More handpicked essays just for you.
How did charlemagne impact medieval europe
Discuss several factors that you believe represent the impact that Charlemagne had on the future shape of medieval Europe
The Impact of Charlemagne and the spread of Christianity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Under Charlemagne’s rule, a flourishing Christian Empire was born. After Charlemagne was crowned in 800 by Pope Leo III, Europe became more unified and Christianity was spreading rapidly. Before this cultural spark, Europe was suffering politically, socially and economically. Invaders were common and posed as serious threats to the Europeans. Muslims swept throughout Europe and took over and ruled numerous countries. Charlemagne fought Muslims, Saxons, Avars and Slavs which lead to a better life for many. Charlemagne’s influence was very strong, and even after he died he left Europe with great improvements. Many significant events occurred that happened before Charlemagne’s reign. During the Middle Ages (500-1500), (Ellis, Elser 2009) …show more content…
Pope Leo III was struggling to maintain and keep out invaders from Rome. As a result of this he asked Charlemagne for assistance. Charlemagne helped put many unwanted raiders into jail, fulfilling the pope’s wishes. In return for the help, Pope Leo crowns Charlemagne in 800 on December 25th making him the emperor of Rome, (Ellis, Esler 2009). After this coronation Charlemagne became known as the “Holy Roman Emperor” and Rome became united under Christianity, (english-online). This act revived Pope Leo’s plan to convert Rome to Christianity, “which came to be called Christendom”, (Ellis, Esler 2009). In addition to the other positive outcomes of this crowning of Charlemagne, it resolved many of the struggles for power between the popes and germanic leaders. Even though this coronation had countless positive outcomes, it enlarged the divide between the Eastern and Western parts of the Roman Empire, especially enraging the emperor in the east. In order for Charlemagne to fulfill his goal of creating a Christian Europe he worked very hard with the Church. Numerous Saxons and Slavs were converted to Christianity. Charlemagne appointed “powerful nobles” called missi dominici, (Ellis, Esler 2009). These nobles basically spied and gathered information that heard on the streets and later reported it to Charlemagne. The last way Charlemagne succeed in trying to unify a Christian empire is by …show more content…
In 814, January 28th Charlemagne died and this flourishing throne was passed on to Louis I;his son, (Frassetto, 2013). Even though Charlemagne passed away, Europe was still left with remarkable changes. First of all, Europe had some significant changes in the government. For example; the very common currency that was used was gold was switched to silver. This allowed for trade to thrive in Europe and it gave an opportunity for peasants to participate in trade. Another example of change in the government was; “all local regional governors were subject to regular inspections by royal emissaries to make sure no injustices were being done.” (Whipps, 2008) The last governmental effect that was important was the “capitularia”. The capitularia were a set of written laws and guidelines. These valuable laws were a major role to Charlemagne's Carolingian government that were put into place by Charlemagne’s royal agents. Secondly, Charlemagne greatly encouraged education in schools and people all over his kingdom learned how to speak Latin. This was extremely important because it allowed people all over the kingdom to communicate with each other. One of the most significant and prominent effects of Charlemagne's reign is his spreading of Christianity. He spread Christianity all throughout Europe and unified Roman, Germanic and Christian religions. When Charlemagne invaded Italy, it
Einhard divides his discussion of Charlemagne into three distinct sections, perhaps in imitation of the king’s will, which is also partitioned into the same three underlying themes: church, empire, and intellect.
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.
...become great and victorious. There is the concept of how everything that Charlemagne did was for his enemies to be converted to Christianity and nothing else. Through the different interpretations, the argument for religious motives was the strongest. Charlemagne used military tactics in a misguided attempt to further the kingdom of God.
While expanding his empire across Europe, Charlemagne did remember that he was indeed a Christian, and converted many of the tribes he conquered, to Christianity. However, when 4,500 Saxons resisted, they were slaughtered ("Charlemagne"). But, for better or for worse, by 1000 AD Christianity had spread like wildfire throughout most of Europe, and the Catholic Church, who had crowned our friend Charlemagne the Emperor, had risen to power. Meanwhile, the Seljuk Turks had taken Jerusalem and were threatening Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire (“Crusades”). Near the end of the eleventh century, Emperor Alexius wrote a letter to Pope Urban the II that called for the assistance of his fellow Christians in West (“Crusades”). And, Pope Urban, was more than happy to assemble an army for such a worthy cause, and he also hoped that it might improve the relations between the two
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 Charlemagne, also known as Charles the Great, became the undisputed ruler of Western Europe, “By the sword and the cross.” (Compton’s 346) As Western Europe was deteriorating Charlemagne was crowned the privilege of being joint king of the Franks in 768 A.D. People of Western Europe, excluding the church followers, had all but forgotten the great gifts of education and arts that they had possessed at one time. Charlemagne solidly defeated barbarians and kings in identical fashion during his reign. Using the re-establishment of education and order, Charlemagne was able to save many political rights and restore culture in Western Europe.
The Reliquary Bust of Charlemagne (c. 1349) emphasizes the permanence of Charlemagne’s (742/747/748-814) ideal leadership. However, through the traditions and legacies left behind, later rulers were able to imitate his politics in order to amplify their reign. I will argue that in similarities of the sovereigns, Charlemagne’s eighth and ninth century legacy is upheld through traditions via thirteenth century Charles IV (1316-1378) in politically connecting symbolism found between both eras in terms of religion, art, and locations as stimulated by the Reliquary Bust of Charlemagne. In order to demonstrate the symbolism, I will first examine both rulers affinity towards religion through the Holy Roman Emperor, Christianity, and the importance of relics. Next, I will explore the significance of symbolism in medieval art through materials, shape, and reliquaries. To conclude, I will speak on the tradition of location through architecture, Holy Roman Empirical capitals, and ceremony in Charlemagne and Charles IV’s reigns. Studies have not been conducted on the political effects of proliferating ancestry among specific lineages of Holy Roman Emperors. By considering the symbolism in these ties, my study provides a deeper understanding of political endeavors in the Middle Ages through a comparison of Charlemagne and Charles IV.
With the decline of the Western Roman empire Western Europe was a disjointed land that had no true unifying structure till the rise of Christianity. In Roman antiquity people used the State or empire of Rome to define themselves and give them a sense of unity despite having a diverse group of people within the empire. When Western Rome fell this belief based on a Roman cultural identity disappeared and no longer were people able to identify themselves with any particular group as they once have. The Christian religion was able to fill this vacuum by having the people associate themselves to a religion instead of a given state or cultural group. During Medieval Europe Christianity became the unifying force that would define what it meant to be European. Christianity gave political leaders legitimacy by showing that they have been favored by the gods. The clergyman that recorded the histories surrounding the kings of the Medieval Europe also provided a link to the Roman Empire to give the Kings a link to Roman empire of antiquity. Christianity became the center of the cultural life in western Europe and created a new social elite in Europe which would dominate literacy and knowledge within Europe for centuries. Christianity provided Europe with an escape from the disorder of the Medieval ages and give them a spiritual outlet for their fears and desires for a better life, whether in the physical life or in the spiritual world after death.
Charlemagne, or Charles the Great, reigned during a time of much turmoil and upheaval in Europe during middle ages. Charlemagne’s background and family history contributed much to his rise to power. The triumphs of his past lineage prepared him to take on the task of governing the Frankish Empire, and defending it from invaders. Charlemagne accomplished much during his supremacy. He not only brought education back into medieval Europe, but also invented an efficient way to govern his people. His conquests against the many adversaries of the Holy Roman Empire expanded his empire across the majority of Europe. His conquests also formed strong ties between the Catholic Church and the State. Charlemagne’s drive to convert Europe’s primitive and pagan tribes to Christianity nearly effaced the Saxons, whom he battled with for the majority of his reign. The crowning of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor created a turning point in history. Within years after his death, however, his once great empire amounted to nothing. Charlemagne’s reign as King of the Franks and as Holy Roman Emperor greatly influenced the course of Europe during the middle ages.
Charlemagne was “a key figure in European history”. He was the king of the Franks of the Carolingian dynasty. When he reigned (768-814), Charlemagne accomplished much in his own land and outside of it. He is called the Father of Europe and Charles the Great. The Carolingian Dynasty “peaked under… Charlemagne (after whom the dynasty in named)...” But, even with these great accomplishments, was Charlemagne a good king? Before this issue is addressed, it must be known what qualities make a good king.
Constantine I (February 27, 280 C.E.- May 22, 337 C.E.), also known as Constantine the Great, was the first Roman emperor to not only abolish persecution of Christians, but he was also the first to convert to Christianity in 312 A.D. Around 200 years later, in 496 A.D. Clovis I (466 C.E.- 511 C.E.), the King of the Franks, converted to Christianity, in which he was called a “new Constantine” . Constantine and Clovis’ reign through Christianity were alike in the way that they decided to convert. However, the two emperors were different in their commitment to God and their impacts on the church and state.
That with the will of God the Pope crowned Charlemagne. However, in the Royal account of Charlemagne they focus more on how it was on the “most holy day of Christmas, when the king, at Mass before the confessio of the blessed Peter the apostle, was rising from prayer, Leo the pope put a crown on his head.” One can see that within this account it tells the reader that before the Pope prayed to the “blessed Peter the apostle” he crowned Charlemagne. This shows that Charlemagne is to look more powerful and important than praying to Peter the apostle. Furthermore, once crowded the Roman people praised the new king and the Pope himself “adored” Charlemagne in the “manner of ancient princes.”
The Father of Europe Charlemagne was an influential leader of the medieval ages. Under his reign Europe saw a kind stability it had not seen since before the fall of the Roman Empire. Charlemagne provided stability to Europe through his conquests of the Germanic tribes and united Europe under Catholicism and
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
Einhard, in his The Life of Charlemagne, makes clear the fundamental integration of politics and religion during the reign of his king. Throughout his life, Charles the Great endeavored to acquire and use religious power to his desired ends. But, if Charlemagne was the premiere monarch of the western world, why was religious sanction and influence necessary to achieve his goals? In an age when military power was the primary means of expanding one's empire, why did the most powerful military force in Europe go to such great lengths to ensure a benevolent relationship with the church? One possibility may be found in the tremendous social and political influence of Rome and her papacy upon the whole of the continent. Rather than a force to be opposed, Charlemagne viewed the church as a potential source of political power to be gained through negotiation and alliance. The relationship was one of great symbiosis, and both componants not only survived but prospered to eventually dominate western Europe. For the King of the Franks, the church provided the means to accomplish the expansion and reformation of his empire. For the Holy Roman Church, Charles provided protection from invaders and new possibilities for missionary work.