More handpicked essays just for you.
Why did einhard write the life of charlemagne
Einhard life of charlemagne analysis
Einhard life of charlemagne analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
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."
Critical questions can arise about Einhard's work for the simple fact he was a palace official of Charlemagne. Einhard was a minister of his Royal Majesty. He was highly respected for his knowledge, intellect, brilliance, integrity and character. He shared a personal relationship with the King and his family. It can be believed that his book was to make sure that the greatness of Charlemagne was recorded for history and maybe not the facts. The way he recorded the history of Charlemagne could have been more ...
... middle of paper ...
...ard is a man of many notable characteristics and accomplishments. Einhard gives a sense of what the important events and people in Charlemagne's life were. Einhard gives a more detailed and colorful background to many of the events even if some of his descriptions and stories do not seem believable. In Einhard, we learn the facts because he was alive and official of Charlemagne and shared a close relationship with him. He is a primary source of the history recorded. In Notker, we see Charlemagne's sense of humor and his compassion, forgiveness, his sense of equality and fairness. In the many anecdotes of Notker, Charlemagne comes alive and tells a great story of Charlemagne's life. He did write his book seventy years after Charlemagne's death so he is a secondary source, but his source is viewed as being a good source to use to learn about the life of Charlemagne.
Before Charlemagne and the Carolingian empire, there was in no proper sense a “Western Europe”. For the romans, everything geographically was centered around Mare Nostrum, the medditerrian.* The lands surrounding the Mediterranean sea, Hispania, Italy, Greece, and north Africa were all seen as being closer to together geographically and culturally, then the lands of Gaul or Germania. Even after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Europe was seen as everything away from the northern coast of the Mediterranean, usually only Gaul and Rhineland.*
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 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...
While the Anglo Saxons are the soldiers on foot holding axes and creating a shielded wall to brace impact. Using textual evidence and comparing it to the tapestry a medievalist can not only distinguish the two sides, but also learn what people in medieval times believed to be a beneficial way to explain significant events in their
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
Charlemagne once said, “Right action is better than knowledge, but in order to do what is right, we must know what is right” (historymedren.com). Charlemagne proved himself to be a successful leader, and he was an inspiration to others who desired to rule Europe. He was born in 742, and very little information is known about his adolescence. Europe was trapped in its fourth century of the “dark ages” when Charlemagne was born but this quickly changed after Charlemagne became the ruler of Europe and exhibited his strong leadership skills. (livescience.com).He put a large emphasis on education and revealed that he was an inquisitive individual as he studied and spoke in many different languages. Charlemagne’s desire for success, his emphasis of culture, and his quest for knowledge ended Europe’s unproductiveness and led to great prosperity.
Charlemagne is a known for his success to try to maintain his empire. This new empire will embrace the unity of Christian faith. Under Charlemagne, new lands are conquered and a Renaissance is embraced. He even tries to revive the Christian faith. Charlemagne is a man that hopes to be an inspiration to the next generation. These deeds of Charlemagne is seen in the Two Lives of Charlemagne. In the Two lives of Charlemagne, both Notker’s and Einhard’s goal is to portray Charlemagne as a man of good character, a man that accomplishes many deeds and a man that hopes to provide an outlet for the next generation.
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.
I absolutely believe Charlemagne was one of the greatest emperors of all time. No one is perfect, but he really created an empire at least as great as what the Roman Empire once was. I was not fond of killing people if they didn’t follow a religion, but in reality, they had no choice. I believe they were lucky to at least get that much of a chance to live since after all, they were the ones who got conquered by him. I did like how he set the law down and basically showed other territories who is boss and not to mess with. I learned a lot researching about Charlemagne and enjoyed reading about his distinguishing and diverse empire.
“Charlemagne was born April 2, C.742 in what is now Belgium” (Charlemagne). “Charlemagne was never able to master reading and writing while growing up”(About). “Even though Charlemagne couldn’t read or write as well as others he could speak other languages such as Latin and Greek among other languages”(Charlemagne). Charlemagne had a good personality most of the time. “Some of his titles was King of Franks, King of Lombards, he was also generally considered the first Holy Roman Emperor”(About). “Some people refer to him as the Father of Europe”(History).
The two narratives of Charlemagne’s life written by Einhard and Notker differed in the style of writing. Einhard wrote the biography mostly in a chronological order. He began with the history of the previous kings who governed the Franks before Charlemagne, went on with the birth of Charlemagne and his life, and ended with his death. This biography also indicated all the major events of his life that Einhard knew such as the war against the Northmen and the Aquitanian war. As a result, Einhard’s work was well organized and easy to follow. However, Notker’s work consisted of stories or tales that were not arranged systematically. Although the stories were certainly interesting, they were written in a random order which made them seem more like a leisure reading than a historical biography of a king. This difference in the style between the two biographies can be explained by the different purposes in which each writings had. Einhard wrote the memoir for history to remember his emperor. He stated, “but I had resolved rather to risk the judgements of men, and to endanger my own feeble talent by writing, than to neglect the memory of so great a man for the sake of sparing
In order to truly analyze and determine whether or not Charlemagne was a good leader as defined by Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, one must first look at Charlemagne’s history and examine the entirety of his life. Charlemagne was born on April 2nd, 747 to Bertrada and Pippin III the Short who was mayor of the palace, which meant that his father officially served the king of Frankia, but in reality held the majority of the power (Sullivan). Four year later in 751 Pippin seized the throne with the blessing of Pope Stephen II officially establishing the Carolingian dynasty of Frankish and...
The legend of King Arthur has intrigued generations for over a thousand years. Over these years, this tapestry has been handed down through the hands of many gifted storytellers. Bits and pieces were taken out and replaced by new strands woven in to fabricate a slight variation of the original that’s suitable for the audience or perhaps the storyteller himself. These modifications are evident in the 1981 film of Excalibur and Thomas Malory’s “Le Morte d’Arthur” published in 1485. The film incorporates magical acts while religious allusions are portrayed in the text. There are several characters that appeared in one but not the other. The two versions have the same essential elements, but with some alterations. The main changes in the story plot are the events leading to the battle and the battle itself. The two versions have the same essential elements, but with some alterations.
The medieval period was a chaotic era in European history as it was a time of constant change and conflict. Set during the rule of Charlemagne, King of the Franks, as he aspired to expand the size of his empire into what ultimately becomes the Carolingian Empire. “The Song of Roland” presents Charlemagne as a decisive leader with genuine aspirations of expansion. His army looks up to him with the utmost respect while his enemies fear his might. The Pagans aim to keep command of their land. However, they are well aware of Charlemagne’s power. Going to war with the Franks is an unpleasant necessity in the eyes of the Pagans. To conclude, Charlemagne is presented as a willful ambitious leader that earns the respect of everyone around him, regardless if they are
...ia paper on him and the Battle of Tours. Even though the Battle of Tours is remembered as one of the most important battles in history not many people know of its’ consequences and how it effects most everyone who now lives in the Western World. More importantly who knows if Christianity would have survived at all if Charles did not stop the Moors at Tours, considering how early in history the battle took place and how both Christianity and Islam were growing at the time. Given that I learned a lot about Charles Martel and about the Frankish people as well as how history forces contribute to almost if not all of the major things that have happened throughout history. More than one of each are usually involved and knowing about them have really helped me better understand why certain things throughout history have happened and why they happened the way that they did.