Charlemagne. Карл I (Великиий, король франков)
World History I
HST 218 – 102
Charlemagne.
By: Vlad Exxxx
Instructor: Mr. James
Krokar
DePaul University
November 18, 2002
The happiness and
prosperity of the citizens
is the only
legitimate object of government.
-
Thomas
Jefferson
Sometimes one great man is all it takes to change
the course of history around for a nation, a civilization, or even the entire
world. Luckily for the proponents of its proponents, it is hard to disagree
with the theory of “persona magna.” The world has seen the historical
repercussions of the distinguished exploits of such men as Julius Caesar,
Alexander the Great, and Abraham Lincoln. The remarkable accomplishments of
Charlemagne undeniably earn him a place among the most triumphant individuals
in history.
Charlemagne was born into the family of the Mayor of the Palace in the
court of King Childeric. Despite the lack of royal ancestry, Charles’ father,
Pepin was the true ruler of the Franks until the eventual deposition of
impotent Childeric, at which time Pepin was named the official monarch. Upon
Pepin’s demise, the state, which Pepin had gloriously expanded, was passed on
to Charles and his brother Carloman who ruled jointly for some three years, and
after Carloman’s death, Charles became the King of the Franks (Einhard 27).
The reign of Charlemagne was a most glorious one. During his forty-five
years in power, Charles distinguished himself as a successful conqueror, an
imposing sovereign, an able diplomat, and an active advocate of learning. His
conquests doubled the empire he inherited, his masterful diplomacy helped him
establish strategic alliances with neighbors, and his appreciation for
knowledge and scholarship sparked a “Carolingian Renaissance” (Painter 5), a
period of revival of learning, while popular education was waning in Europe
during the early Middle Ages.
For the purpose of determining the medieval Franks’ view of an ideal
ruler, Einhard’s positively biased biography of Charlemagne is the best source
for information. As pointed out in Sidney Painter’s foreword to the book,
Einhard slants the focus toward the positive aspects, while “passing over
delicately details he considered embarrassing” (Painter 11). As a result of
such omission of most of the unfavorable biographical facts, the somewhat
idealized view of Charlemagne becomes a model of a “perfect King” as envisioned
by the people of his time.
Perhaps the skill most highly valued by Einhard as well as by the people
of the turbulent Middle Ages was the ability to conduct victorious warfare.
After the fall of the Holy Roman Empire, the nations that came to inherit the
land were engaged in frequent wars, trying to conquer lands in order to collect
tribute. Clearly, in times like those it was necessary for a king to be an apt military
commander because the welfare of a nation almost directly depended upon the
territory, and therefore the amount of arable land and natural resources.
Einhard dedicates a large portion of the biography to the history of
Charlemagne’s conquests. He mentions Charles’ charisma and outstanding
leadership skills. If one were to closely examine the record of the most famous
or most notorious kings in the history of mankind, the top of the list would be
dominated by the warrior kings: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Sundiata,
Ivan the Terrible, and others. In today’s world, the violation of other
nations’ borders seems if not outrageous, then at least unethical. But in the
Middle Ages, when all government was done by the sword, the winner was the one who
was most adept with that sword. What difference does it make that Charlemagne
could not read or write if his fifty-three successful conquests brought all of
Christian Western Europe except for Britain, Italy, and Sicily (Painter 5) to
the Franks’ feet? In contrast to Charlemagne’s spectacular example, Einhard
briefly describes the personality of the official king in the time of Pepin,
Charlemagne’s father:
There was nothing left the King to do but to be
content with his name of King, his flowing hair, and long beard, to sit on the
throne and play the ruler, to give ear to the ambassadors that came from all
quarters, and to dismiss them, as if on his own responsibility, in words that
were, in fact, suggested to him, or even imposed upon him (Einhard 23-24).
If anything had caused Einhard to give mention to such a petty figure as
King Childeric, it must have been the need for an antithesis to contrast with
the marvelous personality of Charlemagne. Fulfilling the duty of a historian
would not explain such a motion because in Einhard’s own foreword, he
indirectly confesses of creating a somewhat biased picture of his master and
benefactor, thereby renouncing the duty and the title of a historian.
Einhard undertook a considerable effort to discuss Charlemagne’s positive
personal traits: determination and steadfastness to go through with all his
endeavors; strict adherence to justice and readiness to counteract any
“faithless behavior” with righteous vengeance (Einhard 31). Through
Charlemagne’s example, Einhard specifies more valuable character traits of a
worthy ruler: perseverance to withstand whatever comes, without yielding in the
face of adversity or difficulty (Einhard 33).