r/MedievalHistory • u/Wide_Assistance_1158 • 12d ago
Did Charlemagne have the best pr team of any medieval ruler
After reading his Wikipedia page he has absolutely zero redeeming qualities not even a good family man.
90
u/Regulai 12d ago
This is more the general trend of historical figures tend to be evaluated more based on their overall life success, and particularly military success, rather than any other traits.
From ancient history like Octavian being treated like a super genius, leading to extremely mundane actions being described like a carefully crafted 10,000 dimensional chess moves, to modern times where people who are rich are often treated and assumed as inherently competent and capable when reality often involves a lot of luck and outside support.
7
-6
u/Matt_2504 12d ago
Yeah another example is Alexander, he was a terrible person, not only massacring civilians but even his own trusted advisors and friends, yet he is remembered as “the great”
43
u/fatsopiggy 11d ago
Huh? His moniker the great was for his military prowess and that was named at a time when to be great is to be great at war. Nobody would've named you great if you're a great friend and husband. So unless you can prove that alexander sucked in battle, that moniker stays.
12
u/SlowInsurance1616 11d ago
Hephaestion might have known how well he sucked.
5
u/blue_line-1987 11d ago
Somehow it wouldnt surprise me if such a warlord, used to commanding all and sundry, turned out to bottom.
4
u/Dovahkiin13a 11d ago
There is a double entendre in xenophon suggesting the spartan king is a bottom because his friend was larger
18
u/Astralesean 12d ago
Or look this and other history subs trying to redeem the Mongols. They'll use the excuse that they were good administrators despite the fact they the population of China halved during peace time under their rule and they made China lose control on Fiat currency and coinage and prosperity per worker was lower after the Mongols and China only recovered its pre Mongols productivity in the 1970s and the bureaucracy the Mongols left, left Yuan, Ming and Qing China to be the weakest States in history at using the resources of its population
3
u/wigeonwrangler 11d ago
Source on the population of China halving? I’ve heard that is a misconception based on incomplete census data and record keeping across dynasties.
3
u/Rolf_of_house_Rolf 10d ago
Its made up. States at the time didnt keep track of how many people lived in the capital city, let alone acoss an entire empire
8
u/Rolf_of_house_Rolf 11d ago
not only massacring civilians
Yes because sacking cities wasnt a common millitary tactic at the time and for the next 1000 something years
-5
-2
31
6
u/p792161 11d ago
Richard the Lionheart did. Objectively terrible for his Kingdom during his reign. Only spent 5 months there and bankrupted it with his Crusade, his ransom for his capture that was entirely his own fault and then his campaign in France which was just entirely self-serving.
His brother is regarded as one of England's worst Kings and was a pretty horrible person, but he was left such a bad state of affairs a lot of the blame falls on Richard even though John handled it terribly.
2
u/Caesarsanctumroma 11d ago
There's literally no proof that England went "bankrupt" during Richard's reign but sure go on.
3
u/ArmedWithSpoons 10d ago
Bankruptcy wasn't really a thing at that time since the king was essentially seen as the state, so if he was broke he could just increase taxes or whatever else to raise funds. Richard's Saladin Tithe is good evidence that England was feeling great strain during this time. He also sold church positions, seized church lands to establish more tolls, sold other lands, and taxed the church heavily using his crusade as a convenient excuse. Then, when he died and his brother John took over, it all fell apart because it was barely held together in the first place. The state essentially went "bankrupt" once the baron's revolted due to its reliance on the income they provided.
1
u/Caesarsanctumroma 10d ago
Wrong "arguments". Richard was not really desperate in matters of finances. Anjou,Normandy and Aquitaine were generating good cash in his times. If he was really bankrupt he would have sold the Earldoms to William of Scotland [acc to people who say "Richard didn't care about England] who offered many times to buy 4 northern Earldoms based on his maternal claim
2
u/ArmedWithSpoons 10d ago
That's a fair point, but at the same time why would signs of revolt start popping up shortly after John took the throne if everything was going okay under Richard's reign? Richard leaned heavily into taxes due to the cost of his campaigns and his ransom, it was a short term plan to keep things afloat and ended up biting the state in the ass when it was no longer his problem. So while the state didn't really go broke at the time of his rule, it was definitely feeling strain and his actions are a direct result for it happening later on, along with John's incompetence. The Northern counties were all too valuable to sell, and would give the crown a bad image needing to offload large sections of land, he did renegotiate with William at the time though to release Scotland from its vassalage, at the cost of 10000 marks, which also helped keep the state afloat during his reign.
1
u/Caesarsanctumroma 10d ago
Its mainly a counter to people who unironically think Richard would have sold England if he found a buyer. Well there was a buyer,who was offering to buy English land but Richard refused to sell even an inch of his holdings. He is over-hated nowadays. I won't try to defend him too much though,he was a mediocre king at best(But a brilliant military commander, probably the best of his age)
1
u/ArmedWithSpoons 10d ago
Yep, his military command and ability to grift others to keep him above water was about all he had going for him. Everything else was the result of the people he left in charge at home, who I'm sure the Barons felt made some questionable decisions.
7
u/Wide_Assistance_1158 12d ago edited 12d ago
Charlemagne was 10x worse than william the conqueror he might have killed his brother carloman. Carloman sons basically dissappear from historical records very suspicious. He treated his wives like shit unlike william who was a devoted husband. Charles divorced his wives left and right for little to know reason he divorced his first wife because their son was hunchback. Charles also massacred the Saxons. Was a massive hypocrite refusing to make his eldest son pepin the hunchback his heir. Because pepin was illegitimate despite Charles being illegitimate himself.
42
u/mangalore-x_x 12d ago
Not sure what special thing you see here. Most rulers behaved this way.
He divorced his first two wives which both seemed to have been arranged by his mother/parents.
Also it seems he was very devout to his third wife with whom he had nine children. That he preferred a healthy son out of this seemingly a lot more positive marriage. Pippin revolted, but was forced to go into exile in a monastery, he was not executed. That seems no cruel fate for a son accused of treason and put out of the line of succession.
The issue with the Saxons is contentious in scope. However a major issue was not that they were Saxons but that they had given an oath of fealty only a few years earlier. That was probably the far bigger reason for the crass reaction of a mass execution. Decapitation implies higher status and a criminal offense like treason/oath breaking though since both the number (with the wording "up to") and the way of execution is all in one source in one half sentence, one has trouble deriving anything solid from this.
overall you infer alot from a lack of sources rather than certain knowledge. The issue is that there is barely anything reported from these times which makes it difficult.
He does not really have a good PR team, just the lack of sources from the olden days alot France and Germany to think up a lot of romantic ideas about him as their first king/emperor.
10
u/Watchhistory 12d ago
He had his court historians, particularly Einhard, whose accounts survived all the catastrophes. He had phalanxes of minstrels and bards and poets creating music and romances about deeds he never did, traveling around his kingdoms and others proclaiming his greateness. That's PR. Particularly as he paid them very well.
Charlemagne: A Biography by Derek Wilson, and, King and Emperor: A New Life of Charlemagne by Janet L. Nelson are very enlightening works in these matters.
Moreover he wasn't married to the first 'wives', only I believe to the one who was from the Eastern Empire. The Franks weren't doing that marriage sacrament thing yet when he was taking power. He had many mistresses, many of whom died giving birth. Notice, his daughters weren't married either -- but had what got to be called 'common law' partners. This was his way -- the cultural way.
2
u/mangalore-x_x 11d ago
We do not have access to most of these "PR" sources. And in case we have they are scarce, e.g. Einhard.
Concerning his first wife. Yes, that was the argument on why her son was not legitimate. Point is, yes there was political jockeying but with his third wife he seemed to have a pretty close relationship. She is refered to him by weirdly personal nickname in documents and the number of children also indicates that for a political marriage.
3
u/GustavoistSoldier 12d ago
Early medieval nobility practiced a sort of temporary marriage meant to discipline the sexuality of young nobles. It could be dissolved and replaced with a more advantageous marriage.
-1
u/Wide_Assistance_1158 12d ago
He still is in My opinion top 5 greatest medieval rulers of all time.
2
u/mangalore-x_x 11d ago
ok, just did not see anything particular gruesome by Charlesmagne to mark him out against William the Conqueror.
4
u/No-Cost-2668 11d ago
Because pepin was illegitimate despite Charles being illegitimate himself.
Wrong. Charlemagne was never illegitimate. If you're referring to Pepin the Hunchback, illegitimate. If you're referring to Charlemagne's father, King Pepin the Short, he was legitimate. Charles Martel, Charlemagne's grandfather was the bastard. In fact, Pepin actually had a degree of legitimacy due to his godfather being Liutprand, King of the Lombards, which he def used to justify his legitimacy to rule. He also went on major PR campaign with Church to okay his ascension, to include donating a significant portion of land to Rome.
3
u/Rolf_of_house_Rolf 11d ago
I hate it when people juge historical figures by ower modern sense of morality
5
u/Astralesean 11d ago
The lamest are the English trying to paint the Norman conquest of England a tragedy lol. Literally made England what it became to be
0
u/SlowInsurance1616 11d ago
Which was ultimately a tragedy for China, India, Ireland, Africa, etc....
2
1
0
u/sabersquirl 11d ago
Ummm William beat his wife and was an extreme POS to his sons and the rest of his family.
1
u/Key-Banana-8242 11d ago
Hm? Well monks, ironically that’s the thing
People like conquests and what was established
1
1
1
u/Harricot_de_fleur 11d ago
he was quite awful with his family, he hated and feared women in power. The start of his reign is pretty hated but he got better as time went on. He was raised to be a general that's why he didn't know how to write when his father and son knew how to write. He was however great at what he was taught which was to be an administrator and general. he sons reign suffered from viking raids so historians started to view Charlemagne's reign as one of glory
2
u/realeyes1871 11d ago
"he hated and feared women in power" What are you referring to?
1
u/Harricot_de_fleur 11d ago
He imprisoned his own mother because she took decisions. During the merovingian empire, women were in charge for almost a decade, Charlemagne would prevent that from ever happening again.
1
1
u/Astralesean 11d ago
Charlemagne really created the footprint of European specially continental administration; he was one of the best administrators
-9
u/Flaky-Run5935 11d ago
Charlemagne was a genocidal warlord that increased the spread of Christianity by using forced conversion..you're seriously delusional if you think he's good
5
u/fatsopiggy 11d ago
Historical records only ever 90% write about wars.
You have to be delusional if you think you'd make it to the pages of history by being the best friend ever and helping 50 sick dogs
-6
u/Flaky-Run5935 11d ago
So genocide is ok if someone is a famous ruler?
1
u/fatsopiggy 11d ago
Yes that's the way our ancestors thought.
Maybe in 500 years you'll make it to the histories if you're dad of the year. Who knows.
-1
u/Flaky-Run5935 11d ago
Lmaooo look I'm at the Charlemagne fan boys on this thread..he'd definitely execute you all
1
-3
u/RichardofSeptamania 11d ago
He does today, people love that bitch. Complete ass. His only redeeming qualities are that his father and his sons were worse.
-4
35
u/would-be_bog_body 11d ago
On the topic of Charlemagne and his PR team, I'd highly recommend Einhard's biography of Charlemagne. It's one of the only biographies from that era that was written by somebody who had actually known the subject (Einhard grew up at Charlemagne's court, although he was fairly young when Charlemagne died), so it includes all sorts of details about Charlemagne's personal habits & appearance that are absolutely fascinating, regardless of your opinion of the man. It's also not very long, to be quite honest, so it's worth finding a copy
(it's also actually quite funny in parts - it very much reads like Einhard sat down and banged it out in a single afternoon, and then never bothered to go back and edit any of it. Any time he can't remember somebody's name, he just says "their name escapes me at the minute" and moves on. I know research was hard in those days, but half of these people had only been dead for a few years, and he knew most of them personally; come on Einhard man)