WI Pope Alexander III crowns Emperor Manuel I as Holy Roman Emperor? Plausible?

Isn't the Pope entitled to excommuicate rulers and issue Papal bulls empowering/bestowing the crown upon a rival claimant?

Entitled to excommuniate yes. Power to to say "you're the king" no.
Pope is giving legitimacy, no reality of power : that's a job for nobility.

A pope trying this sort of things would have to fear a "Agniani's slap" far earlier than OTL : not only from the guy concerned but also from the kings that supported papcacy '"What the heck? He can't remove king like that, if i support that, it could backfire".

Because the king was the pillar of feudal society, HE gave legitimacy to the power of nobility and it was why great nobles never tried seriously to overthrow him. A king supporting a king-maker pope would send this message to ambitious :

"Are you tired with your king rule? Did you always wanted to bear a better crown? Why hesitate, when the pope can remove your rival and give you enough power to be satisfied with! Call the 555-9225 and if you answer in the ten days, you'll recive a wonderful relic of Saint Anselm!"
 
Entitled to excommuniate yes. Power to to say "you're the king" no.
Pope is giving legitimacy, no reality of power : that's a job for nobility.

A pope trying this sort of things would have to fear a "Agniani's slap" far earlier than OTL : not only from the guy concerned but also from the kings that supported papcacy '"What the heck? He can't remove king like that, if i support that, it could backfire".

Because the king was the pillar of feudal society, HE gave legitimacy to the power of nobility and it was why great nobles never tried seriously to overthrow him. A king supporting a king-maker pope would send this message to ambitious :

"Are you tired with your king rule? Did you always wanted to bear a better crown? Why hesitate, when the pope can remove your rival and give you enough power to be satisfied with! Call the 555-9225 and if you answer in the ten days, you'll recive a wonderful relic of Saint Anselm!"

If i remember correctly Pope Zachary did support Peppin the Short in deposing Childeric III so there is a precedent for that...
 
Entitled to excommuniate yes. Power to to say "you're the king" no.
Pope is giving legitimacy, no reality of power : that's a job for nobility.

A pope trying this sort of things would have to fear a "Agniani's slap" far earlier than OTL : not only from the guy concerned but also from the kings that supported papcacy '"What the heck? He can't remove king like that, if i support that, it could backfire".

Because the king was the pillar of feudal society, HE gave legitimacy to the power of nobility and it was why great nobles never tried seriously to overthrow him. A king supporting a king-maker pope would send this message to ambitious :

"Are you tired with your king rule? Did you always wanted to bear a better crown? Why hesitate, when the pope can remove your rival and give you enough power to be satisfied with! Call the 555-9225 and if you answer in the ten days, you'll recive a wonderful relic of Saint Anselm!"

That is the most awesome faux-quote I've read in the entire time I've spent studying the Middle Ages.
 
If i remember correctly Pope Zachary did support Peppin the Short in deposing Childeric III so there is a precedent for that...

Yes, and by making this the pope created an institutionalized monarchy. Before this deposistion and critically the benediction of the whole royal family, the merovingian kings weren't protected by Church.

In fact, what happened exactly wasn't the pope deposing the merovingian, it happened earlier. No, as Peppin had already the reality of power the papacy sanctioned it, but the pope didn't chased Chilperic, Pepin already did years before (remember he was sacred twice, the later one being by the pope for his help in Italy).

Except for the visigothic monarchy (that was not really in situation to react), you didn't have any sacred monarchy in Europe.

Plus, the absence of feudal system, inherited from carolingian times, helped greatly the king to have less to fear regarding amibitious vassals, as their ones never had the property of the land, only the benefit as salary and for a limited time.
 
Yes, and by making this the pope created an institutionalized monarchy. Before this deposistion and critically the benediction of the whole royal family, the merovingian kings weren't protected by Church.

In fact, what happened exactly wasn't the pope deposing the merovingian, it happened earlier. No, as Peppin had already the reality of power the papacy sanctioned it, but the pope didn't chased Chilperic, Pepin already did years before (remember he was sacred twice, the later one being by the pope for his help in Italy).

Except for the visigothic monarchy (that was not really in situation to react), you didn't have any sacred monarchy in Europe.

Plus, the absence of feudal system, inherited from carolingian times, helped greatly the king to have less to fear regarding amibitious vassals, as their ones never had the property of the land, only the benefit as salary and for a limited time.

Still Alexander III could use Peppin's and Zachary's precedent to strip Barbarossa from his title as Emperor and grant it elsewhere...
 
Isn't the Pope entitled to excommuicate rulers and issue Papal bulls empowering/bestowing the crown upon a rival claimant?

The Pope can certainly both excommunicate and at least recognise alternative claimants. Or both, as he did during the investiture controversy with Hermann of Salm and Rudolph of Rheinfelden. Fat lot of good it did to either of them, mind you, so it was not a good thing to take the idea of papal making and unmaking kings too far, (Gregory VII famously probably did do just that) risking as it does making the Pope's authority seem all too hollow.

Most of the above speculation in the thread is curiously byzantophile (not sure, at least by the usual pro-byzie arguments, why the Basile-sorry, Impertor Romanum needs the Pope's confirmation - or indeed would want it, for that matter [I'm playing advocatus diaboli only a little - I assume Manuel thought it would be practically useful as a confirmation of Byzie claims in Italy]) and therefore largely ignores the fundamental problem here, which is to say that Manuel just can't deliver on subordinating the Greek church to Rome. Which of course was the big fruit which dangled in front of the eyes of the post-schism Popes, and which they continually insisted on as a basic sine qua non of these kind of negotiations with the Byzantines. So the whole issue is really moot.
 
Last edited:
Basileus (or technically, Basileos) is the proper title here.

As for why he would need/want it: Manuel, as I understand it, is trying to use this to acquire dominion over both halves of the empire (as it were), as something recognized by the West instead of a de jure claim long since dead in any practical sense even among the Byzantines.

And that does require the Pope going along with it.
 
Still Alexander III could use Peppin's and Zachary's precedent to strip Barbarossa from his title as Emperor and grant it elsewhere...

No, as it was no proper precedent. The pope sanctionned the rise of Pepin, not created it.

Furthermore, the whole situation changed between 751 and 1160's : it wa sno longer a king whom the main responsability was to organize the mass of nobility for expeditions and to grant them goods in time of peace. The feudal king was the legitimity base and the grant of the maintain of kingdom.

It would make as sense to use this so-called precedent than using the sanction of Imperoo Dividii to claim the papacy have the right to decide which territory a king would rule.

Or, if you prefer, using the Treaty of Tordesillas during the XIX century to support Spanish claims for America : different era, different institutions, different ALL.
 
Top