Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on history of charlemagne
Essay on history of charlemagne
Essay on history of charlemagne
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on history of charlemagne
A primary source is a first-hand source of information that was recorded or created during that specific time. It can take many different forms, a document, artifact, video or recording, dairy and so on. It represents an original source about a certain topic. It is a source created by someone who was there at the time recording directly from the topic of discussion. For example, one primary source that we used in class this year was the crowning of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor. For this encounter, there are two primary sources, one account from the Royal side and one from the Churches side. This is considered a primary source because, it was recorded during the ceremony as it was happening. This allows us to get a glimpse of what it was …show more content…
With my example, above about the Charlemagne account, you can clearly see the biases between the two accounts. As one can see from analyzing both accounts is that they are both bias towards either the King or Pope. Within the Papal account you see that they describe the Pope as “venerable and beneficent”. It emphasizes how precious the crown is that the Pope was bestowing upon Charlemagne. As well as how the “faithful Romans” looked upon the Pope as a “pillar of defence” which portrays the Pope to seem more worshiped and powerful than Charlemagne. That with the will of God the Pope crowned Charlemagne. However, in the Royal account of Charlemagne they focus more on how it was on the “most holy day of Christmas, when the king, at Mass before the confessio of the blessed Peter the apostle, was rising from prayer, Leo the pope put a crown on his head.” One can see that within this account it tells the reader that before the Pope prayed to the “blessed Peter the apostle” he crowned Charlemagne. This shows that Charlemagne is to look more powerful and important than praying to Peter the apostle. Furthermore, once crowded the Roman people praised the new king and the Pope himself “adored” Charlemagne in the “manner of ancient princes.” Representing the power that Charlemagne had over the
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 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 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.
...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.
“The apprenticeship of a King” describes how Charlemagne gained power through conquest and diplomacy. In 768, King Pippin died and his kingdom was divided between his two sons. Charles, the elder, and the younger was Carloman. The author says that little is known of Charles’ boyhood. When he was of the right age, it is recorded that he worked eagerly at riding and hunting. It was the custom of the Franks to ride and be practiced in the use of arms and ways of hunting. We may reasonably infer that acquiring these skills formed a major part of his early education. Charles was not a “man of letters” and the author makes no attempt at explaining this other than to point out that literacy was considered unimportant at that time for anyone other than the clergy and Charles didn’t become interested in “letters” until later in life. Bullough explains a number of experiences in public duties and responsibilities, which were assigned to Charles by his father, thus, giving him an apprenticeship to rule the kingdom. For some reason tension between Charles and his brother began shortly after their accession. The author explains a number of conflicts. The younger brother died however, at the end of 771 and a number of prominent people in his kingdom offered allegiance to Charles. Bullough names and explains those subjects. The result was the re-uniting of those territories, which helped to establish the kingdom of the Franks.
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.
Throughout the middle ages, many empires were working on expanding their territory, but it was not always a success unless they had the appropriate leadership to guide them in the right direction. The main empire that grew to extraordinary lengths is that of the Roman Empire. Through many conquests and battles and with an amicable government, it attained its fortune. However, on the other hand, there was another government that shared similarities with that of Rome; this was the empire of Charlemagne, otherwise known as the Carolingian Empire, but it failed to have a prosperous eternity.
He had a vision of what it meant to be a great king. He followed the history of the kings after Alexander the Great. He believed he had to increase the social, political and intellectual organization of his society. This distinguished himself from any other ruler from the past three hundred years. Charlemagne wanted to recreate what the Roman Empire once was capable of, but even better. As he traveled, he made sure he created a great educational system. He built a chain of schools and provided classes for chil...
Charlemagne, or Charles the Great, reigned during a time of much turmoil and upheaval in Europe during middle ages. Charlemagne’s background and family history contributed much to his rise to power. The triumphs of his past lineage prepared him to take on the task of governing the Frankish Empire, and defending it from invaders. Charlemagne accomplished much during his supremacy. He not only brought education back into medieval Europe, but also invented an efficient way to govern his people. His conquests against the many adversaries of the Holy Roman Empire expanded his empire across the majority of Europe. His conquests also formed strong ties between the Catholic Church and the State. Charlemagne’s drive to convert Europe’s primitive and pagan tribes to Christianity nearly effaced the Saxons, whom he battled with for the majority of his reign. The crowning of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor created a turning point in history. Within years after his death, however, his once great empire amounted to nothing. Charlemagne’s reign as King of the Franks and as Holy Roman Emperor greatly influenced the course of Europe during the middle ages.
It is suspected by some historians that Leo did this as an act of gratitude (History). With this new crowning, the kingdoms of Western Europe were said to have been reborn. This crowning lead to the joining of Roman, Christian, and Germanic aspects. Charlemagne continued to expand and prosper under his empire (Duiker and Spielvogel). His crowning also had a significant impact on the Byzantine Empire as well.
“Pope Leo III crowned the Frankish king, Charlemagne, Emperor of the Romans” (Matthias von Hellfeld) as a way to revitalize the Roman Empire and “because [the pope] could no longer fend off his enemies in the city” (Matthias von Hellfeld). Charlemagne had the ultimate power as a monarch, however, he focused this power differently than previous rulers. Charlemagne “transitioned the Medieval society into European culture. He created the first standardized curriculum (which sprouted the seven liberal arts): grammar, rhetoric, logic, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy and music”. (Calder Scott et al.