With regard to Charlemagne, France and Germany have been a community of memory, but their paths were quite different. This divergence mainly originated from the fact that unlike the French Charlemagne represented as rex Francorum, the German counterpart epitomized multiple and universal imperium, such as Imperium Francorum, Imperium Romanorum, and Imperium Christianum. The figure of Charlemagne in France that became increasingly cohesive with the growing royal authority, contributed to strengthening the dynastic legitimacy and subjects’ unity. In Germany, by contrast, the same figure captured by the imperial ideology rather than functioning as a symbol of internal unity, came to collide with the claims on the part of Papacy and of the French monarchy, and consequently lost its initial power. However, in contrast to such decline in the imperial dimension, by the late Middle Ages the memories of the Emperor grew exuberant in local or regional level, especially such as the religious communities, cities and principalities. This tendency apparently represented the realities of the Empire in which centrifugal forces surpassed centripetal ones. In the last analysis, Charlemagne appeared as the images of the Empire and the Kingdom themselves he served. While in France he, in the heart of royal religion, served as a halo of royal authority, in Germany he was considered to be an avatar of imperial idea on the one hand, and a patron of various local or regional interests on the other. In other words, while memories of Charlemagne indicated centripetal tendency in France, they tended to diverge in the neighboring Empire.
Concernant Charlemagne, la France et l’Allemagne constituent une communaute de memoire, mais elles n’en montrent pas le meme parcours. Cette divergence s’explique par le fait qu’a la difference du Charlemagne francais considere comme rex Francorum, celui de l’Allemagne incarne un imperium multiple et universel, tel que Imperium Francorum, Imperium Romanorum et Imperium Christianum. En France la representation de Charlemagne joue un role ideologique de renforcer la legitimite de la dynastie et d’unifier ses sujets. Elle devient plus cohesive grace a la royaute renforcee. En revanche, la representation allemande de Charlemagne, soulignant l’imperialisme plutot que l’unite interne, finit par se heurter aux reclamations de la part de la Papaute et de la monarchie francaise et perd sa puissance initiale. Apres avoir connu au niveau imperial ce declin accelere au cours du Moyen-Age, les memoires de l’empereur deviennent pourtant exuberantes au niveau local ou regional, en particulier dans communautes religieuses, cites et principautes. Un phenomene qui rappelle parfaitement la realite de l’Empire ou la force centrifuge surpasse la force centripete. En derniere analyse, Charlemagne represente l’image de l’Empire et du royaume qu’il servait. Tandis qu’il, place au coeur de la religion royale sert en France d’un halo de l’autorite royale, il est considere en Allemagne comme un avatar de l’idee imperiale d’un cote, et comme un patron de plusieurs interets locaux ou regionaux de l’autre. En d’autres termes, les memoires de Charlemagne indiquent un effet centripete en France alors qu’elles tendent a diverger dans l’Empire voisin.