LOTHARINGIA AND FLANDERS
The central position occupied by ancient Belgium, which had been the
cause of its efflorescence in the first years of the ninth century, was
also the cause of its decadence after the death of Charlemagne (814).
From the competition which arose at the time date the age-long
rivalries between France and Germany and the tribulations of the
territories lying between them, which, though claimed in turn by both
Powers, and including a half romanized and half Germanic population,
were neither French nor German, but possessed an individuality of their
own. If these territories had been widespread and strongly defended by
nature, like ancient Italy in the Mediterranean world, they might have
become the seat of a new European Empire, or at least played the part
of a strong third partner with which both French and German rivals
would have had to reckon. This would have entirely changed the course
of European politics and perhaps greatly increased the chances of a
peaceful and stable regime. As it was, the intermediate country, widely
open in the East and in the West, too weak to resist foreign
aggression, became, at best, a weak buffer State, and, at worst, a bone
of contention between two powerful hereditary enemies.
[_FEUDAL PRINCES_]
The wars and treaties which brought about the division of Charlemagne's
Empire show plainly that the creation of a central Power was doomed to
failure, this third Power being too vulnerable to resist combined
attacks from East and West and being far too heterogeneous to maintain
its unity. The treaty of Verdun, in 843, divided the Empire between
Charlemagne's three grandsons. Charles received France, Louis Germany,
and Lotharius, the youngest, the rich region lying between both
countries and extending from Holland to Italy, including the largest
portion of Belgium, with the title of emperor. After the death of
Lotharius I, his son, Lotharius II, inherited the northern part of his
father's domains, which, for want of a better name, was called "Regnum
Lotharii"--Lotharingia. But both Charles and Louis were already
endeavouring to conquer their nephew's possessions. Soon after his
death, they met at Meersen, near Maestricht (870), where the partition
of his lands was decided, Charles obtaining the whole of present
Belgium, as far as the Meuse. The death of Louis was the signal for a
new conflict. Charles was defeated at Andernach by Louis III (876), and
the frontier between France and Germany was fixed on the Scheldt,
Charles retaining Flanders, Louis obtaining Lotharingia (879). After
the short reign of Charles the Fat, who restored for a few years the
unity of the Empire, these two parts of Belgium remained thus separated
for three centuries. It is important to notice that both included
Flemings and Walloons, and that, on either side of the frontier, there
was a strong tendency not to let Lotharingia or Flanders be drawn into
the circle of German or French policy. The spirit of independence
remained alive, and when, in the eleventh century, political
conditions became more favourable, an entente between the Belgian
princes on both sides of the Scheldt was the natural result of the
weakening of the central power. Such an entente brought about finally,
in the early days of the fifteenth century, the complete reunion of
both parts of the country. So that the history of Belgium, from the
tenth century to the early Renaissance, may be considered as the
history of a small part of France and a small part of Germany, which,
after struggling for independence against their respective masters,
gradually joined hands in order to submit themselves to the rule of
common national princes.
It would be an error to attribute the separatist leanings of the nobles
in Flanders and Lotharingia to national feeling, at a time when this
feeling scarcely existed in Western Europe. No doubt, the resistance
offered by the Belgian nobles to their foreign sovereigns might be
simply represented as the direct effect of the feudal system and of the
jealous pride which every vassal entertained towards his suzerain. But,
if local ambitions became supreme in Europe in the tenth century, we
may at least point out that, owing to the mixed characters of language
and race prevailing in Belgium, and to the peculiar position occupied
by Flanders and Lotharingia, nowhere were those tendencies more evident
than in these distant marches of France and Germany. Just as, at a
later stage, Bruges and Ghent became the most accomplished types of the
independent mediaeval communes, the counts of Flanders and the princes
of Lotharingia offered the most perfect examples of the restless feudal
princes.
The origin of feudalism is well known and is common to all European
countries. It springs from the weakening of central authority, after
the death of Charlemagne, the increasing influence of the big
property-owners and the gradual subordination of the small owners to
the nobles who gave them the benefit of their protection. Its
development was greatly hastened, in Belgium, by the invasions of the
Normans. These were particularly severe in a land which had become,
under Charlemagne, the richest in Europe, and which was easily reached
from the sea, owing to the navigable character of its rivers. They
coincided with the Danish invasions in England and with the
Scandinavian raids on the coasts of Germany and France. It seemed, at
one time, as if the invaders were going to settle in Holland, as they
settled later in Normandy. In 834 they established themselves at the
mouths of the Meuse, the Rhine and the Scheldt, and, from this centre,
pursued their systematic expeditions almost unhindered. Great camps
were organized by them at Louvain and Maestricht, at the farthest
navigable limit of the Dyle and Meuse, where all the treasures of the
surrounding monasteries, churches and palaces were accumulated.
Lotharius II allowed Ruric to establish himself on the lower Meuse, and
Godfried, another Norman chieftain, received Friesland from Charles the
Fat. When the victory of Arnulf of Carinthia at Louvain (891) put a
stop to their activity and compelled them to retreat, the Normans left
behind them only barren deserts dotted with ruins, separated by a
series of entrenched camps where tenants dwelt under the protection of
their masters' strongholds.
[_THE NORMANS_]
The Normans not only hastened the advent of feudalism, they wrecked
Carolingian civilization as effectually as the Franks had wrecked
Belgo-Roman culture. Once more the threads had to be picked up one by
one, and the fabric of European civilization patiently rebuilt, and
once more the Church became the most important factor in this work of
reconstruction and succeeded in preserving the spiritual heritage of
St. Amand. For the third time, she endeavoured to bring charity, art
and culture into a world of violence and barbarism. After civilizing
the Pagan Celts in the third century and the Pagan Franks in the
seventh, she had now to civilize the Christians of the tenth century,
and this was not destined to be an easier task.