More handpicked essays just for you.
What are the effects of the Protestant Reformation
What are the effects of the Protestant Reformation
What was the effect of the Protestant Reformation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
How did Charlemagne get crowned Roman Emperor and how did he organize and reform the Carolingian Empire/regime?
The most famous Carolingian King to rule the Frankish Kingdom was Charles (r.768-814), who was aptly named “the Great” by his peers. Charlemagne was crowned Roman Emperor in Rome by Pope Leon III on Christmas Eve of the year 800, however, the rise of Charlemagne’s power can be credited to the actions of his family’s dynasty who strategically came to power. Initially, Charlemagne’s grandfather gave prominice to the Carolingian dynasty by defeating an invading army of Muslims from Muslim Spain in 731. Peppin the Short, Charlemagne’s father, added further prestige to the family name by forming an alliance with the Papacy, eventually
…show more content…
To begin, Charlemagne tried to make Christian learning more accessible to ordinary citizens. He required every church in every village throughout his Empire to set up a free school. To make this learning more comprehensible for these students, Charlemagne insisted that all of the Church’s clergy should be able to speak in both Latin and the local language. Even within his court, Charlemagne was adamant on educational reform, instructing his chief advisor, Alucin, to prepare an improved version of “the Vulgate” – the Latin bible read in all church services – so that it could be made more understandable. As a consequence to Charlemagne’s education reform, the ancient culture of monasteries was rediscovered, resulting in an increase manuscript reproduction. In fact, the year Charlemagne became Emperor, there were only 700 manuscripts existent in the Empire; 77 years later, this number increased to 9000, allowing greater accessibility to Christian texts. Incidentally, such manuscript copying produced a new form of letter font, Carolingian miniscule, which was used to clarify Latin word structure and help people learn …show more content…
Because of this ‘radical’ view, the Anabaptists were forced to separate from their connections with Zwingli in 1525. As well, because Anabaptists believed in separation from society, this caused their teachings to digress further from Protestantisms like Luther’s, Zwingli’s and Calvin’s. The Anabaptists rejected the medieval Christian view of the Church as a single vast body and had a fundamental belief that the true church was a small community of believers. Therefore, unlike other Protestantisms, Anabaptists carried strong positions against any and all established powers, whether they be Catholic or
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
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 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.
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 Relationship of Political and Religious Societies in the Age of Charlemagne, Based of Einhard's The life of Charlemagne sections 15-33
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.
Charlemagne’s father, Pepin, died of dropsy on 24 September, 768 and left his two sons, Charlemagne and Carloman, with William, the Duke of Aquitania. After Pepin died, the whole kingdom was divided evenly between the two sons. It was split in such a way that Charlemagne would govern the part that belonged ...
Throughout Medieval history, there were many people who were a significant part of the Medieval age. They are well known and important because they all made a huge impact in the world that they lived in. Nevertheless, Charlemagne did the same and should be acknowledged for that. Charlemagne (Charles I) was the king of the Franks who started the Holy Roman Empire and was born around 742 A.D. His exact place of birth is unspecified, yet historians predicted that he was probably born in Aachen in modern-day Germany or Liege in present-day Belgium. Charlemagne has had many successful achievements during his life including when he revolutionized most parts of Western Europe and was crowned king in the year 800 by Pope Leo III. However he did have
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...
His initial reason for traveling to Rome was to “set the affairs of the church in order, because all was confusion;” however, his final trip to Rome caused him to be crowned emperor. (christ203). One of the affairs of the church was that Pope Leo “tore out his eyes and cut out his tounge” (christ203). Although Charlemagne did not expect to be crowned emperor, it allowed the pope to obtain military security from Charlemagne (book). “He was the first Emperor to rule since the Fall of Rome”-reword (livescience.com) His motto as Emperor was “Revival of the Roman empire.” (book). Charlemagne also realized the laws of the Romans were faulty. “He decided to add what was missing, sort out the discrepancies, and correct what was wrong.” (chrisitan203). Pope Leo then said "life and victory to Charles Augustus, crowned by God, the great and peaceful emperor of the Romans." (add somewhere)
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.
Charlemagne was born between 742 and 748, and died on January 28th 814 at age 71. His father was Pepin the Short who had become King of the Franks in 751. After the death of his father, Charlemagne became King of the Franks himself, with his brother Carloman, splitting the empire in half. The brothers were not fond of having to split the empire in half for three years. The way they would communicate would be through their mother. Carloman mysteriously died one day, and to this day in history, no one knows for sure whether or not Charlemagne was involved with it. Once his brother died, Charlemagne would take over the whole empire in 771 at age 24. He was now the emperor of the largest single kingdom in Europe.
In the third century AD, the Roman Empire was thrown into chaos through several civil wars due to a lust for power; many people were only interested in how influential they were, rather than acting for the benefit of the country. Since the Roman Empire was constantly expanding and becoming more powerful, Diocletian, the emperor at the time, deemed it to be too big to be ruled by only one emperor. The Empire was split into two parts, the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire. The Western Roman Empire didn’t last long; it fell during the 5th century AD when it was conquered by the barbarians. The Eastern Empire lasted a thousand years before it finally fell at the hands of the Turkish.
Any woman that is a relative of Charlemagne is regarded highly by Einhard. Charlemagne’s mother, sister and daughters are written about with the highest respect. They are portrayed as honorable, calm women who never caused any trouble. Charlemagne’s Bertrada, despite being a woman, was highly active in politics. Bertrada seemed to favor Charlemagne over her son other son Carloman. Her diplomatic skills may have helped Charlemagne’s success in his early years. She even arranged a marriage with Desiderius’ daughter, Desiderata, to secure an alliance with Lombardy. Even though her influenced may have diminished over the years her relationship with her son remained excellent. She lived with Charlemagne in court. The only time their relationship became strained was when Bertrada suggested to Charlemagne to marry Desiderate. When Charles sent Desiderata back to Lombardy, Bertrada was not pleased with her son. But this did not stop her from having a loving relationship with her son. Einhard writes: “Bertrada, also spent her old age in great honor with him. He treated her with the greatest respect, to the point that there was never any trouble between them [.]” Bertrada continued to live with Charlemagne until she died in 783. Charlemagne ensured that his mother was buried alongside her husband at St. Denis Basilica. Einhard also makes mention to Charlemagne’s sister. Gisela. Gisela was intended to marry the heir of the Byzantium Empire however she dedicated herself to the religious life. She served as an abbess at the convent at Chelles. Charlemagne is said to have “treated her with the greatest affection.” Charlemagne even had one of his daughters named after his sister.