AHC: "Second" Roman Empire?

fi11222

Banned
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.

If Marcus Aurelius had adopted a german boy named "Karl" who then had become Emperor, he would have issued the exact same coins as above, with the legend "KAROLUS IMP AUG" or "IMP KAROLUS AUG" or "AUG KAROLUS COS" and so on.
 
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.
 
Last edited:

fi11222

Banned
When virtually all historians of the era, at least nuance the "romanity" of Carolingian titulature, if not outright denying it...
I believe this is indeed the heart of the problem.

I am in complete agreement with "nuanced". Charlemagne was not a Roman Emperor. Nobody doubts that. But what to think of those who "outright deny" that his titulature was Roman ? Well, the problem is that there are lots of historians in many universities around the world nowadays. So the temptation to do revisionism for revisionism's sake or to say something outright absurd (but with impeccably accurate and comprehensive footnotes) is a big temptation when you want to be noticed. I have played the academic game myself and I know how it is done.

How can one deny that "IMP AUG <Name>" on a coin, together with the head of a man wearing laurels is Roman in character ? Well, in post-modern academia, a lot of things are possible ...

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.
Wen you put "IMP AUG <Your Name>" on a coin, you do not claim Roman imperial titulature ?

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.
This idea of a "Carolingian Ideology" is a completely artificial and anachronisitic notion. And so is the distinction between "August" and "Roman". Academia is unfortunately fond of such fashion and hair-splitting.

Why ? Because it is not polite in Academia nowadays to disparage your neighbour's subject. So every period has to have its own "ideology" and thus be autonomous in relation to the subject matter of other (rival) specialists.

Come on! The truth is that from the Vth century onward, most of western Europe was under the yoke of warlords who were as eager for the trappings of Roman glory as they were for plunder. In short, they were as vain as they were greedy (and of course brutal). They all dreamt of being "August" just like Kim Jong Il dreams of being Stalin. Everyone knows that but it is increasingly hard to say it, almost as if people feared being sued for racial discrimination by the Visigothic or Frankish Civil Rights Defense Leage.

Now why did so few of said warlords claim the title of "Emperor" ("August", "Casar", whatever) ? Because it would have been a declaration of war on all other warlords. The notion of "Empire" implied hegemony over at least all of western Europe. If you did not have the military might to back it up, it was suicidal to claim the title. Only an exceptionally strong ruler like Charlemagne could get away with it.

Of course it was a "trinket". Just like the medals on Brezhenv's chest were "trinkets". But people are ready to die, or kill, for trinkets. And I believe that the interesting thing here is that not only were the Germanic warlords of late antiquity greedy for such a "trinket" but it so happens that the Church hierarchy was also fascinated by it on an almost metaphysical level. With Pepin and his son Charlemagne, the western bishops tried to create what is in fact a theological monstrosity if you look at it closely: an hybrid between a Davidic monarch (and a Messiah at that since he was anointed) and a Roman Emperor ("August", "Casear", "Imperator", whatever). Pepin was just Messiah, which was bad enough. But Charlemagne his son was both Messiah and Caesar! The latin bishops were trying really hard to do some strange magic here ....

How could they embark on such a weired project? That is the real question here (and indeed the subject of this thread). I believe that the answer to that question is that they were trying a sort of Frankenstein-like resurection of the Western Empire. People, including the top hierarchy of the Church, believed in the quasi-magical power of sacrements in those days. They believed that the holy Chrism, like the bread and wine of mass, had efficacious potency and that it had been put by God in their control for a reason. So they tried to resurect "Caesar" so that people could "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". The ritual of kingly sacramental coronation (started with Pepin), followed by Imperial coronation in Rome in the case of Charlemagne, was an attempt to magically recreate "the Empire" and this Empire could only be "Roman" because Christ had been born under a Roman emperor and when he talked about "Caesar", that word refered to a Roman Emperor. Christ was the Word incarnate, so his words were true forever. The world had to be ruled by a "Roman" emperor until judgement day except maybe for temporary periods of exceptional darkness due to the wickedness of men.

That is, I believe, how people saw things at the time (at least in Church elite circles). Now that realities on the ground, customs, institutions and so on were much more Frankish than Roman is probably true. But to people of the times, this was a secondary consideration. The Word of God mattered far more than such worldly questions.
 
But what to think of those who "outright deny" that his titulature was Roman ?
Which is not the question at hand. Nobody denied that the titulature was issued from Late Roman ones.
The question is : was this titulature pointing that Carolingians claimed the Roman imperium? With all the historical context, the consensus is "no".

So the temptation to do revisionism for revisionism's sake or to say something outright absurd (but with impeccably accurate and comprehensive footnotes) is a big temptation when you want to be noticed. I have played the academic game myself and I know how it is done.
When the majority of the avaible academic sources goes in the same way, tough, the accusation of "revisionism for the sake of the revisionism" is really empty-looking.

How can one deny that "IMP AUG <Name>" on a coin, together with the head of a man wearing laurels is Roman in character ? Well, in post-modern academia, a lot of things are possible ...
Oh, please...Have you even a hint about Dumézil, Collins, Lebecq, Bührer-Thierry works being such.
As for saying Perroy is a "post-modern academician"...I think the poor guy wouldn't even believe his eyes. Nor am I, actually, considering we're talking of a mid-XXth historian.

I'm sorry but that's too easy putting such labels (and frankly, revisionist for the sake of revisionism get spot on much quickly) because you disagree with : not agreeing is a thing, slander is really something else.

Wen you put "IMP AUG <Your Name>" on a coin, you do not claim Roman imperial titulature ?
No, you use a Roman titulature.
A bit like having a Senate in France or USA is not a sign these states claim being Roman.

Being largely dipped into late Roman culture doesn't mean you're claiming this romanity. And giving, which is really important but you ignored largely, the context of the Carolingian Empire, how it appeared and how it was percieved by its elites...

This idea of a "Carolingian Ideology" is a completely artificial and anachronisitic notion.
Of course it's artificial. No more than the concept of a Carolingian Empire distinct from Francia, but we keep using it because it's easier to explain.

A social body organised politically, whatever the name it gave to it, "produced" a mental structure. We can call it ideology for the sake of being easier to explain, or mental frame, or elite culture.
But there's a mental structure appearing out of a society.

Come on! The truth is that from the Vth century onward, most of western Europe was under the yoke of warlords who were as eager for the trappings of Roman glory as they were for plunder.
I'm sorry, but this is as far as any reasonable study that came out for the last 30 years. I know that there's a tentative of reaction against it, but it's largely an arrière-garde fight which have to willingly ignore what was made since.

If you want to ignore it as well, under pretext that with all respect due, have to consider fallacious (calling every scholar you disagree with "post-modern" and "revisionist for the sake of it" is such for me)...
I'm afraid we're not talking history, but a narrative about past as the infamous "Métronome" and how History was piraced by "post-modernism"

(Really, Edouard Perroy as a post-modern historian...I prefer to think you miswrote this word)

At this point, I don't think we could agree at all : I'm talking History, which could (and even have to) be criticized on sources, analysis, on facts eventually, which you don't seem to do (so far, you provided your own vision of the thing, claiming that all the others are wrong).
We're simply not talking about the same stuff, I'm afraid (but I'll still gladly drink something with you next time).
 
Didn't Maurice want to appoint a Western Roman Emperor?

I think he did so, after all he was the last (AFAIK) EREmperor to have a real western politics (as his involvement with Hermenengild and Gondovald's revolt points) up to maybe planning a third exarchate in Provence.

Wasn't it his two sons that he wanted to share the empire? Not that co-imperium was unknown in ERE/Byzantium, but I think it's one of the last times it was territorialy based. (Altough it's possible others sons would have recieved other lands as well).
 
Top