Charlemagne, also known as Charles the great was seen as the most powerful Carolingian ruler. Throughout his ruling Charlemagne succeeded at becoming more powerful than the Byzantine Emperor and making/hindering relationships.
Charlemagne was mostly known for being the founder of the Carolingian Empire, as well as uniting Western Europe. The son of Bertrada of Laon and Pepin the short, Charlemagne soon became ruler of the franconians after his father and younger brother’s deaths. While ruling he wanted to bring all Germanic people together into one kingdom and convert subjects into Christianity. After three-decades of battles against the Saxons, Charlemagne demanded the deaths of about 4,500 Saxons. Many have said that if the Saxons did not agree to
…show more content…
convert to Christianity or follow Christian traditions they were sentenced to death. While enjoying time being King and creating history, Charles the great also thrived at making enemies and friends at the same time.
The pope in the west had a good relationship with Charlemagne. As Charlemagne conquered northern and central Italy, a few parts of Spain, much of Germany, and the Lombard’s, the pope supported him. In the 800s, during Irene’s time in power as Byzantine emperor, the pope crowned Charlemagne emperor of Rome. The Byzantines were disturbed when hearing the pope say; Irene could not be emperor simply because she was a female. It was at this time, Charlemagne had made an enemy. Charles was thought of as the uneducated leader of primitive peoples, not as a ruler like their own. The emperor did not pay attention to what was being said, and claimed that he was the rightful heir of emperors of Rome.
After life as a King, emperor, husband and father Charlemagne’s last final 4 years of life, suffered from fevers and a limp. He divided up his empire among his heirs, but by the late 800s it dissolved. Charles the great will be remembered in history for many things, both good and bad. If there was one thing that he knew he did right, it would have been being a great father to his 18 or more
children.
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 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.
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.
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 ...
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 Roman Empire, unlike that of Charlemagne’s, with its wealth and power lasted for centuries. Although the Carolingian Empire did not withstand its rule, it made many advances under the rule of Charlemagne. He and Augustus both had a similar outlook; they both wanted the same thing – everlasting reign of their empires. They had strong and forceful armies as well as men who were ever so loyal to their leaders. Throughout the years, they worked to expand their rule and territory. A vast empire that would last for eternity is what was to be accomplished. Sadly enough, neither of their empires lasted through eternity. Both of the governments had been overthrown and defeated leading to the end of the vast
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.
Charles V essentially failed in all aspects of his universal empire plan (3). In the end, he was never able to stop the spread of the Reformation in his empire (5). Although he fell short of his own goals for his reign, people still remember him for his sense of duty, strength of will, and integrity (11).
(4) 3. King Henry I (1100-1135), and his Queen Consort Matilda of Scotland, parents of—
In 800 AD, Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor on Christmas day. When Charlemagne knelt at the altar to pray during Mass, Pope Leo III crowned him Emperor of the Romans in Saint Peter's Basilica. Supposedly, Charlemagne did not know of the Pope's intent when he entered the cathedral.
He tried to help quell the conflicts within the religion and use it to preserve the empire. However, Christianity is what led the ancient empire of Rome to its decline. The violence and intolerance from many members of the religion and members of the clergy, sanctioned by the emperor was a massive turning point in history. It influenced how people came to interact with one another and proved that the church would be in charge, or fighting to be in charge, for years to
Charles Martel was born during the late 7th century in what is now modern day Belgium. His father Pippin the Middle served as Mayor to the Palace of the King of the Franks and had an affair with a mistress which produced one of his bastard children, Charles. Instead of the King having power in the court they were essentially a figurehead and at the same time the Mayor of the Palace was really the king or the commander in chief of the army so Charles’ father Pippin was very powerful. Charles started out life at a disadvantage because just before Pippin’s death he was forced to disown any of the bastard children he had created which included Charles. Therefore Charles was no longer in line to become the next Mayor of the Palace and he lost all political standing while one of Pippin’...