Charlemagne Essay
Many historians argue that the single biggest factor contributing to Charles’s military success was by his own skilled and ingenious leadership. Whereas there were also other arguments of what might have contributed to Charles’s military success. One of the arguments that could be argued is that Charles had superior resources compared to his enemies, which may be argued by some historians. Whereas other historians may argue that the weaknesses of Charles’s enemies, lead to his military success.
Other historians may argue that many of Charlemagne’s enemies were weaker than the Franks, which may have been the single most factor leading to Charles’s military success. In the Lombard campaign in 773-774, Desiderius’s Lombard kingdom was institutionally quite well developed. But it was political weakness, which lead to Charles’s conquest. Charles never expected to become king of Lombardy, and he had granted pope large amounts of land, which is 2/3 of Italy. The reason why Desiderius loses political support was because the bishops disliked Desiderius as he took the papa’s land, which was a disrespectable act. Desiderius weakened his own rule. Also the Dukes were keen with having a king North of the Alpes, as they believed that it would make him more independent. Therefore they wanted to transfer lands from Desiderius to Charles. An example of land that has in turn been given to Charles is Hildebrand of Spoleto and Arichis of Benevento. Also in the Saxon campaign in 772-804, the Saxons were also politically disunited. Saxony was divided into four tribes: West phalians, East phalians, Norhudi and Angrarions. There was no king, (central authority). On the short term this was a disadvantage for Charles as there was no one national army, making it more difficult for Charles to defeat them. Whereas in the long term, it made conquest more inevitable, as Saxons could never oppose Charles with efficient force. King says, ‘fiercely independent, the Saxons lacked any permanent central authorities, a feature which will have made dealings with them impossibly difficult and helps to explain why agreements so often failed to stick.’ This would be an advantage for Charles as long as he had endurance and stamina, which he did have. In the Avars campaign, in 788 3 battles were launched and the Avars were defeated. In 791 Charles made a major attack on Avaria, as he saw the Avars as a major threat. According to Collins Charles 791 invasion was, ‘the final gust of wind that brought down an already decayed structure.’ Collins is saying that the battle in 791 lead to a Civil War in Avaria. The Civil war destroyed the Avars power. The Avars became completely demolarised in 795 therefore could not protect the Avars ring. In 795 another Avar ruler called Tudun, came to Charles, submit himself to baptism. In 805 Avars asked Charles if they can move territory due to ‘infestation of Slavs.’ This shows the thorough decline in the Avars as the Slavs has become more powerful than the Avars, whereas beforehand it was vice versa. This is political disunity among the Avars. In the Vikings campaign, Godfred was the king of Denmark. Danes made allies with the Wiltzites in 808. They subjugated the Abodrites who was Charles’s allies. The Danes and Wiltzites dragged out the leader of Abodrites called Thrasco. Also in 810 Godfred attacked the Frisians 3 times. Charles again did not respond. Godfred was a huge threat and Charles did not know what to do. He had no real answers. Godfred boasted that he would attack Aachen. Then in 810 Godfred was murdered; the Danish state was weakened due to his death. Hemming, Godfred’s successor, asked for peace from Charles. Hemming died in 812, and there was Civil War in Denmark between Sigifred/Anulo. There was evidence of further weakening and political weakness of Charles’s enemy.
Some historians argue that Charles’s superior resources compared to his enemies were the biggest factor contributing to his military success. Charles’s resources were superior to most of his enemies’ exceptions being from the Saracens and Byzantines. It is argued that the Franks had more of a sophisticated administration organisation than their enemies. By having a sophisticated administration organisation this meant that Charles could mobilise and arm his army more efficiently than his enemies. Charles placed military burdens on all freemen, but the recruitment system took into account variations in wealth of freemen, the distance of the campaign and the threat the enemy posed when it was decided who should serve. An example of showing flexibility of military system is the 807 capitularies, ‘ordered freemen holing three mansi of land or more should serve, and equip themselves. Those holding less land were divided into groups comprising a server and helpers. In 807, for example those holding 2 mansi were placed in groups of two, one to equip the other. Charles ordered that the man of the best fighting calibre and experience should serve. The caps also say in 808 that It is our will and command that our same missi make diligent inquiry as to who absented themselves last year from the army which was summoned; in contravention of the decree concerning freemen and poorer men which we saw fit to make in the manner laid out.This also shows flexibility in the military system. The king would never know for certain the size of the army that would appear after a mobilisation alert, but AKF indicates that an effective force usually materialised. Ordinary freemen gave infantry services, including to that, he had available mounted services from vassals. Feudal institutions provided mounted services. Feudal institution used was benefice and vassalage. Charles alienated his demesne to his vassals. He granted out benefices from conquered land. The vassals also had land which mostly belonged to their family. Charles also had monastic lands. The Benefices given to vassals in return for mounted service and they would bring their own war bands, and further cavalry. They would come fully armed. The war bands did not have obligation to serve. They wanted to serve became they wanted a portion of the booty. Ganshof argues that cavalry was the most important elite-victories. He believed that Charles’ cavalries were superior to other cavalries. Charles’s forebears had frequently campaign against them to punish and plunder, and in 758 Pippin had imposed tribute: 500 oxen in sixth century, this was now set at 300 horses, reflecting increased importance of cavalry. Whereas opposition such as Avars did not have cavalries. However in other sources there is very little information on how cavalries were used in battle. This was maybe because the historians writing the sources did not see the battle. If they had seen the battle they probably did not want to mention it because they wanted to give credit to Charles and God. But simply they were uninterested in how victory was won. Monastic annalists were concerned with praising God for Charles’s victories- they had no interest in battle tactics and indeed no experience of them either. Also there was little said about cavalries in the annals since contemporaries took their impotance for granted. However some historians argue that Charles may not have all the resources. In 792, there was the Saxon rebellion, whereas AKF dates it at 793, because Charles did not react to the rebellion till 794. Whereas a Min shows that the revolt was a year earlier. This was because he had to deal with Pepin’s the hunchback’s revolt. Other historians argue that the reason why Charles reacted late was because he did not have enough sources according to AKF. This would have reduced Charles’s size of cavalry. It is used to be thought that heavy cavalry was introduced by Charles Martel (Charles’s grandfather) to counter Saracen invaders. It was Charles Martel who granted fiefs of land to nobility in exchange for military service on horseback. They then became the king’s vassals or vassi. Charlemagne continued and developed this system of vassi and benefices, and his military success may largely be explained by the availability to him of an irresistible band of cavalry. However, recent historians have debated about this analysis as there is insufficient evidence to support the view. According to these historians ti is more likely that Charlemagne’s military success was due to his skill in organising and supplying substantial armies which overwhelmed his enemies. Some of his enemies were no doubt cavalry, but the main freemen levies were probably not. Charles would have used his own vassi dominici and the retinues of his nobility who would be well armed and usually mounted, as well as the freemen levies most of which would probably not have had horses. It has been argued by some historians that mounted troops, were especially useful on offensive campaigns. The freemen levies probably came to domintate the army more in the latter stages of the reign when Charles was thrown more on the defensive. Ganshof argues that Charles had to adopt a more defensive stance in the last decade of his reign and that the freemen would have been used against invasions of Danes, Saracens, and Slavs. Not every modern historian agrees with Ganshof, though, and it is possible that the freemen levies were more important in the earlier stages of military campaigns that Ganshof argues. The vassi were also used as a ‘scarae’. This was either a small mounted force, such as in 778 where Charles sent a scarae to ‘hasten at speed’ Saxon frontier. Or a scarae was used as an intelligence gathering, garrison castles. The rapid raid into enemy lands, such as in 773 where there were 2 armies, and there was a scara used as an outflanking manoeuvre. The Frankish army was also well armed. The 806 Mobilisation Alert shows that cavalry carried a shield, spear, two swords and a bow and arrow. Ordinary freemen used a shied and spear. According to Latoche Royal estate craftsmen provided much military equipment. The arrows used became necessary against Avars and Slavs who showed Charles the value of archery. 802/3 cap shows that typical weapons of freemen were a spear and shield. Royal estates were able to provide shields, spears, wagons, horses for the army. Logistical problems in general seem to have been considered carefully. Mounted knights, large infantry armies, equipment, weapons and supplies were used by the Franks on most campaigns. To provide all the army’s needs required a considerable depth of resources as well as efficient administrative institutions. Charles’s funds were not limitless and the Frankish administrative structure was at best adequate; they were superior to most of Charles’s enemies. Counts, bishops and abbots acted as mobilization authorities and missi helped and checked up on local officials. Caps show that a national system of recruitment existed which provided infantry sources with substantial size. Cap to the missi 792/3 and 802 Programmatic Cap say that the count ‘should bring every man’ to the army. The armies used by Frankish freemen as foot soldiers supplemented by troops from subjugated lands. AKF reports that the army, which attacked Saragossa, came from Burgundy, Austrasia, Bavaria, Provence and Septimania. Later on Saxons were used in campaigns against the Slavs. As empire expanded so did the source of troops.
