Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The reign of charlemagne and his impact on the western world
Influence of the catholic church during the medieval times
The reign of charlemagne and his impact on the western world
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
It was the year 742 and no one knew that the emperor of most of western europe, the king of Franks, and one the most influential rulers was born……. Charlemagne!
So ‘Who was charlemagne and how did he influence the development of Medieval Europe?’
Charlemagne was born in the famous Francia/Frankia, also known as the Kingdom of the Franks. He grew up in a world where life was dictated to wealth, power and status. The feudal system demonstrated the rights and privileges given to the different classes. The high ranking nobles lived in castle with their knights, ladies and retinues. Others enjoyed their life in their Manors while the peasants,serfs, freemen and villeins spent their life surrounded in village life. In 768 this great man came to
…show more content…
To understand his political influence you need to understand that Charlemagne had three major roles as a king, he controlled the army, defended the church, and was the supreme judge. Therefore one of his major changes was that he replaced old system of trial by ordeal and replaced it with trial by jury which was seen as one of the most important doings Charlemagne did for his people. During his campaign, he fought in many brutal wars including the bloody war in Aquitaine; which was started by his father. Charlemagne also took over northern Italy, dethroned king Desiderius, and then proclaimed himself the King of Italy in 774. With the Pope’s hatred of Charlemagne, he soon accused him of violation of prearranged agreements. This angered Charlemagne and he went to war and defeated pope and his scheme with two campaigns. Overall Charlemagne political reign showed that charlemagne accomplished many things for his people in particular his success in many wars although he was soon defeated in the campaign against …show more content…
A negative short term effect charlemagne contributed to was the intellectual activity of Western Europe beginning a slow recovery since the fall of the Roman Empire. Short term, Charlemagne established a substantial empire in France and Germany, and in the long term, when Charlemagne died, his empire did not last long after his death. The empire was then divided for each of his three grandsons. In the short term, Charlemagne helped expand Christianity in Western Europe after a brutal war, as a positive long term effect Christianity eventually expanded across Europe. In the short term he was also able to unify Western Europe after the time of Rome’s fall, as well as his contribution to the Roman Empire that had expanded due to his power. In the Long term, the Roman Empire helped many citizens to convert to
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
His belief in the need for education among the Frankish people was to bring about religious, political, and educational reforms that would change the way we live. history of Europe. Charlemagne was born in 742 at Aachen, the son of Pepin (or Pippin) the Short and grandson of Charles Martel. His grandfather, Charles, had begun the process of. unifying western Europe, in the belief that all people should be Christian.
Christians went from being persecuted to dominating Rome rather quickly. In a world where separation between church and state does not exist, a Christian becoming the sole emperor of Rome symbolized a huge turning point in history. The power switched and the Pagans in turn became persecuted. Christians rose up and took control of all aspects of Roman society. The Pagan past was destroyed, banned, or forgotten about. Those Christians that did not agree with how things were being run either left the empire and became monks or formed their own sect. All of Rome changed.
King Charlemagne from The Song of Roland and King David from the Bible are very similar in some ways. For most of the book, Charlemagne’s goal was to defeat the Saracens, who were the enemies of the Christians. The Song of Roland writes, “‘Here now is come King Charlemagne our land to overthrow./ I have no host of battle to meet in his might,/ nor store enough of henchmen to beat him in the fight’” (II). King David was most famously known for defeating the Philistines, the enemy of the Israelites, with one single throw of a stone.