consider his weakness of character and personal failings to be among the chief factors which McKitterick also explains that historians caused the downfall of the Carolingian empire.” have as the beginning of the of the “regarded Louis’ reign ‘decline’ or ‘break-up’ We can see this in the works of earlier historians such as C. L. Wells, Carolingian Empire.” who argued that Charlemagne passed the empire and that when Louis “into weaker hands” ascended the throne to take place. The weakness of the central “a change began power… However, Ganshof argues that this change had begun long brought about division and strife.” before Charlemagne died. In fact Louis did the best he could do with what he was left with, which was a state already in the process of collapsing around him, McKitterick even argues that many improvements and alterations were made to the structure of “During Louis’ reign attempts to reform the Carolingian state he still Carolingian Administration”.Despite Louis’ could not prevent its inevitable decomposition. Ganshof argues that of the last thirteen “study years of reign reveals a state with many ill-defined frontiers bordered by Charlemagne’s territories inhabited by populations nominally subject but in the process of converting Through fighting his wars Charlemagne uncovered more enemies themselves into enemies.” and neglected other aspects of his state, therefore the “empire was internally in a very These external anxieties were unsatisfactory state, to say nothing of the external anxieties.” caused by other wars, and reforms did not help; Fichtenau argues that Charlemagne’s Louis’ weakness was This was detrimental to the as a Louis’ “his incompetence military leader.” Empire as it is clear that fighting, and winning, wars was a necessity for the stability of the Empire and success as a military leader was what held the empire together for Charlemagne’s so long. Although, Ganshof argues that success at war simply brought more Charlemagne’s problems for Charlemagne thus having a negative impact on his empire. He claims that towards the end of reign most of the campaigns he Charlemagne’s fought “only resulted in
consider his weakness of character and personal failings to be among the chief factors which caused the downfall of the Carolingian empire.” McKitterick also explains that historians have “regarded Louis’ reign as the beginning of the ‘decline’ or ‘break-up’ of the Carolingian Empire.” We can see this in the works of earlier historians such as C. L. Wells, who argued that Charlemagne passed the empire “into weaker hands” and that when Louis ascended the throne “a change began to take place. The weakness of the central power… brought about division and strife.” However, Ganshof argues that this change had begun long before Charlemagne died. In fact Louis did the best he could do with what he was left with, which was a state already in the process of collapsing around him, McKitterick even argues that “During Louis’ reign many improvements and alterations were made to the structure of Carolingian Administration”.Despite Louis’ attempts to reform the Carolingian state he still could not prevent its inevitable decomposition. Ganshof argues that “study of the last thirteen years of Charlemagne’s reign reveals a state with many ill-defined frontiers bordered by territories inhabited by populations nominally subject but in the process of converting themselves into enemies.” Through fighting his wars Charlemagne uncovered more enemies and neglected other aspects of his state, therefore the “empire was internally in a very unsatisfactory state, to say nothing of the external anxieties.” These external anxieties were caused by Charlemagne’s other wars, and Louis’ reforms did not help; Fichtenau argues that Louis’ weakness was “his incompetence as a military leader.” This was detrimental to the Empire as it is clear that fighting, and winning, wars was a necessity for the stability of the Empire and Charlemagne’s success as a military leader was what held the empire together for so long. Although, Ganshof argues that Charlemagne’s success at war simply brought more problems for Charlemagne thus having a negative impact on his empire. He claims that towards the end of Charlemagne’s reign most of the campaigns he fought “only resulted in
history_coursework_-_charlemagne_investigation.docx