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 Many historical documents including the Lorsch Annals, Royal Frankish Annals, and letters provide the primary sources that are sifted by historians such as Alessandro Barbero, Paul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.
Throughout his essay, Einhard makes constant references to Charlemagne’s piety. He notes that the king “cherished with great fervor and devotion the principles of the Christian religion.” Charlemagne built the basilica at Aix-la-Chapelle, and “was a constant worshipper at this church.” (Einhard, 48)…. He embodied the Christian doctrine to give to the poor, and had close relationships to the popes in Rome. A pessimist might find reason to believe these actions were purely opportunistic or at least had mixed motives—his relationships with the Vatican were monetarily beneficial—but Einhard’s inclusion of Charlemagne’s will removes all doubt. “In this division he is especially desirous to provide…the largess of alms which Christians usually make.” (Einhard, 52). In death, Charlemagne gave much of his wealth to the Church via the archbishops of each city in his empire, and further stipulated that upon the death of one of them, a portion of the remaining inheritance should go directly to the poor, as should the profit of the sale of his library.
Overall, I think there is some really great information out there about the lives of Charlemagne, no matter which version of himself you're looking into. What we really need to remember is that we currently have no way of knowing anything more about him than what has already been written down and, for the most part, based off a very personal opinion of Charlemagne. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, although it can make learning about Charlemagne a little tough; we just have to realize that there are some really great resources out there to inform us about his life, as long as you are taking the uncertainty and personal bias into account while doing the research, I think the information can be utilized extremely well.
The Relationship of Political and Religious Societies in the Age of Charlemagne, Based of Einhard's The life of Charlemagne sections 15-33
Writing history in the early Middle Ages "was not intended to be simply a matter of keeping a record for posterity." It was to help make the past more presentable and comprehensible to the present, "whether as support for contemporary political ideology or to explain God's purpose for humanity." Works that is widely read and follows these guidelines is writings Einhard and Notker did on Charlemagne. The writings of these two men can be looked at many different ways to decide how they wanted the history of Charlemagne to be perceived. "These histories can function both as a record of the past and as the exploitation of a different world in order to make particular political or polemical points."
Throughout the Ages there have been many leaders who were known for their great rule. One of these great men during the 8th century was Charlemagne. The Life of Charlemagne was written by Einhard, a Frankish elite who had the privilege of working in the courts of Charlemagne. The book did not come out till after Charlemagne’s death but, it goes through his life in a thematic fashion. Einhard sets the book by first addressing deeds, habits, and then administration. This writing was one of the first of its kind. While there were many biographies written on the lives of saints known as hagiography, this was the first of its kind to be written about a secular ruler since the time of Antiquity. I will begin by talking about Charlemagne’s rise to power, then about his character and personality, and finally his relationship with his family.
Charlemagne was known to be “a man of enormous intelligence.” (book) “The upper part of his head was round, his eyes very
“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.
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.
Scarre, Christopher. Chronicle of the Roman Emperors: The Reign-by-reign Record of the Rulers of Imperial Rome. London: Thames and Hudson, 1995. Print.
"Charlemagne." Myths and Legends of the World. Ed. John M. Wickersham. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000. Web. 19 May 2015.
Perhaps most interesting about the manner in which the inventory was taken was by the uses of the measurements. The measurements given were not all of Gallic or Roman origin but a mixture of the two reasonably showing the mixture of Charlemagne and his kingdom. No...
Both The Poem of the Cid and The Song of Roland were written in a time period where great new developments were occurring in Europe, but none more crucial than the beginning of the Crusades and the ethnocentric viewpoint they propagated and were propagated by (Quinn). Of great interest is the manner in which both works deal with the nature of pluralism in European history. For the sake of this essay, pluralism will be defined simply as a state of more than one. Both works, written at approximately the same time (1130-1170 for The Song of Roland and approximately 1207 for The Poem of the Cid, as per the book's forewords) have astonishing similarities and stark contrasts, which when put in context are incredibly revealing of their respective author's/culture's attitudes about economic, cultural, and religious pluralism.
Between 1197 and 1218 the Holy Roman Empire became a medieval soap opera. The main characters were Pope Innocent III, Fredrick II, Phillip of Swabbia, and Otto IV. King Phillip of France would also play a major role along with Constance, mother of Fredrick II. The background from this period of 21 years was riveting. In 1197 Henry VI, king of Sicily, and the Holy Roman Empire died leaving his two year old son Fredrick II as king of Sicily. However Phillip of Swabbia and Otto IV would vie for the throne in the Holy Roman Empire. A double election concurred and both Otto and Phillip were elected. The two had a war which was ended in 1204 by the Pope, naming Otto the king. Yet in 1207, the kingship would change again and Phillip of Swabbia would become king. However just over a year after becoming king Phillip would be booted from the throne in 1208. Otto would take over as king of the Empire. However in 1211 Otto IV, would no longer be king of the Holy Roman Empire as he would be replaced by the young Fredrick II. Interestingly enough Fredrick II was raised by Pope Innocent III giving the pope some major power inside the Holy Roman Empire. During this time during the rule of Otto and Otto (after Phillip died in Otto’s second reign), two crusades were going on in which Otto participated in. During 1204 a crusade was brought forth by Innocent during the same time as a war over the throne was being fought. My essay is on the Holy Roman Empire between the death of Henry and the return of Fredrick II back to Germany in 1220. We will start in 1197 after Henry VI has died.
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