While browsing through literature on Charlemagne and his Carolingian Empire’s role in European history and unity, one view immediately stands out and helps to organize it. Barraclough (1963) and Mikkeli (1998) both argue that when examining the achievements of Charlemagne considering European unity, early historians have appointed the Carolingian Empire literally as the beginning of Europe. Mikkeli (1998) states that this view of early historians is partly based on the time period in which it is written, referring to the European integration in the ‘50’s that had recently started. The early historians were interpreting medieval roots in its favor.
According to Barraclough (1963) and Mikkeli (1998), historians today look at it with more caution,
…show more content…
Tierney & Painter (1992) argue that the coronation distinguished the Western European society, differing themselves from his ‘others’; the Byzantine Empire and the Islamic world in Spain. But that is exactly the problem; by differing themselves, they went against European unity in the broader sense. It achieved dualism between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, breaking up Europe in two parts (Mikkeli, 1998, Barraclough, 1963). The first stage of the Schism of the Catholic Church was even caused by the Franks, according to Barraclough (1963). This dualism and hostility against each other was caused by the coronation, the Eastern Emperor at that time did not acknowledge Charlemagne as being the Emperor of the West for a long time. The Eastern Emperor saw himself as the true heir of the last Roman Emperor Augustus and God’s replacement on Earth (Alcock, …show more content…
His son Louis the Pious did rule until 840, but his three sons would then divide the Kingdom into three, definitely ending the Carolingian unity (Alcock, 2002). Some authors claim that some of Charlemagne’s influence would still live on, beyond his Empire (Tierney & Painter, 1992, Delanty, 2013, Dawson, 1946), others believe it is better described as the end to an era (Barraclough, 1963, Mikkeli, 1998). Tierney & Painter (1992) argue, as mentioned before, that the ‘fusion’ of cultures would surpass the actual Empire, it would live on. They argue that after its downfall it laid the base for certain medieval institutions that spread around Europe, like feudalism. Delanty (2013) agrees, also putting emphasize on feudalism as a unifying factor in Europe and saying that the Franks can be seen as the creators of Europe in the making, an ‘embryonic Europe’. Joseph Calmette (1941, cited in Barraclough, 1963) synthesizes with Tierney & Painter’s (1992) visions, saying that ‘it was necessary for the Carolingian Empire to collapse for Europe to come into being’ (p.13). Dawson (1946) is the most convinced, saying that there is a direct line going from the Carolingian civilization to contemporary Europe. Barraclough (1963) sees the unity of the Frankish Kingdom as nothing more as a brief moment in history without any influence on times to come. He argues that a century later, Europe’s structure will have been
Charlemagne was also known as Charles the Great. He was king of the Franks and he united the majority of Western Europe during the early Middle Ages. On top of that, he laid the foundations for modern France and Germany. He attempted to unite all Germanic peoples into one kingdom and convert his subjects to Christianity. Being a skilled military strategist, he spent much of his reign in warfare so that he could manage to accomplish his goals. Because of his position, he encouraged the Carolingian Renaissance.
He really made an impact on these people. He was laid to rest in Aachen (Becher). Charlemagne’s son Louis the Pious succeeded him. He was the son of Charlemagne’s third wife, Hildegard. His other elder sons had already died.
Before it’s established why Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Empire, it is necessary to understand the position the Romans were in as well as Charlemagne’s past and current (at the time) accomplishments. There were 2 parts of the Roman Empire: The Eastern Empire and The Western Empire. The Eastern Empire was run by the Byzantines. The Western Roman, mostly run by the Romans but they were being invaded left and right, so they were disintegrating. The idea of the Roman Empire was there, but the government running it was falling apart.
The Carefully Crafted Legend: Einhard’s distortions in The Life of Charlemagne Einhard’s The Life of Charlemagne is a famous biography that provides a firsthand account of the deeds and character of Charles the Great. Einhard was a close contemporary to Charlemagne and his court, with Walahfrid Strabo’s preface describing how there “was almost no one else among the many officials of the king’s majesty to whom the king . . . . Entrusted so many secrets.” Despite Einhard’s seemingly well researched and honest biography, there are far too many distortions and inconsistencies in this work to completely trust this work. Einhard’s information on Charlemagne’s birth and early childhood is suspect.
Charlemagne wanted to defend the church due to the power that it provoked. He worked to strengthen the role of the church in order to improve the hierarchical structure and the power of the clergy. Along with the church were the oaths that Charlemagne believed in, to ensure loyalty to all of his subjects. Using these oaths, he believed that fidelity should be promised. “Each one according to his vow and occupation, should now promise to him as emperor the fidelity which he had previously promised to him as king.”
Since the fall of the western Roman empire, there has never been another emperor of the west until Charlemagne came along, in christmas day year 800 Pope Leo the third at rome’s st. peter’s basilica crowned karl as emperor of the holy roman empire, karl stated that he did not know why he was being summoned to rome, but it is unlikely that he wasn't aware of what was going on. His coronation was met with cheers and applause, with pomp and circumstance, as the people rejoiced their new god appointed emperor of the romans who was himself a german. The coronation itself was major turning point in history, many historian agree that that reason why charlemagne accepted his ascension into emperorship was so that he could justify his occupation of
When Charlemagne ascended the throne and had full control of the empire, he wanted to not only rule both his people and Romans, he was also interested in his people and the ones he conquered to convert to Christianity. (Pages 258-259). Charlemagne exceedingly cared about government as much as he cared about religion, which is why one of the things he did when first became an emperor was to make sure that the Pope Hadrian I, got his land back from the Lombard Kingdom and he has also helped the Pope on countless occasions. (Pg. 259). Yes, Charlemagne was truly successful in linking religion and governing, his people or the Romans did not rebel against him and during his ruling he was able to offer people opportunities to learn and deepen their understanding of the Christian faith.
Author of the book, Becoming Charlemagne, by Jeff Sypeck provides a clear glimpse into the life of one of the world’s greatest kings and ruler and later emperor Charlemagne, otherwise known as Karl or Charles the Great. Sypeck creates a vivid and strong look into the time of Charlemagne, early medieval Europe and some other important world leaders, including Pope Leo III, Irene the Byzantine emperor, Alcuin the scholar and Harun al-Rashid ruler of Baghdad. These figures are crucial to the story of Karl becoming Charlemagne, and their stories included in the book help form and symbolize Charlemagne the Ruler. Understanding Charlemagne and early medieval Europe is presented vibrantly throughout the book by in-depth stories, facts and a clear
Charlemagne was the one of the great rulers of early European history. He was the King of the Franks in the 8th century and facilitated great expansion of his empire through conquest and diplomacy. Einhard was a monk who lived under Charlemagne’s rule, and, in a glowing light, he wrote a biography of Charlemagne. Einhard describes many of Charlemagne’s achievements, and he also writes about Charlemagne’s character. Einhard believed Charlemagne was a great leader because of his military success, his beautification of the kingdom, and his exceptional character qualities.
All the points described the legacy Charlemagne left behind. The first point in this source was Charlemagne’s deeds. Charlemagne waged many wars during his time as king. The first of the war was against the Aquitaine. “Of all the wars he waged, [Charles] began first [in 769] with the one against the Aquitaine, which his father started, but left
Christianity is arguably one of the the most influential and important aspects that originated in western civilization. The religion started out as a small sect of Judaism and a man named Jesus spreading his word with a few followers. For centuries, Christians in Rome endured persecution and secret worship. With the appeal of eternal salvation and the hierarchy of the church, Christianity gradually spread, began to rise, and eventually became the prominent religion in Rome. Today, Christianity is the most widely practiced religion in the world.
In spite of that time-frame, the relations between the Middle-Age Empires and the Roman Catholic Church prior to the
Often when one is prompted to think of an empire, the Roman Empire comes to mind. The Romans started from a small piece of land along the Tiber River in central Italy, and within a millenia amassed an unprecedented territory comprising of parts of all 3 known continents of the ‘old world’ and dozens of countries, peoples, cultures, and languages. This massive empire certainly had a large impact on its peoples during its power; however, even today one may find the massive impact of the Roman empire in various languages, governments, and religions all over the globe. Language is one of the most important aspects of a culture. Language dictates how and what people literally and figuratively speak to one another.
As the title suggest, the author’s essential concern has to do with the crisis of the European mind. The very first words of the text, “We later civilisations”, encapsulate this identity. First of all they show that a common identity, to a certain degree, is in fact conceived: that we, so strongly put at the beginning, is a statement, a word of inclusion, that relies on the following word for validation. Later declares that this common identity is deeply rooted in the past, “so ancient that we rarely go back so far”, giving to it historical authority. Lastly, civilisations is a clear proclamation of what that we, i.e. Europe, means, what it should be and what it is not living up to.