What Are The Similarities Between Germania And The Life Of Charlemagne

Civilization in the West has been constantly evolving ever since the first civilizations were established. Much of this can be tracked through written accounts of a historical period by a historian at that time. Tacitus’s Germania describes the Germanic tribes at the during the time of the Roman empire. Einhard’s The Life of Charlemagne has a more narrow focus: the reign and personal life of Charlemagne, one of Europe’s most prominent leaders of the Dark Ages. Both of these books subtextually reveal values of each of their time periods. These periods had various similar values, most notably conquest and war. Yet, Germania implies the value and pride the Romans had toward their social hierarchy, while The Life of Charlemagne implies that there is a much more welcoming and fluid social structure.

In Germania, Tacitus first describes the customs of the Germanic tribes. He discusses their concepts of crime and its

punishment, community hierarchies, attitudes toward war, recreation and so on. These customs are described in a light that makes them out to be brutish and less cultured. Tacitus then covers individual tribes. This includes their geographic location, brief histories, and behaviors that makes a certain tribe unique. Again, the tribes are shown to be less civilized.
Through Tacitus’s recording of the history and customs of Germanic tribes, a sense of Roman culture and values are implied. There is hardly a separation of the army, the state and business affairs in German culture. Tacitus believes this to be detestable. This distaste points to how ordered Roman society is. They did not want military affairs polluting their political spaces. However, there is some admiration for the way Germanic tribes treat war. This admiration mostly is directly toward how fearsome they are in battle. An example of this would be the Harii tribe. Tacitus describes them as savage, but still expresses admiration of their war tactics, saying that they amplify their “innate ferocity by trickery and timing” (43). Yet, some of their procedures are frowned upon by Tacitus, such as how it is considered to crafty to retreat from a battle if you eventually return. This shows how much loyalty is valued within the Roman empire, particularly within formal, state-run structures.
In the description of the social structure of Germanic tribes, Tacitus cannot seem to get his head around how leadership works within the tribes. Germanic leaders earned legitimacy and admiration through their actions rather than just their title. Priests also tended to have a much larger leadership role, which was power that Roman religious leaders did not have. When the community gathered to discuss local issues in their own time, taking two or three days to assemble. This earns scorn from Tacitus, who implies that those two or three days are wasted time and that assemblies should meet at a set time. The assemblies must have more structure, according to Roman values. Tacitus’s confusion comes from the way Romans view their leadership, particularly the emperor. There was such a strong cult of personality surrounding the emperor that he was seen as godlike. He was the one with supreme power. There may have been advisors, but he was the one with real power, power that is based on authority. Romans put more stress on the General than on the army.
Tacitus implies that the Germanic tribes as more intellectually simple compared to the Romans. He expresses a frustration with the lack of written Germanic history. This points to a value on empirical evidence to base any thought on. Accurate recordkeeping to them is the best way to record history, not simply oral recordkeeping. There is also much frustration over the lack of intellectual pursuits in the Germanic tribes. A more specific example of this is how Tacitus describes the Aestii tribe. According to his account, they never “ask or discover” how the world around them works, using amber as an example (45). The reveals the Roman value of not just learning about the world, but actually doing something to uncover new knowledge about it. To them, a society seems brutish and stagnant without the study of the world.
The Roman superiority complex truly shows through in Tacitus’s description of the Germanic tribes. A display of this is Tacitus’s description of Germanic religion. Much of the names Germanic gods are instead designated with the names of Roman gods. While this is useful for a Roman audience to understand Germanic religion better, it shows a lack of ability to understand the inner workings of other religions. Another example along the lines of religion is found in the description of the Semmones. This Germanic tribe uses human sacrifice as apart of their religious rituals. The Roman perspective is that this type of sacrifice is immoral. Another example of this is in the description of the Germanic landscape. Tacitus finds little beauty in it, stating that the landscape has “unlovely scenery and bitter climate” and is “dreary to inhabit and even to behold” (2). While this may be true to an extent, it shows how the Romans view the aesthetics of other lands. It is hard for them to see unconquerable land as anything but ugly. Though, the values of the Romans and their social structure that they were so proud of evolved into something different.
In The Life of Charlemagne, Einhard discusses the reign of Charlemagne. In particular, he covers the wars that Charlemagne engages in, his personal life, and the circumstances surrounding his death, including Charlemagne’s will. Through these topics, Einhard gives a general sense of the character of Charlemagne. His determination, gregariousness, and humility are most stressed by Einhard.
In wartime, Charlemagne was described as ruthless and committed to seeing the war through. This made him honorable and noble. His conquests that greatly increased the size of the Frankish Empire received praise. Einhard extols the determination that Charlemagne felt during the wars he pursed. Compared to the his father and his brother, he was more committed and ruthless, and wanted a definitive ending to each war. In his first war, which he inherited from his father, he continued on without his brother’s support. This was a bold move, considering how important family was in politics at that time. Charlemagne was also praised for his ruthlessness, as it established the dominance of the Frankish Empire. While Charlemagne was ruthless in war, he still sought the friendship of foreigners.
According to Einhard, Charlemagne welcomed foreigners with open arms. He sought the friendship of other kings and valued those. Einhard applauds Charlemagne for these good relations, as it made his reign “more glorious”. In addition, he learned various languages, such as Latin and Greek. Einhard describes Charlemagne as someone who was never satisfied with only knowing just his native language. This is notable because it may seem much more reasonable to place the ability to write above this, something Charlemagne could not do. In addition, learning a new language takes immense effort to achieve, effort that Charlemagne did not have to undergo. He could simply hire translators, but he undertook the task of understanding other languages himself. All of these characteristics contribute to a man who does not see himself above other cultures, but as on the same level of those considered outsiders.
Much of Charlemagne’s determination to learn other languages, in part, must have come from his strong belief in intellectual knowledge. Charlemagne was educated in the liberal arts, which he paid “the greatest attention” to (25). He educated his sons and daughters in the liberal arts. It is notable that he also educated his daughters because of the attitude at the time that women should not be educated. Charlemagne’s value of education superseded this idea, at least with his own children. The king also bestowed high honors on the scholarly. This shows how much education and scholarly pursuits were valued by the king at the time.
All of these traits culminate and contribute to Charlemagne’s sense of humility.

Charlemagne’s humility shows through Einhard’s telling of his life. Some of the evidence that Einhard provides is more subtle and through other parts of his life. The best example of this is the description of Charlemagne’s piety. A notable example would be his charity to the poor. One of his motives of establishing good foreign relations was to be able to help poor Christians in foreign lands. This would be something unheard of in the Roman empire. Charlemagne’s devotion to his faith led him to help others, even those outside his own jurisdiction that he did not have to help. More obvious evidence of Charlemagne’s humility is in the way he dresses. With the exception of formal occasions, he dresses like the common man. Charlemagne was a rich and powerful man, but he chose to adorn himself with simple clothes when he did not have to pull out all the stops for festivals or other formal events. In both secular and religious life, Charlemagne proved to be a more humble

king.
Over the 700 years between the time the two books were written, much of the social hierarchies in western civilization had changed. The time of Charlemagne did still have a strict hierarchy, but it was less rigid than that of the Roman Empire. Both empires still valued the intellectual thought, conquest, and religion. Yet, Charlemagne’s reign was much more open to foreigners compared to the time of Tacitus. This indicates a slight decline in a supremacy complex solely based on nationality in these 700 years. To an extent, there was more equal footing between the ruling and the ruled.
Much of these changes took place because of the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity. New values started to take hold throughout Europe because different peoples were taking over and ruling in their own way. As Europe christianized, values became more Christian. This is evident in the attitudes toward rulers. In the Roman Empire, emperors were practically seen as gods and there was a great cult of personality surrounding the position. As Christianity was adopted, rulers were still held with high respect, but they were not like God and the rulers were kept in check by the religion and by the Church. Overall, the hierarchical changes that occurred within western civilization in the 700 years between Germania and The Life of Charlemagne point to how much Christianity has impacted Europe and how, over time, societies lost much of the formal, rigid class structure.