On Halloween

History on Halloween

As a Christian historian, one of my pet peeves is people that find a non-Christian aspect of one of their culture’s traditions, condemn it, and those whom continue to enjoy it. When Halloween rolls around I’m inundated by various social media crusaders, and old people that still participate in email chain letters about Christians worshiping Satan one night a year. 

The truth is, “Satanism” is a recent religion which developed long after Halloween, and is more about sexual promiscuity and substance abuse, than Lucifer. 

That it is not to say that evil, or evil religious practices/worship are new, they are in fact far older than the Christian faith itself (See the Old Testament).  All religions of note recognize the existence of good and evil, though gods are often capable of both, and have since man’s creation. 

(That flapping sound you just heard was my credibility flying out every atheist’s, reading this article, window)

Most ancient, we’ll say, Pagan faiths are/were polytheistic:  permits worship, recognition, and supplication to many gods and goddesses. Some deities were kind, even jovial, and some were more sinister, even downright evil. (I believe this ancient, universal struggle of man to find his god, to be strong evidence in favor of the Gospel narrative.) The early church struggled to make its message relative to such cultures, as it spread throughout the Iron-age world.  The trick in missions is, as it was then, to make the Gospel of Christ relate to a culture without altering, or changing the message itself.  It can often be challenging to walk the line between Acts 15:10 and Revelation 22:18, and in the process things can get a little weird...

There’s a term you may remember from high school geography class, Cultural Diffusion. The exchange of goods, people, and ideas inevitably leads to changes in culture. When Rome for example, conquered one barbarian tribe and encountered another, there were more than harsh words and blows exchanged.  Culture is: religion, tradition, customs, food, art, and etc.  All of which, were exchanged in ancient times through both war and trade. When Constantine made Matt 28:16 government policy, he was more concerned with unity than with policing specific observances.

Rather than completely eradicate the competing religions and traditions, The Church simply “Christianized” them.  For example: Valkyries became angels, and shrines to Freyja, became shrines to Mary, Mother of God.  Holidays were Christianized as well, festivals meant to garner favor from the gods on winter solstice became, Christmas. (The whole tree thing was a remnant of a pagan Nordic/German tradition and didn't catch on in the states or the UK, until after WWI)  Many cultures venerated the dead/made sacrifices to the deities of the underworld. The Church’s solution was simple, yet brilliant!  They called on Christians to celebrate the Saints that had passed on.  All Hallow’s Even, (or eve) was followed by All Saints Day. 

 The American version of All Hallows Even/eve (Halloween) came from Ireland.  The Irish didn’t have much of a “Ghost” tradition until the Vikings/Normans showed up but they believe in fairies, or the sídhe (“Shee”) as they call them. Their priests or Druids, (we call witches) like most shamanistic faiths, worshiped nature.  They also believed in the existence of another world, where mystical beings, shape-shifters and such existed, and occasionally crossed over. The Irish Halloween, is the Christianized version of the celebration of the festival of Samhain, not the Samhain that witches and weirdos celebrated as below:

(If your Halloween looks like this, you're a witch/weirdo)

According to Irish lore, on the night of Samhain, our world and the “otherworld” (Fairyland) opened up and its inhabitants (good and bad) crossed over.  To placate the more mischievous fairies, clever Irishmen would build great fires, make lanterns from gourds, and wear masks. 

When the Potato famine and the ever antagonistic English displaced millions of Irish in the 1800’s, many sought refuge in the U.S.  It wasn’t long before everyone in the states started playing dress up, telling spooky stories, and eating sweets on the evening before a religious holiday they never heard of.  So if you aren’t worshiping Satan, dancing naked around a bonfire, or sacrificing animals on Halloween then you aren’t following an evil tradition, just a mix of several silly traditions that have been Christianized, diffused, corrupted, and passed down through our nations fascinating and diverse history.  So grab your Shrek or Gingerbread man mask, and have a good time with your kids!

Conclusion:

 To me Halloween is hardly a holiday, it's like Presidents' Day... Whenever that is....  I don't celebrate/participate in it, but I don't care if anyone else does either.  A wise man once told me: "when in doubt, glorify God."  If what you're doing, doesn't serve our calling, it's not required and if it causes sin to occur, stop it. I don't believe dressing up causes sin, but if you feel convicted, don't do it. BUT remember that if we judge our piety by the standards of those silly emails floating about, we may as well stop going to church on Sunday, throw out our calendars, Christmas presents, and Easter baskets...  Oh wait… You didn’t know we celebrate Christ’s resurrection on a pagan deity’s day?  

Believe it or not, we use a pagan calendar that was later made MORE pagan by a monk, that in another time would’ve been burned as a witch.  Aaaand it was all approved by the Pope!  There are non-Christian aspects to much of our culture but that doesn't make us bad Christians, it makes us human.  So my brothers and sisters, let’s focus on God and not fight over man made traditions. 

 I’ve included the breakdown of the calendar below:

Our pagan days of the week:

On Perigrinus, Part IV: Heroes-The Bouillon Brothers-Godfrey & Baldwin

Bouillon Brother #2: Duke Godfrey, Flayer of Fatimids

1

          Duke Godfrey of Bouillon, French Godefroi de Bouillon   (born c. 1060—died July 18, 1100, kingdom of Jerusalem [now Jerusalem, Israel]), duke of Lower Lorraine (as Godfrey IV; 1089–1100) Brother of Eustace III, and a leader of the First Crusade, who became the first Latin ruler in Israel after the capture of Jerusalem from the Muslims in July 1099.

Being the middle child he had to earn his fame by fighting for his king, the self-proclaimed Holy Roman Emperor. 

When the call for crusade came, his Norman blood boiled at the thought of someone else earning glory, and plunder! He promptly convinced his brothers, Eustace and Baldwin to help raise a mighty host and devote their combined strength to a good cause selling his castle and lands in the process. It was the knightly version of philanthropy!

He distinguished himself as a powerful and intelligent leader, able to find common ground with his rivals, and local Muslim and Armenian Christian rulers.  I was going to list something about his abilities as a warrior, but ALL of the knights I’ll be discussing were at the top of their class.  They were some of the best martial arts experts in the world, the professional athletes of their day.

And yes, they even had super fans!

He rose to prominence as the supreme commander of the crusading princes, primarily after Antioch but unquestionably after his role in the fall of Jerusalem.

Despite his faults, and though it took more than a little convincing, he saw to the continuation of the march to Jerusalem while others chose to peruse their own interests.  Godfrey certainly, had his own plans, evident by the many schemes and detours which strained his alliance between himself and the other Normans.  He also managed to maintain cooperation with the other princes, filling the void at least to some extent, left by Adhemar’s death. 

Along with his brothers, and Tancred, he successfully stormed the walls of Jerusalem and took the city.  Despite the tumulus relationship with Raymond, Godfrey became the first Duke of Jerusalem.  Shortly after the princes selected Godfrey as supreme commander of the city, they all united one final time, to defeat the Fatimid Caliph’s army and solidified the Kingdom of Jerusalem. 

Godfrey died not long after the battle that secured the Crusader presence and his own kingdom, in 1100.  Scholars debate his COD, but most believe it was caused by a prolonged illness.  It was likely caused by the slow working venom of the last Saracen witch or warlock he slew…  Records of his passing remain lost to most “scholars,” but I have it on good authority that he died, gazing over a field littered with the bodies of his conquered foes.

Bouillon Brother #3: Baldwin I, King of Jerusalem

1.      Baldwin I, byname Baldwin of Boulogne, French Baudouin de Boulogne  (born 1058ish?—died April 2, 1118, Al-ʿArīsh, Egypt), king of the Crusader state of Jerusalem (1100–18) who expanded the kingdom and secured its territory, formulating an administrative apparatus that was to serve for 200 years as the basis for Frankish rule in Syria and Israel. Like the other Normans, he was known for his relatively just treatment/dealings with people of ALL faith backgrounds, so long as it suited his purpose…

One of my least favorite members of the Crusade; he was a shrewd man, great tactician, and like his brothers, deadly in the field.  He is perhaps unduly cast as the most opportunistic and selfish of the knights.  His sullied background stems from his questionable methods during the acquisition of Edessa, which went something like this:

      While on a mission with Tancred to secure strongholds to protect the main army’s flank, he             was adopted as son and heir of the Armenian Christian ruler of Eddessa and his wife.   Not                    long after the bizarre adoption ceremony concluded, an angry mob swarmed the old man and              his wife.  The lord was killed in the fray and Baldwin assumed command of the city, even took            an Armenian Wife.  Historians are suspicious of such convenient regime changes because mob            assassinations were a common way for nobles to dispose of other nobles without soiling their              own reputations. 

Another incident throwing doubt on Baldwin’s exalted reputation comes from Tancred, another of my favorite knights (of all time).  Tancred was quite certain that his re-enforcements (some 400 knights) were ambushed and executed by Baldwin, whilst on their march to Antioch.

Lord Baldwin showed his true Ahole colors again when Antioch was secure, and he no longer needed the support of the Armenians, he shipped his Armenian wife off to a convent,

and married some other chick.  Though he was an important asset to the Crusader Army, and well-loved as King of Jerusalem, it is my opinion that he was everything Hugh the Great wished he could be: King of the Douche Bags.

*Because I decided to introduce the Crusader Princes by order of importance, Hugh will be discussed later… Much, much, later….

Baldwin’s death was one of the most unfortunate of the Crusader Princes:

   While fishing with some buddies, don’t ask if they used live or artificial!  These guys were              knights!  Not just any Sir Joe Tinhat mind you, these guys were knights knights. They spear-              fished crocs and hippos in the Nile with their lances. Seriously…

Unfortunately the river dragons had fled the area that day, so they had to settle for lancing fish.  After eating the fish Baldwin believed that his meal had caused an old stomach wound to open, and he died on his way back to Jerusalem in 1018.

His death was mourned by ALL, (accept his Armenian ex-wife) even his enemies were sad to see him go.  Despite my opinion of him, I must acknowledge that he was one of the greatest rulers that region ever had. Ever! 

·        He had fantastic diplomats

·        Kept order in the region

·        Created and maintained alliances that few rulers have held since, and they paid him tribute! (a              knight’s version of extortion)

·        His enemies were absolutely terrified of him (Many believed that he would eat them)

·        Maintained, and increased trade

On Perigrinus, Part IV: Heroes-The Bouillon Brothers-Eustace III

          

Part IV: Heroes-The Bouillon Brothers-Eustace III "The Noble" or just "Zack"

In A.D. 1096 there were no nations, only kingdoms made up of competing lords.  The most powerful kingdoms were not the ordered nation states, like that of today.  Medieval Europe was comprised of unstable realms that expanded and contracted with every generation.  When Pope Urban gave the call for crusade, the two most powerful kings (of France & Germany) had been excommunicated so the burden/opportunity to lead fell to their most powerful subjects.  

 One such group of powerful leaders was a unique trio of brothers who "took up the cross" together.  They would go on to   ...SPOILER ALERT ...  win themselves a kingdom.  

 This week I'll be introducing the character profiles of the Bouillon Brothers:

 First up: Eustace III, Count of Boulogne (1060-1125AD)

 Eustace III (The name was cool back then, it was like Zack back in 1992!) succeeded as Count of  Boulogne in 1087.  Though not as well-known today as his younger brothers are, he was the eldest  and in my opinion, the most "knightly" of the three. 

 I imagine he looked something like this:

 These brothers hail roughly from the nation known today as Belgium and parts of France.  They  were subjects of the German King or “Ze HOLY ROMAN EMPEROR!” (as Heinrich IV would’ve  certainly called himself.)

 Though subjects of the HRE

  (Holy Roman Empire-  consisted of all modern day Germany, large parts of other countries,    including German occupied Italy/Rome. > Google "anti-pope" for more info), 

the brothers' ancestry was distinctly Norman.  Their father fought alongside William at Hastings, the battle that transformed William the Bastard of Normandy into King William I the Conqueror, a much more palatable title…

(The Saxons, and my ancestors the Celts however, still used his former title in their conversations, and likely bestowed it on every other Norman as well.)

Germanic nobility, like their French counterparts, often had difficulties with sibling rivalry, especially when it came to transfers of power.  The Vikings/Normans by comparison had slightly healthier relationships with their family.  Godfrey and his brothers, are a testament to that distinct Norse cultural tradition of literal “brothers in arms.” 

Zack was a valiant knight, skilled both in war and administration.  He was also loyal and honorable some of his most notable actions were:

• He supported Robert’s claim to the English throne in 1088, because he believed it to be the will of King William I.  Certainly not because he believed the throne was in more capable hands with Robert Dufus, than it was with his younger, more intelligent brother, William Rufus. (He later changed is name to Robert Curthose, don't bother Googling it, the previous interpretation of his middle name has since been lost to history)  >.>
• Antioch: When many fled or literally died of despair, He backed his friends and brothers in battles where they were hopelessly outnumbered, and championed a cause that seemed all but lost.  He was part of the A-Team that stormed Antioch (we'll discuss this later), and he accompanied Raymond to deliver Jerusalem from their most recent conquerors. ("Deliver" was apparently a relative term then, as the population suffered more sacking/pillaging than most of the previous conquered cities) 
• He returned to his kingdom after fulfilling his pledge to reclaim the Holy Land, and never sought to expand his power there.  Though he did attempt to assume the title King of Jerusalem after the death of the Baldwin brother, by the time he reached the Mediterranean sea, Baldwin's successor had assumed the throne and contemporaries say that the succession came as a great relief to the old knight.

Post crusade Bio:

After fulfilling his oath, he returned to Europe to administer his domains.  He married Mary of Scotland, daughter of King Malcolm III of Scotland, and Saint Margaret of Scotland. That’s right, he married the daughter of a Legend and a Saint!  Eustace and Mary had one daughter, Matilda of Boulogne.  He died,  at a ripe old age of some such number I can't recall, and historians probably don't know for sure anyway.