YASNAYA POLYANA FREE PRESS

The Chronicles of the Slavs:  A Lesson in Violence:

While many scholars look to Western Europe and the crusades for examples of violence in the Middle Ages, often they overlook other areas of the European continent that were equally as violent.  One of these areas is northwestern Europe, located around modern Germany all the way north to Scandinavia and Russia.  These regions were full of Slavic tribes whose disputes and warfare were more than equal to that of their western neighbors.  Slavic violence was unique due to the fact that it incorporates the different elements of Roman Christianity, Scandinavian military forces and eastern “Barbarian” tribes all vying for the physical and spiritual control of the Slavic lands.  This time of war and peace in the Slavic lands was documented in a chronicle by Helmold of Bosau, a Saxon priest in the Slavic region.  His chronicle, The Chronicle of the Slavs (800-1117 A.D.) is the foremost source for the history of the Slavic people during the Middle Ages.  In it there are examples of peace, warfare and the conquest by both pagans and Christians.  Throughout this interesting compilation of historical events there is the constant theme of violence.  This paper will seek to analyze this violence and compare it to other examples present in other parts of the medieval world.  The litany of examples of this violence include barbarianism, warfare, siege, revenge and familial feuds.  While the chronicle is an example of a primary source, it is also very important to scrutinize the work for perceived biases brought on by the author, a Christian priest.  Violence in the Middle Ages is often portrayed as excessive by contemporary authors and films, however to truly understand this era and its violence there is no source that can compare to a primary chronicle like that provided by Helmold of Bosau.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            One of the most important themes that seem to resonate not only in the Slavic lands but across the entire world of the Middle Ages is the idea of barbarianism.  Barbarians have been portrayed as vicious people who sole desire was to conquer and destroy.  They were the ultimate plague on a civilized society.  In the Medieval world the main foe of the barbarians oft tended to be the Christian societies and their attempt to convert them to Christendom.  There are many examples of this conflict that arises between the Christians and barbarians in the chronicle, starting from the very genesis.  This chapter explains the locations and paints a geo-political map of the Slavic lands.  The geography of the Slavic regions was named by the Christians for these “barbarous” people.  “It is called the Baltic Sea, after the manner of the baldric, it extends in a long sweep through the Scythian regions to Greece.  It is also named the Barbarian Sea or Scythian Lake from the barbarous people whose lands it washes.  Many nations are seated about this sea… Along the southern shore dwell the Slavic nations (Helmold 45).”  This is the first example of the use and association of the label barbarian with the Slavic people.  However, there are better examples that explain why, to Helmold, these people through their actions should be labeled heathens and barbarians.  His description of the Slavic tribe Rani gives examples of their heathen pagan ways.  “With them error was at home and Idolatry had its throne… The Rani fell away from the faith, forewith drove out the priests and worshipers of Christ, and turned religion into superstition.  Putting a creature above the Creator, they worship as God, St. Vitus, who we recognize as a martyr and servant of Christ.  Not a barbaric state under Heaven abominates Christians and Priests more (Helmold 61).”   Clearly these Slavic tribes are seen as barbarians by their rejection of the Christian faith.  Their violence in their overthrow of the faith is what the priest Helmold labels as barbaric. This idea will be returned to later in the paper.  Perceptions of barbarians seem to have been completely biased toward those who were writing a history of events that transpired between barbaric and civilized people.  Two articles seem to exemplify this bias.  The articles are: Violent Behavior and the Construction of Barbarian Identity in Late Antiquity by Ralph W. Mathison and Perceptions of Barbarian Violence by Walter Pohl.  These articles look at violence and non-violence that was perpetuated by both the barbarians and the civilized nations.  Pohl first looks at the idea that excessive violence was not purely of a barbarian nature, but also of a civilized, in this case Roman, nature.  The massacre of barbarians by the Romans was by no means a terrible thing. 

           

            “Under certain circumstances, only a dead barbarian was a good barbarian.             Roman armies had often pursued a similar policy in barbarian lands.  In the Slavic        countries north of the lower Danube, Emperor Maurice employed a systematic       search-an-destroy strategy.  In the autumn of 602, he even ordered an army to      spend the winter in barbarian lands, when the trees were bare and the Slavs would             not be able to hide in woods (Pohl 16).”

 

This does not seem to be an army that is sent to eliminate violent people, but rather an army that hunts down foreign people in their own lands to be ride of a people that are unknown and perhaps “backward” to them.  This is not the only example the article gives for seemingly excessive violence against the so-called barbarians.  The article goes on to say that not only was the slaughtering of “violent” barbarians justified by many Romans, in fact the number of these barbarians was often exaggerated for moral and political effect. “Slaughtering potentially violent barbarians hardly needed an excuse.  Theophylact certainly agreed with the slaughter of Gepids.  He even grossly exaggerates their number, for it is “unlikely that as many as 30,000 of them lived in three villages (Pohl 16).”  Clearly, the policy seems to be that it is best to slaughter these people because they have a supposed violent culture.  This culture of paganism and woodsman, including an unknown and seemingly harsh language and violent religious practices, was viewed as irrational and vile.  This idea is further advocated later in the article.  “Themistius, to quote just one example, equated the relationship between barbarians and Romans to that between irrationality and reason.  In Late Antiquity, such images could help to ease the tension between moral pretensions and a troubling reality of violent outbursts.  If Romans were bad, barbarians were worse and some barbarians were even more savage than others (Pohl 19).”  This quote is not just from a regular citizen of Rome, but a great politician and orator who undoubtedly was of the mindset of the Roman people.  A speech like this from such an illustrious figure shows the low level of civilization that the Romans thought of the barbarians.  Essentially his argument seems to be, irrational violence is associated with the barbarians and rationality and government is associated with Rome.  This idea of superiority over a violent culture was something the Romans had to do to keep up their own idea that their culture was right and just.  “In several ways, therefore, the Romans constructed an image of barbarian violence that served their literary, psychological, and political purposes.  Barbarian violence was the antithesis of Roman “civilized behavior.  It allowed Romans to feel good about themselves… Simply put, the Romans needed their violent barbarians and they manufactured an image that suited their needs (Mathisen 34).”

            While these quotes seem to propose the idea that the “civilized’ Romans were more violent than perhaps they seem, it does not prove that the barbarians were not violent people whose only thoughts seemed to center around slaughter and plunder.  However both articles seem to have this question covered. There are two examples that seem to paint the barbarians in a different, even more “civil” light than their Roman counterparts.  They both describe incidents where so-called “barbarians” acted in ways that seem contrary to their portrayal by the Romans.  “To look at things the other way around:  what did barbarian raiders do when defenseless Romans were at their mercy?  When the Avars took Sirmium in 582, according to John of Ephesus, they gave the almost starved inhabitants so much food that many of them died because they ate too much (Pohl 16).”  One can hardly blame the barbarians for the death of people after they overfed them, rather in this case ignorance perpetrated a grisly consequence.  This event shows the barbarians as almost a humanitarian people, a view that would be the exact opposite of the contemporary view of heathens and connotation of the world “barbarian”.  Another example is of military discipline, an area were one could expect perhaps a more “barbaric” approach.  “For example, in 583 Guntram threatened to execute one of the commanders who had not been able to restrain the army.  So army discipline was not unique to the Roman Empire, nor was it completely charitable, even for the Romans (Pohl 19).”  This again shows an aspect of Roman “civilized culture” that was also used by the barbarians, an aspect (discipline) which legitimizes the armed forces of a nation, rather then them just being a unruly mob.  Of course this is not to say that there was an absence of violence committed by the barbarians, and that they were peaceful and civilized people.  There are a myriad of examples of massacre and sacking credited to the barbarians, an example that is given in the papers is of the sacking of Milan and the massacre of all the men and the enslavement of all the women and children.  This is simply to show that the biases that the “civilized” world tried to place on people of an unknown and very different culture for their own purposes and to remain in their own eyes the righteous people suppressing the evil and uncivilized.

            While this seems to establish some idea that perhaps the label barbarian might not necessarily be justified, the violence described above was not necessarily violence between Christians and barbarians, as such is seen in the chronicles.  This bias towards barbarians and pagans actually seems to increase when it comes to the conflict with Christianity.  Christian bias is seen in every aspect of the Middle Ages.  The idea that Christianity brings peace to any area, including “civilized” areas and especially pagan areas, is even seen in Rome itself. 

            “We get closer to the perceptions of barbarian violence in the sources with another example.  Several contributions, in the volume Fifth-Century Gaul: A   Crisis or Identity? Suggest that the intensity of anti-barbarian rhetoric in the period does not seem to correspond to changes In the actual level of violence.              Orosius offered a counterpoint to the increasingly strident anti-barbarianism, when he recast the whole narrative of Roman history to fit his perception that   pagan Rome had always been more violent, unjust, and ruthless than Christian Rome (Pohl 24).”

 

So even in areas that had previously been described as civilized Christianity felt the need to make their image into one that is a culture of peace, and the preceding pagan culture one of increased violence.  This idea is described in the Chronicles as well.  The first example comes from the “conversion” of the Saxons by Charles. 

            “Of all the zealous propagators of the Christian religion who through the merit of their faith have won praiseworthy eminence, Charles shines out ever the most      glorious, as a man to be extolled by every writer and to be placed in the front rank       of those who labored for God in the northern parts.  For by the sword he overcame the most fierce and rebellious Saxon folk and subjugated it to the laws   of Christendom (Helmold 53).”

 

This example shows the defenders of the Christian religion pacify the “fierce and rebellious” Saxon barbarians.  The excerpt above illustrates the very bias that was projected by the Romans towards the barbarians.  The idea of a superior, in this case religious, culture that brings about an improvement to the lives of a lesser culture is prevalent.  The other example again evokes the name of God in relation to the conquering of the Saxons by Charles.  “Although the brave Charles achieved this victory in war, he trusted not in himself but in the Lord God of hosts and attributed his mighty deed to the assistance of His grace (Helmold 54).”  These quotes show necessary dominance of the  Christian religion over the pagans by divine intervention.  They are the saviors of all the pagan populace’s souls, who are in turn portrayed as violent and fierce.   There is no doubt about the bias that is displayed by the priest Helmold in regards to the righteousness of the Christian quest to convert the barbaric masses.

            Warfare was an important part of the Slavic Chronicles. The most important aspect of warfare in the chronicles was siege warfare.  Siege warfare was a tenacious and violent war of attrition.  Many men were killed on both sides, and civilian casualties were plentiful due to both the enemy and starvation.  Often the besiegers would give the cities opportunities to capitulate early on to avoid casualties; some might offer incentives like allowing them to leave the city without being captured in order to secure this surrender.  At times towns would not surrender and offer a long and bloody defense.  Even if they extracted casualties from the besiegers, often they would honor a valiant defense by allowing the soldiers to leave with all their supplies.  “A valiant defence might at the very least win honorable captivity, such as that granted by Philip Augustus to Roger de Lacy and the heroic defenders of Chateau Gaillard in 1204.   Frequently, however, a besieger might publicly acknowledge the fortitude and constancy of his erstwhile opponents by bestowing on them the greatest mark of honor in surrender, the freedom to leave with horses, arms and possessions.”  Clearly honor and courage where very much honored by all warring factions.  This was honorable.  However, courage was not always a ticket to freedom.  This is seen in one case of the chronicles.  The chapter entitled “The Massacre of the Flemings” tells the tale of another case of siege warfare, the “Right of Storm”.  This was the right of the besiegers to sack a town after a reasonable offer was given to the besieged.  In Strickland’s book War and Chivalry, he explains the implications of a garrison who refuses to surrender.  “The repercussions of so stubborn a defence, however, were potentially very grave. Should a town or castle fall by storm after having rejected reasonable terms offered by a besieging commander, the lives and chattels of the defenders were held to be at the mercy of the besieger (Strickland 222).”   He goes on further to explain exactly what the retribution taken against the enemy stronghold might consist of.  “Towns caught up in fighting as well as those besieged directly might be plundered by victorious forces. Henry of Huntingdon noted that, in 1141, the city of Lincoln was seized and plundered by the forces of Robert of Gloucester and Tannult of Chest ‘hostile lege after they had defeated Stephens’s army outside the walls (Strickland 222).”  Refusing an offer of capitulation that was reasonable must have given the defenders of a castle or town great incentive to resist the siege.  Unfortunately for the Flemish people, this did not end up being the case.  The Flemings who defended the castle refused to give it up, even after a reasonable demand for surrender.  “If you are willing to throw the fortress open in peace, with your wives and children and all your household goods, if any one of the Slavs takes anything that belongs to you, I shall restore it twofold. If, however, you are unwilling to go out, nay, if you rather obstinately choose to defend this stronghold, I swear to you that if God favor us with victory, I shall kill you all with the edge of the sword (Helmold 255).”  While perhaps a little hostile, it is undeniable that the demands that were made were reasonable.  In fact they are similar to the demands that would have been given to a stronghold that had held out a valiant defense.  By looking at the texts from the previous quotes, one would be hard pressed to imagine that this would be seen as unfavorable to the defenders, and would almost immediately illicit an instant response in the affirmative.  However, this was not the case, as the chronicle continues by saying “In answer to these words the Flemings began to throw spears and to inflict wounds (Helmold 225).”  The hostile response to this proposal would, according to the texts, lead to one outcome, that of the “Right to Storm.”  The next paragraph explains the action taken by the Slavs “the host of the Slavs, stronger in men and arms, thereupon broke into the fortress with a fierce attack and slew every make in it; and they left of the foreign people not one.  They set fire to the fortress and led into captivity the wives and little ones of the Flemings (Helmold 225).”  This story shows the significance of siege warfare to Middle Age warfare.  To a larger extent it also shows the significance of honor and chivalry amongst opponents.  It shows that enemies are able to recognize valor and bravery.  When this bravery and mutual respect is not reciprocated, however, it was just as easy to rein terror and torture upon an enemy.  While only a portion of Middle Age warfare, it seems to be one of the more important aspects of the Slavic chronicle. 

            Slavic violence was by no means immune from the ideas of revenge and feuds.  In fact much of the violence perpetrated during this period was a direct result from these feuds.  There are two examples that help explain the importance of feuds, one example is personal retribution, while the second is a result of warfare and revenge between two nations.  The first feud deals with the war between the aforementioned Rani Tribe and Henry.  This feud shows the importance of vengeful violence to the Slavic culture.  The feud is rather simple, a death spirals into a war of revenge.  “After that it happened that one of Henry’s sons, named Woldemar, was killed by the Rugiani.  The father, excited as much by grief as by anger at this, determined to seek retaliation.  He sent messengers into all the Slavic lands to bring together auxiliaries, and all who assembled were alike willing and of the same mind that they should obey the king’s commands and make war on the Rani (Helmold 128).”  This case shows revenge that escalates from one death of a noble son to the mobilization of an army in revenge and “retaliation.”  This seems to be a common theme in Middle Age revenge violence.  The rapid escalation of individual deaths to war is a topic that is discussed by Guy Halsall in his essay Violence and society: an introductory survey. He says that the idea of revenge and increased hostility is widespread amongst the Middle Age world.  He states that “In warfare it is possible to see spiraling reciprocal violence, with each attack justified by the one before.  Again this kind of violent relationship is important in drawing the lines on the political map, helping to define identities in the absence of higher, ‘legal’ authority.”  This quote shows the pension for violence that revenge brings on in the Middle Ages.  The second example focuses on individual conflicts.  This is the story of Cruto, A pagan leader who killed Gottshalk, the father of Henry.  This story describes the revenge of Henry upon his father’s murderer.  When Henry became of age, he returned to his homeland to take revenge on Cruto, who had become the ruler.  As he campaigned further and further into the Slavic territory he became more than a mere annoyance to Cruto, who began to fear him.  Finally Cruto called for peace negotiations.  He tried to trick Henry; however his own wife would forewarn his enemy of his deception.  His wife had plans to marry Henry, and a scheme between the two formed.  “To consummate this scheme, at the instigation of this woman Henry invited Cruto to a feast.  As the latter, drunk and reeling with many a potation, left the hall in which they were drinking, a certain Dane struck him with a battle-ax and with one blow cut off his head and Henry took Salvina for his wife and obtained the participate and the land.  He took possession of the strongholds which Cruto had held before and wreaked vengeance on his enemies (Helmold 121).”  This example is of individual violence and revenge.  It also shows the ability to wait for this revenge until the timing is prefect.  Halsall’s article also describes a incident of violence that can relate to this feud.  It is about a young man whose family is killed by a feud and is taken in by the man who perpetuated the murders.  “Sichar pointed out that Charmnesind ought to be grateful to him for slaughtering his relatives for he was now rich on the compensation received.  At this, Charmnesind felt ashamed for not avenging his relatives properly, blew out the lights and dealt Sichar a lethal blow to the head with his ax (Halsall 2).”  This is a similar case of vengeance.  In this case Charmnesind was found innocent because he had taken revenge for his family.  This is a case of legitimized violence that is seen in both Henry’s and Charmnesind’s cases.  In Henry’s he ends up taking over the lands of Cruto, though his military strength might have something to do with this as well, however his killing of Cruto is seen as legitimate.  Charmnesind’s case the courts end up finding him innocent, Charmnesind obtained a second hearing before the king, maintained that he had killed Sichar in vengeance but lost his property in punishment.  Nevertheless he soon received it back (Halsall 2).”  It would appear that in many instances of vengeful violence in the Middle Ages, people were acquitted of wrong doing.  These examples are a great portal into the mindset of one of the quintessential elements of Middle Age violence that is seen in every aspect of the medieval world.  

            Violence in the Middle Ages covered many different aspects.  Different instances of violence can be seen across the entire globe of the medieval world.  The most important written account of the violence in the medieval Slavic lands comes from the priest Helmold’s Chronicles of the Slavs.  This document describes the history of the Slavic lands, and more importantly the many instances of violence there.  The violence described in the chronicles ranged from barbarianism to personal feuds, and in every instance there were sources to analyze these instances.  Barbarianism was one of the most prevalent themes of violence in the chronicle.  However, it is interesting to look at the instance of barbarian violence from the perspective of the Christian priest Helmold, and then sources that describe the ideas of bias against barbarians.  While undeniable that there were instances of violence committed by these pagan Slavic tribes, it also seems that this violence is merely perspective by a member of a “civilized” world and religion.  Siege warfare was a prevalent theme throughout the chronicles.  The Massacre of the Flemings is a prime example of medieval siege warfare.  It shows aspects of a proposal for capitulation, as well as the consequences that a defending army could expect to face if the proposal of an honorable surrender that was bestowed upon them by their besiegers was rejected.  The “Right of Storm” was seen to its fullest extent, and the resulting massacre would appear, based on several sources to be typical of Middle Age siege warfare.  Feuds and vengeance were an extremely important aspect of Middle Age violence in the Slavic lands.  It lead to the overthrow and eventual conquest of the Rani tribe by Henry.  It gave Henry the ability to seek revenge upon the murder of his father and through personal vengeance was able to eliminate him.  Violence was an important theme in all areas of the Middle Age world.  The land of the Slavs was no different.  Through the Chronicles of the Slavs by Helmold of Bosau this violence can be seen from a primary source, the only one of its kind for the Slavs.  Perhaps no region in Europe has underwent such turmoil throughout its recent history than Eastern Europe, yet through the writings of Helmold of Bosau we can see that it is not just a contemporary issue, but one that has been there for a thousand years. 

 

 

Bibliography

 

1. Halsall, Guy. "Violence and Society in the Early Medieval West: an Introductory Survey," in Violence and Society in the Early Medieval West, ed. Guy Halsall (Boydell, 1998), 1-45.

 

1. Pohl, Walter. “Perceptions of Barbarian Violence,” in Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices, ed. H.A. Drake (Ashgate, 2006), 15-26

 

 

1. Mathisen, Ralph. “Violent Behavior and the Construction of Barbarian Identity in Late Antiquity,” in Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices, ed. H.A. Drake (Ashgate, 2006), 27-36.

 

1. Strickland, Matthew. War and Chivalry: The Conduct and Perception of War in England and Normandy, 1066-1217 (Cambridge University Press, 1996).

 

5.    Helmold of Bosau, and Francis Joesph. The chronicle of the Slavs. New York:        Octagon Books, 1966