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
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteJust finished the reading for week three, and here is what I think:
I thought the first reading was very interesting. It offered a good account of what happened at this particular time in medieval European history. I found it really interesting to see just how much effort Charlemagne put into the protection and expansion of his empire, and how effectively he managed to conquer many of the surrounding tribes including the Saxons, The Avars, the Huns etc while still managing to control and run the empire properly. I guess this was something which we didn't really see towards the end of the Roman Empire; there was too much focus on one thing, and lack of another, which eventually lead to the fall of the Empire.
I found it interesting reading about the Carolingian society as well. A major point of interest for me was to see how women had gained considerable legal and social rights, and were given opportunities for personal fulfilment, at least for aristocratic women.
Furthermore, I found The Carolingian Renaissance quiet interesting, as it showed a national interest in culture and education, and re-building aspects of society which had previously become lost.
However, I found the second reading quiet dull. For some reason, I thought it repeated a lot of what had been said in the first reading, and after comments made in the first reading that doubt Einhard's reliability as a source, it became quiet hard to remain focused and interested in the text.
Hope you guys enjoyed the reading, and see you all in the tutee on wednesday.
Wow! This was a very fascinating to read. Einhard sounds like a very kindly and overly religious man. Send to by his “low-status” parents to study at the Fulda monastery. Apparently he was a small man (timid I guess) not the type to become a warrior so he devoted his life to the learnings of the Liberal Arts. In his writings Einhard said that he took upon himself "the deed of writing of the most lent and most justly renowned King Charles since no man can write with more accuracy than he of the events that took place because of his personal knowledge of facts”. Einhard was very mindful of “the benefits bestowed upon him, that to keep silent about the most glorious and illustrious deeds of a great man and to have the King suffer his life to lack eulogy and written memorial as if he never lived” would leave him (Einhard) feeling ungrateful… I agree with this in one sense as Einhard wrote of nothing by praise for King Charles, but then one would if such a powerful man were your father-in-law! I wouldn’t want to get on the wrong side of him either.
ReplyDeleteCharlemange was a very ambitious man, indeed, who seems to have set it upon himself to reclaim and restore much of what was lost in the Sack of Rome, and spread Christainity as far and wide as possible letting nothing and nobody stand in his way!! Is it to him we owe our own lives and the comfort in which we are supposedly living? Funnily.. after these readings I have been thinking about the difficulties our lovely Prime Minister must face!
This week I found particularly interesting in the reading the extent to which Charlemagne was successful in leading a prosperous and relatively stable empire. Whilst other leaders before and after him struggled to maintain the vast empire, Charlemagne seemed to have the best attempt at creating a peaceful society where it’s citizens could feel relatively safe since Roman times. This was made apparent to me through the investment made in the liberal arts throughout this period described in the readings (although the detail it went into about architecture and music was a bit dry).
ReplyDeleteThe Einhard stuff was interesting in its own way too, in the extent to which he goes to glorify Charlemagne. Sounds like the medieval equivalent to spin!
-J. Lawry
I enjoyed the readings this week. Slocum's account was easy to read. I'm impressed by Charlemagne's respect for education and especially the Liberal Arts and that everyone was given the opportunity to learn regardless of class or gender, even though the girls were eventually sent off to learn weaving! Also to employ the best scholars the world had to offer at that time. Even more impressive is that his contribution to the Arts lasted for many centuries.
ReplyDeleteI felt that Einhard was trying to put the record straight of his mentor, Charlemagne, rather than it "be wrapped in the darkness of oblivion". So, his wish has been granted as we continue to discuss it today.
I did become confused with trying to follow so many Wars and "who was up who"? But it was helpful looking at the maps.
Janice Keirnan
All great points guys. Definitely agree with Janice’s point that it was tough keeping up with which battle was taking place at what time and between whom. Seems like Charlemagne was starting a war every other weekend.
ReplyDeleteFound both the readings really great - literally struggled to put them down once I had started them. I even took my book to work with me today and read it on my half hour break! Obviously Charlemagne was a very passionate and wordly man; he had great visions for what he wanted to do with Europe and was extremely focused on making these visions become reality. However, I didn’t hugely appreciate the way that both readings glorified Charlemagne’s life. The man was involved in countless battles during his reign and was obviously very ruthless in trying to achieve his goals and I sense that there might be a darker side to him which we weren't exposed to. Particularly in Slocum’s reading when the fact that Charlemagne killed 4500 Saxons in one day in an attempt to force them into Christianity is more or less glossed over.
As for the second reading - pretty much got exactly what Slocum warned us about in that it was a very biased account of Charles' life. It seems as though in the eyes of Einhard Charlemagne could do no wrong – understandable I guess given the nature of their relationship. Do also agree with Steven's earlier comment on the fact that it very much mimics the content of the first reading. Contrary to finding it dull though, I felt that Einhard's piece, infatuation for Charlemagne aside, really complemented the first reading. Whereas Slocum's reading gave a historical overview of the events that transpired, Einhard's biography added specific details that weren't present in the first reading. For example, what Slocum described as the brutal beating of Pope Leo III - Einhard made slightly more graphic by revealing that the Roman's actually pulled out his eyes and tore out his tongue. There were a couple of other instances of this sort of scenario throughout the readings.
All in all, I really enjoyed the readings this week. Looking forward to discussion in class on Wednesday!
Hi all!
ReplyDeleteMostly in agreeance with what has already previously been said, I found the first reading extremely informative and quite interesting- especially concerning the amount of effort Charlemagne went to improving the intellectual standards of his empire.
Also quite interesting, was the fact that women were also able to be educated and were extremely influential in the economic life of the empire, although (as previously stated by others) they were eventually simply taught the household art of the time.
I think that what lay in the core of Charlemagne's strength was his continual close relationship with the papacy. The unification of Church and State was key to many of his successes in keeping his empire unified.
In regards to the Carolingian Renaissance, I found it interesting that it was during this time that musical notation was first discovered.
I found it a little deflating when reading about the happenings of the empire following Charlemagne's death. The disputes between his son's leading to the division of his beloved empire would've sent Charlemagne turning in his grave.
After reading the first text, I also found it hard to take seriously all that Einhard had said, as the first text basically diminished my trust in him as a source without bias. When reading the second text it was clear to see the sheer reverance Einhard had for his man Charlemagne, thus reinforcing what was said in the first text. The picture Einhard painted of Charlemagne was far too cheery for my liking- after all the man was quite brutal and was the initiator of many wars.
Overall though Charlemagne was one interesting guy!
Hey everyone!
ReplyDeleteI quite liked the readings this week, although the second was a little bit repetitive. However I do like having both a primary and secondary source there to analyze- for me it really highlighted the fact that Einhard’s opinions were not really completely balanced or truthful. I thought sentences like ‘while sharing the kingdom with his brother he (Charlemagne) bore the unfriendliness and jealousy most patiently… and could not be provoked to be angry with him’ illustrates Einhard’s loyalty very clearly.
Although some people found the pages on music and architecture boring I actually loved it! I think I’m a very visual learner because I found the pictures really captured my imagination. The Churches seemed similar to ones I saw a when I visited Europe a few years ago- which was a pretty cool connection, and really brought this time period to life for me.
I knew very little about Charlemagne before this week, but now I can say that he seems to have been a pretty impressive man. He was obviously ambitious to focus on restoring a wide variety of things, and from the reading I gathered he succeeded on making improvements in a lot of these areas.
In particular I thought his successful expansion was pretty extraordinary, especially considering all the work that would go into training and providing for the armies.
I was also a little surprised that he allowed different ethnic groups ‘to continue living according to their own time-honored laws’, which on one hand was a clever decision during his reign, as it must have resulted in trust and peace between him and his people. However this sort of independence obviously worked against his sons later. The map that showed the empire split into three was so frustrating to see! All the effort gone into unifying such a large area was undone so quickly!
Nastassia
Fristly with Einhard's piece which I found interesting and insightful to a degree, however due to the Slocum document I didn't find it an entirely credible source due to his hiring as a biographer of Charlemagne and along with his influences from the early work about the Roman Emperors which seems to be the cause of his exaggerating.IN particular of his accounts that I found interesting were those of military matters and just the detailing he was able to provide as a primary source from so long ago. Charlemagne in general was an impressive person merely through his accomplishments. Firstly made out by Slocum was his prowess and might as a military leader and the way he had taken over the areas of Europe that he did such as Lombardy and Saxonia and then how he had maintained rule of those areas through diplomatic and administrative means despite maintaining a military presence in all areas. This rise and maintenance just makes the fall and division of the empire even more of a tragic thing considering how easily it was created by Charlemagne and set up for him through his forefathers .
ReplyDeleteHey, it's Jess (Kopp).
ReplyDeleteI think Charlemagne really distinguished himself with his foresight, and strategic ability to incorporate the 3 different cultural movements at the time. He channeled the Roman Empire into his building of permanent garrisons, administration and his warlike nature. However he was also able to achieve the endorsement of the Church and become more than a military leader, rather a spiritual advisor. (Mind you, he didn't shirk on the violence as 5,000 hapless Saxons found out).
This partnership with the Church was also shown in Charlemagne's building of incredible churches, also showing roman influence. Although he was warlike in nature, he was conditioned that way, his father had also been a warrior and king. The instability in the countryside, was caused by the germanic tribes, of which Charlemagne was a member of. However, instead of giving into these violent impulses, he also shows great tolerance in his treatment of other ethnicities and in his work to attempt to stabilise the Empire over which he ruled.
Thanks, Jess.
I feel as though Einhard’s credibility is greatly diminished upon reading his account of Charlemagne’s rule. As some of you have mentioned, Slocum tells us of the 4,500 Saxons that were executed by Charlemagne, but he continues to tell of the capital sentences for persons continuing to practice pagan religions, and the brutal coercion used to convert the Saxons to Christianity. Einhard’s account then tells us all about the gentle disposition of this glorious and most pious king. While Charlemagne did wonders for the empire in terms of expansion, the building of churches and monasteries, Christianization – and his charitable nature toward fellow Christians living in poverty abroad, education – with great emphasis placed on his cultivation of the Liberal Arts, and the social freedoms afforded to women, the fact remains that countless wars were fought on behalf of this king, and thousands of lives lost. One must question whether Einhard, despite claiming never to omit anything ‘worth knowing or necessary to know’, and whose bias favoured the king, wrote an accurate account of the life of Charlemagne, or if it was merely dramatized to highlight the positive aspects as a ‘figment of unrealistic hero worship’.
ReplyDeleteSlocum’s account, was more factual, and gave a more precise picture of the era dubbed the ‘Carolingian Renaissance’. When describing Charlemagne’s mission to convert the empire to Christianity, he makes note that it only took some 50 years; quite an impressive feat, if you ask me. Like Maddi said, I definitely think that the success Charlemagne had could be attributed to the close connection he had with the papacy; a unity of State and Church was key. Charlemagne worked hard to establish strong bonds of loyalty with the Frankish nobility, who he placed in positions of authority, such as the Grafen, the Markgrafen, and the missi dominici who inspected their activities. Charlemagne put a series of laws and decrees in place, these laws – capitularies – played a major part in Charlemagne’s control of the empire, especially during a time of great expansion, as they centralised and standardised the activity within many realms, e.g. the military and the clergy.
Just a quick shout out to Janice, don’t worry, I was in the same boat as you, it was difficult to keep up with who was fighting who at times!
Did anyone else find it interesting that Charlemagne had such disdain for drinking alcohol?
When reading Einhard's work you can see that he worship Charlemange as a hero and whether that makes him a reliable source or not it still says something about Charlemang and what kind of man he was to inspire that is someone. Charlemange seemed like he was quite a just ruler, apart from the murder of the saxons who wouldn't convert, he did allow the tribes under his rule to keep some local customs, languages and laws. Of course he imposed his own laws but that is a given when running an empire.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was interesting that a lot of his conquering was not done for politcal means, thatw was of course a part of it, but it seems to me Charlemange was deeply religious and what he was doing was all an effort to see a totally christianised Europe.
It doesn't come as a surprised that after his death the empire fell apart, he appeared to be a one of those once in a lifetime type leaders. Maintaining the empire the way he did was an amazing feat and not something that your average ruler could complete.
Thanks, Tessa. P :)
HI its Jo -
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoyed the readings this week - especially the first document. What i found most fascinating was the 3 or so pages describing the transformation in art/introduction of manuscripts - the example images I found quite mesmerising to look over. They would have been cool to see in colour. I really enjoyed reading how much time and effort actually went into creating the manuscripts - how Byzantine and Greek art were major influences. The fact that this was all part of the push for better education was intriguing.
I found it really enjoyable to read about Charlemagne's life - his dedication to promoting education and the religious attitudes he lead were interesting. The fact that he executed so many non-christian's was quite unsettling. The fact that schools were established with pupils not only from the noble families but peasant and middle class families was an interesting point. Its always enjoyable to read how women's rights are coming along, even if the major changes (e.g no female scholarships encouraged) are still to come.
In the second document, yes, it was slightly repetitive but the paragraphs about Charlemagne's habits,dress and public works help as they allow to clarify who Charlemagne was in my mind - even if Einhard glorify's Charlemagne a bit. While its not really important, the reports about Charlemagne's eating habits reminded me of future Louis XIV of France.
Overall, a really interesting read. :)
Rarg my comment deleted itself and I'm almost out of time!
ReplyDeleteWhile I found both readings to be insightful and interesting, I looked at Einhard's as a slightly less creditable source given his clear hero-worship and not entirely accurate accounts of Charlemagne's rule. However both readings did show Charlemagne to be a powerful leader, both in terms of military and religious influence. Though quite bloodthirsty- hello, thousands of executed saxons- the establishment of a 'vast christian realm', as well as the creation of the empire, shows that he was an influential and strong ruler.
Hi all!
ReplyDeleteLast week I had a little rant about how the ‘Rule’ seemed to make more sense after I had read the second reading so I was very happy with the order in which this week’s readings were given. Thinking about it though, it’s not as if I was forced to read them in the given order... I am an adult now and could have probably made up my mind to read in whatever order I pleased... but anyway I’m getting off topic now.
I agree with a few who have already commented in that I found it hard to read Einhard because of what I had read in the first reading. I must admit, I skimmed a few paragraphs over just because I could already assume what they would say. What I learned from Einhard..... Charlemagne was great.
I found it interesting that the primary source we were given was, perhaps, not so reliable. I think I’ve always had the assumption that a primary source is about as reliable as you can get but this week I decided maybe this is not always the case.
Overall, I enjoyed these readings more than last weeks.... so hopefully that means I can assume that the readings will only get better and better :D
Last thing, thank you for the map ^ actually helped a lot.
- Samantha
I, along with a lot of you guys, found Charlemagne's invasion of Saxony interesting, the way in which the texts talks about the conversion of the Saxons to Christianity through "brutal coercion" seems absolutely mental to me. Obviously a lot of the time violence can convince people to stop voicing their opinions, and I assume that's what happened here after the slaughter of the Saxons who wouldn't give up their religious views. But I just cannot imagine the kind of tension that would be evident in an entire society that are not allowed to believe their own religion. I also found it quite amusing that at one point, there was a situation of Saxons surrendering to Charlemagne's forces, then revolting once they had left, "again and again".
ReplyDeleteCharlemagne's interest in the liberal arts was also pretty interesting, the fact that Charlemagne decided to educate, regardless of class or wealth was extraordinary, and I also wondered if this may have contributed to the kingdom falling apart after his sons took control after Charlemagne's death. Things like the different laws for different ethnic groups I can see as possibly being a problem once more of the society became educated (as it is written that it later does become a problem)..
Although I found the span of Charlemagne's accomplishments interesting, like everyone else, what I was really interested in was the kind of cult like build up of his work as godlike that was shown through the extracts of his biography. I'd be interested to see some other perspectives on his work, perhaps from other cultures, and see if his 'greatness' is equally exaggerated in a negative way. We see very little of history criticising him, although the small insight into the way he dominated the Saxons and converted them to Christianity was very interesting to me. I'd like to see more about that sort of description of the less glorious parts of his reign.
ReplyDelete