Goodreads: The Song of Roland

This is another book that I've rated a bit lower than I probably should have because of the lack of half stars on Goodreads. Can we please get halfstars?

The Song of Roland is great epic poetry, a wonderfully simple story with blood and guts, extreme violence and a great victory. It's also good propaganda. In that way, The Song of Roland is extremely successful. But, much of the complaining about it from modern readers is that it is overly simple and it depicts a very black and white morality: What is Christian is right and what is pagan/Islamic is not. There aren't too many complex characters in the story, which for epic poetry is ok. Charlemagne is the archetype for the godly, good, strong king. King Marsile, his opposite is weak, duplicitous and an archetype for a bad king. Baligant the emir, is a noble enemy worthy of Charlemagne. If Charlemagne only defeated King Marsile, the victory wouldn't have been good enough to write home about. It's like when Alabama beats Alabama A&M. It's supposed to happen. But, when Alabama beats somebody real, the two times a season they are faced with that situation, Alabama gets epics written about it that can reach an audience beyond the sycophantic south. But, I digress.

Roland is the perfect Medieval knight, brave yet pious. His death happens valiantly, but he still has time to get one last kill, pray to God for forgiveness of his sins, and die facing the country he is conquering in his death. I think the most modern character in the sense that he is the most complex is Ganelon, the traitor.

Ganelon, like Roland, has issues with pride. While Roland overcomes his pride to die a noble death, Ganelon succumbs to it and betrays his king for the sake of his own pride. He argues that his actions weren't driven treason but a personal feud with Roland. The fact that he isn't just killed upon returning to the capital, but is forced to undergo a trial by his peers that is decided in a personal combat between one of his liegeman and one that is personally loyal to Charlemagne is the scene I found the most compelling. Pinabel, the noble fighting for Ganelon is seen as good liegeman and because of it only God's intervention in the combat saves his opponent Theirry. Theirry has to win because he is the representative of the righteous Charlemagne and because treachery not only sinks the traitor, but those around him: "He who betrayeth, aye he slayeth himself and other men."

The other figure that I'm all of a sudden intrigued by is Turpin, the warrior archbishop. The Middle Ages is full of holy men doing war and I wouldn't have thought much of it until recently reading a book on Byzantine history. The idea of a warrior priest was rejected by the East. How different would have history been if the whole of the old Roman Empire had embraced the marriage between warriors and priests? How different would it have been if the West had shared the East's natural abhorrence to the concept of a priest carrying a sword? It's interesting how a story can change each time your read it.