How Does Einhard Achieve Responsibility Of The Merovingian King?

A successful monarchy relies upon a stable leader who is concerned with the satisfaction of those he rules over. Henry Bolingbroke the IV in Shakespeare's Henry the IV Part I follows a trend set by his predecessor in Richard II of self-indulgence and neglect of his kingdom. These leaders worry about the possibility of losing their kingdom or their soldiers to other nobles who were also concerned more with obtaining a higher position rather than governing. The king must also be wary of his own life, something that was once revered and guarded closely by other nobles. Wars once fought for gaining or protecting land are overshadowed by personal battles fighting for the position of king.

When examining the problems of English society, More points out that another of the main contributing factors is the centralized kingship of the country. More says, "it is generally agreed that a king can do no wrong, however much he may want to, because everything belongs to him, including every human being in the country...". (More, 61) Because the king has so much power over his country and his land, there is nothing to assure that the people under his command can lead happy and healthy lives.

Einhard (c. 770-840) was a renowned monk, scholar, and writer of Frankish descent. Although regarded highly for many achievements, the most important contribution of his lifetime was the uncharacteristically secular Life of Charlemagne, which has since become a topic of great discussion and scrutiny. Many contemporary historians criticize Einhard’s biography about the mighty Frankish ruler on the basis that it seems to be biased towards painting a near perfect picture of Charlemagne’s reign as king and eventually emperor. There definitely seems to be a one sided view present, taking into consideration some of the opening statements Einhard prefaces his biography with: “Charles, that most excellent and deservedly most famous king,” and, “Here

When Edward came into power in 1042, England was in a poor state financially and also because of threats of an invasion and this made the first few years of his rule difficult. Edward was faced with many problems which he had to overcome. These problems involved; powerful Earls, (especially the Godwine’s), the foreign policy and the domestic policy. Edward both failed and succeeded in these problems due to a number of factors. These include a lack of knowledge about his kingdom and some may argue that he was naïve in his decisions. With some evaluation, we will be able to judge if Edward was a successful King or not.

Many readers of the poem Beowulf may find it difficult to distinguish the 'good' kings from the rest – indeed, almost every man who holds a throne in the epic is named at one point or another to be 'good'. By examining the ideals of the time period as identified by the 'heroic code', it becomes clearer that a truly 'good' king is one who generously distributes treasure and weaponry to deserving retainers to honour courage and strength displayed in battle and to encourage the defense of the kingdom (Intro). When Beowulf ascends the throne of the Geats, the heroic traits of courage and strength for which he was so highly praised as a warrior do not serve well in making him a good king. Indeed, by exhibiting the traits of a thane, that is, by

There were three kings named Clovis, Charlemagne, and Alfred. They were all successful during their reigns within Europe. However, King Charles was the best ruler according to the model of early medieval kingship. One may ask what the model of early medieval kingship is. Well, a ruler to be considered the best would have to be a great conqueror, warrior, and defender of Christianity. King Charles during his rule was able to ascertain all three of these prerequisites for being a great ruler. Therefore, I will compare and contrast him, and his reign, to Clovis and Alfred to support my statement. I will also touch on how audience’s perceptions may be misguided due to the king’s biographers. I will begin the next paragraph examining King Charles exploits and why he fits the criteria of the best ruler.

There were many reasons as for why the Reformation continued to develop after 1530 such as the Augsburg Confession and the formation and development of the Schmalkaldic League. The following sources are valuable to a historian studying the development of the Reformation as they offer reasons for why the Reformation continued to develop. For example, source A focuses on the development of the Reformation through the failings of Charles V as shown in Charles V’s Abdication Speech from 1556. Source A recounts Charles V’s individual thoughts and feelings of his failures during his reign as Holy Roman Emperor through a speech.

In “Social Order and Absolute Monarchy, written by Jean Domat, Domat argues that the absolute monarchy portrayed by King Louis XIV of France was created in the best interest of France. Domat’s audience in this document seems to be the middle class as well as the lower classes of France since Domat’s main goal of this paper is to justify the actions and amount of power held by the upper class and the king in an absolute monarchy.

Once the seventeenth century began, western civilization became based upon bounds. In a structured and shared-power system known as limited monarchy, rulers either became hastened within their bounds or exploded from them. As the British Isles were frustrated in the religious, political, and national voices going unheard, England developed a Protestant-run nation in conjunction with Scotland as a bounded country in 1707. Their Parliament would make their decisions, distribute the country’s wealth, and stand for the rights of individuals. The model of one man who could not be chained to a Parliamentary system was France’s King Louis XIV. His reign begins in 1643 which brings about the genuine definition of an absolute monarchy and it’s faults. Absolutism was a practice built heavily within the Middle Ages, it would include Kings as the primary shareholders of their land, partnerships with nobles and their Churches. It would prove unsatisfactory for most kingdoms as they failed under civil war and invasion until the seventeenth century shines a new importance on superior command. Through the strife of religious reformations and international conflicts, absolutism grants those in kingship unlimited power. King Henry IV had brought France from fifteenth century centralization and the Reformation’s civil war to cleanse the people’s doubt in their King. The Bourbons built a monarchy for the ages with their grandson Louis XIV, and Boy-King in 1643. Utilizing absolutism to accept

Raphael uses an example the King of France aims to seize milan while also maintaining his authority over his current kingdom. This example demonstrates how powerful the kings are and also their greed in trying to get more than they already have. We see that their focus is not on their people, but on gaining assets and acquiring new kingdoms. In Book One, More uses am accumulation of examples and anecdotes to emphasize the nature of authority in 16th century Europe. This European style governance is later juxtaposed with the style of Government in Utopia in Book 2. This highlights how the King of France is so nelgecting of his people, unlike the Utopian rulers. “Why do you suppose they made you a king in the first place,? Not for your benefit, but for theirs.” More through the persona of Raphael, warns against the power-hungry and ambitious

When people think of a successful king, they often associate them with the hero. However, many fail to notice that no one could own both the title king and the hero at the same time; they need to give up either one of the titles to become a truly successful hero or king. In the famous epic poem, Beowulf, despite Hrothgar rules Danes, another hero, Beowulf, shows up to solve Danes’ problem while the true Danes king sits on his throne and simply gives all honor and credit to Beowulf. To become a truly successful leader, one must know to put down his honor and fame for his people’s safety. Furthermore, a ruler who cares about his people in every aspect fits the title king, not a person who goes off on a quest to defeat the villain for his own

the traits of a “good king”. He was a warrior with extraordinary abilities which made him seem

The nobility of the Kingdom of France has been evaluated by various scholars of history. There is something to be said, however, for those who chronicled their impressions while living them in the 17th and 18th centuries. The excerpts of Charles Loyseau’s A Treatise on Orders, written in 1610, and Isabelle de Charriere’s The Nobleman, written in 1763 provide two very different glimpses on the French nobility from differing time periods. From these two accounts, it is clear that there was a marked shift in the way some viewed the nobility and their role in the operation of the French state. While Loyseau praises the nobility nearly wholeheartedly,

Claudas was ambitious, intelligent and greedy, prone to paranoia and jealousy as he sat uneasy upon his throne. He was combative with neighboring lands and harsh when slighted but he knew how to lead an army. He had a keen mind for strategy and battle.

(Kendall, 2015) Charles was given his position of authority, as he was the only successor to the throne, in respect to familial connections. In most systems of traditional authority, the leader does not have any staff or political machines to gain their authority or to enforce it. The authority comes from the willingness of their subordinates to remain loyal and respect the designated leader, as it is seen as their duty by tradition. (Boundless, Traditional) Charles’ exceptional ability in campaigning and war tactics brought Sweden to the peak of her prestige and power. He is viewed as a national hero and was idealized to be heroic and virtuous during the 19th century romantic nationalism period. (Wikipedia,