Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Charlemagne and later \"Roman\" emperors
#1
Was Charlemagne or any of his successors recognised as a "Roman Emperor" by the eastern Emperor?

This seems to be a straight-forward question, but I'm having difficulties discovering the answer.
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
Reply
#2
He was recognised by Michael I in 812 in exchange for Frankish concessions on disputed territory in the Adriatic (but I am not sitting next to my books at the moment, so am relying on online sources:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...cephorus-I

That said, most biographies of Charlemagne seem to stress that he saw himself as King of the Franks and King of Lombardy (i.e. his realm was an aggregation of kingdoms rather than a single empire, rather like the later "Angevin Empire"), and that the Imperial title was secondary to this. I think the precise title was Imperator Romanorum, "Emperor of the Romans", which perhaps carries a slightly more restricted meaning?

Frankish inheritance law recognised the rights of all sons rather than just the eldest, and it was more a matter of circumstance (lack of surviving male siblings) that Charlemagne's realm remained intact under Louis the Pius, before being split into several kingdoms under Louis' heirs under the Treaty of Verdun, AD843 (although the title of Emperor remained prestigious, in spite of the fact that it carried no right to direct rule of all of Charlemagne's realm).

Fascinating period!
Reply
#3
No. You read from time to time that Charlemagne was recognised as such by the Byzantine state, but in fact his coronation was seen as a usurpation by both Irene (752–803) as well as Nicephoros I (802-811). Only when the war between Byzatines and FRanks ended in 810 did Michaeil I (811-813) recognise Charles as Emperor. However, he was never recognised as 'Emperor of the Romans'.

I don't know about Charles' successors, but I don't this they reached the same status. maybe the later Germanic kings did?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#4
This is interesting. If he was recognised as Emperor, but not Emperor of the Romans, this seems to imply a divorce between the title and the Roman res publica.
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
Reply
#5
If I recall correctly, the Pope called Charlemagne Imperator Romanorum, which the new emperor realized was unacceptable. He seems to have called himself Imperator imperium Romanum gubernans, and was recognized eventually in Constantinople as Imperator Francorum.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#6
It may be relevant to note that Greek speaking Romans (of whatever period) did not use "imperator" or anything derived from it, but rather called their ruler "Vasilefs" (Βασιλεύς), which is simply the word for "King". So it would be a serious bit of digging to get some impression of what they meant by whatever term they applied to such upstarts.

Timothy
Social History and Material Culture of the Enduring Roman Empire.

http://www.levantia.com.au
Reply
#7
Quote:It may be relevant to note that Greek speaking Romans (of whatever period) did not use "imperator" or anything derived from it, but rather called their ruler "Vasilefs" (Βασιλεύς), which is simply the word for "King". So it would be a serious bit of digging to get some impression of what they meant by whatever term they applied to such upstarts.
Not only the Greeks speakers did that: I know that during the 5th century and later, the Latin words for the emperors could be 'rex' as well as 'imperator' and 'augustus'.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#8
Quote:No. You read from time to time that Charlemagne was recognised as such by the Byzantine state, but in fact his coronation was seen as a usurpation by both Irene (752–803) as well as Nicephoros I (802-811)

Not to play devil's advocate, but how is Charlemagne being a "usurper" as opposed to "emperor" any different than half the "Real" Roman Emperors, many of which were "usurpers"
Quintus Furius Collatinus

-Matt
Reply
#9
Hello,

the official intitulatio was, in toto, Karolus serenissimus Augustus a Deo coronatus magnus pacificus imperator Romanum gubernans imperium, qui et per misericordiam dei rex Francorum atque Langobardorum (Karl, the most serene Emperor, crowned by God, the great peace-bringing imperator, who is by the grace of God the King of the Franks and Lombards).

This is for the most part as official Roman imperial intitulatio as there was anno 801, as far as Latin goes. The only genuinely new part was the misericordiam dei added to the King’s title. All the other parts were contemporarily applied to the Roman emperor in (Latin speaking) Italy. Moreover, most of them originate from Ravenna, and are probably derived from contemporary Greek usage.

The point often missed is that basileus Romaion ( =imperator Romanorum; btw I am not going for a transcription of βασιλεύς reflecting modern Greek!) is hardly used in the Eastern Roman Empire before Charlemagne’s ascension. Less than a handful bits and bytes can be found… It was not a part of the official intitulatio at that time. The liber pontificales thus referred to Charlemagne as imperator Romanorum in a most broad, general meaning, without provoking any trouble. Or so they thought back then:

Just after Charlemagne used the traditional Roman titles, and just after he was accepted to do so by the Eastern Roman Emperor, the latter choose to emphazise the Romaion/Romanorum part. The reasons should be obvious… However I should add that they also may have been reacting to the pope’s habit of calling the Frankish Kings patricius Romanorum

Later Western Roman Emperors had little worries using the imperator Romanorum title when they were in opposition to the East, Otto I e.g. did that. Pope John XIII went even further by calling Nikephorus imperator Graecorum, emperor of the Greeks. It seems the WRE were perfectly comfortable with that from the late 10th century onward.


Quote:This is interesting. If he was recognised as Emperor, but not Emperor of the Romans, this seems to imply a divorce between the title and the Roman res publica.

Imo, it does not. Even if we are to ignore that it is a highly awkward face-saving ploy by the impotent ER Emperor, who would have loved to smack down the usurper hard but could not, the important part is the imperium.
Charlemagne made one problem Byzantium had more than obvious; the universal claim of the emperor was nothing but a farce. Playing in-group/out-group by suddenly monopolizing Roman-ness served masking the withdrawal from the universal claim. The WRE had no such problems, their imperium continued to include many nations, as it was with the old empire.

What I am asking myself is why one should care about what the ERE is doing… Since when did the eastern Emperor had the right to appoint the Western one? I for one cannot but to smile about a big irony: in the years between 535 and 800 the eastern Empire had first ravaged the west and then effectively abandoned it - both of which directly led to the steep rise of the Franks. What goes around comes around.
------------
[Image: regnumhesperium.png]
Reply
#10
Thanks, Kai. Great information.

Quote:What I am asking myself is why one should care about what the ERE is doing... Since when did the eastern Emperor had the right to appoint the Western one?

That’s another excellent question and perhaps deserves its own thread. Reading through Michael Grant’s biographies, it seems that many of the last western emperors were quite concerned about getting recognition from the east. Also, it seems two – Anthemius and Julius Nepos – were sent (came?) from the east to rule the west. Then Odoacer apparently requested his control of Italy be recognised by the east in exchange for a formal acceptance of Zeno as his overlord.

So there seems to be some precedence of the west receiving approval from the east during some years, at least. Perhaps this custom remained in people’s minds through the long centuries till Charlemagne?
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
Reply
#11
Hi Matt,

Quote: Not to play devil's advocate, but how is Charlemagne being a "usurper" as opposed to "emperor" any different than half the "Real" Roman Emperors, many of which were "usurpers"
A point that hardly anybody made a point of. Of course Constantine the Great was nothing more than a usurper, but whereas Magnus Maximus lived on a such, the only difference between both men was that Constantine succeeded. Possession is 9/10 of the law. In the case of Charles, it was the pope who coronated the emperor, to which he had of course no right whatsoever.

Hello Kai,

Quote: Later Western Roman Emperors had little worries using the imperator Romanorum title when they were in opposition to the East, Otto I e.g. did that. Pope John XIII went even further by calling Nikephorus imperator Graecorum, emperor of the Greeks. It seems the WRE were perfectly comfortable with that from the late 10th century onward.
Perhaps that had something to do with a) the power of the Byzantines and b) that the Western Roman empire was nothing more than a name. I do not recall that any ‘Roman emperor’ after Charlemagne ever laid a legal claim to the former territory of the WRE, nor expressed any wish or duty to recover these lands, let alone re-institute the legal basis of the WRE. The ‘Roman empire’ after 800 was never more than a title, an empty one at that.

Quote:Even if we are to ignore that it is a highly awkward face-saving ploy by the impotent ER Emperor, who would have loved to smack down the usurper hard but could not, the important part is the imperium.
Charlemagne made one problem Byzantium had more than obvious; the universal claim of the emperor was nothing but a farce. Playing in-group/out-group by suddenly monopolizing Roman-ness served masking the withdrawal from the universal claim. The WRE had no such problems, their imperium continued to include many nations, as it was with the old empire.
Yes and no. The WRE did not exist. The ‘many nations’ were indeed ‘many nations’, some ruled by the Franks, some outside their grasp. But it was very different from the old WRE, which had vanished.
Of course any universal claim was nothing more than a farce, but the ERE had at least far more recent experience with enforcing that claim. By 800 it was a moot point of course, since even the ERE no longer had any plans of re-occupying Spain, Gaul and Britain.
The real problem was the conflict over Venice and other disputed lands on both side of the Adriatic. This is where Charlemagne meddled, and this is what the ERE was mad about – a claim of Roman Imperium could (to them) have meant a real threat of the Franks moving into the East. And if you look at the large territorial gains which Charles had made during his reign, such a fear was by no means unfounded.

Quote: What I am asking myself is why one should care about what the ERE is doing… Since when did the eastern Emperor had the right to appoint the Western one?
Like David said, this was due to earlier circumstances. And I can elaborate on that, because it had been a long-standing practise for any Augustus to appoint another one if no successor was ready. Theodosius was appointed by Gratian after Valens died at Adrianople, and so had the ERE appointed Augusti in the West during the mid-5th century, and supported other candidates in the face of rebellions earlier. From that point of view, Constantinople had every right to approve upstarts without any legitimacy (which Charles legally was of course). Had this idea taken hold and had the Franks somehow really institutionalised the WRE, this might have changed, did they never did. The title remained just that, an empty one to add to other (more important) ones.

Quote: I for one cannot but to smile about a big irony: in the years between 535 and 800 the eastern Empire had first ravaged the west and then effectively abandoned it - both of which directly led to the steep rise of the Franks. What goes around comes around.
You speak in riddles. What irony? I fail to follow your point of view. The Franks had already risen sharply during the late 5th and early 6th centuries. After that they had stalled, and only after the Carolingian dynasty had supplanted the Merovingian dynasty had they began conquering more territory. The ERE hardly ever ‘ravaged the West between 535 and 800, then abandoning it’(are you referring to the Justinian reconquest?). parts of Italy and Africa 9and a slice of Spain) had been reoccupied, but largely lost over the following centuries. Hardly ‘ravaged and subsequently abandoned’, I think. Neither, in any case, led to the rise of the Franks, who had invaded Italy already during the 6th c. and reacted to the Islamic conquest of Spain after that.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#12
Hello David and Robert,

I will address your points in one text. Odoaker is an important figure because he claimed the west did not need an emperor anymore and thus he could rule as viceroy of the eastern Emperor. This again begs the question on what authority Odoaker made that declaration. Of course, an Augustus could appoint another Augustus in case of unexpected vacancy: Gratian btw was emperor of the west and took the rule over both halves of the empire upon the unexpected death of Valens, later appointing Theodosius to deal with a western rebellion and thus making him emperor. Quite different to what we have in 800.

Not only are more than 300 years of vacancy hardly ‘unexpected’, the east simply considered the western Empire dead at some point. However the west itself never did so. And this is where Charlemagne moved in.
Yet alone in the 8th century just the Italian population made four serious attempts to reinstall a Western Emperor, not counting Charlemagne in. On one of these occasions, the pope Gregory II acted against a rebellion of ‘all of Italy’ trying to proclaim an emperor. Also, the earlier history from 480 to 800 is filled with the western desire to have an Emperor, which of course never made the eastern one happy, who was rather comfortable with ruling alone. Henning Börm and Peter Classen both made very excellent papers on this, one from the classicist’s point of view, the other from the medieval studies’ point of view. Highly recommended. Charlemagne’s ascension is but the logical ending point of that development.

To the people in the west, the title was not empty. This is what matters, their judgment, not ours. Also, for the eastern Emperor it was important enough to go to war over it and change the own title in face of defeat – hardly the actions of people who considered the title empty. And it is not like they were the only ones: the Caliph affirmed Charlemagne’s claim of being Christianity’s foremost protector, a most vital function of the Roman Emperor since Theodosius. Sure he had political reasons to do so. Hell, everyone had! Strangely this argument usually comes up against Charlemagne’s supporters a lot, but the Byzantine legal opinion is repeated without such critique.

I for one do not know exactly who had the authority to declare the WRE dead, certainly not some Magister Militum. (and even less it is up to us!). Alas, I am also not sure who had to authority to reinstall it. However, to me, aristocracy and people of Rome (SPQR would have been the term a few centuries earlier…) seem like an argument not simply discarded by uncritically supporting the Eastern legal position. I am not saying you do, Robert, but unfortunately I have seen this very often on various fora. I sometimes felt like listening to Byzantine courtiers.

Regards

PS: I think the destruction of the Ostrogothic Kingdom which previously checked the Franks, like in 509-510, the reduction of Italy to a depopulated rubble of ruins, the offerings Goths and Byzantines had to make to the Franks to appease them and the overall weak position of Italy after the war played into the Frankish hands like nothing before. However that might be another discussion you are free to open. I will certainly respond later on.
------------
[Image: regnumhesperium.png]
Reply
#13
Hello Kai,

Interesting opinion. However, it seems to me that at times you write more out of emotion than of reason? That part of the ERE ‘ravaging, then abandoning’ the West may have looked a bit like that.

Quote: This again begs the question on what authority Odoaker made that declaration.
Of Odoacar had no authority to declare the West ‘dead’. This was merely a shrewd move, hoping for recognition when he would not declare himself an equal to Zeno, but a suvbordinate. But Zeno did not fall for that trick.

Quote: Quite different to what we have in 800.
How, in your opinion was the situation different by 800? Their was no western emperor, until Charles was made one. From a legal point of view, the only rightful inheritors of the Roman empire resided in Constantinople. At no time in between had there been a legal successor of the Western emperor.
Even more so, the eastern empire had appointed Frankish rulers in military and civilian posts. We don’t know of course how the Franks saw that, merely as a sought-after honorific title or a more practical appointment, but the fact remains that they accepted the right of the eastern emperor to do so. That alone would account for the legal point of view from Constantinople.

Quote: Not only are more than 300 years of vacancy hardly ‘unexpected’, the east simply considered the western Empire dead at some point. However the west itself never did so.
[..]Also, the earlier history from 480 to 800 is filled with the western desire to have an Emperor,
can you elaborate on that? Apart from 8th-c. Italy, which other kingdoms wanted to have a Western emperor again? The Franks? The Germans? The British? And ion Italy, who exactly tried to install an emperor, the people of Rome? Italy was not exactly united…
But between 476 and the 8th century, I see no movement to re-create an empire anywhere. The people of Italy were not exactly thrilled by the Justinian reconquest either – not because the wanted to be ruled by their own emperor, but because they were satisfied enough to be ruled by the Goths.

Quote: To the people in the west, the title was not empty. This is what matters, their judgment, not ours.
Please elaborate on that. I for one see no continuous movement that recognised a WRE, nor a move on behalf of generations of kings to crown themselves as emperor of the West. The idea was quite dead until the Carolingian re-invention of the Roman imperial idea (which is why we have a copy of the Notitia Dignitatum – it was copied for exactly thát reason!), apart from perhaps a few city states.

Quote:Also, for the eastern Emperor it was important enough to go to war over it and change the own title in face of defeat – hardly the actions of people who considered the title empty.
Ah, but I never said that – the Byzantines very much knew the value of concept and title. But the East did not go to war because of Charles accepting the title, no, they went to war out of realpolitik, because their territory in Illyria was under threat. Nothing more. If Charles had been a ruler in Northern Germany, I think the Byzantines would never have bothered. But this was a claim they could not deny, because the army of that ruler was active inside their territory.

Quote:And it is not like they were the only ones: the Caliph affirmed Charlemagne’s claim of being Christianity’s foremost protector, a most vital function of the Roman Emperor since Theodosius. Sure he had political reasons to do so. Hell, everyone had! Strangely this argument usually comes up against Charlemagne’s supporters a lot, but the Byzantine legal opinion is repeated without such critique.
The Caliph did not address him as Roman emperor, did he? That ‘protector’ title was never part of the original imperial function, was it? Did Theodosius and all emperor after him claim that as a title? I think not. No, the Caliph made a nice (but empty) compliment to Charles, and at the same time a dig against Constantinople, who were his real competitors.
That the argument is used against Charles’ supporters and not again Constantinople is nothing more than logical. Constantinople was the centuries-old Roman empire embodied, Charles was merely a Frankish king with ambitions, used by a Pope with his own ambitions. Neither had any legal right.

Quote:I for one do not know exactly who had the authority to declare the WRE dead, certainly not some Magister Militum. (and even less it is up to us!).
No-one actually did so. ‘defunct’ perhaps, but never ‘dead’, and you’ll probably find no source claiming the legal end of the WRE. That it ended as an institution was carried out by Odoacar in Italy, and the circumstance that after Nepos, no-one coveted that position, nor tried to claim it for centuries. By the 8th century, that changed, but that does not mean that the WRE continued in existence during the interval. From what I read of Belisarius’ experiences in Italy, it seems that the idea of a Roman empire in the West dies within generations.

Quote:Alas, I am also not sure who had to authority to reinstall it. However, to me, aristocracy and people of Rome (SPQR would have been the term a few centuries earlier…) seem like an argument not simply discarded by uncritically supporting the Eastern legal position. I am not saying you do, Robert, but unfortunately I have seen this very often on various fora. I sometimes felt like listening to Byzantine courtiers.
The city of Rome always remembered its past and former glory – had could they forget it? They lived among the very ruins. But it stopped there, it was only a means to gain importance over other Italian cities, no more. Ever saw a ruler in 7th or even 9th c. Rome who claimed the suzerainty of Spain or Britain by ancient Roman rights? Of course not. The glory was remembered, but the legal ramifications never tested. Everybody knew that the WRE was dead. I think that to many, Constantinople was a different empire, not even seen as the enduring Roman empire. If I sound like a Byzantine courtier it’s because in this case (as has been done in the West from the start of religious conflict with the Pope, throughout the Crusades and into the Enlightenment), Constantinople has always been wilfully disregarded as the true heir of Rome. ‘Greek’ empire no less! ‘Byzantine empire’! The invention of those words show the intent of centuries of Western disposition towards Constantinople. When the Classics were rediscovered in Europe, no-one looked East.

OK, now I sound very emotional myself. Big Grin
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#14
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 Wink

- 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.
------------
[Image: regnumhesperium.png]
Reply
#15
Hello Kai,

Quote: 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.
I think we agree on the legal status of the WRE: it was never disbanded, which offered the opportunity of any would-be successor to claim it, this being a Pope, an Italian city or an Eastern Roman emperor. No contest there.

However, where we do differ in opinion is how much that concept of the WRE was alive 9or not) in the West. It comes as no surprise to me that the best examples in your (admittedly short) listing are plans originating in Constantinople. No surprise, because that’s where you’d find a constant tradition of Roman Empire, not to mention a legal right (at least from their point of view) as well as possession of territory that was once part of the WRE.

My main point of contention was (and is) that, unlike that view in the East, hardly any western king or kingdom harboured the idea or the wish to take up that same wish to re-establish the WRE or even claim territories once part of the WRE. I know of no Frankish dynasty that claimed suzerainty over all the lands of the WRE. Now, I don’t exclude political claims now and then over lands under dispute where use of the ‘inheritance’ claim was made. But what (I think) you said about the WRE never being ‘dead’ in the West I just do not see. Even a claim that ‘all of Italy’ wanted to crown an Emperor I see as mainly a hyperbole, judging from events throughout the 6th, 7th and 8th c: Italy was a divided peninsula.

A different case is the (perceived) right of the Popes to crown emperors. However, I see this in a different light. I truly think that the Popes did not see the WRE as alive but divided under rivalling duces, to be reunited under one leader, but that they used the inheritance of that WRE to bolster their own power. This is exactly what for instance the ‘Translatio Imperii’ was all about: the claim that the Roman emperor had transferred some of their power to the Pope. And the harder the conflict between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox became, the more independence was claimed by the Pope. I think you would be hard put to find a legal base for any Pope to be the rightful person to crown an emperor. Of course they claimed that, based on their religious superiority, but while the WRE was alive they were never able to enforce this. If fact by the 8th c. we see an embodiment of the WRE by the Church, or at least an attempt to do so. Of course, this was also the reason that the RWE could never be revived: any emperor, be it Charles or any later successor, could never accept the Pope in a position above him. And this conflict is exactly what is played out afterwards, ending with the superiority of the crown over the tiara.

Summing up, I think that, apart from the Pope and his play for power), the WRE was a dead letter in the courts of Europe, but certainly so in the minds of the ordinary citizen. The idea of the WRE could of course be revived, but it never took hold again. The title of W Emperor could (and was) claimed from Charlemagne onwards (Napoleon being the last I believe?), but I think that had more to do with the claim to rule Italy, or the pomp and glamour, nothing more.

Quote: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.
Not if you put it like that, the eastern ones were outside his control. Does the original reference mention that, or does the quote generalise?
I think that Charles did in fact do what I described above: he claimed all the outward stuff for pomp and glory, in fact just as Napoleon did a millennium later), but never actually claimed the right to rule for instance England. Or did he? France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Italy were (for the most part) already his, and he would have occupied Spain if he’d been able to. My point is that he did not express any wish to re-occupy the lands of the WRE out of a wish to re-establish the WRE. It was the Pope who (at a very late date, no less) executed that plan. Hence my interpretation: the WRE was dead as an idea and a project. Only the glory of the past was remembered and claimed. No citizen saw himself as a Roman any longer, or had done so since the late 5th c., or perhaps the late 6th.

Quote: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.
I’m not sure if a put a ‘lot of stress’ on that fact, but indeed, that’s the main point of it. Charles was never recogniosed as Western Roman emperor. I’m not sure why this was a face-saving ploy; the emperor received Venice back in turn for this title, did he not? I don’t see the recognition as result of a face-saving ploy as a ‘fact’.
I’m not sure what you are saying about Irene? I see the offer of legitimacy through marriage as yet another hint that the right to legitimate was that of Constantinople and not of Rome.

Quote: puzzlingly, you call Charles a "mere Frankish king".
Ah, that was by no means an attempt to belittle the man. By no means indeed! :!: If anyone was, Charles came to closest to being an emperor in his own right. Too bad he wasn’t 40 when he achieved this – perhaps when he had been crowned emperor 10 or 15 years earlier, who knows..
No, by ‘mere’ I intended to show a difference between the opposite side, an empire with the weight of history, culture and legality behind it, versus a king of one of the many kings in the many Germanic kingdoms. In that sense, Charles had conquered a lot of the kingdoms, but in effect he had no more right to becoming a ‘Roman’ emperor than Egbert king of Wessex, Aethelred of Mercia or Ramiro I of Asturias had. The only difference was that he ruled a territory a 100 times larger than the latter kings. But might does not make a right, even when you get away with it. Wink
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Complexion of the roman emperors Virilis 28 11,815 05-31-2021, 02:43 PM
Last Post: Till_When?
  Portraits of Roman Emperors Renatus 4 1,313 08-18-2020, 02:43 PM
Last Post: Athena Areias
  Roman Emperors and the \"King\" title Epictetus 13 4,275 02-04-2012, 08:29 PM
Last Post: Epictetus

Forum Jump: