In the very lengthy (more than 100 page long) introduction to a military history on the early part of the reign of Charlemagne [1], historian Bernard Bachrach commented at great length, using a lot of Latin terms and references to Latin works on history and government and strategy, about the ways that Charles the Great (and his family) deliberately sought to revive the knowledge of the Late Roman Empire in some fundamentally important ways. There have been many historians who for various reasons [2] have sought to maximize the supposedly feudal and Germanic elements of Charlemagne’s reign and to minimize the essentially Roman nature of the revived imperium in Western Europe, whether out of hostility to Romans or a desire to minimize the learning that survived from antiquity into the supposed “Dark Ages.”

Although this particular book is not alone at all [3] in pointing out the fact that Charlemagne’s reign was a restoration of the Roman Empire, what this book does is provide some specific ways in which this is the case. As a military historian, it is not surprising that he focuses on the way in which the classic works of Late Latin military thinking, namely Vegetius’ De Re Militari [4] and Frontinius’ Strategemata, were a part of the basic knowledge of military affairs, suggesting a sophisticated worldview that was more about logistical capability, tactical subtlety, a focus on long-term conquest rather than mere short-term raids, in short, the influence of classical civilization. Nor was this only a matter for military affairs, as Roman ideals of government, including bowing before the king as well as the dependence for both religious and civil office on the support of the monarch (a combination of church and state), and even the use of the Roman system of tabernae and taxation were all elements of late Roman society that were restored to use by Charles and his family as monarchs over the revived Frankish empire.

In a way, it is hardly surprising that a monarch who sought legitimacy for himself and his reign should so readily adopt the models of Roman imperialism, especially given the insecurity of his family’s recent elevation to regal rank. After all, those who have the most questionable legitimacy are often the quickest to adopt those forms of regal splendor that are the most apt to cloak their behavior in tradition so as to dazzle those who might be prompted to question and to use undoubted military and economic strength to construct their own regime within a larger coherent narrative of restoration. By grounding the present in the past, it makes change and growth seem less alien, and it also makes life more comfortable because it is part of a larger story rather than being cut off.

The choice of what models are worthy of imitation is an issue of momentous concern, though. Charles and his family chose the Roman Empire of Augustus as well as the late Roman Empire that had a superficial Catholic identity as their model of emulation, and chose to see the Bible through those Roman eyes, rather than seeking a full biblical restoration. Given the context of the man and his times, that choice was entirely unsurprising. It was, however, momentous, in preserving corrupt models of authoritarian rule as well as the oscillation between tyranny and anarchy that are characteristically seen among human governments, as well as the syncretistic attitude of the Roman Catholic church towards other cultures, in that it sought to rule over peoples by accommodating itself to some level of their heathen traditions in order to gain their support. We live with the repercussions of those deeds still.

[1] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/non-book-review-charlemagnes-early-campaigns-768-777/

[2] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/book-review-charlemagne/

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/book-review-terry-jones-barbarians/

[3] http://www.ucg.org/news-and-prophecy/europe-and-church-part-7-charlemagne-father-modern-europe/

[4] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/book-review-the-four-books-of-martial-policy-english-translation-of-the-de-re-militari/