In the medieval period, the strength and stability of one’s monarch determined the fate of his kingdom. Similar to a formidable fighting force, an imposing and level-headed king sent a message to surrounding peoples that a kingdom was legitimate, resilient, and prepared to expand. In the Frankish kingdom, rulers preceding the late-seventh and eighth centuries were largely ambivalent regarding the intricacies of running a successful state; however, this trend dissipated shortly before Charlemagne ascended to the throne. Acting as the face of the Frankish kingdom in the latter-eighth to early-ninth century, Charlemagne was extremely active in ruling. While Einhard does harbor a serious bias as a foster-child of Charles, to whom he owed much, …show more content…
Einhard begins his history of Charlemagne’s rule by contrasting him to earlier kings in the lineage who functioned almost solely as puppets with “nothing left… [to do] except sit on [their thrones] … satisfied to hold the name of king only pretending to rule” (Einhard 234). Unlike his father, Charles was persistent in warfare, and “refused to back away from a war in progress or leave a job undone” (235). He handled conflicts of force with ease, unquestionably winning the two most significant wars he waged--one against the Saxons and another against the Avars. Especially in the war against the Saxons, which lasted for roughly thirty years, Charles did not relent at any point--victory was the objective. In addition, in the Frankish war against the Slavs, Charlemagne “beat [the Slavs] so [decisively]… that from that point on they never thought of refusing to obey his commands” (238). Through various other campaigns during his reign, such as the Bavarian and Bohemian conflicts, he was able to nearly double the size of the Frankish kingdom, gaining land and resources, and therefore power, for the Franks as time progressed (239). Turning to his personal life, Charlemagne studied multiple languages and, in the last years of his life, was learning to write; he was just as rigorous in the quest for personal improvement as in the challenge of …show more content…
When fighting could be avoided, Charles won over “kings and peoples through friendly means,” especially through his generous gift giving and reassuring treaties that put an end to any suspicions between the Franks and other powers (239). For example, Charlemagne won over the Irish kings without any kind of force; as a result of his charisma and influence, the Irish declared their loyalty. He was also fond of hosting foreign visitors--a heavy economic burden to the Franks--to establish beneficial relations; however, Charlemagne considered this monetary detriment to be insignificant “since he was [more than] repaid with the reward of a fine reputation” (241). Such actions on his part bolstered his image in the eyes of the world, and consequently the Frankish