CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
What would be the effects of Rome once again (at least de jure and/or symbolically) having dominion over the West?
What if the Pope crowned Byzantine Emperor Manuel I as Holy Roman Emperor?
- Thread starter CthulhuFhtagn
- Start date
To be frank, I doubt Manuel would even accept it. He's one of the byzantine emperors that had a really good appreciation of western medieval situations and conceptions (which helped him a lot having his claims on Latin States accepted, and relative support from Franks or Germans).
The last think he'll want would be to be dragged into HRE and pontifical problems, far from his own and to get a domestic backleash due to what would looks like for Byzantine population and clergy, as a submission to Rome.
I could see Rome granting him the kingship over Sicily or accepting its vassalization by Manuel relatively easily in the 1150's, but not the imperial crown, especially after 1158.
Critically that the situation with the HRE wasn't that bad that they couldn't either reconcily with the emperor (a very common outcome) or trough imperial nobility directly (up to supporting an anti-king in Europe).
The last think he'll want would be to be dragged into HRE and pontifical problems, far from his own and to get a domestic backleash due to what would looks like for Byzantine population and clergy, as a submission to Rome.
I could see Rome granting him the kingship over Sicily or accepting its vassalization by Manuel relatively easily in the 1150's, but not the imperial crown, especially after 1158.
Critically that the situation with the HRE wasn't that bad that they couldn't either reconcily with the emperor (a very common outcome) or trough imperial nobility directly (up to supporting an anti-king in Europe).
，You know what this is called?It's called Alien Space Bat.There's no way the Pope is going to make the emperor of the Schismatic Greeks Emperor of the HRE.The relationship between the West and the ERE was extremely tense even with a Latin 'expert' like Manuel on the throne.There were a number of times when war almost broke out between the ERE and the Crusaders during thE Second Crusade over the status of Antioch.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
Okay.
- The pope appoints an heretic monarch emperor
- Manuel has enough authority to govern an empire beyond the Alps
- what does he do when he is currently travelling through Germany and then, an invasion happens in Anatolia?
Then he pulls a 395 AC. and splits his Empire into an Eastern and a Western half.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
It's not ASB. Not too likely, but it's far from ASB. The Pope seriously considered it, and Manuel was apparently considering it too, but the Pope lost his nerve in the end.
I doubt Manuel would be able to rule beyond the Alps, but I wonder if he'd be able to retake parts of Italy.
I think you may be confusing the relatively short-lived negociations into making Adrian acknowledging Manuel as emperor which was an historical reality, but that failed (see below) with a coronation of Manuel as emperor of the HRE.
Basically, what Adrian IV proposed, was to confirm Manuel as "Emperor of the Romans", the emperor acknowledged by Rome.
Adrian IV never proposed him the HRE (understood as a political entity) but acknowledging his imperial rule which may have included some soveregnity on all Italy, tough it's hard to say : it was certainly what Manuel expected from being acknowledged as emperor by Adrian, but Rome didn't wanted to have Manuel ruling over Italy the same way he did in all the Byzantine Empire.
If it didn't worked and why the negociations were more or less half-hassed, it's not because the pope "loose the nerve". It's just another proof that Latin and Greek Christianities drifted away culturally :
-It would have meant Manuel would have made the papal assent a requisite for the byzantine imperium, which would have been unnaceptable for him
- It would have meant that the Papacy would have submitted to the imperium, which was exactly what Rome tried to avoid with Barbarossa.
As posted above, giving him away the kingship of Sicily would have been probably more feasible, due to less conflicting conceptions and interests.
Last edited:
Actually I'm not sure about Sicily either. At the time the kingdom of Sicily was under (firm) control of the Hauteville dynasty, which didn't shy away from confronting the Papacy, if they had to. Then there also is the king of the Romans ((Holy)Roman Emperor-elect, first Conrad III, later Frederick Barbarossa), which also claimed the Italian peninsula as a part of the empire. I can see them ally and agree on an Anti-Pope.
Moreover I expect that the Emperor of the Romans in Constantinople would see it as a hollow promise; even a Papal grant would have meant they had to fight for every inch.
Moreover I expect that the Emperor of the Romans in Constantinople would see it as a hollow promise; even a Papal grant would have meant they had to fight for every inch.
I think it would be less problematic around the 1150's : before 1158, Manuel had actually a strong foothold on southern Italy and at least partial support from the local nobility.
Giving we're talking of someone able to abide by feudal mentalities and institutions whenever useful, and that he still beneficied from pontifical support at this point.
I'd say it would be relatively easy as less biding both for Pope and Emperor in matter of political ideology. Not without problems and chances for it to fall soon, but relatively easier.
Giving we're talking of someone able to abide by feudal mentalities and institutions whenever useful, and that he still beneficied from pontifical support at this point.
I'd say it would be relatively easy as less biding both for Pope and Emperor in matter of political ideology. Not without problems and chances for it to fall soon, but relatively easier.
How is this actually set up? You can;t do that if the fake "emperors" are at all able to contest the coronation.
OK I'll take the bait, fake emperors? They weren't fake, when they were crowned by the Pope (or if needed a Papal legate) and/or Anti-Pope (if he's later legitimated as Pope). During this period Conrad III of Swabia was king of the Romans and his successor Frederick Barbarossa became Holy Roman Emperor in 1155, crowned by Pope Adrian IV.
That's irrelevant, anyway, as there's litteraly no bait to take : the "fake" emperors are eventually the ones that are unable to press their claims.
If an anti-rex manages to win, he's not an anti-rex, he was the legitimate emperor all along.
Of course, that's caricaturizing, but people tends to mix far too much History and historiography on this thread, so a bit of exageration on this regard can come in handy.
If an anti-rex manages to win, he's not an anti-rex, he was the legitimate emperor all along.
Of course, that's caricaturizing, but people tends to mix far too much History and historiography on this thread, so a bit of exageration on this regard can come in handy.