Byzantium as THE Roman Empire
- Thread starter Femto
- Start date
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
There is a difference between the spiritual power of the Papacy and Imperium. If a provincial governor disobeyed an emperor they didnt get forbidden from religious observance, they got three legions smashing the place up and an appointment with a gladius.
Taking on the title of Emperor by nominal crowning is one thing, but taking a role equating to such is another. The Papacy did the latter, whilst distributing the former to the Frankish state.
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
Saying 'Right, I'm handing out crowns now, dont kill me' is different to 'Right, I rule this land and give you authority over it'.
The papacy has no rigth to the title of roman emperor since it has existed before it was conceived ,the roman empire is the heir to the imperium romanum by rigth of continuity
Furthermore after the east west split the roman empire couldnt care less what the papacy thinks
Down with the latins
If a Pope excommunicated or interdicted a ruler he could, and did on multiple occasions, direct his subjects to depose them by military force. That does not seem substantially different to me
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
Basically the Papacy had no power to give the Franks. They had not inherited the authority over the temporal realms conquered byt he franks, so couldnt hand it to them, nor did they have any real power over them or their lands outside the spiritual. They validated an existing status quo but lacked the historical authority to have held it themselves.
Regardless of the temporal powers of the medieval papacy, we're straying fromt he thread - theyre not the romans.
the emperor is your boss, the pope is your spiritual intermediary. The pope doesnt hold the right or title to your land. The pope does not have day to day control over the kingdoms of europe, nor do they appoint their rulers, nor do they have legal jurisdiction in their realms. They have spiritual authority, which, if violated, they can use as a reason to ask other rules to intervene, but they dont own your country or your title nor do they have the ability to wrest it from you without others intervening.
Regardless of the temporal powers of the medieval papacy, we're straying fromt he thread - theyre not the romans.
Caesaropapism - Wikipedia
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
Indeed, emphasises the difference between the papal system as existed and the notion of the pope as an emperor substitute. The pope was immesley powerful, but wouldnt be able to say 'Oi, King Henry the whatever, appoint Dave the gormless as your chancellor and send me a report on cloth production by yesterday!' but would be able to say 'Oi, king Henry the whatever, stop arresting my bishops or I'll ask your neigbours to duff you up!'. By contrast, an emperor CAN say 'oi governor Henricius, fire tiberius the dim as your procurator and send me a report on Garum production yesterday!'Isnt this perfectionCaesaropapism - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
In medieval society Bishops had power and authority but their jurisdiction in legal and taxation matters did not extend beyond their own property and staff, essentially; they didnt outrank earls and barons, they were parallel. Its similar with the papacy - the same but different.
Last edited:
I was just saying, the Byzantine Empire stopped being “Roman”, de facto at least, when it adopted Greek as its official administrative language, I wasn’t debating whether that was right or not.
Thing is that those who argue that βασιλεία των Ρωμαίων/ρωμαϊκή αυτοκρατορία is not roman tend to talk about the papacy/hre and how they speak greek instead of latin......so what it is still the roman empire every state evolves and changes,sweden didnt become a different state when it changed from norse to Catholic and then protestant
But the pope did rule those lands, or are we just going to ignore that they could tax it, legally administered huge swaths of it, controlled who governed the parts it did not administer, commanded armies, and often did mint coins (at least in the early days. Seems pretty imperal to me.
For the kings and emperors of the Europe he was the boss, and he did hold the rights and titles to the land elsewise he wouldn't have been able to grant and revoke it as he clearly did. You're imposing a strict separation between secular and spiritual authority that did not exist for either the kings or popes.
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
In a legal practical sense, the Pope didnt rule or own Francia/Gaul.
The pope couldnt appoint kings, nor overrule a kings legal judgements in their own land except on certain religious matters. they had a spiritual authority and it was a powerful one, but not an imperial mandate.
The thing is though that greek is Roman just as much as latin, and had been so for so long that it was only in the 19th century that they stopped identifying as rhomanoi because previously being 'Hellenes' was equated with being pagan
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
In an empire, you dont have dozens of heridtary rulers with absoulte authority over their own domains, who can and will war against each other and you, who can and will disobey you, who can and will refuse to assist youin removing one of their number.
The pope had immense power but was not the emperor of europe. the law that held swayin france was french law, the law in England English law. Not papal.
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
I feel we're drifting from the thread here into a debate on the relative power of the papacy in medieval europe - plus I have to do some actual work...
The lingua franca of the Classical Roman Empire was... Greek. So this disassociation of Rome with Greek is disingenuous.
The Pope and the Papal State is based out of Rome, does that not by definition make them Roman?
The Roman Empire in the east was the direct successor state to the Roman Empire, does that not, by definition, make them Roman? Their territories comprised the territories of old Rome, their bureaucracy mimicked that of their forebear, their emperor was as 'elected' as the old imperators... etc.
The Pope and the Papal State is based out of Rome, does that not by definition make them Roman?
The Roman Empire in the east was the direct successor state to the Roman Empire, does that not, by definition, make them Roman? Their territories comprised the territories of old Rome, their bureaucracy mimicked that of their forebear, their emperor was as 'elected' as the old imperators... etc.
You forget the russian emperor and protestants and lutherans and anglicans,thing is us orthodox Catholics dont care about the pope,he can go drown himself and I wouldn't care. now I care about our spiritual fathers but not him he is a schematic that broke the communion of the church