Charlemagne

In this thread I would like to discuss Carolingian King Charlemagne who was crowned the first Holy Roman Emperor in 800.

Do you think he deserves his legacy as being the defender of European Christian civilization?

Without his resistence against the Muslims would Europe succumb to the invasions?

If so, would Europe still become a prosperous and power continent if it became an extention of the Muslim world?

Is Charlemagne a hero or a bloodthirsty barbarian?

Edited by Winterhaze13

So many questions, so little time!

The question if Charlemagne, or Karl der Grosse as we call him, can be credited with single-handedly saving Europe from Muslim invasion and rule cannot really be answered. The Kingdom of the Franks under his rule only defended the Western borders of Europe, and that after the initial and possibly most dangerous attack of the Omayads had been repelled by his grandfather Karl Martell.
If the Spanish Arabs would have had in any case the political and military staying power to subdue large parts of a Christian Central Europe for such a long period that the subsequent history of Europe would have been completely different, namely Muslim, must be doubted. They didn�t achieve that in Spain itself and wouldn�t have in the European heartlands.
Charlemagne lasting achievement was to create a unified Central European state or two if you want: France and Germany, which became too strong for any further serious attempts of invasion from that direction.
I think the Byzantines� effort in defending the Eastern borders against repeated and far more sustained attacks for more than 700 years was far more remarkable.

Hero or bloodthirsty barbarian?

Neither, really. Charlemagne was political realist and as any other ruler of his, or any other, period wasn�t too choosy about the methods with which to accomplish his aims. The Christianization of Germany, for example, wasn�t achieved without the occasional massacre of obstinate tribes, but was absolutely necessary for the unification of the country.
On the whole, he probably deserved his title �the Great�, not because he defended Europe from the Arabs, but because he laid the foundations for the subsequent history of Central Europe, especially for that of Germany which he changed from a country of warring, loosely connected tribes into a relatively unified state, united in religion, language, culture and political administration.

indeed I think he summed it all up quite nicely.

Originally posted by Winterhaze13 In this thread I would like to discuss Carolingian King Charlemagne who was crowned the first Holy Roman Emperor in 800. Do you think he deserves his legacy as being the defender of European Christian civilization?

i think yes he does deserve that title

 

 

Originally posted by Temujin bah, what a Bismarckian bullsh*t, Hitler wanted to unify europe and get rid of small quarreling states, was he a hero or what? and what's good about keepign an enlightened religion like islam out do europe and massacre pagan tribesmen en masse just to get them converted to an opressive religion? for the question of ehro or bloodthirsty, probably both, he was not in any way different from Chinggis Qaan 400 years later, but Chinggis was both�more enlightened and more bloodthirsty as him.

Firstly, if you had read my post carefully, I did not comment if it was "good" what Charlemagne did, I just stated some widely acknowlegded facts. He did what he did and with the benefit of hindsight we can now say what consequences his actions had.
Secondly, the comparisons you drew between Charlemagne and Dschingis Khan and Hitler are too banal and vacuous as to deserve any discussion. If you argue like that you can compare anybody to anybody, the ruler of a global empire to a village chief on a remote Pacific island. You might gain some insights into the conditions of human nature but no understanding of complex historical processes.
Thirdly, religions are not in itself enlightened or opressive, but the actions of those who practise religion can be. Again, I didn't state if I thought that the repulsion of Islam from Europe through Charlemagne or his grandfather was a good thing or not, but I venture to say, that both religions, Islam and Christianity had both, rare moments of enlightenment under enlightened practitioners of their faiths and long periods of opression under opressive ones.

Basicly, he was a barbarian.

Overall, his actions were good for europe in the long term. He could have been less brutals though.

Originally posted by Komnenos Originally posted by Exarchus Basicly, he was a barbarian. As in Conan the Barbarian? You just cannot make generalising statements like that. "Barbarian" was always a term that compared the un-civilised with the civilised? With what or whom can you compare Charlemagne? Surely compared to the rulers of the various Islamic or the Byzantine Empire he was an un-sophisticated and un-educated oaf. But he didn't live in the Mediterranean or in the Middle East. He lived in Central Europe that had gone through four or five centuries of constant upheaval and cultural regress and here Charlemagne's reign had an enourmous and civilising effect. In German historical writing, his reign is defined as the "Carolingian renaissance", when literature, education and art recovered from periods of neglect. His introduction of political and religious administration stabilised the Frankish kingdom and he undertook a great number of building projects. One might accuse him of occasionaly employing "barbarian" methods, but a "Barbarian" he certainly wasn't.

Ans for Q1:

Edited by Balian d'Ibelin - 15-Jun-2007 at 22:56