History

...

fled from the judgement of the synod”. Hugh is eventually excommunicated over this dispute for church, not royal, power.

These synods which involved the majority of the church hierarchy allowed the Church to make decisions on doctrine in order to settle disputes that persisted and negatively affected the kingdom. In The Annals the tensions between Kings and princeps arose from the constant pillaging and plundering of villages and kingdom’s in order for these authorities to retain their power over territories. The townspeople, however, were not completely helpless and were not waiting around to be rescued. Flodoard recounts how Count Adelelmus went to Burgundy and forced the soldiers from the urbs to leave. This backfired when “they collected some men from the suburbs and attacked the civitas…Adelelmus fled into the church and was killed next to the alter…Thus the townsmen (cives) of Noyon regained the urbs”.

The prominent relationship between the Church and Kings again plays a major role when, “William had been excommunicated by the bishops who had been with the king because he had recently ravaged with raids and fire some villae belonging to Count Arnulf [of Flanders]”. What can be highlighted here is firstly how ex-communication was used as a severe form of punishment, but most importantly it shows corruption of bishops and how they made decisions based on their loyalty to their King rather than the Church. Flodoards writing style and tone in the example above shows bias and the side in which he subconsciously takes to highlight those who have acted against the Church (William) and those who are trying to “protect” the Church (King Louis and the Bishops who follow him). The reader is left wondering if the people who are acting within the “name of the Church” are actually doing it for the good of the Church or for their own personal gains.

It is likely Flodoard wrote journals every day and at the end of the year he picked what he thought was the most important information and put it in The Annals. He was very well placed with the church as an important priest and probably knew about all that was going on. It is likely, however, that he did not record everything that happened because he could not possibly enter every event into The Annals and he may have left some events out do to his bias nature to the church.

The Annals of Flodoard of Reims is an excellent resource that can help readers start to understanding the 10th Century and how the different levels of society corresponded with one another. The annals illustrates the connections and relationships between the most highly influential powers within this time, the Church and the governors of Kingdoms. It Highlights how they worked together to accomplish mutual goals and personal objectives. It also gives us insight to how this dark century would pave the way for major recovery.

Einhards The Life of Charlemagne is a highly influential biography which stands out from the typical hagiographies and annals, like Flodoards, of its time. Written after Charlemagne had already died, Einhard’s focus was on the life of Charlemagne, which entailed wars he was in, political policies that he made, civil society projects he implemented, and even bits of his family life. The close relationship that Einhard had with Charlemagne is both extremely insightful and simultaneously extremely problematic. It is insightful because we are given a close and exclusive look at Charlemagne and his character. Einhard even served under Charlemagne’s son, Louis, after his death and was a very popular figure in the royal Frankish court. Einhard was privy to both the personal and professional lives of the king. It would not be difficult for him to recollect the kings twilight years.

The text is problematic, however, because this relationship gives the reader a reason to think Einhard might be bias when it comes to describing his beloved King. His biography is a celebration of the life of Charlemagne more so than it is a historical piece of work. Einhard uses extremely relative prose when describing Charlemagne, “The top of his head was round and he had large vibrant eyes…and his countenance always cheerful and animated…He loved the spray of natural hot springs and often swam- an activity he was so good at that no one could beat him-“. When Einhard refers to Charlemagne’s intellect and dedication to learning he describes him as having “had the gift of easy and fluid speech and could express anything he wanted with extraordinary clarity… His eloquence was so great, in fact, that he could very well have taught the subject.” . The text generally comes off as a eulogy praising only the positive deeds that made Charlemagne larger than life.

It seems as though Einhard was going above and beyond to cement Charlemagne’s legacy. All of this considered it would seem Einhard has reason and motive to distort the image and character of Charlemagne. Due to the strong possibility of Einhards bias we must consider that there may be certain elements lacking in Einhard’s representation, things omitted or glossed over which Einhard, being close to Charlemagne, would have known yet choose to leave out. In examining possible omissions, seeing how they might serve Einhard’s purpose, as well as understanding that purpose, we may come to a more enlightened way of viewing the source document.

Carolingian and papal alliances had become considerably better under Charlemagne’s rule because “To an extent, the Carolingian rulers and the popes legitimized each others authority, and the resulting alliance helped to develop the idea of an overarching western Christian unified community.” However it was Charlemagne alone who would become known “as the leader of a new society, Christendom”. Bachman asserts that “Two unshakeable beliefs inspired all of Charlemagne’s actions: belief in the Christian God and belief in his own duty to reunite all the territories of the former western Roman Empire” . Charlemagne may have indeed been a true and sincere believer in Christianity, he also likely saw that the best way to unite the Empire was through Christianity. Simultaneously it seems he was spreading Christianity with the purpose to unite the kingdom under his power alone and not to appease the church or give the church power over himself. He did not and would not answer to the church. Examples of this are found in his indifference towards having a coronation, the members he chose as his governing elite, and his decree on the issue of iconoclasm.

When Charlemagne showed up to mass on Christmas day, in 800AD, it was to a surprise coronation that he would have rather not taken place, “According to Einhard, Charlemagne was incensed by the popes action and insisted that he would not have gone to Mass that day, even

...