Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay about Charles 1
Einhard describes in detail, Charles the Great’s life as a Roman Emperor. He talks about Charles’ appearance, clothing, mannerisms, education, coronation etc. According to Einhard, Charles was very large and strong with favorable facial features that was “always stately and dignified, whether he was standing or sitting” and had good health until he died. For his dressing style, he liked to wear his nation’s attire and disliked wearing foreign clothes. From Einhard’s description of Charlemagne, it seems that the Emperor certainly knew how to represent himself as befitting of the title for “over all he flung a blue cloak, and he always had a sword girt about him.” Einhard also mentions that although Charlemagne was not an avid drinker, he loved food. …show more content…
He was fluent in Greek, Latin and was an excellent orator. Charlemagne knowing about the importance of Education, made sure his children learned a variety of important subjects like liberal arts that were essential then. Einhard describes Charles as a religious man who “cherished the Church of St. Peter above all other Holy and sacred places. ” One of the reasons –described by Einhard- why Charles was a great Emperor, was that he did not see the Pope’s power and authority as a threat to his ruler ship. Einhard’s purpose for writing this document was to exalt his friend and king, Charlemagne the great emperor even though he might have done this mainly on facts and romantic notions about Charlemagne. This document is very significant because it provides us a primary source about Charlemagne and his life. Even though Einhard used most of his personal experience with Charlemagne to write this document, he still consulted the Royal Frankish Annals for opinion about 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—Charles, King of the Franks—obviously has a fan in Einhard. His powerful work, The Life of Charlemagne, details the king’s life from the building of his empire, through the education of his children, and culminating in his final living words: the division of his possessions and the instructions for the preservation of his kingdom. At first glance, the inclusion of Charlemagne’s will seems an odd choice to end an essay that demonstrates thoroughly the specifics of the great man’s life. After all, who needs to know which child gets his gold, and which archbishop he favored the most. Einhard reveals the ignorance in this assumption by doing just the opposite: using Charlemagne’s will as the final and most convincing illustration of the king’s life and character.
Charlemagne is a man of good character in both works. He is a man that is considerate of supporting the poor and is generous of giving
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.
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.
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 ...
“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 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.
2. "And therefore think him as a serpent's egg, Which, hatched, would as his kind, grow mischievous, And kill him in the shell" (2.1.34-36).
Author Edith Hamilton was born on August 12, 1867 in Dresden, Germany while her mother was visiting relatives. Hamilton started to study Latin at the age of seven, memorized passages from the Bible and could also recite poetry. Even as a young girl, she was a "natural storyteller. " She was determined to get a good education. After receiving her B.A. and M.A. from Bryn Mawr College in 1894 she studied the classics in Germany.
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.
Through 768-814 Charlemagne ruled over Western Europe including France, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Western Germany and Luxembourg. He was also called Karl & Charles The Great. He had a motive of uniting all the Germanic people into a single kingdom and to transform them into Christianity. Keeping his goal as his first priority, he spent a major time period of his rule indulged in wars. He became King of Rome during 800 and was crowned by Pope Leo III.
There were many reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire. Each one interweaved with the other. Many even blame the initiation of Christianity in 337 AD by Constantine the Great as the definitive cause while others blame it on increases in unemployment, inflation, military expenditure and slave labour while others blame it on the ethical issues such the decline in morals, the lack of discipline of the armies and the political corruption within the Empire. Three major contributions that led to the collapse of the once great empire were: the heavy military spending in order to expand the Empire, the over-reliance on slave labour which led to an increase in unemployment, and the political corruption and abuse of power by the Praetorian Guard leading to the unfair selection of many disreputable emperors and the assassination of those not favoured by the Guard.