Two Lives of Charlemagne

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

Notker wrote his book seventy years after the death of Charlemagne in the form of a series of anecdotes about Charlemagne from the stories he heard as a child. Some of these anecdotes go more in-depth on basic information provided by Einhard. In other cases, the anecdotes tend to be exaggerated, therefore, making it hard to give Notker a lot of credibility. Yet, his work is widely read and studied as one of the works that describes the accounts of Charlemagne life.

The Life of Charlemagne is an edited version from the original book Two Lives of Charlemagne. The author of the original biography is Einhard, who was his close friend and younger contemporary. He wrote this biography, after his death in 814 CE to honor Charlemagne and his contributions to the Frankish dynasty. In the historical context Charlemagne is believed to have contributed largely in flourishing the Carolingian Empire. In the book, The Life of Charlemagne, Einhard describes Charlemagne’s personal life rather than the actual historical legacies. The biography seems to have many personal bias opinions which makes the source hard to trust. One example from the text itself is when he describes King Charlemagne’s physical appearance, “His neck was short and rather thick, and his stomach a trifle too heavy, but the proportions of the rest of the body prevented from noticing these blemishes (Brophy, 250).” Even Though, the author describes the king with great details, he is positive throughout each text and avoids giving any flawed comments.

The first belief system is Christianity. In page 1, the text states that Charlemagne crowning his own son was as if "God prompted him to do it for the kingdoms good. This means that Charlemagne was probably told by God to give his son the crown to serve the kingdom when he passes away.The second belief system system is the omens. In the 2nd last paragraph, In the middle of the text, the author Einhard wrote about at the tend they predicted his future, due to many bad signs leading days to his death. This reveals that probably omens predicted his death in the future due to these many strange things occurring.

Charlemagne is described by Janet Nelson as being a role model for Einhard. Einhard himself writes in the first paragraph of The Life of Charlemagne, “After I decided to write about the life, character and no small part of the accomplishments of my lord and foster father, Charles, that most excellent and deservedly famous king, I determined to do so with as much brevity as I could.” I feel that these are sincere words about the man who cared for Einhard. I feel that Einhard’s purpose for writing The Life of Charlemagne is to praise the works of his “foster-father” and create a historical document that would describe the great deeds of Charlemagne so that he would not be forgotten throughout time as a great leader and man.

Pope leo the “third” made him emperor of the romans. Charlemagne gave a great deal of charity to the poor, and not only in his own country. Wherever he heard that there were Christians living in poverty, egypt — he had compassion on them, and sent money over the seas to them. This is why he strove to make friends with foreign kings.

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

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.

The two lives of Charlemagne as told by Einhard and Notker the Stammerer are very different accounts of the life of the great Emperor. Einhard gives us a historical overview of the life of Charlemagne who lived from 742 to 814 A.D. Charlemagne was also known as Charles the Great and the King of the Franks.Charles was one of four children born to Pepin the Short, A Mayor of the Palace of the Carolingian Empire. He had one brother, Carloman and two sisters, Gisela and Pepin.Since women at the time didn’t inherit power, when Pepin the Short died, the kingship of the Carolingian Empire was divided and shared by Charlemagne and his brother, Carloman. Unfortunately, Carloman died early and unexpectedly as a young man and

Einhard, born in 775 in an ancient Frankish homeland, in a valley of the River Main, was taken into Charlemagne’s court sometime between 791 and 792. After the scholar Alcuin retired to the monastery, Einhard became a go to source for answers for Charlemagne. After Charlemagne’s death Einhard felt compelled to write a biography about his king and friend, writing that, ○“In any event, I would rather commit my story to writing, and hand it down in posterity, in partnership with others, so to speak, that to suffer the most glorious life of this most excellent king, the greatest of all the princes of his day, and his illustrious deeds, hard for men of later times to imitate, to be wrapped in the darkness of oblivion” (Einhard 16). Einhard spent twenty-two years in Charlemagne’s court and ○“Although

After reading two versions of “The Life of Charlemagne”, one written by a person who lived with Charlemagne, and one who didn’t, it is evident that Charlemagne is portrayed in a negative way by the author, the Monk of St. Gall, and in a positive way by Einhard. Einhard was very close to Charlemagne. He lived at the same time and with Charlemagne himself. His version of “The Life of Charlemagne” was writing right after his death. The Monk of St. Gall wrote his version more than 70 years after Charlemagne’s death. He did not live with or even at the same time as Charlemagne. This is probably one of the reasons the view on the ruler are completely different.

Although Charlemagne was known for his control over Europe, he also took care of his own people, especially his own religion. If he heard of Christians suffering he would send them money. He also took great pride in his religion and built churches all over but his most famous work was the “Holy Mother of God”-How Charlemagne conquered half of

The Carolingian dynasty was a Frankish noble family which managed to take control over the entirety of the Franks and form what is known as the Carolingian Empire. Being a Frankish noble family meant that they originally began as a Germanic tribe until 496 A.D when Clovis I, the first ruler of the Franks united all of the Frankish tribes underneath his rule. Charlemagne was born to Pepin the Younger, king of the Franks from the years 751-768 A.D who was also the first of the Carolingians to become King, and his wife, the Frankish queen, Bertrada of Laon. The day and month of his birth is agreed by scholars to be the 2nd of April but the year of his birth is a much discussed and debated topic amongst scholars since some sources claim that he was born in 742 (before the marriage of his parents meaning that he is a bastard not fit for the throne), 747 (his birthday would have fallen upon Easter day which would have been mentioned by historians at the time but was not) or more popularly the year of 748. The exact location of his birth is not known but is speculated to be either Aachen in Germany or Liege in Belgium amongst other cities.

We now leave this in-depth description of Charlemagne given by Einhars, and take a look at a new essay by Fichtenau entitled "A New Portrait of Charlemagne." Instead of describing Charlemagne as Einhard does, we find that Fichtenau's essay rather rebuilds Charlemagne. Fichtenau talks about how things like his personality were strung together in the wrong way by Einhard. He talks about how his personality is predictable, because all Emperors must have the same values. He talks of how in generosity, as Einhard's description showed as being out of the kindness of his heart, was actually a result of what actions would follow his generous jesters. Fichtenau uses his whole essay to rebuild Charlemagne to what kind of ruler he believes he is. He does say that without the great ruling and personality of Charlemagne, then it would have taken generations for this empire to reach its peak. "What remains is

Throughout Charlemagne’s reign, he was continuously expanding his vast empire while also improving it internally. Charlemagne was the Kings of Franks from 771-814 and also the Holy Roman Emperor from 800-814, born in the late 740s (the exact date is unknown/debated) near Liège in modern day Belgium. Charlemagne was illiterate despite frequently being called “the education emperor” as he strongly supported education and literacy. Charlemagne’s father, Pepin III had the Frankish empire and when he died on September 24, 768, Charlemagne and Carloman (Charlemagne’s brother) each took control of half of the empire. After Carloman’s death on December 4 of 771, Charlemagne immediately took over the other half of the empire that Carloman had ruled.