Attila the Hun

Personal Profile

Born: c. 406

Reigned: 434-53

Died: c. March 453 (aged 46-47)

Title: King and Chieftain of the Hunnic Empire

Marriages: Kreka and Ildico (amongst others)

Children: Ellac, Dengizich, Ernak (amongst others)

Early Life and background context on the Huns (c. 406 – c. 440)

A depiction of Attila the Hun

As is often the case with historical characters who are not viewed as European or Eurocentric in the context of their lifetimes, we often know very little about their early childhood. I say this about Attila the Hun because simply his name denotes that: ‘the Hun’ – a foreigner, a barbarian, someone who was deemed as an outsider in contemporary Roman society. For many Romans, the ideology was very much ‘us vs them’.

What we do know is that Attila was born roughly around the year 406. The fifth century was a tumultuous period for the Western Roman Empire – only four years after Attila’s birth, Rome would be sacked by the Goths. Yet Attila was not the first of his name, like Genghis Khan was almost a thousand years later. The Huns had emerged as a major force in the 370s, but surprisingly, they had more often assisted the Roman Empire than assailed it – they were typically seen as the defenders of the borders (the Huns lived in the Balkans, almost half way between the Western and Eastern Empires’ borders).

Both Attila and his brother Bleda became joint rulers of the Huns in 434. Attila was described by contemporaries as ‘born into the world to shake nations, the scourge of all lands.’ Attila was the more powerful of the two brothers, and his appearance has been described as ‘short, swarthy, and snub-nosed, with a thin straggling beard, and beady little eyes’ as well as the fact that ‘his rolling eyes and alarming appearance terrified all who crossed his path.’ However, despite this, as a leader, a Hun contemporary denoted that Attila was also said to be ‘restrained in action, mighty in counsel, gracious to suppliants, and lenient to those who were received into his protection.’ Yet one Roman writer referred to the Huns as the ‘seedbed of evil, and exceedingly savage.’

A pretty interesting guy to say the least!

Leadership and Early Conflicts (c. 440 – c. 451)

The Hunnic Empire, c. 450

In 440, with their leadership united under Attila and Bleda, the Hunnic Empire stretched from the Black Sea to the Baltic, and from Germany to the Central Asian steppes – and the Huns were only just getting started on moving west. The following year, in 441, Attila invaded the Eastern Roman Empire and made a mockery of their resistance. An interesting fact to look at is that the Huns were actually the first ‘barbarian’ force to work out how to storm well-defended fortress towns, like those of the Eastern Roman Empire. The secret behind it was by using siege engines, battering rams and scaling ladders – techniques which they had directly copied from the Romans. Regardless, it worked, and the Huns succeeded. The effects of these attacks can still be seen in the massive destruction layers evident at various archaeological sites in Central Europe to this day.

Two years later, in 443, Attila brought his forces to the walls of Constantinople, but the Emperor Theodosius behind the walls of Constantinople managed to bribe the Huns (a tactic which was used throughout the Hunnic invasions) to withdraw from the walls with huge sums of cash. By either 444 or 445, Attila had his brother and co-ruler Bleda murdered. Very few sources exist regarding this, and it is not surprising – who would dare to enrage Attila by writing about him murdering his brother, and who would want to get on the wrong side of this fearsome leader?

Following the death of his brother, Attila took the leadership into his reins: he expanded his territory further east, starting with a second sweep through the Balkans and onto Constantinople. Again, he tried to conquer Constantinople, but was bribed to withdraw once more. This bribery from Theodosius soon came to an end with his militaristic successor, Marcian (r. 450-57), who refused to pay further bribes and drove the Huns from his territory altogether.

Upon his banishment from the walls of Constantinople in winter 450/51 – the one that got away in Attila’s case – he made his way west across Europe to Gaul (modern day France), and this is where the fun really begins.

Final Battles and Death (c. 451-53)

A depiction of the Battle of the
Catalaunian Plains

The major events in Attila’s life came in the years immediately preceding his death. As I mentioned earlier, he crossed Europe into Gaul. It was here that he met the largest European force amounted up to that date. Working together, the Western Roman Emperor, Aetius, a Roman general, Flavius, and a Visigoth King, Theodoric I, amassed an army of Romans, Franks, Goths, Burgundians and Celts to confront the Huns – what they all saw as a collective threat to the Roman Empire. Historian Simon Jenkins states that “It was the first time a coalition of Roman and Barbarian armies had combined to take the field against an external foe, a first ‘European army’.” 

The ensuing battle on 20 June 451 took place on the Catalaunian Plains (hence the name of the battle: The Battle of the Catalaunian Plains), near modern-day Châlons and Orleans. At the battlefield, the coalition of forces was decisively victorious against Attila’s forces. Interestingly, this was also the last great set-piece battle which the Western Roman army would fight, and it was the Visigoths who played the decisive role in the fighting (although this was according to an admittedly pro-Gothic contemporary), and ultimately secured a Roman victory. However, it was not all good news. The Visigoth king, Theodoric I, was killed in the battle – either by a spear or by being trampled to death.

Attila had never before suffered such serious defeat in his lifetime up until this point. He realised that if he was to maintain control of his empire, staying put at home and licking his wounds was not an option. So, in 452, he began his next campaign. Aetius was still in Gaul, so Atilla returned from his base in the Balkans and made his way straight for Italy: he wanted Rome.

The city of Aquileia was destroyed after a terrible siege, and then Milan was taken. The inhabitants of the north-eastern Veneto region of Italy feared what Atilla’s army would do to them, so they sought refuge from the Huns in the sporadically occupied islands of the coastal lagoon, and as a result, Venice was born. “Europe has Atilla to thank for its most glorious possession.”, in Jenkins’ words.

The reason why Attila never managed to take Rome is often credited to Pope Leo I, also known as Leo the Great (r. 440-61). The most popular version of the story states that Leo joined a deputation and met Attila on the banks of the Mincio River near Lake Garda, to persuade him to retreat to the Danube River, and the Huns consolidated their settlement in what is now Hungary. This version is likely to be true, but I personally prefer another version – which actually questions why this fearsome and determined pagan leader like Attila would simply obey the Pope – a man who had no meaning to him.

There are various theories surrounding this when we pose the question of why Attila would obey the Pope. A substantial amount of money (like Theodosius offered him in the 440s in Constantinople) is a likely theory, but also Attila (like the majority of the Huns) was incredibly superstitious, and Leo may well have reminded him of how the Gothic leader Alaric died almost immediately after his sack of Rome in 410, and how a similar fate was known to occur to every invader who dared raise their hand against the city of Rome. Another – and probably the likeliest theory – is that his subjects themselves persuaded him to retire: for instance, after all the devastation they caused to the countryside in their campaigns, they were beginning to suffer from a serious shortage of food, and that disease had broken out in the ranks, too. By the time this was all deliberated, news arrived to Attila that troops from the Eastern Roman Empire in Constantinople were beginning to arrive to supplement the imperial forces in the West: a march on Rome, it soon appeared, might not have been quite as straightforward as Attila initially thought.

Either way, Attila’s forces retreated. The following year, in 453, Attila was celebrating his marriage to a Gothic princess named Ildico. The Roman contemporary Priscus described the events of Attila’s wedding feast: “Celebrating excessively, [Attila] lay down on his back sodden with wine and sleep,” and in the process, is believed to have suffered a brain haemorrhage, and died in his sleep. “Thus,” continues Priscus, “drunkenness brought a shameful end to a king who had won glory in war.”

Atilla’s Legacy and the Future of the Huns (c. 453 – c. 475)

As Attila’s lifeblood flowed away, Europe breathed a sigh of relief. For his funeral, a specially selected group of captives placed his body in three coffins: one made of gold, one of silver and one of iron. The Roman historian Jordanes states why: “Gold and silver because he received the honours of both [the Eastern and Western Roman] empires…iron because he subdued the nations.”. Once Attila’s body had been lowered into the ground and covered over – first with the rich spoils of war and then with earth until the ground above the grave was level – all of those involved in the burial ceremonies were put to death. This was so that Attila’s last resting place would remain secret and inviolate forever.

Pope Leo I 'The Great'
(r. 440-61)

The Hunnic Empire, almost as quickly as it sprung up, disintegrated in the aftermath of Attila’s death. The Huns were dependent upon Attila’s authority, according to historian David Potter, and upon his death, the Hunnic Empire collapsed in civil war in 454. This was because the many Germanic peoples who Attila had once held in thrall rose up against their masters and defeated them in another huge battle in the central Balkans (the site of which is now unfortunately lost). The Huns withdrew to the north and then resumed their role as occasional mercenaries in Roman service.

Yet despite Attila’s defeat, the Hun invasion reinforced what Alaric’s invasion forty years prior to Attila’s had shown: that the new Europe was vulnerable to forces sweeping west across its central plains. Another legacy of this ideology is that many Roman citizens instead sought refuge in fortified towns (rather than the distant hope of imperial armies), where they gave allegiance to any leader who would offer them security. As a result, Empire gave way to Kingdoms. 

Still, nothing could bring peace to battered Italy. In 475, a Roman official named Orestes – who had served in Atilla’s retinue – seized power in Ravenna and appointed his fifteen-year-old son Romulus as Emperor. The following year, in 476, Romulus was ousted by a Roman soldier of Germanic origin, called Flavius Odoacer, who did not bother with emperorship, but instead took the title of King of Italy, with his capital situated in Ravenna. Accordingly, the year 476 is generally seen as the date of the formal demise of the “Roman Empire”, although the Eastern Roman Empire survived for almost another millennium in the form of Byzantium. 

To sum up Attila the Hun, I will turn to the words of the late, great historian John Julius Norwich “He was not a great ruler, or even a particularly able general; but so overmastering were his ambition, his pride and his lust for power that within the space of a few years he had made himself feared throughout the length and breadth of Europe: more feared, perhaps, than any other single man – with the possible exception of Napoleon – before or since.”

Hope you enjoyed reading this, feel free to share it with your friends and family!

Bibliography

Simon Baker, Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire (2006)

Peter Frankopan, The Silk Roads: A New History of the World (2015)

Peter Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History (2005)

Simon Jenkins, A Short History of Europe: From Pericles to Putin (2018)

John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History (2011)

David Potter, The Emperors of Rome: The Story of Imperial Rome from Julius Caesar to the Last Emperor (2007)

The Thirty Years War (1618-48)

Fact File

Date: 23 May 1618 – 15 May 1648

Location: Europe

Death Toll: 8 million people, including 20% of the German population

A seventeenth century depiction
of the Thirty Years War.

“Reason”: Conflict between the European Catholic and Protestant states. A religious war which developed into a case of a continental power-struggle between most of the states and rulers of Europe

Notable People: Ferdinand II; Frederick V; Philip III; Louis XIII; Cardinal Richelieu; Gustavus Adolphus; Philip IV; Duc d’Enghien; Louis XIV

Notable Battles: Battle of White Mountain (1620); Battle of Breitenfeld (1631); Battle of Lützen (1632); Battle of Rocroi (1643)

Notable Events: Defenestration of Prague (1618); Deposition of Ferdinand II as King of Bohemia (1619); the Edict of Restitution (1629); the Treaty of Lübeck (1629); the Treaty of Barwälde (1631); the Peace of Westphalia (1648).

***NOTE*** I have put a ‘Glossary’ at the end of the post, in case there are any terms you are unfamiliar with. These terms are highlighted in bold throughout.

Introduction

As with most major historical conflicts, it is almost impossible to pinpoint the exact moment when – or why – a war started. For example, did Franz Ferdinand’s assassination kickstart the First World War? Or was it more a case of increasing imperialism throughout European nations in the early twentieth century which ultimately led to increased ideas and rhetoric of nationalism?

We can also ask the same questions about the Thirty Years War. Was it the succession of the Habsburg Ferdinand II as King of Bohemia in 1617, or was it the Defenestration of Prague the following year, or was it because of Frederick V’s response in 1619? Either way, pinpointing the very start of the Thirty Years War is difficult, but I will try and do my best regardless!

On the Road to Ruin: The Beginning(s) of the Thirty Years War

Ferdinand II (r. 1617-37)

In 1617, thanks to King Matthias of Bohemia’s actions against religious revolt, Augsburg fell apart. The Bohemian Crown was handed to a Jesuit-trained member of the infamous Habsburg family: Ferdinand II (r. 1617-37), who also became Holy Roman Emperor in 1619. Historian Simon Jenkins states that “no succession could have been more disastrous for Europe.”

Ferdinand undoubtedly shared the military enthusiasm of his cousin, Philip III of Spain (r. 1598-1621), but whereas the majority of Philip’s subjects were Catholic, the majority of Ferdinand’s Bohemian subjects were Protestant. In Spring 1618, news reached Prague (then the capital of Bohemia) that Ferdinand intended to replace Bohemia’s Protestant governors with Catholics: this resulted in immediate revolt, and most famously, the Defenestration of Prague on 23 May 1618.

The Defenestration of Prague

The Defenestration of Prague,
23 May 1618

Upon hearing the news about Ferdinand replacing Bohemia’s Protestant governors with Catholic ones, a delegation of Protestant Bohemian nobles entered the Hradčany Castle in Prague on 23 May 1618 and threw two Habsburg governors (Jaroslav von Martinitz and Wilhem von Salvata) out of a sixth-storey window and into a dung heap – which actually broke their fall. Ironically, both von Martinitz and von Salvata were protesting against recent attacks on Protestant churches, against Ferdinand’s assumption of the Bohemian throne, and against his alleged violations of the Royal Charter of Toleration (the Majestätsbrief) of 1609. This Defenstration of Prague was a deliberate imitation of an incident almost two centuries before, when seven members of the Prague city council were killed by a crowd of Czech Hussites in 1419, which lit the spark for the Hussite Wars to ignite.

The Bohemian Response and Frederick V

Frederick V (r. 1610-23)

At the time of the Defenestration of Prague, Ferdinand was campaigning for the imperial election (the election for Holy Roman Emperor), and religious peace in Germany was faltering. The Lutheran princes were awkwardly watching as the newly formed Protestant Union led by Frederick, Elector Palatine, squared up to the Catholic League, led by Maximilian, Elector of Bavaria. Eventually the religious tension cord snapped, and the Bohemian rebels invaded Vienna, prompting a revolt in Austria. In 1619, upon Ferdinand’s successful succession to the imperial throne, the Bohemians formally deposed him as King of Bohemia, instead electing the Calvinist Frederick in his place. This, in simple terms, meant open war.

Frederick, the Elector Palatine of a small Rhineland state became Frederick V of Bohemia, in Ferdinand’s place. As I mentioned earlier, Frederick was a Calvinist, and he was married to Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of King James I of England. Dubbed the ‘jewel of Europe’, she was soon to become a lasting object of Protestant adoration.

In response, Ferdinand summoned Catholic monarchs and mercenaries from across Europe to wage a war of faith on what he viewed as his Protestant subjects. Spain (under Philip III), Poland (under Sigismund III), and the Papacy (under Pope Paul V), all joined Ferdinand in a Catholic League, which Jenkins refers to as ‘an intra-European crusader force.’

On the other hand, Frederick was backed by Dutch Protestants, Scandinavians, the French (deviously, under Louis XIII) and the English (half-heartedly, under James I). The ensuing conflict retracted the values of the Peace of Augsburg* and showed how far one man’s faith could dictate the fate of nations.

*The Peace of Augsburg was signed by the then Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, and the Schmalkaldic League in September 1555. It officially ended the religious struggle between the two aforementioned groups and made the legal division of Christianity permanent within the Holy Roman Empire, allowing rulers to choose either Lutheranism or Roman Catholicism as the official confession of their state.

Open War: The Battle of White Mountain (1620)

The Battle of White Mountain (7
November 1620). The first pitched
battle of the Thirty Years War.

On 7 November 1620, just outside Prague, Ferdinand’s Catholic forces and Frederick’s Protestant forces met on the battlefield for what was to become the first open fielded battle of the Thirty Years War.

Frederick’s Protestant forces were soundly defeated by Ferdinand’s Catholic forces, and the consequences were huge. Ferdinand reacted to his victory with brutality and had 27 Bohemian leaders executed in Prague’s Old Town Square. All of Bohemia’s Non-Catholic nobles had their lands confiscated, and all Protestants were evicted, the majority of whom fled west into Germany. The Catholicisation and Germanisation of Bohemia had begun. This religious cleansing in Bohemia was so successful that to this day, Bohemia remains largely Catholic.

Frederick fled, and along with his wife Elizabeth, they both became refugees in The Hague, known for the shortness of their one-year reign as the “Winter King and Queen”. After Frederick and Elizabeth fled, their lands in the Palatine were invaded by the Spanish Netherlands and seized by the Bavarians. The General of the Catholic Forces, Count Tilly (1559-1632), stormed Heidelberg in 1622 and traversed northern Germany in pursuit of the Protestant forces held by Count von Mansfeld (1580-1626).

Pressure from the North: Scandinavian Involvement (c.1620 – c.1635)

Denmark

While Count Tilly was ravaging northern Germany, Ferdinand discovered a major problem about using mercenaries in his army: he found that he could not pay them enough, as he had run out of money. The fighting became almost like banditry, and as a result, all of Europe was dragged into it: including Denmark and Sweden.

By the early 1620s, after the Battle of White Mountain, Christian IV of Denmark, Superior of the Imperial Circle of Lower Saxony, entered the conflict in defence of his hard-pressed Protestant confreres. He had to contend with a new imperialist army raised by a Bohemian Catholic nobleman: Albrecht von Waldstein, or more commonly known as, Albrecht von Wallenstein (1584-1634).

The Protestant forces (which included forces from England, France and the Netherlands) were defeated again at the Bridge of Dessau on the River Elbe in 1626, and Count von Mansfeld’s Protestant forces (whom Count Tilly had pursued since 1622) were defeated at Neuhausel, near Bratislava (capital of modern-day Slovakia). Count Tilly then attacked the Protestant Netherlands with help from the Spanish under Philip III.

Meanwhile, Wallenstein overran the majority of the lands on the Baltic Coast: Brunswick, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg, Schleswig, Holstein, Jutland and the Baltic Coast to the outskirts of Stralsund, declaring himself ‘Generalissimo of the Baltic and the Ocean Seas’.

By the Edict of Restitution (6 March 1629), Ferdinand ordered the Protestants to surrender all the former Ecclesiastical lands acquired since the Peace of Augsburg. Interestingly, Wallenstein objected, because his army contained many non-Catholics. He was then dismissed. Finally, the Treaty of Lübeck (22 May 1629), was signed by Wallenstein, Christian IV and Ferdinand II, which ended Danish involvement in the Thirty Years War by persuading them to retire on the return of their lost possessions. The deal was a winner for everyone involved in the signing of the treaty. However, the war was far from over yet.

Sweden

Gustavus Adolphus
(r. 1611-32)

Sweden entered the fray shortly after Denmark had signed the Treaty of Lübeck. Gustavus Adolphus, also known as Gustav II of Sweden (r. 1611-32), sent a contingent to hold Stralsund in northern Germany. Fortified by the Treaty of Bärwalde (signed on 23 January 1631, which was an agreement by France to provide Sweden with financial support following its intervention in the Thirty Years War), Gustavus landed in Germany with the main Swedish army and proceeded to vigorously restore Protestant fortunes. The reason behind this treaty was largely thanks to the Catholic King Louis XIII of France and his adviser Cardinal Richelieu, as they followed French policy in siding with any foe of a Habsburg (essentially, their philosophy was my enemy’s enemy is my friend), even a Protestant one. Hence King James I of England, a Protestant, even sent a small army of soldiers to the continent to support Louis XIII and Gustavus’ treaty.

The Sack of Magdeburg (20 May 1631)
is often regarded as the worst massacre
of the Thirty Years War. It is sometimes
referred to as the 'Rape of Germany'.

However, the campaign did not get off to a strong start. Gustavus failed to relieve Magdeburg before it was mercilessly sacked by the imperialists, but at the Battle of Breitenfeld (17 September 1631), he crushed Tilly, and moved into the Palatinate. In 1632, Gustavus entered Bavaria, and Munich and Nuremberg opened their gates to his forces. The Swedish army planned to move on to Vienna later in the year, so Ferdinand was forced to recall Wallenstein, after he had previously dismissed him after his objection towards the Edict of Restitution three years before.

The next major battle was the Battle of Lützen, just over a year after Breitenfeld, on 16 November 1632. It was a furious battle, and although the Swedish forces prevailed, Gustavus fell. He was found under a heap of dead bodies, with bullet holes in his head and a dagger thrust into his side. Similarly, following an infection from a wound, Frederick V died on 29 November. These two catastrophes, less than a fortnight apart, dashed any hopes the Protestants had of an early end to the conflict.

The Western Sphere: French Involvement (c. 1635 – c.1648)

Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642)

Concerned that Philip IV of Spain (r. 1621-65), would use the war to reunite Charles V’s Spanish and Austrian Habsburg Empires, in 1635 Louis XIII and Richelieu officially declared war on Spain. At this point, it was not just Catholic versus Protestant, but Catholic Bourbon versus Catholic Habsburg. France once more took the Swedish forces into their pay, and invaded Alsace.

In 1636, Spanish forces reached the outskirts of Paris, but they soon understood how it could be a disadvantage having territory stationed throughout Europe, when the French threatened Spanish Flanders, and sent reinforcements to the Swedes in the north. The Protestants even invited the Ottoman Turks to attack Austria from the East. “Europe was in turmoil.”

A year later, in 1637, Ferdinand II died, which initially raised hopes for an eventual peace. However, by this point, the war already had a momentum of its own. The war was no longer religious back in Germany – as mentioned earlier, undisciplined mercenary troops tore principalities apart and created conflict where there previously was none before. 

However, by 1638, French fortunes were mounting: the rise of the youthful Duc d’Enghein (Louis II, Prince de Condé, 1621-86), who was referred to by contemporary chroniclers as ‘the finest general in Europe’, helped improve morale in the French forces.

The Battle of Rocroi (19 May 1643).
The final pitched battle of the Thirty
Years War. Yet it was to be another five
years before the war officially ended.

Aged just 21, the Duc d’Enghein took to the battlefield at Rocroi in the Ardennes against a Flemish army on 19 May 1643, and roundly crushed the tercios (a Spanish infantry unit) and ended Spanish participation in the war, as well as Spanish military supremacy in Pavia, which had lasted since 1525. Rocroi was also the final pitched battle of the Thirty Years War. This dynastic conflict between France and Spain from 1635 resulted in Louis XIV of France (r. 1643-1715) making peace in 1648, coming about as a belief that the Habsburgs were too powerful.

The End in Sight: The Peace of Westphalia (1648)

In 1643, in the immediate aftermath of Rocroi, diplomats from all parties represented (109 diplomats in total) met in two separate towns in Westphalia: Osnabrück and Münster. Emissaries scuttled back and forth between the sides, reaching not just one treaty, but also a series of local deals designed to roll into a collective peace. The agreement took five years, and was eventually signed on 15 May 1648, finally bringing about a formal end to the Thirty Years War.

A painting of the Peace of Westphalia,
the treaty which formally ended the
Thirty Years War on 15 May 1648.

But how did this particular treaty manage this, and what were the main details of it?

It was, essentially, a reversion to Augsburg – a principle of national self-determination in politics and faith. Westphalia restored the autonomy of the German states and denied authority over them to the Holy Roman Empire. In fact, some historians even argue that Westphalia is credited with fathering the concept of the nation state. In addition, Westphalia formally accepted the reality of a Europe that had fought itself to exhaustion.

On the religious issue – which is what the war started out as in the first place – it granted the same rights to Calvinists as it did to Lutherans and Catholics, in Germany. On the constitutional issue – which the war had evolved into throughout the 1630s – it greatly strengthened the European Princes, by granting them the right to sign foreign treaties by making all imperial legislation conditional on the Diet’s approval.

Consequences

German manufacturing and trade collapsed, while sowing and harvesting ceased. Estimates from a third to a half of 20 million German speakers died. A notable example is in Magdeburg, which had 20,000 inhabitants in 1620, and 450 in 1649. France gained land deep into Germany, in Alsace and the Rhine basin. Germany itself was left ruined, and it took over a century for it to recover.

Further north, Sweden arose as a northern European powerhouse, gaining some north German territories along the way.

In South-West Europe, Spain was also left a shattered realm, decoupled forever from the Holy Roman Empire.

In Bohemia, a Swedish general wrote home saying that ‘I did not expect to find the kingdom so lean, wasted and spoiled, for between Prague and Vienna, everything has been razed to the ground and hardly a living soul can be seen on the land.’

One of the few prosperous countries to emerge was Protestant Prussia. Under the leadership of the Hohenzollern family of the ‘Great Elector’ Friedrich Wilhem (r. 1640-88).

The thoughts of Pope Innocent X (r. 1644-55) sum up the Papacy’s thoughts on Westphalia (although this is possibly because the Papacy was unrepresented, for obvious reasons), as he denounced it as ‘null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane and devoid of meaning.’

Afterthoughts

A map of battles and territories won
and lost during the Thirty Years War

The Thirty Years War has been called by some historians a ‘European Civil War’. This is not far from the truth, as almost all of the European states – at some point from 1618-48, were involved, although clearly some were involved more than others. Another reason why this conflict is so significant, and widely remembered on the continent, is because of Johannes Gutenberg’s invention in the fifteenth century: the printing press. Images of tortured civilians were widespread, and thanks to the printing press, actual depictions of the levels and scale of torture could be witnessed by civilians, not just those soldiers actively taking part in the conflict.

Historian Norman Davies argues that the Thirty Years War can be seen as an age-old German conflict between Emperors and princes, but that it can also be seen as “an extension of the international wars of religion between Catholic and Protestant, as an important stage in a Continental power struggle involving most of the states and rulers of Europe.” Personally, I am inclined to agree with this: that it initially started out as a war of religion, and eventually developed into the aforementioned power struggle.

Thus, a suitable conclusion would be to turn to the words of acclaimed historian of the Thirty Years War, Veronica Wedgwood, who summarised thirty years of conflict in two sentences: “[The combatants] wanted peace and they fought for thirty years to be sure of it. They did not learn then, and have not learned since, that war only breeds war.”

Thanks for reading!

Glossary

I thought that a sort-of ‘glossary’ might help to consolidate some of the terms/families used within this post.

Bavaria: During the Thirty Years War, the Electorate of Bavaria was an independent electorate of the Holy Roman Empire.

Bohemia: A kingdom in the Holy Roman Empire which covered the majority of the modern-day Czech Republic.

Calvinist: A major branch of Protestantism which follows the teachings of a French preacher, John Calvin (1509-64).

Defenestration: the act of, literally, throwing someone out of a window.

Diet: The General Assembly of the Imperial Estates of the Holy Roman Empire.

Elector Palatine/Palatinate: A territory in the Holy Roman Empire whose rulers served as prince-electors of the Empire.

Habsburg: One of the major European royal houses, who continuously occupied the throne of the Holy Roman Empire from 1440 until 1740, and again from 1765 until its dissolution in 1806.

Holy Roman Empire: A multi-ethnic complex of territories in Western and Central Europe which was considered by the Catholic Church as the only legal successor of the Roman Empire during the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period.

Jesuit: A religious division of evangelical missionary Christianity, founded on the approval of Pope Paul III in 1540.

Lutheran: Another major branch of Protestantism, which follows the teachings of the Reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546).

Bibliography

Norman Davies, Europe: A History (2014)

Simon Jenkins, A Short History of Europe (2018)

John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History (2011)

Eduard Wagner, European Weapons and Warfare 1618 – 1648 (2014)

https://fivebooks.com/best-books/thirty-years-war-peter-wilson/

Please feel free to share this blog with your friends and family!

Charlemagne

Personal Profile

Born: 2 April 742, 747 or 748, Frankish Kingdom (modern-day France)

Died: 28 January 814 (aged 65, 66 or 71), Aachen, Francia (modern-day Germany)

Reign: King of the Franks (9 October 768 – 28 January 814); King of the Lombards (10 July 774 – 28 January 814); Holy Roman Emperor (25 December 800 – 28 January 814)

Marriages: Desiderata (m. c.770, ann. 771); Hildegard of Vinzgouw (m. 771. d. 783); Fastrada (m. c.783, d. 794); Luitgard (m. c.794; d. 800)

Children: Pepin the Hunchback, Charles the Younger, Pepin of Italy, Louis the Pious; amongst others (roughly 18 in total)

Dynasty: Carolingian

Early Life (c.742 – c.770)

A depiction of Charlemagne on a
denarius coin, dated c.812

Charlemagne, also known as Charles the Great or Charles I, was King of the Franks from 768, King of the Lombards from 774, and the Holy Roman Emperor from 800. But how did he get there in the first place?

First of all, there is debate about when Charlemagne was even born. It is often assumed that he was born in either 742, 747, or 748 – somewhere in the Frankish Kingdom (likely Aachen, in modern-day Germany). His father was the first Carolingian king of the Franks, Pepin the Short (r. 751-68). The debate largely lies around the fact that if he was born in 742, he would have been born out of wedlock – something which was completely unacceptable for a king in medieval Europe. Either way, Charlemagne was born at some point during the 740s in the Frankish Kingdom!

Unfortunately, there is not much evidence from his early years. He was the eldest child of Pepin the Short and Bertrada of Laon, and had a younger brother, called Carloman, who co-ruled with Charlemagne (as Carloman I) from 768-71.

Fast-forwarding to that tumultuous period in the late 760s, Pepin the Short had decided, before his death, to split his kingdom between his two sons, Charlemagne and Carloman. This was never going to work when two sons were both fighting for the crown, and neither wanted to rule jointly with the other. After roughly three years of quarrelling with one another, Carloman was dead. A contemporary report suggested that he died of a bad nosebleed. Ignoring the suspicious circumstances surrounding his brother’s death, Charlemagne wasted no time in seizing what he viewed as his rightful lands: in 771, he took away lands from Carloman’s two young sons (who were not old enough to challenge him for it), and combined it with his own inheritance, which was mostly in modern-day Belgium and Germany. Charlemagne was ready to take on Europe.

Early Conquests (c.770 – c.780)

Europe in 771, three years after
Charlemagne was crowned King of
the Franks

Arguably the most adventurous years of Charlemagne’s life had just begun. He started by uniting together the two halves of his father’s realm, gifted to himself and Carloman (Neustria and Austrasia in medieval European geographical terms). Ultimately, this stretched his Frankish kingdom from the Danube River to the Atlantic Ocean in an East-West direction, and from the Netherlands to Provence in a North-South direction.

His next major campaign took him south towards Italy, where he conquered Lombardy, south of the Alps. From winter 773 to summer 774 he managed to consolidate a hold over this kingdom and was crowned King of the Lombards on 10 July 774. Upon seeing how easy he made this mission, contemporary chroniclers reported that other Germanic tribes beyond the Elbe River in Central Europe paid homage to Charlemagne, although many still remained pagan.

The following year, in 775, Charlemagne begun the long conquest of Saxony, arguably his hardest. He eventually succeeded in converting the Saxons to Catholicism, but it took him until 804 to fully subdue them.

The ‘Father of Europe’ and Courtly Life (c.770 – c.800)

Charlemagne's Empire. The yellow
sections are further expansions to the
Empire he inherited.

Amongst all of the fighting (which he almost constantly did throughout his reign), Charlemagne’s court was sophisticated. For instance, it was in this court that the ancient term of ‘Europe’ was revived: the Carolingians needed a term to describe the section of the known world which they dominated, and more importantly they needed a term which distinguished themselves from the pagan lands of Central and Eastern Europe, from Byzantium, or from Christendom as a whole. Historian Norman Davies argues that “This ‘First Europe’, therefore, was an ephemeral Western concept which lasted no longer than Charlemagne himself.” Even so, this plays a large part in why Charlemagne is often referred to as the ‘Father of Europe’.

In addition to this, Charlemagne was an enthusiastic builder. He built palaces across his realm, including at Nijmegen, Engelheim and Aachen. He also built bridges over the Rhine at Mainz, and linked together the tributaries of the Rhine and Danube with a canal known as the Kaisergarb. Additionally, he was a pioneer of Romanesque architecture north of the Alps, bringing architectural influences from Lombardy across the mountain range into North-Western Europe; he sought to make his capital of Aachen a ‘northern Rome’, according to historian Simon Jenkins: he based his palatine chapel on St Vitale in Ravenna, and begged the Pope for mosaics from Ravenna to adorn it.

The Frankish Empire from 481 - 814
(Charlemagne's death). Note how much
it expanded during Charlemagne's reign
from 768-814.

He was also a patron of education and learning, yet despite this, he himself was illiterate. One of his most famous scholars was an English monk, Alcuin of York (735-804). Alcuin became head of Aachen’s palace school, as well as Charlemagne’s spiritual adviser, and presided over what came to be known in history as the Carolingian Renaissance.

Charlemagne (as we shall see later) governed the Church as an integral part of his domains. Some historians call him hypocritical for some of his actions, because while he forbade his bishops to engage in battle personally, the way he spread the Gospel through kingdoms he conquered was through ‘fire and sword’.

Holy Roman Emperor and Later Years (c. 788 – 814)

After conquering Bavaria in 788, the West of Charlemagne’s empire was relatively secure, and it gave him chance to turn his attention to problems elsewhere, notably in the east.

Over in Byzantium, the Emperor Leo IV had died, leaving his consort Empress Irene in charge. And this was the main problem – Irene was sitting in as consort until her son Constantine VI was of age (he was still a minor), and the main problem in the West was that a woman was in charge of the Byzantine Empire – something unfathomable to most medieval kings!

She also called the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, which condemned iconoclasm (the use of imagery and icons in the Catholic Church) as heretical. Charlemagne was irritated that he himself had not been called to the Council, and demanded an explanation from Pope Adrian I. Before Adrian could respond, Charlemagne ordered his theologians to produce a defence of iconoclasm, which came to be known as Libri Carolini. Due to this, his relationship with Adrian I was strained, but the cloud eventually passed, and both were on civil terms by the time of Adrian’s death in December 795.

Yet this is where the main even begins. Adrian’s successor, Pope Leo III (not to be confused with the Byzantine Emperor of the same name), was not of noble birth, and some even spread rumours that he was an Arab. As a result, Adrian’s family and friends tried to have him eradicated: on 25 April 799, a group led by the late Pope’s nephew attacked Leo while he was on a solemn procession in Rome. They failed in their mission of blinding him and cutting off his tongue – something which would have forced him to resign as Pope – but left him unconscious instead. Luckily, he was rescued by passers-by and friends, and removed to safety at Charlemagne’s court in Paderborn.

The two became good friends, and on Leo’s return to Rome in November 799, he found himself facing charges of adultery, simony and perjury. Charlemagne was suspicious of these wild accusations, and moreover questioned how could a Pope be tried? How could God’s voice on Earth be tried, and by whom? Normally, the answer would have been the Emperor in Constantinople – but Irene was on the throne. A woman passing judgement on a man in medieval Europe was incomprehensible. So as far as western Europe was concerned, the Throne of Emperors in Byzantium was vacant. That Irene, a woman, even sat on it in the first place showed how far the Roman Empire had fallen in the eyes of the Pope and Charlemagne. 

By the time Charlemagne reached Rome in November 800, he had been firmly reminded by Alcuin that he had no more authority to pass judgement on the Pope than Irene did, but he also knew that while the accusations remained unsettled, Christendom lacked both an Emperor and a Pope. On 23 December, Leo solemnly swore on the Gospel that the accusations were untrue: remarkably, the assembly accepted the claim and his name was cleared. Two days later, on Christmas Day 800, Pope Leo III laid the imperial crown on Charlemagne’s head, and crowned him Holy Roman Emperor.

Pope Leo III crowning
Charlemagne as Holy
Roman Emperor (this is
a portrait from c.1325-50)

But why did Leo give Charlemagne this title of Holy Roman Emperor? It seemed at the time that Charlemagne would prove a more useful ally than distant Constantinople – should accusations come against the Papacy again, then it would be easier for the accusing party and the Papacy to sort it out in Central Europe, rather than waiting for a response from an Emperor on the fringes of Asia. Historian John Julius Norwich argues that Leo III created Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor because “the Byzantines had proved so unsatisfactory from every point of view – political, military and doctrinal – he would select a Westerner: the one man who, by his wisdom, his statesmanship and the vastness of his dominions…stood head and shoulders above his contemporaries.” 

Yet for all the pomp and ceremony, and the imperial title being given to him, various chroniclers and historians alike have since argued that it was a complete surprise to Charlemagne that he was awarded this title: Charlemagne’s biographer, the Abbot Einhard, claimed that the coronation occurred spontaneously: despite this argument, regardless if it was spontaneous or carefully rehearsed, the coronation happened and left a Catholic Emperor in the West – independent of Byzantium – and the once barbaric Frankish kingdom which Charlemagne had inherited from his father in 768 was now upgraded, dependent on the Pope for its new status.

Moreover, Einhard also wrote that Charlemagne claimed that he never would have set foot in the basilica had he known that Leo would place the imperial crown upon his head, and to an extent this argument rings true: for the rest of his life, Charlemagne continued to style himself as Rex Francorum et Langobardorum (King of the Franks and the Lombards), rather than as Holy Roman Emperor.

The remaining years after Charlemagne’s coronation saw more conquests, further imperial expansion and surprisingly little involvement in religious matters, despite his title. Charlemagne died peacefully on 28 January 814, in Aachen, where he was buried. His eldest surviving son, Louis the Pious, succeeded him.

Legacy

Few people have gone down in history as well as Charlemagne. To this day, he still inspires people from all walks of life (the indie band Blossoms released a song called Charlemagne in 2015, suggesting his legacy is still going strong today).

Despite the claim that he was uninterested in the imperial title, he nevertheless took his role seriously: the renewed Empire was intended to be both Roman and Christian. Historian David Starkey writes that “[Charlemagne] was soldier of the Faith and reformer of the Church, on the one hand, and, on the other, restorer of the Roman Empire, whose inheritance of law, language, literature, architecture and forms of government he was determined to revive.”

Moreover, despite the fact that the Eastern Roman Empire was reduced to Asia Minor and its Mediterranean outposts, Charlemagne, as the secular head of western Christendom, was the first figure since the Roman Emperors to span at least the heart of Europe. His legacy as Holy Roman Emperor (and Pope Leo III can also be thanked for this) stood the test of time: the Holy Roman Empire was a prominent feature of Europe’s political geography until it was dismantled by another Frenchman, Napoleon, in 1806. So for over 1000 years, this title stood strong, and survived numerous European dynasties.

Charlemagne was also canonised – although this process was not fully complete until 1165, as his sexual conquests were deemed no less extensive than his imperialistic ones: this might be something to do with the fact that he had eighteen (legitimate!) children with ten wives…not sure though!

To sum up his legacy in simple terms, I will turn to his epitaph on his tomb at Aachen (which is sadly lost now): it read:

“Beneath this tomb lies the body of Charles, great and orthodox Emperor, who nobly increased the kingdom of the Franks, and reigned prosperously for forty-seven years.”

And thus ends the story of the Father of Europe himself, Charlemagne. Thanks for reading!

Bibliography

Norman Davies, Europe: A History (2014)

Simon Jenkins, A Short History of Europe: From Pericles to Putin (2018)

John Julius Norwich, The Popes: A History (2011)

David Starkey, Crown & Country: The Kings and Queens of England – A History (2010)