History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VII

[Flying Pig]

Einhard (Charlenagne's servant and biographer) says he was crowned 'emperor and Augustus', and implies that he took on the traditional Roman costume after his coronation. 'Augustus' was certainly an unambiguously Roman title, even if you can make the case that 'emperor' might have been applicable to a non-Roman ruler. Personally, I think you're on shaky ground even there.

 

[Ajidica]

After Justinian, were there any plans for the Romans to reconquer their own provinces or were they simply content with what they had at the time? I know the Byzantines waxed and waned over the centuries but did they ever plan to retake the old empire?

Regards

Plans to reconquer the Western Empire? Not really. Outside of Italy and North Africa (Carthage) the rest of the Western Empire was too poor to be of much interest, especially compared to the vastly wealthier regions of Egypt, Syria, and the Anatolian coast. Outside of reconquering Vandal North Africa, there weren't any real reasons for the reconquest outside of Justinian's ego. The Vandals had made themselves very unpopular in the Mediterranean due to their piracy - the Byzantine invasion force actually resupplied in Ostrogothic Sicily- and their rule wasn't very firm. A thin military aristocracy was all that existed of the Vandal state. A couple victories killing most of the aristocracy and that was it. The Vandal treasuries paid for the cost of the expedition.
Ostrogothic Italy was a different matter. Theoderic and his descendants still ruled it as a de facto Byzantine province and enjoyed good relations with the Imperial court. The Ostrogothic elite also maintained good relations with their "Roman" subjects.
Visigothic Spain was similar, helped by the fact it was quite a distance from Constantinople.

One of the Constantine's (don't remember which one) planned to permanently relocate the Imperial court to Sicily but I believe he died before anything came of that. John Tzimices planned a Huntington-esque "clash of civilizations" against the collapsing Abbasid Caliphate but fortunately nothing came of that. Basil II and his successors contented themselves with fighting the Bulgars and picking off some breakaway Syrian and Levantine states from the Abbasids.

After Justinian, reconquest was never a major theme for the Emperors as when they enjoyed unmatched military dominance in Europe, Europe was too poor to devote many resources to when Sassanid Persia was raiding the far wealthier eastern provinces and trying to keep a bunch of restless barbarians in what had been imperial backwaters long out of imperial control just wasn't worth it.

I know there are some that like to trace the Holy Roman Empire back to Charlemagne, but he wasn't crowned 'emperor of the West', nor 'Roman emperor', but simply crowned emperor by the pope - a novelty in itself. Later this would be connected to the infamous Donatio Constantini in order to further buttress papal authority. Eastern Rome of course knew this was a legal novelty (and not founded in Roman law), but they relatively quickly came to terms with it. The lack of a male Byzantine emperor may have had something to do with it. Of course Eastern Roman emperors were crowned, but not by the pope, obviously, and the initiative lay with the crownee, not with the patriarch. Usually anyway.

It was a bit of both. Conceptually the Byzantines had no real problem with there beings two emperors for "administrative" reasons (such as after Theodosius split the empire). You are right that part of Charlemagne's coronation was due to the lack of a male Byzantine Emperor, but part of it also had to with papal attempts to assert secular authority and getting an Emperor who reflected their interests more than dogmatic and nearly heretical emperors in Constantinople.
Afterwards, we see increased references to the Byzantines calling their Emperor the "Emperor of the Romans", a title they never gave to Charlemagne or his heirs.
That said, it wasn't an issue that really affected anyone outside of the Imperial courts and aristocracy. It only really became an issue when one of the parties tried to make it into an issue. Despite some efforts to change in, in the Roman Empire Emperorship was essentially a military dictator and Charlemagne's military conquests were undeniable, especially when compared to the military reversals and civil wars under Irene.

EDIT: And as Traitorfish points out, "Emperor" was an inherently Roman concept. While there could be many Kings, there could be only one Emperor.

 

[Traitorfish]

Einhard (Charlenagne's servant and biographer) says he was crowned 'emperor and Augustus', and implies that he took on the traditional Roman costume after his coronation. 'Augustus' was certainly an unambiguously Roman title, even if you can make the case that 'emperor' might have been applicable to a non-Roman ruler. Personally, I think you're on shaky ground even there.

Yeah, it's hard to imagine a ninth century Frank having any concept of emperor-ship outside of a Roman context. Would they even have a word for it? Unless we want to speculate that "imperator" was used to translate some indigenous Frankish term that somehow escaped every chronicler in Europe...

 

[schlaufuchs]

rihhi?

or, riki I guess if we're talking Frankish.

 

[Lexicus]

Einhard (Charlenagne's servant and biographer) says he was crowned 'emperor and Augustus', and implies that he took on the traditional Roman costume after his coronation. 'Augustus' was certainly an unambiguously Roman title, even if you can make the case that 'emperor' might have been applicable to a non-Roman ruler. Personally, I think you're on shaky ground even there.

Well, the root of Emperor is Latin Imperator, a Roman title...and the actual word for emperor in several language was Caesar, a Roman family name.

The Franks obviously got the concept from the Romans.

 

[Flying Pig]

rihhi?

or, riki I guess if we're talking Frankish.

That sounds a lot like 'rex' to me, is that a word or concept different from kingship?

 

[Agent327]

It was a bit of both. Conceptually the Byzantines had no real problem with there beings two emperors for "administrative" reasons (such as after Theodosius split the empire). You are right that part of Charlemagne's coronation was due to the lack of a male Byzantine Emperor, but part of it also had to with papal attempts to assert secular authority and getting an Emperor who reflected their interests more than dogmatic and nearly heretical emperors in Constantinople.
Afterwards, we see increased references to the Byzantines calling their Emperor the "Emperor of the Romans", a title they never gave to Charlemagne or his heirs.
That said, it wasn't an issue that really affected anyone outside of the Imperial courts and aristocracy. It only really became an issue when one of the parties tried to make it into an issue. Despite some efforts to change in, in the Roman Empire Emperorship was essentially a military dictator and Charlemagne's military conquests were undeniable, especially when compared to the military reversals and civil wars under Irene.

EDIT: And as Traitorfish points out, "Emperor" was an inherently Roman concept. While there could be many Kings, there could be only one Emperor.

But now there were two. My point was not that Charlemagne wasn't crowned emperor (there is no doubt about that), but that there is any connection with the later Holy Roman Empire - which, again, didn't start out as such. Nor is it true that the Byzantines didn't have any problems with it. They did, for various reasons (such as that the imperial title was not one to be given by the pope). The idea that the pope did so without any prompting from Charlemagne is also highly unlikely; there seems to have been a common motivation - though not an identical one, obviously.

But anyway, it's rather clear that Charlemagne's 'empire' was nothing like the erstwhile (Western) Roman empire. Although, of course, the title survived (as well as the connection with Italy), there was never any pretense of reviving the old empire. That wasn't the point. The point was that there was now a new empire in the West.

 

[schlaufuchs]

That sounds a lot like 'rex' to me, is that a word or concept different from kingship?

Same root: PGmc *rīks. In Germanic languages it was often used more or less as an equivalent to "Empire"

Modern Gmc descendants:

Germ: Reich
Dutch: rijk
Danish: rige
Swedish: rike

etc.

English rich and French riche come from the same root via OEnglish and Frankish respectively.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Yeah, it's hard to imagine a ninth century Frank having any concept of emperor-ship outside of a Roman context. Would they even have a word for it? Unless we want to speculate that "imperator" was used to translate some indigenous Frankish term that somehow escaped every chronicler in Europe...

The is correct. The title was understood to mean 'ruler of the Romans'. The pretext for adopting the title was that the current ruler of the Romans was a woman, Irene, who the papacy opposed (the existence of some emperor was necessary to the papacy for legalistic/historical reasons).

 

[Traitorfish]

rihhi?

or, riki I guess if we're talking Frankish.

Was "imperator" used to translate this title, though, or would this title have been used to translate "imperator"? As in, would Charlemagne actually have thought of himself as "riki", and the chroniclers Latinised this as "imperator", or would he have thought of himself as "imperator" and this may have been communicated to his subjects as "riki"?

I know that chroniclers sometimes used "imperator" to translate non-Roman titles like "Ard Rí" and "Bretwalda", but is there any suggestion in the records that we're seeing something similar in this case?

 

[Pangur Bán]

Was "imperator" used to translate this title, though, or would this title have been used to translate "imperator"? As in, would Charlemagne actually have thought of himself as "riki", and the chroniclers Latinised this as "imperator", or would he have thought of himself as "imperator" and this may have been communicated to his subjects as "riki"?

I know that chroniclers sometimes used "imperator" to translate non-Roman titles like "Ard Rí" and "Bretwalda", but is there any suggestion in the records that we're seeing something similar in this case?

Imperator is a title of the Roman ruler rather than his defining title per se--without the Roman context imperator just means 'commander' or 'overlord'. I don't think it's the case that Latin is reflecting Germanic vernacular, it's that Latin titles are part of the ritual and pomp of presenting oneself as a Roman ruler. The Germanic name for the emperor, Kaiser, is borrowed quite early--it must be very early for phonological reasons and because the Romans themselves preferred the title Augustus for the emperor after the early 300s.

 

[Agent327]

Which conforms with Charlemagne being crowned imperator et augustus. (And still doesn't make him Roman emperor.) Clearly, emperor was a Roman title, but that wasn't the issue, I think.

Same root: PGmc *rīks. In Germanic languages it was often used more or less as an equivalent to "Empire"

Modern Gmc descendants:

Germ: Reich
Dutch: rijk
Danish: rige
Swedish: rike

etc.

English rich and French riche come from the same root via OEnglish and Frankish respectively.

Not sure if 'empire' would be most accurate. Reign seems the obvious translation here. (E.g., Dutch rijk can mean state as well as empire, and it can mean the same as English rich.)

 

[schlaufuchs]

Uhhh not really no?

The word comes from PGmc *rīks as I mentioned. It's a PCeltic borrowing meaning "king". The adjectival form of the root - *rīkijaz "kingliness" refers to any kinglike quality. So it could mean, depending on context: powerful, rich, mighty, royal, noble, etc. This is where our adjectives: reich, rijk, riche, rich, rik, etc. come from.

The neuter substantive form *rīkija refers to "kingliness" in an abstract sense. So rulership, authority, and government when referring to the organization and means of ruling, but additionally kingdom, realm, and later (as PGmc transitioned into languages for which we have actual hard evidence such as Frankish, OHG, OE, and Gothic) empire when referring to things a king rules over. This is where the neuter substantives I listed above: das Reich, het rijk, þat rike, riket, etc. come from. And as I noted, the word is still used in e.g. German and Dutch when describing states English would classify as "Empires" - Mogulreich, Persereich, Mongolisches Reich, Guptareich; Mogolrijk, Perzische Rijk, Mongoolse Rijk, etc.

I think the problem with this discussion is in the nature of the question, because the question and the answer kind of end up becoming tautological. Germanic languages obviously had concepts of kingship and words to describe kingship and the realms over which a king ruled. The concept of an overking or High King also obviously existed. So in that sense an "Empire" as in a "Reich": a large territorial state ruled by an Overking, absent any explicit associations with a Roman heritage was something that the Germanic language had, and still has today. It's also worth noting that, for example, German is a bit more explicit in distinguishing between Empires claiming (whether through themselves or later Western historians) association with Rome. So you get non-Roman "Empires" like Guptareich, and Malireich ruled not by Kaisers, but by Königen, and then you get the more explicitly "Roman" Empires like Deutsches Reich, Russisches Kaiserreich, and Byzantinisches Reich which are ruled by Kaisers. The problem is that "Empire" as a word has a lot of baggage attached to it, which, due to reasons of both etymological and cultural heritage necessarily associate the term with Latin and the Romans. Many western languages adapted the Roman titles Caesar and Augustus specifically because of the associations that word had and has with, well, the Caesars. So this whole discussion kind of turns into a big tautological mess. "Did Germanic speakers have a word specifically to describe the Roman Empire and its leaders as distinct from any other large territorial state with a High King?" No, obviously, but then, why would they? And perhaps more critically, neither did the Romans.

 

[r16]

Was there any real possibility of Mexico avoiding the war with the United States and retaining its northern territories, or were they doomed from the start by American immigrants?

america was always pro-British , despite the horrors it held for decision makers in London . ı know , that's such a weird statement with regards to 1776 and 1812 and all . Britain dissolved the Spanish Empire , America filled the void as boots on the ground . All Americas would be speaking English right now but the 1860s were such a drain and Germany became too powerful , too quick .

 

[Pangur Bán]

Which conforms with Charlemagne being crowned imperator et augustus. (And still doesn't make him Roman emperor.) Clearly, emperor was a Roman title, but that wasn't the issue, I think.

The thing you have to remember about 800 is that the papacy was still, in some sense, a bureaucrat of the Roman empire and the Roman Empire still exists (no-one in 800 thought that the Roman Empire had gone or turned into the 'Byzantine Empire'); likewise, the emperor is in some way an critical part of the universal church. It just took them until 800 and the reign of Irene to figure out that they might be able to come to some new arrangement by using the Franks.

 

[Flying Pig]

Uhhh not really no?

The word comes from PGmc *rīks as I mentioned. It's a PCeltic borrowing meaning "king". The adjectival form of the root - *rīkijaz "kingliness" refers to any kinglike quality. So it could mean, depending on context: powerful, rich, mighty, royal, noble, etc. This is where our adjectives: reich, rijk, riche, rich, rik, etc. come from.

The neuter substantive form *rīkija refers to "kingliness" in an abstract sense. So rulership, authority, and government when referring to the organization and means of ruling, but additionally kingdom, realm, and later (as PGmc transitioned into languages for which we have actual hard evidence such as Frankish, OHG, OE, and Gothic) empire when referring to things a king rules over. This is where the neuter substantives I listed above: das Reich, het rijk, þat rike, riket, etc. come from. And as I noted, the word is still used in e.g. German and Dutch when describing states English would classify as "Empires" - Mogulreich, Persereich, Mongolisches Reich, Guptareich; Mogolrijk, Perzische Rijk, Mongoolse Rijk, etc.

I think the problem with this discussion is in the nature of the question, because the question and the answer kind of end up becoming tautological. Germanic languages obviously had concepts of kingship and words to describe kingship and the realms over which a king ruled. The concept of an overking or High King also obviously existed. So in that sense an "Empire" as in a "Reich": a large territorial state ruled by an Overking, absent any explicit associations with a Roman heritage was something that the Germanic language had, and still has today. It's also worth noting that, for example, German is a bit more explicit in distinguishing between Empires claiming (whether through themselves or later Western historians) association with Rome. So you get non-Roman "Empires" like Guptareich, and Malireich ruled not by Kaisers, but by Königen, and then you get the more explicitly "Roman" Empires like Deutsches Reich, Russisches Kaiserreich, and Byzantinisches Reich which are ruled by Kaisers. The problem is that "Empire" as a word has a lot of baggage attached to it, which, due to reasons of both etymological and cultural heritage necessarily associate the term with Latin and the Romans. Many western languages adapted the Roman titles Caesar and Augustus specifically because of the associations that word had and has with, well, the Caesars. So this whole discussion kind of turns into a big tautological mess. "Did Germanic speakers have a word specifically to describe the Roman Empire and its leaders as distinct from any other large territorial state with a High King?" No, obviously, but then, why would they? And perhaps more critically, neither did the Romans.

Well, that last idea was exactly my point - that the Romans did, as far as I know, use 'imperator' and 'Augustus' as explicitly Roman terms. I can't think of a single figure given those by a Roman source except to set them up as emperor of the Romans. Can you?

 

[Pangur Bán]

But Germanic speakers did have a word for the Roman ruler, Kaiser. Half the Germanic world for several centuries was under Roman rule and most of it was a supply region for Roman soldiers. Germanic speakers called the Romans walhisk, and almost certainly Otto's Saxons used the same word and referred to Italy as something like 'Welshland'. Also, Germanic society didn't have kings, or at least not the sort of kings we think of, the rise of the territorial king is a result of Romanization. The original word 'king' meant something like 'clan chief' or pater familias. Some of the big Germanic titles originate in Roman honours. For instance, herzog is a calque of dux; the actual role of rex was in practice a term used for leaders of client tribes. If Clovis et al actually used the ancestor of the word king/konig, it would have initially been used in reference to his role as leader of the head lineage/dynasty of the gens he led...i.e. the Franks or the Merovingian dynasty, not as the sacral, lawgiving, army leading ruler of territorial kingdom.

 

[dutchfire]

Only mildly related to Owen's posts:

The Dutch word rijk has differs in connotation from the English empire. When one talks about 'empire' or 'imperial', one immediately thinks of soldiers marching through a tropical colony. The Dutch word rijk does not have these bad connotations and is still actively used to describe governmental organizations. "Het Rijk" is the national government, and words like Rijksgrens are still actively used. I can't imagine the UK using the term "Imperial border" nowadays.

 

[Traitorfish]

So... Charlemagne was "Roman emperor"? Or not? I'm not sure I'm following all this.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Opinion was divided. He and his followers thought he was--or rather, pretended he thought he was in the hope that everyone would treat him that way; the actual Roman emperors and most of the neighboring peoples disagreed. The Franks aren't the only knock-off Roman empire in former Roman territory in the ninth century. The Bulgars do something similar.