sign in sign up
<<
Home , 740s, Pepin the Short, Reichsannalen

5. What claim does have to the accolade 'Father of '?

The term Europae Pater, from which the modern accolade ‘Father of Europe’ has been translated, originates from an anonymously-authored manuscript written c. 800 AD. Known as Karolus Magnus et Leo Papa it tells of the dramatic flight from of Leo III and his meeting with the omnipotent King of the , Charlemagne, at Paderborn (giving rise to its other name, the Paderborn Epic). Charlemagne was born sometime in the , son of . Pepin’s deposition of the ‘do nothing’ Merovingian in 751 allowed Charlemagne to succeed his father as King of the Franks from 768 until his death in 814. Charlemagne’s empire was enhanced by the wars of his reign until he reigned most of modern western Europe. The aforementioned meeting of Leo and Charles would eventually result in the of Charlemagne as Imperator Romanorum (800AD) and cement his position within the European myth. Such is the power of the legacy he left behind, that he continues to appear as an icon of European politics to this day. In the eyes of many, he has repeatedly shaped the consciousness of a continent through a period of enlightened government under which pragmatic reforms allowed education and religion to flourish and good governance to prevail. Until the publication in 1957 of the great ‘demythologizing’ work of Heinrich Fichtenau that “denies most of the alleged achievements”1 of Charlemagne, Charles (as he is also known) was broadly established as “the greatest prince”, and many still adhere to this view. 2 The Paderborn Epic established Charlemagne as a European father in his own time, and this idea was perpetuated by chivalric romancess. Such an apotheotic status was maintained throughout Europe until the 19th century when a francophobic, post-Napoleonic, protestant Prussian state began to look away from ‘French’ Roman, Catholic and Carolingian traditions. Resultantly Charlemagne’s achievements began to be viewed in a less favourable light.3 In the post-war era, however, the pan-European nature of Charlemagne was again emphasised as a symbol for the EU. A broadly positive view, an “agreed stereotype”4 has been maintained by scholars such as Bullough (who called him the “most powerful Christian ruler in the world”) and Barbero whose 2004 treatise emphasised the personal power of Charlemagne. Ganshof’s ‘Disintegration theory’5 has however recently cast aspersions on the latter part of Charlemagne’s reign (post-800) but most scholars are in agreement with Collins in his assertion that Ganshof’s “judgement seems mistaken”.6 Charlemagne has been an inspiration to Europeans across the centuries; used in speeches to promote the Third Crusade by Philip II; an inspiration to the self-appointed defender of Christendom Charles V; a model to who once emphatically declared “Je suis Charlemagne!”; a symbol of French oppression to Hitler. His significance within the continental European psyche is unchallengeable, arguably unparalleled.7 And yet it is undeserved.

To understand the period of Charlemagne’s rule, we must first understand the limited source material we have on his life and achievements. The Paderborn Epic is, along with the far better known Einhard’s Vita Karoli Magni, part of only a tiny smattering of surviving contemporary literature. Compared to the far more numerous (and usually fictitious) works of embellishment that constitute the canon of chivalric romance, these sources are a paragon of legitimacy and factual detail. However their favourable comparison to works such as the fantastical ‘Le pèlerinage de Charlemagne’, does not make them

1 Fichtenau, H. The : The Age of Charlemagne. Translated Munz, P. (Harper & Row, New 1964). p. xiii 2 Einhard. Vita Karoli Magni. Translated Turer, S. (Harper & Brothers, New York 1880). Accessed via webpage at: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/einhard.asp 3 Wilson, P. The : A thousand Years of Europe’s history (Penguin Allen Lane, London 2016) 4 McKitterick, R. Charlemagne: the Formation of a European Identity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2009). p.1 5 Bullough, D. ‘Europae Pater: Charlemagne and his achievement in the light of recent scholarship. The English Historical Review, vol. 85, No. 334, p.59-105 6 Internal quotation from: Anon. Charles the Great: Shout Charlemagne be called ‘great’. UKEssays (2018) 7 Wilson, D. Charlemagne: The Great Adventure (Hutchinson, London 2005). p.184

1 reliable.8 There is a distinct deficit of sources and any that does exist must be critically approached and carefully analysed. Most ‘seductive and influential’9 among these is Einhard’s Vita Karoli Magni written c.817.10 Its purpose is to praise Charlemagne and illustrate the legitimacy of his successor, Louis. Its author was Charlemagne’s arithmetic tutor - a who quails at the prospect of his own literary shortcomings but fears even more that the memory of his master’s achievements may be lost to “the 11 darkness of oblivion”. At the very heart of the Carolingian renaissance (and keen to emphasise his master’s role in it), Einhard was inspired by Suetonius and his imitation, whilst often hagiographical, maintains all the interest of the latter’s writings. Einhard covers a range of material yet has a brevity which gives us just enough information to taste the magic of Charlemagne, but not so much detail as to dispel it - doubtlessly contributing to his personal mystique. Among other sources are: a later anecdotal biography by the Monk of St. Gall; the detailed yet propagandistic Annales Regni Francorum

(Riechsannalen); and the poetic and partially lost Karolus Magnus et Leo Papa. Other sources, such as the letters of Alcuin, the instructional de ordine palatii and brief annales laureshamenses exist but lack the same allure to the public (as they are not biographical), and resultantly constitute far less of the myth. These sources are integral in understanding the person and policy of Charlemagne, and hence his significance as the supposed Pater Europae. Without the benefit of hindsight, contemporary sources idolized Charles and he was scarcely reappraised for more than a millennium. By the time of this assessment however, Charlemagne’s image was too far ingrained in the continental European psyche to be removed. The sources however, if treated carefully, can allow us to more astutely asses this legacy.

Charlemagne’s Christian legacy is a key part of the myth that has established him as Pater Europae, or 12 even ‘Europae Pharus’ . This expression meaning ‘lighthouse of Europe’ references particularly his role as a of Christ, an apostle of his age. To his successors and himself, Charlemagne was the supposedly the model Christian king. His greatest religious achievement was his eventual conversion of the , with whom he engaged in near continuous warfare from 772 - 804. Yet contrary to the myth of Charlemagne as a largely altruistic proselytizer, his acts of conversion were often accompanied by an unprecedented, unchristian savagery. For instance, at the massacre of Verden (782), Charlemagne ordered 4,500 Saxons who refused to be converted to be put to the sword. Such singular brutality has echoed down the ages, one prominent Nazi declaring Charlemagne should be renamed ‘Karl the slaughterer’, whilst Hitler claimed the subversive captives were early Nazi Freedom fighters. 13

The forced resettlement of 10,000 Saxons in was also an act of barbarity that shows how Charlemagne’s religious policy was often despotic. Yet as Salgado is keen to illustrate “the most common element that the peoples of Europe have shared [...] is ”.14 It has provided “not only common concepts, but a common language”, and Charlemagne was in many ways the embodiment of the contemporary Christian ideal. He spoke (and 3 other languages) and was a keen student of Christ’s teachings and the patristic works - most notably those of the theologian St. 15 Augustine. Furthermore, he zealously promoted these teachings to others: both his children and courtiers at the palace school and his subjects through the preaching of sermons in comprehensible

8 Keen, M. Chivalry. (Yale University press, United States 1984). ‘Le pèlerinage’ outlines Charlemagne’s fabricated journey to Jerusalem and his unintentional seating in the chair once occupied by Christ and his apostles. 9 McKitterick, p.7 10 McKitterick, p.11 11 Einhard, preface 12 and Nithard’s Histories. Translated B. Sholz and B. Rogers (University of Michigan Press, United States 1972) 13 The statement was made by an adjutant of Himmler, Hermann Gauch. 14 Salgado, M. ‘In search of Europe’. History today, Vol. 42, No.2. Accessed via https://www.historytoday.com/archive/search-europe 15 Alberi, M. ‘Alcuin and the New Athens’. History Today, Vol. 39, Issue 9, pp.35-41

2

‘Theotiscam’ (the German vernacular) or ‘Rusticam Romanam Linguam’ (Romance).16 At his coronation,Charlemagne probably believed he was being crowned as a legitimate Roman Emperor in the west andalso recognized as ‘King of Christendom’. Certainly there were few in Western Europe overwhom he was not overlord, and he did more than most to ensure the survival and propagation ofChristianity in the region (even if the means were violent). Yet Christendom and Europe are not thesame, and merely because Charlemagne fostered and promoted a European idea does not make himthe father of Europe.

Charlemagne’s eventual victory in the protracted Saxon Wars in 804 was indicative of a wider military dominance throughout his empire and in his expansionist foreign policy. In terms of the nature of the soldiers and tactics used, Charlemagne has often been overstated as an innovator. The famous Carolingian caballarii were in use before his time, and his professional heavy infantry were descended from the Roman tradition both of which had been in use at the infamous (732).17 The , later ‘Continuations’ do lend praise to Charlemagne for his use of novel equipment to capture walled towns but in general Charlemagne neither significantly altered western military technology or practice, nor did he set precedent with regard to the conduct of battle. It was only at the Battle of Fontenoy (841) that many key precedents for later ‘European’ warfare would be set, such as “mutually agreeing on a battle site, avoiding combat on holy days, and treating battle as a ritual ‘Judgment of God’”.18 The conduct of warfare in Charlemagne’s reign also raises major questions over his very popularity and ability to pursue an expansionist policy. The lack of adequate source material has created divergent ideas: Reuter argues the warriors of Charlemagne benefitted from “gifts of food, clothing, gold and silver, horses and arms”; Fichtenau however claimed “the poorer people complained that they were compelled to render almost continuous military service”.19 This debate around the availability and willingness of recruits for the army is significant as it sheds light upon the general popularity of Charlemagne as a leader. Certainly Frankish expansion halted, however this was probably due to Charlemagne’s self imposed limits as opposed to civilian unrest. Yet the description of ‘continuous military service’ would not have been a popular policy - casting into doubt his military and political leadership. As such, a reappraisal of the sources, most notably the Reichsannalen described by a translator as one of “the most unassuming works of history written during this age”20 describes how “the Saxons, persuaded by Widukind, rebelled as usual”.21 Such ‘usual’ rebellion sounds unlike the iron fist of a “great warrior” and suggest a reappraisal of Charlemagne’s martial prowess is required.22 Einhard states that in the 32 year period of the Saxon wars Charlemagne only fought two battles. These were resounding successes, but the infrequency of direct intervention of Charles suggests he was less capable than commonly contended. The total defeat of Charlemagne’s army led by deputies at Süntel (782) shows his enemies were militarily effective, yet still Charlemagne rarely intervened, suggesting he was aware of his limitations as a tactician and leader. Despite this, to argue Charlemagne’s military policy was not generally successful is preposterous. Had he not been, his empire would have imploded under the sheer volume of external threat. Charlemagne’s military appraisal is this: he is creditable for some minor innovations in siege technology, for a pragmatic approach to personal leadership and wise use of established Frankish institutions. The warrior-conqueror emperor of tradition therefore simply did not exist.

16 Barberro, A. Charlemagne: Father of a continent. Translated Cameron, A. (University of California Press, Berkley 2004). p.106 17 Saxtorph, N. Warriors and Weapons of Early times. Translated B. & I. Gosney (Blanford Press Ltd., London 1972) 18 Schoenfeld, E. ‘Fontenoy, Battle of’. Reader’s companion to Military History (Houghton Mifflin, New York 1996). p.165 19 Anon. 2018 20 Scholz, p.2. 21 Ibid. 22 McKitterick, p.1

3

The reforms for which Charlemagne is credited originated not in military practice but in his governance. Wilson observes that the obedience which Charlemagne retained from his subjects on their observance of his infrequent would have been ‘longed-for’ by even 19th century diplomats and potentates. To do this, Charlemagne effectively combined generally devolved government with rigorous centralization that maintained a sense of Royal authority. Most notable of his centralising reforms were the ‘Missi’, pairs of emissaries supervising the administration of local rulers. Although these were initially a Merovingian concept, Charlemagne vastly increased their number, increasing the upholding of capituaries (laws passed by the king). Further reforms of Charlemagne in the form of the Scabini (legal experts advising local rulers), inquisitio (an administrative tool to help the protection of the fisc), and changes to the testimonium (the way of giving testimony) were also significant. Yet whilst these reforms were instrumental in the improvement of the contemporary Frankish kingdom, they failed to give rise to more perpetual institutions that have helped shape western Europe. The Missi for instance had all but disappeared by the 10th century. Charlemagne’s failure to create a stable economy is also notable – that it relied on captured treasure (eg that of the Avars) meant it would later collapse once Frankish borders stabilised. That the reforms were beneficial is unquestionable and it is good that they are widely remembered as such, but their failure to survive strips him of the title they may have bestowed.

Charlemagne’s reforms are to some extent preserved, for although he failed to establish a permanent system that would shape Europe in his exact image, he established certain standards that Europeans have attempt to adhere to throughout the continent’s history. The role of the Missi illustrates a reassertion of genuine royal authority over extended territory. The Scabini were an attempt to create a qualified legal profession. Most permanently, the establishment of the livre Carolinienne re- introduced the concept of a state-wide currency. Although this did not last, Charlemagne’s subdivision system of livres, sous and derniers was a system maintained in Europe for centuries (and in Britain until 1971).23 The codification of law under Charlemagne and his creation of an ‘imperial oath’ were both Roman ideas he revived that would become integral to later western liberal philosophy and autocratic rule respectively. As such, although rarely maintained in a strictly linear tradition, Charlemagne’s reforms would remain in the European psyche for a millennium, establishing precedents and systems for perpetuity.

Charlemagne’s instigation and encouragement of the Carolingian renaissance also shapes his popular legacy. The transcription of various manuscripts in Frankish Scriptoriums contributed to the preservation of much Latin literature (and the creation of the beautiful Carolingian Miniscule24), however philosophically and artistically the renaissance was limited. The renaissance's “strongly religious character still predominated” and although Charlemagne promoted the liberal arts, much thinking was retained within the sphere of Christian theological philosophy. Despite Alcuin of York’s encouragement of logic, Alcuin ruthlessly crushed any philosophic or theological theory that differed with accepted (Patristic) doctrine.25 Such regressive behaviour, and the limitations of the renaissance to the court and meant that whilst the scholarly Charlemagne promoted learning there was little original thought and instead a mere propagation of previous theories. Logic could only be accepted to maintain orthodoxy. The only accepted original thought was acutely conformist and such stifling was hardly an embodiment of later European values of learning and academia.

23 Miskimmin, H. ‘Two reforms of Charlemagne? Weights and measures in the ’. Economic History Review, Vol. 20, Issue 1. (April 1967) p.35-66 24 McGurk, J. ‘Roman Script: The Origins of Our Letters’. History Today, Vol. 18, Iss. 10. ( 1968). Accessed via: https://www.historytoday.com/archive/roman-script-origins-our-letters 25 Alberi, p. 35

4

The popular perception of Charlemagne clearly differs from his legitimate legacy. His religious success of Charlemagne was achieved through unchristian brutality, his personal military role overstated, his reforms short-lived and his ‘renaissance’ regressive. The popular acclaim that has held him up as ‘father of Europe’ is broadly incorrect but this embellished myth was what Albrecht Durer painted in the early 16th century, its artistic portrayal casting aside reality for symbolism.26 The flowing locks of Charlemagne’s white beard represent wisdom; his sword ‘Joyeuse’ military skill; the orb international Christian Dominion; his imperial robes a sign of his legacy to the Holy Roman Empire. The inconvenient truths that long facial hair (Charlemagne would have worn it short) was a sign of barbarism and that the robes were contemporary with Durer’s day were forgotten. Instead Charlemagne’s portrait, part of a diptych also showing Emperor Sigismund, illustrates how Charlemagne was a point of reference to later rulers. His was a legacy to be lived up to. Davis’ work in the 1920s argues that the very name 27 Charlemagne (as opposed to Karolus) illustrates how far the French have propagated his myth. He was for them a national symbol, long before his internationalist usage - unfair to a man who spent most of his time in modern day . Yet this has not altered the popular myth that Charlemagne was a Frenchman spreading French ideas, who simultaneously patronised the educative liberal arts whilst achieving vast military success and spreading the Christian faith.

It is vital to understand what innately Europe ‘is’ to understand Charlemagne’s genuine role within it. Europe has several broadly unifying characteristics, most notably Christianity. Yet a notion of Europe existed in some form at least before Christianity, as Hippocrates contrasts the culture of Europeans and Asians although this probably refers to the contrast merely between Greeks and the inhabitants of Asia Minor. Where European peoples exist, so must a geographical concept, and the concept of a notional Europe can therefore be identified from the late 5th century BC. Such an idea did not establish Europe in the modern sense, as Aristotle distinguishes in the following century between the Greeks and ‘barbarian’ Europeans.28 The idea of a ‘European’ identity was little further developed by the time of Charlemagne, furthermore due to their pagan faith Charlemagne would have identified many modern Europeans as barbarians. To Charlemagne, the mark of barbarians was , and this provided an entitlement for conquest and conversion which were for him inextricably linked. Charlemagne’s perception of himself as a ruler was not as the ruler of a Frankish empire who oversaw lands won by conquest, but as the overlord of a unified Christendom (as illustrated by his taking the titles of his subjects’ former rulers). This establishment of Charlemagne as a ruler of Christendom was clearly expounded therefore by his contemporaries into his role as Europae venerandus apex. This perception as the ‘pinnacle of Europe’ suggests he was a European father of his time, as Christendom ‘was’ Europe.

But through history our definitions of Europe have diverged, and it has long since divested itself of its perception as a solely Christian body. To describe Christendom as modern Europe and vice versa would be folly, and Bartlett (1994) argues Europe only existed as a cohesive body as late as 1300. French historiography and popular perception broadly argues that the Franks dispersed a universal 29 culture through Europe, and Hodges argues that through this Charlemagne was the originator of a European identity during his reign. Such claims lack weight - the nationalistic French view fails to account for the vast amount of the European landmass not under Carolingian domination by 814, even 30 if a period of ‘Frankization’ occurred. Whilst Charlemagne’s ideas undeniably contributed to a European identity, Hodges goes too far in his traditionalist assertion. Charlemagne’s contributions were mostly echoes of earlier Roman or Merovingian systems, with few original measures included. Europe is a melting-pot of ideas and traditions which one man, in the form of Charlemagne, is far too transient

26 Durer A. Emperor Charlemagne and Emperor Sigismund [Oil and Tempera on Panels]. Germanisches Nationalmsueum, Nuremberg. c.1512. See Fig. 1 (Appendix 1) 27 Anon. 2018. 28 Fernie, E. ‘The Origins of Europe’. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. Vol. 71, pp.39-53 29 Anon. 2018. Citing Hodges (1983). 30 Ganshof, F. Frankish institutions under Charlemagne (Brown University, United States 1968)

5

to claim responsibility for. The external and internal influences on Europe are too numerous to list, and has unsurprisingly given rise to ideas that Europe was “essentially a territorial notion”.31 Balzaretti argues that an ancestor of modern Europe was formed in the 11th century as a response to Islamic and ‘other’ foreign influences. Europe was not and is not socially, culturally, economically or politically homogeneous and therefore the idea of an encroaching ‘other’ that binds these differing traditions together in a catch-all continent is a tempting explanation. But 11th century Islamic Iberia proves that even elements of this proposed ‘other’ were accepted as Europe, and therefore this theory oversimplifies the complex formation of Europe. Charlemagne, despite his reforms and role in the minds of later Europeans is far too simple an explanation to have created a cohesive Europe.

Yet if not Charlemagne, then who? Such a question as who is the ‘Father of Europe’ has plagued many scholars, especially since the establishment of European supranational bodies such as the EU in the post-war era. Their necessity for symbols has often been fulfilled by Charlemagne. He was frequently referred to in the rhetoric that established the European Coal and Steel Community and its successors and was portrayed as a rare figure of pan-European unity and economic cooperation. In 1950 Charles de Gaulle called Franco-German cooperation “Charlemagne’s project” and many designs for the flag of 32 the EU were inspired by Charlemagne’s sacred Oriflamme, But this is not to say other contenders do not exist; most obviously Napoleon. Napoleon has often been glossed over due to his unfavourable nationalistic portrayal and an ingrained western antipathy. Yet his mark upon an already substantially developed Europe arguably exceeds that of Charlemagne. The continued multifaceted influence of Napoleon is fascinating; his code Napoléon finally destroyed (a concept Charlemagne arguably created through his merger of Romantic and Germanic traditions33) and continues to shape the world; he redrew the European map; irrevocably altered the balance of power in the germanophone world; caused a vast augmentation of the British empire (due to the destruction of rival French sea power); conciliated social equality and political order; healed church schisms; signed the Louisiana purchase; and sparked European nationalism.34 The vast resulting consequences cannot be overstated. Such political upheaval dominated the European and international spheres a century after his abdication and continue to to this day: therefore it is important to understand to what extent Napoleon was inspired by Charlemagne. If this inspiration was pivotal then perhaps Charlemagne retains a primacy over Napoleon, but if not then Carolingian myth must be sacrificed to Corsican modernity.

Napoleon was certainly aware of Charlemagne’s legacy (frequently referencing him) and vast similarities between their imperial (including the use of the same text and replicas of the Sword and Crown of Charlemagne) can be drawn. Yet this awareness was not imitation - Napoleon used the Carolingian empire to legitimise his own, but did not seek to create a ‘second ’. The Austrian chancellor of the Holy Roman Empire von Dalberg saw Charlemagne as a creator of Europe which contrasted with Napoleon’s view. Idolising Charlemagne also, Napoleon had to see his creation (the Holy Roman Empire) as having been corrupted - ideologically legitimising its conquest. Napoleon saw Charlemagne therefore as a great warrior and conqueror, and sought to exemplify this image. This in itself contrasts with the aims of Charlemagne - he wished to restore the Roman Empire and probably saw his Imperial coronation as proof that he had achieved his desires. If Charlemagne imitated the Roman empire, then his ideas can hardly be considered original and therefore he could not have created the foundation of Europe. Yet locating a European father in a Roman tradition is folly - the original ‘Pater Patriae’ was Romulus - a probably imagined (certainly exaggerated) semi-mythical figure. Even the self-centered Cicero was once afforded such a title in 63 BC! This shows the transience of human life is far too brief to allow a concerted ideal to be established and upheld, and the brief

31 Balzaretti, R. ‘The Creation of Europe’. Historical Workshop, No. 33, p.181-196. 32 Wilson 33 Fernie, p.52 34 Fisher, p.199

6

conferment of a contemporary title means little in the overarching context of history. The vastness of the European geographic area makes it almost impossible for an ideal to be disseminated, and the abundance of external influences prevents it from being strictly retained. Such issues make it almost impossible for there to be a ‘Father’ of such a diverse continent, and even the nonpareil Napoleon cannot claim to have achieved the title. There is not and never can be a father of Europe.

The accolade of an anonymous monk has altered the course of a continent’s historical perception. Charlemagne is identified as the ‘father of Europe’ by the poetic polemic of a manuscript celebrating a comparatively long and comfortable reign. The propagation of such a myth in chivalric romance has inspired many, yet the quintessential essence of Charlemagne failed to have such far reaching consequences as the popular tradition that has suffused into history would suggest. Charlemagne’s reforms were enlightened and well-motivated, yet they suffered from the transience of his life and the rapid breakdown of a unified Frankish state. The very complexity of Europe compounds the issue, and Charlemagne’s dominion over a western corner leaves him ill qualified to claim to be the father. His success has been overemphasised in tradition, and it created the false image that has so inspired the peoples of Europe over centuries. This representation of him has undoubtedly shaped Europe, but it is not a true representation. Whilst his governmental reforms did much to create a benevolent and secure state, his success in other areas is unclear – he did little to promote Frankish economic growth, relying on conquest. An advocate of Christianity, Charlemagne pursued learning and good governance with the best intentions. Yet his faith was spread with barbarity whilst his renaissance was arguably regressive. Charlemagne was undoubtedly a good king, and much loved by his subjects. But to claim a competent king was the ‘father of Europe’ for anything beyond his lifetime is sadly incorrect, and Europe must accept itself as an orphan.

7

Bibliography:

Alberi, M. ‘Alcuin and the New Athens’. History Today, Vol. 39, Issue 9, pp.35-41

Backman, C. The Worlds of Medieval Europe. (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2003)

Balzaretti, R. ‘The Creation of Europe’. Historical Workshop, No. 33, p.181-196.

Barberro, A. Charlemagne: Father of a continent. Translated Cameron, A. (University of California Press, Berkley 2004).

BBC Radio 4. The Battle for Charlemagne. 09:45 13th October 2014

Bullough, D. ‘Europae Pater: Charlemagne and his achievement in the light of recent scholarship. The English Historical Review, vol. 85, No. 334, p.59-105

Durer A. Emperor Charlemagne and Emperor Sigismund [Oil and Tempera on Panels]. Germanisches Nationalmsueum, Nuremberg. c.1512.

Einhard. Vita Karoli Magni. Translated Turer, S. (Harper & Brothers, New York 1880). Accessed via: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/einhard.asp

Fernie, E. ‘The Origins of Europe’. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. Vol. 71, pp.39-53

Fichtenau, H. The Carolingian Empire: The Age of Charlemagne. Translated Munz, P. (Harper & Row, New York 1964).

Freeman E. ‘Charles the Great, or Just Plain Charles: Was Charlemagne a great medieval leader?’ Agora: 2017, 52:1 p.10-19.

Ganshof, F. Frankish institutions under Charlemagne (Brown University, United States 1968)

Heather, P. (2013). The Restoration of Rome (Macmillan, London 2013)

Holland, T. Millennium (Abacus, London 2009)

Kay, T. and Trafton J. ‘Illuminating Europe’ Christian History and Biography. Issue 93, p.26-29.

Keen, M. Chivalry. (Yale University press, United States 1984).

McGurk, J. ‘Roman Script: The Origins of Our Letters’. History Today, Vol. 18, Iss. 10. (October 1968). Accessed via: https://www.historytoday.com/archive/roman-script-origins-our-letters

McKitterick, R. Charlemagne: the Formation of a European Identity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2009).

Miskimmin, H. ‘Two reforms of Charlemagne? Weights and measures in the middle ages’. Economic History Review, Vol. 20, Issue 1. (April 1967) p.35-66

Royal Frankish Annals and Nithard’s Histories. Translated B. Sholz and B. Rogers (University of Michigan Press, United States 1972)

Salgado, M. ‘In search of Europe’. History today, Vol. 42, No.2. Accessed via https://www.historytoday.com/archive/search-europe

Saxtorph, N. Warriors and Weapons of Early times. Translated B. & I. Gosney (Blanford Press Ltd., London 1972)

Schoenfeld, E. ‘Fontenoy, Battle of’. Reader’s companion to Military History (Houghton Mifflin, New York 1996).

8

Wilson, D. Charlemagne: The Great Adventure (Hutchinson, London 2005).

Wilson, P. The Holy Roman Empire: A thousand Years of Europe’s history (Penguin Allen Lane, London 2016) Williams, H. Emperor of the West (Quercus, London 2005) Appendix 1 Diptych illustration of Charlemagne and Sigismund painted by Durer c.1512

9