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
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
Saxony to Christianity hardly made it easier to conquer them, which Wallace-Hadrill illustrates when he argues that “the destruction of Irminsul and the subsequent forced mass baptisms were never forgotten; whenever Charlemagne was far away the Saxons would revolt.” The religious aspect that Charlemagne brought to the Saxon Wars was far from beneficial, rather it gave the Saxons another focal point of rebellion, now they were not just fighting for their lands but for their culture, religion and their way of life. This stiffened the Saxon resistance and McKitterick argues that “between 772 and 785 hardly a year passed without Charlemagne or his deputies leading an expedition into Saxony.” And Einhard speaks of “great hatred on both sides” the forced baptisms of the Saxons only added to this hatred and made the Saxons rebellions even more difficult to quell. The view that Charlemagne’s wars had a more negative than positive impact on his empire is flawed. Charlemagne’s wars had a positive impact on his empire because they temporarily prevented its inevitable collapse. The negative impact came only when there was an absence of war; Charlemagne lost, what was effectively, his only source of revenue and his barons violence turned inwards. However, in assessing the question we must consider that, for Charlemagne the idea of positive or negative impacts did not occur to him. He had a cultural and political necessity to wage wars in all the corners of his empire. Word Count – 1,934