In week 3 we're going to be talking about a famous text known as the Life of Charlemagne by Einhard. There are some leading questions in the reading guide which we'll be trying to answer. In order to kick us off, I've selected (what I hope are) some thought-provoking images gathered from the webosphere to show the different ways in which Charlemagne and the idea of Empire have been linked. I hope these will help you to think about the kinds of messages of cultural and political superiority that are being sent in the text, as well as in these visual representations. Note that these images also come from different periods. Does the image of Charlemagne's power seem to have changed much over time? How?
 |
| Einhard, as scribe. (14th century; BnF, Fr 2813). Wikimedia commons. |
Other contemporaries wrote about Charlemagne too. You can check out the Life of Charlemagne by the fabulously-named Notker the Stammerer here. Both Notker and Einhard's lives are available together in a Penguin edition, Two Lives of Charlegmagne, which is in the library if you want to know more.
PS. While we're talking Carolingians, I can't resist showing you this photo of me meeting Rosamond McKitterick - one of the world's foremost scholars of this period - at a conference in the UK in 2010. There's more to this than me showing off; I think it's important to realise that the historians whose work we are reading are actually real people! A number of Rosamond's wonderful works on this period are on the extended reading list and come very highly recommended! (No wonder I'm looking pretty pleased with myself...)
16 comments:
How did Charlemagne come into power? Was he a Barbarian 'warlord' in the beginning?
Were there still war lords and "barbaric" fighting against the new Empire under Charlemagne, like there had been with the Roman Empire? or had the destruction of the romans caused many of the tribes to become weaker and more passive due to lack of food supply?
Einhard says that Charles and Carloman were made kings by “the Franks, in a general assembly of the people”, and that later Charles was “unanimously elected King of the Franks”. Who were the “general assembly”? and what was the process of electing kings?
I think we probably need to think in more subtle terms than 'warlord' to understand him: he definitely had force and power, and used violence. But he also had political legitimacy - did you read the bit in Slocum about him and his brother both succeeding his father in parts of the kingdom? It is often argued that this practice was one of the things that caused endemic violence among the Franks at the time, but perhaps it also shows the political power of the rulers because they were able to enforce (even briefly) policies about land distribution that weren't to everyone's liking. Then you add religion into the mix and what do you get?
Hi Eloise,
If you get a chance to read about Charlemagne's repression of the pagan Saxons I think you'll have an answer about whether there was resistance to his rule (even though all the contemporary reporters had their biases). But let's think of some more holistic explantions than food supply and production to tell us why people did or didn't fight: this might be one, but what other factors might be in play?
Good question Bobbie! It probably wasn't like an election today. Did you find any other descriptions of this process in the reading at all that could help us decipher it?
I have a problem!!
It says that Charlemange ignored the rights of Carloman's infant son and took possession of the entire kingdom, why was this allowed? Is it because Carloman's son was just a baby? And if so, could he (Carloman's son) have regained his rights later on? And if he could why didn't he?
The four images displayed above, to me are a really good representation of the progressive stages of Charlemagne’s creation of a centralized and vast reaching Empire, but also his commitment to the “vision of the Christian Mission”. As the first image of the small denomination coin, with the inscription of KAROLVS IMP AVG, shows that Charlemagne wanted to be associated and grouped with the Great Emperor of Roman, Augustus (AVG). But also the way in which he is depicted as a fearless and ruthless leader. Then, the final image really shows Charlemagne’s devotion to and determination of achieving a ‘vast Christian realm’, but also his absolute loyalty and faith to achieving this religious consolidation throughout his empire. Shown through the force he used with the Saxons.
Do you think these images almost show opposing and even different people…
I was wondering about the position "mayor of the palace", which I guess was the position that eventually lead Charlemagne and his family to success and power in western Europe.
How come the position was created? And when it was, how come it went to Charlemagne's ancestor ( Pepin of Heristal... I think it was), were they already a powerful family with high status?
Basically, was it just luck that Charlemagne and his ancestors were able to gain the positions they did, as Mayor of the Palace, King, and for Charlemagne - Emperor, or was it expected/did they have a strong social and power basis to begin with...
Thanks
I agree with that last point!
The first few and the last images are almost in direct contrast. It goes from this warrior king to this depiction of divinity and piety.
I just finished reading Einhard's Life of Charlemagne and I found it really interesting! The preface is particularly telling; he talks about the reason for writing it as being out of a sense of duty and wanting to honour Charlemagne for all the things he did for him during his lifetime and all it's giving me are reasons not to trust anything he says. You can tell that almost everything is going to be biased. Einhard paints this picture of Charlemagne as perfect in almost every way! But then again, the images that you've given us depict Charlemagne in a variety of different roles as well, many of which are encompassed throughout Einhard's work.
I'm having trouble getting a clear idea of who Charlemagne was not only as a king but also as a person. I'm hoping the lecture tomorrow will clear a few things up!
The images from a time closer to Charlamagne's own seem to depict him as a powerful warrior, possibly because his campaigns of expansion and formation of an empire were more obvious and his power as leader was to be exaulted. It appears that Charlamagne's piety is more the focus in the latter images. This could be due to greater Catholic influence, partly due to Charlamagne's christianisation of many pagan lands, causing the artists to depict Charlamagne in a more christian context or Christian artists recognising Charlamagne's piety, innovations and influence he had christian life in Europe which helped shape social, family, monastistic culture of the time.
Hi Gen,
I suspect you're already answering this one for yourself... I think it has to be both luck and existing power: it's just a matter of what exact combination. Those positions you mention were probably as much about status as they were about the work. (Even much more recently kings and queens have used really important people as 'ladies in waiting' etc. A king doesn't surround himself with 'nobodies': it doesn't reflect any glory on him, and his noblemen get annoyed because they're missing out on one of the most important things about status: access to power.) Being granted such titles on the one hand recognises status that already exists, and on the other it confirms and enhances it.
I guess we have to assume that this was before the time of strict laws about how this had to work: it was more up to the powerful to seize the kingship if they could, provided their claim was acceptable (or could be made to look justifiable after the fact). Taking back his rights would probably have meant a military rebellion. I can think of a few reasons why this might not have been possible, or successful... Anyone want to jump in here?
Interesting! I see where you guys are coming from, but I had actually interpreted the images as kind of coming in a circle... To me, the first and last are images of authoritarian and imperial rule (even though the ways this was depicted were different in different centuries), whereas something weird goes on in the middle where Charlemagne becomes this softer, religious/civic/cultured figure, with his piety being recognised by the pope, and so on. The Dürer painting incorporates religion (the cross on the crown, etc.) but it still looks like forceful image to me: someone who uses both the sword and the cross to dominate. What would you say?
Tiff says:
'Did the majority of people who were living during Charlemagne's reign celebrate him as much as those in later generations?'
Post a Comment