Charlemagne and later \"Roman\" emperors

[Kai]

Hello Robert, back from congresses and better rested I find some time again to answer, hopefully.

Well, maybe I did not explain the 'face saver' clearly enough, but it important because it is the starting point of the topic actually: the fact that Michael changed the official title in face of Charles' ascension, who had taken the complete intitulatio of Roman Emperors used at that time in the west. So Michael could proudly claim that Charles was denied the 'true' 'Roman' title - this is nonsense of course, since Charles got precisely what he wanted, the full Roman title as used in the west. But it did save Michael's face, especially as Charles seized operations against Venice, leaving the Eastern Emperor with a tiny landmass in the west, which he could not win anyway due to his naval inferiority.
Please don't just again repeat that Eastern propaganda of the great Eastern Emperor who was so strong that he did not have to recognize poor Charles, and poor Charles who did not dare to take the 'real title'. Again, Michael changed the title, after Charles got what the one he wanted.

Charles' empire was large enough, and from his point of view, he did rule over the sedes imperii. The fact that he did not extend it on all of the eastern ones, is all the more telling about his western aspirations. England is a somewhat special case. It has been given up generations before even the old Western Roman Empire fell, and not even the most universal claim of the Roman Emperors after the withdrawal had included England. Up to Charles, that is, acting as superior to
Anglo-Saxon Kings. This is not my field of interest, but Joanna Story in Carolingian Connections: Anglo-Saxon England and Carolingian Francia argues that Charles indeed considered England his sphere of influence not only in the tradition of Roman Emperors of old days, but as Emperor of the Christians (especially pp.166-168), which itself is a deeply Roman idea.

I think it is largely misleading to say that Charles was just more successful than other petty kings. Western legal and political theory of that time demanded the title (the nomen) to fit the power and vice versa, since titles were feebly man-made work anyway. This reaches far back to Augustine and ultimately Aristotle. Of course it gained a new importance to legitimize the deposition of the Merovingian kingship.
Accumulating multiple titles, including royal ones and that of being the pope's and Rome's protector is quite a legal burden already. It is hardly coincidence finding that Charles was called augustus before 800, e.g. in the Panegyricus of Paderborn, which also calls Aachen a second Rome.

In general, the Frankish kingdom started as a federate Command within the Roman Empire on Roman soil, with the kings being Roman commanders, commanding soldiers of the Roman Army, and ruling over Roman citizens. That is why Aegidius was both Magister Militum and considered king of the Franks, btw. There is every bit as Roman tradition in the Gaulish or Germanic provinces surviving as there is in the eastern ones, albeit with different political structure - which was different enough before 480 anyway. Yes, culture was different in 2nd century Gaul than in 8th century Gaul, just like it was in Greece. Transformation does not make anyone less Roman, unless you want to return to the good old 'Barbarians in the west, Byzantine Greeklings in the east' pattern. The traditions in which Charles was standing are firmly Roman, as current scholarship on early medieval times is working out time and again. (Just this month I attended two conferences, a large one and a small one, with very different topics, yet the result is pretty clear).
Roman Citizenship is a difficult matter and one can safely say we need more research on it in post-WRE-time. Therefore I would not be jumping to conclusions all too quickly, especially as I am not that familiar with the contemporary sources on it.
Where there is a difference to the east is that Roman identity in the west was certainly of lesser importance as it had an equal flanking identity, Frank e.g. Then again, much of the fuzz about Carolingian Renaissance was for the sake of Roman-ness.

One of my four out of seventeen examples for attempted western revivals of the Empire originated in Constantinople, i.e. the supposedly last will of Maurice. All the other, also the majority of those not listed, had nothing do to with Constantinople unless, of course, you count actions against the Eastern Roman Emperor as "originating in Constantinople".
What I see is a long list of western sources. Yes they are filled with hyperbole, distortions, outright lies, hidden and open agendas - which only means they not any different to eastern sources in that respect. They clearly evidence that a lot of elites (it would be difficult to get the 'common' people's opinion anyway) had a big interest in this revival and expressing this in various forms, from military action to court speeches. I mean there is a military commander marching on Rome because he wants the pope to crown him Emperor. but you don't see the interest in revival, saying they thought the western Empire was dead? I am at a loss here, what kind of evidence would you want?

In the same vain I do not understand your evidence. Saying that the papacy had ulterior motives by installing the Emperorship is one thing and one certainly will not find disagreement on that. The other thing is saying they thought the western Empire was dead. Even bolder would saying that everyone else did. Other than being factually incorrect as seventeen cases should amply demonstrate, there is hardly a way to know what "the ordinary citizen" had in mind. ...whatever "the ordinary citizen" is supposed to be.
What I would need are sources proving the dead-being of the WRE beyond resurrection. The only I know is Odoaker claiming the West did not need an Emperor no more. Dubious at best, wouldn't you agree?

regards
Kai

[Theodosius the Great]

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.

Interesting. I think the origin of the perceived right of the Pope to crown a western emperor was deduced from the practice of eastern emperors always being crowned by the Patriarch of Constantinople which pre-dates the fall of the Western government.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Byzantine Empire: The high civil and military officials took part in the enthronement of a new monarch, often by means of a palace or military revolution. Legally, the people participated in the government only through the Church. From the time of Marcianus, the Byzantine emperors were crowned by the Patriarchs of Constantinople.

If Marcian was the first emperor to be crowned by the Patriach maybe it was a sign that he wanted to shore up his legitimacy to the throne after the untimely death of Theodosius II. After his reign the practice just became traditional.

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.

The church was probably the most supportive group of the invasion since they were under the rule of Arians. The general population to a lesser degree may have had misgivings as well. But the Ostrogoths were mild, largely assimilated rulers unlike the Vandals.

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.

I suspect some still considered themselves Roman citizens for a lot longer than that. The Exarchate of Italy did not disappear until well into the eighth century. Italians could still aspire to the office. The Eastern Empire was still the wealthiest state in Europe and probably remained alluring among the ambitious elite. Besides, the senatorial families of Rome with their lands and wealth did not disappear from the scene for a long time.

~Theo

[Theodosius the Great]

Avete,

I just stumbled on something very intriguing by Gregory of Tours about Clovis, the first Catholic king of the Franks. Writing about the year 508 A.D. he says:

Letters reached Clovis from the emperor Anatasius to confer the consulate on him. In St. Martin's church he stood clad in a purple tunic and the military mantle, and he crowned himself with a diadem. He then rode out on his horse, showered gold and silver coins among the people present all the way from the doorway of St. Martin's church to Tours cathedral. From that day on he was called consul or Augustus. (Greg. Tur., Hist. 2.38, trans. Thorpe)

If true this is remarkable. I never read about Frankish kings prior to Charles the Great who claimed the title Augustus. Anastasius surely would've heard about this but apparently did not protest. So, perhaps Charles in 800 A.D. could have legitimately claimed to have been following precedent when he accepted the emperorship.

Thoughts, anyone ?

~Theo

[magister clarissimus]

"et ab ea die tamquam consul aut augustus est vocitatus."

it only states that he was regularly called augustus or consul, not that he claimed the title.

it seems remarkable, but keep in mind how close to the Roman world the first kings of the Franks were. culturally the Roman empire was a main point of reference for them, there simply was no other established state in the west they could refer to for their ceremonies, terminology ecc.

[Theodosius the Great]

it only states that he was regularly called augustus or consul, not that he claimed the title.

Yes, I agree it doesn't say he actually claimed the title. But it sounds like a distinction without a difference, IMO. To be regularly called by a title implies consent or acceptance by the recipient. And when coupled with his actions of wearing imperial regalia the title doesn't sound so empty. Assuming the story is accurate it sounds provocative enough based on the Byzantine reactions against the crowning of Charles.

culturally the Roman empire was a main point of reference for them, there simply was no other established state in the west they could refer to for their ceremonies, terminology ecc.

I'm not sure I agree. Clovis' predecessor, Childeric, was content with using the Latin title "Rex" as we see on his coinage and jewelry. The use of "Augustus" is something new for a Germanic king.

What makes the story more astonishing is the near contemporary events taking place in neighboring Italy. Odoacer, the first Germanic king of Italy in 476, tactfully sent back the imperial regalia of the western empire (WRE) to Constantinople, declaring that there was no need of a western Augustus as long as he could rule as a subordinate king.

Then Clovis comes along and does the exact opposite by wearing the regalia of an Augustus and allowing himself to be called such.

BTW, the Germanic tribes did have their own ceremonies. The famous raising on the shield ritual, first mentioned by Tacitus, was purely Germanic. Julian the Apostate was the first Roman to undergo the ritual and eventually it caught on as part of the Byzantine coronation ceremony.

If Charles had been a ruler in Northern Germany, I think the Byzantines would never have bothered.

That sounds like the case with Clovis. Since his kingdom didn't share a border with the empire I guess they didn't care what others called him. And by not making it an issue the title was not passed down to Clovis' successors. But I think Charles could have claimed to have inherited it. I guess he didn't have a copy of Gregory of Tours handy at the time. :-)

~Theo

[Robert Vermaat]

culturally the Roman empire was a main point of reference for them, there simply was no other established state in the west they could refer to for their ceremonies, terminology ecc.

I'm not sure I agree. Clovis' predecessor, Childeric, was content with using the Latin title "Rex" as we see on his coinage and jewelry. The use of "Augustus" is something new for a Germanic king.

Not so much when you know that 'rex' and 'augustus' were already used as a synonym by the Romans themselves at this point in the 5th century. From that point of view this can be a simple case of continuation, not earth-shaking.

What makes the story more astonishing is the near contemporary events taking place in neighboring Italy. Odoacer, the first Germanic king of Italy in 476, tactfully sent back the imperial regalia of the western empire (WRE) to Constantinople, declaring that there was no need of a western Augustus as long as he could rule as a subordinate king.
Then Clovis comes along and does the exact opposite by wearing the regalia of an Augustus and allowing himself to be called such.

As above. Aklso, we do not really know what regalia Clovis used. All we have is a much later account by Gregory of Tours, who was a) not always very clear in his histories and b) a big fan of Clovis.

[Theodosius the Great]

Not so much when you know that 'rex' and 'augustus' were already used as a synonym by the Romans themselves at this point in the 5th century. From that point of view this can be a simple case of continuation, not earth-shaking.

One could look at it that way, I agree. But I'm unaware of other Germanic kings being addressed as Augustus.

Aklso, we do not really know what regalia Clovis used.

It isn't hard to guess based on the context. The coronation ceremony being described is clearly Byzantine as the details bear out. The wearing of a purple tunic followed by a "military mantle" - the Roman equivalent of the paludamentum though this term isn't used by Gregory. Then the diadem is placed on his head. After the crowning he then rides out to the cathedral. The sequence of events is identical to those in Anastasius' coronation ceremony. Whether or not the regalia was exactly Roman it is clear what was being imitated. I doubt the coronation ceremonies as practiced by the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Vandals conform as closely to the Byzantine ritual. One reason might be that those kingdoms were ruled by Arians.

All we have is a much later account by Gregory of Tours, who was a) not always very clear in his histories and b) a big fan of Clovis.

While generally true Gregory was still a near-contemporary. The event being described could still have been in living memory. If it was embellished beyond recognition someone would have known about it. His "History of the Franks" starts with Creation but events that take place closer to his time are more likely to be accurate.

As for Gregory's admiration for Clovis, his reasons are primarily religious. It doesn't seem likely he would care to embellish something as mundane as a coronation ceremony. He's more likely to embellish Clovis' supposed virtues as the first Christian convert of the Franks.

As a parallel, would you suspect Eusebius of embellishing trivial details about Constantine, his big hero? Eusebius, like Gregory, was a religious historian who, as such, admired his hero for purely religious reasons.

~Theo

[Kai]

But I'm unaware of other Germanic kings being addressed as Augustus.

The Augustus-title was sometimes used on 'Germanic' kings (who actually had Roman citizenship, held Roman offices and commanded a Roman federate army). With regard to the use of it one must consider who is using it in what context. This is best demonstrated by Theoderic the Great.

We know of an inscription of a Roman senator hailing him Augustus. Indeed a large number of aristocrats obviously had an interest in accepting him, not the eastern Emperor, as highest suzerain. Conversely Theoderic quite openly toyed with this option.
In front of a clerical council he told the story of Aspar, a Magister Militum, who was offered the Augustus-title but declined. The message is simple enough: Theoderic could take the purple of the west if he wanted to, but he ostentatiously did not.
However a further change in tone can be found in official diplomatic correspondence when he never used any title but rex and his Roman offices, putting him unmistakably in second place behind the Emperor.

One also must be extremely careful in stating rex and augustus were used synonymously. It did happen but certainly not in the Ostrogothic kingdom and iirc generally not in the west. Clerical writers were the ones who used rex for the Roman Emperor rather frequently but this stems from the influence of the Greek language prevalent among clerics with Basileus being king as well as emperor. This had little influence on political language in the west and absolutely none at all on the legal discourses. More generally there is a difference between the use of rex for an augustus and vice versa