# Your Charlemagne inspired monarchs



## Netardapope (Dec 4, 2015)

I find that whenever I'm worldbuilding I always make THAT one monarch who manages to do the following: Stabilize the land in a time of crisis, own a huge swath of land, start a golden age. In the case of Altarum it is Leofgern or Leof the Great whom founded the Curnalian empire, defeated a group of invaders called the Meirun, even had a Roland inspired character called Galer, and converted the people into the Faith of the Exalted One. I looked at my previous world and found that I had a plethora of kings like this. So I want to here about your Charlemagne inspired (or any other great monarch as inspiration) kings and emperors!

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk


----------



## Ban (Dec 4, 2015)

The character i think of when you say that is Talos from the elder scrolls, who created the imperial empire by conquering the continent, was born with the ability to absorb power from dragons, was able to wear the amulet of kings created by saint alessia and he became a god upon his death. A pretty great guy overall.

In my own work i have a similar figure who united the western peninsula of my main continent. His name is Gelnerion and he was the ruler of a city state that his genius predecessor had transphormed from a rural community into a bustling metropolis. Gelnerion militarised the city and went to war on all its much larger neighbours. In this endeavour he obtained the help of a goddess, but his own military brilliance is what led to the creation of the first empire.


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 4, 2015)

Can't say that I have any king directly inspired by Charlemagne, at present, but I like the idea of a great warrior-king conquering great territories and ushering in a new age, just like Charlemagne did with the Carolingian renaissance.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 4, 2015)

Probably more Alexander The Great than Charlemagne.


----------



## Ban (Dec 4, 2015)

They fulfill the same role. They are both great conquerors/Heads of state who spread their radically different way of life, culture, ideology and political system over a massive area that was unfamiliar with those concepts in a short time span. Others like Caesar, Muhammed, Trajan and Napoleon can also be added to that list.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 4, 2015)

Well the time he exists in is similar to Alexander the Great and not the Dark age/early middle ages. That's the only big difference.


----------



## Ban (Dec 4, 2015)

Oh you're talking about your warrior king. Sorry, i thought you were just noting that in general.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 4, 2015)

Banten said:


> Oh you're talking about your warrior king. Sorry, i thought you were just noting that in general.



Well more of an historical figure in the story that existed a few thousand years before the present.


----------



## trentonian7 (Dec 4, 2015)

Miskatonic, my world takes place in a similar time period


----------



## Netardapope (Dec 4, 2015)

Banten said:


> Oh you're talking about your warrior king. Sorry, i thought you were just noting that in general.


By all means tell me all about your great warrior-kings! I'd love to here all your stories! (This goes for everyone)

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk


----------



## Velka (Dec 4, 2015)

I’m not sure if you’d like my version of a Charlemagne inspired ruler; he’s the inspiration for my bad guy.

Like Charlemagne, he supplants polytheism with monotheism, successfully instilling a “we’re right and you’re all dirty heretics that need to be converted or killed” mentality. In the wake of his rule, cultural and religious diversity and acceptance (caused by everyone and their dog having their own god and being pretty okay with it, even if they believe they’re right and the other guys are wrong) are obliterated and war, which used to be primarily a political affair, now becomes fuelled by religion. No god, but God becomes the mantra and religious intolerance is born in it’s stead.


----------



## Netardapope (Dec 4, 2015)

Velka said:


> I’m not sure if you’d like my version of a Charlemagne inspired ruler; he’s the inspiration for my bad guy.
> 
> Like Charlemagne, he supplants polytheism with monotheism, successfully instilling a “we’re right and you’re all dirty heretics that need to be converted or killed” mentality. In the wake of his rule, cultural and religious diversity and acceptance (caused by everyone and their dog having their own god and being pretty okay with it, even if they believe they’re right and the other guys are wrong) are obliterated and war, which used to be primarily a political affair, now becomes fuelled by religion. No god, but God becomes the mantra and religious intolerance is born in it’s stead.


I like what you did actually. In many ways it's more similar to Leofgern than you might think. Is he the main antagonist of your novel or does he just appear in the history books?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk


----------



## ThinkerX (Dec 4, 2015)

Emperor Morgan DuSwaimair, founder of the current dynasty.  A couple hundred years before Morgan's birth, the barbarian Avar swept out of the far northwest, allied themselves with the decadent Kitrin Sorcerers, and claimed a dang big chunk of the Solarian Empire for themselves.  By the time Morgan was born, they were mostly civilized, and no longer on that good of terms with the Kitrin.  

Morgan himself wanted to be a sort of warrior prince, running around smiting evil.  When the bandit leaders of Drakkar - then a Kitrin province - became overly bloodthirsty, he led an expedition that annexed the whole province.  Upon returning home, he learned the old Avar royal family was effectively extinct and that his Father sat the throne, albeit with a lot of grumbling from the other clan leaders.  Needing support, Morgan's parents elected to marry him and his sister to scions of the Bestia family, who were just barely clinging to the imperial throne in Solaria, the idea being that combined, the respective families could deal with all the enemies far more easily than they could alone.  Other clans in both realms didn't take kindly to this and initiated a campaign of assassination against the DuSwaimair and Bestia lines.  When the dust settled, Morgan and his Bestia bride were about the only ones left standing.

Morgan crushed his remaining foes, then marched against Kitrin, who'd gone to war over the whole mess with Drakkar.  When the dust settled from that, most of Kitrin was an imperial province.  

Morgan's heir Louis was less than stellar: part of Kitrin and another part of Avar broke away from imperial control during his reign, and the great families schemed to either claim the throne or carve up the newly reunited empire for themselves.  

These families, however, failed to reckon with Louis's cousin Franklin, who claimed the throne after surviving two assassination  attempts and then embarked on a major purge of the great families, combined with a massive overhaul of the armed forces (disbanding the feudal militia in favor of a roman legion model) and reforming the bureaucracy.   To fill these positions, he recruited from the bondmen and common class, granting these people citizenship and land in exchange for a mere 18-22 years of service.  Made him very popular with the lower classes and despised among the aristocracy. Sort of a populist tyrant. 

I better stop before I put the whole dynastic history here.  Anyhow, Franklin died a good 50 odd years before the Traag War, which is when my stories start happening.


----------



## Velka (Dec 4, 2015)

Netardapope said:


> I like what you did actually. In many ways it's more similar to Leofgern than you might think. Is he the main antagonist of your novel or does he just appear in the history books?



It's a side project, which gets a little of my attention when I'm sick of my main work. He's gleefully putting heads on pikes in the story, because nothing says obey me like a head on a pike.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 5, 2015)

trentonian7 said:


> Miskatonic, my world takes place in a similar time period



Well the present for my story exists in a pseudo-medieval fantasy world, not our modern day.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 5, 2015)

I haven't written his story yet, though I intend to, but my medieval monarch would not be Charlemagne, who is entirely too earnest for storytelling. Breton captains are way more interesting.

My medieval monarch is Frederick II Hohenstaufen. The story of his childhood is the stuff of adventure novels. How he became emperor is an even greater adventure, and his conflict with the popes (who will become some sort of evil cabal in my story) is pure epic. Even his rather dreary wars with the Italian cities can be worked in. Then there's going off on crusade and not fighting. All excellent raw material.


----------



## indonesiancat (Dec 5, 2015)

The strongest example of this would be the first lord of Lucium, which is basically The roman empire + knights and ordinary medieval fluff. The first lord is the namesake of the kingdom and he would be the one who lead the former citystate into a league between the other ones and eventually wage war on the continental superpower at that time and his descendants would establish the near continental spanning society at the time.

The second of the such is a very different guy, he holds the same title in the same kingdom, but about 700 years later. Only difference is that this time, the kingdom has lost much of it's former glory, due to a huge, barbarian invasion from the north.  They were very barely defeated the horde in one final herculean muster of the army, but most of their army was completely destroyed as well.

 So going from a humble major, he would systematically secure the surrounding region from bandits, make sure that the peasants could eat and continue to produce food and thereby slowly but surely regaining some form of basic balance. He would actually turn out to be a more Leninistic/Robin Hoodesque leader who rallied the common folk against their dukes, counts and other nobles ( being of humble beginnings himself ) who would rather pay tax to barbarian invaders briefly to save their own hides instead of helping for the greater good of the realm. Their wealth were taken and spent on just keeping the people alive by buying grain and the basics for having people eating and to start from the beginning again. 

 From here on, he basically shattered the current order and would give the administrative parts that the nobles played to a new class of people with education in law, economics, infrastructure etc. He was viewed as the saviour of the realm of sorts, naturally hated by nobles who would flee the land to muster their own army to later on fight and reclaim what they had lost. Commoners loved him and they especially loved him for bringing in a meritocratic system rather than one where bloodlines mattered.

Basically, this is a ''what if'' story about Rome if the germanians never occupied roman territory, but instead they left and the shambles of Rome managed to get back into shape again.


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 9, 2015)

Velka said:


> I’m not sure if you’d like my version of a Charlemagne inspired ruler; he’s the inspiration for my bad guy.
> 
> Like Charlemagne, he supplants polytheism with monotheism, successfully instilling a “we’re right and you’re all dirty heretics that need to be converted or killed” mentality. In the wake of his rule, cultural and religious diversity and acceptance (caused by everyone and their dog having their own god and being pretty okay with it, even if they believe they’re right and the other guys are wrong) are obliterated and war, which used to be primarily a political affair, now becomes fuelled by religion. No god, but God becomes the mantra and religious intolerance is born in it’s stead.



Forgive me for asking but how have you reached this conclusion? It sounds more like the Roman emperor Theodosius I than Charlemagne.


----------



## WooHooMan (Dec 9, 2015)

First off, props to Netardapope for identifying a new fantasy archetype.  Or at least, I assume this is a new discovery.  I've never really seen any discussion on this type of character.

Second, I got a Charlemagne-type.
He is called The Gold Crown Emperor of the Redeemer Dynasty.
The first incarnation of his empire (inspired by Rome) was destroyed by a nasty political crisis and the second incarnation (inspired by the Byzantine and Western Roman Empire) was mostly defined by radical political shifts which eventually caused it to split into three distinct nations.  The Gold Crown Emperor was able to unite the three countries under his rule and established a very efficient centralized government and an organized national monotheistic religion.  
He was deemed the "True Emperor" by the setting's most powerful religious leader.  This religious leader also formed a group of warrior-clerics (based off the Paladins) to assist his dynasty.
His successors were less successful in keeping a tight grip on the empire leading to the modern ruler's (the Gold Dragon Emperor) claim to the throne being put into question.


----------



## Ban (Dec 9, 2015)

Gurkhal said:


> Forgive me for asking but how have you reached this conclusion? It sounds more like the Roman emperor Theodosius I than Charlemagne.



I think Velka might be thinking of Charlemagne's campaign in Saxony.


----------



## Netardapope (Dec 9, 2015)

WooHooMan said:


> First off, props to Netardapope for identifying a new fantasy archetype.  Or at least, I assume this is a new discovery.  I've never really seen any discussion on this type of character.
> 
> Second, I got a Charlemagne-type.
> He is called The Gold Crown Emperor of the Redeemer Dynasty.
> ...


Thanks for the compliment but the way I see it is that it's more of a real life trope than anything. Any nation that's ever existed has had some sort of leader who pulls it out of the darkness! That being said, I'm not sure I've seen a page on tvtropes regarding the way I described the trope so maybe I did find something new [emoji15] 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 9, 2015)

Banten said:


> I think Velka might be thinking of Charlemagne's campaign in Saxony.



That might be true, but given the history between the Franks and the Saxons and the less than peaceful life style of the Saxons I don't see it as a very good fit for Velka's description.


----------



## Ban (Dec 10, 2015)

Gurkhal said:


> That might be true, but given the history between the Franks and the Saxons and the less than peaceful life style of the Saxons I don't see it as a very good fit for Velka's description.



Charlemagne did forcefully convert the polytheistic saxons to monotheism and incorporate their territory in his realm. That is what Velka talked about. 

While we're on the subject of Charlemagne. Do any of you have a Widukind character? The rebel opponent of charlemagne who gives a good fight before converting to the agressor's religion and becoming his loyal vassal. A character like that seems very interesting to me.


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 10, 2015)

Banten said:


> Charlemagne did forcefully convert the polytheistic saxons to monotheism and incorporate their territory in his realm. That is what Velka talked about.



I know and I agree that he did it and it wasn't his greast moment. However it wasn't what I was reacting to. What I reacted to was this; 



> Like Charlemagne, he supplants polytheism with monotheism, *successfully instilling a “we’re right and you’re all dirty heretics that need to be converted or killed” mentality. In the wake of his rule, cultural and religious diversity and acceptance (caused by everyone and their dog having their own god and being pretty okay with it, even if they believe they’re right and the other guys are wrong)* are obliterated and war, which used to be primarily a political affair, now becomes fuelled by religion. No god, but God becomes the mantra and religious intolerance is born in it’s stead.



To me the bolded part sounds like Charlemagne was coming into some tolerant utopia and crashed the party or that he invented monotheistic intolerance, neither of which is true. Everything that is bolded, and more, existed way before Charlemagne was born and before his grandparents were born. Was it bad what he did to the Saxons? Yes, a more political crumstobbing would have been nicer. However he supplanted one area's polytheism with monotheism out of the many that he conquered. From Velka's text it sounds like polytheism was the norm which it certainly wasn't west of the Rhine and had not been that for centuries. I also seriously doubt that tolerance and acceptance of diversity was particular high on the priority list before Charlemagne came around.

In issue I react to both the idea that Charlemagne destroyed a whole polytheistic world, that world was destroyed while the Roman empire was still standing, and that the evils of an age is attributed to a single individual when they did, to my knowledge, not flow from him.


----------



## Ban (Dec 10, 2015)

You make a good point and I understand, but we are talking about characters similar to Charlemagne. They don't have to be exactly like the real life version.


----------



## Velka (Dec 10, 2015)

Gurkhal said:


> I know and I agree that he did it and it wasn't his greast moment.



Um, yeah, I guess one can call the Massacre of Verden, in which 4500 captive Saxons were killed, not one's "greatest moment". More like an oops, my bad.




Gurkhal said:


> To me the bolded part sounds like Charlemagne was coming into some tolerant utopia and crashed the party or that he invented monotheistic intolerance, neither of which is true. Everything that is bolded, and more, existed way before Charlemagne was born and before his grandparents were born. Was it bad what he did to the Saxons? Yes, a more political crumstobbing would have been nicer. However he supplanted one area's polytheism with monotheism out of the many that he conquered. From Velka's text it sounds like polytheism was the norm which it certainly wasn't west of the Rhine and had not been that for centuries. I also seriously doubt that tolerance and acceptance of diversity was particular high on the priority list before Charlemagne came around.
> 
> In issue I react to both the idea that Charlemagne destroyed a whole polytheistic world, that world was destroyed while the Roman empire was still standing, and that the evils of an age is attributed to a single individual when they did, to my knowledge, not flow from him.



Charlemagne may not have invented religious intolerance, but he was certainly a member of it's fan club.

Where did I say that my Charlemagne *INSPIRED* ruler was 100% factually based on him? I took what happened with the Saxons and added my own imaginative flair. You read entirely too much into my little synopsis. This is a fantasy-based world building forum, not a peer-reviewed historical journal. Calm down.


----------



## Netardapope (Dec 11, 2015)

Regarding the whole chalemagne debaucle, one must keep in mind the situation of western Europe at the time. Religion was the only thing that was common amongst your allies at a time when invaders where pounding at your doorstep constantly. The way I see it, religious intolerance was the only way to go for Charlemagne as in times like the dark ages, reasoning with pagans or vice versa would have been impossible. I think Charlemagne had good reason for believing what he did, even if it was not right. We can't apply our modern day values to someone who has been dead for more than a 1000 years

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 11, 2015)

Velka said:


> Um, yeah, I guess one can call the Massacre of Verden, in which 4500 captive Saxons were killed, not one's "greatest moment". More like an oops, my bad.
> 
> Charlemagne may not have invented religious intolerance, but he was certainly a member of it's fan club.
> 
> Where did I say that my Charlemagne *INSPIRED* ruler was 100% factually based on him? I took what happened with the Saxons and added my own imaginative flair. You read entirely too much into my little synopsis. This is a fantasy-based world building forum, not a peer-reviewed historical journal. Calm down.



Wars and military conquests are brutal and have always been for the vast majority of human history, Charlemagne's are not different in that regard. As for religious intolerance I agree from what we've seen of him.

However, you wrote this.



> *Like Charlemagne, he supplants polytheism with monotheism, successfully instilling a “we’re right and you’re all dirty heretics that need to be converted or killed” mentality.*



The "Like Charlemagne" sounds pretty much to me like you are saying that Charlemagne did those things; replace polytheism with monotheism and installing a "convert or die" mentality, which we know is not true. If you could provide a different interpretation of what you wrote I'd be happy to rethink my understanding of what you meant.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 11, 2015)

Gurkhal said:


> Wars and military conquests are brutal and have always been for the vast majority of human history, Charlemagne's are not different in that regard. As for religious intolerance I agree from what we've seen of him.
> 
> However, you wrote this.
> 
> ...



I really think you just need to not take this so seriously. Keep in mind that the word "like" is defined as "having the same *or *similar qualities". You seem to be assuming that Velka is using it to mean "having the same qualities" while Velka seems to be using it more on the "having similar qualities" end of the spectrum. Since either usage is perfectly fine, you should just accept Velka's explanation for what she meant.


----------



## Velka (Dec 11, 2015)

Gurkhal said:


> The "Like Charlemagne" sounds pretty much to me like you are saying that Charlemagne did those things; replace polytheism with monotheism and installing a "convert or die" mentality, which we know is not true.



Charlemagne did replace polytheism with monotheism in Saxony.

Charlemagne did issue Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae with charmingly states:
_
If any one of the race of the Saxons hereafter concealed among them shall have wished to hide himself unbaptized, and shall have scorned to come to baptism and shall have wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death._

Sounds like convert or die to me. I never stated he was the first, or only, to do so, but like I said, he was a member of the fan club.



Gurkhal said:


> If you could provide a different interpretation of what you wrote I'd be happy to rethink my understanding of what you meant.



I have no different interpretation. Charlemagne did do these things, and like him, my bad guy does them too, but in a different context (hence the "inspired" modifier).


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 11, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> I really think you just need to not take this so seriously. Keep in mind that the word "like" is defined as "having the same *or *similar qualities". You seem to be assuming that Velka is using it to mean "having the same qualities" while Velka seems to be using it more on the "having similar qualities" end of the spectrum. Since either usage is perfectly fine, you should just accept Velka's explanation for what she meant.



Alright, I'll give Velka the benefit of doubt, and I suppose that you are right in that I take it to seriously.



Velka said:


> Charlemagne did replace polytheism with monotheism in Saxony.
> 
> Charlemagne did issue Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae with charmingly states:
> _
> ...



I really feel at having a go against this but I won't. Its a bit more complicated situation in reality but I shall give you the benefit of doubt.


----------



## Gurkhal (Dec 12, 2015)

It seems I can't edit my post anymore, but I'd like to offer an apology for losing my temper like that. I apologize to Velka and others who I might have offended or disturbed.


----------

