Charlemagne: A Biography

“What, I believe, is beyond dispute is that without Charlemagne—man, Monarch and myth—there would be no debate. “Europe,” if it existed at all, would be something very different. For that reason alone the latest version of the Charlemagne legend has validity. He was what the eighth century poet said he was: “the King and Father of Europe. “ The quote above is at the end of Derrick Wilson’s book on Charlemagne entitled such. This quotation is the summary of Wilson’s purpose in writing this book. This book is one long rationale for why Charlemagne is the reason Europe perceives itself as Europe. This book is broken down into three parts. Each of these parts must be evaluated against the purpose of the book in order to understand the books effectiveness of the book at achieving it’s in the goal. The first section of the book deals with “Charlemagne The Man,” as it is entitled, dealing with his character and the development of Charlemagne from being the son of Pepin the Short to the first Ruler of the Holy Roman Empire since the fall of Rome. The second section deals with “Charlemagne The Emperor:” looking at his rule as an emperor and its effectiveness. The last section deals with Charlemagne the myth: this is the chapter that the author’s thesis struggles the most. It is a combination of both the development of the historicity of Charlemagne as well as the perception of Charlemagne held by the great leaders that followed him. A note needs to be made before looking at the three sections. In regards to the sources that exist of Charlemagne, it must be noted that all the sources have an explicit slant to them whether stated or not. Wilson notes that even the first author to write about Charlemagne, Einhard, had a very specific reason for writing. He was writing to help legitimize the succession of Louis, Charlemagne’s son. He wrote with an additional slant—the author made an explicit attempt to compare Charlemagne to one of the classical Roman emperors, thus giving Charlemagne greater validity in his rule and greater prestige. The first section on “Charlemagne The Man” deals with his prehistory as well as the details of his character. It is in this chapter that the author tells about Charlemagne’s love for his family and his desire to create something for his family that he could be proud of. The author uses tall tales of Charlemagne such as the one where Charlemagne made visiting rulers spent two days in the clothes that they arrived in, hunting and riding, to show them the frivolity of wearing such decadent clothing when it serves no real purpose in the real world. This section also deals with the struggles within his own kingdom, and the perception of his kin that they would receive the title of Emperor.The greatest characteristic that Wilson tries to portray of Charlemagne is how headstrong of a man he really was. It was because of this headstrongness that Charlemagne developed ways around obstacles that had previously stopped men before. This is no better displayed of this than in the story of Charlemagne conquering Pavia in 773. Where most generals would give up the fight when winter struck, Charlemagne was willing to ride it out through the winter knowing that this would give them not only a psychological advantage but also a military advantage. The second section of the book, “Charlemagne The Emperor,” covers the time from him becoming the Emperor of the West to his death on January 28, 814. This section makes the hardest push for Charlemagne being the start of the perception of Europe. In doing so the author betrays his own biases towards Charlemagne. The author begins to use adjectives to describe Charlemagne not for historical purposes of description but for the purpose of creating a grandiose perception of Charlemagne by the reader. It is also obvious to the reader that Wilson has an extremely high perception of Charlemagne and the fact that he makes no attempt to explain Charlemagne’s defeats in battle. He does mention that Charlemagne does lose a few battles, yet the early historians do not pay much attention to it because they are trying to portray Charlemagne as being a great an epic leader. Einhard was writing in such a way that he was mimicking the great Roman and Greek writings. These writings very rarely included defeats, the purpose of these writings was to portray these men as of mythical heroes to be admired and used as a standard to try to live too. To that end, Wilson also points out that the modern version of historical literacy requires accurate facts, but the ancient way of telling history was not about the facts, it was about the events that happened and the lesson that should be learned out of them. In much the same way a parable is not about telling a story that actually happened it’s about conveying something that could happen for the purpose of giving a life lesson or truth. The third section of the book is the weakest part of this entire biography. The section itself deals nothing with Charlemagne; it starts after his death and continues all the way up through the 20th century. The purpose of this chapter according to Wilson is to display the lasting impact of Charlemagne. He shows how countries would fight for the right to claim Charlemagne as their own, and how leaders like Napoleon and even Hitler would look back at Charlemagne and reference him and honor his greatness. The fault in doing this however, is that Wilson perceives this is a continuation of the European identity this Charlemagne creates, in reality, what they are doing is giving homage the last great emperor before them. Leaders like Napoleon and Hitler were not saying that they recognize the European identity that they received from Charlemagne: that is why they are referencing him. What they are doing is they are alluding to the last great emperor in the minds of the people. They are saying they are as great if not greater than Charlemagne.Before this chapter, it was possible to read this book and agree with Wilson’s thesis. After this chapter creates in the mind of the reader the perception that maybe there is deception going on by the auther if the ending of this book deals with such obtuse points. Had this chapter been the first chapter, showing how great the perception of Charlemagne has been since the time of his rule, then it might have completely changed the outcome of this book. Wilson makes the statement that all great leaders have two things in common, the ability to lead, and the ability to create an ideology for those they are leading to follow. Wilson would argue that the ideology that Charlemagne created was that of a unified Europe. It was this ideology that surpassed even the legends of Charlemagne himself and continues to exist stronger in the psyche of Europeans than the memory of Charlemagne himself. Problem with this conclusion however, is not the Charlemagne did not create a unified Europe, but rather he created the world unified around the church. Charlemagne not only took control over the government but he also took control over the church. It was by his will that the Catholic Church became unified and cohesive in the message that it preached. He was the one who introduced the idea of a common mass throughout the lands that he controlled. A bit of irony lies in Charlemagne gained his power over the church which ultimately gave the church its power that it would have been the 10th 11th and 12th centuries. Wilson has a strong thesis that he uses as the basis for his book. The problem is that at best his argument is a stretch of the information to put it together. It is not fact that Charlemagne united Europe ideologically rather it is the fact that Charlemagne was the last great leader and live previous 300 years to have been on the mainland of Europe. The Roman Empire existed well beyond the borders of what Charlemagne was able to conquer, so it is not possible to say that Charlemagne concurred Europe as it had never been concurred before. Charlemagne looked at himself as if he was not creating some new empire, but rather he was reigniting an old empire. To say that Charlemagne created the European identity is to ignore the fact that Charlemagne resurrected a Roman identity, or maybe it is just the rest of Europe has ignored that fact.

This book is part biography and part assessment of the continuing impact of Charlemagne on the idea of Europe.The author's central premise is that prior to Charlemagne, there was no larger identity that the people who inhabited the post-Roman world hewed to. They saw themselves as competing and distinct tribes and peoples who warred with the tribes and peoples around them. Charlemagne's impact on civilization was to take the remnants of the Merovingian Kingdom and through military conquest, apt administration, shrewd politics and most importantly through identification of his empire with the Church and Christ's teachings, mold the people who today roughly inhabit France, Germany, the former Austria-Hungarian areas and Italy into believing they were part of something larger than their tribe or kingdom, that they were part of this area and idea known as Europe. This was first seen as Christendom, or a polity theoretically united behind the Pope (most often through the strongest leader who could dragoon the Pope into legitimizing him) and the princes and kings who inhabited his ecclesiastical realm. Though they might war and compete (and they did and have right down to the 1940's), they were still a distinct people whose religion, culture, habits and way of looking at the world set them apart from others on the periphery or continents away.The biographical part of the book is brief, but well written. It is written in essay style. Short on battles and specifics and long on the author's ruminations of what events meant in the development of Charlemagne's empire (the proto-Europe), the author does a good job of building his case with regard of how Charlemagne was uniquely able to weld disparate peoples into being members of Christendom and its successor, Europe. Charlemagne combined faith (rather absolute faith in his Church and its rightful place in the hearts and minds of his subjects), force of personality, canny and ruthless politics, appreciation of the arts and learning, a talent for administration and a willingness to work hard at it, and importantly, an understanding of what he needed to do to be seen by his subjects (high and low) as a protector-king who would be among them, serve their interests (at least as far as any tyrant would in keeping disgruntlement below the threshold which produces revolt) and produce a better living experience under his auspices than could be had outside of his embrace.That Charlemagne's Frankish Empire did not long survive him (his sons and grandsons understandably did not combine all of the success factors brought together in Charlemagne) does not diminish the great impact of Charlemagne in any way in the author's argument (I happen to agree). Although Charlemagne's Frankish Empire of the late 700's and early 800's didn`t last a century, its impact - most particularly in creating this larger idea of Europe and in creating an ideal of kingship and a rally point to which future would-be Charlemagne's would continually turn - reaches all the way to today.The second half of the author's book is an analysis of this impact on Europe and its successor rulers. He spends a great deal of time on the Capet's of France and the Otto's and Frederick Barbarossa of the German area. They drew their lessons and legitimacy form Charlemagne even though often warring with each other. The author points to Louis XIV and the grandeur of his empire as well as Napoleon and his Continental System as reverberations of Charles the Great (as Charlemagne is translated) that echoed through the Twentieth Century and even the making of the European Economic Community.His central thesis is that even though the territories that became France, Germany, the Low Countries, Italy and the Austrian Hungarian Empire often invaded and killed each other, both in Europe and the world-over, they were still Europeans and represented an association of cultural norms and thinking that has not been matched in other continental sized agglomerations of peoples. It is an interesting argument and the author reasons it well. While he does stretch Charlemagne's impact a bit much in these last centuries I believe, it is true that Charlemagne can be rightly called the progenitor of Europe and a touchstone to which Europeans still sometimes look - even if only symbolically of late - to legitimize and organize themselves.

Enjoy reading

excellent book on a ruler I knew little about

A good biography of Charlemagne which I read with much interest. I would have liked to have had a larger book, but this is good as an introduction to a larger than life character of history.

Excellent work in this book. Great reading.