Charlemagne's Empire

[Emperor Goblinus]

I am of course well aware that the conquests of Charlemagne and his predeccesors are separate from those of the old Romans, that Charlemagne was not Roman in blood at all, and that his governmental organization was much different than that of the Roman Empire.

However, I read somewhere that Charlemagne's Empire was, to paraphrase, "the last evolutionary step of the western Roman Empire." Do you think that to some extent, this is true?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

For a moment there, your post was almost off-topic until the last sentence.

I think that statement is absurd, not to mention that the Roman Empire already fell. In terms of evolution, it was more of a step backwards, considering Western Europe had just entered the Medieval Age, where there wasn't a real central government which is one main thing that designated the Romans. In my opinion, the last evolutionary stage of the Roman Empire would have been a modern democracry instead of a Feudal heirarchy.

Edited December 5, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Neos Dionysos]

One can kinda say that since afterall the Western Roman Empire, (WRE), was turning and transforming into a Germanic scene and now you have the 'Holy Roman Empire' which was German. The Church used Charlamange to establish order and stability in the region and in my opinion was also more created for a challenge and opposition to the strong influence of the dominace of the Orthodox church in the East. This was a chance for the Catholic church to ascend the latter and no longer be a pawn but be part of the power politics like the East and so championed for a united empire under Christian Catholic rule. From this you did have a lot of communication b/w East and West and each regarded the other but the East still believed themselves the true Romans, which they were, since the Holy Roman Empire was Roman in name only and in the faith, all the old Roman systems of administration had been replaced by this time while those in the west were functioning to an extent or some though they would not be recognizable by late Empire officals.

 

For a moment there, your post was almost off-topic until the last sentence.

I think that statement is absurd, not to mention that the Roman Empire already fell. In terms of evolution, it was more of a step backwards, considering Western Europe had just entered the Medieval Age, where there wasn't a real central government which is one main thing that designated the Romans. In my opinion, the last evolutionary stage of the Roman Empire would have been a modern democracry instead of a Feudal heirarchy.

 

 

I thought he meant the last stage of evolution that we have seen, not what should have happened otherwise I would agree a form of democracy would be the last stage.

[Tobias]

"Zachary's successor Stephen cemented the Papal-Frankish alliance by conferring the title Patrician of the Romans upon Pepin in 754. In so doing he was usurping the role of the Emperor, but the latter was in no position to stop him. In 756 Pepin defeated the Lombard King again, and forced him to give up the last century of conquests from the Byzantine Empire in northern Italy. The Emperor Constantine V demanded that the ceded territory be returned to Byzantium, but instead Pepin gave it to the Pope, creating the Papal States (Patrimonium Petri). In 772 Papal bulls ceased to bear the Emperor's name. In 774 Pepin's son and successor Charles the great (Charlemagne) conquered the Lombard Kingdom, calling himself King of the Franks and Lombards. The Papal States became a Frankish protectorate, and Charles went on to conquer almost the whole of continental Christian Western Europe. In 800, when Charles was visiting Rome, Pope Leo III took the logical step of anointing him "Emperor governing the Roman Empire", reputedly to Charles' own surprise. At first, the Byzantines ignored this claim, but, under military pressure from Charlemagne in the Adriatic and southern Italy, they recognized him as Emperor of the Franks in 812. They reserved the title Emperor of the Romans for themselves, and emphasized this point by introducing that inscription on their coins."

via http://4umi.com/image/map/rome/19maps.htm#925

Charlemagne's empire is an interesting point in history. In a way, it personifies some parts of the original Roman Empire; in that the dominance over the territories was artificial if not controlled by a strong leader. Apart from that, and the ideal of a "roman" empire, there is little to reconcile Charlemagne's empire to a reborn western empire.