Do you see Francia as the continuation of the WRE?

To be more direct, i mean Francia after 800, when Karolus Magnus was crowned as the roman emperor of the west and the name of the kingdom changed to "Romanum imperium", in your opinion, did Karolus Magnus really became the sucessor of the old WRE or not, and why?

I think that we need to clarify one or two facts here. The whole question is based on false assumptions. So I quote some posts @LSCatilina made in earlier threads.

This idea NEEDS to die painfully and slowly, because it get repeted over and over and over again without the slightest historical basis, only to lead to semi-pedantic "Roman Empire disappeared because of Napoleon, ho-ho-ho".

Charlemagne NEVER claimed the Imperium over Romans, Frankish emperors almost never did so (at the exception of ONE diplomatical boast).

Titles used, besides kingship over Franks or Lombards, were either

- "Emperor ruling over the Roman Empire" (and that's only for Charlemagne)
- "Emperor"
- "August Emperor"

Politically-wise, the Carolingian imperial title seems to have been somewhat loosely tied with romanity, and certainly still co-existing to the Frankish kingship titles. And this romanity was more about legitimacy from "roman people" as in of the CITY of Rome, whom the bishop was the giver of imperial legitimacy.
What mattered most, was the concept of imperium over Christians, NOT Romania, that was assumed (even by Carolingian authors) to belongs to the emperor in Constantinople (and these certainly didn't acknowledged him as a Roman Emperor, but as an emperor, short of precision)

The very idea that you'd have a direct continuity between WRE and Carolingia, and between Carolingia and medieval HRE is, and I think every word of it, indulging within medieval/modern historiography without any regard for historical sources.
We could as well argue of the divine rights of kings, for what matter plausibility and a-historicity of the concept.

Again no. Charlemagne was NEVER crowned "Emperor of the Romans" or "Roman Emperor" but "August Emperor" (which can be found, relatively rarily as "August Emperor ruling over the Roman Empire").

This authority didn't come from a Roman political power, but from the idea that Church was the legitimazing support of the Empire. Basically, in this context, more a Christian Empire legitimized by the bishop of Rome (seat of Christiendom) than romanity.

You can look at Carolingians authors, especially Alcuin, to see that : what was challenged was not the rule over Romania/Romans, but the imperial rule itself passing from Romans (classical/byzantines) to Franks with the support of the city of Rome, meaning the papacy.

I'd point, furthermore, that the Papacy as a legitimazing feature didn't pre-existed Carolingians. At the contrary, it was Frankish intervention that made Rome the center of the Latin church (it wasn't really that before) and mostly answering to them, rather than popes making a favour to Franks.

Actually, it wasn't the case : Byzantines used "emperor" when they adressed to Sassanians rulers, for exemple. You have posterior uses of "basileus" in say, Scotland or Spain that wasn't related in anyway to Byzantium.

You're arguing from the deep belief that Emperor was tied up to Roman Empire, but there is enough exemples of the contrary. Not to say the imperial title wasn't seen as a continuation of Romania of course, but we're talking of a transmission of imperium, a translatio imperii, if you prefer , where imperial title and power was related to Christiendom and not Romanity.


This is, again, particularly wrong : you can see yourself in the Vita Karoli Magni, that Eginhard calls Byzantine emperors "Emperors" even during (and after) Charlemagne's reign.


As one, among many, counter-exemples you have the title of Emperor of all Spains.


To be entierly frank : you're whole argument is based on a deep belief that is not only absent from sources, but contradicted by regular evidence.

That it was issued from a Roman continuity isn't the question, but its relation to romanity : again, feel free to point any contemporary source that would point clearly this relation.

The "but they didn't felt it was necessary" is particularly weird : as you went in contemporary texts, you probably noticed that such precision, as for "Roman pontiff" or "Roman people" was almost systematically present. If they felt it was part of the titulature, authors would certainly not have put it away systematically while they did so for every other use of Roman.

As for Charlemagne and Carolingians, it have to be stressed they didn't wanted to reform the Roman Empire, or considered themselves as Roman Emperors. The idea of a translatio imperii happened later, with Late Ottonians trough a mix of retrospective history and imperial claims due to Byzantine matrimonial alliances.

As many people there, I agree the safest would be butterflying away Islam : not only ERE was still commonly considered as the Roman Empire (and it would continue as such even later), but most of the Late Antiquity features would probably maintained and evolve more slowly (Arabo-Islamic conquest provoked, indirectly, many radical changes).
It really fills all your conditions.

If not...It becomes harder, but I suspect something in the early XIIIth century might help, if temporarily. IOTL, the Latin Empire of Constantinople was proclaimed as such by a mostly French nobility, willing to cut most political/vassalic ties, especially distinguished themselves from HRE.
Having Crusaders coming more from the Empire, a stronger secular policy in this sense, may make a Latin Constantinople more in imperial sphere of influence.

Not something particularily obvious or unformal, but at least on some features could work.

You didn't get my point, I think.
Never said that Carolingians weren't after an imperial take, quite the contrary. But claiming the imperium is much distinct from claiming romanity.


Indeed. August Emperor. And not "Roman Emperor".

Allow me to quote Geneviève Bührer-Thierry, that you might find easily.
(L'Europe Carolingienne, page 44. Tu ne pourras pas dire que je ne te facilite pas les choses :) *)





Did you read the article? There's a part of it you may have missed.




I don't think you're actually understanding what I was talking about at all.
The exchange I mentioned was between two emperors and had nothing to do with the pope, but about a dispute on the Emirate of Bari's reconquest.

Both Louis and Basil argued they had an higher claim on it, the latter calling Louis "Emperor of Franks", and the former answering to him as "Emperor of Greeks".


No. It happened years before, as Bari's reconquest happened in 871, and the council that restaured Photious in 879.


This was challenged since quite a time, tough. While important, it was pointed how the Council of 879/880 ended with sorta compromise (see Entre Rome et L'Islam, by Vincent Derouche) or at least an appeasment.
Documents affirming the condamnation of this council are long proven being forgeries by Dvornik, used in later religious struggles, and with the disappearence of last ignatians, things went more smoothly.


That's more, all respect due, a retrospective vision of History that had, IOTL, to base itself of clear forgeries to be really supported.

I strongly suggest you to get a look at these articles (quickly so, because Persée.fr may be closing relatively soon), if you're interested.

The problem was more the inability of Romans to protect the exarchate of Ravenna and the Ducatus Romanus from Lombards, which made popes trying to negociate with the latters, and then with Franks in order to keep as much autonomy they were used to (that they wouldn't have get with Lombards, and didn't get with Franks anyway)

Not that religious meddling didn't caused problem, but it didn't went the way of a schism, far from it (mainly because the papal's political power over Latin churches was limited at best, and often in cunjunction with imperial assistance).

The Crescentii/Tusculani (Theophylactes had for a long time a pro-Roman policy) papacy points how much you had still a powerful pro-Roman party in Rome, even in the Xth century, and eventually the main oppositions would come from Byzantine policies in Southern Italy (which would cause an alliance with Normans) and in Balkans with a missionaries conflict.



The demonstration of bad faith about titles was essentially based on who held Rome, and who submitted to the papacy. It was so badly argumented that Liutprand agreed that "The pope will, now, use the Roman title for Greeks. We just tought you didn't liked Roman titles anymore" (translating it roughly).

Again, I'll propose to you to take a look at Carolingian authors, and see how much call Carolingians "Romans" and how much ceased to call Byzantium "Romania". You'd be surprised.

*Je peux même, si tu le souhaites, ammener quelques-uns de ces livres la prochaine fois que je serais sur Paris. On parie un coup à boire, et hop.

I'm obstinate there less because I'm french, than because this topic was part of my studies, tough.



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.


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".


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.


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.


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.



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



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.


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.


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.

So, I'm wrong arguing that "August Emperor ruling over the Roman Empire" was used and not "Roman Emperor"? Try to read posts you disagree with last time.


No. You're placing quotes for encyclopediae. Sources would be something like contemporary texts (Unless the Encyclopedia Britannica was made during Carolingian times, but somehow I doubt it)


It's not present in contemporary sources for exemple.


Funny, it's what I was just thinking : did you even get a look at Carolingians authors?

First, the title was never used on coinage, which says a lot when it come to titles and "propaganda".

Then : Vita Karoli Magni
Karolus gratia dei rex Francorum et Langobardorum ac patricius Romanorum
Karoli Magni atque Orthodoxi Imperatoris
Suo tempore imperatoris et augusti nomen accepit.


mmm....No....No mention of Charlemagne being crowned Roman Emperor.

Heck the only mention of Roman Emperors is about how Byzantines Emperors were pissed.
Invidiam tamen suscepti nominis, Romanis imperatoribus super hoc indignantibus

Do you want some more?

Let's try the Vita Hludovici Imperatoris.

quem Stephanus Romanus pontifex consecravit et unxit in regem: Pippinus senior et rex genuit Karolum, quem Leo Romanus pontifex consecravit et unxit ad imperatorem in ecclesia

Nope. Still not. I don't mention all the imperial mentions NOT followed by Romans or with any other precision than August or Christian. You may as well search yourself.

I know! Liber Pontificalis! I mean, he was crowned by the pope, it got to be there, right? Granted this part of the text was made centuries after, but as there's not other and that you have a certain continuity...

Ouch...Doesn't even mention the crowning itself, and calls Carolingian "emperors" without precision, while it's really about calling "Roman pontiff" each time.

I won't even mention Annali, it would be a waste of time.

Maybe an official act, as Ordinatio Imperii?
Well, damn..."Imperator Augustus"...Not a mention of "Roman Emperor".

Oh well, Alcuin?
"Imperium Christianum". Damn.

Maybe I went back in time to write myself all these documents? I don't know, maybe I'm secretly a Time Lord that impersonated one of the specialist of the era, Roger Collins, in order to say "the motivation behind the acceptance of the imperial title was a romantic and antiquarian interest in reviving the Roman empire is highly unlikely."

But please, point me a contemporary text with Imperator Romanorum.



You're confusing there, among other things, "pontifical supremacy", meaning a political and religious overwatching and decisive power, and pontifical importance. A bit like the Patriarch of Constantinople have a preponderant voice, but not rule supremely (which means on the top, without rival) over Orthodox faith.

We're talking REAL political power there, the sort of that didn't existed before Carolingiens, and didn't even really get off the ground before Ottonians.

As for synods where the pope not being present were excommunicated, I can't help wondering if you heard of Toledo Councils (where the pope wasn't present and still seen as legits), or synods like in 650 at Rouen...
All of these didn't even systematically paied lip-service to the pope (not that they rivaled its position, but simply didn't saw the use doing so), while it was presided either by bishops or even kings directly (as in Malay).

Sources? Certainly : Medieval Papacy, by Geoffrey Barraclough may be interesting, if an oldie.

Or, and I'd translating it quickly, so pardon me for improperties.




Certainly, and I never said anything against : remember I was talking of Carolingians challenging the claim of imperium, over Christians, and this was a good excuse as any.


No, you're just making that up : please point me ONE exemple of the Pope having this sort of legitimazing power during the Byzantine Papacy, and I'd be convinced.

But meanwhile, without any clue about the Pope being acknowledged a role in the imperial coronations before Charlemagne...


I didn't know "opinionated" was spelled facts. You didn't provided ONE source for all of this, just your deep down belief.

Actually, it wasn't the case : Byzantines used "emperor" when they adressed to Sassanians rulers, for exemple. You have posterior uses of "basileus" in say, Scotland or Spain that wasn't related in anyway to Byzantium.

You're arguing from the deep belief that Emperor was tied up to Roman Empire, but there is enough exemples of the contrary. Not to say the imperial title wasn't seen as a continuation of Romania of course, but we're talking of a transmission of imperium, a translatio imperii, if you prefer , where imperial title and power was related to Christiendom and not Romanity.


This is, again, particularly wrong : you can see yourself in the Vita Karoli Magni, that Eginhard calls Byzantine emperors "Emperors" even during (and after) Charlemagne's reign.


As one, among many, counter-exemples you have the title of Emperor of all Spains.


To be entierly frank : you're whole argument is based on a deep belief that is not only absent from sources, but contradicted by regular evidence.

That it was issued from a Roman continuity isn't the question, but its relation to romanity : again, feel free to point any contemporary source that would point clearly this relation.

The "but they didn't felt it was necessary" is particularly weird : as you went in contemporary texts, you probably noticed that such precision, as for "Roman pontiff" or "Roman people" was almost systematically present. If they felt it was part of the titulature, authors would certainly not have put it away systematically while they did so for every other use of Roman.

The guy is an expert of the subject, or at least read a lot of stuff written by experts, so I think we can trust him and the evidence he puts forward.

And that means: Charlemagne and Francia never claimed to be Roman, and thus, the whole argument of this thread is pointless.
 
Top