Charlemagne, Otherwise Known as Charles the Great:

¶ … Charlemagne, otherwise known as Charles the Great: Einhard's "The Emperor Charlemagne," Heinrich Fichtenau's "A New Portrait of the 'Emperor,'" and F.L. Ganshof's "A More Somber Light." The first two of these essays share in common their admiration for the Christian Emperor, whereas Ganshof's shows some of the weaknesses in Charles's reign. In fact, all three of these articles demonstrate how, after his death, the Frank Empire fell apart.

In Einhard's article "The Emperor Charlemagne," the ruler is described in a positive light. Charlemagne ruled for 47 years and during this time the kingdom's landholdings doubled. Charlemagne was also instrumental in conquering the barbaric Germanic tribes and most importantly, made Christianity the state religion.

Charlemagne was known as a magnanimous ruler who made alliances with many other major kingdoms such as Persia, Constantinople, and the Greeks. The king was viewed with respect and awe if not fear and was also known for being noble and generous to al peoples. In fact, Charlemagne gave alms to the poor and sent a lot of money to Rome to pay allegiance to the Pope and the Church.

The king was a large and robustly healthy man who was a good swimmer. He dressed not in regal garb only but in traditional clothing that did not differ much from the commoners'. Charles was known for being a moderate eater and drinker and would not tolerate drunkenness in his palace. He was a good public speaker, and was fluent in many different languages including Greek and Latin. Charlemagne studied rhetoric and astronomy and helped to chronicle local history.

In my opinion, Einhard's essay seems like political propaganda, as if the author was writing by commission to Charles himself. However, the essay contains valuable details about the king's life and personality that can help historians and students gain an understanding of the great leader.

In "A New Portrait of the 'Emperor,'" Heinrich Fichtenau describes Charlemagne much as Einhard did. Noting that he is also called Charles the Great, Fichtenau notes that the king was a big man in physical and political stature. kNown for his temperance, moderation, and self-control, he was a model Christian emperor. Charlemagne was a family man and a social man who did not tend towards introspection or solitude. Rather, he liked to be the center of attention and surrounded himself with people. Fichtenau also notes that Charlemagne was generous both to the poor and to the Church, even if he wasn't a deeply spiritual man at heart. Charlemagne was at the very least a man of his times, a man who defined his times as much as his times defined him.

Fichtenau's essay is not much different from Einhard's an in fact, the author alludes to Einhard's biography. Fichtenau adds to Charles' biography by showing how social he was and how well he ruled his household as well as his kingdom.

Finally, F.L. Ganshof adds to the biographical information about Charles the Great by reminding readers that his Reign of Terror in 1785 led to the Saxon Revolt in 792. By establishing Christianity as the state religion he invited some corruption by fusing Church and State. Charlemagne can be accurately considered as the practical and political head of the Roman Church, who he paid unwavering allegiance to.

Charlemagne honored and admired Church clerics such as Alcuin, who was as an advisor to him. In fact, Charlemagne was instrumental in helping prevent the total collapse of the Catholic Church after the decline of the Roman Empire.