Will the Real Roman Emperor Please Stand Up? Frankish, German, and Byzantine Claims to Rome's Legacy

Otto III striking a very Roman pose...more on that later. If you can make out the text above the gold-clad Woman with the football(it's a dish), It says Roma. The personification of Rome is...deferring...to a Saxon? Hwæt?!? Stay tuned...

Those whom we call Byzantines knew themselves as Romaioi. The dichotomy inherent in this, a Greek word for Roman people, mirrored that of the Byzantine Empire itself. If the Byzantines were Roman, why was Greek, not Latin spoken in the heartland? Even the official language of the court after 620 was Greek, when the Emperor Heraclius proclaimed it so. If the Byzantines were Roman, why was ‘Roman’ being used to describe the brand of Christianity which ever steadily made itself distinct from the other four patriarchates in the East?

However, a question even more obvious, more nagging, and more embarrassing was this: If the Byzantines were Roman, how come Rome wasn’t Byzantine?

It was a question with a complicated answer and a long history, which I have attempted to condense into a narrative which you may find here, assuming I am ever bothered to finish it. If this isn't good enough, check out the podcast in the 'Further Reading' section at the end.

In short, while the West frankly (heh) didn’t see how the Byzantines could call themselves Roman without Rome, the Byzantines felt that they were the continuation of the Roman Empire because

a)      Their emperor was the legal successor to the title of Roman Emperor, and thus they were the Roman Empire—they were at first the only ones using the title (until 800—the Ostrogoths and Lombards were using ‘King of Italy’), and they never stopped using, it was never vacant it in their own minds, so anybody who wanted to be Roman Emperor would have to take it from their Emperor’s cold, dead body.

b)      The fact that the transfer of the capital under Constantine in 330 from Rome to Constantinople also meant that the possession of Rome was not as important to the title of Roman Empire as the possession of Constantinople.

c)       As Justinian proved in briefly controlling Rome (the Lombard threat essentially made Byzantine Rome secure in name only. It held out to be sure, but there's a reason the Pope began to seek aid from without) after the Gothic Wars ended in 554, though Rome was at times not firmly in the possession of the Byzantines, it could always be taken again some day.

d)      Only the Byzantine Empire had the flair and the ceremony enough to be worthy of the legacy of the Romans. Their art and architecture and opulence outdid others around, some of it actually Roman antiquary or based on Roman designs, further legitimising their Roman connexion.

Of course such justifications could be countered, and they were.

Though the capital had been moved to Constintanople, Rome remained the spiritual capital, and the namesake of the Roman Empire. It had, in short, the precedence of an older brother in the minds of many, or even a father. Rome may have been declining and Constantinople rising in population and wealth, but Rome simply had clout. It also had the Pope, who was still trying to establish his office as the most important among the five Christian patriarchs—after all, he held the keys of St Peter.

Secondly, though Byzantines could have taken Rome, they didn't, being too busy fighting Arab invaders or, more often, amongst themselves in succession disputes or over religious matters. Meanwhile, their supposed holding in Rome was beset upon by German invaders who practised Arianism, a Christian heresy. If the Byzantines wouldn't help, by golly, it was the Pope’s right to find somebody who would!

Still, the Empire did have panache that was undeniable. And there was the problem of the title of Roman Emperor being technically filled.

But upon the ambitious ascension to the throne by the Empress Irene of Athens in 797, who was not content to rule as merely a regent for her son, the West got its chance to at least counter Byzantium’s claim that the title to Emperor was already taken.

A modern icon of Saint Irene of Athens. Not too shabby for an Empress who practically ruined Byzantine's foreign policy

Irene was not very popular in the Eastern provinces of her empire, where iconoclasm, the belief that religious icons were idolatrous, was in vogue. She herself was an iconodule, and an active one at that, so there was conflict there. But even the iconodules were hard pressed to stomach her brutal blinding of her own son, who, you know, died. And there just happened to be an eclipse just after that so that everybody could see what was clearly God's way of telling Irene "party foul".

What was really useful, though, was that she was a woman.

Pope Leo III, the pope at the time, upon realising this, and in eye trouble of his own back at the Rome-home—apparently some Roman people tried to blind him (what's with all these blindings?! Haven't these people heard of Gandhi?!? He didn't live until almost a thousand years later?!? Oh, well I suppose that would explain it)—sought help by dropping by his old pal Charlemagne, whose Frankish predecessors were very near and dear to the Pope for a) not being Arian and b) sometimes kind of helping out, which was frankly (heh) more than anybody else did, especially the Byzantines (don't worry Papacy, you'll get your moment in just a few centuries).

In any case, Charlemagne went with Leo to Rome, reinstated the Pope and went to Christmas mass (bit of a tautology there, eh?) in 800, so the legend goes, oblivious as to what would happen: in the middle of the service, Leo crowned him Emperor of the Romans, which was the same title the Byzantines employed. 

How could he do this? He reasoned that because Irene was not a man, and had essentially usurped her son, she was not a legitimate Emperor. The title was vacant. Importantly, he did not reason that the title Charlemagne had was some resurgence of the Western part of the Empire. He crowned him as 

Wow, was this a bold, unprecedented declaration by the Pope, and a hearty "forget you" to his heretofore Byzantine superiors. 

Of course, the Byzantines had had enough with their disaster of an Empress, and soon deposed her, especially when Charlemagne began to court her hand to really seal the deal. But the damage had been done. Now there were two Roman Emperors again, only now they didn't recognise each other as such. The West called the East the Greek Empire, and the Byzantines simply refused to acknowledge the new Roman Empire's existence.

All of Byzantium's claims to Roman heritage had been countered by the west save one: outperforming the Byzantines at their own specialty; to wit, splendour. If two men are claiming to be the emperor, the stage is set for the greatest

Roman Emperor Constantine (r. 306-337)

The Byzantine Emperors Leo IV and Constantine VI (r. 780-797), Irene's son

The Byzantine Empress Irene (r. 797-802)

Emperor Charlemagne (r. 800-814 as emperor)

Notice anything? Charlemagne is supposedly the direct successor of the Byzantine Emperor, Constantine VI, who was int the eyes of the pope unlawfully deposed by an usurper, Irene. Charlemagne is not supposed to be a new Western Emperor, but simply the Imperator of the Romans, as the above coin in oversized letters declares. He looks like the logo for a pizza chain for heaven's sake, he's not playing around here. He's trying to be Constantine the Great, the Roman Emperor, not a Byzantine Emperor. He is dressed in the Latin toga, which we know from Einhard, his biographer, that in actuality he detested to wear and did it only for show in Rome, as well as the imperial laurels, just as Constantine wears them in his coin, in profile. He too is profile, in line with the Roman coin, in contrast to the frontal orientation of the Byzantine coinage. A statement here is made that the true heir to Rome has arrived on the scene. There were two Roman Emperors in the world, but only one actually owned Rome (technically the Pope's, but surrounded by Charlemagne's northern Italian lands. Byzantium itself had a foothold in Italy's boot--the southern coast as well as Italy, soon to be lost to Arab pirates). Only one actually went to toga parties.

Interestingly, Byzantine coinage does not react to this threat by using their own antique symbols. They coolly continue to mint coins one after the other with the same orb and cross, the same frontal orientation, only occasionally initiating new types with portraits of Christ or two co-emperors holding together a cross. Always frontal, though. Always in the same non-Classical garb. The Byzantines aren't just yet bringing the boombox to Rome, playing "Baby Come Back". They've been dumped by the pope, and their response? Meh, the whole thing will blow over.

Which, surprisingly, it did. Temporarily. Traditional Carolingian succession laws were, how to put this, not particularly conducive to maintaining an empire. Namely, every son, brother, and their royal pet of the King expected to be in part an heir to his deceased relative's land holdings, such that kingdoms were split among siblings and cadet relations with each death. Attempts to change the succession law usually ended in factions and civil war. Eventually, by 924, there was no Emperor of the Romans at all in the west. The title had gone. The Byzantines seemingly had won by doing absolutely nothing!

Unfortunately for them, the son of the German King Henry the Fowler, Otto, would reverse the situation.

Aside from being assailed from the east by Magyars (just as Arabs assailed the Byzantine Empire), Otto had many internal revolts owing to the fact that he was a Saxon among duchies originally Carolingian and the fact that he had brothers and relations for whom his father had declined to dvide his land after his death. Consolidating his strength against both internal and external foes made Otto into an effective authority figure who knew that centralisation was the future for Germany. And what was more centralised in Europe's collective memory than the Roman Empire? Or the Byzantines, for that matter? Turning his fractured feudal kingdom into a powerful monarchy proved challenging, but rewarding, especially when particularly troublesome vassals like, say, Berengar, King of Italy, whose conduct offered no recourse but to come sweeping in with an army, declare oneself the King of Italy in addition to the King of Germany, and in doing so create a Holy Roman Empire. Ah,  a new impostor for Constantinople to have to deal with, tell off, and grudgingly redirect errant letters to, which had been sent to the wrong Roman Empire.

And Otto's empire didn't crumble. His son, Otto II, managed to be just as competent. But could they rightly call themselves a Roman Empire? Forsooth, Italy was theirs, but they still had the problem of panache which Charlemagne had. They had to make sure that the Holy Roman Empire was as awe-inspiring or more so than the Byzantine Empire.

Otto's plan? Take from the Byzantines. Take their court ceremony, their pomp, their art styles. He even married his son Otto II to a Byzantine princess, Theophanu, whose entrance into the court shocked and amazed onlookers and brought a sense of legitimacy to this rabble of Germans. I have no doubt that she took with her Byzantine treasures, and we can images of Empire and Authority directly taken from Byzantine motifs in the Ottonian court.

To the left we see an ivory of a Byzantine Emperor, Romanos, and Empress, Eudoxia, being annointed by Christ himself, made within Romanos' reign from 948-963. To the right, an Ottonian ivory depicting Otto II and his Byzantine bride Theophanu in the exact same setting!

We also have a number of works in which Rome is clearly and focally subject to an Ottonian emperor, just as Charlemagne's coin declares in large font Imperator.

Otto I (r. as emperor 962-973) from manuscript c. 1200

Here Otto I accepts the surrender of Berengar of Italy, Why Berengar in particular? Because he symbolised both a subjected Italy and the birth of Otto's Roman Empire. This is later than Otto's actual reign, and should not be viewed as propaganda, but as a developed understanding and persistence in the identification of the Holy Roman Empire with the Roman predecessor.

Depiction of Otto III (r. 996-1002) from the Gospels of Otto c.1000

This illuminated page from a Gospel Book, howver, is contemporary with the Ottonian dynasty. It was commissioned by the emperor, and depicts the Emperor in a regal pose with the Imperial Orb and sceptre. Four personifications bring him gifts: Sclavia (the recently subjugated Slavs), Germania (the homeland of the Saxon Ottonian dynasty), Gallia (the realm of the Franks), and, importantly, in the lead of them all, prepared to give Otto the Eucharist Bowl to Otto, bowed in deference, is Roma, clad in gold, the pride and key of the empire, but subject also.

His father, Otto II (r. 967-983), commanded a similarly regal figure--at least in the works commissioned by him or his family (including that Byzantine wife of his!), like this from the Registrum Gregorii, c. 983

Do you notice something about the seated, frontal, kingly pose in all of these works? It's quite familiar in Roman works of art...

The Missorium of Theodosius I, c. 388

...and was also found reiterated in Byzantine Art

Proclamation of Leo V (r. 813-820) as Emperor from the 11th Century Madrid Sklitzes 

A later Byzantine depiction of Theophilus (r. 829-842) from a Chronicle made in the later 11th Century

So you see that the Ottonians utilised Byzantine traditions in order to legitimise themselves and showcase their equal, if rival, power. If the Byzantines had the most magnificent art, the idea was to start with their motifs and build from there. Of course, these images are from contemporary or later eras than the Ottonian one; however, they were part of a tradition stemming back to Rome.

As the Holy Roman Empire wore on, the Byzantines were forced to recognise unofficially that it was there to stay, their own attentions being forced to turn to other problems in the East and at home. The schism between the Eastern and Western churches in 1054 signaled the end of an era where the Byzantines meddled much in Italian affairs; the crusading era, where the West would instead invade the East, was on the horizon. There were actually some scuffles on Italy that didn't amount to much between the two Empires, but in the end, the Byzantines simply had other problems to worry about. Besides, a very pompous and empowered Pope in Rome proved to be more a nuisance to the Holy Roman emperors than they ever were to the Byzantines.


Sources and Further Reading:

12 Byzantine Rulers Podcast: An incredibly informative podcast by Lars Bromsworth. For this week’s web-log post, I listened to 11 – Irene, 12 – Basil I, and 13 – Basil II.

Princess Theophanu and the Introduction of the Fork: A look at Ottonian German/Byzantine relations and synthesis in the person of Theophanu, the Byzantine bride of Otto II.

Medieval Images of Power: I’d like to say for the record that I saw the seated Ottos and the Missorium of Theodosius independently, even if this site explains the connexion better. As for the Ottonian copy of the Byzantine ivory, I first encountered that at this site.

Roman Heritage in Byzantium A more in depth look at how the Byzantines, *ahem*, I mean Romaioi, perceived themselves

Wild Winds-Byzantine Coin Index : If you're into Byzantine coins

Wikipedia has some comprehensive accounts of the Ottonian rulers which aren’t to be missed.