Scan barcode
timoneill's review
4.0
A little stolid and the translation from the German made the prose seem oddly and overly formal to the English speaker. But the way Fried takes a thematic approach and the thoroughness with which he explores each theme means the cumulative effect is powerful. The image of Charlemagne and his age that emerges is one of contrasts - with the emperor as stern moralist who also liked his women and his communal bathtime, a devout Christian who was also an effective and often brutal warlord. Two elements that become very clear is exactly how much the later structures and institutions of medieval "Christendom" owe to Charlemagne's models and how engaged the Frankish Empire was with the wider world beyond its borders. Overall, a solid and useful book.
inquiry_from_an_anti_library's review
adventurous
challenging
informative
inspiring
slow-paced
3.0
Is This An Overview?
Charlemagne was a warrior king, who became a medieval emperor. The Franks were in a constant state of conflict to finance itself and organize the social classes. As king, Charlemagne needed to expand territory to prove oneself worthy of leadership, and to provide the retinue with rewards. Efforts were made towards integration of the conquered lands and people, but local laws and customs tended to be accepted and retained.
During the era, there was no separation between Church and state. Charlemagne was a defender of Christendom. Needed to protect churches and the faithful. Even Rome needed the Franks for defense of their independence. Various conquests were justified for providing religious services. Charlemagne gave the clergy wealth and power, and in return, the clergy were to bring salvation to the people.
Charlemagne initiated the development of an educational infrastructure. Wanted to educated oneself and the empire. Educational efforts which enabled literacy, that was used to improve the efficiency of Frankish bureaucracy and to understand religious matters. Churches established schools which enabled a literate administration of power. Knowledge was sought after no matter the source, as foreign ideas were welcomed and schools established which supported their culture and learning.
Caveats?
This book is difficult to read, mainly caused by the data gaps. The author often repeats how much is not known about Charlemagne, the Franks, and the era. Data gaps that contribute to a lack of details on many events, and reasons for the events.
die6die's review
I was in the market for a biography of Charlemagne and a giant new tome excited me more than other bios written decades ago. Perhaps it would incorporate new knowledge or scholarship, I told myself. Maybe it would be well written and interesting. Maybe it would hold my interest for 550+ pages.
Nope. Fried tells us in the prologue that since there are so few confirmed facts about Charlemagne he would be peppering the book with other factual tidbits of Early Medieval Europe, and boy does he. The chapter on Charlesmagne's childhood could've been summed up in 3 sentences, instead there are lots of digressions about the Carolingian dynasty and medieval kingship, which was interesting but kind of droned on, at least to me. He also repeats himself way too much (for example Pope Hadrian IV is mentioned declaring independence and minting his own coinage two or three times). Fried jumps around in the narrative so much I wasn't sure if Charlemagne had ever conquered the Lombards, since it kept going back and forth in chapter 3.
I finally just had to quit 150 pages in because this book is just not fun to read. I would only recommend this for research purposes.
Nope. Fried tells us in the prologue that since there are so few confirmed facts about Charlemagne he would be peppering the book with other factual tidbits of Early Medieval Europe, and boy does he. The chapter on Charlesmagne's childhood could've been summed up in 3 sentences, instead there are lots of digressions about the Carolingian dynasty and medieval kingship, which was interesting but kind of droned on, at least to me. He also repeats himself way too much (for example Pope Hadrian IV is mentioned declaring independence and minting his own coinage two or three times). Fried jumps around in the narrative so much I wasn't sure if Charlemagne had ever conquered the Lombards, since it kept going back and forth in chapter 3.
I finally just had to quit 150 pages in because this book is just not fun to read. I would only recommend this for research purposes.
emiann2023's review
2.0
DNF. ~30%
I love history. I love learning about past civilizations and great rulers. And I've heard about Charlemagne for years but never really delved in. Well, I saw this book and decided to finally bite the bullet.
Except, this book didn't tell me much. And I get that a lot of that is due to the sources being destroyed or non-existent, but I'm not sire why this book was so long, when it really doesn't cover Charlemagne much at all.
Many of the parta that I thought were interesting would get going...and then stop because no information was available, or divert into a tangent on something else.
I love history. I love learning about past civilizations and great rulers. And I've heard about Charlemagne for years but never really delved in. Well, I saw this book and decided to finally bite the bullet.
Except, this book didn't tell me much. And I get that a lot of that is due to the sources being destroyed or non-existent, but I'm not sire why this book was so long, when it really doesn't cover Charlemagne much at all.
Many of the parta that I thought were interesting would get going...and then stop because no information was available, or divert into a tangent on something else.
sjlee's review
3.0
Charlemagne was one of the most important monarchs of the early middles ages. His rule which ran from 768 to 814 created the precedents or basis for much of the monarchies in Western Europe that followed. While he did not create or originate every concept he was critical in a number of features that would define European kingship for centuries.
Johannes Fried's book is a positive interpretation, for the most part, for the King of the Frankish Empire. Fried does level some important criticisms at Charlemagne, but much of the effort is put towards contextualizing him within his period and within history.
One of the primary troubles is using sources to discuss Charlemagne. Not a great deal exists contemporaneously with the King so later sources had to be used in instances. In addition, sources bear the risk of being flawed or doctored to present Charlemagne in a favourable light, like the annals. Many of the courtiers Charlemagne gathered around him would have great incentive to sing his praises.
While Fried mostly draws a positive picture of Charlemagne I think it's fair to say that he also points out some interesting flaws and dark parts of his rulership. For example, shortly after becoming king his brother died. Inheritance laws meant that their father had split the kingdom in two. Instead of allowing the other half to go to his nephew it seems Charlemagne orchestrated reuniting the two halves. His sister-in-law and nephews were hunted down. The boys disappeared from the historical record, suggesting Charlemagne may have had them quietly executed. The war with the Saxons, justified as a holy mission, was bloody and horrendous.
On the positive note Fried points to Charlemagne's crafting of laws and edicts to try to improve the Frankish Empire. He strove to increase literacy and grow the priesthood as a learned class. Fried characterizes this briefly as a proto-renaissance. The entirety of the book makes it clear that Charlemagne was deeply concerned with his faith and the Catholic Church. Perhaps the majority of the text concerns those two topics. Charlemagne's rule helped establish the relationship between the Church and secular powers going forward.
The text is quite dense and the book is not written in a narrative style, rather it is composed more based on themes. I would not recommend it as a first read for someone interested in this topic, I think it's too difficult for that regard. However, I found it valuable in understanding how a king might think in that time period and the sort of conception of kingship that can be difficult to imagine. I found it a fascinating exploration of a long lost time in a fundamentally different world.
Johannes Fried's book is a positive interpretation, for the most part, for the King of the Frankish Empire. Fried does level some important criticisms at Charlemagne, but much of the effort is put towards contextualizing him within his period and within history.
One of the primary troubles is using sources to discuss Charlemagne. Not a great deal exists contemporaneously with the King so later sources had to be used in instances. In addition, sources bear the risk of being flawed or doctored to present Charlemagne in a favourable light, like the annals. Many of the courtiers Charlemagne gathered around him would have great incentive to sing his praises.
While Fried mostly draws a positive picture of Charlemagne I think it's fair to say that he also points out some interesting flaws and dark parts of his rulership. For example, shortly after becoming king his brother died. Inheritance laws meant that their father had split the kingdom in two. Instead of allowing the other half to go to his nephew it seems Charlemagne orchestrated reuniting the two halves. His sister-in-law and nephews were hunted down. The boys disappeared from the historical record, suggesting Charlemagne may have had them quietly executed. The war with the Saxons, justified as a holy mission, was bloody and horrendous.
On the positive note Fried points to Charlemagne's crafting of laws and edicts to try to improve the Frankish Empire. He strove to increase literacy and grow the priesthood as a learned class. Fried characterizes this briefly as a proto-renaissance. The entirety of the book makes it clear that Charlemagne was deeply concerned with his faith and the Catholic Church. Perhaps the majority of the text concerns those two topics. Charlemagne's rule helped establish the relationship between the Church and secular powers going forward.
The text is quite dense and the book is not written in a narrative style, rather it is composed more based on themes. I would not recommend it as a first read for someone interested in this topic, I think it's too difficult for that regard. However, I found it valuable in understanding how a king might think in that time period and the sort of conception of kingship that can be difficult to imagine. I found it a fascinating exploration of a long lost time in a fundamentally different world.