Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on history of charlemagne
The two lives of charlemagne review
Essay on history of charlemagne
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
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 ...
... middle of paper ...
...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.
Works Cited
Samuel Epes Turner, Einhard: The Life of Charlemagne, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1880. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/einhard.asp#Saxon War
Alessandro Barbero, Charlemagne: Father of a Continent. Berkeley: University of California, 2004.
Matthias Becher, Charlemagne. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003.
Clifford R. Backman, The Cultures of the West: A History. Volume 1: To 1750. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Roger Collins, Charlemagne. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1998.
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.
After contemplating Einhard’s purpose for writing The Life of Charlemagne it is important to examine his qualifications for doing so. Early on in the introduction there is a brief history on Einhard and his education.
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.
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 ...
Charlemagne’s reign before his death was also an important event in the shaping of Europe. Charlemagne (768 -814) also known as “Charles the Great” would raid Italy and capture the Lombard crown adding Northern Italy in 774. He would fight the Saxon’s for over thirty years expanding his territory along the way. The emperor would aggressively convert foreigners after conquering their territory into Christianity. By 800, he extended his territory into the Western and Central regions of Europe. The Carolingian King would create institutions that would mirror the old Roman Empire and set up districts under an appointed authority called a “count” similar to a modern governor.
In the epic poem of Beowulf, written by an unknown monk in about 725 AD, the Anglo-Saxon virtue of comitatus is displayed as a slowly dying aspect of life. Comitatus is the basic idea that everyone protects the king at all costs even if it means a warrior giving up his own life, and if a king is killed, the warriors must avenge the death of the king or they can no longer serve as warriors for the next king. This value of comitatus is displayed mostly through the three battles that Beowulf encounters during the epic poem. An analysis of the three battles is important because Beowulf’s choice of weapons, behavior of the Thanes, and preparation for and attitude toward battle all emphasize the death of the Anglo-Saxon virtue of comitatus.
At Charlemagne's death in 1814 only one of his three sons, Louis, was living. Louis's weak rule brought about the rise of civil wars and revolts. After his death, his three quarreling sons split the empire between them by the Partition of Verdun in 1843.
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
In the essay "The Emperor Charlemagne," Einhard discussed the rise and greatness of this ruler, and gave an in-depth look into who the King truly was. After receiving the Frank kingdom from his father, he more than doubled the previous territory that the Franks already pos...
When Charles was six he started military training. At the age of fifteen his father allowed him to be the overlordship in Austrasian. When his father died in 768, the empire was divided between him and his brother. The Charlemagne learned how to be an Emperor because he watched how his father led the Franks. It was in 741, that Charlemagne got to be a leader, but he was not the only Carolingian leader. The land was split between him an...
After years of skirmishes and attack along their shared borders, the Franks decided to go to war in order to put an end to the dispute for once and for all in 772. The Saxons were not at all like the Franks. Einhard describes them as pagan and uncivilized in every possible way. “Naturally fierce, [worshipping] demons and . . . opposed to [our religion]” (Rosenwein 138). It is important to note that in demonizing his enemies, Einhard reinforces this idea of Charlemagne’s power source being something beyond this world. He is endowed with wisdom and an ability that is near holy. Charlemagne is no longer a man, or even a king, but something more. In 804, the conflict ended once again on Charlemagne’s terms. He ordered the Saxons to give up their pagan ways and accept the Christian religions and they--- as Einhard seems to suggest--- happily obliged. This is yet another fantastic tale of Charles’ conquests. The enemy falling at the king’s feet. He gave a command to the Saxons and followed, and with the decree Charlemagne suddenly is able to unite the people. Obviously, history does not happen this way, but it is Einhard’s voice as an author that tells the audience of the Charlemagne’s larger-than-life
Charlemagne's source of power can be found primarily in the way he was born. Charles was born somewhere (possibly Aachen, or Liège) in the Frankish Kingdom, around from 742-748. He was born to Pepin the Short, Mayor of the Palace, and Bertrada of Laon. Pepin's status as Mayor of the Palace gave him more actual power than the current King, Childeric III, the last of the Merovingians, a failing dynasty that had ruled the Frankish Kingdom for a long time. The reason the Mayor had more power than the King was because the last few monarchs had done little to manage the Frankish Kingdom. Soon, the other nobles started to respond to the Mayor, instead of the King. In other words, Childeric and his most recent forefathers were little more than figureheads. Eventually, Childeric
Charlemagne or “Charles the Great” was a great and successful ruler. He wasn’t just a ruler though he had other skills and abilities. Charlemagne loved music and to learn, he was a good hunter, strong athlete and a strong military leader. These skills will later help him with his rule and how he wants the society to be. Charlemagne was crowned the “Emperor of the Romans” because he helped Pope Leo III when he needed help against some Germans. It came as a surprise to Charlemagne being crowned. He didn’t really expect it, but when he finally realized it was happening, he preferred being called “King of the Franks.”
Hunt, Lynn, et al. The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures. Boston, New York: