Simon Schama - A History of Britain: "Beginnings"

A friend of mine gave me this amazing DVD series on the History of Britain. As I have spent the time perusing it, I took notes for future reference. Most of these notes are in the voice of the narrator and, while in order, only provide a brief summary of the episode and not a full transcription. I am really enjoying this series and intend to do a summary of every episode... although that may take me a few months. Here are my notes for the first episode titled "Beginnings."





From its earliest days Britain was an object of desire.

By 1000 BC things were changing fast. All over the British landscape a protracted struggle for good land was taking place. Forests were cleared so that iron age Britain was not, as was once romantically imagined, an unbroken forest kingdom stretching from Cornwall to Inverness. It was rather a patchwork of open fields dotted here and there with woodland copses giving cover for game -especially wild pigs.

And with tribal manufacturers came trade. The warriors, druid priests, and artists of iron age Britain shipped their wares all over Europe trading with the expanding Roman Empire. In return, with no homegrown grapes or olives, Mediterranean wine and oil arrived in large earthenware jars. So iron age Britain was definitely not the back of beyond. Its tribes may have all led lives separated by custom and language and they may have not had any great capital city, but taken together they added up to something in the world.

And so, in the written annuals of Western history, the islands now had not only a name-Britannia- but a date of 55 BC when Julius Caesar launched his galleys across the channel.

The person we usually think of who embodied British national resistance to Rome- Queen Bouducca of the East Anglian tribe of Iceni- actually came from a family of happy even eager collaborators. It only took a policy of incredible stupidity, arrogance, and brutality on the part of the local Roman governor to turn her from a warm supporter of Rome into its most dangerous enemy.... Her great insurrection ended in a gory, chaotic slaughter.







Hadrian's wall

A world of garrisons and barracks had now become a society in its own right. From the middle of the second century it makes sense to talk about a Romano-British culture. Not just as a colonial veneer imposed on a resentful natives but as a genuine fusion.


And, when in the year of 410 Alaric The Goth sacked Rome and the last two legions parted to prop up the tottering empire, that chill developed into an acute anxiety attack. This is one of the genuinely fateful moments in British history.

Eventually though the Roman adaptations became ever more makeshift; the fabric of Roman life increasingly threadbare until it did indeed fall apart altogether. The island was now divided into 3 utterly different realms. The remains of Britannia hung on in the west. North of the abandoned walls and ports the Scottish tribes for the most part remained pagan, and England, the land of the Anglo-Saxon and Judes, was planted in the east all the way from Kent to the kingdom of Bernicia.

The history of the conversions between the 6th and the 8th centuries is another of those crucial turning points in the history of the British Isles. While the legions had long gone, the shadow of Rome fell once again on these islands. This time though it was an invasion of the soul and the warriors were carrying Christian gospels rather than swords.

We have to remember that the most famous of the early missionaries to Ireland -Saint Patrick- was in fact a Romano-British aristocrat. (The patrician as he called himself) So there was nothing remotely Irish about the teenager who was kidnapped and sold into slavery by Irish raiders sometime in the early 5th century. It was only after he escaped (probably to Brittany) and ordained... then visited by prophetic dreams that he returned to Ireland... this time the messenger of God's gospel.





Bede was not just the founding father of English history; arguably he was also the first consummate storyteller of all of English literature. He was not exactly well-traveled- he spent his entire life here in Jarrow. It was his masterful grip on narrative that made Bede not just an authentic historian but also a brilliant propagandist for the early church.


The Viking raids that they knew could strike hard and fierce at any moment. In addition to land the Vikings were keen on one other kind of merchandise - people whom they sold as slaves. On the positive side there is one thing that the Vikings managed to do however inadvertently. They created England. By smashing the power of most of the Saxon's kingdoms, the Vikings accomplished what left to themselves the warring tribes could never have managed - some semblance of alliance against a common foe.

Through Alfred the Great, England got something that it hadn't had since the legions departed; an authentic vision of a realm governed by law and education. A realm which understood it's past and its special destiny as the Western bastion of a Christian Roman world. By the spring of 878 Alfred had managed to piece together an improvised alliance of resistance. During Alfred's lifetime the idea of a United English kingdom had become conceivable and even desirable.

Alfred's grandson would be crowned the first king of England in Bath.





pictures from: mine, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patric, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great

Did the Russian State... Part XIV by Nils Johann (Conclusion)

It are not always the material ripples of historical events that reach us. The stories of events that in their time were relevant, may much sooner reach us. The way these then are imbued with new meaning, sometimes is the only thing that makes a historical event seem relevant. It is in some way misleading, to maintain that past occasions, at any price, effect future development, that is far-flung in time, and separated by centuries. The second chapter of the paper demonstrated this, all though from an 'eagle's perspective'. This enabled us to see how the myth of a liberal, democratic and prosperous 'Western Europe', by force or ignorance, has been projected back in time, to comply with our contemporary notions and fancies of what is right and proper, while disregarding the immense change, forced upon the societies, and Institutions, that experienced the brunt, and sudden force of the Industrial Revolution.

On that basis it seems plausible, that the backwards-projection of Cold War reality, like in the leading case of Wittfogel's Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study in Total Power, certain misleads, and errors, have been allowed to occur in our perception of 16th century Russia. A tense Anglo-Russian relationship during the middle of the 19th century may have worked to establish the same effect, during the infancy of modern historiography. The emphasis on what separates the Russian and 'West-European' state formation process of the 16th century, is therefore in this paper interpreted as a false dichotomy. The dilettante 'National Histories' of the age, that favored long chains of causality for explaining their contemporary surroundings in the frame of 'The Nation', assumed, just like Yanov, Landes, Ferguson, and others, that there must be a chain-reaction spanning centuries in order to explain their contemporary condition. In order to make the writing more relevant lines of connections seem to be forced into the narrative, either backwards or forwards. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, is a common error of reasoning where 'Correlation' is mistaken for 'Causation'. We need not all act as Skinner's pigeons.

This paper notes the challenge posed by the anachronistic concepts superimposed on the interpretation of the age, to understanding the age of Ivan and Henry on its own premise. As a response it attempts a comparison of the reigns of Ivan IV and Henry VIII. The comparison is intended to serve as an internal frame for reference for the period, but is also a search for positive similarities between the regimes. What is shown by this is a general similarity. It is tricky in such a comparison to discriminate perfectly without going in the trap of just 'cherry-picking' the examples one wants, but the paper focuses on the general conditions of statecraft of the age. By giving a general introduction to wider European developments, shaped by stronger Monarchs, who manage a paper-bureaucracy, and standing gunpowder armies, the paper sets the stage of its main subject, while establishing possibility for wider contextualisation. It then progresses to an introduction of the formation of the 'royal houses' of Henry VIII and Ivan IV, with a brief resume of their families 'road', to the power that the Monarchs would wield. Both monarchs temper and subdue the noblemen that surround them in order to ferment their own power-base. Their methods were brutal and efficient. Whether the opponents of the Crown were executed by boiling alive, drawn and quartered, or any other number of imaginative methods, the principle seems to be the same with both Crowns: Maintaining order by demonstrating power, through the application of violence.

Simply: Installing Terror. The Technical breakthroughs of the time enabled the ruling of larger territories, accompanied by centralization of power, not seen in Europe since the decline of the Roman Empire. This then also called for a restructuring of governance. Parliamentary systems are reformed to adapt to this reality and, are re-functioned to act as management organs of the Crown. At the time none of these Parliaments are embryonic 'democratic' institutions, in the modern sense of the word, but they function as a line of communication between the Monarch and the Commoners. Their main function is however to recognize the laws of the Monarch, and to effectuate the levying of taxes. The taxes are in both cases intended to serve the foreign policy of the King. - The protection of the realm; the execution of war-craft. Differences occur in the detail of how Ivan and Henry chose, or can choose, to fill their 'war-chest', and there is better method to the plan of Henry. He implicates part of his loyal nobility in his robbery of the Church, while Ivan's Oprichina leads to the estrangement, and tempering, of his high nobility. The funds from their respective heist, do however go towards the same purpose. They carry the war to their enemies, subduing them, plundering, and gaining dominance of even larger tracts of land. By the crack of the lash, and the screaming of cannon, with bloody sword in one hand, and a pen in the other, surrounded by rich palaces and poor peasants, gibbets, and henchmen, proto-bureaucratic states were formed, both in England and in Russia. They were materializing in all of Europe in the period.

Comparing two reigns of respectively forty-three and sixty years, of almost continual warfare at the western rim of Eurasia, called for an eagle-perspective in this paper, that ignores detailed differences in the formation of Russia and England, which there of course are. The grand lines of the narrative of the paper, however demonstrates that there are remarkable similarities in the formation of Russia and England. Russia is in its proto-state's functioning, during the period of the 16th century, more alike, than unlike England.

So, if you have taken the time to read through this whole paper, what are your thoughts? Any disagreements? What did you like and feel like you learned?

Did the Russian State... Part VII by Nils Johann (The Development after the Time of the Black Death)

The Black Death had spread westwards, disrupting the societies it infected. Old bonds were broken and ruling structures were destabilized. Power dispersed, even to the point that peasants were able to renegotiate the conditions of their bondage, as a result of the shortage in workforce, in relation to workable natural resources. Strong central government had not been materialized in the west since the Roman empire contracted eastwards. Coming into the middle of the 15th century we can see a renewed effort among the warlords in the peripheral regions, bordering on Islamic civilization to their southeast, to gather grater territories and to build state-institutions, like stable dynasties and monarchical hierarchies. Barons (*local strongmen) would not cede power easily to pretenders to monarchy. On the Iberian Peninsula, Ferdinand (*1452–†1516) and Isabella (*1451–†1504) fought a decade long civil war against their Barons and succeeded. Matthias Corvinos (*1443-†1490) tried something similar in the area of modern-day Hungary but failed to establish a stable monarchical institution.

Up until 1453 the 'Hundred Years War' (1337 to 1453) had made it easier for the French Monarch to gather his power. The conflicts had introduced the first large standing armies in North- Western Europe since the decline of the western Roman Empire. The armies started to replace the role of the retinues of Feudal Lords in warfare. In the resolving part of the conflict, even zappers, and cannon with iron shot had started to play its part, next to the traditional bowmen, lancer infantry, and heavy knights.

War is in the period the general vehicle for gravitating power towards the King, as the war, as part of foreign policy, gives the King reason to levy taxes, where he usually would only have right to the tariffs and tolls. Standing armies are expensive, and in connection with them, we also see the rise of a bureaucratic tax-system with an annual tax, further increasing the power and reach of the Monarchs. Henri VII Tudor, took in twenty times more taxes, than any of his predecessors since 1066.

Other notable state-formations rising in this period, besides the more peripheral English and Russian, are, the Habsburg Empire, the Jagiellonian Empire(s) and the Ottoman Empire. They were all bureaucratic states with standing gunpowder armies, and the predecessors to still familiar modern states.

The monarchy itself also changes in the period, as the pen becomes mightier than the sword, from bloodthirsty field commander, to a high level paper-pusher. Philip II Habsburg (*1527–†1598), rarely leaves his desks in Valadolid and at El Escorial, in contrast to his father Carl V Habsburg (*1500-†1558), who spent much of his time, personally leading the army in the field. The nobles also lost their traditional role as plated knights on horse. The superiority of cavalry that amongst others also Machiavelli notes in 'The Art of War' (1521), peters out during this century. Cavalry’s expensive, time-consuming, training can be made to nothing, by any peasant wielding a hand-arkebus, in between a phalanx of Landsknechten pike-men, or by field-artillery. Quite suddenly, accompanied by Cervantes' satire, they change form and live on as the less dominant gunmen on horseback.

Did the Russian State... Part VI by Nils Johann ( A Short Introduction to the Period... 'The Mafia ?)

“A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states. And the first cause of your losing it is to neglect this art; and what enables you to acquire a state is to be master of the art. ”

In the State-formation histories of Scandinavia and the wider 'West', Finn Fuglestad uses the term “Mafia Society” to describe early state formations. I am partial to introduce that term when discussing state-formations in England and Russia, or anywhere, for that matter. It is a term that should be kept in mind during the further reading. It should be seen in relation to Spittler's definition of 'despotism'. The term describes a situation where strongmen either do, or do not, get along. They cluster together, in order to 'racketeer' in territories they dominate, or they plunder their opponents. Wealth and power in the period are still highly personal, even though the term 'Crown' and 'state' are used at points in this text.

Machiavelli makes a good companion to the period, and his contemporary work delivers a good description, rather than a normative tale. His work marks him out, as a sign of change taking place, as Berg Eriksen writes in the foreword of his translation: “The possible restoration of Roman
power [e.g. a strong bureaucratic state] in Italy would be the newest thing imaginable”. 'The Prince' has proven itself as a stable control-guideline for the comparison.

Moreover, we can in the period, see new attempts at institutional bureaucracies next to the person of the Monarch and his 'Bojars'. This paper will demonstrate, how Ivan and Henry established internal discipline within their organization. We will look at how they both ran their 'firms'. In both the territories work starts to effectuate a more efficient tax-system, and state
institutions are established to carry this out.

Brief Views of the Early Medieval World Part II: The Decline of the Roman Empire, Monarchs, and Islam

This post is the second part of some brief paragraphs on different aspects of the medieval world and the people and religions that helped to create the world we enjoy today. I hope you enjoy....

It was during the medieval time that the Islamic religion rose to greater prominence. Islam actually has the same roots as Christianity and Judaism as these three religions can be traced back to the Patriarch Abraham. Islam was a family-oriented religion stressing ties to family over ties to clan and giving men the ability to have more than one wife. This helped protect women in this society that had not had a male protector and probably also helped increase the birthrate helping create more expansion internally for the religion itself. The religion of Islam as well was born with both political and religious arms which would make it harder to eliminate and giving it sufficient 'room' for rapid expansion... In contrast, Christianity had several centuries of persecution and discrimination due to its religious only status until Christianity was able to gain a political foothold as well. Another explanation for the rapid expansion could also be the rapid military expansion of the Arab empire soon after the death of the founder and prophet of Islam, Mohammed. Another positive quirk about Islam is that its leaders rarely felt the need to force people to convert and areas ruled by Muslim leaders tended to have a high degree of religious tolerance- a far cry form what we may sometimes see today in Muslim communities... and may also be why the areas that Islam originally 'conquered' stayed Muslim from that time until today as conversions were sincere and not necessarily forced on the populations around them. That said, religious tolerance was not absolute and while Islam was a minority, Islamic rulers would tax members of all other religions living in their communities and cities. It also should be noted that Islam and Christianity have a few similar doctrines, such as one God and a strong moral code, which were very attractive to people during that time. Also, Islamic leaders tended to keep many things about their population's day to day life the same. The Byzantine empire didn't change a lot under their leadership as the leaders kept much of the previous culture and just used and defined it on their own terms.

There are almost too many intellectual gains made in the Muslim world during this time to list! It is a fact that the Arab societies in the Eastern part of the empire became places of learning and scientific advancement... achieving far more in these areas than anything in the western portion of the empire. Many advances in medicine and science that we have learned about from the medieval time period came from the eastern empire... not the west. Many of the ancient texts that both scientists and historians study for knowledge were preserved and saved in the Eastern empire- the western empire was more likely to burn or destroy ancient texts rather than save them. This was brought about by the needs of the new Arab leaders who needed to try and control populations with diverse languages and cultures. It was due to these challenges that the need for translations began in earnest so that the rulers of the empire and the local governments could have access to the knowledge that they felt they needed. By the mid eighth century, Muslim communities were flourishing and these communities were growing and thriving in knowledge in the areas of education, literature, science, mathematics and even medicine. An example is that the works of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle would have been made accessible to anyone in the eastern empire due to the widespread reading and translation of his works, but at the same time the West had changed so dramatically and become so dependent on surviving that very few people would have even heard of Aristotle or his work- education really can't be considered important if you can't feed yourself. Education was prized and the oldest university that is still functioning today is over 1100 years old and is called the Qarawiyyin in Morocco. And it was mostly from Islamic Spain that the Western world would slowly begin to get this knowledge and intellect.

The Merovingian dynasty that controlled the Frankish throne had been struggling with the chaos caused by its civil wars for several years by the time that the Carolingians arrived on the scene. However, a unique position in the Merovingian government gave the Carolingians an edge in their quest to control the aristocracy and control the throne. This unique advantage was a position within the Merovingian court called the 'mayor of the palace'. When the position had been created early in the dynasty, it was filled with the man who would be in charge of the king's household and the 'mayor' was also responsible for managing all royal affairs in the king's name- this also included granting land and other favors to the noble classes to keep them loyal to the king. But over time the power of the kings weakened and the monarchy became less secure and absolute. It was in this climate that the individual in this position gained more power... and this power would eventually be greater than the power of the king he served. Many of the individuals in this position were Carolingians and this position tended to be passed down from one Carolingian to another. It was using this position that the individuals in this position would use the prestige and powers it contained to make the nobles and the aristocracy loyal to them and not the king. And it was a man in this position as 'mayor of the palace' named Charles Martel that would eventually increase the size of the kingdom and win his heirs the right to the kingship by defeating the advancing Muslims in 732 AD. His win for Christendom was able to win him the support of the Pope and the Catholic church who then helped establish his legitimacy as the ruler. Charles Martel's son, Pippin the Short was then named King on his father's death... and the Merovingian dynasty ended with a quiet 'sigh'....


Charlemagne, another member of the Carolingian dynasty, successfully linked politics and religion in his reign and used religion as a way to help him cement his power. Upon his conversion, he was a 'zealous' missionary and followed a strict policy of 'conversion or die' to all of the people that he fought. As part of his 'foreign policy', Charlemagne continued the policies of his father towards the church and he became the 'warrior' arm of the church- their protector, etc... He used religion to prop up his rule with elaborate rituals and as well as the 'support' of the Pope. One example was his coronation by Pope Leo III on Christmas day in 800- this showed everyone that he was 'God's choice' for ruler and also linked him heavily with the church. Some have noted that his reign was a reign of pure conquest... 'by the sword and the cross'. Another example was Charlemagne’s decisions to convey meetings of church officials as well as privileged laymen to consider his agenda and when it was agreed upon he expected not only the laymen but the bishops of the church to help enforce this agenda. Some of his reforms were to strengthen the Catholic church's hierarchy and clarifying their powers- this seems like quite a big deal for a secular ruler to help set the agendas and form he rules that a different spiritual organization would follow. He also built lots of churches and made not following the Catholic faith a capital offense. This ruler truly wanted to create a stability in his lands that had not existed for several decades and he used three major ideas to do so; culture, Christianity, and the good traditions of the Roman past.

It was very important to Charlemagne to connect himself to the good legacy of the Roman empire. Some parts of it, such as education, the use of Latin, the Christian church, and even the peace and unity that were known and romanticized about the thoughts of the Roman empire. He stressed the traditions of this time and saw value in education and classical knowledge. In fact, Pope Leo III called Charlemagne a 'great and peace giving emperor' at the later's coronation...giving Charlemagne a symbolic title and beginning the time we now call the 'Holy Roman Empire'.

Charlemagne's new title of Holy Roman Emperor gave him the respect of the Byzantine Emperor. He was also an admirer of the knowledge held by the eastern empire and copied the eastern architecture for buildings and attempted to start a large educational system. It is also known that Charlemagne at one point has hopes of adding the Byzantine empire to his territory and tried to marry one of the royal women in the eastern empire to strengthen his position. As the emperor of the eastern part has ambitions to also own the 'western' lands again, the relationship between Charlemagne and the Byzantine Emperor must have been fairly tense and distrustful at times. At one point, the tension came to actual warfare, but for the most part, both of these empire co existed peacefully after an agreement was reach between both emperors.

Charlemagne's relations with the Islamic empire are actually a little complicated. The Islamic Empire had control over the pertinent parts of Africa and of Spain. Charlemagne's agreement and ceding of some land to the Byzantine Empire gave this ruler a large empire that had no access to the Mediterranean sea and was surrounded by the Byzantine and Islamic empires. The Islamic empire when looking at a map appears to have been bigger than both Charlemagne's empire and the Byzantine empire combined... and the Islamic empire had a lot of wealth and resources. Much thought and care was given by Charlemagne to a 'buffer zone' between his empire and Spain to try and keep peace between these two kingdoms. The main reason that Charlemagne didn't have to fight the Islamists in his time was that Charles Martel had stopped their continued aggressive conquests of Europe in the land known as France several years before the reign of Charlemagne. His approach seemed to be to mostly to try to leave them alone and try to be prepared in case they didn't.

Brief Views of the Early Medieval World Part I: The Decline of the Roman Empire, Monarchs, and Christianity

This post is a bit convoluted.... well, I thought I would warn you early. :) It is a hodgepodge of information about the different rulers of early medieval Europe and the rise of Christianity... and the gradual decline and fall of the Roman empire. (There are some historians that suggest that the Roman empire didn't actually collapse, but instead continued on in the rise of the Roman Catholic church... there certainly seems to be some good evidence for this perspective... but I digress.)

There are many important legacies that Diocletian and Constantine gave to the medieval world. Both of these men were emperors of the Great Roman empire as it was beginning to 'fall' or decline. Both of these men ruled in a time of crisis for the empire and it was their decisions to try and save the empire and their reforms that really helped to shape the land known as Europe in the early Middle Ages. One of the major difficulties that these emperors faced was trouble with the Roman army. The empire itself was too large to be easily defended and military service was no longer considered to be an honorable career choice. It was not an easy life – quite hard as a matter of fact- and so finding people to do it when it was no longer honorable either and no good promises of land, pensions, etc... became quite challenging. So outside warriors would be hired but as with any people who are hired for money, they are more loyal to the people around them and those that pay them... so not necessarily loyal to the roman emperor himself. Other difficulties that they faced was the diminishing amount of slave labor and the inequality of the economic system in the different areas of the empire. As the Roman empire stopped fighting wars because they had conquered so much, they no longer had huge amounts of captives to make slaves. And some areas of the empire had managed to achieve economic stability while others really depended on these economically wealthy areas to sustain them. This sharp division of secure economies, cheap labor shortages, and the added burden of differing groups of people attacking the large and under-protected borders of the empire would have created quite a crisis for these emperors to deal with. Diocletian came to power from his position in the Roman army – a good example of how joining the army did create opportunities for the underclasses as he was from a peasant family in the area that is now the former Yugoslavia. He managed to cement absolute power for himself (which many leaders for the last 100 years had not) and he used that influence and power to push back on the barbarians who were raiding and compromising the borders and the towns near them. He reconstructed the government of the empire into a position of absolute power that was 'divinely' appointed. Using ceremony and created 'pomp and tradition/ceremony', Diocletian created a persona of the competent Roman ruler which Constantine was to continue with great success. He also created a class system which required all peasants to be bound to the land they had been on. Diocletian divided the empire into two large parts that could be more easily controlled. Constantine would continue every policy of Diocletian and added more reforms of his own. He himself became a Christian and made it the majority religion in his lands by force over paganism. Constantine the Great gathered much power and control over the fledgling Catholic church and even help to establish official church doctrine – an example is the Council of Nicea called in 325 CE to establish 'standard' beliefs for the church.

Together the general accomplishments of these emperors was to stabilize the borders and to create economic and social opportunity. The restructured governments helped keep their subjects in line and a more peaceful existence in the kingdom. In some cases, they were able to win back lost territories and to restore area to the empire They also were truly able set up the empire in such a way that 1/2 of it lived on in success for almost 800 years after the other half 'fell'. That is an achievement in itself. :)

There were a few different things that allowed for the development of a strong Christian church with specific orthodoxy and hierarchy. One thing that helped was the suppression of these early Christian groups, but was also due to the suppression and exiling of many Jewish groups. The religion that we see as Christianity in the beginning was seen as a form of Jewish heresy... Jesus Christ was Jewish, many of the laws followed the Jewish laws, etc... When Rome attempted to split up Jewish communities to give the government more power over the Jews, they inadvertently spread this heresy to a much larger area and made it much more difficult to destroy. The idea and development of church hierarchy came from the events up to and after the death of the Christ. When Jesus Christ was on the earth, he was the prophet and unquestioned leader. Upon his death by crucifixion and his 'resurrection', the first 'male' he saw was Peter the apostle. It was this experience and the words of Jesus that Peter was to be 'the rock upon the church's foundations' that caused Peter to become the new leader of the fledgling church. The organization of the twelve apostles was still used and as Peter or other apostles died they were replaced. Within the next few centuries, tradition about the resurrection of Jesus began to change a bit to state that Jesus only spoke with the apostles after his resurrection and no one else which was used to give the growing leaders of the Catholic church- the pope as the man who inherited his leadership for Peter the apostle, the bishops and cardinals who inherited the positions of the apostles and other high placed missionaries such as Paul- legitimacy as the heirs of these great founding 'fathers'. And as the church grew in membership, size and diversity, it became important to church leaders as well as secular leaders to control and standardize the beliefs of the Christian church. When some of these standards or orthodoxy had been established, it gave both secular and political leaders more power to deal with the other differing beliefs. New laws and persecutions would cause believers to either adhere to the new orthodoxy... or suffer for non-compliance. When necessary over time, more 'orthodoxy' would be added to help control other splinter groups (or groups with differing Christian ideas) over the years.

Christianity was so appealing to converts for many reasons. One thing that is clear is that it was most appealing to people who were unhappy and dissatisfied with the current government or civilization around them. This can be seen in the high percentages of converts who were members of alienated classes – women, slaves, immigrants and free people without a lot of rights or money. Christianity maintained a belief that all members of this spiritual order were 'equal' whether you were a slave or a member of the aristocracy which would attract many who were in the lesser classes. In many ways in the Roman empire, belonging to the official religion was seen as a form of patriotism so belonging to this 'Jewish splinter group' was not looked kindly upon. Christianity also offered spiritual guidance, a moral code, and a much better potential afterlife for its believers than the abstract philosophy and emotionless expression of the Roman pagan religion. Some historians also believe that due to the similarities between one of the pagan religions (Mithraism) and Christianity, people were more likely to convert to Christianity because its major beliefs and ideals were already known to the population and were not new ideas. One last idea that is believed to have converted followers to this religion is that Jesus Christ was a real person and as such, evidence for what he said or did could be found. Most other religions had no large amounts of evidence that could conclusively back them up.

The Roman empire was a empire of vast proportions of land and differing geography... and it was a land full of diverse people. The only unifying force was the government itself and this force would be less 'unifying' the farther you lived from it and it's influence. There was nothing that really connected any of these different groups or people to each other except their differences... which were more conductive to division and war rather than peace and unity. Clovis I may have had a few reasons for conversion including belief, but he was shrewd enough to recognize that as he continued to conquer lands and build his own empire, he needed something to unify these diverse groups of Franks in able to be able to rule them effectively. He was successful in both of these goals. He conquered the land of Gaul which we now call France and toppled the last roman emperor in 486 CE. By forcing conversion to Christianity, his people now had a common spiritual outlook and a way that they could be more easily controlled. It was also rumored that he had looked at other Christian religions (Arianism), but he chose the Catholic church and he became (as far as we know) the first Catholic ruler. And as a member of the rising Catholic church, he would also have the church heirerchy's support for his rule.

During the decline of the Roman empire, the Germanic tribes to the North gathered strength even as Roman officials continued to call these Germanic groups barbarians and uncivilized. The amusing irony is that while these Germanic groups did eventually overthrow the roman emperor.... the fact that the western empire lasted as long as it did was because of the military might of these groups that had become the majority members of all the armies for the Roman emperor in the Western empire. The groups that today we would call 'Germanic' would have been similar in culture, religious practices and in language- but those would be the only similarities. Under Clovis I, these tribes became united and incorporated other groups of people into their cultures. When these groups were not unified, each group had a leader who served in the capacity of the leader of religious function, military commander, judge... basically a king in most ways although the leader of these small groups was usually elected or agreed upon in some way by the eligible members of the tribe. With the success of Clovis and Christianity that brought about the unification of these groups, the leader quite literally became a king and was no longer 'electable' by his people. The society of the German peoples was hierarchical with laws that were more lenient for wealthier or more noble offenders, and women would only gain any form of class from their closest male relative- such as father or husband. Warfare was fairly 'rare' and most forms of violence were for easy gain- such as raids on neighboring villages before unification. Economics was mostly agricultural and hierarchical as well with peasants bearing the brunt of the labor and food production.

Most historians mark the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE when the emperor was overthrown by a German Chieftain. Certainly describing this slow and petering decline as a 'fall' seems slightly inaccurate. The study of the ending of the Roman empire in the west reminds me of a cancer patient. The problems started small and and then spread... and even with a few great rulers who were able to make reforms in attempts to eradicate the cancer, it continued to spread until the last gasp of life was gone and the empire was no more. At least when I hear the word 'fall' I imagine a group, city or territories being quickly and forcibly taken over by another large and powerful group.... a very clear defining line between the before and after so to speak. With the Fall of the Western Roman empire, there is no true defining line except for potentially where the 'last gasp' came- at the fall of the last emperor to Clovis and his army. Those are just my thoughts though. Another part of the gradual separation of these two large empires was the rise of the strength of the Islamic religion that started to become prominent both religiously and politically in the eastern part of the empire, which caused more separation between the two emperors and their people.

The Eastern Roman Empire had so many advantages over the Western Empire so its ability to survive for almost 800 years more is not necessarily remarkable. For quite a few years before the collapse of the Western empire, the leader in the East was the stronger emperor due to his empire's superior economy. The survival of the Western empire during its last few years was really based on the generosity and willingness of the Eastern empire to provide it with money, military help, etc.... So it comes as no surprise that the Western empire would fall if the emperor of the Eastern part of the empire decided not to continue the aid... which is what eventually brought the downfall of the Western empire. The Eastern empire had a steady tax base, fewer problems with outsider invasions and was generally more urban that the Western empire.

Two rulers of the Byzantine Empire really had several outstanding accomplishments during their rule – Justinian and Theodora. One thing of note is that Justinian used a lot of military might and kept his focus on reclaiming the lands around the 'Roman' lake or Mediterranean Sea. It had been lost before his rule and it was not an easy thing to gain back.... but he was successful during his reign. Justinian also helped reform Christianity and the church. One focus for Justinian was to pursue and force the idea on the people that an absolute emperor should be the status quo. Unlike many of the kings or 'emperors' in the west, Justinian was educated and was deeply religious and he used his power, position and the wealth of the empire to create beautiful churches. His total reformation of the law, known as the Justinian code, became the basis for civil law in the empire that is actually still used in many ways today (over 1000 years later.)

Before the disputes that would lead to the split of the early Christian Catholic church, the leaders of both the east and western churches would discuss orthodoxy and different church issues. One major religious dispute that was to help cause the eventual split between the two parts of the Christian church was based on who was the ultimate leader of the Catholic Church. At this time, there was a patriarch of Constantinople and a patriarch in Rome- both men argued that they were the true heir of St Peter (Peter the apostle) and therefore the true 'Pope' or Patriarch of the Catholic Church. The apostle Peter had been martyred in Rome and so the Patriarch of Rome felt that the head of the church should be in Rome where the apostle had died and where his grave was. The Patriarch of Constantinople disagreed and felt that since the first Christian Emperor (Constantine) had declared the city of Constantinople the 'New Rome', the patriarch of that city was the true heir to the apostle. Also, the city of Constantinople was in the stable part of the Eastern empire... whereas Rome was in the disintegrating and unstable Western empire. Other differences included differences in language and circumstances based on the slow estrangement of the western empire from the eastern empire... in a sense, the two sides became different enough that they began to distrust one another. In the Western empire, the pope was the head and all loyalty went to him whereas in the east disputes were only brought to Rome if the patriarchs in the east could not solve the dispute... clearly a different situation. Another was a dispute over the whether the Holy Spirit comes from the Father only or whether it comes from both the Father and the Son. Over time, There were several 'petty' disputes as the patriarch in Rome refused to agree with decisions made by the patriarch in Constantinople. These differences would continue until the Christian Church 'split' and became two churches. The first part would become the Roman Catholic church and would be led by the Pope. The church in the east would be headed up by the Byzantine emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople. In a sense, this schism was very much more of an human and emotional schism, not a schism based on doctrine or church policy.

Charlemagne, a member of the Carolingian dynasty, successfully linked politics and religion in his reign and used religion as a way to help him cement his power. Upon his conversion, he was a 'zealous' missionary and followed a strict policy of 'conversion or die' to all of the people that he fought. As part of his 'foreign policy', Charlemagne continued the policies of his father towards the church and he became the 'warrior' arm of the church- their protector, etc... He used religion to prop up his rule with elaborate rituals and as well as the 'support' of the Pope. One example was his coronation by Pope Leo III on Christmas day in 800- this showed everyone that he was 'God's choice' for ruler and also linked him heavily with the church. Some have noted that his reign was a reign of pure conquest... 'by the sword and the cross'. Another example was Charlemagne’s decisions to convey meetings of church officials as well as privileged laymen to consider his agenda and when it was agreed upon he expected not only the laymen but the bishops of the church to help enforce this agenda. Some of his reforms were to strengthen the Catholic church's hierarchy and clarifying their powers- this seems like quite a big deal for a secular ruler to help set the agendas and form he rules that a different spiritual organization would follow. He also built lots of churches and made not following the Catholic faith a capital offense. This ruler truly wanted to create a stability in his lands that had not existed for several decades and he used three major ideas to do so; culture, Christianity, and the good traditions of the Roman past.

Hope you enjoyed this post and learned a few things to boot. Stay tuned for Part two in a few days. :)

Attila the Hun and the Rise of the Catholic Church... and a Touch of 'Vandal-ism'

When the Huns and the Vandals came upon the Roman empire, a few changes had happened from the beginning of the Empire. The Roman empire had been too large to control between one person in the form of an Emperor and so it had been divided into two sections – the Eastern empire and the Western empire. Rome had also changed its major religion and the pagan religion had fallen slowly from the top of the heap to be suffocated by Christianity. The Huns offered other groups the opportunity to live in a society that was similar to the Roman past of a few generations previously. They offered a society that was rich in wealth, militarily strong, and a culture that still worshiped Pagan gods without harassment or trouble. It seems that the Huns could be seen as a different political group than the Romans and charged no taxes. So many people and groups would join this 'anti- Roman' alliance even though this lifestyle was tougher in theory. It is beginning to be thought that there was no actual “Hun Nation', but there were groups of Huns... and so you could join the 'group' but it wasn't the same thing as the leadership under the Roman empire (it sounds sort of like converting to Judaism... it gives you a new culture and lifestyle, but not necessarily a new land. However, if you were already pagan, then the Huns allowed you to practice the religion that you had been practicing anyway.) At first, the Huns lived peacefully in the lands near Rome and in Rome. Sometimes, Roman officials would pay for the use of the Hun's military groups in their own boundary battles. Under the reign of Attila the Hun, this relationship changed and this leader used the Hun armies to devastate and take power of many cities in the Eastern part of the Roman empire... causing enough devastation and fear that the Roman leaders agreed to pay Attila the Hun 150,000 solid gold coins a year if he would stop the military campaign. This gold payment kept Attila as the leader of the Huns and he used the gold to pay his armies and warriors and to also help his groups and their cities/civilizations thrive- Attila had developed a system in which he could profit from Rome whether they were at war of peace and he depended on the constant supply of Roman gold. Attila took great care to stay out of the Roman empire and he took great pains to keep his people out as well. One Roman diplomat, Priscus, was sent to negotiate with Attila the Hun at one point and he has given us a good description of the Hun court. His description included his difficulty in actually finding the Huns because of the 'one hundred mile dead zone', a camp that was surrounded by polished wood that was clearly for decoration and appearance, wonderful feasts where individuals drank out of gold goblets and used silver plates (although he states that Attila used wooden dishes and that Attila seemed to be a soul of 'temperance'), and the enclosures had bath houses. Attila also unmasked a Roman assassination plot and instead of killing the individuals that were involved, he gave them their freedom and sent them back to Rome. There is some evidence that members of German tribes imitated the Huns in their culture. In a graveyard that was found in Hungary, many bodies were found that 'looked' like the bodies of Huns due to the elongated heads, but all the artifacts and evidence around the bodies was German. This evidence helps to suggest why we cannot find huge areas of Hun artifacts... as the culture and society of the Huns was assimilated into the groups who already lived in the lands they conquered – in this case the Germans. In essence, the Huns didn't slaughter everyone around them and built up their groups by assimilating nearby groups of people that were willing and interested in joining- Germans, Goths, Iranians and even disaffected Romans. Attila the Hun, after finishing up with the Eastern Empire and was collecting an obscene amount tribute, he turned his attention to the Western Roman Empire and attacked the land of Belgium. With the legitimate excuse of trying to rescue a (Roman) emperor's sister who had written for help, he attacked and quickly took over large cities in Belgium and Italy as well. It was at this time in 452 CE, a Pope of the Catholic church negotiated with Attila the Hun and ended the fight. Pope Leo I negotiated a peace and Attila and his armies withdrew- it has been suggested in some sources that the negotiation probably also came with a large sum of gold and other tribute- other sources suggest a combination of events including food shortages, plague, other military actions, and that Attila was already overladen with plunder and this strategy would allow him to take it home and save face … and then come back and fight. (It should also be stated that this was a 'temporary' peace and that Attila agreed to a basic 'ceasefire', but was quite open with the fact that if he didn't have all of his demands met, he and his armies would be back.) Because of the successful negotiation of the Pope with Atilla (and a good deal of wonderful traditional propaganda about the angel/apostles Peter and Paul coming to fight against the Huns who then promptly turned tail and ran), the Pope gained more political clout than the Roman emperor. For the next 1000 years, the Pope became the unquestioned leader of the Roman Catholic church and a real political force that had to be reckoned with by all secular leaders and rulers of European lands. Pope Leo one became the first pope to be called 'the Great.' It can be stated that the creation of the Pope and his 'power' was, in essence, created by Attila the Hun and is Attila's only lasting legacy to our modern world. A few years later, Pope Leo I tried to negotiate with King Gaiseric... with less success (I guess the angels were busy that day...? ; ) The Vandal King refused to leave, but he did agree to keep the bloodshed and destruction low. He conquered Rome and returned to North Africa flush with treasure and plunder. It must be stated that the Roman empire's collapse was really caused by quite a few factors, including the political prominence of the Roman Catholic Pope, the actions of Attila the Hun... and the actions of Gaiseric and the Vandals. King Gaiseric was born around the time of the birth of Attila and his childhood was spent living as a refugee in these tough times. He rose to rule his community which were called the Vandals- which meant the wanderers. Eventually the Vandals arrived in southern Spain and in 429 King Gaiseric and his followers numbered at 80,000 people sailed across the sea to Northern Africa. Once there, he and his army conquered these rich, fertile lands from the Roman empire and these areas included Carthage... which was the city that the Romans used to transport all the riches, growth, oil and wheat grown in Africa to the rest of the empire. Much of this grain was given to the male citizens of the empire for free to keep them from revolting against the emperor. By taking over Carthage, the vandals found themselves in a land that was plentiful and had huge political ramifications. It gave the Vandals almost full control of the Mediterranean Sea. Roman lost the fertile lands of Africa as well as the huge tax moneys and it was this loss that caused the already cracking empire to crumple into the dust. The Catholic church survived and thrived and the Latin language is the language in which we get most of our history. As the winners of the 'battle', all other groups became monsters and barbarians in their eyes....and these thoughts and 'truths' have been passed down to us today. The Vandals were considered worse than the 'pagan' barbarians (by the rulers and members of the Roman empire) because the Vandals were 'Christians' but the wrong sort of Christians. Roman Catholicism believes that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father were equal in status and both of the same essence. Vandal groups tended to believe in a form of Christianity that was known as Arianism- developed by Arius who taught that Jesus Christ was subordinate to the Heavenly Father as the 'son' was created by God... so they in necessity must be distinct and different. The Pope also saw himself as God's man on earth and in many ways equal to God. So if you are Catholic, you know you need to follow the Pope because he is God's man. Being a member of Arianism, you are stating that not only do you believe differently but you are probably not following the political rules as set by the pope and his allies as well. One Roman bishop described the Vandals as 'worse than Jews and pagans; inspired by the devil', but most North Africans saw the Romans/ Catholic church as 'corrupt and vicious.' King Gaiseric gave freedom of religion to the people in his lands for everyone except the elite of his government- which were required to follow Arianism. He was not know for torturing or prosecuting people of different beliefs and when Catholic members were looking for ways to complain about King Gaieric's ill treatment toward them, one of the few ways they could find was to complain that the King would not allow them to sing their hymns.

The Decline of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Franks and the State of France

The early relationship between the rulers of the Roman empire and the 'Franks' was not positive- many of their leaders were given to the 'beasts' by the Roman emperors as a lesson and a warning to other Franks who might wish to raid Roman lands. In some of the lands that are now known as the Netherlands and Belgium, the Romans 'gave' the Franks this land to help the Romans protect their borders. For a thousand years there was peace between the Romans and the Franks, but difficulties arose over religion and neither side was willing to compromise. The Franks were pagan and happily so... and as the Roman empire started to collapse, the Franks began to move south in groups to live. When the Roman's needed to find armies to fight Attila the Hun and his armies, Roman leaders happily accepts the Franks and uses their armies to push the Huns back. The Franks help the Roman armies win the war and expect deference and appreciation from the Roman government. Unfortunately, the government seems to have taken the service of the Franks as their entitlement as governmental rulers. Later the Franks and their leaders will simply slowly conquer the Romans as the western empire collapses and take over their lands.

Merovich was a Frank leader (one of many leaders) who led his army of Franks against the Roman's military. He is said to have been descended from a sea god per legend to help give him a more noble and substantial genealogy. He became the first ruler of what would later become known as the Merovingian Dynasty. Merovich was the first leader to help pull several diverse groups of Franks together; to work together, fight together and to ally themselves with each other against other groups such as the Roman empire. Merovich led his army against the Romans at a battle in Tournai and he negotiated a treaty that allows his people to settle into new areas – new to them, the areas had belonged to the western part of the empire. Merovich is able to win more land and more power over time with his armies and, in agreeing to fight Attila the Hun alongside of Rome, King Merovich gives himself and his men an inside view of the Roman armies, better training and equipment and the knowledge and confidence needed to fight the Romans themselves in the future.

The relationship between the Franks and the Roman Empire under Childeric was a little cimplicated? Childeric, also said to have been descended from a sea god, became a king of the Franks and was able to unite a few of different groups of Franks.... despite himself and his poor behavior (he was banished for a short time due to poor behavior with young, beautiful women.) It is not known whether Childeric I was a son or a relative of King Merovich (although the documentary states that Clovis is a grandson of Merovich which would make King Childeric the son of Merovich.) Childeric I becomes a great chieftain and he is seen by Rome as a great ally. The Franks would take over certain areas that were good for growing food and producing stock/animal husbandry. He would fight as an ally with Rome in their continued battles and even though there are a few rulers of the 'Franks', Childeric will stand out from the others by courting Roman favor. He would help Rome fight other barbarian groups to keep the land of Gaul under Roman control and it was Childrec's armies that made it possible for the Rome to beat the Visigoths and keep most of Gaul... just as his father Merovich gave Rome the ability to beat Attila the Hun. Childeric died in 481 after a rule of 24 years. His burial place was discovered in the seventeenth century with lots of objects, jewelry etc... unfortunately, most of the items were stolen and later melted down.

Clovis is the son of King Childeric and he becomes the king upon the death of his father. It must be stressed that even though he received the royal title, there were many groups of Franks and Clovis was only one of many rulers. Clovis was full of ambition and he was truly a traditional Germanic warrior king- his goals were to get treasure and land, gain honor, and subdue people to his will. At the beginning of his rule, Clovis would get along with the Roman government and would curry favor. However, after gathering military and diplomatic ties with other groups of Franks, he would attack and takes over parts of the crumbling Roman empire. Clovis was willing to deal with Roman and Catholic bishops with diplomacy... sometimes using Catholic bishops against Rome itself. Later, he would attack other Frank groups and assimilate them as well as other Roman groups into his control. Clovis gains his eventual one man rule position by carefully eliminating his enemies, using his bravery in battle, and using deceit and treachery to trick others into removing his competitors... he was able to keep his hands clean of those murders and take over leadership of those groups. At one point near the end of his life, Clovis gave a speech lamenting his lack of close loyal kin... he seemed to forget that he had killed or had murdered as many of them as possible to control things himself and to name his own heirs unconstrained. Clovis also recognized that he must build unity in the diversity of the Franks and he was successful in that. Clovis gave those he conquered equal status with the franks giving the 'conquered' good reasons to like him, to fight in his armies, etc... In a sense, he helped to blend the cultures of the Romans and the Franks. He became a Christian and converted the Franks from paganism (there is some debate about this and some historians believe that he originally converted to Arianism from paganism... and then to Catholicism later in life and maybe only three years before his death.). By converting, he brought his new Roman subjects into his rule more cleanly and gained their loyalty faster and he continued to expand his kingdom until his death in 511 CE. His one major mistake is that he didn't spend enough time working on his succession. He ordered his kingdom that he took so many years to gather and unite, divided into four pieces and given to each of his sons in his will.... where the separated pieces fell into civil war, fratricide and bloodshed. His name becomes the early derivative to the name 'Louis' which became the principle name of most of the kings and rulers of France since his time.

There is a saying about this time : “The Franks took a rib out of the old Roman corpse and gave Western Europe its backbone.” This statement describes the consequences of the rule of Clovis and his ambition and success of his legacy. He becomes the founder of the modern French state and his capital is Paris- when he dies, he is buried in Paris at the Church of the Holy Apostles that he had built (an ironic end-note: his sarcophagus was left alone until the time of the French revolution in which it was opened and his ashes scattered to the winds... I find this ironic due to my current studies of the French Revolution. It is like a common 'loop'. :). King Clovis was in many ways a pioneer- he built up the area of Gaul in Europe that(an area that encompasses was is now France as well as parts of modern day Belgium, Italy and Germany) was once one of the most prosperous areas of the Roman empire. By gathering and conquering large areas and claiming it into one single 'state', Clovis and the other early members of the Merovingian dynasty may have been quite violent and in so many ways, terrorists in their time, they were able to gather many people together in a solid group. These people were held together by their leader and by Christianity. This group gave the land a solid and secure status- as much as could be had at that time- giving the people common goals, common religion, and common needs. This solid kingdom would be held together for the most part over the next several decades and centuries.