On this date: Charlemagne became King

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

There are a few events that really determined the flow of Western history. Probably the most important was the assassination of Julius Caesar. But it wasn't the only one. Exactly 1,210 years before I was born, to the day, Karl, son of Pipin and brother of Carloman, became King of the Franks, and began and Empire that would dictate the history of Europe up until this very day. The empire he created would eventually lay the foundations for the polities that we today know as France, Germany, and, in a roundabout way, even Spain and Italy.

Carloman died young, which was convenient for his older brother, who then consolidated all his father's realm into an empire that would rival the power of the Roman empire before him. Long after conquering the Lombards in Italy, he even made friends with the Pope, who crowned him Emperor, the first in the West in more than three hundred years. The empire he formed was eventually split, combined, split, combined, and split again, until it resulted in the Holy Roman Empire, which I've posted about before, and which endured until Napoleon.

Perhaps the most enduring testament to Karl's greatness is that no one knows him as Karl, or even as Charles. We know him only by his name combined with his epithet, probably the only Western ruler since Caesar Augustus to have such an honor. Charlemagne. Literally, "Charles the Great."

 

[TomEric4756]

Yes, the Franks kept the Moors south of the Pyrenees, to the west. Ferdinand and Isabella drove the Moors out of Spain, before they backed Christopher Columbus.

To the East, Austria, a Holy Roman Empire power center, drove the Ottomans south, after the Ottoman defeat at the siege of Vienna in 1683.

 

[Earlierthanlater]

Yes, the Franks kept the Moors south of the Pyrenees, to the west. Ferdinand and Isabella drove the Moors out of Spain, before they backed Christopher Columbus.

To the East, Austria, a Holy Roman Empire power center, drove the Ottomans south, after the Ottoman defeat at the siege of Vienna in 1683.

I am challenged by my lack of knowledge of the history of that area. It seems the Eastern Orthodox Christians of that time and place were responsible for holding the line with the Moors and the Turks. Thinking Greeks, Serbs, Ukranians, Macedonians. Possibly?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I am challenged by my lack of knowledge of the history of that area. It seems the Eastern Orthodox Christians of that time and place were responsible for holding the line with the Moors and the Turks. Thinking Greeks, Serbs, Ukranians, Macedonians. Possibly?

The Franks also defeated the Moops, err, Moors, several times as the Moors occupied Spain. The first was under Charlemagne's grandfather Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours. Martel gets slighted a bit by history as he began the consolidation that Charlemagne gets credit for finishing.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

There are a few events that really determined the flow of Western history. Probably the most important was the assassination of Julius Caesar. But it wasn't the only one. Exactly 1,210 years before I was born, to the day, Karl, son of Pipin and brother of Carloman, became King of the Franks, and began and Empire that would dictate the history of Europe up until this very day. The empire he created would eventually lay the foundations for the polities that we today know as France, Germany, and, in a roundabout way, even Spain and Italy.

Carloman died young, which was convenient for his older brother, who then consolidated all his father's realm into an empire that would rival the power of the Roman empire before him. Long after conquering the Lombards in Italy, he even made friends with the Pope, who crowned him Emperor, the first in the West in more than three hundred years. The empire he formed was eventually split, combined, split, combined, and split again, until it resulted in the Holy Roman Empire, which I've posted about before, and which endured until Napoleon.

Perhaps the most enduring testament to Karl's greatness is that no one knows him as Karl, or even as Charles. We know him only by his name combined with his epithet, probably the only Western ruler since Caesar Augustus to have such an honor. Charlemagne. Literally, "Charles the Great."

Why do you believe Julius Caesar's assassination so important? By important, do you mean that in a counter-factual way, if it didn't happen, things might have been vastly different? Or in the sense of things that are memorable or discussed in Western civilization since that time?

I find this subject and these types of questions fascinating but I'm no history guru; I've never studied it seriously in an academic setting.

Given how important the tides of history are--socially, culturally, economically--I'm generally leary of Great Man interpretations. But I think there are a few people whose idiosyncrasies really did have an outsize effect on all of human history. Hitler is the first that comes to mind.

Re Caesar, from what I've read or heard, the Roman Republic was well on its way towards empire and if it wasn't him, it would have been someone else (Pompey or Crassus might have done it during the same timeframe?). Re his assassination, it caused a terrible civil war, but eventually Augustus won out and he was going to be Caesar's heir apparent anyway, wasn't he? So did much change as a result of the assassination?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Why do you believe Julius Caesar's assassination so important? By important, do you mean that in a counter-factual way, if it didn't happen, things might have been vastly different? Or in the sense of things that are memorable or discussed in Western civilization since that time?

I find this subject and these types of questions fascinating but I'm no history guru; I've never studied it seriously in an academic setting.

Given how important the tides of history are--socially, culturally, economically--I'm generally leary of Great Man interpretations. But I think there are a few people whose idiosyncrasies really did have an outsize effect on all of human history. Hitler is the first that comes to mind.

Re Caesar, from what I've read or heard, the Roman Republic was well on its way towards empire and if it wasn't him, it would have been someone else (Pompey or Crassus might have done it during the same timeframe?). Re his assassination, it caused a terrible civil war, but eventually Augustus won out and he was going to be Caesar's heir apparent anyway, wasn't he? So did much change as a result of the assassination?

Actually, I meant it in neither way. I meant it in the sense that his assassination was, in actual history, a pivotal event that shaped the future of the Western world. I did not, however, mean to imply that the shape of the world have necessarily been vastly different had he not been killed.

Consider this, though. One of the consequences of the assassination was the Second Triumvirate, and its Liberators' War and the attendant proscriptions. As a result of all this, Rome transformed from Republic to Empire without the likes of, say, Cicero, Cassius, Brutus, and numerous other people* whom Antony and Octavian deemed enemies. How might the transformation - if indeed, it was going to happen, anyway - have been different had these men been involved? Or, to avoid the "Great Man" interpretation you are wary of, how might things have progressed differently had the Optimates not been so thoroughly decimated in the aftermath of the assassination? We'll never know.

* I was going to include Cato, but was then reminded that he offed himself before Caesar was killed.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The Franks also defeated the Moops, err, Moors, several times as the Moors occupied Spain. The first was under Charlemagne's grandfather Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours. Martel gets slighted a bit by history as he began the consolidation that Charlemagne gets credit for finishing.

Another interesting quirk: Charles Martel accomplished all his deeds without technically being in charge. At the time, the Merovingians still reigned, and the Carolingians ruled as the unofficial power behind the throne. It was Martel's son (Charlemagne's father) who finally usurped the throne officially. The Carolingians didn't take the throne by conquest, but rather through a generations-long palace coup.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Another interesting quirk: Charles Martel accomplished all his deeds without technically being in charge. At the time, the Merovingians still reigned, and the Carolingians ruled as the unofficial power behind the throne. It was Martel's son (Charlemagne's father) who finally usurped the throne officially. The Carolingians didn't take the throne by conquest, but rather through a generations-long palace coup.

Of course Martel had the sand snakes.

 

[billyhillui]

Why do you believe Julius Caesar's assassination so important? By important, do you mean that in a counter-factual way, if it didn't happen, things might have been vastly different? Or in the sense of things that are memorable or discussed in Western civilization since that time?

I find this subject and these types of questions fascinating but I'm no history guru; I've never studied it seriously in an academic setting.

Given how important the tides of history are--socially, culturally, economically--I'm generally leary of Great Man interpretations. But I think there are a few people whose idiosyncrasies really did have an outsize effect on all of human history. Hitler is the first that comes to mind.

Re Caesar, from what I've read or heard, the Roman Republic was well on its way towards empire and if it wasn't him, it would have been someone else (Pompey or Crassus might have done it during the same timeframe?). Re his assassination, it caused a terrible civil war, but eventually Augustus won out and he was going to be Caesar's heir apparent anyway, wasn't he? So did much change as a result of the assassination?

The downfall of Rome/'The Holy Roman Empire' started before Julius Caesar was assassinated. They bit off more land, people & responsibility, in a (relatively) short time, than they could handle/control. Not unlike the former USSR. Even their Senate then, wanted more self control for the Republics/states, to try & avoid what soon happened. Too late though.

 

[billyhillui]

Actually, I meant it in neither way. I meant it in the sense that his assassination was, in actual history, a pivotal event that shaped the future of the Western world. I did not, however, mean to imply that the shape of the world have necessarily been vastly different had he not been killed.

Consider this, though. One of the consequences of the assassination was the Second Triumvirate, and its Liberators' War and the attendant proscriptions. As a result of all this, Rome transformed from Republic to Empire without the likes of, say, Cicero, Cassius, Brutus, and numerous other people* whom Antony and Octavian deemed enemies. How might the transformation - if indeed, it was going to happen, anyway - have been different had these men been involved? Or, to avoid the "Great Man" interpretation you are wary of, how might things have progressed differently had the Optimates not been so thoroughly decimated in the aftermath of the assassination? We'll never know.

* I was going to include Cato, but was then reminded that he offed himself before Caesar was killed.

That assassination wasn't as important as some think. Rome would have lost their empire whether he was Caesar or someone else. Time, numbers, vastness of the land & their unholy rule was against them. That demise was only a matter of time, no matter who(m) the ruler. Julius just made it easier to hate Rome & Romans.

 

[billyhillui]

There are a few events that really determined the flow of Western history. Probably the most important was the assassination of Julius Caesar. But it wasn't the only one. Exactly 1,210 years before I was born, to the day, Karl, son of Pipin and brother of Carloman, became King of the Franks, and began and Empire that would dictate the history of Europe up until this very day. The empire he created would eventually lay the foundations for the polities that we today know as France, Germany, and, in a roundabout way, even Spain and Italy.

Carloman died young, which was convenient for his older brother, who then consolidated all his father's realm into an empire that would rival the power of the Roman empire before him. Long after conquering the Lombards in Italy, he even made friends with the Pope, who crowned him Emperor, the first in the West in more than three hundred years. The empire he formed was eventually split, combined, split, combined, and split again, until it resulted in the Holy Roman Empire, which I've posted about before, and which endured until Napoleon.

Perhaps the most enduring testament to Karl's greatness is that no one knows him as Karl, or even as Charles. We know him only by his name combined with his epithet, probably the only Western ruler since Caesar Augustus to have such an honor. Charlemagne. Literally, "Charles the Great."

Did you write 'War and Peace'?





You should have.

 

[TomEric4756]

I am challenged by my lack of knowledge of the history of that area. It seems the Eastern Orthodox Christians of that time and place were responsible for holding the line with the Moors and the Turks. Thinking Greeks, Serbs, Ukranians, Macedonians. Possibly?

By 1638, the Ottoman Turks had defeated them all, and were knocking on the door of a Central European power. How different might things have been if the Turks won and turned West, and then South through the Alpine passes. The Venetian navy and its allies held the the Turks off in the Eastern Mediterranean.

In the end, Rome did not get encircled, and St. Peter’s remains a Basillica.

[Marv, Goat, good work the Iberian peninsula details].

 

[82hoosier]

What's coach Pop's opinion on Columbus?

Columbus is a fascinating historical read. Magellan is even better. Popovich clearly knows virtually nothing about Caribbean or Central American history. Listening to him preach to a bunch of sports reporters about history reminded me of Dumb and Dumber.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

Actually, I meant it in neither way. I meant it in the sense that his assassination was, in actual history, a pivotal event that shaped the future of the Western world. I did not, however, mean to imply that the shape of the world have necessarily been vastly different had he not been killed.

Consider this, though. One of the consequences of the assassination was the Second Triumvirate, and its Liberators' War and the attendant proscriptions. As a result of all this, Rome transformed from Republic to Empire without the likes of, say, Cicero, Cassius, Brutus, and numerous other people* whom Antony and Octavian deemed enemies. How might the transformation - if indeed, it was going to happen, anyway - have been different had these men been involved? Or, to avoid the "Great Man" interpretation you are wary of, how might things have progressed differently had the Optimates not been so thoroughly decimated in the aftermath of the assassination? We'll never know.

* I was going to include Cato, but was then reminded that he offed himself before Caesar was killed.

I guess I don't understand the difference between the counterfactual example of importance I gave and the notion of it being "a pivotal event that shaped the future of the Western world." That quoted definition you just gave is what I was driving at.

Is there a book or article that discusses this notion of the assassination being the pivotal event (I'd love to read it!)? I thought Caesar's rise was the turning point in actuality, but counterfactually, it was going to happen eventually anyway if it wasn't Julius. Sulla and Marius had already laid the groundwork domestically, while Rome continued to plunder and conquer its neighbors to an extent that empire was already a given.

Again, I'm in no way an expert here, just a really curious layman. I find Roman history really fascinating.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I guess I don't understand the difference between the counterfactual example of importance I gave and the notion of it being "a pivotal event that shaped the future of the Western world." That quoted definition you just gave is what I was driving at.

Is there a book or article that discusses this notion of the assassination being the pivotal event (I'd love to read it!)? I thought Caesar's rise was the turning point in actuality, but counterfactually, it was going to happen eventually anyway if it wasn't Julius. Sulla and Marius had already laid the groundwork domestically, while Rome continued to plunder and conquer its neighbors to an extent that empire was already a given.

Again, I'm in no way an expert here, just a really curious layman. I find Roman history really fascinating.

Seems like you're raising an interesting issue about just how important any historical event really can be, so long as history is generally pushed along by larger, broader trends, anyway. For example, slavery was going to eventually end in the United States no matter what, so does that diminish the historical importance of Lincoln's election?

Anyway, like you, I'm just an avid layman when it comes to history. I can't come up with any specific books about Caesar's life or death that would stick out as particularly compelling to read.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Seems like you're raising an interesting issue about just how important any historical event really can be, so long as history is generally pushed along by larger, broader trends, anyway. For example, slavery was going to eventually end in the United States no matter what, so does that diminish the historical importance of Lincoln's election?

Anyway, like you, I'm just an avid layman when it comes to history. I can't come up with any specific books about Caesar's life or death that would stick out as particularly compelling to read.

The age old history debate, do great men drive history or do societal forces create events that someone would respond to.