Many historians argue that the single biggest factor contributing to Charles’s military success was by his own skilled and ingenious leadership. Whereas there were also other arguments of what might have contributed to Charles’s military success. One of the arguments that could be argued is that Charles had superior resources compared to his enemies, which may be argued by some historians. Whereas other historians may argue that the weaknesses of Charles’s enemies, lead to his military success.
Other historians may argue that many of Charlemagne’s enemies were weaker than the Franks, which may have been the single most factor leading to Charles’s military success. In the Lombard campaign in 773-774, Desiderius’s Lombard kingdom was institutionally quite well developed. But it was political weakness, which lead to Charles’s conquest. Charles never expected to become king of Lombardy, and he had granted pope large amounts of land, which is 2/3 of Italy. The reason why Desiderius loses political support was because the bishops disliked Desiderius as he took the papa’s land, which was a disrespectable act. Desiderius weakened his own rule. Also the Dukes were keen with having a king North of the Alpes, as they believed that it would make him more independent. Therefore they wanted to transfer lands from Desiderius to Charles. An example of land that has in turn been given to Charles is Hildebrand of Spoleto and Arichis of Benevento. Also in the Saxon campaign in 772-804, the Saxons were also politically disunited. Saxony was divided into four tribes: West phalians, East phalians, Norhudi and Angrarions. There was no king, (central authority). On the short term this was a disadvantage for Charles as there was no one national army, making it more difficult for Charles to defeat them. Whereas in the long term, it made conquest more inevitable, as Saxons could never oppose Charles with efficient force. King says, ‘fiercely independent, the Saxons lacked any permanent central authorities, a feature which will have made dealings with them impossibly difficult and helps to explain why agreements so often failed to stick.’ This would be an advantage for Charles as long as he had endurance and stamina, which he did have. In the Avars campaign, in 788 3 battles were launched and the Avars were defeated. In 791 Charles made a major attack on Avaria, as he saw the Avars as a major threat. According to Collins Charles 791 invasion was, ‘the final gust of wind that brought down an already decayed structure.’ Collins is saying that the battle in 791 lead to a Civil War in Avaria. The Civil war destroyed the Avars power. The Avars became completely demolarised in 795 therefore could not protect the Avars ring. In 795 another Avar ruler called Tudun, came to Charles, submit himself to baptism. In 805 Avars asked Charles if they can move territory due to ‘infestation of Slavs.’ This shows the thorough decline in the Avars as the Sl...
