The first emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was Charlemagne, king of the Franks. Charlemagne conquered the lands that later became known as the Holy Roman Empire. In Italy, he helped to defend Rome against a barbarian invasion. In return, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne “Emperor of the Romans” in 800 A.D.

In the 900s, a powerful German king, Otto I, gained control over all of Germany, Austria, and northern Italy. He helped the pope put down a rebellion in Rome and was crowned “Roman Emperor.” The word “holy” was not added to the emperor’s title until some years later.

The Normans

In an attempt to stop Viking raids on his territory in northern France, King Charles the Simple gave some land to a group of these northern invaders in 911.  Their new home was called Normandy ( the land of the northmen) and their leader Rollo became its first duke.  The Vikings fought on foot but the Normans as they became known, copied the French use of mounted knights and became formidable fighters.  When King Edward the Confessor of England died in 1066 his cousin Duke William of Normandy claimed he had been promised the English throne.  So he invaded with an army.  He defeated the new king, Harold, in battle near Hastings and brought knights castles and the feudal system to England.  At about the same time Norman adventures invaded parts of southern Italy and Sicily.

Image via Wikipedia

Making a knight

At about age seven a boy of noble birth was usually sent away to be fostered at a nobleman’s household, often that of his uncle or a great lord. He became a page and learned how to behave and ride.  At 14 years of age he became a knights apprentice and served as a squire. He was taught how to handle weapons and how to look after his master’s armor and horses.  He even went into battle with the knight helping him to put on his armor and assisting him if he was hurt or unhorsed.  He learned how to shoot a bow and carve meat at the dinner table.  Successful squires were knighted when they were around 21 years old.<iframe src=”http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=hubp0e225-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0756630037&ref=tf_til&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr” style=”width:120px;height:240px;” scrolling=”no” marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″ frameborder=”0″></iframe>

Charlemagne, or Charles the Great, was among the greatest of military leaders in the Middle Ages. He conquered much of western and central Europe. As king, Charlemagne revived the political and cultural life that had disappeared with the fall of the Western Roman Empire four centuries before.

The Frankish king Charlemagne was a devout Catholic who maintained a close relationship with the papacy throughout his life. In 772, when Pope Adrian I was threatened by invaders, the king rushed to Rome to provide assistance. Shown here, the pope asks Charlemagne for help at a meeting near Rome. After receiving an appeal from Pope Adrian I for help resisting the Lombards in northern Italy, Frankish king Charlemagne invaded Italy and captured the Lombard capital of Pavia. In 774 he was crowned king of the Lombards, as shown in this painting.

Finally, under the rule of Pepin the Short and his son Charlemagne, the Carolingians of the 8th and 9th centuries conquered vast territories and combined large portions of Western Europe into a single unit. In 800 Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne emperor of the Empire of the West, a region later known as the Holy Roman Empire.

This system of land holding and service may have formed the basis of European feudalism.  By the year 540 AD the Franks ruled most of the old Roman province of Gaul (modern day France). ‘Franks’ means ‘free’ as the Franks of Gaul were free of taxation.

The ruling family, known as the Merovingian dynasty is named after Clovis’ grandfather Merovaeus.  Clovis became a Christian and made Paris his capital city. The Holy Roman Emperor, Charlemagne, was king from 768 to 814.  After his death the Frankish empire began to break up.

                        Charlemagne left a huge, lasting impact on European and western civilization. He made expansion, religion (Catholicism), and education normal things in Europe and America. He essentially recreated much of the Western Roman Empire. He also helped with illiteracy in his empire. He made literacy not just for men of the church. He was able to do all of this with the help and support of the friends he made in the Catholic Church.

            The largest effect he made was making expansion a regular thing in Europe. While Charlemagne only started with a small part of France and Belgium, his empire expanded to a large part of the Western Roman Empire at its peak (notes). To gain this territory, Charlemagne went on 54 war campaigns in 45 years of his reign (notes). This effect was through many empires in Europe, France, Holland, England, Spain and many others during the age of discovery in the 16th and 15th centuries (British Empire). They all had their territories in places like the Americas, Asia, and Africa. The British Empire was one of the largest; they owned all of Canada, Australia, the eastern United States, India and large parts of Africa and Asia (British Empire). The idea of expansion was hugely used after Charlemagne. It might have been his descendents that went on to form the French empire, also included in his territory was Normandy. The Normans invaded and conquered England in 1066 (notes), the descendents of them went on to form the British empire that was so large that was mentioned earlier, Charlemagne might have been the father of the two greatest empires of the early modern era.

Charlemagne also had a close relation with the Catholic Church. While Charlemagne was expanding his nation into an empire he was a protector of the pope. He continued his father’s policy toward the papacy (Charlemagne) and removed the Lombards from power in Italy. This happened when Desiderius, king of the Lombards invaded the pope’s lands (Charlemagne). The pope asked for help from Charlemagne, Charlemagne promptly came because he was a devout Catholic; he chased the Lombards out, then besieged their capital and in about a year had conquered the Lombards (Charlemagne). This made him very popular in the pope’s eyes and very well liked throughout Italy. The loyalty is shown many times throughout Europe in later years. One time when it is shown is when Henry the 8th separated his church from the Catholic Church and formed the Church of England (Henry VII of England). This led to many wars later on between Protestants and Catholics after Henry was out of power. The Thirty Years’ War was also fought between Catholics and Protestants in and around Germany (Thirty Years’ War). This shows the loyalty to the Catholic Church that was formed after Charlemagne showed his support.

While Charlemagne wasn’t so ahead of his time or capable of having everyone go to school, he opened schools for nobles. He made scriptoria for copying old Latin texts, many of the surviving texts of Latin are from Carolingian scholars who copied them to preserve the writing (Charlemagne). He also promoted the liberal arts in his courts, and making sure his children were well educated. Charlemagne pushing education is why the schools of the Western world are the best in the world, and why most kids can go to school. All kids in western Europe, the United States, and Canada go to school, most of the schools are quality places of learning. This is opposed to the rest of the world such as Asia, Africa, and the Middle East where a smaller percent of children go to school then in the western world, even less graduate. ” Only 57% of African children are enrolled in primary education, and one in three of those does not complete school.” (Cozay). This is compared to the United States where 85% of Americans complete Secondary school (United States Education).

Charlemagne was the father of Europe. He made expansion, church relations, and education the standard in Europe for many heroes and still mostly today. He made the largest empire in Europe since the Roman Empire, and educated many people. He was a great leader, and an even better military leader.

“British Empire.” Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 13 Sept. 2010. Web. 13 Sept. 2010. 
     <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire>.

“Charlemagne.” Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 12 Sept. 2010. Web. 13 Sept. 2010. 
     <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemange#Church_reforms>.

“Education in the United States.” Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 12 Sept. 2010. Web. 13 
     Sept. 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/  Education_in_the_United_States>.

“Extreme Povery in Africa.” Cozay Through Their Eyes. COZAY GROUP, 2010. Web. 13 
     Sept. 2010. <http://cozay.com/>.

“Henry VIII of England.” Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 7 Sept. 2010. Web. 13 Sept. 2010. 
     <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England>.

“Thirty Years’ War.” Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 27 Aug. 2010. Web. 13 Sept. 2010. 
     <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years’_War>.

From the beginning of Charlemagne’s reign, his faith had proven to be the gravitational force behind most of his actions. In the preface to his capitularies, Charlemagne declared himself as a humble helper and defender of the Holy Church (Glazier & Hellwig 2004). A declaration he did not take lightly. Providing both a challenge and a purpose for his military conquests, more than 39 out of his 53 distinct campaigns were undertaken primarily under these motives. Of these, 18 were devoted solely against the Saxons, encompassing 7 years of Charlemagne’s northeastern campaigns (Glazier & Hellwig 2004). Yes no doubt, his motivations may be questioned. Nevertheless, Charlemagne’s missions were officially documented attributing to the Church. In so far as Gregory VII tells us, Charlemagne did place the conquered Saxon territories under the protection of St Peter; with a similar tribute sent to Rome (Glazier & Hellwig 2004).

Evidently, these missions of faith have translated into one of the most successful and extensive empires of the Dark Ages. His success however, can not only be attributed to his own making. His formation of power pledged to the papacy was generously reciprocated by the Holy See. Amidst the turmoil of the Dark Ages, the Pope (and the Holy See) was widely recognised by Western Christendom in all supremacy (Glazier & Hellwig 2004). For in 774 Pope Adrian I conferred on Charlemagne his father’s dignity of Patricius Romanus. What this meant for Charlemagne (and his empire), was the protection of the Roman Church – in all its rights and privileges (Glazier & Hellwig 2004). An advantage later cleverly played by Charlemagne: the 787 invasion of Bavaria by Tassilo (the Duke of Bavaria) was never resolved at battle. This matter instead, was settled by Pope Adrian using the threat of excommunication (should Tassilo continue to persist in rebellion). Naturally Tassilo submitted (Glazier & Hellwig 2004).

The Church’s influence was further exhibited in 800. It must be understood that, throughout the middle ages, no western emperor could be legitimately considered unless he had been crowned and anointed at Rome by the Pope (Glazier & Hellwig 2004). The papal act of Charlemagne’s coronation on Christmas day thus made official what had already been established – Charlemagne as the Western Emperor.

Charlemagne’s religion was not only confined to the expansion and retention of his empire, but extended also to matters of its administration. His state was divided up into hundreds and counts (for ease of administration), for which hundred-men and counts were made responsible (Glazier & Hellwig 2004). In the great national parliament held every spring, counts and bishops would sit side by side; the matters discussed so closely intertwining the spiritual and the temporal that, there was difficulty in ascertaining whether the proceedings were that of a parliament or synod (Glazier & Hellwig 2004). Above all the spirit of his legislation was religious, using as a basis the ecclesiastical canons of the church (Glazier & Hellwig 2004). There were also instances in which laws were made at the suggestions of Popes or bishops. Unfortunately for his people, his devotion to the clergy also extended to the enforcement of tithes (for their support and the dignity of public worship) (Glazier & Hellwig 2004).

Even though Christianity greatly influenced Charlemagne’s reign, still there are mixed opinions on its effects on Europe throughout the Dark Ages. Charlemagne’s reign brought with it a stability that enabled classical learning to flourish and be transmitted. Much of which had perished save for the work of Christian monks gathering, preserving and copying manuscripts (Glazier & Hellwig 2004). One could argue that living in the light of Christ, these monks became the protectors of Europe’s literary culture – for things might have been different had religion not existed.

However, Charlemagne’s quest to save the souls of all pagans brought with it much bloodshed. There is no basis for one life being more precious than another based on religion. In this context Charlemagne’s religion can hardly justify the execution of all those pagans. Therein lays the dilemma. It is widely known that the Dark Ages was a period of common violence, and from his military conquests Charlemagne established a period of peace and stability. Arguably this could have prevented many deaths. The question therefore arises of whether the ultimate act of saving a life, justifies the taking of another. The answer to that question consequently differs with every entity.

On a positive note, Christianity did provide an avenue for education. The already existing monasteries and cathedrals enabled Charlemagne to expand their reach of knowledge to the general public. This was further reinforced by a decree in 787 that left them obligated to keep these institutions open for the study of liberal arts and scripture (Glazier & Hellwig 2004). Furthermore, Christianity also fuelled the flames for musical development within this period. Charlemagne, devoted as he was to the improvement of liturgy, strove to advance ecclesiastical music. The result: the establishment of church-song schools around his state (Glazier & Hellwig 2004). From today’s perspective this may seem commonplace yet, this was a rare occurrence in the Dark Ages.

Therefore on its surface, religion did seem to have an overall positive effect on the Carlovingian empire. One could argue that religion was good. Nonetheless, perhaps religion can neither be seen as good nor bad. Certainly the monks had not taken vows in the protection of literature. Possibly, being isolated meant that they did not have to deal with the daily worry of being killed – thereby enabling them to focus on other matters (such as literature). A faithless king could also have accomplished these things had he similar Christian values. Likewise, believers may not practice their faiths, and faithless people may do good deeds. How religion manifests itself ultimately depends on the individual.

In summation, Christianity has greatly influenced Charlemagne’s empire in three major ways. Through its expansion: Charlemagne’s quest to convert pagans created a widespread empire; through its retention: the Holy See lent some of its influence in negotiations with insurgents; and through its administration: legislations were made based on Church canons and bishops were equally as powerful as the counts at national parliaments. It was also deduced that though religion had a good impact on Charlemagne’s empire, religion by itself was neither good nor bad but rather, its manifestation depended entirely on the individual.

Bibliography

Glazier, M & Hellwig, M 2004, ‘Charlemagne’, in The modern Catholic encyclopedia, 2nd edn, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, USA.

Glazier, M & Hellwig, M 2004, ‘Christendom’, in The modern Catholic encyclopedia, 2nd edn, Liturgical Press, Minnesota, USA.

The Dark Ages 2007, DVD recording, The History Channel.

Image via Wikipedia

     Charlemagne had hammered out a European empire in the eighth and early ninth centuries. It included France, Belgium, the Netherlands, northern Italy, much of Germany, Austria, and a strip of land in Spain called the Spanish March.

     However, Charlemagne’s descendants did not have the sufficient military prowess and diplomatic skill, and disunity prevailed in the once unified empire. Fraternal civil wars were a significant disintegrating factor. In 843, the Treaty of Verdun ended a prolonged conflict between three grandsons of Charlemagne. It divided the empire into an eastern and western section plus a long strip down the middle generally known as Lotharingia.

     Charlemagne had conquered the Saxons. However, a Saxon king proved to be the first successor of Charlemagne who truly deserved the title of emperor. His name was Otto I, generally styled Otto the Great. He ruled over the eastern section of the empire from 936 to 973.

     His coronation took place at Aachen, the city in which Charlemagne liked to reside when he was not absent on one of his many campaigns. This coronation site portended the character that Otto’s kingship would assume. Like Charlemagne, Otto I fought vigorously to maintain and expand his empire.

     At this time, the area under Otto’s hegemony was ruled by powerful vassals called dukes. The chief duchies were Franconia, Bavaria, Swabia, Lorraine, and Otto’s own duchy of Saxony. Otto frequently had to put down rebellions of his vassals. For example, two years after he became king, Eberhard, the duke of Bavaria, proved recalcitrant. Otto forced him into exile and gave the duchy to someone else.

     However, Otto did not always depend on military might. He often gained his ends by diplomacy. He managed to bestow important dukedoms on loyal relatives, sometimes using marriage as a diplomatic tool.

      He also gained the support of the Catholic Church, which at that time was not only a spiritual force, but also a secular power as well. Powerful bishops and abbots became his vassals, and he saw to it that important ecclesiastical posts were occupied by his relatives and other people upon whose loyalty he could depend. Moreover, he granted bishoprics and monasteries large tracts of land so that his ecclesiastical vassals would have the strength to give him effective support.

     One further element contributed to Otto’s success. To establish and maintain an empire, he needed a source of wealth. Fortunately for Otto, silver was discovered during his reign in a mountain called the Rammelsberg. As a result, he had ample means to meet imperial expenses.

     As a result, while Henry the Fowler, Otto’s father, could not effectively exercise his royal authority outside his duchy of Saxony, Otto I successfully asserted his authority over the duchy of Lorraine and the other duchies of the eastern portion of Charlemagne’s empire.

     Otto also scored other successes in northern Europe. He brought the west Frankish regions of Burgundy and Arles under German influence. Bohemia acknowledged Otto’s suzerainty, and Otto brought various Slavic tribes under his control.

     He also made himself master of northern Italy. Lothaire of Arles, the former ruler of this region, had died in the year 950; and Berengar of Ivrea usurped the kingship. Adelaide, Lothaire’s widow, asked Otto to intervene. In response, Otto crossed the Alps into Italy, defeated Berengar, and married Adelaide. (His first wife, Eadgyth of Wessex in England, had died.)

     Perhaps Otto’s most significant accomplishment was his victory in the Battle of Lechfeld in 955. The Magyars had migrated from the east and began to ravish German lands. The German potentates united behind Otto, and he led them to victory. After the Battle of Lechfeld, the Magyars adopted a more peaceful posture, and established a kingdom in Hungary.

     Up until 961, Otto was Duke of Saxony and King of Germany. But then, Pope John XII crowned him emperor. Otto was now the acknowledged successor of Charlemagne.

     When John XII proved unworthy, Otto deposed him and made Leo VIII pope. Otto’s ecclesiastical policies were initially successful, but the intrusion of civil authority in church affairs occasioned a bitter controversy about a century later.

      Otto died in 973 A.D. His son Otto II became his successor.

References

World Book Encyclopedia

Wikipedia

InfoPlease: Otto I

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0837070.html

Absolute Astronomy:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Otto_I,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

Succession laws with the Franks and the Germans were quite easily understood: If you were male, sane in body and mind, and connected to the Royal family, you were electable as king. The connection of a contender for the crown could come through his father, his mother, or his wife as a descendant or as the widow of a king. The nearer the connection, the better the claim, but nothing could be taken for granted in the electoral process. The easy rules usually meant that any succession became quite murky. It could become even murkier when the point of legitimacy of birth was in contention.

Louis III of Lower Burgundy had an easy succession. As the only son of King Boso and a descendant of Charlemagne’s through his mother and with all his sisters married outside of Lower Burgundy, his succession was uncontested. Through his mother, he would later add Italy to his realm (for some time) and become Emperor (for some time).

Louis got married to Anna of Byzantium, an illegitimate daughter of Emperor Leo VI. After the marriage was divorced and annulled by the Pope, he married Adelheid, a daughter of Rudolf I. He had two sons, Charles Constantine and Rudolf, but no daughters. Louis was blinded during the rather pointed discussions held in Italy, but remained king of Lower Burgundy despite that.

This state of affairs shows the quandary the nobles of Lower Burgundy were in. When normally an incapacitated king would have been deposed without compunction they didn’t find anybody eligible for the job. Charles Constantine was about four years old, the king had no brothers, and his sister was married to King Rudolf I of Upper Burgundy, who didn’t care to get involved.

The most powerful noble of the realm took up the regency for Louis the Blind: Hugo of Arles. He was descended from Charlemagne through his mother Berta, but she was an illegitimate daughter of King Lothar II of Lorraine. During his regency, he married Willa, the sister of Louis and widowed Queen of Upper Burgundy. By that time, though, he was king in all but name, and didn’t want to change the set-up.

When Louis died in 928, Hugo was occupied in Italy where he had been crowned king. Returning to Lower Burgundy to press his claim for the throne validated by his Royal descent as well as through his marriage to Willa, he was rejected as a descendant of an illegitimately born mother. His contestant Charles Constantine was also rejected as his mother had also been born illegitimately and even worse, he himself was considered illegitimate as the marriage of his mother to his father had been annulled.

The second son Rudolf just disappeared from history, but is known to have died after the succession. It is unclear if he was too young or disabled to contest the other’s claims, but in any instance, his claim would have been rejected as well, as his mother was an illegitimate daughter of Rudolf I. The only legitimate claimant would have been King Rudolf II of Upper Burgundy, but he didn’t claim as he had been handed a resounding defeat in Italy by Hugo two years earlier.

The outcome of this curious situation was that Hugo continued to rule the country as regent with no one there to hold the regency for. He started to style himself King of Lower Burgundy anyhow until he exchanged his bogus claim on Lower Burgundy against Rudolf II real claims on Italy in a treaty in 933. It is one of those ironies of history that Rudolf’s claim to Lower Burgundy was accepted by the nobles and Rudolf’s grand-son would again become King of Italy while Hugo’s line disappeared.

The idea of forming a British Free Corps from amongst prisoners-of-war to fight for the Germans was the brainchild of the Old Etonian John Amery, the son of the British Cabinet Minister Leo Amery, and the brother of the Conservative MP, Julian.

He had always been the runt of the Amery litter. Never able to hold down a job he was always going cap-in-hand to his father for money. He alienated his family further when aged just 21 he married the former prostitute and gold-digger, Una Wing. He was unable to maintain his new wife in the lifestyle she demanded. In 1936 he was declared bankrupt and fled to France to avoid his creditors. He and Una separated soon after.

He had long been intoxicated with the doctrines of National Socialism, and while in France he made the acquaintance of leading fascists including Jacques Doriot. Trading on his name as a means of remuneration he bolstered this further by awarding himself with a medal he claimed to have won whilst fighting for Mussolini’s Italian army in the Spanish Civil War, though he had never so much as been to Spain. Following the fall of France in June, 1940, he remained in the Vichy zone but over time became disillusioned. It was Doriot who suggested he travel to Germany and pitch his idea of recruiting a British army to fight for the Germans on the Russian Front. So, in September, 1942, he left Vichy France for Berlin. He impressed Hitler with his enthusiasm and was given permission to recruit amongst British prisoners-of-war. He decided to call his new Unit the rather grand name of The Legion of St George.

He visited various prisoner-of-war camps where he distributed literature and addressed the soldiers directly. He was dismissed by most as a pitiful even laughable figure. Men who had put their life on the line in the service of their country were not impressed with this man of privilege, with his cut-glass accent and somewhat hysterical anti-Bolshevik tone, telling them that they should betray their homeland. For all his endeavours he recruited just 2 men, only one of whom, Kenneth Berry, would ever go on to to join the British Free Corps. Not long after he was removed from the recruitment drive and instead went on to broadcast for the Nazi’s. His idea for a British SS Division, however, stuck.

The Germans established two “Holiday Camps” for those British and Dominion troops who had expressed an interest in the propaganda and they believed might be likely recruits. They were known as Detachments 999 and 517. Both camps were run by English speaking guards. What they needed, however, was a Briton to act as a conduit and a recruiting agent. They chose Sergeant John Brown of the Royal Artillery. Brown, captured at Dunkirk, had prior to the onset of war been a member of the British Union of Fascists (B.U.F). He seemed the perfect choice. They couldn’t have been more wrong, for despite his political affiliations, Brown was first and foremost a patriot. He used his position to collect intelligence which he then tried to send back to England, and to procure contraband for the troops in the camp which they could then share amongst themselves.

Thomas Haller Cooper, however, was a very different proposition. Like Brown, he had been a member of the Hammersmith Branch of the British Union of Fascists. He was a true believer who in 1939, travelled to Germany to experience National Socialism for himself. When war broke out he chose to remain and enlist in the German army rather than return home. He admitted to the British soldiers in the camps that he had been a combat soldier and had committed atrocities against Jews and Soviet prisoners-of-war. He was the only Briton to receive a German service award. 

Whilst Brown was determined to make the British soldiers stay in the Camps as comfortable as possible, Cooper, and a New Zealander, Roy Courland, a fierce anti-Communist who had been captured in Greece, were busying themselves trying to proselytise the inmates and recruit any who had been members of the British Union of Fascists or had right-wing leanings. They also reported any who displayed left-wing sentiments. This caused great resentment amongst the prisoners to the point where there was almost a riot and a senior British Officer had to be brought in to calm the situation.

Despite the Germans best endeavours the recruitment drive was not going well. By December, 1943, the future British Free Corps still had only 8 members. It seemed that the British soldiers who volunteered or agreed to attend the Camps were happy enough to enjoy the ample food, real coffee, plentiful supply of cigarettes, and more relaxed atmosphere, but had no intention of signing up to fight for the Germans. 

It was decided to adopt a more aggressive policy. The focus for recruitment now switched from long-term prisoners-of-war to the recently captured who might still be in a state of some confusion and nervous about what to expect. Cooper now used tactics such as the isolation of those he thought vulnerable, sleep deprivation, blackmail, bullying, and outright intimidation. But he was little more successful.

On 1 January, 1944, the British Free Corps formally came into existence. By this time the Germans had cropped their ambitions. It was decided that once the total troops recruited hit 30 they would be deemed a unit fit for combat and would be assigned to a Viking Panzergrenadier Division. They would be commanded by a German Officer, and though they would be members of the SS they would not have to have the blood tattoo; they would also not have to swear the oath of loyalty to Hitler, and would receive the same pay as German troops. They were then provided with the standard SS uniform with a Union Jack embroidered on the right sleeve.

Following D. Day on 6 June, 1944, many in the BFC began to see the writing on the wall. Those who had supposedly been committed to the cause such as Courland and Sgt Frank MacLardy, who had been a B.U.F District Secretary back in England, now sought transfers to non-combat units. Others such as Eric Pleasance, a civilian from the Channel Islands, who admitted that he had only joined to have a good time, and Pte John Wilson, who was only looking for the opportunity to womanise, couldn’t get away quick enough. When the number of recruits appeared about to hit the magic 30, 14 immediately requested to be sent back to the camps, whilst others feigned illness.

The simple fact is that the British Free Corps never fought anyone. Whereas, the French Charlemagne Division, 2,185 strong, were some of the last troops fighting in the rubble of Berlin, the Dutch joined in their droves, and foreign SS Units did the Germans dirty work on the Eastern Front, attempts to woo the British were a farce. When the Germans thought they had found a British Officer to lead the Unit he turned out to be schizophrenic and was later repatriated back to England. There simply wasn’t that strain of fanaticism in the English psyche. Only 59 ever joined the British Free Corps, and its peak membership at any one time was 27. In the main they were chancers and freeloaders who when they were returned to the camps were ostracised by their fellow prisoners who heartily disliked them and were disgusted by their activities. Even so, MI6 had a file on every one of them.

John Amery, thin, frail, and intoxicated, was captured in Italy at the end of the war. Returned to Britain he was charged with High Treason. His embarrassed family abandoned him. Accepting of his fate he surprised everyone when, on 28 November, 1945, he pleaded guilty as charged. At the end of the precedings that lasted only 8 minutes he was sentenced to death. He was hanged at Wandsworth Prison on 19 December. Albert Pierrepoint described him as the bravest man he ever executed.

Thomas Haller Cooper, captured at the wars end was tried for treason and sentenced to death. This was later commuted to life imprisonment of which he served 15 years.

Roy Courlander, rather than fight fled to Belgium, and tearing off his BFC insignia surrendered to the first Allied soldiers he came across. He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment of which he served 7 before returning to New Zealand where he died in poverty.

Frank MacLardy, was sentenced to life imprisonment later reduced to 15 years.

John Wilson, who only joined so he could skirt-chase was sentenced to 10 years.

Kenneth Berry, who had been captured as a 14 year old deck-hand after his ship had been sunk and had been the first member of the B.F.C was sentenced to just 9 months. His age was taken into consideration and he had since earnestly expressed his regret at having participated.

All the members of the B.F.C except one, Private Freeman, who was able to prove that he had only enlisted so he could undermine the Unit, received sentences of varying degrees. The British Government, embarrassed at the moment of victory, merely wanted to brush the entire episode under the carpet. In many other countries, as traitors, they could all have faced the prospect of execution. 

Who was Charlemagne?

Charles I, King of the Franks was known as Charlemagne. He founded the Holy Roman Empire and was regarded by many people as the ideal ruler and is still well known today. Charlemagne was born in 742. His father was King Pepin, son of the famous soldier, Charles Martel, and founder of the new Frankish ruling family. In 768 Pepin died, leaving his kingdom to his some Carloman and Charlemagne. When Carloman died, Charlemagne was left in sole control. A very tall man, convinced of his own destiny, Charlemagne had learned much from his ruthless warrior father. He led his armies out of the Frankish homeland of France into what are now the Netherlands, Germany and Italy. He was a Christian and wherever he conquered non-believers, such as the Saxons of Germany and the Avars of Hungary; he forced them to become Christians and to take part in mass baptism. There was more to Charlemagne than simply waging wars of conquest. Although uneducated, he had great respect for scholarship. His capital at Aachen was the glittering centre of his empire, with a splendid palace and heated swimming pool, but the emperor himself dressed and lived simply. He spoke Latin and Greek, had books read aloud to him and invited famous scholars like Alcuin of York to his court to train teachers and to transcribe ancient Roman Writings. Charlemagne’s position as Europe’s strongest leader was recognized in 800 when the Pope crowned him Holy Roman emperor. After he died in 814, his empire was weakened by attacks and civil wars, and was soon split between his three grandsons. However, his fame made him a legend and the Holy Roman Empire that he founded lasted in one form or another until 1806. Charlemagne’s life story was written by a scholar named Einhard, at the request of the emperor’s son, Louis the Pious. After Charlemagne’s death, many stories were written about him, for example a skirmish during his retreat from a campaign in Spain in 778 became the subject of the medieval epic poem The Song of Roland.