Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Influence of culture on society
Influence of culture on society
Influence of culture on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Influence of culture on society
Charlemagne's Coranation
The coronation of Charlemagne is one of the most important events of its time and yet the events leading up to the crowning are scarcely mentioned in historical texts. Historians often disagree over the details of the coronation due to the lack of proper and sometimes contradictory historical documentation. This paper seeks to answer the questions surrounding the meaning and driving forces behind the coronation of a western emperor and expose the truth of what actually happened in the years leading up to the event. Many historical documents including the Lorsch Annals, Royal Frankish Annals, and letters provide the primary sources that are sifted by historians such as Alessandro Barbero, Paul Dutton, Neil Christie, and Rodger Collins in an effort to reveal the truth of Charlemagne's coronation.
In order to discuss motivations behind the coronation, it needs to be established what actually happened leading up to that christmas day in the year 801. Since there are many historical contradictions between primary sources from the time, we will rely on summaries presented by historians for the moment and address the contradictions later on. Barbero provides the most complete summery in chapter four of his book Charlemagne.1 Starting around the year 700 there was a divergence between the eastern and western halves of the Roman empire. The emperor was greek and ruled from the eastern half, while the Pope resided in Rome located in the western half. There developed a barrier between the two that transcended language. The emperor diverged in his theology by adopting iconoclasm, or the destruction of idols. This was in direct conflict with roman theology, which celebrated the images of Christ and the saints. At...
... middle of paper ...
...ey tried to refuse.10 This cultural attitude fits perfectly with how the histories are written and explains why this was how the King wanted the information given to the public. This is how the contradictions between primary sources are reconciled.
The coronation of Charlemagne is now easier to understand after going through the historical evidence. It is clear that the Pope Leo is the driving force behind the coronation in order to expand papal authority and secure his own position from accusations. The overarching events of the time show that Empress Irene's decision to take the role of emperor is the key to allowing the coronation of Charlemagne to take place. Finally, through careful study of the primary sources and identifying the perspective of the writer the actual events before the coronation can be deduced despite contradictions between sources.
In this documentary report I shall look at the account of Urban II’s speech we are given by Fulcher of Chartres and assess it’s usefulness according to it’s likely reliability and it’s concurrence with the other accounts of Urban’s speech and the evidence we have from his letters. I shall first look at who Fulcher of Chartres was, as his role in society is important for understanding how he may have come to be aware of or present at the council of Clermont. A brief look at Fulcher will also provide an insight into what his opinions may have been and how this may colour his representation of the events. I shall also look at the message as we see it in Fulcher’s version of events and then at the overall view we are given from the evidence. I shall also look at the conclusions that ‘modern’ scholars have come to. Finally I shall look at the outcomes of this council and how much the outcomes reflect the aims we are told about in the accounts of the council of Clermont.
After contemplating Einhard’s purpose for writing The Life of Charlemagne it is important to examine his qualifications for doing so. Early on in the introduction there is a brief history on Einhard and his education.
Charlemagne—Charles, King of the Franks—obviously has a fan in Einhard. His powerful work, The Life of Charlemagne, details the king’s life from the building of his empire, through the education of his children, and culminating in his final living words: the division of his possessions and the instructions for the preservation of his kingdom. At first glance, the inclusion of Charlemagne’s will seems an odd choice to end an essay that demonstrates thoroughly the specifics of the great man’s life. After all, who needs to know which child gets his gold, and which archbishop he favored the most. Einhard reveals the ignorance in this assumption by doing just the opposite: using Charlemagne’s will as the final and most convincing illustration of the king’s life and character.
The most famous work about Charlemagne is a book entitled The Two Lives of Charlemagne which consists of two separate biographies published into one book and tells the story of Charlemagne's life as two different people experienced it. Apart from this, there are many other places you can turn to learn more about the life of the king of the Franks, including letters, capitularies, inventories, annals, and more. However, each of these sources seem to paint a different picture of Charlemagne. In one, he seems to be a very average guy; in another, a mythical being, almost god-like; and a strong and firm political leader in yet another. It is because of this of this that we will never really know exactly who Charlemagne was or what he was like, but we do have an idea of what he did and how he lived thanks to those who decided to preserve it.
The reason Einhard wrote his biography of Charlemagne was to explain to the world how this man, who was also his personal friend, was a great leader. Einhard begins by telling some history of Charlemagne’s family and ancestry. Einhard then goes on to tell about every war Charlemagne was ever involved in. Einhard’s main reason for writing this description of Charlemagne’s reign is just to inform people of what he believe to be the reign of the greatest ruler of all time. He seemed proud to have lived at the same time as Charlemagne. He thought Charlemagne made no mistakes in the wars he was involved with. Einhard was proud of what Charlemagne did for the churches at the time of his reign. “Whenever he discovered one in his kingdom that was old and ready to collapse he charged the responsible bishops and priests with restor...
The two lives of Charlemagne as told by Einhard and Notker are two medieval sources about the accounts of the life Charlemagne. Modern sources by Matthew Innes and Rosamond Mckitterick discuss how history was recorded during the medieval period and how it was suppose to be viewed in the early ages. Observing each of these sources helps get an understanding of how the writing of history is important in recorded history and how it affected how the history of Charlemagne was recorded.
All throughout history, people have been fighting, there have been wars and conflicts ever since man has become ‘civilized’ enough to raise an army. And, many, many if not almost all of these conflicts have involved religion in some way or another (Ben-Meir). The question is why, and how, do people use God as justification for fighting and killing one another. Isn’t killing supposed to be wrong in God’s eyes? Whatever happened to ‘Thou shalt not Kill’? And how is it that hundreds of thousands of people have died by the hands of those who call themselves Christians?
In conclusion, although Froissart Chronicles is written based on the historical events that occurred during the Hundred Years’ War period, the reports of these events can be erroneous and inaccurate, which is a main characteristic of medieval historical writing. Hence, historians must view
His initial reason for traveling to Rome was to “set the affairs of the church in order, because all was confusion;” however, his final trip to Rome caused him to be crowned emperor. (christ203). One of the affairs of the church was that Pope Leo “tore out his eyes and cut out his tounge” (christ203). Although Charlemagne did not expect to be crowned emperor, it allowed the pope to obtain military security from Charlemagne (book). “He was the first Emperor to rule since the Fall of Rome”-reword (livescience.com) His motto as Emperor was “Revival of the Roman empire.” (book). Charlemagne also realized the laws of the Romans were faulty. “He decided to add what was missing, sort out the discrepancies, and correct what was wrong.” (chrisitan203). Pope Leo then said "life and victory to Charles Augustus, crowned by God, the great and peaceful emperor of the Romans." (add somewhere)
“The apprenticeship of a King” describes how Charlemagne gained power through conquest and diplomacy. In 768, King Pippin died and his kingdom was divided between his two sons. Charles, the elder, and the younger was Carloman. The author says that little is known of Charles’ boyhood. When he was of the right age, it is recorded that he worked eagerly at riding and hunting. It was the custom of the Franks to ride and be practiced in the use of arms and ways of hunting. We may reasonably infer that acquiring these skills formed a major part of his early education. Charles was not a “man of letters” and the author makes no attempt at explaining this other than to point out that literacy was considered unimportant at that time for anyone other than the clergy and Charles didn’t become interested in “letters” until later in life. Bullough explains a number of experiences in public duties and responsibilities, which were assigned to Charles by his father, thus, giving him an apprenticeship to rule the kingdom. For some reason tension between Charles and his brother began shortly after their accession. The author explains a number of conflicts. The younger brother died however, at the end of 771 and a number of prominent people in his kingdom offered allegiance to Charles. Bullough names and explains those subjects. The result was the re-uniting of those territories, which helped to establish the kingdom of the Franks.
Throughout the middle ages, many empires were working on expanding their territory, but it was not always a success unless they had the appropriate leadership to guide them in the right direction. The main empire that grew to extraordinary lengths is that of the Roman Empire. Through many conquests and battles and with an amicable government, it attained its fortune. However, on the other hand, there was another government that shared similarities with that of Rome; this was the empire of Charlemagne, otherwise known as the Carolingian Empire, but it failed to have a prosperous eternity.
"Charlemagne." Myths and Legends of the World. Ed. John M. Wickersham. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000. Web. 19 May 2015.
The collection Two Lives of Charlemagne contains two different biographies of Charlemagne who was a king of the Franks and a christian emperor of the West in the 8th century. The first biographical account was written by his courtier Einhard who knew him personally and well. On the other hand, the second account was penned by Notker the Stammerer was born twenty-five years after the king’s death. Even though these two versions indicate the same king’s life, there were many differences between the two. Einhard’s writing focused on the emperor’s official life and his military campaign. However, Notker provided more of a perspective about the king’s legacy and seemed more hyperbolic as well as mythical. This paper will compare and contrast the
The Relationship of Political and Religious Societies in the Age of Charlemagne, Based of Einhard's The life of Charlemagne sections 15-33
The Chanse was based off a battle that happened during the actual Charlemagne's venture into spain, but was not actually written until three-hundred years later in the 1100’s by an unknown author. (Charlemagne ; Owen, 34). The Song of Roland entered public view in nineteenth-century France - whom was desiring for a sense of national unity: “ … if the general public were still not captivated, the scholarly public certainly started to respond to the idea that Roland represented an important part of French history” (Divanna, 115). While what Count Ganelon did is certainly considered despicable by most moral standards but, from his viewpoint at least, Ganelon did not commit treason against King Charlemagne. This essay will attempt to prove that, and also will go over historical information regarding the actual conflict The Song of Roland was based off of, and also of its rediscovery and re-modernization by pre-modern