When did the Roman Empire technically end?

The Pope believed he had the authority to crown Charlemagne "Emperor of the Romans" because he believed he was the ultimate authority of the Roman Empire,

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.
 
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.

And again you're WRONG- Charlemagne's actually full title, he adopted himself was- 'Charles, most serene Augustus, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor, governing the Roman empire.'
Source- http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=ela#ixzz3hTSJHIqB

The title the Pope declared when crowning Charlemagne was Imperator Romanorum ("Emperor of the Romans"). (Encyclopedia Britannica) So yes he was. I'm placing sources. Where are yours? We deal with facts, not what we come up with from our own thinking.

"When Odoacer compelled the abdication of Romulus Augustulus, he did not abolish the Western Empire as a separate power, but cause it to be reunited with or sink into the Eastern, so that from that time there was a single undivided Roman Empire ... [Pope Leo III and Charlemagne], like their predecessors, held the Roman Empire to be one and indivisible, and proposed by the coronation of [Charlemagne] not to proclaim a severance of the East and West ... they were not revolting against a reigning sovereign, but legitimately filling up the place of the deposed Constantine VI ... [Charlemagne] was held to be the legitimate successor, not of Romulus Augustulus, but of Constantine VI ..."

From James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, 1864, pg 62–64

And I don't get where you think that Rome was not the center of the Latin church. Please cite your source since FACTS show that papal supremacy (the Bishop of Rome as THE Pope) date to the 6th Century, 300 years earlier than Charlemagne. Popes Clement (1st century), Victor (2nd century), and Cornelius (3rd century) all made it clear through excommunications of other bishops over "heresies" (refusing to celebrate Easter on the "correct" date for example) or presiding over synods.

The fact of the matter is that Irene was "Empress" and head of state of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire and the Pope (and many contemporaries) saw that while she may be the de facto "Emperor" the fact that de jure there was NO Emperor on the throne. The Pope took this opportunity to declare that he, and only he, had the authority to fill a vacancy of the Emperor of the Roman Empire. Charlemagne was always intended to be a continuation of the Roman Empire, not a new entity called "Holy Roman Empire" or the "Western Roman Empire", he was to be the continuation of THE Roman Empire in a long line stretching down to the latest Emperor in the East before Irene. FACTS.
 
Last edited:
One major point to note. People need to be careful about using the terms western and eastern empire as if they are two distinct states with defined borders. They are not.

The Romans by and large did not see the idea of state as a piece of land on a map in the way we do today. Neither should we project our modern ideas of empire, nationalism and culture onto the Romans.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
And again you're WRONG- Charlemagne's actually full title, he adopted himself was- 'Charles, most serene Augustus, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor, governing the Roman empire.'
Source- http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=ela#ixzz3hTSJHIqB

You realise this quote explictly states that he isn't the Roman Emperor, but governing the Roman Empire - two distinctly different things - which proves LSC's point.

The title the Pope declared when crowning Charlemagne was Imperator Romanorum ("Emperor of the Romans"). (Encyclopedia Britannica) So yes he was. I'm placing sources. Where are yours? We deal with facts, not what we come up with from our own thinking.

Wait,Imperator Romanorum literally does translate to Roman Emperor, not Emperor of the Romans (Romanorum imperatorem)- two distinctly different titles. Just like King of the English is different from King of England.

Also, if you're going to get belligerent over sources, at least use first-hand sources. 2nd hand sources have the risk of being translated incorrectly (which considering what is being argued, is important).

And I don't get where you think that Rome was not the center of the Latin church. Please cite your source since FACTS show that papal supremacy (the Bishop of Rome as THE Pope) date to the 6th Century, 300 years earlier than Charlemagne. Popes Clement (1st century), Victor (2nd century), and Cornelius (3rd century) all made it clear through excommunications of other bishops over "heresies" (refusing to celebrate Easter on the "correct" date for example) or presiding over synods.

The Pope in Rome may well have been Latin for its entire time, but Latin Christianity was being buried by Arianism until the Goths were defeated. I imagine this may be part of the point LSC was making (I assume) - I'd be skeptical that a Pope occupied by a heretical power is going to be doing much to control church doctrine - instead leaving much of what makes the Church "Latin" to the bishops in Latin states (such as the Frankish Empire).

The fact of the matter is that Irene was "Empress" and head of state of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire and the Pope (and many contemporaries) saw that while she may be the de facto "Emperor" the fact that de jure there was NO Emperor on the throne. The Pope took this opportunity to declare that he, and only he, had the authority to fill a vacancy of the Emperor of the Roman Empire. Charlemagne was always intended to be a continuation of the Roman Empire, not a new entity called "Holy Roman Empire" or the "Western Roman Empire", he was to be the continuation of THE Roman Empire in a long line stretching down to the latest Emperor in the East before Irene. FACTS.

To be snide - if wishes were fishes. Recognition is still important, and if the people holding the insignia of office don't recognize it, then it is a bit useless. It was essentially the Pope trying to get support for his own ends. There was no decree that there was a need for two Emperors.The Papal See left it abandoned, for centuries. The HRE until 812 had no more legitimacy as the Western Roman Emperors than Palmyra, Asturias, or Gaul. (I'd argue Soissons may have had more legitimacy though). Through history there were multiple Emperors out of necessity, NOT because there were always two. Until 812 the Carolingians were nothing more than Pope-backed pretenders to a title that wasn't needed.
 
And again you're WRONG- Charlemagne's actually full title, he adopted himself was- 'Charles, most serene Augustus, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor, governing the Roman empire.'

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.

So yes he was. I'm placing sources.
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)

The title the Pope declared when crowning Charlemagne was Imperator Romanorum ("Emperor of the Romans"). (Encyclopedia Britannica)
It's not present in contemporary sources for exemple.

Where are yours? We deal with facts, not what we come up with from our own thinking.
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.

Please cite your source since FACTS show that papal supremacy (the Bishop of Rome as THE Pope) date to the 6th Century, 300 years earlier than Charlemagne. Popes Clement (1st century), Victor (2nd century), and Cornelius (3rd century) all made it clear through excommunications of other bishops over "heresies" (refusing to celebrate Easter on the "correct" date for example) or presiding over synods.

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.

Geneviève Bührer-Thierry said:
Western churches always acknwoledged a spiritual primacy to the bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, but the pope only intervened rarily in the organisation of different churches, whom matters were decided by councils gathered under royal authority. This moral authority was first reinforced by the active role of Anglo-Saxons on the continent that, as Bonifacius, consult the pope and submit to his opinion on different demesnes.

It's as well the pope that preside the constitution of new churches in Germania, with the agreement of princes.

But it's critically ties made between Rome and Carolingians, that allow the pope to play an acknowledged role on all Christiendom. To a Church considered as a federation of national Churches succeed a more unitarian conception of a Church under the control and rule of the pope. Political problems met by different carolingians kings in the IXth century motivated popes to pose themselves as arbitles of conflicts and to exercice a real moral mandate on the whole Christiendom

The fact of the matter is that Irene was "Empress" and head of state of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire and the Pope (and many contemporaries) saw that while she may be the de facto "Emperor" the fact that de jure there was NO Emperor on the throne.
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.

The Pope took this opportunity to declare that he, and only he, had the authority to fill a vacancy of the Emperor of the Roman Empire.
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.
 
But, little objection: that was before the system of European nobility and its titles formed. And in these times, the title of "emperor" was inextricably related to the Roman Empire - since no other Empire and no other Emperor existed in these times (China, Japan and Ethiopia weren't known to western Europe).

So one could think that, since it was redundant to say "Roman empire" (because of the reasons mentioned above), the titles "Imperator" and "Augustus" were used without any further adjective or clarification, but everybody (every educated and/or influential person) knew that the adjective "Roman" was included in the title of "Emperor".

In fact, this was also the oppinion of the medieval and early modern times "political science": the title of Emperor referred to the Roman Empire, and every country using it (or THE country using it - the HRE, and, to a lesser extent, the third Rome, Russia) considered itself as continuation of the Roman Empire.
Actually, the title was used by other, non-Roman nations only since Napoleon's coronation in 1804: Austria in 1806, Mexico in 1821/1864, Brazil in 1822, Germany in 1848/1871, again France in 1852) - before that, as I said before, it was considered as Roman heritage and thus only used by the HRE and Russia.

That's why the argument that Charlemagne used the title "Emperor" without the adjective "Roman" and was thus not a Roman Emperor is quite false: one time he was "Emperor", he was "Roman Emperor" too, since another Emperor than the Roman didn't existed in these times and never existed before.
 
1453 is probably the best technical date. I know very little about late-period Byzantium: did the Emperors of Trebizond style themselves as universal "Emperors of the Romans", and all that? If so, then you can make an argument for 1461.

Trebizond recognized the claim of the Palaiologian emperors at some point (I'd need to look it up for the exact year), and changed their title to something along the lines of Emperor of the East, so I think they can safely be ruled out.

Anyways, it has to be either 1204 or 1453, and of the two, I prefer 1453. The damage in 1204 was significant, to the point where one could even arguably call the period between then and 1261 a kind of interregnum, being that there were three legitimate claimants actively seeking recognition as emperor in that period, but personally, given the steps Nicaea took to shore up its own legitimacy I'd be comfortable calling them the Roman Empire even during that period.

The Ottomans and Russians never self identified as Romans or received recognition as such from their contemporaries, and thus are immediately disqualified in my mind even without looking into their exact circumstances.
 
But, little objection: that was before the system of European nobility and its titles formed. And in these times, the title of "emperor" was inextricably related to the Roman Empire
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.

but everybody (every educated and/or influential person) knew that the adjective "Roman" was included in the title of "Emperor".
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.

In fact, this was also the oppinion of the medieval and early modern times "political science": the title of Emperor referred to the Roman Empire
As one, among many, counter-exemples you have the title of Emperor of all Spains.

That's why the argument that Charlemagne used the title "Emperor" without the adjective "Roman" and was thus not a Roman Emperor is quite false
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.
 
Top