AHC: Papal-Screw

I think it would remove a cause for dispute, but the vast majority of the West didn't care.

As for turning to the Emperor for protection - I think in this situation the Lombard King (or whoever occupies the area) will take the pope under his protection "as a true and faithful Christian". :D

Medieval Rome was a dangerous place, so he might even be able to say that with a straight face, unlike me.

Ah I wasn't sure how important that really was.

And I thought that Byzantium still held Sicily and parts of southern Italy at this point. Or was that only reacquired later? But your right, Medieval Rome was a dangerous place to be the Pope. I mean dozens of Popes were crowned, deposed, murdered, and generally suffered during this time. They were more or less puppets of the reigning Roman barons. So turning to the Lombards is fairly realistic. Though I imagine the King would want to be crowned King of Italy. After all, he's not heading to the Pope's aid out of good Christian piety.
 
Ah I wasn't sure how important that really was.

It certainly mattered to the relations with the HRE, but I am not aware of anything where England and its feelings meant much - although the issue of being merely "Greeks" would be insulting from anyone.

And I thought that Byzantium still held Sicily and parts of southern Italy at this point. Or was that only reacquired later?

If you mean AD 800:
Sicily, yes, part of the heel and the toes of the boot.

But your right, Medieval Rome was a dangerous place to be the Pope. I mean dozens of Popes were crowned, deposed, murdered, and generally suffered during this time. They were more or less puppets of the reigning Roman barons. So turning to the Lombards is fairly realistic. Though I imagine the King would want to be crowned King of Italy. After all, he's not heading to the Pope's aid out of good Christian piety.

I wonder what the distinction between "King of Italy" and "King of the Lombards" would be. Not arguing, just pondering how that would be used by a king able to make such a "request".

The area south of what became the papal states is cheerfully ignoring the northern king, but claiming sovereignty over all Italy would definitely make it impossible for that to be left as is.
 
It certainly mattered to the relations with the HRE, but I am not aware of anything where England and its feelings meant much - although the issue of being merely "Greeks" would be insulting from anyone.



If you mean AD 800:
Sicily, yes, part of the heel and the toes of the boot.



I wonder what the distinction between "King of Italy" and "King of the Lombards" would be. Not arguing, just pondering how that would be used by a king able to make such a "request".

The area south of what became the papal states is cheerfully ignoring the northern king, but claiming sovereignty over all Italy would definitely make it impossible for that to be left as is.

Yeah that was the big thing for Constantinople: being addressed as Emperor of the Greeks by a bunch of "upstart barbarians". As far as I know that only started after the Pope began creating Western Emperors, so at the very least the east isn't being constantly insulted.


That's what I thought. And I might be wrong but wasn't the Duchy of Rome still in existence at this point? If so he could theoretically take control of Rome from the Pope.

And to the title, well I got the idea from two different sources. The Ostrogothic kings called themselves Kings of Italy and so did the Carolingians so I can see a Lombard King claiming the same. And the title itself continued as a lesser title of the Holy Roman Emperors until 1806, but they never claimed all of Italy, but rather northern and central Italy. As far as I'm aware no medieval King of Italy claimed the south directly (the Hohenstaufen Emperors controlled the south but as Kings of Sicily, not Italy).
 
Yeah that was the big thing for Constantinople: being addressed as Emperor of the Greeks by a bunch of "upstart barbarians". As far as I know that only started after the Pope began creating Western Emperors, so at the very least the east isn't being constantly insulted.

Yeah. I think that may develop anyway, but I don't know. Without someone as significant as Charlemagne, or some other western bigshot, the Empire can generally ignore West-Central Europe. Charlemagne made it so there were forces worth paying attention to in that region.

That's what I thought. And I might be wrong but wasn't the Duchy of Rome still in existence at this point? If so he could theoretically take control of Rome from the Pope.

I am not sure - I think the exarchate had been taken but I don't know about the area immediately around Rome.

And to the title, well I got the idea from two different sources. The Ostrogothic kings called themselves Kings of Italy and so did the Carolingians so I can see a Lombard King claiming the same. And the title itself continued as a lesser title of the Holy Roman Emperors until 1806, but they never claimed all of Italy, but rather northern and central Italy. As far as I'm aware no medieval King of Italy claimed the south directly (the Hohenstaufen Emperors controlled the south but as Kings of Sicily, not Italy).

This may change in a situation where the Lombard King feels he can do something about those in the south who have been ignoring that technically "of the Lombards" includes them, but that's something to chew on.
 
Would that not mean that there is no revival of the Imperial title in the West? Or was it inevitable that a powerful King would eventually crown himself Emperor of the West?

Yes it would mean that there would be no revival of the Western Roman Empire. From a legalistic point of view it ceased to exist when Odoacer sent the imperial eagles to Costantinople and ruled Italy in the name of the emperor (one and only) located there.
There is no legal point for the pope to arrogate the right to crown an emperor of the west.
 
I agree, the establishment of Papal State was a crucial point. Other means we can take would be... creating another patriarchate in the West. Maybe somewhere in Gaul?

I doubt it would do it even if possible : Gaul as a whole was christened in two or three waves with public pagan sanctuaries functionning up to VI century. The towns are probably touched in the same time than other roman provinces, but countryside asked for a longer effort. Furthermore, it didn't had a real apostolic seat, something that is a real obstacle.

Unless you have a PoD set before the IIIrd century, something meaning history of Christiendom as well Europe is going to change, there's little room for a patriarchate in West outside Rome, and *maybe* Carthage.

Even assuming you can put one there, and disregarding the butterflies, Rome had still an important symbolical predominance, in western and eastern christianity up to the X century.

Would that not mean that there is no revival of the Imperial title in the West? Or was it inevitable that a powerful King would eventually crown himself Emperor of the West?

There's a misconsception there : Charlemagne didn't revived the western title, but claimed an imperium on Christianity that was considered being abandoned by Byzantines.
The "western" part of his title is an historiographic conception.
You can see that in his titulature : "Charles, most serene Augustus as crowned by God, great and peaceful emperor ruling the Roman empire", and not "Emperor of the Romans"

But at this date, the religious policy of Carolingians is already achieved : you really have to see with Charles Martel or at best with Peppin II alliance with Papacy to prevent it.

Admitting the byzantine succession prevents Irene of taking the title, and then Franks to see it as to be taken, it wouldn't prevent Charlemagne (being Patrice of Franks and of Romans) to use the pope as a mirror of his rule.

And I thought that Byzantium still held Sicily and parts of southern Italy at this point. Or was that only reacquired later?
These parts tended to live on their own rule. The late Byzantine Papacy ruled the Ducatus Romanus as an independent state in fact, even if theorically dependent of Ravenne (that had a large autonomy of its own).

I mean dozens of Popes were crowned, deposed, murdered, and generally suffered during this time. They were more or less puppets of the reigning Roman barons.
That is really reconsidered by modern studies : the gregorian reform popes needed a big deal of legitimacy that the HREmperor couldn't give them entierly. The best way to do it, as always, was to depict their predecessors darker than they were.
The pontifical power was certainly weaker at this time than during the Classical Middle-Ages, but I don't think it was that much compared to the Byzantine Papacy.

So turning to the Lombards is fairly realistic. Though I imagine the King would want to be crowned King of Italy. After all, he's not heading to the Pope's aid out of good Christian piety.
I'm not sure it would be entierly possible : germanic and germano-roman kingship was on at least technically a popular one based on the acceptance of their people.
Frankish kingship innovated with Peppinid/Carolingians with their alliance with papacy, allowing them to be sacred and not only crowned or intronised.
Basically, they were no longer only Kings of the Franks, but Christian Kings (or beneficing of a christian kingship) not unlike what existed in Byzantium. There's a real thresold, in my opinion.

Lombards didn't benefited for this, and weakening pontifical power is going to butterfly such moves. I don't doubt you'll end with pro-Lombards popes (but you're gonna have a strong pro-Byzantine party, after all if there were such in Carolingian Italy, you gonna have them in Lombardian), but lombardic kingship was too much dependent of nobiliar support that it's likely that even a sacre wouldn't be enough to make them the equals of OTL Carolingians (not unlike the Visigothic sacre didn't do for visigothic kingship).
 
Yeah that was the big thing for Constantinople: being addressed as Emperor of the Greeks by a bunch of "upstart barbarians". As far as I know that only started after the Pope began creating Western Emperors, so at the very least the east isn't being constantly insulted.


That's what I thought. And I might be wrong but wasn't the Duchy of Rome still in existence at this point? If so he could theoretically take control of Rome from the Pope.

And to the title, well I got the idea from two different sources. The Ostrogothic kings called themselves Kings of Italy and so did the Carolingians so I can see a Lombard King claiming the same. And the title itself continued as a lesser title of the Holy Roman Emperors until 1806, but they never claimed all of Italy, but rather northern and central Italy. As far as I'm aware no medieval King of Italy claimed the south directly (the Hohenstaufen Emperors controlled the south but as Kings of Sicily, not Italy).

You are thinking of the dukes of Spoleto, who from 850 to around 1000 AD effectively controlled Rome (with some interruptions, for example when Otto came to Rome to be crowned) and changed popes almost at will.

The title of the Lombard kings was "king of the Lombards and Italians", same as the Gothic kings were styled "kings of the Goths and Italians).
The Carolingians never went beyond Benevento, which was the southernmost duchy of the Lombard kingdom.
Therefore the south was never claimed as part of the empire, and the same applies to the main islands (Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica): on this basis subsequent popes felt entitled to grant "crowns": the first was the crown of Sicily, granted to Robert the Guiscard; then Sardinia, around middle 1300s.
 
Therefore the south was never claimed as part of the empire, and the same applies to the main islands (Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica): on this basis subsequent popes felt entitled to grant "crowns": the first was the crown of Sicily, granted to Robert the Guiscard; then Sardinia, around middle 1300s.

The Carolingian Empire, as all germano-roman kingships, weren't much a territorial but a popular one : you don't really have treaties (except with Byzantium) clearly defining what was under imperial authority or what wasn't : in the most strict definition of frankish kingship we could even consider that the Empire didn't included most of its marches.

It's eventually more based on popular and individual submission : Arechis II and Grimoald acknowledged carolingian suzerainty (both after frankish armed intervention), their successors were in a "in-between" situation (you could say not technically overthrown suzerainty) that lasted up to the end of carolingian rule in Italy.
 
The Carolingian Empire, as all germano-roman kingships, weren't much a territorial but a popular one : you don't really have treaties (except with Byzantium) clearly defining what was under imperial authority or what wasn't : in the most strict definition of frankish kingship we could even consider that the Empire didn't included most of its marches.

It's eventually more based on popular and individual submission : Arechis II and Grimoald acknowledged carolingian suzerainty (both after frankish armed intervention), their successors were in a "in-between" situation (you could say not technically overthrown suzerainty) that lasted up to the end of carolingian rule in Italy.

I mentioned earlier that the Lombard kings styled themselves as "kings of the Lombard and Italians", and probably did not have a full grasp of the concept of territorial state. Charles managed to get oaths of fealty and vassallage from both Arechis and Grimoald (although Arechis managed to avoid to swear personally to the emperor and the submission was by proxy), and Grimoald was even for a brief period hostage at the Carolingian court.
However both of them managed to keep this submission quite nominal, and their policies make it clear that they saw it as a continuation of the strategy of the dukes of Benevento (the largest Lombard duchy and the farthest away from the royal capital in Pavia) toward the Lombard kings. It is interesting that neither Charles nor his son Pepin of Italy ever managed to crush the duchy completely: certainly the distance helped but also the fact that Campania had been promised to the pope as part of the Patrimonium Petri (and it was mostly Adrian I who insistently asked Charles to move against Arechis) and so of lesser interest to the emperor. The Byzantine presence in Southern Italy - although reduced - and the ability of both Arechis and Grimoald in playing the card of Byzantine support certainly helped.

All of this is certainly interesting (and I was always fascinated by the history of the Lombards in Italy) but the point I was trying to make is that the Carolingians never went beyond Benevento (actually they never even reached Benevento in arms) and recognised a de-facto overlordship of the ERE in Southern Italy. This played well in the hands of the popes a couple of centuries later when the Byzantine presence was even more reduced (and Sicily had been lost to Arabs) to feel entitled to grant Roger the Guiscard the crown of Sicily, then later on to appoint an Anjou as king of Naples (doubly justified I would say since Campania was included in the Patrimonium Petri) and even later to create a kingdom of Sardinia and to offer the crown to Aragon in exchange for an end to the hostilities with Angevins in Southern Italy. If Charles had not agreed to the idea of granting almost half of Italy to the Patrimonium Petri (a nominal grant, obviously, and the popes never managed to get their hands on most of it) the history of Italy would have been quite different (and the history of Europe too). OTOH Charles' father got
a very useful investiture from the pope when he finally took formally the throne, so maybe Charles was trying to pay a debt.
 
I mentioned earlier that the Lombard kings styled themselves as "kings of the Lombard and Italians", and probably did not have a full grasp of the concept of territorial state.
Even if they had, it wouldn't have mattered. Up to the XIII at best, kingship and lordship is really about popular and/or individual relation to their ruler (by exemple, with the dynastic change in East Francia, the title passed from "King of the Eastern Franks" to "King of the Teutons").

I'm not saying that territorial rulership was unknown, the counties were more or less such, but in regard of kingship it's simply irrelevant.

However both of them managed to keep this submission quite nominal, and their policies make it clear that they saw it as a continuation of the strategy of the dukes of Benevento (the largest Lombard duchy and the farthest away from the royal capital in Pavia) toward the Lombard kings.
Well, certainly. On the other hand, Carolingians make it clear they saw their rule in Italy as a continuation of the Lombard kings. I assume Benevento's policies were quite normal on this regard.

It is interesting that neither Charles nor his son Pepin of Italy ever managed to crush the duchy completely: certainly the distance helped but also the fact that Campania had been promised to the pope as part of the Patrimonium Petri (and it was mostly Adrian I who insistently asked Charles to move against Arechis
I can't remember a lordship that Carolingian crushed completly : they favoured keeping the structures already existing but putting pro-Franks and Franks nobility in charge locally and Frankish rulers.
Now, they never managed to do that for Benevent. But should we go as far saying Benevento wasn't under Carolingian overlordship even if they tried to dispute it? I don't think so.

For the Donation of Pepin, I'm far more dubious than you : it was notably promised to papacy the control of Tuscany and Emilia but it was never enforced. I don't doubt roman papacy tried to take advantages of frankish expeditions to expand (or more exactly, trying to expand, itself) but the reasons could be more secular : Arechis participated to a plot with Lombards nobles under Frankish rule, and the having a southern principality openly rejecting frankish suzerainty was a bad exemple for Lombards nobles.

Finally, a struggle of influence against Byzzies is another possibility, but I would more tend to see Grimoald doing see-saw with both empires, using his position as a buffer principality.

All of this is certainly interesting (and I was always fascinated by the history of the Lombards in Italy) but the point I was trying to make is that the Carolingians never went beyond Benevento (actually they never even reached Benevento in arms)
As I said above, they did. I can list three armed interventions in southern Italy.

-787 : up to Salerno in order to sumbit Arechis
-788 : allied with Grimoald and Hildebrand of Spoleto to fight Byzantines.
-792 : to fight Grimoald that tried to overthrow Frankish suzerainty.

However, with Louis I, the situation is far better for Beneventi as Carolingians are too busy fighting each other or dealing with Vikings to make the former forced to do only really nominal gestures of submission.

and recognised a de-facto overlordship of the ERE in Southern Italy
Erm. No. Unless fighting Byzantines and their Lombard puppet Adalgis is a sign of recognizing ERE overlordship, they didn't.
To my knowledge they were under Byzantine influence in the period between Islamic invasions on southern Italy (late IX century) and the definitive takeover of Italy by Ottonians (late XI), but not during the Carolingian era proper at the exception of really late part.

This played well in the hands of the popes a couple of centuries later when the Byzantine presence was even more reduced (and Sicily had been lost to Arabs) to feel entitled to grant Roger the Guiscard the crown of Sicily, then later on to appoint an Anjou as king of Naples (doubly justified I would say since Campania was included in the Patrimonium Petri) and even later to create a kingdom of Sardinia and to offer the crown to Aragon in exchange for an end to the hostilities with Angevins in Southern Italy.

If Charles had not agreed to the idea of granting almost half of Italy to the Patrimonium Petri (a nominal grant, obviously, and the popes never managed to get their hands on most of it) the history of Italy would have been quite different (and the history of Europe too).
I really doubt it played a role. Not only popes never managed to get Emilia and Toscany but even in the regions as Ravenna or Pentapolis, they barely managed to make their nominal authority respected.
The pope was only considered then as the administrator of Rome and the nominal overseer of the former exerchate.

If you search what created not only the pontifical temporal independence but as well control of Central Italy, the Ottonian Pact is probably far more fitting as it clearly specify these.

OTOH Charles' father got a very useful investiture from the pope when he finally took formally the throne, so maybe Charles was trying to pay a debt.
That's, if you allow me, is really far from carolingian relation to papacy. He needed it as a tool and nothing more : the frankish king was really clear on this, the pope had to obey the leader of Christiendom, him. The role of the roman pontiff was to be busy supporting him with prayers and christian unity.

You only had a more balanced relation between emperors and papacy with Louis I, admittedlty raised as a monk, that had both a better respect for the pope and a need of legitimacy against his sons.
 
1) have the Synod of Whitby go the other way, and Anglo-Saxon England stays 'Celtic Christian'. Yes, LSCatalina, that wont have nearly as much effect as some think, but while they acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope, they did use different rites, and didnt accept control from Rome.

Then Britain, Scandinavia, and likely parts of Germany end up acknowledging Papal titular supremacy, but not control.

Heck, given how much of the Carolingian Renaissance was run by Irish and English clergy, any Carolingian Empire (which is likely different, but may well exist), is likely to be more independent of Rome than OTL, although probably it stays more Roman than 'Celtic'.

2) follow on effects likely include more regal/local appointment of bishops, and less papal appointing. It could easily end up with a more Consilar church - doctrine made by church councils, not papal bulls.

3) possibly independently from above, have St James' remains be 'discovered' earlier, and 'spain' claims Patriarchal authority based on their Apostle.

4) if you want to go really crazy, have the Celtic grouping claim direct descent from Jesus' supposed visit with Joseph of Arimathea to Glastonbury.
 
Top