Robert, our major point of dissent seems to be the question how we judge the state of the WRE between 480 and 800. As you say it yourself, legally it never was disbanded, and the possibility of restoration was considered and attempted several times before 800, which even includes an Eastern Roman Emperor. 'Several' times means 17 times actually. No emotions need to be involved here, if we look at the history attempted and considered revivals, one can see the WRE was more than a faint memory. Of course I offer only a selection
- Theophylact Simocatta reports that when Maurice was very ill in 597 he set up last will. According to this, his sons would rule as western (Tiberius) and eastern Emperor (Theodosius). Phocas reportedly found it. Maurice had been the first emperor since 200 years to have several sons, however he was overthrown by Phocas.
- It is important to note that Theophylact had already seen an actual attempt to reinstall a western Emperor: the (eastern) Roman commander of Italy, Eleutherius, was encouraged by the bishop of Ravenna to march on Rome and to be crowned by the pope, because Emperor Heraclius was incapable of protecting Italy. Sounds familiar, does not it? It is likely though that Eleutherius was 'merely' usurping the whole Empire. Anyway the idea that the pope has the authority to crown an Emperor when Italy is abandoned is already 200 years old by the time Charlemagne did that. Again, the point is not what you or I think about it, the point is,
they thought it was right.
- In 653 the abbot Maximus was brought to trial for supporting a failed usurper from Africa named Gregorius. In his defense, he testified to have seen two groups of angels, acclaiming Constans II emperor (augustus) of the east, who indeed was emperor at that time, and Gregorius augustus of the west. Of course, the western angels were louder in their acclamation.
Constans II however is a good example of how the Eastern Roman elites considered the west neglectable. Their reaction to the Emperor's march on Rome, the last one to do so, is more than telling. Such neglectance is rather dangerous when you have the pope residing in Rome, as I will elaborate later on.
- In 726 the “whole of Italy” ([…]omnis italia[…]) wanted Pope Gregory II to crown an emperor and lead him against Constantinople. The source, which is of course the corresponding Lib Pont, is vague here and prefers to put an emphasis on the Pope
choosing not to do this. Indeed Emperor Leo III was faced with open rebellions, though.
Again, this is only a selection of very well known examples. The ever increasing role of the pope is important to note. With the increasing Christian influence the Roman Emperor naturally became Christinity’s protector and was measured accordingly. Do I really need to elaborate this as well?
In any case the Pope had a vital role in emancipating the Frankish kingship from the Eastern Roman dominion, which undoubtedly existed in the beginning. But by the time of Charlemagne, this was long past and forgotten, as evidenced by the coinage undauntedly claiming imperial glamour, to name just one example. The Pope donned Charlemagne with the Patricius-title, which was the traditional one of the defender of Rome. This role naturally had been that of the Roman Emperor, until the east began to neglect and then abandon the west.
As far as the imperial claims of WRE are concerned, the Annales Laureshamenses were satisfied to conclude that Charlemagne ruled the sedes imperii of the old Roman Emperors, which is absolutely correct: all the residences of Western Roman Emperors were in Charlemagne's control. Morever he was constantly expanding, and that against Pagan and Muslim enemies, therefore fighting for Christianity.
Of course, actual political considerations and confrontations finally led to the war between the Charlemagne and Michael. The point is, the war did not just end in affirming some territorial rule. Robert, you seemed to put a lot emphasis on the fact that Charlemagne was not Basileus Romaion. Indeed: this, and the other side of the same coin (the fact that was only a face-saving ploy by the losing eastern Emperor), is the real long lasting effect of the war.
Likewise Irene had her political reasons for offering Charles marriage, and thus legitimacy, is yet another hint that people could very easily ignore the very same 'lack' of legitimacy which they stressed when they were in opposition to the west.
Lastly, you leave me a bit puzzled with your final paragraph. We are not living in the 19th century and thus it is no surprise that there is not one member here, who would seriously deny the ERE being the continuation of the Roman Empire, or worse: calling them weak, effeminate Greeklings. And yet, puzzlingly, you call Charles a "mere Frankish king". While I do not think you intend to display bigotry – thankfully you passed on calling him a barbarian, whose ancestors destroyed Rome – this is very stereotype and does not take modern early medieval studies into account. This is everything but it is not "logical".
Regards
Kai
PS: I am kind of busy right now, so my responses will take a lot of time.