I should have known you were French. Only the French can be so obstinate
I'm obstinate there less because I'm french, than because this topic was part of my studies, tough.
Making a difference between "Roman Emperor" and "August Emperor" is, IMHO, a blatant piece of sophistry. From the point of view of a 8th century Frankish warlord (or from that of an Italian pope), there was no "Emperor" except a Roman one (just as there could not be a "King of Kings" except an Iranian one).
For exemple the Persian shah was named "basileus" in Greek. You had medieval use of imperator and basileus in Spain, Anglo-Saxon England, Scotland, for exemple, that didn't implied any romanity, but an overlordship.
(as in the "Emperor of All Spain")
Eventually, I'd quote Eginhard that never ceased to call "Emperors" who ruled Romania, that is ERE.
There's as well a sylistic problem : if you went into Carolingian era text, you'd see that when used, references to Romes are systematical : "Roman bishops", "roman people" (as people of the city of Rome). What you're suggesting is that, somehow, it would have been systematized everytime safe for the emperors?
Again, I'm more than skeptical.
Of course, that alone doesn't demonstrate the lack of a "Roman imperial model" but when you contextualise this absence of systematisation, the relatively large self-attribution of "emperor" in Middle Ages, and the absence of mention of "Roman Emperor" in Carolingian titulature...
If specialists of the era roughly agree that it wasn't the case, maybe they have a point, after all.
And you could very well be a Frank and yet be a "Roman", just like Phillip the Arab was a "Roman" Emperor or Septimius Severus (an African) or indeed the Spaniard Antonines.
Not really. Barbarian and Roman "citizenship" mutually excluded themselves. While being African, for what mattered Romans in Late Antiquity, was only a matter of geographic locations; Frank was about a political identity.
I could mention, among many others sources, Gregorius of Tours making a distinction between "Romans citizens" and Franks.
It's why, before Charlemagne, nobody in western Europe took the imperial title, except Byzantine usurpers from the exarchates. Not one Merovingian, not one Goth, not one Lombard.
And that while you had an handful of Roman titles that were used by Romano-Barbarians : for exemple, patricius/patrice, princeps/prince, comes/count, dux/duke up from Late Roman era.
Emperor or Augustus? Never. Do you really think it was that unsignificant, to not see it happening for centuries?
The most serious attempt I can remember was Visigothic kings being styled as "Flavius".
By the way, "Augustus" was even more associated with the idea of an "Emperor" than the word "Imperator".
I think you're still missing the point there : that is the huge distinction that is to be made between imperial model as a whole, and Roman imperial model.
Claiming an imperium that originated in romanity didn't implied claiming the romanity itself; as much as claiming davidic kingship didn't meant that Carolingians claimed any judaity.
Basically, what was important was the universality carried by the imperial titulature, and it's why "Roman" was almost systematically left out. I provided two mentions, from historians widely acknowledged as specialist of the question, why it was the case : how many more do you want?
At least, provide us with sources going your way because we're definitely not going to agree if even as I bring stuff, you're just handwaving it.
Saying that the Franks "disliked the Romans" is, I believe, a complete misunderstanding of the attitude of the times (sorry for Genenviève and Roger)
I think you're wrong there : Collins and Bühler-Thierry aren't exactly novices there, and pointed that in Latin litterature, the depiction of Romans became wholly negative. It didn't happened overnight, or because a Barbarian leader suddenly discovered he wanted to be emperor, but a long evolution.
Every barbarian chieftain since the Vth century dreamt of becoming Emperor of the Romans and many nearly managed to do so by becoming magister militum.
You're confusing Barbarian "citizenship" and Barbarian kingship there. A Frank, Goths, etc. could renounce the former and became more or less a Roman citizen as Stilicho (while his fate points that Roman elite mostly disagreed).
But, eventually, both were incompatible : you could be a Roman of Barbarian origin and have an high position; but you couldn't be a Barbarian AND in the same time a Roman : the 212 edict simply didn't applied to them.
As for the "dream" part, I'll quote Bruno Dumézil, which is one of the main vocal specialist of Late Antiquity in France with Michel Rouche.
Charlemagne continues to be named Kings of Franks and Lombards. The imperial title is eventually only a trinket to be added for the crown of a strong state
When virtually all historians of the era, at least nuance the "romanity" of Carolingian titulature, if not outright denying it...are they all fool, without any competence, with only sheer opinion able to debunk them? Or maybe, just maybe, they may agree (and having historians agreeing is as easy as having 10 cats in a small room not ending fighting each other) because they may have something.
Even Edouard Perroy (of blessed memory) that was largely outside the competition in the 70's when we wrote
Le Monde Carolingien (it's basically notes for teaching classes) pointed the difference.
Respublica names systematically the ERE, and with a
sovereign power that is held only from God, according the davidian and sacerdotal conception of the monarchy held dear by clerks dipped on Holy Scriptures, that elected the king to lead the new chosen people to salvation
Even if de facto, Carolingian imperium (as Merovingian imperium before) owes a lot to Late Roman institutions (it was never the question that it was the case), for what matter Carolingian
ideology they were not Roman Emperors, but August Emperors elected by God trough the Roman bishop coronation.
They eventually had no real problem calling Byzantium as Roman, or even naming their rulers "emperors" (again, did you took a look at Carolingian texts, annals, narratives?), but they never considered themselves as Romans for what we know.
Maybe that, deep down in their hearts, they lusted after it, but not only it's essentially not-proovable but it would go anything we know about the historical context.
Are we going to be fooled by such protestations of disdain
The problem is that against sources, you have only gave us (so far) your deep down tought that all sources are lying.
This is, I'm afraid, an a-historical stance : without sources (or holding all are lying, entierly), the only thing that can remain is personal interpretation.
Again, give me sources that makes you think that Romanity was at the core of the Carolingian imperium. I gave myself some, I can give more, but I can't fight about what appears to me, with all respect due, a baseless opinion.
One more thing : the mention "IMP AUG" on the coin is a deliberate copy of roman coinage inscription of the early empire. See for example,
this page on the coins of Hadrian.
I should stress it more clearly maybe : the point is not that Carolingians were, whatever they liked it or not, directly influenced by Late Roman civilisation and institutions.
The point is that they didn't saw it that way, and didn't claimed it that way. There's a lot of contemporary mentions calling Adrianus a Roman, as it happened for every Roman Emperor, which all have a whole lot of texts linking to romanity.
That's simply not the case for Carolingian, again, I strongly suggest you to just read at Carolingian sources directly.
Of course if they have the problem of being untrustworthy for you, I doubt you could be convinced on an historical ground, because there's not much else to give.
It's no more a proof they did, than Eginhard hugely plundering Suetonus is a proof he considered Charlemagne a Roman. Because Franks or Goths deeply used Aeneid for writing down their own "origin story" doesn't mean they considered themselves as Romans : it's just that it was part of the erudite cultural baggage of the time.