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.