Looking back at history, an individual usually can find an incredible amount of information about any given period in any given part of the world. Yet as varied are the history books, so are the biases which they each present. We see one example of these biases in Einhard's The Life of Charlemagne in which this adviser and close friend to the great Frankish king gives his history of Charlemagne's life. One issue that Einhard repeatedly touches on is the virtually uninterrupted series of wars that the Frankish Kingdom under 'Charles the Great' undertook. Throughout the individual accounts of these war, Einhard attempts to justify Charlemagne's military career.
It seems that when one looks back at Charlemagne and his seemingly unending chain of conflict that he put his kingdom through, one could come to the conclusion that Charlemagne was simply always blood and land thirsty, yet Einhard constantly tries to convince the reader that his king's military ambitions were actually for the best for the Frankish people and for others throughout their isolated world.
Charlemagne Pope Adrian
English: "Charlemagne and the Pope". The Frankish ...
Charlemagne denier Mayence 812 814. Français : De...Einhard gives various reasons for individual wars for which he believes strengthened the kingdom and the crown. The first war that the Frankish king lead was mounted against Aquitaine shortly after Charlemagne was anointed in 768. It was started supposedly by Charlemagne's father, Pepin the Short, 'but not brought to a proper conclusion.' (Einhard, The Life of Charlemagne) Einhard explains that Charlemagne simply did not want to abandon a task once it had been started and so with 'no small perseverance and continued effort,' (Einhard, The Life of Charlemagne) he was able to complete the war successfully. Even at this early point in Charlemagne's reign, Lupus, Duke of the Gascons, not only obeyed the kings command to turn over a fugitive, but also submitted...
He was called "the GREAT" for a reason!
Saminsf:
I think you missed the overall "Greatness" of Charlemagne.
First, as Rome began its downward spiral, the barbarian tribes of the Franks immediately began to break off and form their own Merovignian dynasty and by the 5th Cenutry, they had occupied and united parts of (present day) France and portions of northern Italy, western Germany, and the southern portion of the Low Countries.
Of course, this dynasty came under immediate attack from its neighbors and had been all but crushed by the 6th Century. And by the 7th, the leader of the Franks set out to reestablish (reunite) the original territory of the dynasty (now Carolingian).
Thus, Charles Martel began campaigning in northern Gaul and Burgundy, and repelled Arab attacks at Poitiers. He was followed by his son Peppin III who campaigned in southern Gaul. So, as you see, Charlemagne inherited a third generation quest to reunite the old empire--and although some of his methods may seem barbaric, he was no mere warmonger.
At the height of his empire it stretched as far as Hungary to the East, the Saxons finally fell in the North, northern Rome was his, and he had subjugated the north of Spain. However, he also began strengthening the religious education of the Franks and the conquered subjects within his empire through established 'schools' system, and was so heavily involved in education becoming a founding pillar of civilization, even attended classes himself!
Back to the war side of his greatness, the Franks introduced the Heavy Cavalry to Western Europe (especially once the stirrup found its way from China) and this revolutionized warfare throughout the rest of the Medieval periods. Charlemagne was also instrumental in the establishment of the 'defensive-offense' wherein territory was taken and held by an ongoing system of fortification construction to insure the security of newly acquired land. This eventually led to the Motte and Bailey castles--the groundwork for all castles that followed in Western Europe.
I'm not picking at your paper, just shedding some light on the other side of Charlemagne. Of course the source of your paper was from Einhard--but you must be aware that Einhard was Charlemagne's personal biographer--and therefore his work will surely be both biased and influenced by his subject.
**Just a note about me, I am a 3rd year Military History Major with an additional 10 year military career to add to my love for the field I study.
12 out of 12 people found this comment useful.