Talk:Massacre of Verden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Move[edit]

A better English translation of "Blutgericht" would be "Bloody Verdict". If there is agreement on this, I suggest to rename/redirect this page to "Bloody Verdict of Verden".Cosal 18:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it definitely sounds better, at any rate. :bloodofox: 19:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
no, this isn't a better translation: Blutgericht is a legal jargon term, and it will not do to just choose an ad-hoc literal translation. I've discussed this with Lupo, and I think we had some evidence that 'blood court' is used in English literature (although rarely) - if in doubt, we should resort to using the untranslated Blutgericht. dab () 07:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. We must not make up our own translations, that would be original research. Srnec 05:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Exile[edit]

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

Well, two points. First, "Massacre of Verden" is a horrible translation of the German "Blutgericht"; it's not even a translation. "Gericht" means court or judgment or verdict. The verb "richten", from which the word derives, means to judge, to pass verdict. So "Bloody Judgment of Verden" would be the best title for the article. Second, any serious literature about Charlemagne's Saxon Wars will discuss this event, as it was the final straw that pretty much broke Saxon resistance (whether or not the number of people killed was exaggerated or not, and whether or not they were executed or merely exiled). But it will rarely be referred to as the "Massacre of Verden"; no wonder you can't find it. Cosal (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sentence necessary?[edit]

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

Legacy section a bit odd[edit]

It says- "In 1935, Heinrich Himmler ordered Wilhelm Hübotter, a noted Nazi-landscape architect, to build the Sachsenhain (Grove of the Saxons), a monument consisting of 4,500 large stones in Verden, to commemorate the alleged massacre.[2] Supposedly, each stone came from one of 4,500 villages in Lower Saxony, and is today noted as an example of pseudoarchaeology: it is "probably the most comprehensive work of ersatz prehistory ever undertaken."

I looked at the reference and it appears to be a typically pithy quote from Johnathan Meades, the food writer and architecture broadcaster, who isn't necessarily an authority such that one can affirm "it is". However foul the nazi regime was, Himmler's construction would appear to be a memorial or monument to a real recorded historical event (even if there is some argument that it may not have happened, as with many historical events, e.g. events in religious history. So far as we know, this event probably did happen, so Himmler was just creating a memorial to it. There was no intention so far as I can see to pass of this new monument as being ancient. What is "ersatz"?82.71.30.178 (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  • _Ersatz_ means 'substitute'. I agree that this part is a bit flimsy. I can't see any 'ersatz' or the intention to create something as 'a substitute' to a supposedly (???) non-existing prehistory? There's no ersatz and we're dealing with history, not prehistory. So, while a critique may constitute original research, it would probably best to leave out the citation as it's a rather obscure opinion or statement and hardly relevant for understanding what Himmler did. --Simha (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The intention is probably to discredit Himmler. However, that's hardly necessary as it should be clear that nazis misused the event for their own ends (ultimately mass murder on a vastly greater scale). Hence it's rather counterproductive to criticize Himmler in that way. Anybody who knows anything about Himmler knows the really relevant crimes he commited. --Simha (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nordmannia[edit]

The wlink Nordmannia redirects to Satyrium (butterfly). Can someone pipe the link to where Widukind fled? I'm not sure what "Nordmannia" refers to (Scandinavia? Normandy?).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?[edit]

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

Bias[edit]

In its current form, this entry bases its strong conviction that this event actually happened as described entirely on the opinion of one single historian. As this appears to be a controversial issue, more voices should be added. The German version of this page for example presents a much more nuanced picture, emphasizing that there is doubt about the location, the number of victims and whether the massacre happened at all. IMO an encyclopedia should certainly reflect this. This has nothing to do with exonerating historical figures for their actions, which anyway have to be viewed in the context of their times.Drow69 (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

We can always expand this article, but the German article is a mess, unfortunately typical of German Wikipedia articles on related material. It flatly states theory as fact and seems to be under the influence of voices stemming from the Third Reich and beyond (recent edits here even left out the eventual celebration of Charlemagne under the Third Reich). This isn't how to write an objective article and fortunately we're not under the same spell here. Barbero is a specialist scholar on this matter and we present his survey and his results neutrally, but there's always room for more. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure what you mean exactly. The German article certainly needs a lot of work, but the introduction specifically notes the conflicting views of historical events. Most of the entry is focussed on the debate between historians - and this section states no facts but simply describes views. There is an admittedly exaggerated weight on works published in the 1930s. However, to some degree that may be unavoidable as the controversy about the event probably peaked under the Nazi regime, with various leaders siding with either the executed Saxons (as "true Germans") or with Charlemagne. From conversations with people who have read a lot about the early middle ages in Germany, I get the impression that Barbero is an exception rather than the rule, as most historians today seem to be quite sceptical of the massacre's historicity.Drow69 (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)