What do you think?
Rate this book
Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Nithard's Histories
The most comprehensive contemporaneous record of the rise and fall of the Carolingian Empire
248 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
3 people are currently reading
104 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
October 28, 2012
The Royal Frankish Annals are an important, but somewhat dry, year by year account of the Carolingian period, reminiscent of the Anglo Saxon Chronicles. Nithard is the grandson of the emperor Charlemagne and his histories cover the turbulent period of Louis' ascension and reign, but are written in a more literary fashion. Scholz provides a much needed english translation, scholarly introduction and notes.
May 30, 2020
The book includes two separate chronicles. The first is the Royal Frankish Annals roughly covering 740-820. The second part is Nithard's Chronicle covering 820-843. Both appear to be more like propaganda than histories. Nithard in particular, was attached to the court of Charles the Bald, so his chronicle turns Lothar into a villain, and Charles into a humble ruler. The RFA appears to justify the Carolingian Dynasty.
The chronicles are a little skimpy, even by Medieval standards. There is not much description of society, law, customs, or much of anything except double-cross and triple-cross by the major actors. A few things did stand out for me such as the King/Emperor holding a major gathering of his feudal lords each year; and the annual campaigns.
The RFA appears to have been instigated in the reign of Charlemagne. Historians point to the Carolingian Renaissance as a time of culture rising out of the Dark Ages. Really flickering, as the light went out rapidly after Charlemagne died. Literature was certainly a key component of his reign. The RFA begins with Pepin the Short deposing the last Merovingian King and becoming king himself. There is no mention of social upheaval. The RFA presents a seamless transition. Considering that much of the era was characterized by powerful lords seeking more power, the displacement of one regime for another would almost certainly have triggered war. There are signs of war. Pepin and Charlemagne spend a large part of the mid-8th Century consolidated oath breakers in various parts of the empire before going on to invade and conquer German tribes - a quest that occupied Charlemagne for his long reign.
What can readers pick out of the annual or biannual campaigns against the oath breakers and relapsed heretics of the Saxon (German) tribes? The RFA does not say anything beyond championing the Carolingians. There are glimpses of further intrigue. Readers are certain to want more information about the popes who were appear as either petty tyrants or pitiful victims. Scholz does give a lot of useful information in the endnotes if readers bother with them. Rome was strife with political violence. The blinding and banishment of Pope Leo shortly before Charlemagne came to his aide probably had much to do with his subsequent crowning as emperor. Again, the RFA comes off as propaganda rather than objective history.
Charles the Bald may have had similar intentions when he appointed Nithard to write his chronicle. Charles was engaged in warfare against his brother(s). It is not clear how Charles and Louis got along prior to their alliance against Lothar; but it appears that there was a three-sided conflict if not open warfare between the three parties. The Chronicle goes to lengths to vilify Lothar. It is clear that Lothar sought to become the next emperor. But then again, everyone had sworn that as eldest son, he would become emperor. Scholtz observes that Lothar was the power behind Louis the Pious in his latter years. So Lothar had motive to bring his brothers into the imperial fold. The truth remains hazy. An inconclusive battle resulted in a relatively stable peace and dismemberment of the empire.
Of course, the authors of the two chronicles have strong biases that shine through. I am doubtful of the constant (annual or more frequent) betrayal and wantonness of the Saxons, or even Lothar, whom Nithard blamed for the Carolingian Civil War. Obviously, much has to be taken with some skepticism. The authors do show that Carolingian society was organized in some fashion with some sense of a bureaucracy that enabled it to maintain a powerful war machine. Casual readers will probably see Charlemagne as little more than another warlord who had one advantage over his long-standing rivals like Tassilo and Widikund - literacy. Readers more knowledgeable in Medieval History will probably see a new side to the Carolingian Renaissance - propaganda.
The chronicles are a little skimpy, even by Medieval standards. There is not much description of society, law, customs, or much of anything except double-cross and triple-cross by the major actors. A few things did stand out for me such as the King/Emperor holding a major gathering of his feudal lords each year; and the annual campaigns.
The RFA appears to have been instigated in the reign of Charlemagne. Historians point to the Carolingian Renaissance as a time of culture rising out of the Dark Ages. Really flickering, as the light went out rapidly after Charlemagne died. Literature was certainly a key component of his reign. The RFA begins with Pepin the Short deposing the last Merovingian King and becoming king himself. There is no mention of social upheaval. The RFA presents a seamless transition. Considering that much of the era was characterized by powerful lords seeking more power, the displacement of one regime for another would almost certainly have triggered war. There are signs of war. Pepin and Charlemagne spend a large part of the mid-8th Century consolidated oath breakers in various parts of the empire before going on to invade and conquer German tribes - a quest that occupied Charlemagne for his long reign.
What can readers pick out of the annual or biannual campaigns against the oath breakers and relapsed heretics of the Saxon (German) tribes? The RFA does not say anything beyond championing the Carolingians. There are glimpses of further intrigue. Readers are certain to want more information about the popes who were appear as either petty tyrants or pitiful victims. Scholz does give a lot of useful information in the endnotes if readers bother with them. Rome was strife with political violence. The blinding and banishment of Pope Leo shortly before Charlemagne came to his aide probably had much to do with his subsequent crowning as emperor. Again, the RFA comes off as propaganda rather than objective history.
Charles the Bald may have had similar intentions when he appointed Nithard to write his chronicle. Charles was engaged in warfare against his brother(s). It is not clear how Charles and Louis got along prior to their alliance against Lothar; but it appears that there was a three-sided conflict if not open warfare between the three parties. The Chronicle goes to lengths to vilify Lothar. It is clear that Lothar sought to become the next emperor. But then again, everyone had sworn that as eldest son, he would become emperor. Scholtz observes that Lothar was the power behind Louis the Pious in his latter years. So Lothar had motive to bring his brothers into the imperial fold. The truth remains hazy. An inconclusive battle resulted in a relatively stable peace and dismemberment of the empire.
Of course, the authors of the two chronicles have strong biases that shine through. I am doubtful of the constant (annual or more frequent) betrayal and wantonness of the Saxons, or even Lothar, whom Nithard blamed for the Carolingian Civil War. Obviously, much has to be taken with some skepticism. The authors do show that Carolingian society was organized in some fashion with some sense of a bureaucracy that enabled it to maintain a powerful war machine. Casual readers will probably see Charlemagne as little more than another warlord who had one advantage over his long-standing rivals like Tassilo and Widikund - literacy. Readers more knowledgeable in Medieval History will probably see a new side to the Carolingian Renaissance - propaganda.
December 20, 2014
Wow. Bleakest closing line ever:
"I mention this because rapine and wrongs of every sort were rampant on all sides, and now the unseasonable weather killed the last hope of any good to come."
"I mention this because rapine and wrongs of every sort were rampant on all sides, and now the unseasonable weather killed the last hope of any good to come."
August 2, 2021
Scholz does a terrific job of translating and introducing both the 'Royal Frankish Annals' and Nithard's 'Histories' here! I will speak about each work in brief in the following sections.
The 'Royal Frankish Annals' are fairly self-explanatory; they give us contemporary documentation of the happenings of Francia from 741-829CE. I know that is oversimplifying much of the significance of the work in its relation to our understanding of contemporary literature, politics, military endeavors, historiography, and the like, which is not to be ignored here, but is instead nothing I think is something I desire to touch on. These topics have already been touched upon (both by Scholz in the introduction as well as reviews of the text). They progressively become more sophistocated and give a far greater understanding of both Charles the Great as well as European politics over this period than either Einhard or the Monk of Saint Gall's biographies of Charlemagne did.
Nithard's 'Histories' is a great historical text. It presents many of the same siginificances of primary Carolingian documents, however, what I loved most is Nithard's style. His writing is concise and far closer to an objective goal (which is outlined preceding all four books of the 'Histories,' as Nithard claims to put pen to paper so that the history of his times under Louis, Charles, and Lothair are not to be misunderstood through the malicious or ignorant writings of other authors) than most pre-modern historical texts I have come across up to this point.
These have been my favorite primary documents I have come across up to this point now. While I have not presented much info other than shallow opinions of my own, I would like to recommend these deeply significant and insightful documents to anybody welcome to better understanding the history of Europe during the period of 729CE-843CE.
The 'Royal Frankish Annals' are fairly self-explanatory; they give us contemporary documentation of the happenings of Francia from 741-829CE. I know that is oversimplifying much of the significance of the work in its relation to our understanding of contemporary literature, politics, military endeavors, historiography, and the like, which is not to be ignored here, but is instead nothing I think is something I desire to touch on. These topics have already been touched upon (both by Scholz in the introduction as well as reviews of the text). They progressively become more sophistocated and give a far greater understanding of both Charles the Great as well as European politics over this period than either Einhard or the Monk of Saint Gall's biographies of Charlemagne did.
Nithard's 'Histories' is a great historical text. It presents many of the same siginificances of primary Carolingian documents, however, what I loved most is Nithard's style. His writing is concise and far closer to an objective goal (which is outlined preceding all four books of the 'Histories,' as Nithard claims to put pen to paper so that the history of his times under Louis, Charles, and Lothair are not to be misunderstood through the malicious or ignorant writings of other authors) than most pre-modern historical texts I have come across up to this point.
These have been my favorite primary documents I have come across up to this point now. While I have not presented much info other than shallow opinions of my own, I would like to recommend these deeply significant and insightful documents to anybody welcome to better understanding the history of Europe during the period of 729CE-843CE.
October 29, 2025
RFA was very enjoyable. The first section had an interesting layer to it in that Scholz presented both the original manuscript and a revised one. These had some very different description of events, like the original completely ignoring a rebellion against Charlemagne.
Nithard's history was the real star here. The first book has a similar feel as other contemporary histories: often broad strokes of events instead of in-depth descriptions. But that is all just an introduction for the meat of the book: the fall out of Louis the Pious altering a division of the empire to include later born son. This section went into amazing detail that far surpassed anything I remember from the Annals of Fulda and St. Bertin. It all ends with probably the most bleak ending to a medieval history that I have read:
I mention this because rapine and wrongs of every sort were rampant on all sides, and now the unseasonable weather killed the last hope of any good to come
Nithard's history was the real star here. The first book has a similar feel as other contemporary histories: often broad strokes of events instead of in-depth descriptions. But that is all just an introduction for the meat of the book: the fall out of Louis the Pious altering a division of the empire to include later born son. This section went into amazing detail that far surpassed anything I remember from the Annals of Fulda and St. Bertin. It all ends with probably the most bleak ending to a medieval history that I have read:
I mention this because rapine and wrongs of every sort were rampant on all sides, and now the unseasonable weather killed the last hope of any good to come
May 18, 2017
I do love this kind of thing, so I enjoyed this a great deal. This volume consists of decent translations of two original sources of Carolingian history: the Royal Frankish Annals, and Nithard's Histories. Together, they go through about a hundred years of Frankish history, as seen by near- or actual contemporaries. The introduction is pretty good, too. This isn't the place to start studying Charlemagne and his successors, but a good volume to have at hand as you're reading other history books about the period. It's always interesting to have an author quote a passage from one of these original sources, then go back and read it for yourself, along with that passage's context. (I've no doubt that it would be even more interesting in the original Latin, but alas, I have no gift for languages so I'm left with translations.)
October 4, 2023
The Carolingian Chronicles which includes the Royal Frankish Annals - Charlemagne's years, and Nithard's Histories - post Charlemagne, his progeny, is not for everyone. It is more suitable for those with an avid interest in the Carolingians. The Annals, a manuscript found in an abbey in Worms in the 13th century is a bare bones description of events during Charlemagne's life. A stark description of events, mostly war, without any supplementing information on life conditions, etc. during those years. Nithard, who was a member of Charlemagne's grandsons' court provides a more complete description of events and times. These first hand accounts are so valuable because contemporary chroniclers speak to us down through the centuries and clarify, particularly Nithard, the events leading up to the treaty of Verdun in 843, which defined somewhat today's modern boundaries of Germany and France in particular.
February 10, 2018
Straightforward account of Charlemagne et al, including Charles The Hammer, The Bald and Theodoric. So interesting to see how they and the Popes encountered and dealt with what Charlemagne left behind. Left me wanting to know more, especially when I found out about Charles the Fat....
November 3, 2025
看到查理曼死後就匆匆翻過。跟之前兩本一樣，陳文海老師1/3篇幅的導讀是看點。本書是官修正史，但又有分“正本”跟“修訂本”，其作者跟撰寫意圖都是史學研究的一大議題，陳老師都替你分析的明明白白。慣讀中國史書的應該也都習慣本書的那種“為尊者諱”，“千錯萬錯都是臣子的錯”，的特色寫法。記得搭配艾因哈德的《查理大帝傳》來看，才能窺看查理曼時代的一二。
June 8, 2016
As a book to read for the general reader this is a two star.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews