Was Charlemagne A Good Leader

In 771 it is stated that Charlemagne’s brother became ill and passed away, and Charlemagne was “unanimously elected,” (p.27) which says to me that he had found favor among those who had elected him. I believe that he was a good leader at the time of his existence, considering times were much different. He was relentless and pushed tirelessly forward until he was satisfied; such as the battle he fought with King Desiderius in which Charlemagne “exhausted the King, and forced him to surrender at discretion.” (p29) Einhard also states that King Charlemagne “wreaked vengeance” (p.31) against the Saxons in return for their “faithless behavior.” (p.31) Let me explain why I believe this is a good trait, then. I feel as if at that time the peoples and kingdoms were trying to stand their ground and become their own people, so if there was lawless behavior among nations, I feel others had a good idea to put them in their place, so …show more content…
We have seen this in our own nation, that when a leader looks out for themselves or a small portion of the people over a promise of wealth or protection of their investments, but Einhard states that Charlemagne fought for his people and was thoughtful regarding their well being (p.35) yet always found time for justice (p.53). He showed that he was comfortable delegating orders,(p.38) which is good when it comes to leadership and not micromanaging an empire. Einhard states that Charlemagne cherished his friendships seriously with his example with the Greek Emperor (p.41) Charlemagne was filled with patience,(p.45) and was a family man(p.48). We see that in the latter pages. Overall, I think because of his personality traits, sober thinking (p.52) and steadfastness, he was and would still be a great