More handpicked essays just for you.
The impact that Charlemagne had on the future shape of medieval Europe
The impact that Charlemagne had on the future shape of medieval Europe
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Carolingian Renaissance
The Carolingian Renaissance, a period dated back in the middle Ages was characterized as the rebirth of the education system, culture, and art since ancient Rome. A huge figure who developed an intellectual awareness in these times was Charlemagne. Charlemagne took the throne of the Frankish kingdom. “His reign was based on harmony which developed between three elements: the Roman past, the Germanic way of life, and Christianity”(Kreis). The three major achievements which Charlemagne rose a higher level from ancient Roman times were, Revising the government and court systems, the bartering system, and emphasized on the importance of information and education.
When dealing with a successful civilization, many tend to look at how strong and respectable the government treats its people. The current government of this time was looked upon as an unfair system. This system decided whether you were noble/Peasant or clergy. People from this time agreed with the policy they were dealt with. On the other hand, Charlemagne did not agree. Charlemagne then pledged a new system. He impacted a positive government by making a fairer system, which is still known till this day is trail by jury.
…show more content…
Within the same era, people of power were known to abuse the less fortunate. These people of higher power were represented as Lords. Lords at the time only kept people protected if they were reimbursed with payment. They would send out tax collectors to collect their money. Most people did not have enough money to pay there taxes.. This led the tax collectors to offer unfair prices. Charlemagne thought out a money system that dealt with silver coins. Using this method would put a limit on the value. He made a fairer trading
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.
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 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.
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.
After reading two versions of “The Life of Charlemagne”, one written by a person who lived with Charlemagne, and one who didn’t, it is evident that Charlemagne is portrayed in a negative way by the author, the Monk of St. Gall, and in a positive way by Einhard. Einhard was very close to Charlemagne. He lived at the same time and with Charlemagne himself. His version of “The Life of Charlemagne” was writing right after his death. The Monk of St. Gall wrote his version more than 70 years after Charlemagne’s death. He did not live with or even at the same time as Charlemagne. This is probably one of the reasons the view on the ruler are completely different.
...become great and victorious. There is the concept of how everything that Charlemagne did was for his enemies to be converted to Christianity and nothing else. Through the different interpretations, the argument for religious motives was the strongest. Charlemagne used military tactics in a misguided attempt to further the kingdom of God.
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.
“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.
Charlemagne Charlemagne, also known as Charles the Great, became the undisputed ruler of Western Europe, “By the sword and the cross.” (Compton’s 346) As Western Europe was deteriorating Charlemagne was crowned the privilege of being joint king of the Franks in 768 A.D. People of Western Europe, excluding the church followers, had all but forgotten the great gifts of education and arts that they had possessed at one time. Charlemagne solidly defeated barbarians and kings in identical fashion during his reign. Using the re-establishment of education and order, Charlemagne was able to save many political rights and restore culture in Western Europe.
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.
Throughout the middle ages, many empires were working on expanding their territory, but it was not always a success unless they had the appropriate leadership to guide them in the right direction. The main empire that grew to extraordinary lengths is that of the Roman Empire. Through many conquests and battles and with an amicable government, it attained its fortune. However, on the other hand, there was another government that shared similarities with that of Rome; this was the empire of Charlemagne, otherwise known as the Carolingian Empire, but it failed to have a prosperous eternity.
Government of the medieval society was impacted greatly by the rise of the church. As time passed after Jesus’s crucifiction, preaching’s of his heroic sacrifice for human’s sins intrigued many people including leaders from different places. “In the latter part of the Middle Ages, the pope, as head of the church, had much influence over the king and total control of the clergy” (The Middle Ages). Knowing the belief that common folk had in Christianity, many leaders seemed to take advantage or work with religious role models like popes, bishops, priests, etc. for ways of taking control of people or simply being crowned emperor. In 800, Charlemagne “was crowned emperor by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day” (Charlemagne). The pope was appealed to Charlemagne (also known as Charles the Great) for protection against the Lombards. Though this appeared to be a mutual trade, it is interesting as to how Pope Leo III had the power to crown someone to be e...
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
After Charlemagne's death, the Carolingian Empire was divided in three parts by the Treaty of Verdun in 834. This division weakened the Empire, many battles took place and it allowed the Viking's invasions from the north. It was around that time that the hereditary character of feudalism and the power of the fiefs, in...
The ancient Romans transferred the people’s imperium to the governing emperors. During that time, the emperor was not bounded by the laws’ constraints, as a matter of fact, his word was indeed the law. In the medieval era, the monarchs did not possess a similar power. It was based on a shared aristocracy (Philpott, 2016). Sovereignty during the medieval era existed in the form of de jure, a legitimate entitlement among the nobles, the governed population at the time were free to make their own choices. During the Reformation, the monarchs sort to rid the nobles of their de jure entitlements. During this period, the states craved for a central authority, a venture that was spearheaded by Jean Bodin. According to Bodin, he deemed it fit for the authoritative figures to seek counsel from a specialized group of individuals, an appointed Senate. Bodin thought that the sovereign needed to set up the Estates (a political order) to communicate with the population and magistrates who would administer the laws. Sovereignty according to Jean Bodin existed outside the confines of nobility; leaders were supposed to be constrained by the law, and act in accordance to a jus gentium, a law common to every nation (Philpott,