Hi everyone!
Week 3 is all about the Carolingians and the Carolingian Empire! Some historians devote all of their time and energy to studying this period and it is, as we shall learn this week, incredibly important in the shaping of the later Middle Ages in Europe.
Our readings this week consist of a long extract from a secondary source (Medieval Civilization) by Kay Slocum and the full text of a primary source, The Life of Charlemagne, by a fellow called Einhard.
 |
| Charlemagne as he appeared in the imagination of the 16th-Century German Painter - Albrecht Durer |
 |
| An image of Einhard from a later medieval manuscript |
Einhard is a classic example of the opportunities provided by monasteries for lower status individuals to gain an education and rise in worldly status. Einhard (c.775 - 840) was of a lower status, however, his parents sent him to be educated at a great monastery named Fulda. He became an excellent scholar and part of Charlemagne's administrative team at his court. Later in life Einhard became the personal secretary of Charlemagne's son, Louis the Pious.
When reading Einhard's Life of Charlemagne try to ask yourself the 5 'Ws' of document analysis that we discussed in our last tutorial:
Who was Einhard?
When did he write the Life?
What is it?
Where did he write it?
Why did he write it? (Why do you think he wrote it and why does he say he wrote it?)
Some other questions to ask could be:
What were Einhard's literary influences?
Can we rely on his account?
What portrait of Charlemagne does he create? What values and vision of kingship does he celebrate?
Our other source today, the extract from Kay Slocum's Medieval Civilization, gives us a broad, sweeping history of the Carolingian period and provides us with a lot of context to help us understand Einhard's Life.
Some broad questions to ask when reading this text could be:
How did Charlemagne manage to conquer and control such vast territory?
How would you characterize the relationship between the Church (especially the papacy) and Charlemagne (and his successors) during this period?
What do scholars mean when they refer to the 'Carolingian Renaissance'? What ideals lay behind the renaissance and in what ways did it impact Carolingian culture?
Why is the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 as Holy Roman Empire so important? Does it create a new vision of kingship?
As always your comments can be based on these, or the tutorial discussion questions in our reader, however they do not have to. All of your thoughts, questions, and reflections are welcome!
.........
I know that many of you (including myself!) have been struggling with the geography of Europe in the early medieval period. I've uploaded a map below that I think manages to find a good balance between simplicity and detail. I hope it will help us all get these place names straight!
 |
| Map of the Carolingian Empire |
......
Just for fun!
Here is a link to another text that Einhard wrote. It's about the translation of the bones of the saints Marcellinus and Peter from their original resting place in Italy across the Alps to the Carolingian Empire. Translation is a fancy word used to describe the movement of relics (bits of saints preserved and venerated as holy objects in the Church). It is a wonderful adventure story full of grave-robbing, hiding from the authorities, and sneaking around! It gives us wonderful insight into early medieval religious culture. Remember from last week the section in our readings on the importance of relics and saints to early medieval people? This story gives us a brilliant snapshot of that part of early medieval culture!
http://www.archive.org/stream/MN5140ucmf_5/MN5140ucmf_5_djvu.txt
And also just for fun.......here is a link to a 12th century poem called The Song of Roland. It celebrates a great battle fought by the forces of Charlemagne during one of his military campaigns. What ideals and values are celebrated in the poem? Do you think they reflect Carolingian culture or 12th century culture?
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/basis/roland-ohag.asp
.....
Happy reading everyone!
Diana
And also just for fun.......here is a link to a 12th century poem called The Song of Roland. It celebrates a great battle fought by the forces of Charlemagne during one of his military campaigns. What ideals and values are celebrated in the poem? Do you think they reflect Carolingian culture or 12th century culture?
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/basis/roland-ohag.asp
.....
Happy reading everyone!
Diana
I thought the development of the Carolingian Empire was fascinating, but I found it hard to believe Einhard’s embellished account of King Charles’s rule. I thought it portrayed a visionary ideal of Kingly life and deed. It makes King Charles out to be a super human figure capable of anything in defence of the Empire. Although I think King Charles’s actions, although beneficial to the Carolingians, were exaggerated I think his work towards furthering the education standards of the people was admirable.
ReplyDeleteThe progression made in the field of education went hand in hand with the military feats of the Carolingians to define the empire, without the Empires pursuit of religious observance and educational fulfilment I feel that their military efforts may have appeared to be the greedy actions of a hedonistic ruler as opposed to the brave deeds of an idealistic King. As it stands now the Kings actions in his treatment of education and religion mellow our view of him and explain the pride he felt in the empire that drove him to take such great measures in its protection and expansion.
I thought the heightened impact of religion and education in this time was also partial responsible for the kind of society we live in now. The influx of reading, writing and published texts in the Carolingian time must have contributed in a large way to the development of our information and publication dependant society today.
I thought the information about the rights of women was also highly interesting and I was surprised that women had such progressive rights in this period in an area of Europe where they would, much later in history still be treated as possessions, with no right to inheritance or property. The progressiveness of the Carolingians in the area of women’s rights is admirable.
Carolyn
Hello Carolyn. I am guessing from what you wrote that you also would not have missed in the first reading that 'divorce was possible only when the wife was guilty of adultery'. As Charlemagne had plenty of cucubines, I guess this this was his way of securing the support of the Church whilst being able to pursue his 'passions'. Cheeky Men, Cheeky Charlemagne!
DeleteHi, one of the aspects of this week’s reading I found rather interesting was the various dynamics at play in the system of vassals and fealty. I also found the question of the impact of the stability of this system under Charlemagne on the social and legal reality of the Carolingian empire quite interesting.
ReplyDeleteThe Socio-political structure of the Carolingian empire with its system of Vassals and Fealty seems to be a codification of the sorts of ideas expressed in Dionysus the Pseuodo-Areopagaite’s view of heaven and earth as a continuous hierarchy. This codification is example of Charlemagne’s political cunning. He did not simply impose a system of oaths of fealty grounded only on his supremacy as a political and military figure (the sort of supremacy that socially mobile, self-interested nobles could happily ignore should it prove politically favourable). Rather he based this system on a hierarchical view of heaven and earth that through its nature discouraged advocating change thus aiding in the stability of his regime.
While some of the aspects of Charlemagne’s system of vassals and fealty seem to have their basis in ideas of the personal supremacy of monarchs and other powerful people as justified by a particular religious outlook, there were also very real material motivations for Charlemagne and the Frankish nobles to enter into this arrangement of power. Charlemagne realised that land was amongst the most important resources a king could have, he also realised that it was impossible for one person to centrally govern and effectively micromanage every part of a substantial domain. Thus the usefulness of vassals obligated through vows of fealty. The functions vassals fulfilled as military commanders, judges, provincial governors and royal representatives were invaluable to the effective management of the Carolingian empire. This arrangement was also of benefit to the vassals themselves as in return for their fealty they were granted the security of lifetime tenure of sections of the royal holdings.
I think it is also important to recognise the role of the missi dominici (messengers of the lord) in maintaining the stability of the Carolingian empire under Charlemagne. These representatives of the king played an important role in safeguarding his interests and providing checks and balances for the power of the vassals within their own holdings. Charlemagne seems to have been aware of the necessity of limiting power at all levels as even these messengers did not repeatedly visit the same region, this evidently prevented the establishment of political connections between vassals and missi dominici disadvantageous to Charlemagne.
I think Charlemagne’s effective structuring and management of power affected his ability to implement a relatively ethnically tolerant system of law throughout the empire. It seems to me that without the vassals the king would not have been able to hold court with the frequency and geographic specificity necessary to allow the existence of so many different systems of law within the one realm, nor would it have been possible to record these laws for clarity and posterity.
It seems to me that Einhard is incredibly loyal, which has me wondering how accurate his documentation on Charlemagne is. I think it is somewhat bias for example he, Einhard, claims Charlemagne’s ability is that great that when he is physically in battle “the enemy were so routed and overthrown”. To me, Charlemagne through Einhard’s work, is portrayed to be very firm, persistent, powerful, intelligent and brave (refer to the description of tracking through the Alps in Italy, pg 96, “heaven-aspiring cliffs”). Interestingly, I find, is Einhard’s reflection of Charlemagne as a father, stating that his childrens’ deaths “moved him to tears” which in such times for a king is supposedly bizarre and not how a king should react, I think. Similarly, as a father, he is emphasized to be loving and thoughtful of his children, “never took his meals without them when he was at home.” Back to the reliability of Einhard’s account he states “omitting nothing worth knowing or necessary to know”; how much of Charlemagne’s life has he not accounted for? Alternatively, he may have added in events or changed around the story, i.e. who declared war. On the other hand, this source has legitimacy as it is a first account instead of an assumed story created centuries later.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Slocum’s extract I believe it is valuable as it helps balance some of the ‘facts’ given by Einhard. It, like the Life, reflects on Charlemagne’s military skill which is a reflection of his success and authority. He was able to conquer and control with his military yet had other influences that assisted with his power. On top of his military he had papal support from Rome, due to helping the Pope (leading to his coronation). His educational reforms of establishing schools in monasteries and churches not only benefited nobles but the middle class and the poor which I believe makes him be recognized as a good leader. He had divorce laws changed which also benefitted many and women were given more independence i.e. when they become widowed they can inherit their household, I found this interesting but not sure if, in reality, this occurred and sounds as positive as it is. Moreover, his imperial laws; men being summoned to the army, behavior of soldiers, activities of the clergy; were all ways in which he maintained his control.
A quick reflection of his coronation; it demonstrates his legitimized power and authority. Furthermore, it is a reflection of the Popes gratitude but I don’t think I believe that Charlemagne was surprised by this action. He waged war with the Lombards which costs money and men, surely he knew that he would have benefitted from it.
I’m curious to see that in both sources there is not much blood and gore, where do we or maybe it is just me, that gets the notion that the middle ages has an excessive amount of gore? If it does, I find it odd that there isn’t much commentary on such things only ‘battles’, ‘wars’ and ‘plundering’. There is also little negativity about Charlemagne – is he really amazing that there is not one negative thing to say about him?
In this weeks readings I found Charlemagne very interesting. I was particularly impressed by his ability to maintain control over his empire. Charlemagne seemed to be rather a great leader, what with his control over his empire and then his consequent coronation. I was fascinated by Charlemagne’s implementation of the idea of loyalty in terms of vassals and fealty. This loyalty united his empire. He was also able to maintain control and power through his rather intelligent delegation in terms of land control (e.g. “sons were named kings of various parts of the realm”). It was obvious to him that he could not control such a large amount of land and as the text suggests, land was ‘the king’s greatest resource’, so it was imperative that he maintain control. Also, his system of missi dominici allowed the officials to be inspected and thus kept in line and under control. As Slocum points out, Charlemagne’s system was effective due to the support of his military power and therefore when weaker rulers tried to emulate the system they failed due their inability to control missi.
ReplyDeleteI also found Einhard’s devotion to promoting Charlemagne as a great leader quite interesting and also cause for concern in terms of reliability. It is obvious that Einhard was in awe of Charlemagne, evident by his descriptions, “strong and well built… masterful and dignified” and thus sort to paint him in the best light. Although Einhard’s work was written considerably soon after Charlemagne’s death and therefore would be more accurate than accounts recorded a great deal later, as Slocum states, he was creating an impression of Charlemagne that was really an ‘unrealistic hero’. Despite his bias his work is still of value as it does provide evidence of how people (like Einhard perhaps) would have seen him. It is true that the reign of Charlemagne’s son would have perhaps influenced the biography, but there can still be some truth in Einhard’s assessments as it is a primary source, written in the time of which it speaks and thus it possesses some legitimacy.
I really enjoyed the excerpt from Slocum's Medieval Civilisation, particularly because I had previously known only relatively little of The Carolingian Empire. Either because it is a strange gap in popular culture or I have just inexplicably missed all the popular books and television on the Franks.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, because Slocum's writings were as much a writing on Charlemagne as Einhard, I felt the primary source was a bit redundant (although still interesting), as much of it had already been discussed. As everyone else has no doubt discovered, Einhard was biased, being a dedicated servant of Charlemagne. When Einhard described him as "this most excellent king, the greatest of all the princes of his day" alarm bells rang as to the appropriateness of The Life of Charlemagne as a historical source. However, it was also very interesting, if you get past all the predispositions.
I enjoyed the narrative of the rise of the mayors as the Merovingian monarchy declined (and its tranfer into the Carolingian Empire); fading into what I assume the United Kingdom's monarchy is today.
Also noted was the profound influence the Church still had upon western Europe. Charlemagne was still by 'divine right' the king (also legitimized when crowned emperor)and Pepin "required divine sanction [in order to] secure a transfer of authority." The Empire too, was very much an evangelical endevour to create a "vast Christian realm."
Indeed, The church was a conduit for the preservation of texts and production of manuscripts to be possible. Slocum's statistic that "90 of our inheritance from the Classical literary tradition of Rome" is thanks to this era is astounding.
I have more things to say but I don't know what the appropriate length for these things is so I'll just leave it for now.
Hello! I found the first reading in the Unit Reader, the long extract from Medieval Civilization by Kay Slocum initially difficult to digest. Having only a basic understanding of who Charlemagne was and what he achieved, I found that I had to read up on him before being able to properly understand it and make opinions. Perhaps it is because it is very detailed with information and the writing tends to move quickly but I would be interested to see if anyone else shared this feeling.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless after reading up on Charlemagne I found the reading to be invaluable. The most interesting part I found is that the writer, Kay Slocum, talks a lot about 'why'; reasons for battle, etc. Being only a secondary source however these would be assumptions, generalisations agreed upon and opinions held by the writer herself, still great to help create one's own interpretation of the era.
The second reading, I tend to agree with Jane, made me question about how accurate Einhard depicted Charlemange. He writes that 'his height is well known to have been seven times the length of his foot', which to me seems an immense size in comparison to the average man of that time. I wonder whether Einhard deliberately exaggerated his attributes or whether his loyalty and awe for his Lord embroided how he perceived him.
From both readings it is easy to determine that Charlemagne had authority and vision. As wrote in the first reading, Charlemagne was 'a great warrior and a consummate politician'. He expanded his realm considerably, contributed to the Christianisation of his empire and created a culture that saw improvements in educational standards and establishment of monasteries. The important factor I find from both readings, and one I believe might be a good discussion, is the lack of mention of pest, disease and famine. As Jane mentioned the notion that the Middle Ages had an excessive amount of gore, I believe the same census towards this. Was Charlemagne able to expand his realm so effectively as he had great resources or was he so efficient in ruling his realm that it never became an issue?
Hi everyone
ReplyDeleteDiana here - Shannon's been having some problems commenting this week so I've included her comment here below.
'Firstly, I was very interested in all these readings for the week mainly because I find Charlegmagne a very fascinating man and I am quite impressed, as Georgia said, that he managed to keep his empire under control and stayed as Empire for such a long period. I think maybe that had something to do with his strict rules and constant need to make sure all his soldiers were doing exactly what he wanted, for example the rule about 'Whoever shall be found drunken in the army shall be ostracized' and showed them his power.
Charlemagne's coronation on Christmas Day is quite funny in my opinion, sort of sounds like he wanted himself to appear almost Jesus-like in a sense, and he was a very devout Christian so I can see why that's what he would want.
Interesting that the Carolingians were the first in the west to give official sanction for active participation of crowned/annointed women in the royal admin and then at the same time in Monasteries, 'women shall not be permitted to wander about at all...'
I agree with Jarrod about the second reading, I found it a little too similar information to the first reading though it was good to have the set out under headings for particular bits of Charlemagne's life. Einhard is quite biased towards Charlemagne though which was fairly obvious, so therefore isn't necessarily a very reliable source of information.'
A very late post, haha
ReplyDeleteThe text was largely embellished and failed to review the strategic and political environment due to the effect of charlegmagne's actions.
A few failures that weren't portrayed in any large detail was his inability to broach good relations with the Byzantines. admittedly, this would of been hampered by the Byzantine's disrepected for bearded ones and their inability to secure the pope's support. (displaying the political tension)
Further reading shows the two empires engaged in conflict showing a divide between east and west europe that would only be breached in what would later be known as the crusade.
this goes to show how Charlemagne's play with the church embroiled europe in a conflict that would transcend centuries, not a particularly smart decision.
Further failed strategic decisions were also glossed over. The invasion of Spain failed in its strategic aim, extending christendom and the carolingian empire to the territory in question asno mention of the word 'victory' or 'occupied' was mentioned, leaving the meaning of 'homeward march' to suggest in reality a retreat from the territory.
This would add considerably more meaning to the ambush as it'd mean the Charlegmaagne's army was ladden with spoils of war, which, would give reason to why the battle wasn't pitched but simply a raid, meaning his campaigne would of mounted to a defeat as nothing was gained.