History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VII

[Lohrenswald]

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

I heard he was crowned emperor of Rome, as in the city

 

[Arakhor]

It seems that Charlemagne was recognised as basileus by the Byzantine Emperor Michael I in 812 in return for Venice becoming Byzantine once more, but this was only a year or two before both of them died.

 

[Cutlass]

Isn't there an old quip that the Holy Roman Empire was not holy, Roman, or an empire?

 

[Arakhor]

One of Voltaire's famous observations, yes, but he was born seven centuries after Charlemagne and the nature of the HRE had changed dramatically by then.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

...It was something in the way of an empire, originally...

 

[schlaufuchs]

...It was something in the way of an empire, originally...

Well what the hell is an empire? :3

 

[Agent327]

It seems that Charlemagne was recognised as basileus by the Byzantine Emperor Michael I in 812 in return for Venice becoming Byzantine once more, but this was only a year or two before both of them died.

Correct. One of the things that irked Byzantium (besides the papal arrogance of the ceremony) might have been the fact that in the West there was now an emperor that was an illiterate.

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.

The papacy was 'still, in some sense, a bureaucrat of the Roman empire'? No. Also, the Roman empire didn't 'go and turn into' the Byzantine empire. What we call the 'Byzantine empire' was in fact the Roman empire - minus its western half. They didn't call themselves Greeks or Byzantines, they called themselves Romaioi. Romans. Thirdly, there never was a 'universal church'. This is mere clerical pretense. There never was a single church, not even within the empire, let alone outside it.

I heard he was crowned emperor of Rome, as in the city

You might have a better argument calling Romulus Augustulus that.

 

[Arakhor]

Complicating the issue was that 'King of the Romans' was one of the Emperor's titles, until around the time of Emperor Maximilian (Charles V & I's grandfather) when it was made official that the Emperor became emperor by virtue of being elected, rather than crowned by the Pope, and the title of 'King of the Romans' became the title of the heir of the throne.

It's rather similar to the way that Caesar moved from being a family name to a title of the Roman emperors to the rank of junior emperor during the Tetrarchy. The Byzantines used kaisar in a similar fashion before it mutated into the German and Russian variants still in use last century.

 

[Pangur Bán]

The papacy was 'still, in some sense, a bureaucrat of the Roman empire'? No.

Absolutely he was. The Roman patriarchate in its early medieval form was officially a part of the Roman state. While popes may have stopped going to Constantinople to be confirmed, that placed the Roman bishops in a kind of legal limbo, undermined their authority, and made them outsiders among the other patriarchs.

Also, the Roman empire didn't 'go and turn into' the Byzantine empire. What we call the 'Byzantine empire' was in fact the Roman empire - minus its western half. They didn't call themselves Greeks or Byzantines, they called themselves Romaioi. Romans.
.

Is there a reason you are posting this at me?

 

[Pangur Bán]

It's rather similar to the way that Caesar moved from being a family name to a title of the Roman emperors to the rank of junior emperor during the Tetrarchy. The Byzantines used kaisar in a similar fashion before it mutated into the German and Russian variants still in use last century.

The general belief is that the term Kaiser was borrowed prior to the Tetrarchy, and if so may have spread from Germanic into Slavic directly rather than via Byzantine Greek.

 

[Buster's Uncle]

Well what the hell is an empire? :3

That's actually a good question, you know. Strictly speaking, it not an empire without an Emperor, just as you call a country without a king something besides a kingdom.

I was using the term in a much vaguer modern sense as a centrally-ruled area much of which was conquered, which Charlemagne's empire certainly was.

 

[Arakhor]

The general belief is that the term Kaiser was borrowed prior to the Tetrarchy, and if so may have spread from Germanic into Slavic directly rather than via Byzantine Greek.

Oh, well. That would make sense too.

 

[Agent327]

The Roman patriarchate in its early medieval form was officially a part of the Roman state. While popes may have stopped going to Constantinople to be confirmed, that placed the Roman bishops in a kind of legal limbo, undermined their authority, and made them outsiders among the other patriarchs.

So, in short, the Roman patriarchate (?) stopped being a part of the Roman state. Which is the exact opposite of your claim. (The pope was't a patriarch, by the way; he, in fact, claimed primacy over the patriarchs. On authority of Peter, who, curiously, never was head of the church in Rome, nor said anything to such effect. So, in effect, the pope's authority in this matter rested on the remains of two apostles in the city. This being a rather shaky source of authority even in church matters, they generally refer to Christ saying that Peter was the rock on which his church would be built. Which, in the event, it wasn't. But best not get historical with religion. Or legal.)

Is there a reason you are posting this at me?

Yes and no. No, because you just effectively undermined your own claim that the papacy was 'still, in some sense, a bureaucrat of the Roman empire''You can't be a bureaucrat of an empire you're no longer part of. Not in any logical sense anyway.

Similarly, you can't be crowned emperor of an empire that already has one (and resides in Constantinople). Nor is is it logical to claim that the Western imperial title was 'vacant' after the demise of the Western Roman empire. The title wasn't vacant, the entire empire was - and nobody ever filled that vacancy. Besides the also rather obvious fact that no emperor was ever crowned by a pope until 800, Roman or otherwise. Whichever way you might wish to look at it, the pope crowning an emperor in 800 was a novum.

 

[Plotinus]

The pope was't a patriarch, by the way; he, in fact, claimed primacy over the patriarchs.

Sure he was a patriarch. He claimed authority over the other patriarchs - as, for that matter, did the patriarch of Constantinople.

On authority of Peter, who, curiously, never was head of the church in Rome, nor said anything to such effect.

We don't know that Peter wasn't head of the church in Rome. Really we know almost nothing of what he did there or what he said about it. I agree that this is a pretty shaky basis on which to assert that he was the head of the Roman church, but one can hardly assert with equal certainty that he wasn't, either.

So, in effect, the pope's authority in this matter rested on the remains of two apostles in the city.

This isn't entirely true. Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon states that the reason Rome was given primacy was because it was "the royal city" and was "honoured with the sovereignty and the senate". In other words, the bishop of Rome was the most important bishop because his city was the most important city in secular terms. This had nothing to do with Peter.

Leo of Rome wasn't particularly happy about this canon, precisely because it didn't mention Peter and Paul and paved the way for Constantinople to rival Rome, but he did reluctantly approve it along with the rest of the council's decrees.

 

[Pangur Bán]

So, in short, the Roman patriarchate (?) stopped being a part of the Roman state. Which is the exact opposite of your claim. (The pope was't a patriarch, by the way; he, in fact, claimed primacy over the patriarchs. On authority of Peter, who, curiously, never was head of the church in Rome, nor said anything to such effect. So, in effect, the pope's authority in this matter rested on the remains of two apostles in the city. This being a rather shaky source of authority even in church matters, they generally refer to Christ saying that Peter was the rock on which his church would be built. Which, in the event, it wasn't. But best not get historical with religion. Or legal.)


Yes and no. No, because you just effectively undermined your own claim that the papacy was 'still, in some sense, a bureaucrat of the Roman empire''You can't be a bureaucrat of an empire you're no longer part of. Not in any logical sense anyway.

I think I understand what you're saying here, but I'm afraid this string of assertions doesn't make any sense to me as an argument. The issue is that papal authority, for many, and church authority generally, rested on Roman law and the norms of the Roman state, as did the pope's position as a public official. Bishops in Late Antiquity became one of the main ways that emperors delegated power in cities, and the Roman patriarch's temporal power was a result of that. The absence of an effective emperor created a kind of legal limbo. Imagine a supreme court without a president to make nominations... a bit like that.
If you think they were able to convince easily other Italians of their position on religious doctrine alone, then you need to explain why they forged the Donation of Constantine. Though the emperor didn't happen to have much actual direct power in Italy in the 8th century, Italy was full of people who claimed to wield authority based on imperial delegation.

Similarly, you can't be crowned emperor of an empire that already has one (and resides in Constantinople). Nor is is it logical to claim that the Western imperial title was 'vacant' after the demise of the Western Roman empire. The title wasn't vacant, the entire empire was - and nobody ever filled that vacancy. Besides the also rather obvious fact that no emperor was ever crowned by a pope until 800, Roman or otherwise. Whichever way you might wish to look at it, the pope crowning an emperor in 800 was a novum.

I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing here. But the title claimed by Charlemagne wasn't the 'vacant...Western imperial title'. The Romans got rid of the two emperor system in the 5th century, the title Charlemagne was taking was the one that the papacy claimed Irene could've have.

The pope is trying to solve a problem, the disconnect between imperial power and imperial authority, that was quite old in 800. The principal of priestly ordination, of treating kings like an extension of the priesthood, had already emerged in western custom. You should read Michael Enright, Iona, Tara, and Soissons: The Origin of the Royal Anointing Ritual.

 

[Agent327]

I think I understand what you're saying here, but I'm afraid this string of assertions doesn't make any sense to me as an argument. The issue is that papal authority, for many, and church authority generally, rested on Roman law and the norms of the Roman state, as did the pope's position as a public official. Bishops in Late Antiquity became one of the main ways that emperors delegated power in cities, and the Roman patriarch's temporal power was a result of that. The absence of an effective emperor created a kind of legal limbo. Imagine a supreme court without a president to make nominations... a bit like that.
If you think they were able to convince easily other Italians of their position on religious doctrine alone, then you need to explain why they forged the Donation of Constantine. Though the emperor didn't happen to have much actual direct power in Italy in the 8th century, Italy was full of people who claimed to wield authority based on imperial delegation.

You are confusing papal authority and the authority of the bishop of Rome. Those are two very different things. Papal authority, as Plotinus explained below, only rested on Rome being the capital city. Which, unfortunately for the popes, it had long ceased to be by 800. Similarly, your argument about a 'legal limbo' makes no sense. By 800 the Papal State had filled up any 'legal limbo'. Unfortunately, the Papal State wasn't as strong as the empire. and here we see the connection between pope and Frankish king: they shared a common interest. The pope needed a protector, and Charlemagne was willing to oblige.

The Romans got rid of the two emperor system in the 5th century, the title Charlemagne was taking was the one that the papacy claimed Irene could've have.

The pope is trying to solve a problem, the disconnect between imperial power and imperial authority, that was quite old in 800. The principal of priestly ordination, of treating kings like an extension of the priesthood, had already emerged in western custom. You should read Michael Enright, Iona, Tara, and Soissons: The Origin of the Royal Anointing Ritual.

This is an entirely invented argument that played no part at all at the time. Imperial power was in Constantinople. Imperial authority was in Constantinople. The patriarch that crowned emperors was in Constantionople. The only problem the pope solved was his own.

Secondly, since there was no actual 'two emperor system', there was neither pretext nor reason for a pope to crown any emperor whatsoever. But even if there was, the pope would have had no such authority. That's the real issue: the pope assumed an authority he never had.

Lastly, the divine right of kings (kings, not emperors) has little to do with the whole papal coronation ceremony.

We don't know that Peter wasn't head of the church in Rome. Really we know almost nothing of what he did there or what he said about it. I agree that this is a pretty shaky basis on which to assert that he was the head of the Roman church, but one can hardly assert with equal certainty that he wasn't, either. Unless you're the pope, that is.

I've always learned that in the absence of evidence, a claim should be dropped rather than kept up. We only know that, possibly, Peter was in Rome. Not even Christian sources claim that he did anything of significance there though. In which light, it seems rather fair to assume that he wasn't head of the church in Rome rather than that he was.

This isn't entirely true. Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon states that the reason Rome was given primacy was because it was "the royal city" and was "honoured with the sovereignty and the senate". In other words, the bishop of Rome was the most important bishop because his city was the most important city in secular terms. This had nothing to do with Peter.

Leo of Rome wasn't particularly happy about this canon, precisely because it didn't mention Peter and Paul and paved the way for Constantinople to rival Rome, but he did reluctantly approve it along with the rest of the council's decrees.

You are basically saying that the Chalcedon council failed to honour Rome's claims. But that's not really relevant to the claims made by the popes, now is it?

 

[Pangur Bán]

You are confusing papal authority and the authority of the bishop of Rome. Those are two very different things. Papal authority, as Plotinus explained below, only rested on Rome being the capital city. Which, unfortunately for the popes, it had long ceased to be by 800.

Well the pope is the bishop of Rome, so happy to 'confuse' them.

Similarly, your argument about a 'legal limbo' makes no sense. By 800 the Papal State had filled up any 'legal limbo'. Unfortunately, the Papal State wasn't as strong as the empire. and here we see the connection between pope and Frankish king: they shared a common interest. The pope needed a protector, and Charlemagne was willing to oblige.

No, the very point I'm making is that it hadn't 'filled' that legal limbo. And I wouldn't use the term 'Papal State' for the 8th century, that's a bit anachronistic.

This is an entirely invented argument that played no part at all at the time. Imperial power was in Constantinople. Imperial authority was in Constantinople. The patriarch that crowned emperors was in Constantionople. The only problem the pope solved was his own.

I dont understand the internal logic of this comment, and I don't see what it has to do with what I posted.

Secondly, since there was no actual 'two emperor system', there was neither pretext nor reason for a pope to crown any emperor whatsoever. But even if there was, the pope would have had no such authority. That's the real issue: the pope assumed an authority he never had.

I just said there wasn't a two emperor system. This is the second time you've posted a comment that repeats something I've already said myself as an 'argument' against something you believe I've argued, you might want to read my posts more carefully.

Lastly, the divine right of kings (kings, not emperors) has little to do with the whole papal coronation ceremony.

I wouldn't have raised the 'divine right of kings' here... the kind of thing you are thinking about is not a doctrine that's well developed in this era. But read the book I posted.

 

[Agent327]

Well the pope is the bishop of Rome, so happy to 'confuse' them.

Yes, the pope is also (and originally only) the bishop of Rome. Really easy not to confuse, I'd imagine.

No, the very point I'm making is that it hadn't 'filled' that legal limbo. And I wouldn't use the term 'Papal State' for the 8th century, that's a bit anachronistic.

Well, you can't fill (or not fill) a 'legal limbo' that doesn't actually exist. As concerns papal state:

territories in the Italian Peninsula under the sovereign direct rule of the pope, from the 8th century until 1870. They were among the major states of Italy from roughly the 8th century until the Italian Peninsula was unified in 1861

I dont understand the internal logic of this comment, and I don't see what it has to do with what I posted.

There was no 'two empire system'. That's in the bit you did not quote. Secondly,

the title Charlemagne was taking was the one that the papacy claimed Irene could've have

is not even an argument. (I was being polite in calling it an 'invented argument'.) As mentioned repeatedly already, the title the pope conferred, was not his to confer in the first place. Legally, it was a novum.

I just said there wasn't a two emperor system.

If there was no two emperor system, again there was no title for the pope to bestow. That conclusion was ignored both by you... and the pope.

I wouldn't have raised the 'divine right of kings' here... the kind of thing you are thinking about is not a doctrine that's well developed in this era. But read the book I posted.

The emperor is not a king. So it's really quite irrelevant. But, the divine right of kings refers to the divinity of kingship per se, not through any priestly mediation. Lastly, if it's poorly developed at this point, why even mention it at all?

 

[Arakhor]

If there was no two emperor system, again there was no title for the pope to bestow. That conclusion was ignored both by you... and the pope.

Given that Pope Leo did in fact ignore this issue, presumably out of an effort to directly slight the Byzantines, quibbling over whether the title did or did not actually still exist is rather pointless.

 

[Agent327]

A good thing nobody argued that then.