Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on charlemagnes rise to power
Einhard, Life of Charlemagne goals
Introduction on charlemagne
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on charlemagnes rise to power
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.
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...
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
Charlemagne—Charles, King of the Franks—obviously has a fan in Einhard. His powerful work, The Life of Charlemagne, details the king’s life from the building of his empire, through the education of his children, and culminating in his final living words: the division of his possessions and the instructions for the preservation of his kingdom. At first glance, the inclusion of Charlemagne’s will seems an odd choice to end an essay that demonstrates thoroughly the specifics of the great man’s life. After all, who needs to know which child gets his gold, and which archbishop he favored the most. Einhard reveals the ignorance in this assumption by doing just the opposite: using Charlemagne’s will as the final and most convincing illustration of the king’s life and character.
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.
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.
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 Relationship of Political and Religious Societies in the Age of Charlemagne, Based of Einhard's The life of Charlemagne sections 15-33
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 ...
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.
There is a lot we can learn from personal experience of those close to the king. Through the writing of Einhard we see the life of Charlemagne as not only a king, but also a friend, a son, and a father. Without such biographies generations of great triumph would have been lost to the battle of life.
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.
There was relatively little commerce in Western Europe. Roads, bridges, and the infrastructure generally were non-existent. Furthermore, the countryside was unsafe for travel due to a lack of organized law enforcement. Small villages had to take care of themselves; therefore, manufacturing was carried on only to the extent that was needed to supply local needs.
Charlemagne was a tall young man with light blond hair, and was described by his secretary as, “face laughing and merry. . . his appearance was always stately and dignified.” (World book 452) Charlemagne had great wit, but was stern at times. He had simple and moderate tastes; he enjoyed hunting, riding and swimming. Charlemagne had a large wardrobe with many Frankish dresses, linen shirts and breeches, silk-fringed tunics, hoses wrapped with bands, and for the winter he had coats made of otter or marten skins.
Constantine the Great, first Christian Emperor, originator of Constantinople, creator of the Byzantine Empire, military conqueror, and honored saint, has been labeled by many the most instrumental emperor of the Roman Empire. Constantine played a crucial role in the development of Europe during the Middle Ages, and founded Christianity as the formal religion of the Roman Empire. His dynamic yet effective predominance laid the infrastructure of European development. From his humble beginnings, to his command of the Roman Empire, to his final days, Constantine’s impact on world history and Christianity has left behind an unforgettable legacy. He was described by Eusebius as “such an emperor as all history records not.” Ware compared him to, “a watershed in the history of the Church.” Additionally, Meyendorff states, “No single human being in history has contributed to the conversion of so many to the Christian faith.” Norwich declared that “No ruler in all of history has ever more fully merited his title of ‘the Great’…Constantine has serious claim to be considered the most influential man in all of history.” Some of Constantine’s notable acts in the history of Christianity was his calling of the first Ecumenical Council at Nicaea, his institution of freedom for Christianity with the Edict of Milan, and the relocation of the capital of empire from Rome to Constantinople.
Einhard states in the preface of the book, “made me greatly his debtor as well in death as in life,” this statement shows me that Einhard felt like he owed his life to Charlemagne and that he would do anything for him. I think that this is the main reason that Einhard is so biased in his writing. Just like in the book The Life of St. Benedict, the Einhard isn’t going to write about the things that Charlamagne did wrong. In all honesty, he probably can’t even see the wrong that is happening in Charlamagne’s life, and that is why we can’t trust this account of Charlamagne’s