Talk:Massacre of Verden

message: A better English translation of "Blutgericht" would be "Bloody Verdict".  If there is agreement on this, I suggest to rename/redirect this page to "Bloody Verdict of Verden".Cosal 18:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it definitely sounds better, at any rate. :bloodofox: 19:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: no, this isn't a better translation: Blutgericht is a legal jargon term, and it will not do to just choose an ad-hoc literal translation. I've discussed this with Lupo, and I think we had some evidence that 'blood court' is used in English literature (although rarely) - if in doubt, we should resort to using the untranslated Blutgericht. dab (ᛏ) 07:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. We must not make up our own translations, that would be original research. Srnec 05:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: I've been trying to learn about this event from several different sources, and I have only found anything about the possibility of it actually being an exile from Wikipedia. Where is that information coming from? 66.189.36.149 (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exile

message: 'Christians who conquered Germanic and Celtic lands often practiced magic, claiming Jesus gave them the power to throw lightning bolts and fireballs, and their portrayal of Christ was often an imitation of pagan practices.' - I wonder whether this sentence is really necessary here. Asharidu (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence necessary?

message: It says- "In 1935, Heinrich Himmler ordered Wilhelm Hübotter, a noted Nazi-landscape architect, to build the Sachsenhain (Grove of the Saxons), a monument consisting of 4,500 large stones in Verden, to commemorate the alleged massacre.[2] Supposedly, each stone came from one of 4,500 villages in Lower Saxony, and is today noted as an example of pseudoarchaeology: it is "probably the most comprehensive work of ersatz prehistory ever undertaken."
I looked at the reference and it appears to be a typically pithy quote from Johnathan Meades, the food writer and architecture broadcaster, who isn't necessarily an authority such that one can affirm "it is". However foul the nazi regime was, Himmler's construction would appear to be a memorial or monument to a real recorded historical event (even if there is some argument that it may not have happened, as with many historical events, e.g. events in religious history. So far as we know, this event probably did happen, so Himmler was just creating a memorial to it. There was no intention so far as I can see to pass of this new monument as being ancient. What is "ersatz"?82.71.30.178 (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * The intention is probably to discredit Himmler. However, that's hardly necessary as it should be clear that nazis misused the event for their own ends (ultimately mass murder on a vastly greater scale). Hence it's rather counterproductive to criticize Himmler in that way. Anybody who knows anything about Himmler knows the really relevant crimes he commited. --Simha (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy section a bit odd 

message: The wlink Nordmannia redirects to Satyrium (butterfly). Can someone pipe the link to where Widukind fled? I'm not sure what "Nordmannia" refers to (Scandinavia? Normandy?).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Means Denmark.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.47.74.154 (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nordmannia 

message: Ok, all the numbers in this article were screwed up by the last edit. I will reset it to the status quo ante.Drow69 (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Some scholars suggest the Saxon massacre might be the incident that provoked the start of the Viking age. I think a lot of heathen Saxon refugees fled into Scandinavia reporting, tales of terrible massacres. That led to anger against the entire Christian world inside Scandinavia. Provoking Lindisfarne just ten years later. 
The Saxon massacre might have played a role in the building of the Dannevirke too. It was probably protection from further German/Frankish conquest into Denmark. I think that Norse states and kings had close ties with Saxon elites.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Viking Age

message: Ever since Wilhelm von Bippen challenged the traditional account in 1889,Wilhelm von Bippen: Die Hinrichtung der Sachsen durch Karl den Grossen. In: Deutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 1, 1889, pp. 75–95. (Complete test at Wikisource) 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,Stimmen und Urteile: In Sachen Widukind In: Weiße Blätter. Monatszeitschrift für Geschichte, Tradition und Staat, Ausgabe Februar 1935 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".Stimmen und Urteile: Nochmals: Karl der Große! In: Weiße Blätter. Monatszeitschrift für Geschichte, Tradition und Staat, March 1935 edition 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 historiansKarl Hampe, Hans Naumann, Hermann Aubin, Martin Lintzel, Friedrich Baethgen, Albert Brackmann, Carl Erdmann, Wolfgang Windelband: Karl der Große oder Charlemagne? Acht Antworten deutscher Geschichtsforscher. Berlin, 1935 122 pp. (Rezension in Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, 5/6/2000), 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,Heinrich Ulmann: Zur Hinrichtung der Sachsen 782. In: Deutsche Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 2, 1889, pp. 156–157. (Full text at Wikisource) rejected the execution of 4,500 Saxons: "Charlemagne is not the mass murderer, the butcher of the Saxons of tradition."Ludwig Quidde: Karl der Große – der Sachsenschlächter? In: Pariser Tageblatt, Jg. 3, No. 491 dated 17 April 1935, p. 4 (Part 1) and No. 492 dated 18 April 1935, p. 4 (Part 2).
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.Dieter Hägermann: Karl der Große. Herrscher des Abendlandes. Berlin 2000, S. 214 ff. Wilhelm Kohl, former head of the Münster State Archives, takes a midway position, by suggesting only 400–500 beheadings.Wilhelm Kohl: Bemerkungen zur Entstehung der Pfarrorganisation im alten Sachsen, vornehmlich im Bistum Münster. In: Johannes Mötsch (ed.): Ein Eifler für Rheinland-Pfalz. Band 2, 2003, S. 920, Anm. 16. By contrast Ernst Schubert in Lexikon des Mittelalters defends the reports of the sources against "toned down speculation".Ernst Schubert: Verden, Blutbad v. In: Lexikon des Mittelalters. Vol. 8, 1997, Col. 1500 f.
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."Arnold Angenendt: Toleranz und Gewalt. Das Christentum zwischen Bibel und Schwert. Münster, 2007, pp. 387.
There is egregious BIAS in this article due to it being written by people at least brought up in a xtian culture (I don't like the C word). These xtians were the murderers and are a cult with a jewish god and a 'render unto Caesar' SLAVE belief system, designed to keep the rich man in his castle and the poor man at the gate, ordaining their social position by said god.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Things_Bright_and_Beautiful#:~:text=The%20third%20verse%20makes%20reference,and%20upheld%20by%20Divine%20providence.   TO CONTROL PEOPLE.  They seem to think their god is 'holy' and attempt to construct an inviolate belief system around it. Mmmarkkk (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research history 

message: What connection is there between a Waffen-SS unit composed in 1944 of Frenchmen and the massacre of Verden? "Charlemagne's legacy"? Are we to believe that Himmler (on the losing side of the 1934–35 debate) named a French military unit after Charlemagne because of Charlemagn's massacre of Saxons? Does anybody say so? The "Charlemagne" brigade/division was created out of the Légion des volontaires français contre le bolchévisme. —Srnec (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The final section of this article discusses the role of the massacre in the years leading up to Nazi Germany and into Nazi Germany itself. There was some debate in proto-Nazi currents about exactly how the massacre should be perceived and whether Charlemagne was a monster or, well, great. This ended when Nazi Germany decided that Charlemagne was in fact fantastic, massacre and all, and subsequently Himmler OK'ed a division of the Waffen-SS named after him. The link is simply there as a follow up. We should, of course, get more information about the Massacre of Verden and how it was discussed in Nazi Germany, as well as how it is perceived now, particularly in modern Catholic and Heathen circles. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waffen-SS connection? 

message: Ok, here is what I found. Did not get a chance to translate it, though...
"4500 Sachsen habe er damals, im Jahr 782, hinrichten lassen […]. Die Zahl mag übertrieben sein, der Sachverhalt ist nicht zu bezweifeln."
Johannes Fried, Karl der Große – Gewalt und Glaube, C.H. Beck 2014, ISBN 978-3-40665289-9, p. 160 
"Diese blutrünstige Tat brachte Karl dem Großen einen nachhaltig schlechten Ruf ein, vom „Sachsenschlächter“ war die Rede. Der Universalgelehrte Leibniz nannte 1716 die Tat „ein Verbrechen und eine ewige Schmach Karls“, der Dichter Klopstock bezeichnete den Frankenkönig missbilligend als einen Mann, „der uns mordend zu Christen machte“, für den Philosophen Herder war er der „Mann, der Deutschland würgte“. Eingefleischte Patrioten wie […] Hermann Löns […] sahen in dem Franken nur noch den rohen Schlächter. Die Nationalsozialisten schrieben die Geschichte endgültig zu ihrem Nutzen um und machten aus den gefallen Sachsen heroische Vorkämpfer für „Volk und Rasse". Zur Sonnenwendfeier 1934 marschierten 60.000 Angehörige der SA, der Hitlerjugend und der Wehrmacht in Verden auf […]. Vor allem die hohe Zahl der Toten gab Anlass zur allgemeinen Entrüstung. Doch gerade, was die Anzahl der Ausgelieferten betrifft, ist Vorsicht angebracht. Mittelalterliche Zahlenangaben sind häufig gehörig übertrieben und nicht wörtlich zu nehmen. 4500 Mann – das entspricht für frühmittelalterliche Verhältnisse einer kompletten Armee, die sich wohl kaum freiwillig ausgeliefert hätte. Karl, der mit rasch zusammengerafften Truppen an die Aller eilte, wird selbst wohl kaum genügend bewaffnete Kämpfer zur Verfügung gehabt haben, die zur Gefangennahme und Bewachung so vieler Gefangener nötig gewesen wären. Auch ist die Überlieferung der Zahlenangaben im Handschriftenmaterial nicht eindeutig: In einem Zweig der handschriftlich tradierten Reichsannalen fehlt die Zahl komplett, in anderen Exemplaren erscheint sie nachträglich eingefügt. In den übrigen zeitgenössischen Quellen wie den Briefen Alkuins, der sich sehr kritisch mit Karls Missionsmethoden auseinandersetzte, fehlen Hinweis auf ein „Blutbad“ ganz, auch die spätere sächsische Geschichtsschreibung weiß davon nichts zu berichten. Auf dem Höhepunkt der Debatte um den „Sachsenschlächter“ Karl wartete Mitte der 1930er Jahre der Historiker Karl Bauer mit einer ganz anderen Theorie auf: Er glaubte, dass es sich um einen Schreibfehler des Kopisten handeln könnte, der aus dem Verb „delocare“, umsiedeln, versehentlich „decollare“ , enthaupten, machte. […] Doch mangels weiterer Beweise blieb diese Entlastungstheorie reine Spekulation. Wie auch immer: Es wird wohl ein Strafgericht Karls gegen die Anführer des Aufstands gegeben haben, in welchem Ausmaß ist jedoch nicht mehr zu klären. Ob es Dutzende oder Hunderte Hingerichteter waren, weiß man nicht. […]"
Karin Schneider-Felber, Karl der Große – Der mächtigste Herrscher des Mittelalters, Theiss 2013, ISBN 978-3-8062-2602-7, p. 75-76
Based on this, I think the number as a statement of fact needs to go from the lede.Drow69 (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As with anything else, we should simply adjust the lead to make it clear what the primary sources say versus what some scholars have taken issue with. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's right. The lede doesn't need to take a view on the debate; just state that there is one and, as you say, what particularly they have taken issue with. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes from sources 

message: Should the first line of the article describe the Massacre of Verden as a mass execution? Srnec (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on "mass execution"