Was the Holy Roman Empire An Attempt to Recreate the W. Roman Empire?

[The Turk2]

As the title asks, was the Holy Roman Empire, starting with Charlemagne in 800 an attempt of his to re-create the (Western) Roman Empire? Or was it completely unrelated, and Charlemagne had no Roman ambitions?

Can we say there is a link between the [Western] Roman Empire and Francia (later the Holy Roman Empire)?

I ask because at times Charlesmagne seems to strike an independent pose, as a Frankish King, and then you see him striking coins of himself as a new Roman Emperor. The contrast is very confusing indeed.

 

[Plushie]

As far as I understand, there was no real concept of an Eastern and Western Roman Empire at the time. Charlemagne believed/wanted other people to believe that he was taking up the Roman diadem, not an Eastern or Western one, because Irene was viewed is unable to hold the Roman throne on account of her being...you know.

The Western/Eastern split is, I think, a later historiographical construct.

 

[DoomBunny]

Roman ambitions and throwbacks are the common justification of the European conqueror even as late as Mussolini. The reason for this is that Rome is seen as the original all-conquering force, by claiming to be Rome's successor you are linking yourself to this glory and legitimising your conquest. Here's just a few powers/people who have tried to claim the link in order to justify their position; Byzantine Empire (the only legitimate claim), Holy Roman Empire, Russian Empire, Ottoman Empire, First French Empire. Even outside of direct claims, we still maintain the eagle as a symbol of triumph and conquest.

The influence of Rome in European cultural memory is incredible.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Well maybe at some level, but really it was just an attempt by Charlie and others after him to be really cool. And there's nothing cooler than having Roman Emperor in the title. And if it's Holy, the Church might approve.

 

[Herbert West]

Paging @Abdul Goatherd, paging @Abdul Goatherd

 

[Kovax]

EVERYONE wanted the title, which is why we have Kaisers (probably close to the original pronunciation), Caesars (the original spelling, with Anglicized pronunciation - "SEE-zer"), Czars (a slightly shortened form, probably carried on due to the Varangian Guard), and various other titles which try to cash in on the prestige and glory of Rome.

The Holy Roman Empire was probably not seen as "recreating", but as attempting to continue the still-existing Roman Empire from another location in the west, just as Constantine had attempted to continue the Roman Empire in unbroken lineage by moving its focus from Rome to the east.

 

[yerm]

The Roman legacy provided legitimacy. It could be invoked to try to establish authority and prestige, to provide an overarching central theme to a territory, or as a pretext for conquest.

I suspect Charlemagne was mostly interested in the first - enhancing his own monopoly on power and perhaps his legacy. He might have desired a bit of the stabilizing factor over his lands. I very much doubt he needed to legitimize warfare via the Roman imperial legacy.

With Otto I think it's a bit more of the other aspects. He follows a rather nasty spat of territorial swaps and strange successions that having a legitimized imperial structure can help keep control over. It seemed quite wildly successful insofar as it allowed a very diverse region without even a fixed capital and varying succession laws to be tied together. This is compared to early France in which the highest authority was a powerless and manipulated figure, England and Southern Italy which were Norman feudal structures, and the rest of the Roman Empire being either Greek or Islamic.

 

[keynes2.0]

The US needs to step up it's game and declare a new Roman empire already.

 

[lollercoaster]

"The agglomeration which called itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."

-Voltaire

 

[The Turk2]

To further this line of questioning; if we see the Roman Empire as a Mediteranean Empire, and Francia/HRE as a Germanic Empire, where do the Ummayads fit in? Are they a Mediteranean Empire, given how similar their society and institutions worked to other Mediteranean ones? Would that make them more akin to the Roman Empire than the Franks? History Textbooks tend to put the Byzantines and Ummayads into the same chapter, versus Latin Christendom being its own thing; is this indicative of a Mediteranean "civilization" versus a Latin Germanic one?

 

[Pyoro]

This whole "Holy Roman Empire"/"sacrum romanum imperium" thing as an actual name happened kinda dynamically over time anyway; I don't think people sat down and figured out "this is the best name to use"; it rather developed due to external and internal circumstances - sometime during the interregum?

But it didn't start out like that. Even during Otto Is time it was still called "regnum francorum orientalium", so basically East-Frankish Kingdom, and nobody cared. The "Emperors" occasionally used different titles titles, too; it's nowhere near as clear-cut as everyone just deciding to go "Kaiser" and be done with it.
Then there was the business with the Popes (and I presume other interested parties) calling it "regnum teutonicum", specifically to tell everyone that they had no business being in Italy (or anywhere else except for Germany). Giving it the more "global" "Roman" legitimacy is pretty much a logical counter-move in telling everyone that Italy, of course, is legitimate Imperial territory, so the Emperors insisted on "romanum imperium" (that and the historical prestige the title always had, of course). It's also why being a King wasn't enough - good enough to rule German territory, not good enough for the Italian parts.
So you had the Roman part down to legitimize your rule, and that left getting rid of the pesky (and costly) Papal influence, and so during the Staufer-reign the "Holy" part was added (or started to being added) - the Emperors didn't need the Pope to legitimize them anymore, their rule already was both secular and religious (of course that didn't work out quite that easily, but, well, it was worth an attempt, maybe).

It's pretty much one long history of propaganda attempts, I suppose.

 

[yerm]

To further this line of questioning; if we see the Roman Empire as a Mediteranean Empire, and Francia/HRE as a Germanic Empire, where do the Ummayads fit in? Are they a Mediteranean Empire, given how similar their society and institutions worked to other Mediteranean ones? Would that make them more akin to the Roman Empire than the Franks? History Textbooks tend to put the Byzantines and Ummayads into the same chapter, versus Latin Christendom being its own thing; is this indicative of a Mediteranean "civilization" versus a Latin Germanic one?

Latin Christendom went off in a different direction in terms of government practices and economics. The Byzantines and Ummayads were more similar to each other than to the northwestern neighbors in a lot more than just geography. Their only truly glaring difference of course was religion.

 

[IsadorBG]

As the title asks, was the Holy Roman Empire, starting with Charlemagne in 800 an attempt of his to re-create the (Western) Roman Empire? Or was it completely unrelated, and Charlemagne had no Roman ambitions?

There is no such thing calle the Western Roman Empire. And there was no need to re-create the Roman Empire.

Charlemagne did not had any ambition to be crowned Emperor of the Romans. It's the pope and his vassal that push him to do it very heavily.
After accepting to coronation he tried to affirm his legitimity for the throne with very limited success.

Can we say there is a link between the [Western] Roman Empire and Francia (later the Holy Roman Empire)?.

Shorth answer: No.

Long answer: Not anymore than any other realm. (beside byzantium of course).

I ask because at times Charlesmagne seems to strike an independent pose, as a Frankish King, and then you see him striking coins of himself as a new Roman Emperor. The contrast is very confusing indeed.

As far as he was concerned he was both. I don't see what is confusing in that.

 

[Fishman786]

The US needs to step up it's game and declare a new Roman empire already.

Look what Lincoln's resting his hands on:

Americans have always been admirers of Rome, just as much as Imperial Russia or Charlemagne. It's just that it's the Republic you look back on, rather than the Empire.

 

[keynes2.0]

Look what Lincoln's resting his hands on:

Rock? That has 4 letters. Rome has 4 letters. 4+4 = 8. 8 is one more then the number of Roman kings. Of course!

 

[Fishman786]

Rock? That has 4 letters. Rome has 4 letters. 4+4 = 8. 8 is one more then the number of Roman kings. Of course!

And Rome, as we all know, was built on seven hills.

8 is pretty much 7, so there's a pretty obvious link there. Plus, what are hills made of? Rock!

And there we have it: truly decisive evidence that the American republican tradition and national mythology is ultimately derived from an Enlightenment-era fascination with ancient Rome.

 

[SorelusImperion]

Rock? That has 4 letters. Rome has 4 letters. 4+4 = 8. 8 is one more then the number of Roman kings. Of course!

No, most likely the Fasces, symbols of authority carried by roman lictors.

And no we can't deduct from that that Lincoln was a Fascist.

 

[Fishman786]

No, most likely the Fasces, symbols of authority carried by roman lictors.

And no we can't deduct from that that Lincoln was a Fascist.

The fact that there are no axes in the fasces indicates that they are a republican rather than Imperial (or dictatorial) symbol.

 

[The Super Pope]

The fact that there are no axes in the fasces indicates that they are a republican rather than Imperial (or dictatorial) symbol.

I wanted to make a clever joke about Lincolinni...

 

[DoomBunny]

Rock? That has 4 letters. Rome has 4 letters. 4+4 = 8. 8 is one more then the number of Roman kings. Of course!

Fasces.

No, not the thing that comes out of Barack's mouth.