Why did Notker Write about Charlemagne?
535727
Charlemagne  \nCharlemagne was born around 742 in Aachen, a city in the Frankish kingdom of Austrasia, located in what is now Germany. His real name was Charles; he wasn't called Charlemagne (from the Latin "Carolus Magnus," or Charles the Great) until long after his death.\n\nHis father, Pepin or Pippin III, was elected king of the Frankish Empire when Charlemagne was a child. The king was nicknamed Pepin the Short, while his wife, Charlemagne's mother Bertrada, was nicknamed Bertha of the Big Foot, or Queen Goosefoot. The inspiration for the name "Mother Goose" may have come from Bertha, although she had nothing to do with the English nursery rhymes now published under that name.\n\nCharlemagne was probably an illegitimate child, but his parents eventually tied the knot and had two more surviving children, Carloman and Gisela. Pepin ruled the Frankish empire for 15 years or so before dying of dropsy in 768. His kingdom was then divided between Charlemagne and Carloman.\n\nCharlemagne was about 26 years old when he became king. Carloman was still in his teens. In his Life of Charlemagne, Frankish historian Einhard, who knew Charlemagne personally and presented him in the best possible light, says Carloman treated Charlemagne with "unfriendliness and jealousy," but Charlemagne endured this "most patiently, and, to the wonder of all, could not be provoked to be angry with him."\n\nAfter just a few years, Carloman died of natural causes and Charlemagne became the ruler of the entire Frankish empire. He went on to conquer much of what remained of Western Europe, making the Carolingian empire one of the greatest empires in world history.\n\nAn affectionate man, Charlemagne got along very well with his sister, Gisela, and their mother, Bertrada, treating both with great respect. Gisela was a nun, so she lived in a convent, but Bertrada lived with Charlemagne. It was Bertrada who arranged for Charlemagne to marry a daughter of King Desiderius of the Lombards (a Germanic tribe whose kingdom was in Italy). But it seems this wife was not to Charlemagne's liking, because he soon ended the marriage and took a new wife named Hildegarde, with whom he had six children, according to Einhard.\n\nIn 783, Charlemagne was twice bereaved when both Hildegarde and Bertrada died. Before long he found a new wife, Fastrada.\n\nCharlemagne's Children\nCharlemagne was a devoted father, and he had a large family: three sons and three daughters by Hildegarde, two daughters by Fastrada, and at least seven other children by various women. "The more the merrier" seems to have been his motto toward children -- when one of his sons died young, leaving five daughters, Charlemagne took all five girls into his household and raised them as his own.\n\nDespite the duties of kingship, he found time to personally supervise his children's upbringing. He ate all of his meals with his children, and took them with him wherever he traveled. In fact, he was so fond of his daughters that he didn't marry them off for political purposes, as most royal fathers did, but kept them at his court. It seems they didn't lack for boyfriends; at least two of the princesses gave birth to illegitimate children. Einhard says Charlemagne pretended not to know about his daughters' love affairs.\n\nAmong the king's many children was a son called Pepin the Hunchback, whose mother, Himiltrude, was either Charlemagne's first wife or a concubine. In 792, while Charlemagne was away at war, Pepin conspired with a group of Frankish nobles to kill his father and take the throne. After learning about the plot, Charlemagne sent Pepin to live in a poor monastery.\n\nAccording to a 9th century writer known as the Monk of Saint Gall (also called Notker the Stammerer), Charlemagne later discovered another plot against his life. Reluctant to punish the conspirators, he sent messengers to ask Pepin the Hunchback for ad
1145726
Try "The Once and Future King" by T.H. White. Dynamite book. It's a fictional account, but it's an excellent read. For non-fiction, try "Pendragon: The Definitive Account of the Origins of Arthur" by Blake and Lloyd. It's got a ton of Arthurian info.
365932
maybe he's an atheist and did not believe in bible. Maybe that's the reason why he further speculated, and formed theories about the world.
435502
While he may have been a real man what is written about him isn't.  That is a book of fables that have ripped things off from many places.
291683
My father is a geneologist. He went to scandinavia for info my mom's family. The written record splits when you go far enough back. On one side it concludes with a king Olaf I believe. On the other side the king was kidnapped by Odin for seeking to be a God. Also on this side are references to the king fathering the twins Frey/Freya.
1014672
Although I refer to this as a parchment it is in fact nothing more than a few scribblings by Bérenger Saunière on a scrap of paper, reputedly found amongst his personal possessions following his death. I say reputedly because as with so much involved in this mystery, no one is actually certain that it is the work of Bérenger Saunière himself, although from the content it certainly leads one to believe that he was the author.  \n\nAs a document however, closely connected with the mystery of Rennes-le-Château, it is a curious piece of writing. In its style it would not have been out of place had it been discovered with the other manuscripts under the altar of the church.  The original was written by hand. \n\n\n\nThe following is the text transcribed from the parchment and laid out in a regular order:-\n\nY E N S Z N U M G L N Y Y R F V H E N M Z F \nP  S O T + P E C H E U R + A + L ' E M B Z \nV O U C H U R E + D U + R H O N E , S O N Z \nU P O I S S O N + S U R + L E + G R I L + F \nL D E U X + F O I S + R E T O U R N A . U D \nR N + M A L I N + S U R V I N T + E T + X H \nR X V + F O I S + L E + G O U T A + . C U Z \nT I T , I L + N E + L U I + R E S T A + Q V \nK U E + L ' A R E T E . + U N + A N G E + T \nN V E I L L A I T + E T + E N + F I T + U Q \nY N P E I G N E + D ' O R . B . S . C U R H \nO V T S V K Y R M S T I J P Z C K P F X K A \n\nInterpretation of the Contents\n\nThe intelligible message (in blue) reads:-\n\nSot Pecheur a l'embouchure du Rhone, son poisson sur le gril deux fois retourna. Un malin survint et XXV fois le gouta. Cuit, il ne lui resta que l'arete. Un ange veillait et en fit un peigne d'or. B.S. Cur.\n \n\nTranslated it means:-\n\nStupid fisherman at the mouth of the Rhone, he turned his fish on the grill twice. A devil popped up and tasted it 25 times. Cooked, all that remained was the bone. An angel watched and made a golden comb. B.S. Cur. \n\nHowever, due to the choice of words there exists a multitude of alternate meanings. \n\n    Sot Pecheur a l'embouchure du Rhone could mean 'Stupid fisherman at the mouth of the Rhone' or 'Foolish sinner at the mouth of the Rhone'. The word Embouchure also has many meanings " the mouth piece of a wind instrument, Bridle-bit of a horse harness, mouth,  opening of a bottle or jar, entrance to a harbour, mouth of a river or muzzle of a gun."\n\n    Son poisson sur le grill deux fois retourna could mean ' he turned his fish on the grill twice' but it could also mean 'his fish on the grid, on the grate, fire guard, gril also refers to convents,  and to nuns. Twice turned could also mean, changed position, turned over, turned around, turned up, turned back,   revolved, agitated, returned, sent back, sent back in reply, walked back, rode back... the list is almost endless and I will spare you the myriad of other meanings. Remember the large code found in parchment 2 in which it was necessary to reverse the Blanchefort headstone text.\n\n    Un Malin survint et XXV fois le gouta. This at least is comparatively simple and straight forward. Malin does have many meanings but for the most part all of them refer to someone wicked or evil or an evil spirit. "An evil spirit, or a devil popped up and tasted it 25 times". However Gouter, can also mean to smell, to approve of, to relish, to take delight in, to sample.\n\n    Cuit, il ne lui resta que l'arete. Literally it means, 'Cooked all that remained was the bone'. Cuit also means 'done for' in a figurative sense and Arête could also be read in a figurative sense as to stop  'Cooked all that remained was to stop him'. Arête has many meanings, "ear of barley, a line, an edge, a crest, an intersecting angle, a ridge (of a roof), sharp ridge on a mountain." This phrase could also be read as "Done for, all that was left to him was a fish bone, ear of barley, etc.\n\n    Un ange veillait et en fit un pe
35391
I am not sure if he was, but our current bible is missing several books.  Each of the 11 disciples wrote a book (all but Judas), but we only have 4.  Also, bear in mind that the Catholic Bible and Protestant Bible have different books.  However, although I am sure he probably wrote "something" about Christ, I can not say for sure it was a "book," and that his book was rejected.
605668
You have never met Alexander the Great and yet you believe what you have heard about him. Interestingly enough the first books were not written about him until 500 years after he was dead. Christ was written about from the beginning of time and again within 55 years of his death and resurection.  You cant see the wind just the effects. Yet I believe there is wind.
769854
Hi captain, I have got some thing for you which goes down to early history.\n\n" Charles only spared the lives of those Saracens[Muslims] who consented to be baptised, the rest he put to the sword."--[History of Charles the Great and Orlando, by Turpin, Vol-I, ch-ii, pg-5]\n\n"....460 years later, when the Holy land reverted to the Christian rule of crusading knight of Europe, the oriental Christians regretted the tolerating Govt. of the Arabian Khalifs."--[Rise and Fall of Roman Empire- GIBBON]\n\n"....A bloody sacrifies was offered by mistaken votaries to the God of the Christian resistance might provoke, but neither sage nor sex could mollify, thier implacable rage, they indulged themselves 3 days in a promisenous massacre. After 70,000 muslims had been put to the sword and the harmless JEWS had been burned in thier Synogogue, they could still reserve a multitude of captives whom interest or lassitude persauded them to spare."--[Rise and Fall of Roman Empire- GIBBON]\n\nThe critical Gibbon coclusively proves that, "...to his Christian subjects, Mohammad readily granted security of thier persons, the freedom of thier trade, the property of thier goods and the toleration of thier worship. This profitable principle of toleration was observed with more or less strictness, not only by all the immediate successors of the Prophet, but over the whole period of Arabic ascendency."--[Rise and Fall of Roman Empire- GIBBON] \n\nOn the other hand..........\n\n"....when Jerusalem capitulated to Khalif Omer, the inhabitants of the vanquished city were left in possesion of thier worldly goods, and allowed the freedom of worship. A special quarter of the city was allotted for the residence of Christian population with thier Patriarch and his clergy."--\n[Rise and Fall of Roman Empire- GIBBON]\n\n"....And Islam was tolerant not simply to the Jews but also to the Christians. The Christian church in muslim Spain was given large lands and considerable revenues, christian envoys were recieved with courtesy and allowed to take away relics of christian saints and martyrs from the muslim territory. GIBBON says in his Decline and Fall [of Roman Empire], that muslim rulers even transcribed an Arabic version of the canons of the councils of Spain for the use of BISHOPS in the Moorish kingdom. Haroon al-Rashid, the hero of the "Arabian Nights", planted in his kingdom a large number of schools, the head of these schools, his Director of Education, was a chritian named John."--[ The Spirit and Struggle of Islam by Prof. T.L.Vaswani, Ganesh & Co., Madras-1921]\n\nYou can judge it yourself as to whether muslims inflicted more violence or the Christians ? \n\nAnd you know about modern history and who is responsible for killing lacs of people in Hiroshoma and Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan..
163034
:)\n\nNow I'm guessing your teacher really wants your opinion. (not mine) But here.....let me help you get started....ok here we go:\n\nDid the story sound like a myth? Perhaps it was an explanation that the people of the time created because they didn't have science and technology to explain things. Perhaps it was a tale passed down from generation to generation that was embellished along the way. \n\nIn your paper, tell what your true opinion is of the story and why people created such a tale. \n\ngood luck.....you can do this!!
15440
The Three Kings. The reason why because it talks about the birth of christ and how the magi came to give him gifts when he was born and just how special it was when he was born by the Virgin Mary. I think you should go check it out.
693231
The Rhind Papyrus was an Egyptian document and hence its author must have been some Egyptian priest or scholar. Actual author is unknown
1019366
Not very likely, he was around in about 600AD, 500 years after the bible was written
325835
I don't think everything he writes about is true, of course. The author himself admitted to this. The only thing that I'm starting to be sure of is Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene and her being present in Da Vinci's "The Last Supper". We shouldn't believe everything the book tells us, but we might be able to read between the lines.
202781
Nop he didnt try read more about him .\n\nGod bless you
784655
http://www.mysteriousworld.com/Journal/2003/Winter/Artifacts/\n\n\nRead this.  It is great.  Wasn't he quite the guy?
680822
King Harold of Wessex led the Saxons\nWilliam of Normandy led the Normans