|
HOME | GREEK LANGUAGE | LIBRARIES | BLOG | HELP | SEARCH | FREEWARE | BOOKSTORE |
|
|
Charles the Great and his significance for the Byzantine Empire
|
Page 5
Charles was of course fully aware of the precariousness of his position and of the fact that his coronation did not settle the question of his rule over the eastern part of the empire. The German historian P. Schramm, who called Charles' coronation an act of violence which infringed on the rights of the Basileus, pointed out the fact that Charles did not name himself Emperor of the Romans, the official title of the Byzantine emperors, but imperium Romanum gubernans. Charles realized that after Irene the Byzantine Empire would elect another emperor, whose right to the imperial title would be recognized as indisputable in the East. Anticipating complications, Charles opened negotiations with Irene by proposing marriage to her, hoping thus to unite the Eastern and Western provinces. In other words, Charles understood that his title meant very little unless recognized by the Byzantine Empire. Irene received the marriage proposal favorably, but shortly after she was dethroned and exiled (in the year 802) so that the project was never executed.
After Irene's fall the Byzantine sceptre came into the hands of Nicephorus, and between Charles and Nicephorus negotiations were carried on, probably in regard to the recognition of Charles' imperial title. But it was not until the year 812 that the legates of the Byzantine Emperor Michael I Rangabe saluted Charles at Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen) as emperor. This finally legalized the imperial election of the year 800. It is also perhaps from the year 812 that as a counterpoise to the title yielded to Charlemagne, the title Emperor of the Romans (Βασιλεὺς τῶν Ρωμαίων) began to be used officially in Byzantium, designating the legitimate sovereign of Constantinople, as the symbol of supreme power of the Byzantine emperors. From the year 812 onward there were two Roman emperors, in spite of the fact that in theory there was still only one Roman Empire. In other words, said Bury, the act of 812 A.D. revived, in theory, the position of the fifth century. Michael I and Charles, Leo V and Lewis the Pious, stood to one another as Arcadius to Honorius, as Valentinian III to Theodosius II; the imperium Romanum stretched from the borders of Armenia to the shores of the Atlantic. It is self-evident that this unity of the Empire was purely nominal and theoretical. Both empires led distinctly different lives. Furthermore, the very idea of unity was being forgotten in the West.
The imperial rank obtained by Charles for the West was not long lived. During the ensuing troubles, followed by the disintegration of Charles' monarchy, the title fell to casual holders. It disappeared completely in the first half of the tenth century, only to rise again in the second half, but this time in its unhistorical form of The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.
Only after the year 800 is it possible to speak of an Eastern Roman Empire, and J. B. Bury did this by entitling the third volume of his History of the Byzantine Empire, which embraces events from 802 (the year of Irenes fall) to the beginning of the Macedonian dynasty, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire, while the first two volumes of his work bear the title of A History of the Later Roman Empire
A History of the Byzantine Empire - Table of Contents
|
|
Reference address : https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/vasilief/charles.asp?pg=5
