Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of charlemagne on medieval europe
Charlemagne's war with the Saxons
The Impact Of The Charlemagne Dynasty On The Medieval Monarchy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of charlemagne on medieval europe
The reign of Charlemagne was full of wars and invasions. Charlemagne became king of half of the Frankish empire while the other half was given to his brother, Carloman. When Pepin died, there was a void that needed filling and Charles and his brother were both made kings by the Frankish people. This division was not peaceful and the reign was marked with each brother fighting for the other’s land and power. When Carloman died and his wife Gerberga fled to Italy, Charlemagne became king of both halves of the Frankish kingdom. Charles became the strongest ruler in Western Europe overnight, and as soon as he had control over both halves of the kingdom he swung promptly into action carrying out a plan of dominating many lands in all directions. This new reign was full of wars in the beginning as Charlemagne was starting to dominate a lot of different places at the same time. He fought with the Lombards and the Saxons while simultaneously leading expeditions into Spain to take land and castles. He waged wars with the Huns, a Slavic set of wars, and the Danish War. All of these exploits by Charlemagne made him a very powerful ruler but he neglected the lands that he already ruled and famine and uprising was happening. Charlemagne dealt with these problems and continued to thrive as a ruler.
During the reign of Charlemagne, the church in Rome was going through tough times with a string of disliked popes and problems with the Byzantine church. After the death of Pope Adrian I, his predecessor Pope Leo III, relied on Charlemagne to be the protector of the Holy See. Charlemagne too, even as Pepin had done, made the same gift of donation to St. Peter and his successors, Charlemagne actually did more, he added to what was done in the past...
... middle of paper ...
...ary in fact resulted from debates, which Charlemagne and his councilors had during and after a large assembly gathered for discussing a program of imperial government over church and state in the empire.
In crowning Charlemagne the papacy was tacitly admitting its need for political support in order to provide adequate pastoring to Western Europe. Before the crowning, the papacy was in no way dependent upon Charlemagne’s authority or influence to keep its rule over the areas around the Papal States. The church was not the same church as in the centuries before and it was falling into a corner from the rest of the world pushing it around. For centuries to come, the relative independence that Charlemagne conferred on the papacy gave the Bishops of Rome an immense and far-reaching capacity for influence and authority enjoyed by no other pastors in Christian history.
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
Charlemagne is described by Janet Nelson as being a role model for Einhard. Einhard himself writes in the first paragraph of The Life of Charlemagne, “After I decided to write about the life, character and no small part of the accomplishments of my lord and foster father, Charles, that most excellent and deservedly famous king, I determined to do so with as much brevity as I could.” I feel that these are sincere words about the man who cared for Einhard. I feel that Einhard’s purpose for writing The Life of Charlemagne is to praise the works of his “foster-father” and create a historical document that would describe the great deeds of Charlemagne so that he would not be forgotten throughout time as a great leader and man.
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.
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 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.
Pope Urban II was sought by Alexius Comnenus, a Byzantine Emperor who wanted the papacy to help his army hold off the advancing Seljuk Turks in Asia Minor. The reason for Alexius Comnenus contacting the pope rather than another emperor or monarch wasn’t just the fact they were secular, but because the pope would have more power to persuade the people. The Gregorian movement in 1050-80 was ultimately was responsible for the new instilled power of the papacy’s position over nonreligious rulers. The pope agreed to aid the Byzantine emperor, but he also had his own agenda when it came to the military advances and the new power of his position. The papacy did not intend to only help the Byzantine Empire but to further save all of Christendom from being overrun.
Every historian interprets the past differently and with distinctive perspectives, resulting in many sides to one story. Often the reader must decide which perspective is more logical, likely, or coherent. Recounting one war took a lot of time and effort because of the necessity to include all sides of the story. Becher, Barbero, Collins and Backman have approached the life of Charlemagne with different points of view; however, Barbero seems to have the strongest argument for the cause of the Saxon War. The other historians were less willing to see the Saxon war as a religious war. The life of Charlemagne was interesting to historians because it was filled with many vigorous wars that he fought including the infamous Saxon War. From the beginning of his life, Charlemagne was destined to rule a nation and lead his people into war, achieving both triumphant victories and devastating defeats. He died of sickness in old age, thus leaving the kingdom in the hands of his son. The Saxon war was the most persistent, yet hostile war he fought because of the determination and severity of the enemy. However, the questions remain: “What actually caused the Saxon war? What gave it life? What are all the different events that occurred during this war? What are some of the strategies used during this war?” The wars he fought resulted in his success as a ruler and as a historical figure to reflect on when considering the greatness of kings.
All throughout history, people have been fighting, there have been wars and conflicts ever since man has become ‘civilized’ enough to raise an army. And, many, many if not almost all of these conflicts have involved religion in some way or another (Ben-Meir). The question is why, and how, do people use God as justification for fighting and killing one another. Isn’t killing supposed to be wrong in God’s eyes? Whatever happened to ‘Thou shalt not Kill’? And how is it that hundreds of thousands of people have died by the hands of those who call themselves Christians?
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 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 accomplishes many deeds. One includes Charlemagne capturing the Breton’s. He conquers their land in the westernmost part of Gaul since they did not listen to him (25). Charlemagne, in his lifetime, will go through many wars. Many among those are listed in Notker. Notker his second book on Charlemagne goes into more detail about how the wars were brought about. Wars His rule is not limited to wars. Charlemagne sought out to initiate a sort of Renaissance period
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.
Religion is among one of the aspects that defines culture. This was a key concept for those living in the Middle Ages, whose lives were dominated by religion. More specifically, those in high positions of the church dominated their lives because the church provided a unified culture, or belief system. In fact, in the Early Middle Ages, rulers needed the support of the church to legitimize their rule. This was the case for Charlemagne, who united much of Western Europe and converted his subjects to Christianity. Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne emperor of the Romans in 800(History). “The assumption of the title of emperor of Charlemagne in
Perhaps no other event was as influential to the rise of papacy in Rome as the decline of the Roman empire. With the decline of the empire, the church became the last refuge of stability. Without the protection of the empire, Rome was subject to poverty, disrepair, and attack from enemies.1 The rise of the papacy was a response to this situation. It was further cemented by the leadership of such men as Leo I and Gregory I, the latter sometimes referred to as the father of the medieval papacy.2 Finally, the granting of lands and authority to the bishop of Rome greatly increased the power of the Roman church.3