1
The distortion of the image of Charlemagne in Einhard’s Life of Charles the Great
Abstract: The purpose of this essay is to examine the ways in which the image of
Charlemagne was distorted, that is to say given an artificially positive slant, by his most
important biographer Einhard. Given the extensive nature of Einhard’s biography, the
essay focuses only on those aspects of Charlemagne’s life which can be said to have
related to the realms of politics or warfare. Questions surrounding Carolingian
government, the so-called ‘Carolingian renaissance’, and the state of the Frankish
church under Charles’s rule, have therefore been avoided in favour of giving greater
focus to political issues. The essay therefore has merit as an extended and intensive
critical analysis of a single, major primary source. This analysis is strengthened by being
based not only on modern historiography, but also on a comparative analysis of the
revised version of the Royal Frankish Annals, an equally pro-Carolingian source and one
which is directly contemporary with Einhard’s work. The major themes within the essay
are: Charles’s prosecution of the Saxon Wars, his conflict with Tassilo of Bavaria, his
conflict with the Lombards, his relations with pope Hadrian I, and his attitude towards
the imperial coronation of 800.
To this day the figure of Charlemagne continues to loom large in the European psyche.
He stands as the almost mythical founder of both the French and German states, and his
memory has been called upon and evoked by everyone from the Holy Roman emperors to
Napoleon. The most explicit example of his legacy in modern times is the Prix de
Charlemagne which continues to be awarded in recognition of attempts to promote
greater European unity and integration. This image of Charlemagne (hereafter also
referred to as Charles) as empire-builder undeniably owes a great debt to the portrayal put
forward by Einhard in his Life of Charles the Great. This is hardly surprising given the
fact that the majority of the work is concerned with the physical conquest of territories
surrounding the Frankish kingdom carried out by Charles in the course of his lengthy
reign. It is with those conquests in mind that this essay first seeks to examine the ways in
which Einhard may have distorted the image of a man whom he had known personally,
2
and whose reputation was already exalted and extensive even before he wrote his Life.
The essay will focus chiefly on Einhard’s depiction of the Saxon Wars and the conflict
with Tassilo of Bavaria. However, Einhard’s depiction will also be examined in relation
to Charles’ interactions with the papacy regarding power in Italy and, of course, the
imperial coronation of 800. Questions regarding Carolingian government and learning, as
well as Charles’ own measures relating to the Frankish church and other religious
matters, have been disregarded here not because they are unimportant, but rather because
Einhard’s discussion of such matters is far lass detailed than his comments on the military
campaigns and political issues already mentioned above. Furthermore, although Einhard
wrote his account partially from memory, he also had access to the revised version of the
Royal Frankish Annals (RFA) from which he could gain information relating to matters
of which he had no first-hand knowledge. This essay will therefore seek to throw even
more light on certain distortions which may be present in the Life through comparisons
with information given in the RFA.
Given their importance in the grand narrative of Charles’ reign as a whole, the Saxon
wars are perhaps the best place to begin any analysis of the distortion of the image of
Charlemagne created in Einhard’s account. In his earliest comments on these conflicts,
Einhard maintains that no other war ever undertaken by the Frankish people was ‘more
prolonged, more full of atrocities, or more demanding of effort.’1 What is most
immediately interesting here is that Einhard fails to specify exactly which side, Frankish
or Saxon, was responsible for these atrocities. Indeed, the tone of the sentence seems to
imply that the responsibility for these wars lay almost entirely with the Saxons. They
were prolonged thanks to Saxon intransigence; they demanded effort because continued
revolts required constant attention and renewed campaigns from Charles; it follows that
the message supposed to be conveyed here is that the Saxons committed numerous
atrocities throughout these long years. But this statement must be set against Einhard’s
omission of any mention of the 4,500 Saxons executed on Charles’ orders in 782. Here it
1
Einhard, Life of Charlemagne Book 2, trans. L. Thorpe (Harmondsworth, 1969), p. 61.
3
is worth making a comparison between the Life and the revised RFA because, in its entry
for 782, the latter explicitly mentions the Saxon massacre.2 The fact that Einhard knew
the revised version of the RFA therefore points to this being a deliberate omission on his
part, one which implicitly glosses over the more ruthless aspects of Charles’ conflict with
his Saxon enemies.3 It is also worth noting that this massacre had the character of an act
of rage or vengeance, being carried out in the aftermath of a Frankish defeat at the hands
of Widikund.4 Keeping in mind the fact that the Saxons were pagans, it is almost more
unusual that the massacre is glossed over, for what Christian of the early ninth century
could truly have lamented the extermination of 4,500 people guilty of devil worship? 5
Perhaps this implies that such an action was to be regarded as unusually vicious, an
aspect of Charles’ personality which Einhard had no desire to record for posterity.
Furthermore, considering the fact that they lasted (in Einhard’s estimation) for thirtythree years, the account of the Saxon wars provided by the Life is incredibly concise,
giving little idea of the protracted cycle of war, submission and revolt which
characterised Charles’ involvement in Saxony.6 It can be said, therefore, that in his
account of Charles’ Saxon endeavours, Einhard has provided a distorted image of the
king in two ways. Firstly, he has deliberately understated the extent to which Charles, a
piously Christian king who is portrayed as being unusually merciful elsewhere in the Life
(with regard to Tassilo for example) could engage in the ruthless excesses of medieval
warfare such as the massacre of 782. Secondly, he has implicitly exaggerated the extent
to which Charles managed to effectively impose his rule on the defeated Saxons time and
time again despite regular campaigns and Frankish victories.
2
Royal Frankish Annals 782, trans. B.W. Scholz and B. Rogers (Ann Arbor, MI, 1970),
p. 61.
3
4
Ibid, p. 7.
Rosamond McKitterick, The Frankish Kingdoms under the Carolingians, 751-987
(Harlow, 1983), pp. 61-2.
5
Einhard, Life Book 2, p. 63.
6
P.D. King, Charlemagne (London, 1986), pp. 8-12, 15-18, 23-5.
4
The conflict between Charles and Tassilo of Bavaria is worth examining chiefly
because of the way in which it was resolved. A man with a significant claim to hereditary
power over his duchy was successfully dispossessed after a lengthy period of friction,
resulting in yet another elimination of a regional power similar to that which had been
achieved in Aquitaine at the start of Charles’ reign. According to Einhard, this
dispossession was occasioned by ‘the pride and folly’ of Tassilo who was encouraged to
engage in a treasonous alliance with the Avars by his Lombard wife, so that she might
enact revenge for Charles’ defeat of her father Desiderius.7 Tassilo allegedly ‘did his
utmost to provoke the King to war’, and failed to maintain promises made to Charles.8
On the surface, these would appear to be legitimate charges for a medieval king to level
at a subordinate. However, modern scholarship has thrown more light on the nature of the
relationship between Tassilo and Charles. According to Stuart Airlie, the Bavarian ducal
family of the Agilolfings had risen to power under the Merovingian kings in the sixth
century.9 It should be remembered that the Carolingians had no explicit hereditary right
to the Frankish crown which had itself been usurped from Merovingian predecessors, and
the point might even be made that, in terms of legal ruling power, the Agilolfings had
been exercising it in their respective arena of power for far longer than the Carolingians.
Airlie’s article also outlines the intricate nature of the familial relationship which existed
between Charles and Tassilo, a situation which was far from tidy.10 Roger Collins has
also made an excellent point in stating that no hostile military act is ever recorded of
Tassilo against Charles, and instead identifies the proclamations made by Hadrian I in
787 as providing essential justification for Charles’ later actions.11 Furthermore, Collins
provides a direct criticism of Einhard who blurs the chronology of previous accounts in
7
Einhard, Life Book 2, pp. 65-6.
8
Ibid.
9
Stuart Airlie, ‘Narratives of Triumph and Rituals of Submission: Charlemagne’s
Mastering of Bavaria’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, 9
(1999), p. 97.
10
Ibid, p. 98.
11
Roger Collins, Charlemagne, (London, 1998), p. 84.
5
order to make a real Bavarian alliance with the Avars precede the campaign of 787. It is
also important to point out that Charles arranged for the seizure of all the other members
of Tassilo’s family before levelling charges against him.12 The image which emerges
from Einhard’s account is therefore one in which Charlemagne, as a strong and righteous
king, takes action against an intransigent and ultimately treacherous subordinate.
However, this image is distorted in that it represents a gross over-simplification of what
was a very ambiguous situation, and once again exaggerates the negative qualities of
Charles’ opponent while downplaying the more aggressive aspect of the king’s actions, in
particular the rather sinister seizure of the duke’s family. Whether Charles was legally
justified in his actions is therefore of little consequence in this respect, as Einhard can
certainly be said to have provided a less than perfect portrayal of the king’s conduct in
this affair.
Throughout the Life, Einhard puts great effort into emphasising Charles’ Christianity,
a religion which he practised with ‘great devotion and piety’. His favourite book was
Augustine’s City of God; he took great pains to ensure that churches were well
maintained and that ceremonies were conducted properly; he entered into diplomatic
relations with foreign powers in the interest of helping Christians abroad.13 All these
things are laid out by Einhard as evidence for Charles’ undeniable devotion to the
celebration of the Christian religion. But perhaps the most important element of this
devotion referenced by Einhard relates to Charles’ campaigns against the Lombards.
According to the author of the Life, having defeated Desiderius as a result of requests for
intervention in Italy made by Hadrian I, Charles subsequently ‘restored to the Romans
everything which had been taken from them’.14 In this context ‘the Romans’ may
reasonably be taken as a rather ambiguous synonym for ‘the papacy’. Once again, it is
worth comparing Einhard’s portrayal to the account given in the revised RFA. The
Annals entry for 774 makes no mention of the restoration of lands to the papacy, but
12
Ibid, p. 87-9.
13
Einhard, Life Book 3, pp. 77-80.
14
Ibid, Book 2, pp. 60-1.
6
rather speaks of a situation whereby ‘All the Lombards came from every city of Italy and
submitted to the rule of the glorious Lord King Charles and of the Franks.’15
Immediately, then, a contradiction can be seen between these two primary sources. On
the one hand, Einhard implies that Charles had restored papal control of territories which
had been in some way appropriated by the Lombards. On the other, the equally proCarolingian Annals make no mention of any such papal concerns. In light of this
contradiction, Einhard’s reference to such a restoration might be viewed as just another
rhetorical device intended to reinforce the image of Charles as the resolute defender of
the Church and the faith. However, modern scholarship has once again cast better light on
the situation. According to King, Charles had certainly entered into some form of
agreement with regard to restoring some level of papal control over territories such as
Ravenna and, at least in Hadrian I’s view, Spoleto. King goes on to detail the difficulties
which Hadrian then experienced in enforcing these claims, and references frequent
correspondence between the pope and Charles in which the former constantly reiterated
his concerns about these matters.16 Thus, if the idea of Charles having agreed to restore
papal control of lost territories is accepted, Einhard’s comments can once again be
regarded as distorting the image of Charlemagne by implying that he followed through on
this agreement, when in fact he failed to do so. Indeed, despite his reverence for the
Church and his apparent affection for Hadrian himself, it is clear that while Charles’ may
have been pious, he was certainly no papal puppet.17 It would not be an exaggeration to
say that Charles merely stepped into Desiderius’ shoes by becoming king of the
Lombards, so that what the papacy actually obtained was not a restoration of territory, but
rather a friendly neighbour who nevertheless intended to maintain the status quo.
One of the most important moments in Einhard’s Life which must be discussed is his
portrayal of Charles’ attitude towards the imperial coronation of Christmas 800. Einhard
maintains that Charles initially travelled to Rome in order to ‘restore the Church’,
15
Royal Frankish Annals 774, p. 50.
16
King, Charlemagne, pp. 27-8.
17
Einhard, Life Book 3, p. 75.
7
presumably a reference to the political situation in which the new pope, Leo III, was
facing opposition within the city and who had come to Charles in search of aid. 18 In a
brief remark that smacks of a ninth-century ‘while he was at it’ type of sentiment,
Einhard mentions that it was during this visit that Charles also received the titles of
Emperor and Augustus. It is noteworthy, however, that he makes no explicit reference to
a process of coronation. What he does mention is Charles’ initial reluctance to accept the
honour, including the king’s own declaration that he would not have entered the church
that day had he known what was going to happen.19 These points neatly encompass some
of the main debates which continue to rage regarding the elevation to the emperorship.
For McKitterick, the imperial coronation was largely the result of initiative on the part of
the Leo and his advisors, implying that Charles may indeed have had no prior knowledge
of the papal plans. She goes so far as to say that the very idea of the Roman Empire had
dwindled into insignificance in the West to a point at which Charles may not have
objected to being called Emperor, but would not have bothered taking the decisive step
himself.20 This view is incredibly dismissive and underestimates the extent to which the
idea of a glorious Roman legacy, however vague, may have persisted in the West. After
all, the Roman Empire was technically still in existence in the form of Byzantium, and
Charles’ own diplomatic relations with the empire in the east must imply an
acknowledgement of the continued power and prestige of a Roman tradition. An
alternative view is put forward by Louis Halphen. In this view, the imperial coronation
was undertaken in order to clarify the existing situation. According to Halphen, by
December 800 Charles had already appropriated ‘almost all the prerogatives formerly
acknowledged to belong to the emperor.’ The need to legally justify these appropriations
is what therefore prompted the coronation, implying not only that Charles would have
had prior knowledge of it, but would certainly not have shied away from accepting the
18
Ibid, p. 81; see also King, pp. 37-8.
19
Einhard, Life Book 3, p. 81.
20
Rosamond McKitterick, Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity
(Cambridge, 2008), pp. 70-1.
8
title in the manner outline by Einhard.21 Roger Collins detects several reasons for
believing that the coronation was not only planned in advance, but that the whole process
was carefully and meticulously stage managed. Events such as the reception of Charles
by Leo at the twelfth milestone - an honour previously reserved for emperors - as well as
the apparently coincidental arrival of envoys from Jerusalem bearing the keys of the Holy
Sepulchre (which Collins interprets as a symbolic transfer of allegiance from Byzantium
to Charlemagne), are all held up as evidence for the construction of an atmosphere
conducive to the creation of a new emperor.22 Collins also maintains that Einhard’s
statement regarding Charles’ declaration that he wouldn’t have entered the church if he’d
known what was to happen is now generally dismissed as merely conforming to the
tradition of the ‘refusal of power’ that was a standard feature of political rhetoric at the
time.23 Being in agreement with the views of Halphen and Collins, then, it is fair to say
that Einhard significantly distorts the image of Charlemagne with regard to the imperial
coronation in two ways. Firstly, he implies that Charles came to Rome merely to restore
political stability and settle the disagreements between Leo III and his opponents, and had
no knowledge of any plan to have him crowned emperor. Secondly, he portrays Charles
as having been a reluctant emperor who had no real desire to accept the honour in the
first place. Both of these portrayals, in light of modern scholarship, are impossible to
credit.
In conclusion, the distortion of the image of Charlemagne within Einhard’s Life of
Charles the Great has been significant in many key respects. Indeed, more could be said
about his portrayal of the relationship between Charles and Carloman, not to mention the
subsequent disappearance of Carloman’s children from the sources once they fell into
Charles’ hands after the conquest of the Lombard kingdom. One could also mention the
lack of any detailed description of the disastrous Frankish defeat at Roncesvalles, despite
the fact that such a description is provided in the Annals. However, this essay has
21
Louis Halphen, Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire (Oxford, 1977), p. 92.
22
Collins, Charlemagne, pp. 145-7.
23
Ibid, p. 144.
9
attempted to illustrate the extant of this distortion by focusing on four apparently key
issues in the reign of Charlemagne: the Saxon wars, the struggle with Tassilo,
involvement in Italy, and the imperial coronation. But this is not to imply that Einhard
provided an entirely skewed view of his subject. Charlemagne was certainly pious,
determined, tenacious, and inexhaustible in his military endeavours. The Life is therefore
a document which has its flaws, but also possesses great merit in terms of the insights it
can offer into Charlemagne’s personality, his attitudes, and indeed his physical
appearance. While Einhard at times offers a slightly more sanitized picture of this most
lauded of European rulers, a willingness to read between the lines allows one not only to
detect some of the less savoury aspects of Charlemagne’s character, but also to juxtapose
those aspects with the positive and intimate features provided by an author who knew his
subject personally, and remembered him fondly. Overall, the Life of Charles the Great
stands as a document which has done a great deal, rightly or wrongly, to ensure that the
legend and legacy of Carolus Magnus would endure right up until the present day.
10
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Einhard, Life of Charles the Great, trans. L. Thorpe (Harmondsworth, 1969).
Royal Frankish Annals, trans. B.W. Scholz and B. Rogers (Ann Arbor, MI, 1970).
Secondary Sources
Airlie, Stuart, ‘Narratives of Triumph and Rituals of Submission: Charlemagne’s
Mastering of Bavaria’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, 9
(1999), pp. 93-119.
Collins, Roger, Charlemagne (London, 1998).
Duckett, Eleanor, Carolingian Portraits: A Study in the Ninth Century (Ann Arbor, MI,
1962).
Fouracre, Paul, ‘Frankish Gaul to 814’, in Rosamond McKitterick (ed.), The New
Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. II: c. 500-700 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 85-109.
Ganshof, F.L, The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy: Studies in Carolingian
History (London, 1971).
Halphen, Louis, Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire (Oxford, 1977).
King, P.D, Charlemagne (London, 1986).
McKitterick, Rosamond, The Frankish Kingdom under the Carolingians, 751-987
(Harlow, 1983).
- Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity (Cambridge, 2008).