Charlemagne
There was relatively little commerce in Western Europe. Roads, bridges, and the infrastructure generally were non-existent. Furthermore, the countryside was unsafe for travel due to a lack of organized law enforcement. Small villages had to take care of themselves; therefore, manufacturing was carried on only to the extent that was needed to supply local needs.
In the little kingdoms or principalities, the lands over which a King ruled were regarded as no different from other property. Among the Franks, all sons were entitled to a share. Therefore, when a King died, each son became a King over his own little kingdom. Thus, many political units became small so there were no uniform laws or policies. This lack of unity made them vulnerable to enemies as well as conflict from within. Bullough points out that the loyalty of a warrior or subject to his chosen leader was not a light matter. The author does not contrast that concept of loyalty however, with our present ideas of loyalty to the homeland or institution.
“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.
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 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.
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
...der to maintain success. King Henry showed that he is restricted to one language which resulted him to not gain the lower class power and it then lead him to focus on his political status. On the other hand, Hal presented himself to the viewers as a friendly character, yet he sustained to manipulate and lie to others to achieve his goals. Henry IV n, Part 1 presents the idea of political power and the different characteristics leaders follow. The lesson for audiences, then, is to develop relationships with different people who will expand one’s area of inspiration and the ability to advance success. One can learn from the mistakes of King Henry and remember to be visible and properly positioned, so society can see one’s strengths and talents.
After years of skirmishes and attack along their shared borders, the Franks decided to go to war in order to put an end to the dispute for once and for all in 772. The Saxons were not at all like the Franks. Einhard describes them as pagan and uncivilized in every possible way. “Naturally fierce, [worshipping] demons and . . . opposed to [our religion]” (Rosenwein 138). It is important to note that in demonizing his enemies, Einhard reinforces this idea of Charlemagne’s power source being something beyond this world. He is endowed with wisdom and an ability that is near holy. Charlemagne is no longer a man, or even a king, but something more. In 804, the conflict ended once again on Charlemagne’s terms. He ordered the Saxons to give up their pagan ways and accept the Christian religions and they--- as Einhard seems to suggest--- happily obliged. This is yet another fantastic tale of Charles’ conquests. The enemy falling at the king’s feet. He gave a command to the Saxons and followed, and with the decree Charlemagne suddenly is able to unite the people. Obviously, history does not happen this way, but it is Einhard’s voice as an author that tells the audience of the Charlemagne’s larger-than-life
The book Two Lives of Charlemagne contains two different biographies. The first version is titled ‘The Life of Charlemagne’ and is written by Einhard. The second version is titled ‘The deeds of Charlemagne’ and composed by Notker the Stammerer. Both of these works were written in Latin and then later translated to English and other European languages. While these two biographies are medieval classics, they differ in their focus and point of view. I find it interesting that the two texts could be combined to make one book given their differences; it provides a way for the reader to think critically while reading. Having two different viewpoints on one subject can cause the reader to form their own opinions on Charlemagne and his reign.
The rule of Emperor Charlemagne over the Carolingian Empire in the West marked a reawakening of the imperial ideal, a reemergence of education and a literate landed elite, and a rebirth of centralized government. Though he would not preside over the rebirth of Rome, Charlemagne’s left a legacy which would influence the development of western European government and cultural institutions for centuries to come. His Europe was new, though born from and tied to the old.
Yet out of this chaos stepped an extremely capable ruler—Charles I of Anjou. It is important to note, however, that while Charles was from Anjou he and his son regarded themselves as Hungarians. Under Charles and his son, Louis I, Hungary would experience a sort of golden age where its prestige and borders swelled. While much of the success of the Angevin golden age can be attributed, coincidentally, to the discovery of massive amounts of gold within the kingdom, many of the aforementioned factors that explain the success of Stephen likewise characterize the successes of Charles and Louis. This is logical, as the challenge faced by the Angevin’s in uniting a land divided by barons was not altogether different than that faced by Géza and Stephen,
Charlemagne was born in 742 AD. His mother made it a point to educate him in arithmetic, reading, and writing. He also took great interest in “expanding his knowledge of military tactics, he even accompanied his father on some of his military excursion”(BBC). He was a very social boy, and took great care in how well he was perceived by his
One more key point is how the empire started to build up and how it fell. When it started to build he had to unite the kingdom. He also converted them all to Christians if they were not already. He thought education was really important to children, even for everybody. The kingdom started to fall when Charlemagne died and left his son in charge. The Franks started to divide and turn there back on each other. During, 768 Pep in died and the empire split. The, empire fell because their ruler died and the next one did not know how to
When Charlemagne rose to power, he strongly valued education and religion, and was able to revive education by the creation of schools. Charlemagne grew up uneducated and when he came to power he also wanted an education for himself. He made an effort when he became king, to learn some of the Latin, Greek and even Frankish language, but even with his determination and dedication to learn, he still couldn’t write and had to assign a job for someone to be his personal writer (historyinthemargins, 2017). During Charlemagne’s time as king, he promoted and encouraged Latin to be the language spoken and written by people in Europe and people who were part of the Holy Roman Empire (leonardo-newtonic, 2017). Charlemagne's value of education created the Carolingian Culture. The goal for the Carolingian culture was for Charlemagne to be a more valued and respected figure of authority as he was the protector of the church and brought the value of education (Encyclopedia, 2017). In the Carolingian culture, for a clearer writing and a more efficient way of saving space writing, the style of Carolingian minuscule was created (leonardo-newtonic, 2017). Charlemagne made sure he had a well educated clergy during this time, so that they would be able run the government of his empire and be prosperous (Encyclopedia, 2017). His clergy that he had in government also were to support his educational values and help form schools to give people among the empire, a proper education (historyinthemargins, 2017). During Charlemagne's time in rule, he restored lost education and helped spread the value of learning around his
The great Charlemagne was a medieval emperor who lived from 742 to 814, ruling much of western Europe from 768 all the way to his death in 814. Building the kingdom of the Franks, an early version of France, into the largest empire of medieval Europe was one of his greatest accomplishments. Whether it was considered good or not, much of western Europe was converted into christianity, unifying nations under his reign. Due to his influences and strategic planning, Charlemagne was able to stress the importance of education, government, and military tactics, proving to be a successful ruler after all.
During the 800 through the 1050’s a new empire arose called the Carolingian empire. The Carolingian empire was established when Charlemagne was coronated and received the crown to become king. As the empire grew stronger and bigger the mistakes and cracks in the foundation started to appear. Einhard, the Life of Charlemagne will be a source in this essay. The General Capitulary for the Missi will be examined in this essay. This essay will inspect Nithard, The History of the Sons of Louis the Pious as a source. Select Feudal Documents will be examined as a source in this essay. Also, John Scotus Erigena, On The Division of Nature will be used as a source. The Oaths of Strasbourg and Liudprand of Cremona, Otto the Great in Italy will both be inspected as sources.