Before the fall of the Roman Empire Constantine the Great faced many oppositions including gaining the support of the Roman people in his conversion to Christianity. Likewise, Clovis the “unifier of the Frankish Kingdom” faced the same oppositions with his conversion. Thus, accounts during the Early Middle Ages can be filled with biased and speculation. Despite, common bias during this time, the account of “The Conversion of Clovis: Two Accounts, 496,” is a genuine historical account of events. Specifically, the account is explanatory not observational, throughout the text it gives details which can be supported. To start off with, the leading evidence proving the account of Clovis’s conversion is genuine is that throughout the reading the text points to an …show more content…
In contrast, Eusebius account of “The Conversion of Constantine,” leaves the reader to question the validity of the authors account. For example, “And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven.” In other