The Song of Roland: The Story of King Charlemagne's Nephew

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

After having read both versions of the life of Charlemagne there is no doubt that they differ greatly in the sense of style, audience, and emotion. By reading these two descriptions of Charlemagne's life we are able to decipher somewhat of the life he led as a shaper of early medieval European history. However, both of these versions possess the admiration of a noble man who they believe is worthy enough to be noted in history to some degree.

The dark ages, a time period spanning from 500 AD until 1500 AD, is commonly perceived as the worst time in history, solely because of its name. When asked “What is the dark ages generally known for?” many people respond with the black plague or great famines. The main reason for this title is in fact due to a lack of written records and documents lost to history. In reality, the dark ages were not really that dark because a humanitarian king shaped European ideals, religion kept culture alive, and many historical and scientific progressions occurred.

The subject of this report is the book Becoming Charlemagne: Europe, Baghdad, and the Empires of A.D. 800. While reading this book, it seemed as if the author was quite biased towards Charlemagne, and he wanted him to look better than he really was. Also this book was written as if it were a novel, so it did not come across as a nonfiction book, even though the entire story was based on facts. The author’s main purpose of this book was to better Charlemagne’s image in history by, his portrayal of Charlemagne’s accomplishments, how well the author believes Charlemagne handled the problems that his empire faced, and the writing style that the author chose for this particular

Charlemagne was a great leader in the Middle Ages and was the founder of the Carolingian Empire. The largest empire in Europe since the Roman Empire. He kept the society in order by enforcing laws and he also encouraged education. He helped define and shape medieval Europe and was a uniting force after the Roman Empire had fallen.

One might ask how do you differentiate between two Kings? what makes a “good” King? As historians it is important to note that values today do not have the same connotation as a great leader. Qualities of a superior medieval King include being successful in warfare; loyalty to ones followers; being religious and trying to convert others to Christianity; and 1have charisma. Einhard and Asser wrote very informative biographies about their chosen King describing their great attributes.

Many Historians disagree to what Charlemagne and his successors achieved during their time and whether it’s a success or a failure. The Carolingian era was an era completely devoted to revolt. Charlemagne needed help since he had his hands tied things what was happening in his land. Since Charlemagne was not content with a subordinate position even more now that they byzantine empire was fighting off the Muslims and couldn’t exert his power in the west. So in his mind Charlemagne decided that he wanted to recreate the power, prestige and culture of the western Roman Empire. Charlemagne accomplished this by using the early stages of the feudalistic system appointing Counts, and Dukes. After that he began encouraging the growth of land

The Life of Charlemagne, written by the Frankish scholar Einhard, is a biography on the personal life and achievements of Charlemagne, a ruler of the Franks and the king of Italy. He ruled from 774-800. Einhard, a male Frankish scholar, was born to noble parents in the Main Valley, around 770 A.D. He was educated in the monastery of Fulda, and shortly after sent to the palace school of Charlemagne in Aachen. Eventually becoming a personal adviser and a close friend to the king of the Franks, he influenced the king in all the ways of higher thinking and even inspired the king to desire a higher education for himself. The king even tried his hand at learning to write, however to no avail. Einhard was able to give deeper insight into the life of Charlemagne, as he was present during many of the events that took place. He also had the advantage of hearing firsthand accounts from the king. The Life of Charlemagne is thought to have been written between 829 to 836, composed by Einhard while living in Seligenstadt. Einhard wrote the accounts of Charlemagne so that there would be a historical account describing the emperor’s day to day life. “His two immediate reasons for writing were the personal knowledge which he possessed of Charlemagne, and the debt of gratitude which he owed to this remarkable king and emperor.” He was a man that possessed a drive for knowledge and insight into the future. By working under Charlemagne, he was able to grow in that knowledge and even

The Life of Charlemagne was written by Einhard to honor Charlemagne. He claimed that after the last Merovingian King fell, there was no more power within the dynasty. Einhard described the Merovingian kings as weak, in order to show how powerful Charlemagne was. He was extremely biased in his favor of the patron. He lived during Charlemagne’s life and believed that he could accurately portray him. On Christmas day 800, Charlemagne was crowned emperor. Although emperors existed before him, which implicated the Roman tradition, he was the first emperor to be crowned by the Pope. Einhard demonstrated that Charlemagne was surprised when he received the crown, when in reality there are many reasons as to why he was not.

The values of an Epic Hero is shown through many literary writings including the Iliad, Beowulf, and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. The textbook dictionary definition of a hero is a person noted for courageous acts or nobility of character.Achilles from the Iliad and Beowulf were two heroes who fought to show their superior power and were very egotistical. They had motives as to why they fought, and only considered their gain. On the other hand, Sir Gawain, from Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, had no motive to take on the Green Knight. He only did it to benefit King Arthur and to make it easier on the other Knights in Arthur's court. Sir Gawain demonstrates the true meaning of heroism through his selflessness,courage and humanity.

The first source, titled “Life of Charlemagne”, many innocent lives are destroyed. Charles demands hostages in return for the Bretons’ disobedience. Hostage life is not likely to be a good experience. The life of the hostages’ families also would be destroyed by not knowing if or when they would be able to see their family member again. Death and destruction because of conflict befalls both sides in the second source. The “pagans die in their hundreds and thousands… they meet their end” (117). This destruction of life is not limited to the pagans though. The Franks also “lose their best defenders; they will not see their kinsman again” (117). All

Charlemagne was born on April 2 of a year unknown (probably 742-748 AD) and from the moment he was born he was raised to be a great king. From his father Pepin the short he learned how to rule and how to do it well. He would become one of the greatest heroes our world has known. His hero status he achieved through bringing peace, prosperity and the Gospel to a time where where darkness and terror prevailed.

The Song of Roland is an inexhaustible tale of the struggle between good and evil. The sides areas clearly stated- the Christian Franks, led by Charlemagne, represent the good and the will ofGod, while the Muslim Saracens, led by Marsilla and Baligant, represent the purest evil. ButWhat Makes Roland such a good Vassal? Roland is one of the twelve peers of France,Charlemagne's nephew and favorite, a skillful and extremely bold warrior and understands theFrankish campaign in Spain as a crusade, allowing no compromise with the

In Song of Roland, the ideas of chivalry and loyalty to one’s king are central. Throughout the text, the author uses the concepts of good versus evil, shown by the Christians versus Muslims, as well as loyalty versus treason, shown by Roland versus Ganelon, to highlight and exemplify the ideals of the code of knighthood. The main character, Roland, is often presented as being an exemplary knight; he personifies the conventional chivalric values of the time such as bravery and loyalty, but he also struggles to balance these values in order to be a responsible leader. Roland is in stark contrast to his stepfather, Ganelon, as well as being in slight contrast to his close friend, Oliver. These contrasts of character come to a climax as the battle against the Muslim army at Roncesvalles begins; Oliver and Roland debate over whether they should call the king to help them, leading to the eventual demise of the French army. This specific scene brings to light the ideological dilemma of bravery versus wisdom and logic, by utilizing Roland as an example of the former, and Oliver of the latter. Roland, as evidenced by this situation, displays perfect loyalty to one’s king and God by being incredibly brave in the face of danger, making sacrifices that he sees are necessary, and fought valiantly until his death, all the while keeping the utmost faith in his God and king.

I believe that Roland knew that his stepfather would not go to King Marsilion and used that to his advantage to prove himself to Charlemagne. Proving his pride for himself.