During the time the Holy Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire were contemporaries

Not really. The closest thing you had was Otton III's claims on universal imperium trough an use of byzantine style administration and Theophanu's prestige, but that's it. I was largely formal even at this point, and the imperial title of Ottonians was until this point largely non-descript.

What was relatively more at odds, and not that of a main contention in fact, was the universal imperial claim, which had practical consequences in Italy (and especially with papacy) and Central Europe.
Note that it wasn't specific to HRE, and already caused frictions with Carolingia.
 
I’d say it is already a significant dispute when two people both claim that they are the roman emperor.
Thing is, neither Carolingians or HREmperors claimed to be roman emperors. The closest title you had was the really convoluted title of Charlemagne which was "August Emperor ruling over the Empire of the Romans" (where Romans means rather the city of Rome and the conncetion to the pope), and all his successors including most of Ottonians sticking to the non-descript title of "August Emperor" (Charlemagne himself rather more used his titles of "King of Franks and Lombards" even after 800)

What was claimed and fought over was the imperium over Christians, inherited from Romans but as well from Davidic kingship and "Greeks" which were seen as non-legitimate not as much because they were Greek but because the pope didn't crowned them.
 
Last edited:
Top