Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on history of charlemagne
Essay on history of charlemagne
Essay on history of charlemagne
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on history of charlemagne
A primary source is a first-hand source of information that was recorded or created during that specific time. It can take many different forms, a document, artifact, video or recording, dairy and so on. It represents an original source about a certain topic. It is a source created by someone who was there at the time recording directly from the topic of discussion. For example, one primary source that we used in class this year was the crowning of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor. For this encounter, there are two primary sources, one account from the Royal side and one from the Churches side. This is considered a primary source because, it was recorded during the ceremony as it was happening. This allows us to get a glimpse of what it was …show more content…
With my example, above about the Charlemagne account, you can clearly see the biases between the two accounts. As one can see from analyzing both accounts is that they are both bias towards either the King or Pope. Within the Papal account you see that they describe the Pope as “venerable and beneficent”. It emphasizes how precious the crown is that the Pope was bestowing upon Charlemagne. As well as how the “faithful Romans” looked upon the Pope as a “pillar of defence” which portrays the Pope to seem more worshiped and powerful than Charlemagne. That with the will of God the Pope crowned Charlemagne. However, in the Royal account of Charlemagne they focus more on how it was on the “most holy day of Christmas, when the king, at Mass before the confessio of the blessed Peter the apostle, was rising from prayer, Leo the pope put a crown on his head.” One can see that within this account it tells the reader that before the Pope prayed to the “blessed Peter the apostle” he crowned Charlemagne. This shows that Charlemagne is to look more powerful and important than praying to Peter the apostle. Furthermore, once crowded the Roman people praised the new king and the Pope himself “adored” Charlemagne in the “manner of ancient princes.” Representing the power that Charlemagne had over the
I find Einhard’s account credible because he was described as someone who was so entrusted by Charlemagne that he knew the events that were going on and could give an accurate depiction of how Charlemagne was changing his society. However I do feel that Einhard described the coronation differently than Tierney by leaving out so much of the Church’s insistence on the coronation of Charlemagne. Though the entire biography is brief, it seems almost like Einhard rushed through the coronation which is something I would have found as a monumental part of his rule. It is interesting to me that Einhard would not go more in depth onto how Charlemagne felt about the coronation and what steps he took to treat it with the care he believed it required. However on all other accounts of the life of Charlemagne I feel Einhard is a credible source.
Einhard divides his discussion of Charlemagne into three distinct sections, perhaps in imitation of the king’s will, which is also partitioned into the same three underlying themes: church, empire, and intellect.
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.
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 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.
Upon evaluating each empire, there are likings between both the Carolingian Empire and the Roman Empire, along with their leaders, Charlemagne and Augustus. Both leaders in their own veneration were experienced military men with dexterity in engaging in war to expand their sway and authority. Each had attained an abundance of land at the beginning of their sovereignty, and during their walk of life had exponentially accumulated an extensive empire. The crucial variance that permitted the Roman Empire to continue to withstand itself was the supervision of the
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...
"Charlemagne." Myths and Legends of the World. Ed. John M. Wickersham. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000. Web. 19 May 2015.
It is suspected by some historians that Leo did this as an act of gratitude (History). With this new crowning, the kingdoms of Western Europe were said to have been reborn. This crowning lead to the joining of Roman, Christian, and Germanic aspects. Charlemagne continued to expand and prosper under his empire (Duiker and Spielvogel). His crowning also had a significant impact on the Byzantine Empire as well.
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 Relationship of Political and Religious Societies in the Age of Charlemagne, Based of Einhard's The life of Charlemagne sections 15-33
“Pope Leo III crowned the Frankish king, Charlemagne, Emperor of the Romans” (Matthias von Hellfeld) as a way to revitalize the Roman Empire and “because [the pope] could no longer fend off his enemies in the city” (Matthias von Hellfeld). Charlemagne had the ultimate power as a monarch, however, he focused this power differently than previous rulers. Charlemagne “transitioned the Medieval society into European culture. He created the first standardized curriculum (which sprouted the seven liberal arts): grammar, rhetoric, logic, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy and music”. (Calder Scott et al.
Primary sources are important because they give the reader first person accounts of people’s direct experiences as they were experienced by the person, and witness accounts of what someone directly observed of a situation or event. Primary sources are used in history to give accounts of what was happening at the time from someone who lived that event, and can recount what happened as they experienced it instead of things written on the subject that have to rely on outside information to write the story because they were not there.