What do you think?
Rate this book
Rege și împărat. Viața lui Carol cel Mare
Carol, regele francilor, este una dintre figurile cele mai remarcabile care au condus vreodată un superstat european. De aceea este numit adesea Carol cel Mare: „Charlemagne“ de către francezi și „Karl der Grosse“ de către germani. Tăria lui de caracter a fost considerată remarcabilă încă de la începutul lungii sale domnii. Războaiele și accidentele, dăunătorii și vremea au distrus o mare parte dintre dovezile domniei sale în cele 12 secole care au trecut de la moartea lui, dar încă au rămas remarcabil de multe.
Janet L. Nelson pune laolaltă, în această minunată carte, tot ceea ce știm despre Charlemagne și cerne dovezile pentru a ne ajuta cât se poate de mult să înțelegem cine a fost omul și motivele din spatele faptelor sale. Nelson se bucură de o înțelegere extraordinară a izvoarelor și mare parte din acest volum este un fel de poveste cu detectivi, cercetând și interpretând resturi materiale și adesea greu de descifrat, de la cărți de rugăciune la schelete, bârfe și opere de artă.
Mai presus de orice, moștenirea lui Carol este vizibilă în faptele sale și în rezonanța lor continuă, formând ducate și comitate, reconstruind și întemeind orașe și mănăstiri și declarându-se nu doar rege al francilor, ci și nou împărat al Imperiului Roman. Succesorii lui – din unele puncte de vedere, până în ziua de azi – s-au străduit să interpreteze, să copieze sau să distrugă moștenirea lui Charlemagne. Nelson ne aduce pe cât de aproape am putea spera să ajungem de o figură reală, așa cum era ea înțeleasă la vremea ei.
Janet L. Nelson pune laolaltă, în această minunată carte, tot ceea ce știm despre Charlemagne și cerne dovezile pentru a ne ajuta cât se poate de mult să înțelegem cine a fost omul și motivele din spatele faptelor sale. Nelson se bucură de o înțelegere extraordinară a izvoarelor și mare parte din acest volum este un fel de poveste cu detectivi, cercetând și interpretând resturi materiale și adesea greu de descifrat, de la cărți de rugăciune la schelete, bârfe și opere de artă.
Mai presus de orice, moștenirea lui Carol este vizibilă în faptele sale și în rezonanța lor continuă, formând ducate și comitate, reconstruind și întemeind orașe și mănăstiri și declarându-se nu doar rege al francilor, ci și nou împărat al Imperiului Roman. Succesorii lui – din unele puncte de vedere, până în ziua de azi – s-au străduit să interpreteze, să copieze sau să distrugă moștenirea lui Charlemagne. Nelson ne aduce pe cât de aproape am putea spera să ajungem de o figură reală, așa cum era ea înțeleasă la vremea ei.
672 pages, Paperback
First published February 28, 2019
132 people are currently reading
1269 people want to read
About the author
Janet L. Nelson
36 books13 followersDame Janet Laughland Nelson, also known as Jinty Nelson, was a British historian and professor of Medieval History at King's College London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
Currently reading
November 9, 2024Super book. Reading this book was a continual enjoyment. Throughout she refers to other historians with whom she disagrees by name, often in books this can seek combative, but here I felt it was collegial as though I was attending a seminar and listening to a presentation with which other speakers would certainly disagree, and with good reason, yet in good humour.
I remember as a child asking in the library for a book about the Franks and the librarian, perhaps apologetically, directing me to an encyclopeadia. I notice that many of my childhood obsessions still demand my attention late in life. The ghost of the child haunts the adult.
Nelson's Charles is also a haunted man, a Macbeth, or a Richard III, the blood of relatives on his hands. Family relationships were perhaps the most fascinating element of this book. In the one hand cousins had a leading role as trusted enforcers and commanders in his kingdom, however closer relatives, brothers, uncles, nephews, in-laws, were a bit too close for comfort and became enemies. Wives came and went, Charles seemed quite happy to put them asside and to take up a new one as he pleased. Later writers were firm in their judgement that some of them were wives and others only concubines, however all of them seem to have been of high social status and respected, at least for as long as they shared the royal bed.
The hegemony that Charles and his immediate decendents achieved over Europe looks like a stroke of luck, an uncle joined the church, a brother died, sons died, all of which meant that the realm was undivided for generations. This in turn meant that the Franks could bring more men with swords to the battlefield than neighbouring rulers, in the case of Bavaria and North Italy those rulers were also relatives, and so absorb those regions into Charles' territory.
I remember as a child asking in the library for a book about the Franks and the librarian, perhaps apologetically, directing me to an encyclopeadia. I notice that many of my childhood obsessions still demand my attention late in life. The ghost of the child haunts the adult.
Nelson's Charles is also a haunted man, a Macbeth, or a Richard III, the blood of relatives on his hands. Family relationships were perhaps the most fascinating element of this book. In the one hand cousins had a leading role as trusted enforcers and commanders in his kingdom, however closer relatives, brothers, uncles, nephews, in-laws, were a bit too close for comfort and became enemies. Wives came and went, Charles seemed quite happy to put them asside and to take up a new one as he pleased. Later writers were firm in their judgement that some of them were wives and others only concubines, however all of them seem to have been of high social status and respected, at least for as long as they shared the royal bed.
The hegemony that Charles and his immediate decendents achieved over Europe looks like a stroke of luck, an uncle joined the church, a brother died, sons died, all of which meant that the realm was undivided for generations. This in turn meant that the Franks could bring more men with swords to the battlefield than neighbouring rulers, in the case of Bavaria and North Italy those rulers were also relatives, and so absorb those regions into Charles' territory.
January 13, 2020
Reading the biography of Charlesmagne reminded me why I loved my early medieval course at university so much, and also reminded me why I then specialised in modern history. Janet Nelson has undertaken a considerable work of love and dedication to put together a 500 page biography of the greatest of the early medieval kings, using such source material as was at her disposal. A couple of more-or-less reliable lives (Einhard being the key one), some chronicle material, the odd letter and 154 charters means that the source material is by no means negligible. Even so, for a remarkably long reign (47 years) these are still scant pickings. Further more, because the only significant written sources of the period are Frankish or Papal, the perspective of those troublesome Saxons is perforce lacking. This is a book that is both fascinating and very hard work.
What then of the personality of Charles himself? Nelson does her hardest to give us glimpses beyond the charters to a king with a keen sense of humour and irony and a man dedicated to the the forcible pacification and conversion of the pagan tribes to the east of the Rhine. She also, adding a feminist perspective, gives refreshing glimpses of Charles's wives and concubines, scraping away centuries of accreted prejudice and misogyny.
We are left with a book that must surely be the last word for a long time on the life of one of the most significant of Europe's rulers but nevertheless the detailed spadework involved in the excavation does not make this a fluent read. Those with a casual interest in the origins of Europe, beware!
What then of the personality of Charles himself? Nelson does her hardest to give us glimpses beyond the charters to a king with a keen sense of humour and irony and a man dedicated to the the forcible pacification and conversion of the pagan tribes to the east of the Rhine. She also, adding a feminist perspective, gives refreshing glimpses of Charles's wives and concubines, scraping away centuries of accreted prejudice and misogyny.
We are left with a book that must surely be the last word for a long time on the life of one of the most significant of Europe's rulers but nevertheless the detailed spadework involved in the excavation does not make this a fluent read. Those with a casual interest in the origins of Europe, beware!
July 13, 2025
În domnia sa îndelungată (768-814), Carol cel Mare a reconfigurat harta Europei. A cucerit Regatul Lombarzilor din nordul Italiei. De asemenea, a anexat Bavaria. A purtat numeroase războaie împotriva saxonilor și avarilor păgâni. Una dintre puținele înfrângeri suferite de Carol a fost în Marca Spaniolă, în pasul Roncevaux, unde ariergarda convoiului militar a fost distrusă într-o ambuscadă pusă la cale de către bascii munteni.
Merită menționată tentativa lui Carol de a-și căsători fiica, pe Rotrud, cu Constantin, viitorul împărat Constantin al VI-lea al Imperiului Bizantin.
Pe plan intern, a reconstruit palatul și biserica din Aachen (aula renovata) cu aurul obținut din Avaria. Construcția unui canal care să lege Dunărea de Main a fost printre cele mai ambițioase proiecte inginerești ale regelui Carol.
În ceea ce privește religia, a apărat dreapta credință convocând un Conciliu la Regensburg pentru a denunța adopțianismul, o doctrină religioasă care neagă divinitatea lui Iisus, considerat a fi doar fiul adoptiv al lui Dumnezeu.
Regatul Franc s-a bucurat de stabilitate internă sub domnia lui Carol. Au fost doar o revoltă în Thuringia și un complot (conjuratio) al lui Pepin (fiul său cel mai mare), ambele rapid înnăbușite.
În ziua de Crăciun a anului 800, în Bazilica Sf. Petru, papa Leon al III-lea l-a proclamat pe Carol "împărat al tuturor romanilor" (Imperator Romanorum) și l-a încoronat. Carol a fost primul împărat din Apus de la îndepărtarea împăratului roman, Romulus Augustulus, în anul 476.
Recomand
Merită menționată tentativa lui Carol de a-și căsători fiica, pe Rotrud, cu Constantin, viitorul împărat Constantin al VI-lea al Imperiului Bizantin.
Pe plan intern, a reconstruit palatul și biserica din Aachen (aula renovata) cu aurul obținut din Avaria. Construcția unui canal care să lege Dunărea de Main a fost printre cele mai ambițioase proiecte inginerești ale regelui Carol.
În ceea ce privește religia, a apărat dreapta credință convocând un Conciliu la Regensburg pentru a denunța adopțianismul, o doctrină religioasă care neagă divinitatea lui Iisus, considerat a fi doar fiul adoptiv al lui Dumnezeu.
Regatul Franc s-a bucurat de stabilitate internă sub domnia lui Carol. Au fost doar o revoltă în Thuringia și un complot (conjuratio) al lui Pepin (fiul său cel mai mare), ambele rapid înnăbușite.
În ziua de Crăciun a anului 800, în Bazilica Sf. Petru, papa Leon al III-lea l-a proclamat pe Carol "împărat al tuturor romanilor" (Imperator Romanorum) și l-a încoronat. Carol a fost primul împărat din Apus de la îndepărtarea împăratului roman, Romulus Augustulus, în anul 476.
Recomand
January 11, 2020
4*: A Scholarly Biography of Charlemagne's Life
This work by Janet L. Nelson represents a thorough, scholarly biography of Charlemagne. Nelson's understanding and familiarity with the source material shines through in this book, in which Charlemagne is stripped back from the years of mythologising and idolising that has ocurred since his death. Charlemagne is presented as distinctly human, and this book is the first time I have felt I could reasonably understand Charlemagne as the man he was, not the man he has since been painted to be. Moreover, Nelson is excellent in her discussions of Charlemagne's wives, in particular rescuing Fastrada from the commonplace assumption that she was cruel.
Nelson is very strong in her dissection of the source material. After reading this book, I am now much more familiar with the sources that we rely on to understand Charlemagne: the authors' motivations, their proximity to Charlemagne. However, it can be a challenge to deftly weave critical discussion of sources with a fluid narrative, and at times this book leans a little on the dry side. Nelson does not speculate, instead focussing on what we do know or can be reasonably inferred from the sources. The downside to this is that some of the more interesting episodes from Charlemagne's life are glossed over: for example, the 792AD rebellion of Charlemagne's eldest son, Pippin, receives only 3 pages of discussion, whereas Charlemagne's canal building project which follows receives double that. Personally, as a general reader rather than a historian, I would have preferred more on the "interesting bits" of Charlemagne's reign, but a more academic reader may not mind.
Overall, this is an excellent biography, and I would recommend it to an informed reader, but not as an introduction.
This work by Janet L. Nelson represents a thorough, scholarly biography of Charlemagne. Nelson's understanding and familiarity with the source material shines through in this book, in which Charlemagne is stripped back from the years of mythologising and idolising that has ocurred since his death. Charlemagne is presented as distinctly human, and this book is the first time I have felt I could reasonably understand Charlemagne as the man he was, not the man he has since been painted to be. Moreover, Nelson is excellent in her discussions of Charlemagne's wives, in particular rescuing Fastrada from the commonplace assumption that she was cruel.
Nelson is very strong in her dissection of the source material. After reading this book, I am now much more familiar with the sources that we rely on to understand Charlemagne: the authors' motivations, their proximity to Charlemagne. However, it can be a challenge to deftly weave critical discussion of sources with a fluid narrative, and at times this book leans a little on the dry side. Nelson does not speculate, instead focussing on what we do know or can be reasonably inferred from the sources. The downside to this is that some of the more interesting episodes from Charlemagne's life are glossed over: for example, the 792AD rebellion of Charlemagne's eldest son, Pippin, receives only 3 pages of discussion, whereas Charlemagne's canal building project which follows receives double that. Personally, as a general reader rather than a historian, I would have preferred more on the "interesting bits" of Charlemagne's reign, but a more academic reader may not mind.
Overall, this is an excellent biography, and I would recommend it to an informed reader, but not as an introduction.
June 6, 2020
In the introduction the author states that there are many books that offer excellent narratives of Charles's reign. I probably would have been better off reading one of those than this scholarly work. Nelson's account of Charles's life is highly detailed and referenced. While that adds to the authenticity of the account, it broke the flow of the type of "story' of Charlemagne's life I was hoping to read. Through the many charters and documents that survive his reign, it was clear the Charles was an adept military general, politician, and leader. He created an empire that spanned most of Europe through wars, treaties, marriages, and collaborations with Popes. Charles fathered 19 children through multiple wives and mistresses and, while he didn't necessarily keep them all happy all of the time, he adroitly managed family issues while he managed his kingdom. Charles felt it was as important for his daughters to be educated as well as his sons, not a common practice at the time. Several of his sons served as generals and kings and his daughters helped forge important alliances that strengthened the kingdom. It was fascinating to read the record of his reign, even if it was at time overwhelming to the casual (non-academic) reader.
May 18, 2020
Overall this was a fun, scholarly biography of Charles the Great. A touch of the dramatic, witicisms in the text and the notes. Lost a little stem at the end.
Really the worst part was the maps - whomever put together the maps collected in the front didn't do a great job of syncing cities/mountains to the names of cities and mountains in the text.
Really the worst part was the maps - whomever put together the maps collected in the front didn't do a great job of syncing cities/mountains to the names of cities and mountains in the text.
September 8, 2024
Went back and read over an essay I'd written on Charlemagne back in Year 12 after finishing this, and wow I really didn't have a clue back then. Brilliantly comprehensive, with some incredibly interesting source work, and a good reminder of why I came so close to studying history at university. One day I really will have to get to Aachen to visit the Palatine Chapel.
February 4, 2021
Nelson seeks to write a more or less conventional biography using the scraps of written record as exists. In doing so she conflicts with Johannes Fried who some 10 years ago wrote that he thought such a biography was impossible and that we could not ever get to "know" Charles. These two books are a wonderful point/counterpoint. Both are detective stories and the argument is how much can be extracted of Charles nature and his court from the written materials, mostly capitularies and charters. I have no idea which is the more "correct" but as I did with Fried's book, I find Nelson's historical analysis fascinating.
September 14, 2021
In my quest to read more history, this has been one of the better books that I've read. I think the information here was presented in a straightforward and easy-to-digest manner, making great use of both primary and secondary sources.
Before I read King and Emperor, I was only passingly familiar with the man known now as Charlemagne. I think that Nelson's work in extracting details from even the most minute sources really helped to flesh out not only the deeds, but even the thoughts and personality of Charles.
The life of Charles is presented in roughly chronological order, starting with a brief family history, moving into his youth and adulthood, spending a good deal of time on his kingdom-building, and then examining the transition he made from king to emperor. I certainly came away from this book feeling much more informed about Charles and his life, and I think this will be a great jumping off point to learn more about him and the Holy Roman Empire in general.
Before I read King and Emperor, I was only passingly familiar with the man known now as Charlemagne. I think that Nelson's work in extracting details from even the most minute sources really helped to flesh out not only the deeds, but even the thoughts and personality of Charles.
The life of Charles is presented in roughly chronological order, starting with a brief family history, moving into his youth and adulthood, spending a good deal of time on his kingdom-building, and then examining the transition he made from king to emperor. I certainly came away from this book feeling much more informed about Charles and his life, and I think this will be a great jumping off point to learn more about him and the Holy Roman Empire in general.
February 4, 2021
This is titled a “New Life” but alas, there is little life here. This Charlemagne is as dust-covered and bone dry as his actual bones are, with pages and pages of description of some letters or records or documents that may possibly shed some light on what might have possibly happened to his grandfather or grandmother or aunt or uncle or maybe not. But anyway …
If you like old-style, scholarly, primary source-based, no stone unturned, parched parchment history, you will enjoy this volume! If, like me, you prefer history as a good story, well told, with personalities and motivations on display, and the usually unexpected and sometimes horrifying results, then this is not the volume for you.
If you like old-style, scholarly, primary source-based, no stone unturned, parched parchment history, you will enjoy this volume! If, like me, you prefer history as a good story, well told, with personalities and motivations on display, and the usually unexpected and sometimes horrifying results, then this is not the volume for you.
June 14, 2020
Very thorough, but hardly entertaining. A good source for scolars. Laymen better read a more accessible book.
April 25, 2021
Even if you love historical non-fiction, this book won't be everyone's cup of tea. It's long (the biography part is just under 500 pages), it's dense, and it's absolutely jam-packed full of information and source analysis. Nelson really knows her stuff - and she wants you to know it as well. She's fully engaged in using the sources to not just flesh out what we know about Charlemagne, but also the eighth century world around him. Some might be deterred by the amount of information dumps that occur. But for those who are willing to persist, and to give this book the amount of time and attention it deserves, the payoff is immense.
May 13, 2023
This is not a conventional biography with a rounded narrative of the life of Charlemagne. The author leads the reader through the sources on Charlemagne, tells what a source says, explains the discussions among historians on a source and assesses the veracity of the source. It is a fascinating look at the historian’s craft. Sometimes it feels like reading the footnotes of some paper on an arcane bit of Charlemagnialia, and it is quite a work to finish the book, but overall it is a very honest way of writing a biography since the sources are all we have, and rounded pictures and narratives of a historical life are usually interpretations.
November 18, 2024
Very exhaustive. Probably better as a reference to another book.
December 28, 2021
Charlemagne is a distant and difficult figure to relate to, despite his importance to subsequent European history. I’ve read numerous biographies of the man and none of them really capture the feel of what Charlemagne or life in his time was actually like. It’s the fault of the time really. Most history in the Early Middle Ages (bar possibly the Vikings) is remote and inaccessible. Society really existed only at the local level (for which we have basically no evidence) and even for the narrow elite surrounding the king, who did at least have some broad range of authority, we get few details about what life was actually like. It just wasn’t felt to be important to write such things down. And what that leaves us with is a collection of dates and names largely divorced from context and nuance.
That’s why I was so excited by Nelson’s introduction to this book. She’s an excellent historian of the Franks and a well-published scholar, and she claims that it is possible to write a genuine biography of the man. Not an account of events during his reign, or a proto-EU work of propaganda or a popular story, but an honest to God account of Charlemagne’s personality and motivations. That’s what this book’s stated purpose is, so I’m not being finicky by focusing on its failure to do that. Any details which hint at Charles’ inner life are included and given detailed focus... but there aren’t many. In fact, seeing how little can be squeezed out of the sources it’s kinda amazing how much focus she placed on the idea. Sure, we do get some things. Charles had a real sense of humor, which mainly comes across as rough and cruel. The joke is that someone else has violated what he thinks of as proper behavior and now they’re going to be humiliated. Another sign of how little we understand the times – is this normal Frankish humor? I gather so, but I don’t think there’s enough out there to compare it to. Most other details are banalities: he was deeply spiritual, kinda arrogant, and likely felt guilty over murdering his young nephews in cold blood. To repeat: as an attempt to capture Charles’ personality it fails completely.
So what does the book actually spend its (great) length on? It’s more of an overview of the sources for Charlemagne, arranged in chronological order and analyzed critically. Long quotes are included complete and then contextualized. Inasmuch as the book does have a biographical focus it’s on deciphering Charles’ motives for decisions. This feels very speculative and contentious, but that is the norm for such things. And for what it’s worth the reasoning seems consistent. A coherent vision of Charles’ (or Frankish kings generally) motives is presented. That said, none of this seems like a radical departure from what previous biographers have done. This is not as novel and radical a book as its introduction suggests.
If you go into the book with this in mind you may find it rewarding. I found it very clearly organized and usually easy to follow. The focus on sources means material is presented more or less as given, which does require more work and is a lot less readable for a popular audience, but which will make it very useful for an academic audience. That said, it probably wouldn’t be my first choice. If you’re looking for entertainment value I’d recommend Fried’s Charlemagne for its personal connection. For a more scholarly analysis of his reign divided up by issue rather than date I’d try Barbero’s Charlemagne: Father of a Continent. I wouldn’t say either of them were as thorough as this one but they are more accessible.
That’s why I was so excited by Nelson’s introduction to this book. She’s an excellent historian of the Franks and a well-published scholar, and she claims that it is possible to write a genuine biography of the man. Not an account of events during his reign, or a proto-EU work of propaganda or a popular story, but an honest to God account of Charlemagne’s personality and motivations. That’s what this book’s stated purpose is, so I’m not being finicky by focusing on its failure to do that. Any details which hint at Charles’ inner life are included and given detailed focus... but there aren’t many. In fact, seeing how little can be squeezed out of the sources it’s kinda amazing how much focus she placed on the idea. Sure, we do get some things. Charles had a real sense of humor, which mainly comes across as rough and cruel. The joke is that someone else has violated what he thinks of as proper behavior and now they’re going to be humiliated. Another sign of how little we understand the times – is this normal Frankish humor? I gather so, but I don’t think there’s enough out there to compare it to. Most other details are banalities: he was deeply spiritual, kinda arrogant, and likely felt guilty over murdering his young nephews in cold blood. To repeat: as an attempt to capture Charles’ personality it fails completely.
So what does the book actually spend its (great) length on? It’s more of an overview of the sources for Charlemagne, arranged in chronological order and analyzed critically. Long quotes are included complete and then contextualized. Inasmuch as the book does have a biographical focus it’s on deciphering Charles’ motives for decisions. This feels very speculative and contentious, but that is the norm for such things. And for what it’s worth the reasoning seems consistent. A coherent vision of Charles’ (or Frankish kings generally) motives is presented. That said, none of this seems like a radical departure from what previous biographers have done. This is not as novel and radical a book as its introduction suggests.
If you go into the book with this in mind you may find it rewarding. I found it very clearly organized and usually easy to follow. The focus on sources means material is presented more or less as given, which does require more work and is a lot less readable for a popular audience, but which will make it very useful for an academic audience. That said, it probably wouldn’t be my first choice. If you’re looking for entertainment value I’d recommend Fried’s Charlemagne for its personal connection. For a more scholarly analysis of his reign divided up by issue rather than date I’d try Barbero’s Charlemagne: Father of a Continent. I wouldn’t say either of them were as thorough as this one but they are more accessible.
December 18, 2022
Amazing in both breadth and scope. The research was impeccable, and as the author writes in the conclusion, I do feel as if I have come nearer to Charlemagne. As a lay person, an armchair academic you can say, I appreciated the language and intensity of the research put into this book. Everything was presented so articulately and so well, it was a pleasure to read as someone intensely interested in history but with a majority of self-study in it. The medieval world is so often clumped together, and I believe this book does an excellent portrayal of how varied that time span is, with a focused eye on this particular man and empire he built.
August 14, 2020
A heavy read but great biography of Charlemagne through a review of the primary sources. I felt as though taken back to the 700/800s a few times. Maybe not for everybody but I learned a lot about Karl, his family, his wars with the Saxons and Avars and this period of the history of Francia and early Germany.
January 15, 2024
This book is certainly more scholarly than the marketing let on. It promised a book that gave us an intimate life of Charlemagne and his reign in a single volume -- while not quite pop history, the buzz around this book from mainstream media reviews indicated that this would be accessible to the non-scholar, and the author's own introduction stated the goal of this book would be to help us to understand Charlemagne the human being.
It doesn't quite achieve that. For one, it lacks the breezy writing and narrative strength of, say, a Barbara Tuchman or a John Julius Norwich (neither of whom, I hasten to add, are serious scholars of Nelson's mold, so perhaps it's an unfair comparison -- but they are competent storytellers who do bring us closer to their subjects, which was her stated goal, after all).
Most of her writing is plain and unadorned, minus her reliance on using certain Latin words/phrases instead of an English translation (the repeated use of "missi" comes to mind -- the word essentially means envoys -- while I understand the author's desire to be as precise with her language as possible, why not just say "envoys" and make things easier for her non-academic readers?).
In the intro, she talked about her goal of helping us to understand the man rather than the myth, and discussed the difficulty in doing just that, given the paucity of material to work with -- even if Charlemagne's reign was, by comparison, well documented for the time.
To her credit, Nelson has clearly done her research in studying the charters issued during his reign as well as other primary-source documents, and has extracted quite a lot of valuable information from them. But in spending so much time discussing these documents, I fear she lost sight of her original goal in bringing us closer to Charlemagne.
Who was he? What was he like? He won a number of military victories -- but how? We don't really know. She says he would split up his armies and then they'd win. He'd go raiding and beat the Saxons into submission, but never gets into any kind of detail in his military campaigns -- the size of his armies, the makeup, etc.
His oldest son led a rebellion against him -- why, and how? She doesn't really say, just that he was doing some palace intrigue with a few others. One day he plotted against his father and the next he was shipped off to a monastery. But why would he try to overthrow his father? Did they hate each other? Was the oldest son abused, or was he just stupid and greedy? How did his father really feel about this? Did it change his relationship with his other sons?
There are strides towards getting to know the man, and those are the strongest parts of the book. We know that Charlemagne liked to have his family close by; we know he liked to make jokes. We know that sometimes he had a volcanic temper, but that's only described via some of the charters. Was the temper, then, genuine or was it an affectation? We know that Charlemagne must have had a ferocious sex drive, because he had something like 19 children and multiple partners. But there's an odd section where it's hinted that he may or may not have been sexually active with his adult daughters -- Nelson never says it outright, but she skates close to the fact that there was something unusual about his court and his daughters.
And while I'm on sexuality, Nelson is oddly dismissive of the idea that his son, the Young Charles, may have been gay. She wrote there's basically no evidence to support this, but then later, casually mentions he was the subject of a poem where he was playing a flute for a man named Mochanaz, a play on the Arabic word for catamite. Flutes for catamites? Hmm. Young Charles was close to a man named Osulf (who might have been the inspiration for the catamite in the poem). And that the Young Charles never married or had kids. While it's true we can't possibly know for sure if he was gay, my gaydar was pinging like crazy and I wouldn't have been as dismissive as Nelson was. After all, she never provided any evidence to the contrary that the Young Charles was straight. She merely said that no serious scholar thinks that Young Charles is gay, and left it at that.
I'm sorry, but if you're the subject of a poem where you're blowing a phallic instrument for a gay kept boy, that certainly raises eyebrows and questions, and you've got to give us more than, "oh, nobody takes it seriously." It was shockingly tone-deaf in a book that was so well-extensively researched otherwise, and really felt like wilful denial on Nelson's part more than anything else. Again, I'm aware there's no way we can be truly sure of his homosexuality, but not to even attempt to provide any evidence showing otherwise for the Young Charles is what really undercut her blithe dismissal here.
Anyway, I was a little frustrated with this book, because the author's stated goal was to bring us closer to Charlemagne and give us a better sense of who the person was. Instead, I got a great sense of all the charters that were issued during his reign, but very little about the man himself. This book was very close to being very good, but Nelson's focus was on the academic structural underpinning of his life, rather than his life itself. And that made all the difference.
It doesn't quite achieve that. For one, it lacks the breezy writing and narrative strength of, say, a Barbara Tuchman or a John Julius Norwich (neither of whom, I hasten to add, are serious scholars of Nelson's mold, so perhaps it's an unfair comparison -- but they are competent storytellers who do bring us closer to their subjects, which was her stated goal, after all).
Most of her writing is plain and unadorned, minus her reliance on using certain Latin words/phrases instead of an English translation (the repeated use of "missi" comes to mind -- the word essentially means envoys -- while I understand the author's desire to be as precise with her language as possible, why not just say "envoys" and make things easier for her non-academic readers?).
In the intro, she talked about her goal of helping us to understand the man rather than the myth, and discussed the difficulty in doing just that, given the paucity of material to work with -- even if Charlemagne's reign was, by comparison, well documented for the time.
To her credit, Nelson has clearly done her research in studying the charters issued during his reign as well as other primary-source documents, and has extracted quite a lot of valuable information from them. But in spending so much time discussing these documents, I fear she lost sight of her original goal in bringing us closer to Charlemagne.
Who was he? What was he like? He won a number of military victories -- but how? We don't really know. She says he would split up his armies and then they'd win. He'd go raiding and beat the Saxons into submission, but never gets into any kind of detail in his military campaigns -- the size of his armies, the makeup, etc.
His oldest son led a rebellion against him -- why, and how? She doesn't really say, just that he was doing some palace intrigue with a few others. One day he plotted against his father and the next he was shipped off to a monastery. But why would he try to overthrow his father? Did they hate each other? Was the oldest son abused, or was he just stupid and greedy? How did his father really feel about this? Did it change his relationship with his other sons?
There are strides towards getting to know the man, and those are the strongest parts of the book. We know that Charlemagne liked to have his family close by; we know he liked to make jokes. We know that sometimes he had a volcanic temper, but that's only described via some of the charters. Was the temper, then, genuine or was it an affectation? We know that Charlemagne must have had a ferocious sex drive, because he had something like 19 children and multiple partners. But there's an odd section where it's hinted that he may or may not have been sexually active with his adult daughters -- Nelson never says it outright, but she skates close to the fact that there was something unusual about his court and his daughters.
And while I'm on sexuality, Nelson is oddly dismissive of the idea that his son, the Young Charles, may have been gay. She wrote there's basically no evidence to support this, but then later, casually mentions he was the subject of a poem where he was playing a flute for a man named Mochanaz, a play on the Arabic word for catamite. Flutes for catamites? Hmm. Young Charles was close to a man named Osulf (who might have been the inspiration for the catamite in the poem). And that the Young Charles never married or had kids. While it's true we can't possibly know for sure if he was gay, my gaydar was pinging like crazy and I wouldn't have been as dismissive as Nelson was. After all, she never provided any evidence to the contrary that the Young Charles was straight. She merely said that no serious scholar thinks that Young Charles is gay, and left it at that.
I'm sorry, but if you're the subject of a poem where you're blowing a phallic instrument for a gay kept boy, that certainly raises eyebrows and questions, and you've got to give us more than, "oh, nobody takes it seriously." It was shockingly tone-deaf in a book that was so well-extensively researched otherwise, and really felt like wilful denial on Nelson's part more than anything else. Again, I'm aware there's no way we can be truly sure of his homosexuality, but not to even attempt to provide any evidence showing otherwise for the Young Charles is what really undercut her blithe dismissal here.
Anyway, I was a little frustrated with this book, because the author's stated goal was to bring us closer to Charlemagne and give us a better sense of who the person was. Instead, I got a great sense of all the charters that were issued during his reign, but very little about the man himself. This book was very close to being very good, but Nelson's focus was on the academic structural underpinning of his life, rather than his life itself. And that made all the difference.
July 6, 2021
King and Emperor, A new life of Charlemagne, by J Nelson, 2020, 493 pages, 668 all in.
This is very readable, which is just as well considering how many pages there are to it. It's a comprehensive work, which takes in the entire reign of Charlemagne, with a very good preamble concerning the deeds of the Franks up to his birth.
Whilst it is not about the Anglo-Saxons, it is evident that they were subject to Frankish influence, especially during this period. The marriage dispute with Offa is very much a footnote as far as Charlemagne was concerned and any concept of them being near equals seems to be an English thing, rather than taken seriously elsewhere. Charlemagne's letters suggest that he regarded himself as a king of multiple peoples, the heir to Rome and Offa was not a client, but certainly not in the same league.
The student of Anglo-Saxon England will notice certain similarities in outlook, such as intercessionary prayers as a response to famine and the dangers of faction with notables attaching themselves to heirs. Another similarity is the importance of family matters and the significance of names. They could be a blank cheque for the future, being signifiers of power, status and expectations. It's certainly beneficial to widen your knowledge of the period by reading about contemporary continental carry ons.
Nelson has put this book together very well, with extensive quotes from sources and it is great to see her being very complimentary about other historians. She never fails to say something nice about them when referencing their research. Dumville could have learnt much from her in this regard.
What you'll take from this book is that the communication of news and messages was surprisingly swift given the size of the empire. However, for all of the counts and other officials (local and central who were out in the provinces), anything of real importance required Charlemagne's personal presence.
Whilst not strictly relevant to those whose main interest is Anglo-Saxon England, this is nonetheless a book that many will gain by reading.
This is very readable, which is just as well considering how many pages there are to it. It's a comprehensive work, which takes in the entire reign of Charlemagne, with a very good preamble concerning the deeds of the Franks up to his birth.
Whilst it is not about the Anglo-Saxons, it is evident that they were subject to Frankish influence, especially during this period. The marriage dispute with Offa is very much a footnote as far as Charlemagne was concerned and any concept of them being near equals seems to be an English thing, rather than taken seriously elsewhere. Charlemagne's letters suggest that he regarded himself as a king of multiple peoples, the heir to Rome and Offa was not a client, but certainly not in the same league.
The student of Anglo-Saxon England will notice certain similarities in outlook, such as intercessionary prayers as a response to famine and the dangers of faction with notables attaching themselves to heirs. Another similarity is the importance of family matters and the significance of names. They could be a blank cheque for the future, being signifiers of power, status and expectations. It's certainly beneficial to widen your knowledge of the period by reading about contemporary continental carry ons.
Nelson has put this book together very well, with extensive quotes from sources and it is great to see her being very complimentary about other historians. She never fails to say something nice about them when referencing their research. Dumville could have learnt much from her in this regard.
What you'll take from this book is that the communication of news and messages was surprisingly swift given the size of the empire. However, for all of the counts and other officials (local and central who were out in the provinces), anything of real importance required Charlemagne's personal presence.
Whilst not strictly relevant to those whose main interest is Anglo-Saxon England, this is nonetheless a book that many will gain by reading.
December 1, 2020
This is not a book for the faint hearted! I feel as if I have just finished auditing a graduate course in medieval history.
I was inspired to read this dense and highly detailed biography because of a rave review in the New York Review of Books, since I knew next to nothing about Charlemagne or about early medieval Europe. It was slow going, written for professional historians, not general readers. The author is professor emerita of medieval history at Kings College, London. Only a person who had spent her working life on the field could have digested the huge body of secondary literature listed in her bibliography and the difficult primary sources in medieval Latin. Professor Nelson writes like a detective, teasing information out of sketchy and often inconsistent documents.
The title, "king and emperor," refers to the shift in Charlemagne's self-conception, beginning as a Frankish war lord and concluding as an emperor, modelled on the Roman Empire. Because of its biographical focus, the book doesn't step back very often to explain about Western European society in the eighth and ninth centuries, as a book for general readers might have done.
Janet Nelson writes in deep awareness of the vast distance between today and back then, and how hard it is to understand people in a remote age. She knows a lot about them, and tells us a lot about them - more than an ordinary reader can remember. Just establishing the bare facts took a huge effort. Imagining the life behind those bare facts is a challenging step, and it is a tribute to Janet Nelson's honesty, modesty, and intelligence, that she keeps us in awareness of how difficult it is to do take that step.
I was inspired to read this dense and highly detailed biography because of a rave review in the New York Review of Books, since I knew next to nothing about Charlemagne or about early medieval Europe. It was slow going, written for professional historians, not general readers. The author is professor emerita of medieval history at Kings College, London. Only a person who had spent her working life on the field could have digested the huge body of secondary literature listed in her bibliography and the difficult primary sources in medieval Latin. Professor Nelson writes like a detective, teasing information out of sketchy and often inconsistent documents.
The title, "king and emperor," refers to the shift in Charlemagne's self-conception, beginning as a Frankish war lord and concluding as an emperor, modelled on the Roman Empire. Because of its biographical focus, the book doesn't step back very often to explain about Western European society in the eighth and ninth centuries, as a book for general readers might have done.
Janet Nelson writes in deep awareness of the vast distance between today and back then, and how hard it is to understand people in a remote age. She knows a lot about them, and tells us a lot about them - more than an ordinary reader can remember. Just establishing the bare facts took a huge effort. Imagining the life behind those bare facts is a challenging step, and it is a tribute to Janet Nelson's honesty, modesty, and intelligence, that she keeps us in awareness of how difficult it is to do take that step.
October 5, 2022
BIG BOOK! (Took me ten months to read it; just a little each night before bedtime).
This is a rather strange book. Nelson calls it a biography, but except for the fact that it worked chronologically through Charles's life and reign, I wouldn't call it that. In some sense, this book is a scholar who has spent their life and career studying this period indulging in a commentary on a beloved topic (or at least one that she wanted to explore more deeply--which is best done by writing about it). Each little subsection almost stands alone, it seems, so that we don't really get a strongly coherent, or biographical, narrative.
But who is her intended audience? She delves deeply into minute issues and sources of Charlemagne's reign--it seems quite valuable for any other scholar who wants to approach the topic. But she also translates all the Latin passages and quotes the sources quite heavily--useful for a broader audience who don't know the sources or maybe even Latin. This isn't meant as a real criticism; it just struck me as really odd.
In the end, I guess I would recommend this for advanced undergraduate students or graduate students who are studying the early Middle Ages, but you might want to grab a more traditional biography to read first.
This is a rather strange book. Nelson calls it a biography, but except for the fact that it worked chronologically through Charles's life and reign, I wouldn't call it that. In some sense, this book is a scholar who has spent their life and career studying this period indulging in a commentary on a beloved topic (or at least one that she wanted to explore more deeply--which is best done by writing about it). Each little subsection almost stands alone, it seems, so that we don't really get a strongly coherent, or biographical, narrative.
But who is her intended audience? She delves deeply into minute issues and sources of Charlemagne's reign--it seems quite valuable for any other scholar who wants to approach the topic. But she also translates all the Latin passages and quotes the sources quite heavily--useful for a broader audience who don't know the sources or maybe even Latin. This isn't meant as a real criticism; it just struck me as really odd.
In the end, I guess I would recommend this for advanced undergraduate students or graduate students who are studying the early Middle Ages, but you might want to grab a more traditional biography to read first.
July 22, 2021
Definately not a conventional biography. King and Emperor displays a modern historian at work: sifting through and analyzing a miriad of different literary sources, trying to parse out what they can reveal about the "real" figure they are trying to describe. It's essentially one step above examining the raw data yourself, admittedly a turn-on for a select few. While one comes away with a sense that you can't get any closer to the unvarnished Charlemagne than this, it drains him of much of the pathos that's been built up around him over the centuries. He's certainly comes across as a man of titanic energy, but what exactly he accomplished is a question that's never really examined. It's the sources that are analyzed, not the events themselves, and in that sense it's a case of failing to focus on the forest for the trees. And yes, it's very dry.
March 7, 2020
This is a superb scholarly biography of one of the dominant political figures of the Western world. Dr. Nelson certainly has a prodigious understanding of the contemporary sources that bring Charlemagne's long reign to life. The author succeeds in putting us in Charles' court as eyewitness to the operations and conflicts that he needs to direct and manage, to the dissent in his extended family as well as how he serves well in the role of paterfamilias - not just to his own family, but to the lands that his political system seeks to control. A fascinating story well told.
August 25, 2021
An extremely impressive example of history research and its presentation. I am not an expert on this stuff so probably would have preferred something a little lighter, but I appreciated the density and thoroughness of this book. It did exactly what I wanted it to in that I now feel like I have some idea of the development of Europe at this time. It was sometimes a bit of a slog but that says more about me than about the quality of the book - I appreciate being treated like a grown-up and in the end the absence of over-dramatic speculation was refreshing.
Hard work but obviously high quality.
Hard work but obviously high quality.
March 1, 2022
A well-researched, detailed reference of a time when there was relatively scant and scattered historical information. Janet Nelson did a superb piece of work to try to bring this together but because of the many inherent historical gaps and disconnected events, reading was a bit difficult for me. It was definitely not similar to the usual biography one would expect but the book was quite enlightening of a period of time I previously knew very little. Nelson also scattered interesting personal comments about some of issues which I felt enriched this work.
May 25, 2022
About 500 pages of writing, there is a fair amount of notes which expand on things talked about in the main text which is nice. As a biography it is a very full one, tracing Charlemagne's life from birth to death, rarely skipping events. The inclusion of primary sources (sometimes with Latin and a translation) was very good.
I will say, even for somebody who has the tastes for academic books. This book did drag on, it's not so much a fun read as it is a scholarly one. Testing even my will to continue reading, although that only came by the time I was 4/5ths through.
I will say, even for somebody who has the tastes for academic books. This book did drag on, it's not so much a fun read as it is a scholarly one. Testing even my will to continue reading, although that only came by the time I was 4/5ths through.
November 9, 2023
În mod cert nu e o carte pentru diletanți. Apogeul unei lungi cariere de cercetare, această carte este plină de analiză comparată a surselor primare, reconstituind viața lui Carol cel Mare în cel mai mic detaliu. Probabil nu vom avea parte de o altă lucrare mai cuprinzătoare prea curând (poate niciodată, deși afirmațiile categorice nu-și au locul în ceea ce privește istoria).
Totuși, cartea este dificilă și adesea plictisitoare. Am avut senzația generală că mă uit nu atât la un Carol cel Mare readus la viață, ci la osemintele sale prăfuite, rezultatul unei incerte divinări.
Totuși, cartea este dificilă și adesea plictisitoare. Am avut senzația generală că mă uit nu atât la un Carol cel Mare readus la viață, ci la osemintele sale prăfuite, rezultatul unei incerte divinări.
April 1, 2025
To use the tired old cliche, this book for me, is horses for courses. In terms of research and depth it is amazing. Ideal for those studying Charlemagne in depth. It digs deep into the primary sources which reveal the story of the man. However, much as I learnt a lot and generally enjoyed it, there were lengthy passages which were rather a hard slog for me. This course was rather rough for this old horse.
March 11, 2024
The book is probably a reference on Charlemagne. But the way is written is not for an amateur reader with interest in Charlemagne and that historical period. But in my opinion, to an academic. You will endup knowing more about ArF and the Astronomer, and very little about the historical context and the figure.
So no, not quite my cup of tea.
So no, not quite my cup of tea.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews