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 two most popular primary sources available are going to be the works published in The Two Lives of Charlemagne: The Life of Charlemagne written by Einhard and The Deeds of Charlemagne written by Notker the Stammerer. In addition to these The Capitulary of Charlemagne is also available and helps to provide a more political background to Charlemagne. You can also go a bit more in depth to find some primary sources that are not as obvious. The two that I found most interesting being Asnapium: An Inventory of One of Charlemagne's Estates, which provides us with information about the way Charlemagne may have lived and allow us to glimpse what life was like for Charlemagne (even down to what things were growing in his garden!), and De Litteris Colendis: a letter from Charlemagne to Baugaulf of Fulda which shows us Charlemagne's true concern with education in his empire.
For the most part, all of...
... middle of paper ...
... finished. This seems like an odd statement considering that the Capitularies of Charlemagne seem to list many laws that came about during his rule.
Overall, I think there is some really great information out there about the lives of Charlemagne, no matter which version of himself you're looking into. What we really need to remember is that we currently have no way of knowing anything more about him than what has already been written down and, for the most part, based off a very personal opinion of Charlemagne. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, although it can make learning about Charlemagne a little tough; we just have to realize that there are some really great resources out there to inform us about his life, as long as you are taking the uncertainty and personal bias into account while doing the research, I think the information can be utilized extremely well.
Although Charlemagne and Julius Caesar lived very different lives; they had some similarities. Caesar was an important military leader who ruled as a Consul during the Roman Empire. Caesar wasn’t afraid to get what he wanted. He wanted control of Gaul and when Pompey told him to leave; he came back and defeated him. Charlemagne was also very focused on military conquests.
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 accomplishes many deeds. One includes Charlemagne capturing the Breton’s. He conquers their land in the westernmost part of Gaul since they did not listen to him (25). Charlemagne, in his lifetime, will go through many wars. Many among those are listed in Notker. Notker his second book on Charlemagne goes into more detail about how the wars were brought about. Wars His rule is not limited to wars. Charlemagne sought out to initiate a sort of Renaissance period
I find Einhard’s account credible because he was described as someone who was so entrusted by Charlemagne that he knew the events that were going on and could give an accurate depiction of how Charlemagne was changing his society. However I do feel that Einhard described the coronation differently than Tierney by leaving out so much of the Church’s insistence on the coronation of Charlemagne. Though the entire biography is brief, it seems almost like Einhard rushed through the coronation which is something I would have found as a monumental part of his rule. It is interesting to me that Einhard would not go more in depth onto how Charlemagne felt about the coronation and what steps he took to treat it with the care he believed it required. However on all other accounts of the life of Charlemagne I feel Einhard is a credible source.
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.
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
Charlemagne was a tall young man with light blond hair, and was described by his secretary as, “face laughing and merry. . . his appearance was always stately and dignified.” (World book 452) Charlemagne had great wit, but was stern at times. He had simple and moderate tastes; he enjoyed hunting, riding and swimming. Charlemagne had a large wardrobe with many Frankish dresses, linen shirts and breeches, silk-fringed tunics, hoses wrapped with bands, and for the winter he had coats made of otter or marten skins.
I absolutely believe Charlemagne was one of the greatest emperors of all time. No one is perfect, but he really created an empire at least as great as what the Roman Empire once was. I was not fond of killing people if they didn’t follow a religion, but in reality, they had no choice. I believe they were lucky to at least get that much of a chance to live since after all, they were the ones who got conquered by him. I did like how he set the law down and basically showed other territories who is boss and not to mess with. I learned a lot researching about Charlemagne and enjoyed reading about his distinguishing and diverse empire.
"Charlemagne." Myths and Legends of the World. Ed. John M. Wickersham. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000. Web. 19 May 2015.
The "King Arthur" page at http:// www.britannia.com/history/h12.html, is a good source to discover some truths about Arthur and his existence. The site asks: was Arthur a king, a general or just a myth? In addition to historical information about the fifth century, the site includes, in the Arthurian chronology, information about the legends of Arthur that has developed in literature that has been written through the years. It also includes biographies of characters in the Arthurian legends. In addition, this site offers links to outside sources about King Arthur and his legends.
“Charlemagne was born April 2, C.742 in what is now Belgium” (Charlemagne). “Charlemagne was never able to master reading and writing while growing up”(About). “Even though Charlemagne couldn’t read or write as well as others he could speak other languages such as Latin and Greek among other languages”(Charlemagne). Charlemagne had a good personality most of the time. “Some of his titles was King of Franks, King of Lombards, he was also generally considered the first Holy Roman Emperor”(About). “Some people refer to him as the Father of Europe”(History).
As the first English king to have the title "The Great", Alfred the Great was the first king to have been the king of the Anglo Saxons. He was born in the village of Wannating (which is now wantage). At the age of 4 he was anointed king over the Anglo Saxons by Pope Leo IV but it wasn't until he was the age of 21 after the short reign of his two older brothers that he took power. He was best know for defending his kingdom against the invading vikings and of how he greatly influenced the British people