavily amongst Europe from the Romans to Greeks to medieval Europeans via Thomas Aquinas to even Norse in Hávámal that it was unreasonable at 8th century politics to massacre so many Saxons even Pagans. Remember the pagan Obotrites were allies of the Franks and a large massacre by decapitation would be politically unsavory
Yes churchmen at the time condemned it as a sinful act. What’s the appeal of Christian conversion if Christian kings massacre and brutalize just like pagans? I still generally admire Charlemagne but this was a crime and it deserves to be called as much.
Video Idea: The very interesting and important battle of la forbie (1244), it sealed the fate of Jerusalem.
Move on bro it was 1000 years ago
It was bad, but justified.
That's not a war crime
It was what it was then.....War. Right or Wrong, the judgements, condemnation, Justifications were made then, during and soon after.....And have gone on to history. Not going waste time viewing it by today's "standards"......
"It is what it is" is what people tend to say when they are ok with what happened.
On the one hand, it can be said for literally EVERYTHING that happened; on the other hand is history those events that we chose to remember and re-tell, because they mean sth to us other than just "it is what it is". If we really thought that, we might as well forget about it.
Idk, I think there are some objective truths about right and wrong that are true regardless of if different people or cultures at different times recognize them or not.
REX
To be fair, it’s not as bad as it could have been since they were all nobles. Many other greats would’ve massacred the tribe if they were in the shoes of Charles
War criminal.
Muh war crimes!!!
There were no war crimes in 782 BC.