The Historians' History of the World 07

These facts must be taken as a sign of the times. They show that a longing for freedom was beginning to stir in the bosom of the villein who was without civil rights, and the movement in Saxony might have taken this direction too, as already observed; but this was no struggle for the restoration of an alleged former freedom, as the newer historians would have it, but the opposite—an attempt to overthrow the tyranny of the olden times. Such a condition of things would have stood in direct opposition to the re-establishment of the old Saxon constitution, which certainly was included in the plot, because that government upheld serfdom; yet the Saxons included therein the ancestral religion, their independence from the Franks, and exemption from tithes, and therefore in that sense the struggle for freedom was compatible with the re-establishment of the ancient constitution. It was customary in the peasant rebellions in Germany to adopt a particular name, such as the bundschuh

, “lace-shoe.” The Saxon freemen and villeins called their rising the stellinga

. When a rebellion has for its goal the acquisition of liberty, it is only natural that a king should tremble; but whether this was really the case here or whether it was the natural dislike of all Germans for the Carlovingian dynasty, that had oppressed not only the Saxons and Frisians but also the Alamanni and the Bavarians, it is certain that Ludwig feared the spread of the Saxon rising over Swabia and Bavaria, and strained every nerve to subdue it. In order to accomplish this he made use of such cruel means that his name, like that of his grandfather Charles, deserves to be branded by history.

Even had the Saxons endangered the national aims of Germany by their enterprise, and had Ludwig therefore had just claims to be held blameless on that account for trying to put down the movement, yet it must never be forgotten that the Saxons had been provoked by the most abominable regulations, tithes, and other burdens unknown until that day, and that they had been most cruelly wounded in all that they considered holy. As, in addition, the Saxon freemen and villeins had been instigated to rebel by a monarch who called himself emperor, and who according to existing state treaties was to exercise lordship over his brothers, justice imperiously demanded that the people who had been thus misled should be treated with leniency; and that their resentment should be by degrees allayed by relieving the burdens imposed upon them and by just treatment. Instead of proceeding thus humanely, Ludwig made use of his power like a cowardly despot, in order to inflict indescribable tortures on the wretched Saxons. One hundred and forty men were beheaded, fourteen hanged on the gallows, and others, according to ancient custom of the Romans, were mutilated to render them incapable of fighting again. The inhumanity was carried to such a pitch, so the chroniclers affirm, that the number of mutilated Saxons was so great they could not be counted. In this way was quiet restored in Saxony, but it was the quiet of the grave and of silent execration which followed the callous destroyer, a true grandson of the “great” Charles.

THE TREATY OF VERDUN (843 A.D.)

[843 A.D.]