Crusaders vs. Invaders

In c. 800, Pope Leo III assigned Charlemagne as Emperor of the roman people. This collaboration and mutual agreement between Charlemagne and the church paved the way for the legion(predicate) future successes in the conquest fights. The initial go taken by Charlemagne as Emperor do not refer a lust for force or riches at any stage. What they did imply was his aspiration to educate the people and build an transparent government system that touch plainly functions towarfareds the well-being of the tout ensemble empire.Moreover, the major cause seat the conquest wars guide by Charlemagne against the German tribes was to announce the revival of the Roman Empire as far as profound Europe, and provide an easy access for the church into the infidel tribes (Einhard 61). According to Einhard, in his book two lives of Charlemagne, the Saxons were an extremely dis priseful people. He states They are much accustomed to devil worship and they are hostile to our religion. They reg ain it no dishonor to violate and transgress the laws of divinity and man. (61).Although the Franks lived peacefully just across the river to the Saxons, consistent crimes uniform murder and theft eventu altogethery gave way to a ferocious war between the two parties. The sole purpose of this war was to convert the Saxons to Christianity and unite them with the Franks (Einhard 61-62). Although the Franks may have initiated the war, it is absolutely transparent that they had no aspiration of settling matters other than peacefully. This can be deduced from the situation that while crimes were being committed continuously, the Franks bided for a capacious time until they could endure it no more.It was not solely the Saxon war, all in all the origins of the other conquest wars were in any case not sooner different. For example, the war in Bavaria against Duke Tassilo occurred infra similar circumstances. The duke made allies with the Huns disregarding all Charlemagnes orders ( Einhard 65). Einhard states in his book Not only did Tassilo refuse to carry out Charlemagnes orders, but he did his utmost to provoke the king to war. (66). Wars against the Slaves and Huns besides lied along the same lines. Absolute discord and disregard of the king lead to unnecessary battue with the same result.Although the actions of Charlemagne may appear to be quite reasonable, the wars fought by the Vikings in Europe are an entirely different story. Their advancements into Europe occurred in various forms however, they of all time had a violent and ferocious touch to them. In addition, the Vikings were staunch followers of paganism at the time, fashioning them a more unpopular figure in recorded history. Details of the siege of Paris clearly indicate that the Vikings were solely answerable for their war against Odo, protector of Paris.According to Frederic Austin in his book A Sourcebook of mediaeval History, Siegfred, the Vikings leader, said to the bishop of Paris if you do not see to my demands, on the morrow our war machines get outing destroy you with poisoned arrows. You pull up stakes be the prey of famine and of pestilence and these evils will perpetually renew every year. Basically, the Vikings threatened the leaders of Paris that if they do not handover the city, they would wage war against Paris with all their force, resting only after its thoroughgoing destruction. In the same book, Frederic Austin narrates the story of Rollos conversion to Christianity too.Although initially he ref utilize to pay respect to King Charles, his conversion had a profound rear on his leadership. The duke established for his subjects certain inviolable rights and laws, substantiate and published by the will of the leading men, and he compelled all his people to live peacefully together. (Austin 165-173). literally speaking, a crusade refers to a collaborative flak by a group of people that is aimed to strike a credible cause, while an invasion implies to the trouble of an event by an uninvited subject.After examining every war fought by Charlemagne during his conquests, it can be safely deduced that he never fought with the wrong intentions, but always aimed to interpenetrate the word of Christianity and enforce peace throughout the lands. Moreover, the wars though mostly initiated by Charlemagne, were always provoked by the opposite party. The Vikings on the other hand, were solely responsible for the provocation as well as installment of wars. At the time of their infiltration into Europe, they mostly used violent methods to take over the city governments against the will of the people.Although Lief Erikson may have built in all towns in the Americas for permanent settlements, the program eventually failed and the invigorate of that deed faded away with time, while the actions behind the more influential settlements of the Vikings in Europe were remembered. work Cited Austin Ogg, Frederic. A Sourcebook of Mediaev al History. New York American Book Company, 1907. 165-173. Einhard. Two Lives of Charlemagne. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. New York Penguin Books Ltd, 1969. 61-68.