Inheritors Of The Western Roman Empire

[Urbs Aedificator]

I've been doing some reading and research lately on the Carolingian Empire, presently focusing on the Reign of Charlesmagne. From what I gather Charles The Great likely saw himself and his people as the inheritors of the Western Roman Empire. Any thoughts? Or any other candidates as inheritors?

Cheers

Alex

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

I've been doing some reading and research lately on the Carolingian Empire, presently focusing on the Reign of Charlesmagne. From what I gather Charles The Great likely saw himself and his people as the inheritors of the Western Roman Empire. Any thoughts? Or any other candidates as inheritors?

Cheers

Alex

 

I think is just a claim, like the spartans thought they were rightful heirs to Greece and were descendants of Achilles. Yet due to social rank and time, it could be a just claim. meh?

 

vtc

[caldrail]

Its probably a little pretentious, but then I suspect many people knew stories of the roman empire from their elders and regarded it as something of a golden age, a better time, particularly since life in the dark ages was often much less secure.

[Honorius]

I've been doing some reading and research lately on the Carolingian Empire, presently focusing on the Reign of Charlesmagne. From what I gather Charles The Great likely saw himself and his people as the inheritors of the Western Roman Empire. Any thoughts? Or any other candidates as inheritors?

Cheers

Alex

 

probably considering he got crowned western roman emperor.. but then again most barbarian kingdoms thought of themselves as successors.. probably the most important candidate is the eastern Roman Empire

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

I've been doing some reading and research lately on the Carolingian Empire, presently focusing on the Reign of Charlesmagne. From what I gather Charles The Great likely saw himself and his people as the inheritors of the Western Roman Empire. Any thoughts? Or any other candidates as inheritors?

Cheers

Alex

 

probably considering he got crowned western roman emperor.. but then again most barbarian kingdoms thought of themselves as successors.. probably the most important candidate is the eastern Roman Empire

 

Someone living this side of the blue. hey.

True he may be the most important but the true successor would have to have came from either the emperors bloodline or one of his advisors. Just an opinion.

 

vtc

[Honorius]

oh hey lol didnt notice you were from aus.. bought time a fellow aussie joined anyway...

 

the pope just thought he had the right to crown a western roman emperor even though the regalia had been sent to Emperor Zeno in Constantinople.

[Urbs Aedificator]

I'm beginning to wonder if it was not the Papacy in Rome that was the true inheritor of the Western Roman Empire. Especially considering how it maintained Roman administrative functions, promoted the 'Lingua Romana', and promulagated Western/Roman ideas through to the Mddle Ages. Ita? Non?

Alex

[docoflove1974]

I'm beginning to wonder if it was not the Papacy in Rome that was the true inheritor of the Western Roman Empire. Especially considering how it maintained Roman administrative functions, promoted the 'Lingua Romana', and promulagated Western/Roman ideas through to the Mddle Ages. Ita? Non?

Alex

 

IIRC, the key to this question is when the Papacy 1) officially gained power, complete with military and 'kingdom' (for lack of a better term); and when it assumed the title (and therefore recognition) as the (Holy) Roman Empire. I believe that once that is sorted out (and since I have no real idea, I phrase it thusly; I'm sure someone or some peoples on here will be able to fill in these gaps), then one can find the line of 'succession' of the (Holy) Roman Empire. As I recall, it was the Pope who crowned Charlemagne with the title, but as to how (and for my question, when) the title was 'bestowed upon' the Papacy, that I do not know.

[Lex]

but as to how (and for my question, when) the title was 'bestowed upon' the Papacy, that I do not know.

 

A new Western Emperor ('Holy Roman') was crowned at the time when the Empress Irene was ruling over the Eastern Empire.

The argument by the Pope and the West being that according to their laws; only a male could be Emperor, so in their view the throne of the Roman Empire was vacant thus allowing the Pope the perfect opportunity to create an Emperor who would hopefully be able to better defend the interests of the Papacy (mostly from the Lombard's I believe)

And I'm guessing the Pope was also hoping to have an Emperor who he would have a lot more authority over.

 

But honestly, I don't see the Pope having any proper authority to proclaim a new "Emperor of the Romans" when the Empire was still very much alive and still in control of parts of Italy. I really think it just a convenient pretext to get some assurances of safety and protection from a power that was closer at hand.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Lex

[Urbs Aedificator]

'I don't see the Pope having any proper authority to proclaim a new "Emperor of the Romans" when the Empire was still very much alive and still in control of parts of Italy. '

Good point Lex, but was that 'Empire' still Roman, or something else...

Alex.

[Lex]

'I don't see the Pope having any proper authority to proclaim a new "Emperor of the Romans" when the Empire was still very much alive and still in control of parts of Italy. '

Good point Lex, but was that 'Empire' still Roman, or something else...

Alex.

I think the fact that the Papacy had to use such a pretext as they did, as well as forging the "Donation of Constantine" (the document in which which Constantine was supposed to have entrusted the Imperial title to the Pope) seems to indicate that even they recognized the legitimacy of the Eastern Empire and it's claims to Italy. And feared that the Eastern Empire might once again rule over the entire Italian peninsula depriving the Papacy of their little 'kingdom'.

 

But to answer your question more directly, even though the culture had changed, the 'Byzantines' still regarded and called themselves 'Roman' while their Emperors still unquestionably considered themselves the successors of Augustus and all the past Emperors; still ruling in unbroken succession over the Eastern half of the Empire. And legally, there no was question about their legal right and legitimacy. That is why a forgery had to be created to attempt to usurp their legitimacy because even the Papacy or the West had to grudgingly accept their legitimacy.

 

They were still the legitimate representatives of the Roman Empire who still officially lay claim to the West; the Western regalia having long ago been sent to the Emperor Zeno in Constantinople.

Later, the Latins and Crusaders would contemptuously refer to them as the 'Greeks' and ruled by the 'Emperor of the Greeks'. They clearly considered this offensive and would not accept documents addressed in these terms. As far as they were concerned they were Roman, and so too was their Emperor, their laws and what they stood for.

 

Though, even some of the Crusader states acknowledged that "the Romans" (Byzantines) had once ruled over the territory they presently controlled and thus had a valid legal claim to the territory.

 

One thing that strikes me about them is their sheer conviction in being Roman, right up till Constantine XI. And the responsibility and burden that many of the more patriotic Emperors voiced in restoring their Empire to it's past greatness, acknowledging the heritage that they inherited. And despite the eventual problems of their ailing Empire, for me there is still something 'Roman' in their resolve, pride and the way they kept fighting to the end.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Lex

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve!

 

This is a tiny extract from the X-traordinary discussion on the Romania/Byzantine controversy at the website of the Friesian school (www.friesian.com)

 

"Oh!" you say, "You mean Byzantium! That's not the Roman Empire! That's some horrible medieval thing!" That certainly would have been news to Constantine, or to Zeno, or to Justinian (527-565), or even to Basil II in the 11th century (963-1025). "Byzantium," although the name of the original Greek city where Constantinople was founded, was not a word that was ever used to refer to the Empire, or to anything about it, by its rulers, its inhabitants, or even its enemies. The emperor was always of the "Romans," Rh

Edited September 1, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[docoflove1974]

We've actually had several threads on here dealing with Byzantium/Roman Empire, and perhaps the best one (in my humble opinion) is this one: the Byzantium thread

[ASCLEPIADES]

Nice thread indeed.

For the history of the use of the term "Byzantine", I found explicit and well documented this little pearl from Wikipedia:

 

"The term Byzantine Empire is an invention of historians and was never used during the Empire's lifetime. The Empire's name in Greek was Basileia tōn Rōmaiōn or just Rōmania (Greek: Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων

[Nerva]

I've been doing some reading and research lately on the Carolingian Empire, presently focusing on the Reign of Charlesmagne. From what I gather Charles The Great likely saw himself and his people as the inheritors of the Western Roman Empire. Any thoughts? Or any other candidates as inheritors?

Cheers

Alex

All of the barbarian kingdoms were in their own way inheritors of the Western Roman Empire. Many kept Roman laws alive and the religion of the former Roman subjects remained mainly the same. In some cases the rulers were Arian like the Visigoths, but in other cases like Clovis, they converted to Catholicism. What they were unable to duplicate for the most part were the ability to unite all of Europe under one rule or to create an economy like the Romans had.

 

Whatever ways they were able to keep old Roman traditions alive, the fact remains that the glory days of the Roman Empire were gone. Those times were now only tales and legends to the people living in the lands once ruled by the Caesars and would never resurface again.