Analysis Of Two Lives Of Charlemagne By Einhard

On Einhard’s account of the great Charlemagne in Two Lives of Charlemagne, the theme of war makes up a good portion of the biography of Charlemagne from Einhard’s account of the great king. Einhard recalls to readers of the many battles and the many enemies that Charlemagne fought and won. The only thing that seems to linger is how much of Einhard’s account is reliable, and how much is made up. Did Einhard add in “details” to make Charlemagne a heroic man versus a rather ambiguous leader who made both moral and immoral decisions when war is involved?

In my paper, I want to explore the evidence that suggests Einhard glorifies war in order to make Charlemagne into a hero or a man with true honor and morals. While, analyzing the theme of war in Two Lives of Charlemagne.

Before analyzing the subject, Charlemagne, we must first look into the man who written about the interesting figure. With Two Lives of Charlemagne, Einhard is one of the writers involved in the biography of Charlemagne. As the introduction is written, Einhard’s life is marginal documented. Probably not being an “important figure”, Einhard’s life, possibly didn’t matter in comparison to leaders like Charlemagne. The things that

are known about Einhard is that he possibly suffered from dwarfism, but was intelligent and literate1. Einhard develops a friendship with Charlemagne and remains loyal to him until his death. Is it because of that loyalty that Einhard writes Charlemagne as the way he does?
One thing that seems to define how much a man’s leadership over his country is how he reacts to one of the things caused by the human condition, warfare. In Einhard’s account of Charlemagne in Two Lives of Charlemagne the subject of warfare reoccurs throughout the account. It’s because of this subject which creates the question of how much of the account if accurate and rather Einhard’s account shines the light on Charlemagne to bright.
“Of all the wars he waged he first took on the Aquitanian, which his father had begun but not finished.”1 From Einhard’s account, Charlemagne’s first war in his military career was against the Aquitanian which his father couldn’t beat. So, why did Charlemagne need to beat these people? Was it because of his father or was there another reason like an ego issue or could Charlemagne have been more ambitious, which is not a bad thing but also can be not a good thing as well. Can Charlemagne’s ambition mirror the other qualities of his characteristics for both the good and the bad? I do believe that Charlemagne shows his ambition through this battle. As the passage continues about his first campaign “He refused to abandon a war already in progress or to leave a task undone, until by determination and firmness he achieved the goal he had set himself. He forced Hunold, who had tried to occupy Aquitaine after the death of Waifar and to renew a war almost over, to give up Aquitaine and seek refuge in Gascony.” Einhard highlights Charlemagne’s willpower to not leave the war and was set to see it through. This to readers, at least from Einhard’s standpoint, shows the character of Charlemagne as someone who determined and someone who wants to avenge his family’s name. Also Einhard writes “He forced Hunold to give up Aquitaine and seek refuge in Gascony…” How did Charlemagne force Hunold to leave? Was there a threat of some sorts that Charlemagne used on Hunold? I believe there was some negative suggestion to Charlemagne that Einhard didn’t write because of him didn’t want readers to think that Charlemagne was not afraid to show his power to others when war is involved and not afraid to show that power to show others which also can affects his image as the hero that Einhard wants readers to take from his writings about Charlemagne.
The Saxon war comes to light in the Two Lives of Charlemagne and Einhard uses a form of propaganda when he described the Saxons. He writes “No war has taken up by the Frankish people was ever longer, or more savage, or cost so much labour because the Saxons, like almost all the people inhabiting Germany, were by nature fierce and given over to the worship of demons and were opposed to our religion and did not think it shameful to violate or transgress either human or divine laws.” 2 How much of this is translated from Latin and English can be questionable since Einhard spoke and written in Latin, the common language. In terms of the English language, Einhard paints a damaging image of the Saxons. They, the Saxons, where war and bloody thirsty who were not civilized. The Saxons worshiped the devil and therefore, not Christians. I believe that Einhard describes the Saxon in a way like this, rather, it’s true or not, to paint them as a monster who would kill everyone if they had the chance and for the mighty Charlemagne to slay them like a monster. I do believe that they, the Saxons, were built up to be monsters, so when Charlemagne fights them, it would be a celebrated for many generations as victory against the unholy and savage people in the war. Where the Saxons blood thirsty savages? I don’t believe they were, but it didn’t matter to Einhard as they were the enemy of Charlemagne that he needed to be the hero of the battle. How many Saxons Charlemagne killed didn’t matter as well since they were savages.
“In this war, although it lasted for a long time, Charles met the enemy in battle no more in the place called Detmold… His enemies were destroyed and conquered in these two battles, so much so that they no longer dared to anger the king…” (Einard, page 24).

A rather interesting passage from Einhard in Two Lives of Charlemagne. Charlemagne, as written by Einhard, conquered his enemy after the two battles he fought in, and it was because of those two battles that the battle hungry enemy feared Charlemagne and didn’t dare to feel his wrath again. So, why did the enemy fear Charlemagne? Einhard never writes the reason why and the level of Charlemagne’s anger. Had Einhard ever experience that anger himself? The question that I was concerned this is, what’s Charlemagne’s

anger?
In my paper, I wanted to explore the evidence that suggests Einhard glorifies war in order to make Charlemagne into a hero or a man with true honor and morals. While, analyzing the theme of war in Two Lives of Charlemagne. So, did Einhard do this? Generally, like most leaders, I do believe he did, but in the end it didn’t matter of the bad things Charlemagne had committed during his rule. It’s the good things Charlemagne that Einhard wanted readers to take from his biography and the man he had more respect.