brought back booty that was On top of this, most of the magnitude of the Avar “of treasure”. the treasure gained would have to go to waging other wars; Wilson speaks of the So plunder it [war] imposed on the “concomitant drain nation’s resources.” Charlemagne’s did not have a positive impact on his empire. However, it is clear that plunder Charlemagne’s did not only pay for more wars, he also used it to reward his Barons. So another positive impact of war for his empire seems to be the Charlemagne’s loyalty it earned him of his troops and barons as a result of the reputation war gave him. Wilson argues that in waging war against the Saxons, and his Charlemagne’s “persistence ultimate triumph, considerably strengthened his hold on the loyalty of those warrior-barons This illustrates the view wars were instrumental in on whom he relied.” that Charlemagne’s securing the loyalty of the counts and barons that ruled the separate regions, without this they would rebel and deny over-lordship. So, without their allegiance, there was Charlemagne’s no empire. However, Ganshof counters Wilson, and argues wars did not that Charlemagne’s earn the loyalty of his nobility. Rather, he argues, the two conspiracies of 786 and 792, in the aristocracy a feeling of discontent and opposition to royal autocracy; “revealed if this is correct, it is perhaps, also, it was a sign of weariness caused by unceasing warfare” most definitely a negative impact of wars, which explains why they were Charlemagne’s concealed from the Frankish sources such as the of the Kingdom of the On ‘Annals Franks’. the other hand, perhaps the two conspiracies show exactly why Charlemagne had to keep waging wars, because otherwise his barons would wage war on themselves, and on him. But this necessity in fighting wars meant that territories were Charlemagne’s constantly expanding, this had a negative on the sheer impact. The empire’s security relied force of personality and it was impossible for him to be everywhere at once. Charlemagne’s As Barbero argues, whenever Charlemagne was fighting a war in one part of his empire, another part would rebel, “Frankish garrisons were attacked and massacred and monasteries
brought back booty that was “of the magnitude of the Avar treasure”. On top of this, most of the treasure gained would have to go to waging other wars; Wilson speaks of the “concomitant drain it [war] imposed on the nation’s resources.” So Charlemagne’s plunder did not have a positive impact on his empire. However, it is clear that Charlemagne’s plunder did not only pay for more wars, he also used it to reward his Barons. So another positive impact of Charlemagne’s war for his empire seems to be the loyalty it earned him of his troops and barons as a result of the reputation war gave him. Wilson argues that Charlemagne’s “persistence in waging war against the Saxons, and his ultimate triumph, considerably strengthened his hold on the loyalty of those warrior-barons on whom he relied.” This illustrates the view that Charlemagne’s wars were instrumental in securing the loyalty of the counts and barons that ruled the separate regions, without this they would rebel and deny Charlemagne’s over-lordship. So, without their allegiance, there was no empire. However, Ganshof counters Wilson, and argues that Charlemagne’s wars did not earn the loyalty of his nobility. Rather, he argues, the two conspiracies of 786 and 792, “revealed in the aristocracy a feeling of discontent and opposition to royal autocracy; perhaps, also, it was a sign of weariness caused by unceasing warfare” if this is correct, it is most definitely a negative impact of Charlemagne’s wars, which explains why they were concealed from the Frankish sources such as the ‘Annals of the Kingdom of the Franks’. On the other hand, perhaps the two conspiracies show exactly why Charlemagne had to keep waging wars, because otherwise his barons would wage war on themselves, and on him. But this necessity in fighting wars meant that Charlemagne’s territories were constantly expanding, this had a negative impact. The empire’s security relied on the sheer force of Charlemagne’s personality and it was impossible for him to be everywhere at once. As Barbero argues, whenever Charlemagne was fighting a war in one part of his empire, another part would rebel, “Frankish garrisons were attacked and massacred and monasteries
history_coursework_-_charlemagne_investigation.docx