07-30-2011, 08:55 PM
Hello Robert, back from congresses and better rested I find some time again to answer, hopefully.
Well, maybe I did not explain the 'face saver' clearly enough, but it important because it is the starting point of the topic actually: the fact that Michael changed the official title in face of Charles' ascension, who had taken the complete intitulatio of Roman Emperors used at that time in the west. So Michael could proudly claim that Charles was denied the 'true' 'Roman' title - this is nonsense of course, since Charles got precisely what he wanted, the full Roman title as used in the west. But it did save Michael's face, especially as Charles seized operations against Venice, leaving the Eastern Emperor with a tiny landmass in the west, which he could not win anyway due to his naval inferiority.
Please don't just again repeat that Eastern propaganda of the great Eastern Emperor who was so strong that he did not have to recognize poor Charles, and poor Charles who did not dare to take the 'real title'. Again, Michael changed the title, after Charles got what the one he wanted.
Charles' empire was large enough, and from his point of view, he did rule over the sedes imperii. The fact that he did not extend it on all of the eastern ones, is all the more telling about his western aspirations. England is a somewhat special case. It has been given up generations before even the old Western Roman Empire fell, and not even the most universal claim of the Roman Emperors after the withdrawal had included England. Up to Charles, that is, acting as superior to
Anglo-Saxon Kings. This is not my field of interest, but Joanna Story in Carolingian Connections: Anglo-Saxon England and Carolingian Francia argues that Charles indeed considered England his sphere of influence not only in the tradition of Roman Emperors of old days, but as Emperor of the Christians (especially pp.166-168), which itself is a deeply Roman idea.
I think it is largely misleading to say that Charles was just more successful than other petty kings. Western legal and political theory of that time demanded the title (the nomen) to fit the power and vice versa, since titles were feebly man-made work anyway. This reaches far back to Augustine and ultimately Aristotle. Of course it gained a new importance to legitimize the deposition of the Merovingian kingship.
Accumulating multiple titles, including royal ones and that of being the pope's and Rome's protector is quite a legal burden already. It is hardly coincidence finding that Charles was called augustus before 800, e.g. in the Panegyricus of Paderborn, which also calls Aachen a second Rome.
In general, the Frankish kingdom started as a federate Command within the Roman Empire on Roman soil, with the kings being Roman commanders, commanding soldiers of the Roman Army, and ruling over Roman citizens. That is why Aegidius was both Magister Militum and considered king of the Franks, btw. There is every bit as Roman tradition in the Gaulish or Germanic provinces surviving as there is in the eastern ones, albeit with different political structure - which was different enough before 480 anyway. Yes, culture was different in 2nd century Gaul than in 8th century Gaul, just like it was in Greece. Transformation does not make anyone less Roman, unless you want to return to the good old 'Barbarians in the west, Byzantine Greeklings in the east' pattern. The traditions in which Charles was standing are firmly Roman, as current scholarship on early medieval times is working out time and again. (Just this month I attended two conferences, a large one and a small one, with very different topics, yet the result is pretty clear).
Roman Citizenship is a difficult matter and one can safely say we need more research on it in post-WRE-time. Therefore I would not be jumping to conclusions all too quickly, especially as I am not that familiar with the contemporary sources on it.
Where there is a difference to the east is that Roman identity in the west was certainly of lesser importance as it had an equal flanking identity, Frank e.g. Then again, much of the fuzz about Carolingian Renaissance was for the sake of Roman-ness.
One of my four out of seventeen examples for attempted western revivals of the Empire originated in Constantinople, i.e. the supposedly last will of Maurice. All the other, also the majority of those not listed, had nothing do to with Constantinople unless, of course, you count actions against the Eastern Roman Emperor as "originating in Constantinople".
What I see is a long list of western sources. Yes they are filled with hyperbole, distortions, outright lies, hidden and open agendas - which only means they not any different to eastern sources in that respect. They clearly evidence that a lot of elites (it would be difficult to get the 'common' people's opinion anyway) had a big interest in this revival and expressing this in various forms, from military action to court speeches. I mean there is a military commander marching on Rome because he wants the pope to crown him Emperor. but you don't see the interest in revival, saying they thought the western Empire was dead? I am at a loss here, what kind of evidence would you want?
In the same vain I do not understand your evidence. Saying that the papacy had ulterior motives by installing the Emperorship is one thing and one certainly will not find disagreement on that. The other thing is saying they thought the western Empire was dead. Even bolder would saying that everyone else did. Other than being factually incorrect as seventeen cases should amply demonstrate, there is hardly a way to know what "the ordinary citizen" had in mind. ...whatever "the ordinary citizen" is supposed to be.
What I would need are sources proving the dead-being of the WRE beyond resurrection. The only I know is Odoaker claiming the West did not need an Emperor no more. Dubious at best, wouldn't you agree?
regards
Kai
Well, maybe I did not explain the 'face saver' clearly enough, but it important because it is the starting point of the topic actually: the fact that Michael changed the official title in face of Charles' ascension, who had taken the complete intitulatio of Roman Emperors used at that time in the west. So Michael could proudly claim that Charles was denied the 'true' 'Roman' title - this is nonsense of course, since Charles got precisely what he wanted, the full Roman title as used in the west. But it did save Michael's face, especially as Charles seized operations against Venice, leaving the Eastern Emperor with a tiny landmass in the west, which he could not win anyway due to his naval inferiority.
Please don't just again repeat that Eastern propaganda of the great Eastern Emperor who was so strong that he did not have to recognize poor Charles, and poor Charles who did not dare to take the 'real title'. Again, Michael changed the title, after Charles got what the one he wanted.
Charles' empire was large enough, and from his point of view, he did rule over the sedes imperii. The fact that he did not extend it on all of the eastern ones, is all the more telling about his western aspirations. England is a somewhat special case. It has been given up generations before even the old Western Roman Empire fell, and not even the most universal claim of the Roman Emperors after the withdrawal had included England. Up to Charles, that is, acting as superior to
Anglo-Saxon Kings. This is not my field of interest, but Joanna Story in Carolingian Connections: Anglo-Saxon England and Carolingian Francia argues that Charles indeed considered England his sphere of influence not only in the tradition of Roman Emperors of old days, but as Emperor of the Christians (especially pp.166-168), which itself is a deeply Roman idea.
I think it is largely misleading to say that Charles was just more successful than other petty kings. Western legal and political theory of that time demanded the title (the nomen) to fit the power and vice versa, since titles were feebly man-made work anyway. This reaches far back to Augustine and ultimately Aristotle. Of course it gained a new importance to legitimize the deposition of the Merovingian kingship.
Accumulating multiple titles, including royal ones and that of being the pope's and Rome's protector is quite a legal burden already. It is hardly coincidence finding that Charles was called augustus before 800, e.g. in the Panegyricus of Paderborn, which also calls Aachen a second Rome.
In general, the Frankish kingdom started as a federate Command within the Roman Empire on Roman soil, with the kings being Roman commanders, commanding soldiers of the Roman Army, and ruling over Roman citizens. That is why Aegidius was both Magister Militum and considered king of the Franks, btw. There is every bit as Roman tradition in the Gaulish or Germanic provinces surviving as there is in the eastern ones, albeit with different political structure - which was different enough before 480 anyway. Yes, culture was different in 2nd century Gaul than in 8th century Gaul, just like it was in Greece. Transformation does not make anyone less Roman, unless you want to return to the good old 'Barbarians in the west, Byzantine Greeklings in the east' pattern. The traditions in which Charles was standing are firmly Roman, as current scholarship on early medieval times is working out time and again. (Just this month I attended two conferences, a large one and a small one, with very different topics, yet the result is pretty clear).
Roman Citizenship is a difficult matter and one can safely say we need more research on it in post-WRE-time. Therefore I would not be jumping to conclusions all too quickly, especially as I am not that familiar with the contemporary sources on it.
Where there is a difference to the east is that Roman identity in the west was certainly of lesser importance as it had an equal flanking identity, Frank e.g. Then again, much of the fuzz about Carolingian Renaissance was for the sake of Roman-ness.
One of my four out of seventeen examples for attempted western revivals of the Empire originated in Constantinople, i.e. the supposedly last will of Maurice. All the other, also the majority of those not listed, had nothing do to with Constantinople unless, of course, you count actions against the Eastern Roman Emperor as "originating in Constantinople".
What I see is a long list of western sources. Yes they are filled with hyperbole, distortions, outright lies, hidden and open agendas - which only means they not any different to eastern sources in that respect. They clearly evidence that a lot of elites (it would be difficult to get the 'common' people's opinion anyway) had a big interest in this revival and expressing this in various forms, from military action to court speeches. I mean there is a military commander marching on Rome because he wants the pope to crown him Emperor. but you don't see the interest in revival, saying they thought the western Empire was dead? I am at a loss here, what kind of evidence would you want?
In the same vain I do not understand your evidence. Saying that the papacy had ulterior motives by installing the Emperorship is one thing and one certainly will not find disagreement on that. The other thing is saying they thought the western Empire was dead. Even bolder would saying that everyone else did. Other than being factually incorrect as seventeen cases should amply demonstrate, there is hardly a way to know what "the ordinary citizen" had in mind. ...whatever "the ordinary citizen" is supposed to be.
What I would need are sources proving the dead-being of the WRE beyond resurrection. The only I know is Odoaker claiming the West did not need an Emperor no more. Dubious at best, wouldn't you agree?
regards
Kai
------------
![[Image: regnumhesperium.png]](http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3673/regnumhesperium.png)
