- This topic has 4 voices and 4 replies.
-
Posts
-
I'm interested in hearing others' perspective on Charlemagne. I think he has been reviled to a degree in modern times, perhaps by the same people who revile Western Civilization and want to pass judgment on history from a modern liberalized view. It seems that he had a dictatorial streak but in the end his reign seems to have been one of the most pivotal in the creation of Europe (Western Europe) as a single entity. His rule was impressive both in its length and in the scope of what he was able to accomplish during this time. His administrative decisions were remarkable for their effects at unifying a large swath of Europe.
I don't know all that much about Charlemagne, so if I'm way off the mark, please correct me.As far as dictatorial rule, I don't think there was much choice back then. Hardliner type leaders were needed because those were brutal and barbaric times.My take on it is without him there would be no or very limited spread of Christianity and almost certainly no Europe.
I agree – Charlemagne really worked with the Church to promote it, and in doing so promoted Western culture as it came to develop. He was really a unifying figure for much of Europe in terms of bringing the people of the Empire under the same umbrella, so to speak. The Carolingian Renaissance, as it came to be known, brought Europe forward out of the days in which various barbarian groups ruled their own lands into a new consciousness in which citizens would understand what kind of kingdom they were living in.Charlemagne was really a pivotal figure in European history. I wonder why he's not honored more in Europe or Western Civilization in general.
Charlemagne was exactly what Christendom needed to survive politically and socially in Western Europe in the face of Islamic conquest.
Charlemagne is perhaps the greatest European figure of the Dark Ages. He and the Dynasty he founded did more to ensure Europe became a Christian continent than anybody else. Through that he is indirectly responsible for the entire later development of western civilisation. Without him the church would not have survived and many Roman works would have been lost because the church is the organization that preserved them for posterity.I am tempted to say that he is the greatest person to emerge between the fall of Rome and the emergence of the modern nation-state in the 15th and 16th centuries.
I am tempted to say that he is the greatest person to emerge between the fall of Rome and the emergence of the modern nation-state in the 15th and 16th centuries.
I wouldn't disagree with that. He was able to become great because he had the means and the vision. Perhaps cultures wouldn't have thrown him aside as much had they recognized the greatness of the Carolingian Renaissance or his administrative abilities.
