Charlemagne vs Napoleon: Builders of European Empires

Some dreams cross the centuries. The dream of a united Europe, of an empire stretching from the Atlantic to the Vistula, from the northern seas to the Mediterranean. Two men, separated by a thousand years of history, tried to make this dream a reality: Charlemagne (742-814) and Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821).

One was a Frankish king of the Middle Ages, crowned emperor by the pope in a Roman basilica. The other was a Corsican general of the Revolution, who crowned himself in Notre-Dame Cathedral. Both conquered Europe, both dreamed of transforming it, both saw their empire collapse.

But their legacy endures. When the founding fathers of the European Union looked for models, they thought of Charlemagne. When jurists around the world study civil law, they study the Napoleonic Code. These two men shaped the Europe we know today.

Two Paths to Power

Charlemagne: Heir of the Franks

Charles - for that was his real name, “Charlemagne” meaning “Charles the Great” - was born around 742, probably in Aachen. He was the son of Pepin the Short, the first Carolingian king, and the grandson of Charles Martel, the hero who had stopped Arab expansion at Poitiers in 732.

At that time, being king didn’t mean much. The Merovingian kings who had preceded the Carolingians were “do-nothing kings,” decorative figures while the mayors of the palace actually governed. Pepin had changed that: with the pope’s blessing, he had taken the crown for himself.

Charles inherited the kingdom at his father’s death in 768, but he had to share it with his brother Carloman. Fortunately for him, Carloman died in 771, and Charles could unite the entire Frankish kingdom under his authority. He was 29 years old and had an insatiable appetite for conquest.

What strikes you about the young Charlemagne is his physical energy. He was a giant for his time - analysis of his bones suggests he was about 6’3” tall. He hunted, swam, rode horses. He led his armies himself, campaign after campaign, year after year. During his 46-year reign, he spent almost no year without waging war.

Napoleon: The Little Corsican Corporal

Napoleone Buonaparte was born in 1769 in Ajaccio, Corsica, a year after the island passed from Genoa to France. He was the second son of a family of minor Italian nobility. His father, Carlo, had fought for Corsican independence before rallying to France.

At 9, young Napoleone was sent to France to study. He barely spoke French - Corsican was his native language. At the military school in Brienne, he was mocked for his accent, his strange name, his poverty. He took refuge in books, devouring the accounts of Caesar, Alexander, Hannibal.

He graduated from the Military School of Paris in 1785, an artillery officer at 16. His career might have remained modest without the Revolution. But the Revolution overturned the old order, opened careers to talent. Napoleon seized every opportunity.

The siege of Toulon in 1793 got him noticed. The Italian campaign of 1796-1797 made him famous. The coup of 18 Brumaire in 1799 made him First Consul. The coronation of 1804 made him Emperor. In ten years, an obscure Corsican lieutenant had become master of France, then of Europe.

Building Empires

Charlemagne: The Sword and the Cross

Charlemagne conquered his empire through war, but he justified it through religion. Every conquest was presented as an extension of Christendom, a divine mission.

His wars were numerous and brutal. Against the Lombards of Italy (773-774), whom he defeated and whose crown he took. Against the Saxons of Germania (772-804), whom he subdued after 32 years of war and massacres - the “Bloody Verden” of 782, where he had 4,500 Saxon prisoners beheaded, remains a stain on his reign. Against the Avars of Pannonia (791-796), whose treasures accumulated over centuries he plundered. Against the Muslims of Spain (778), where he suffered a defeat at Roncevaux - immortalized, two centuries later, in the Song of Roland.

But Charlemagne was not just a conqueror. He was also an administrator. He divided his empire into counties, led by counts appointed by him. He sent “missi dominici” (envoys of the master) to oversee the counts and administer justice. He standardized weights and measures, reformed the currency, encouraged commerce.

And above all, he was a promoter of culture. The “Carolingian Renaissance” saw the creation of schools in monasteries, the copying of ancient manuscripts, the development of a standardized script (Carolingian minuscule). Without Charlemagne, we would have lost much of ancient Latin literature.

On December 25, 800, Charlemagne was crowned “Emperor of the Romans” by Pope Leo III in Rome. It was a revolution: for the first time since 476, there was an emperor in the West. Charlemagne claimed to be restoring the Roman Empire - in reality, he was creating something new.

Napoleon: Total War and Reforms

Napoleon conquered his empire through war, but a new type of war. The armies of the Revolution had invented mass conscription, national mobilization. Napoleon perfected this system and added his tactical genius.

His campaigns are legendary. Austerlitz (1805), the “sun of Austerlitz,” his finest victory. Jena (1806), where he crushed Prussia in two weeks. Wagram (1809), where he defeated Austria once again. His enemies - Austria, Prussia, Russia, England - formed coalition after coalition, and he beat them all.

At its peak in 1811, the Napoleonic Empire stretched from Spain to Poland, from Holland to Italy. More than 44 million people lived under his direct authority, and “allied” kingdoms - governed by his brothers - added millions more.

But Napoleon, like Charlemagne, was not just a conqueror. He was perhaps the greatest reformer in European history. The Civil Code (1804), which unified French law and served as a model for the world. The Concordat (1801), which ended the conflict with the Church. The Legion of Honor, the educational system (lycées, Imperial University), the Bank of France, the land registry, the metric system…

These reforms survived the Empire. The Civil Code is still in force in France and many countries. The French educational system keeps its Napoleonic structure. French administration remains marked by his creations. Napoleon said: “My true glory is not to have won forty battles; Waterloo will erase the memory of so many victories. What nothing will erase, what will live eternally, is my Civil Code.”

Their Governing Styles

Charlemagne: The Paternal King

Charlemagne governed in a personal, almost familial way. He traveled constantly through his empire, holding assemblies, administering justice, inspecting his domains. There was no fixed capital - the court followed the king.

Aachen became his preferred residence toward the end of his reign. He had a palatine chapel built there inspired by Ravenna, a symbol of his imperial ambitions. But even there, he remained accessible. Einhard, his biographer, describes him receiving visitors during his bath, discussing with his advisors while getting dressed.

His government relied on personal relationships. The counts were his men, bound to him by oaths. The missi dominici were his eyes and ears. The bishops and abbots were his allies in managing souls and territories. Everything went through him.

This centralization had its limits. The Empire depended on the sovereign’s personality. Without Charlemagne to hold it together, it risked fragmenting - which indeed happened under his successors.

Napoleon: The Rational State

Napoleon governed in a modern, bureaucratic, rational way. He created a centralized, hierarchical, efficient administration. Prefects, sub-prefects, mayors - a clear chain of command from top to bottom.

He worked enormously, sometimes 18 hours a day. He dictated hundreds of letters, supervised the smallest details, demanded constant reports. “Work is my element,” he said. His Council of State, where he personally presided over discussions on the Civil Code, testifies to his personal involvement.

But unlike Charlemagne, Napoleon built a system that could function without him. The institutions he created had their own logic, their own procedures. Napoleonic administration survived Napoleon, the Restoration, the revolutions of the 19th century. It still exists today.

This modernity had a price: bureaucratic coldness, imposed uniformity, the crushing of local particularities. Napoleon wanted citizens equal before the law, not subjects with different privileges. It was progressive, but also authoritarian.

Their Falls: Hubris and Its Consequences

Charlemagne: Peaceful Death, Divided Empire

Charlemagne was lucky enough to die in his bed. On January 28, 814, he passed away in Aachen, at 72, after reigning 46 years. An exceptional lifespan for the time.

But he knew his empire was fragile. Frankish tradition required the kingdom to be divided among sons. Charlemagne had three legitimate sons; two died before him. Only Louis, called “the Pious,” inherited the entire empire.

Louis was not up to the task. His own sons rebelled against him, then fought among themselves. In 843, the Treaty of Verdun divided the empire into three: Francia occidentalis (future France), Francia orientalis (future Holy Roman Empire), and a middle kingdom (Lotharingia) that soon disappeared. Charlemagne’s empire had not survived its founder by one generation.

What he left, however, was considerable: the idea of a Christian Western empire, the cultural heritage of the Carolingian Renaissance, the model of a king who was also a legislator and patron of the arts. The Holy Roman Empire, which lasted until 1806, claimed his legacy.

Napoleon: Pride Punished

Napoleon was defeated by his own pride. After ten years of victories, he believed himself invincible. Two fatal errors destroyed him.

First, Spain. In 1808, he deposed the Spanish Bourbons and placed his brother Joseph on the throne. But the Spanish people revolted. The Spanish guerrilla (the word comes from there) bled the French army for six years. Wellington, from Portugal, slowly advanced toward France. Spain was the “ulcer” that exhausted the Empire.

Then, Russia. In 1812, Napoleon invaded Russia with the Grande Armée - nearly 700,000 men, the largest army ever assembled in Europe. The Russians retreated, burned their own cities, refused decisive battle. Napoleon took Moscow, but Moscow was empty, burned. He had to retreat.

The retreat from Russia was a nightmare. Cold, hunger, Cossacks. Of 700,000 men, perhaps 100,000 returned. The Grande Armée no longer existed.

After that, everything collapsed. Leipzig in 1813 (the “Battle of Nations”), the invasion of France in 1814, the first abdication, exile to Elba. The Hundred Days in 1815, Waterloo, the second abdication, Saint Helena. Napoleon died in 1821, a prisoner on a rock in the middle of the Atlantic. He was 51.

What They Teach Us

The European Dream

Charlemagne and Napoleon failed to create a lasting European empire. But their very failure teaches us something.

They showed that you cannot unify Europe by force. European peoples are too diverse, too attached to their particularities. Every conquest creates resistance, every occupation generates resentment. Charlemagne’s empire fragmented upon his death; Napoleon’s empire collapsed in the face of the nationalisms he had himself awakened.

But they also showed that the idea of a united Europe is possible. That Europeans can share institutions, laws, a culture. The Napoleonic Code spread far beyond the Empire’s borders. The Carolingian Renaissance created a common cultural foundation.

Today’s European Union attempts to realize this dream by other means: cooperation rather than conquest, law rather than force, democratic institutions rather than an emperor. The Charlemagne Prize, awarded each year in Aachen, honors those who work for European unity. The name is no accident.

Genius and Its Limits

These two men were geniuses, each in their own way. Charlemagne had the genius of organization and long-term vision. Napoleon had military and administrative genius. Both transformed Europe.

But genius has its limits. It can conquer, it cannot always preserve. It can create, it cannot always transmit. Charlemagne failed to train capable successors. Napoleon didn’t know when to stop.

The lesson, perhaps, is that great human enterprises cannot rest on one man alone. They must be carried by institutions, cultures, peoples. Charlemagne and Napoleon created personal empires; they didn’t create nations.

Lasting Legacy

And yet, their legacy is real. Not the empire - the empire collapsed. But the ideas, institutions, transformations.

From Charlemagne, we inherited the idea of a Christian European civilization, the importance of education and culture, the model of the legislating sovereign. The Holy Roman Empire lasted a thousand years. Church and State continued to dance together for centuries.

From Napoleon, we inherited the Civil Code, modern administration, the idea of equality before the law. These creations are still alive. Every time a French person pays taxes or makes a contract, they use Napoleonic institutions.

Conclusion: Two Emperors, One Same Question

Charlemagne and Napoleon pose the same question: can Europe be unified? Can we create a common space where European peoples would live under the same laws, share the same institutions, build a common civilization?

Their answers were similar: yes, through conquest. And their failures were similar: the empire did not survive its creator.

But the question remains. Today, the European Union tries to answer it differently. Not through war, but through negotiation. Not through imposition, but through consent. Not through an emperor, but through democratic institutions.

Will this attempt succeed where Charlemagne and Napoleon failed? History will only tell in a few centuries. But one thing is certain: the European dream, the dream that these two emperors each pursued in their own way, is not dead. It continues to haunt us, inspire us, divide us.

Charlemagne and Napoleon have been dead for a long time. But their question remains ours: what is Europe, and what do we want to make of it?