Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction on charlemagne
Two lives of charlemagne sparknotes
Introduction on charlemagne
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Introduction on charlemagne
Einhard’s Exultation of Charlemagne’s Life Einhard composed Life of Charlemagne in 825 AD with the intention of commemorating King Charles’s well rounded devotion to his kingdom and his family, as he went beyond the expected duties of a King. Throughout the course of his life, Einhard had become very fond of the King and felt it his responsibility to preserve his knowledge of the King’s great deeds subsequent to the King’s death. Einhard provides a detailed piece of writing in which he eternalizes the deeds enacted by the King through which the King’s devotion is reflected. First, Einhard provides some detail about rulers who came before King Charles. In doing so, he provides the reader the opportunity to create a comparison between average rulers and King Charles, in which King Charles has a greater devotion to his rule than the leaders prior to his succession of the kingdom. For example, King Childeric III spent his rule “[sitting] on his thrown with his hair long and his beard cut, satisfied [to hold] the name of king only and pretended to rule” (137). There was also Carloman, King Charles’s uncle, “who walked away from the oppressive chore of governing an earthly kingdom” (137). Then there was King Charles’s brother, Carloman, with whom he “divided up the entire territory of the kingdom equally” until after his brother’s He “protected, increased the size of, and beautified his kingdom” (141). When it came to family, “he could not stand to be parted from their company” (142). Einhart’s evidence within his writting, along with how the information was presented, persuades the reader that as a King, Charles was deeply devoted to his family and kingdom, going well beyond what was expected of him as a ruler, as is commemorated through the Life of
“The key factor in limiting royal power in the years 1399-1509 was the king’s relationship with parliament.”
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 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
After reading two versions of “The Life of Charlemagne”, one written by a person who lived with Charlemagne, and one who didn’t, it is evident that Charlemagne is portrayed in a negative way by the author, the Monk of St. Gall, and in a positive way by Einhard. Einhard was very close to Charlemagne. He lived at the same time and with Charlemagne himself. His version of “The Life of Charlemagne” was writing right after his death. The Monk of St. Gall wrote his version more than 70 years after Charlemagne’s death. He did not live with or even at the same time as Charlemagne. This is probably one of the reasons the view on the ruler are completely different.
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.
“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, created a legacy that is greatly honored still to this day. He is seen as one of the greatest conquerors ever because of territories he conquered, the diversity he created, and the building of one of the greatest empires known to mankind. Since the fall of Rome, most of the continent of Europe has not been ruled by someone, until Charlemagne came along. Charlemagne was the founder of the Holy Roman Empire and was the one person to practically lead Europe out of the Dark Ages.
"Charlemagne." Myths and Legends of the World. Ed. John M. Wickersham. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000. Web. 19 May 2015.
The Church played a vital role in the kingdom of Charlemagne. It gave a sense
Yet out of this chaos stepped an extremely capable ruler—Charles I of Anjou. It is important to note, however, that while Charles was from Anjou he and his son regarded themselves as Hungarians. Under Charles and his son, Louis I, Hungary would experience a sort of golden age where its prestige and borders swelled. While much of the success of the Angevin golden age can be attributed, coincidentally, to the discovery of massive amounts of gold within the kingdom, many of the aforementioned factors that explain the success of Stephen likewise characterize the successes of Charles and Louis. This is logical, as the challenge faced by the Angevin’s in uniting a land divided by barons was not altogether different than that faced by Géza and Stephen,
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’...