This is kind of a strange lead-in, but my friend and I were
discussing one of my favourite movies. ‘The Last Valley’ came out in 1971 and
stars Michael Caine and Omar Sharif, certainly two of the best actors…ever.
I highly doubt very many readers have seen it. It’s hard to
find or at least was until the internet came along. It’s one of the very few
English speaking movies concerning The Thirty Years War and its view of the war
is pretty cynical. Generally I’m a fan of pretty dark movies and this one
certainly is no exception. It’s not for everyone, but some of you (if you’re
able to find it) will feel like you’ve found a buried gem.
If you like the movies of the period….the David Lean films, Dr.
Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia, The Bridge on the River Kwai…all those
epic-feeling movies….but this one with a John Barry soundtrack…then you’ll
appreciate it.
In the movie we see displays of religious fanaticism, a lot
of brutality and the whole sceptical nature of the war…men who in their
fighting demonstrate with their lives and actions that they don’t really
believe in what they’re fighting for to begin with. Some of the characters
openly express religious doubt.
Hollywood certainly doles out bad history and a lot of
anachronism… often in the form of reading modern values into the past. ‘Braveheart’
comes to mind…historically one of the most egregious misrepresentations of
history I ever recall seeing.
Anyway, some readers might find my response to be of
interest, helpful, or something worth pondering. So I decided to slightly edit
and share it.
My friend recently emailed me and asked…
What
about the anti-religious secularism of the two chief protagonists, even
assertive atheism on the part of the Captain? Is that historically realistic,
or just the director showing us the 17th century through his modern eyes? I
know that sort of thing was around at the time, but so open and blatant,
reducing the entire Catholic-Protestant squabble to mere religious
fanaticism?
To which I replied:
I do think
there's some accuracy to that. While no doubt there were many true
believers...and probably more so at the beginning of the war....certainly by
the end of the war, there was a rampant and growing scepticism at work in
Europe. When you read about Tilly, Wallenstein and so many others....they were
hardly in it for the religious causes.
Marxist historians
of course want to emphasize and hence reduce the causes to economic, political
and sociological motivations. That too is a reductionism. People were fighting
as is the case in most wars, for many different reasons. But just because some
people were fighting for this or that 'faith'....there were just as many (if
not more) who were tied up and motivated by the other reasons. Or as is most
often the case, a combination of some or all of these factors.
Most historians
will acknowledge that the Wars of Religion from 1520's-1648 and of course up
until 1688 in England led to a growing scepticism and burnout both socially and
politically. Rulers didn't want to get into it anymore, especially over
religion. War is only profitable for the politicians who win and the companies
who profit from the war machine. Leaders largely no longer wanted to get into
compelling their populations to believing a certain way. And the people, they
had no stomach for it anymore. The Thirty Years War was especially bad.
The Church stagnated
during the 1700's. It seemed as if religion, especially fanatical religion led
to trouble. Dead Orthodoxy set in, and the active sectors were not political
per se, but more in the realm of Pietism.
It's no
accident that the Enlightenment thinkers began to appear in earnest in the wake
of all this. From Descartes to Voltaire and certainly the political
philosophers like Locke and Hobbes must all be understood in light of these
events.
It's ironic
that the Reformation inadvertently created a social climate that produced all
this. It rent Christendom (not a bad thing) but then also opened the door to
modern secularism. This is big point of critique when you read Slavophiles and
Russians. They critique the Western Middle Ages, Scholasticism, the Renaissance
Reaction to it...leading to Reformation...and then the Enlightenment, the
modern world and all the evils (from their point of view) that the West has
unleashed upon the world. The West has made an idol of Reason, and with it
comes pride and arrogance and these forces have wreaked havoc upon the world.
So I don't
think it was anachronistic and I don't know that I'd agree that the movie (I'll
have to watch it again) reduced all of it to religious fanaticism, though it
certainly contained those elements. I think it was the fact the war had lost
any meaning. Some were fanatics of course, but largely people were
just...fighting, almost as an end in and of itself.
The whole thing
degenerated and this is particularly poignant when you see (not in the movie of
course) France entering the fray on the side of the Protestants. Richelieu and
the Bourbons were not fighting for Catholicism they were fighting for France
over and against their political rivals the Habsburgs. Religion had nothing to
do with it, because they were on the wrong side. Their political interests
trumped their religious convictions and obligations. The Habsburgs had Spain
and the Holy Roman Empire. France was encircled and terrified England
(especially under the Puritans) would get involved.
But of course
England had their own troubles and under the Scottish Stewarts, England was not
terribly keen to get involved. The accession of the Stewarts had also changed
the calculus. The Tudors had been enemies of France but the Stewarts being
Scottish were keen on the Auld Alliance...the old relationship between France
and Scotland based on the common enemy of England. The Puritans were clear,
they wanted the old Anglo-French conflict to continue, something the Stewarts
would not pursue.
All that
changed with the accession of William and Mary. The 2nd Hundred Years War with
France (1688-1815) had begun.
But then (and
I'm making a point in all this)....in the 1750's you had that huge diplomatic
shift. Because of the Hanover's and their ties to the English throne and
Prussia, this shifted England's natural alliance with the Habsburgs that came
about post 1688.
Habsburg Spain
was out of the picture by the late 1600's. And since France was once again the
enemy, Britain had a natural ally with the Habsburgs.
But then
Prussia rose up and destroyed the balance of power. Frederick (misnamed the
great) took Silesia from Maria Teresa and the Anglo-Habsburg alliance was
thrown into disarray.
There was a
huge realignment (again we're in the 1750's).... The Habsburgs pulled off the
unthinkable....peace with France. [i]
The
re-alignment led to an outbreak of hostilities leading to what is rightly
called the first worldwide war...the Seven Years War in Europe, with fighting
going on in India and of course in America it was known as the French and
Indian War.
How many
soldiers said....why am I fighting? Is this all just a game? Is it any wonder
why people began to question the entire nature of the political order? And of
course to question that is to question the entire philosophical foundation it's
built on.
How many people
had ancestors die in the wars of religion to find their grandson's switching
sides in the Thirty Years War? Years later, how many even knew why they were
fighting in the Seven Years War? The Habsburgs are friends....then they're
enemies....then friends? It must have seemed like something of a sick joke.
I think of the
same thing when I look at the Crimean War. England and France aid Turkey to
fight Russia? How many soldiers sat out there saying...what in the world are we
doing? Why am I giving my life for a geo-political chess game?
I think the
lesson (well, there are many) but one is certainly....the Church involved in
war and politics is self-defeating. This is for many reasons, but one
historical example is that in the end it produces scepticism and eventually a
certain level of general hostility to the Church in general. People lose their
trust in the authorities and the ideas which grant the authority.
·
And though I didn’t include it in my original
email response, I would also consider modern wars like Vietnam and the role they
have played with regard to respect for government, scepticism, trust for
authority…and the effects of politics on this question. For example, have
Christians in some cases embraced these wars because of moral certitude or in
some cases are they more motivated by political agenda and loyalty to certain
ideology or cause?
[i] This was later ‘crowned’
in 1770 when Maria Teresa sent her daughter Marie Antoinette to marry Louis XVI
of the house of Bourbon. A huge solidification of the diplomatic coup d'état.
Of course it
didn't last long did it? Heads rolled and the alliance so long desired became
moot.