Sydney McBride 10/15/14, A Contrast Between Two Cultures From reading, Two Lives Of Charlemagne and Al-Tabari, we can see how two separate entities can come to the same outcome by using two different yet equal cultural traditions. The Abbasid revolution ended the Arab. This civil war of 680 created an entirely new city of peace which developed into the creation of a new capitol city, Bagdad(Furtado). This was located on the Tigris river. Although this strategic placement of a new capitol was helpful in keeping the peace between these two over lapping lands, the division between rulers and the people was huge. In order to be a ruler you had to be related to an all important family who had created this peaceful land. By the Abbasid culture …show more content…
They both created a cosmopolitan environment of learning. Under Charlemagne, even his daughters were educated. He created a Trillium of grammar, rhetoric, and dialect or logic. Along with a quadrivium or astronomy, arithmetic, music, and geometry. The Abbasid people opened up huge trade roads which opened up the communities ability to reach far away places much faster. This increased the population and the yields of the farmers while at the same time helping to end famine. Both of these societies used education and a uniformed culture to bind together how people interacted on a daily basis for the better of the community. They both were able to thrive from the same base of cosmopolitain culture. The Abbasid people and Charlemagne both strove for a more educated society ultimately full of scholars who could develop the people and how others learned. In Al-Tabari, Einhard speaks about how the greater community respects what the ruler has done for the betterment of society(Bosworth). Similarly, Ja’Far does the same sort of thing in, Two Lives Of Charlemagne. Throughout history we have seen how respect for a ruler is ultimately what keeps an empire together. These two iconic rulers were able to keep a captive and obedient audience of
In the Frankish empire, there were numerous different cultures which inhabited it. A cultural dividing line can be draw down the Rhine River. On the left bank of the Rhine, you had the lands of Christian, Romanised Gaul, while on the right bank of the Rhine resided pagan Germania.* Culturally, linguistically and religiously, these two cultures could not have been more different from each other. In Gaul, the people had become Romanised and Christianised over the centuries by their roman overlords. Gaul was also heavily settled by the Franks, since they were feodrati for Rome. When the Western Roman Empire fell, it was easy for the Franks to move in and assume control over the territory. With the Franks conversion to Christianity in 496 The Franks were able to mix well with the Gallo-Roman land owners and peasants, leading Gaul to slowly transform itself into Francia.* The coronation of Charlemagne further enhanced his authority over his Gallic dominions by linking himself with the old Western Roman Empire.* This allowed him to be seen as a legitimate successor to the emperors of old, instead of a chieftain of a conquering
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 First Crusade is often cited as one of the most damnable consequences of religious fanaticism. A careful inspection of the circumstances and outcomes, however, will reveal a resultant political restructuring of Europe under the banner of Christendom. The purpose of this investigation is to investigate Pope Urban II’s motives in initiating the First Crusade, with a particular focus on the consolidation of the Western Church’s influence in Europe. Among the primary sources that will be consulted are the letter sent by Patriach Alexios of Constantinople to Urban, and an account of Urban’s speech at Clermont. Relevant excerpts from both of these primary sources, as well as contextual evidence and a wide array of historiography, will be taken
After reading two versions of “The Life of Charlemagne”, one written by a person who lived with Charlemagne, and one who didn’t, it is evident that Charlemagne is portrayed in a negative way by the author, the Monk of St. Gall, and in a positive way by Einhard. Einhard was very close to Charlemagne. He lived at the same time and with Charlemagne himself. His version of “The Life of Charlemagne” was writing right after his death. The Monk of St. Gall wrote his version more than 70 years after Charlemagne’s death. He did not live with or even at the same time as Charlemagne. This is probably one of the reasons the view on the ruler are completely different.
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.
Charlemagne’s father, Pepin, died of dropsy on 24 September, 768 and left his two sons, Charlemagne and Carloman, with William, the Duke of Aquitania. After Pepin died, the whole kingdom was divided evenly between the two sons. It was split in such a way that Charlemagne would govern the part that belonged ...
The rise of power for Charlemagne was initially a hereditary right, but he used that as a stepping stone to become the most well-known king of all time. The story really begins with the father of Charles, Pepin. The position of mayor of the palace was given to both Pepin and his brother Carloman, who worked together in “splendid harmony.” (137) But after a few years Carloman decided to join the monks and lead a monastery life leaving only Pepin to be the mayor of the palace. Then Pope Zacharias decided that the mayor of the palace, Pepin, deserved to be King due to his influence among his people. While king, he waged war against Waifar, duke of Aquitaine, and this lasted for nine years, by the end of while Pepin died. This left the kingdom to be equally divided among both Charles and Carloman. Charles took up the kingdom of his father, while Carloman took the kingdom of his uncle. There was a lot o...
Charlemagne is a man of good character in both works. He is a man that is considerate of supporting the poor and is generous of giving
“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.
In 768 A.D., Charlemagne at the age of 26, along with his brother Carloman inherited the kingdom of Franks. However, in 771 A.D. Carloman died, making Charlemagne the sole ruler of the kingdom. At this time the northern part of Europe was out of order and unruly. In the south, the Roman Catholic Church was asserting itself alongside the Lombard kingdom in Italy. While in Charlemagne’s own kingdom, the people were becoming and acting as barbarians and neglecting education and faith.
He had a vision of what it meant to be a great king. He followed the history of the kings after Alexander the Great. He believed he had to increase the social, political and intellectual organization of his society. This distinguished himself from any other ruler from the past three hundred years. Charlemagne wanted to recreate what the Roman Empire once was capable of, but even better. As he traveled, he made sure he created a great educational system. He built a chain of schools and provided classes for chil...
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 Post Classical Era was a period of time that ranged from 600 BCE through 1450 BCE. This era followed the decline of the great empires but later on served as guidance for Christian and Muslim empires. The Post Classical Era was filled with fluctuation causing numerous people to seek stability through political, social and religious duties. During this time period it was extremely difficult for the people especially the Muslims and Christians; therefore, they searched for rulers to uphold their empires. From an analytical perspective based on The Ideal Muslim King by Shaikh Hamadani, and The Life of Charlemagne by Christians and Muslims did share similar duties in different aspects to create a foundation and to guide their people.
The Relationship of Political and Religious Societies in the Age of Charlemagne, Based of Einhard's The life of Charlemagne sections 15-33