Talk:Problem of two emperors

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Problem of two emperors/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 06:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria
GA Criteria: 1 1.a Y 1.b Y 2 2.a Y 2.b Y 2.c Y 2.d Y (Very large number of comparison to one source, but this is due almost entirely to sharing a quote which is properly formatted here.) 3 3.a Y 3.b Y 4 4.a Y 5 5.a Y 6 6.a Y 6.b Y

• No DAB links Y Fixed the few issues as it was evident from text which the correct link was.
• No dead links Y But recommend using WaybackMachine to archive a lot of them; archiving the Google books is probably unnecesary, but the other elements could do with it.
• No missing citations Y

Prose Suggestions

Please note that all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion.

Lede

• In a medieval Christian worldview suggest In the view of medieval Christians...

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• even those who did not formally live within the imperial borders suggest even over Christians who did not live within the formal borders of the empire.

Isn't this already accomplished by "in regards to all Christians, even those who did not formally live within the imperial borders"? Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, just thought this worked better. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, went with your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Background

• momentarily in barbarian hands, but still formally in their hands through a system of recognition and honors bestowed on the western kings by the emperor suggest momentarily in barbarian hands, but still formally under their control through a system of recognition and honors bestowed on the western kings by the emperor. to avoid double usage of hands.

Yeah, sounds better. Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Holy Roman–Byzantine dispute

• His titling of the Byzantine emperor as an emperor in the letter may simply be a courtesy, not implying acceptance of what the title implied suggest His titling of the Byzantine emperor as an emperor in the letter may simply be a courtesy, rather than an implication that he truly accepted his imperial rule.

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Liutprand attempted to diplomatically excuse the Pope by stating that the Pope had believed that the Byzantines would not like the term "Romans" since they had moved to Constantinople no suggestion here I just find this hilarious.

You should read Liutprand's entire account (linked at the bottom of the article) if you have the time! It illustrates his views more in-depth than could be fit into this article and is also really funny; it is abundantly clear that Liutprand really dislikes the Byzantines and that the Byzantines really dislike him back, leading to constant bickering, mistreatment of the German envoys and eventually threats by Nikephoros Phokas himself of destroying the HRE. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Despite the recent events, Barbarossa still apparently believed that Isaac was not hostile against him and refused invitations from the enemies of the Byzantines to join an alliance against them suggest despite these issues...

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Ichthyovenator: That is all my suggestions, passing now. Apologies for taking so long. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries about taking so long, thanks for having a look through this one and passing! :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Article name

@Ichthyovenator: I don't think the term 'problem of two emperors' is actually used in the literature; Zweikaiserproblem is an established term in German, but I have never seen it in English works either (except in the referenced literature sections). Nevertheless, I would recommend moving the page to the German name as it is an established term in the field, rather than having a translation of it. Otherwise a more descriptive term, like Byzantine–Holy Roman imperial title dispute (or similar/better) might be more appropriate. What do you think? Constantine ✍ 16:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how moving the page works since a GA review has been started but I somewhat agree. The dispute is primarily covered in German literature where it has an established term and I did consider naming the page "Zweikaiserproblem". I feel like "Byzantine–Holy Roman imperial title dispute" is a bit clunky and though I suppose the Ottomans could fit under it (as the Ottoman-HRE dispute was simply an extension of the Byzantine-HRE dispute) it doesn't include the short-lived Bulgarian dispute.

The two names for the issue that are used in bold at the top of the article do appear in the literature (examples: "problem of two emperors": link1 (page 269), link2 (page 62), link3 (page 61), link4 (page 285), "two-emperors-problem": google scholar search link, I don't have access to these texts). "Zweikaiserproblem" is more predominant but as far as I know that's only because the issue is given a name more frequently in German literature than in English. But of course, as you say, the two English alternatives are also translations of the German name, which I assume came first. I'd accept a move to the German name if you feel like that is appropriate. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I would definitely prefer it. I think this is analogous to Perserschutt for example. I also agree that descriptive names are clunky, but couldn't think of anything better TBH. We can move now or after the GA, I don't think this is much of a problem. Constantine ✍ 17:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be up for moving it whenever. It just depends on if a move would affect the GA process (as it is listed under its current name in the list of GA nominations and the GA review is a subpage with the current title), I don't know well enough how that works. With the Perserschutt article in mind, I agree that Zweikaiserproblem would be a better name for this one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I've definitely seen the term "two-emperor[s] problem" in English (e.g. in Peter Wilson's Heart of Europe) and I think it works as a title. I don't have a strong opinion, but I think Zweikaiserproblem could put off many readers. Srnec (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Srnec. If the term is used, then no problem with using the present title or Two-emperor problem. But I would still add a note that this is a modern historiographic term deriving from the German, and ref Ohnesorge's work while at it. Constantine ✍ 07:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I've changed around the first line a bit to put more emphasis on the German term, not sure how you want fit a ref to Ohnesorge into it but you're of course welcome to change it around. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Ottoman-Holy Roman

The article states the circumstances under which the Ottomans recognised the HRE as emperors, but when did the Holy Roman Emperors first recognise the Ottoman claim to be Emperors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.122.246 (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The HRE recognized the Ottomans as emperors in 1533 with the Treaty of Constantinople, this is in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Tetrarchs

Shouldn't some mention be made to the fact that during the tetrarchy there were four Roman emperors? --Error (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There were two augusti (emperors) and two caesares (designated heirs/junior emperors) during the Tetrarchy, so not four emperors (despite the name). I'm not sure how the Romans of the time reconciled this with the idea of the universal Roman Empire under one ruler, but it probably has to do with Rome not being Christian yet. The Two-Emperors Problem which this article is about is in regards to disputes between different states as to which ruler is the true Roman Emperor. I don't think this fits with the situation during the Tetrarchy. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Irene not recognized on the acocunt of being a woman

Are we sure of this? I've read this in popular history books. But I think the legal reason was that she blinded her son (who was theoretically the legitimate ruler) and ruled in his place. I hope someone can clarify this. I've put a "citation needed" for the time being.

Also, this claim: "Pope Leo III had refused to recognize Irene as empress, viewing the idea of a woman emperor as an abomination and seeing the position of Roman emperor as vacant". I think it's incorrect. It was Charlemagne's counselor Alcuin who made that argument, not the Pope. Barjimoa (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Barjimoa: I've removed the "citation needed" tags since the information is cited in the article (to Browning 1992). AFAIK Irene's gender is commonly cited as the reason. If the usurpation and blinding of her son was the reason, we will need citations for that instead (not saying it wasn't the reason though). I'd personally doubt that since blinding and usurpation had happened quite frequently through Roman and Byzantine history; Phocas usurped the throne from Maurice in 602 and was recognized in Rome all the same, for instance. Constantine VI's own Isaurian dynasty was founded through Leo III the Isaurian usurping the throne.

I think it is pretty clear that Irene being a woman was just a convenient excuse either way, the real reason was probably the papacy wishing to increase its power and the inability of the Byzantines to defend their Italian lands against the Lombards (which is why the "political background" section focuses much more on geopolitics than the "Irene is a woman" argument). Later HRE emperors seem to directly refer to the Byzantine inability to defend Italy and the Byzantines being "heretics" as reasons, but I could not find these arguments used at the time of Charlemagne's coronation. If you provide citations for it being Alcuin who made the argument and the real excuse being the usurpation and blinding of Constantine VI, this info is of course welcome in the article to replace what is currently said on the exact reasoning behind the coronation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator:, Okay. If it's sourced than it's fine. I also know that it's commonly given as a reason, but i was wondering where it came from. A passage in a book by Micheal Frassetto says:

Although she gained the good graces of the pope, Irene lost the good relations she had secured earlier in the decade with the most important leader in the West... For Alcuin, therefore, as for others around Charlemagne , the imperial throne was vacant because a woman claimed to hold it...

— Encyclopedia of Barbarian Europe: Society in Transformation, Micheal Frassetto, 2003, p.212

Micheal Frassetto is using as the source for this claim what he calls "Alcuin's famous letter written in 799 to Charlemagne". He's talking about Alcuin's letter sent to Charlemagne in June 799. This is its content (Alcuin is saying to Charlemagne that he is the greatest authority in Christianity because the Pope and the Emperor are going through a crisis):

Hitherto there have been three persons in the world higher than all others. One is the Apostolic Sublimity which is accustomed to rule by delegated power the seat of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles. But what deeds homebound to him who was ruler of that see your worshipful Goodness has deigned to inform me. The next is the Imperial Dignity and secular power of the Second Rome. How impiously the Governor of that Empire has been deposed, not by strangers, but by his own people and fellow-citizens, universal fame hath abundantly reported. The third is the Royal Dignity, in which the providence of our Lord Jesus Christ hath ordained you for the ruler of the Christian people, more excellent in power than the other aforesaid dignities, more illustrious in wisdom, more sublime in the dignity of your kingdom. Now, upon you alone reposes the whole salvation of the Churches of Christ. You are the avenger of crime, the guide of the wanderers, the comforter of the mourners, the exaltation of the righteous.

— Alcuin, Epistolae, 114

So i found it hard to reconcile it with "Pope Leo III had refused to recognize Irene as empress, viewing the idea of a woman emperor as an abomination". First of all because it seems to me that this came from Charlemagne's court, which in fact was more interested in that. Also it was not stressing so much the fact that Irene was a woman. It was, more broadly, about the "decadent" situation of the Byzantine throne.

Now, if the sources in the article also confirm that this argumentation came from the Pope too then it's fine as well.

@Barjimoa: You raise good points here; the source used in the article right now says that the argumentation derives from the Pope; Browning (1992) says on page 60 that "The popes looked more than ever to the Franks for support. Since the deposition of Constantine VI they regarded the throne of Constantinople as vacant, refusing to recognize the abomination of a woman emperor". Of course, Browning is not necessarily right about this, he makes a mistake on the same page by writing that the Pope who received and crowned Charlemagne in 800 was Adrian I rather than Leo III.

The decadence of Byzantium, with a woman emperor being a cited symptom, rather than a woman emperor in of itself also sounds more plausible as an excuse (there had been woman emperors before - Pulcheria). I do not think the woman emperor argument necessarily contradicts the other things you have provided, the Frankish argument could very well have spread to Rome, where it could have been used by the popes as well. There is definitely room for some more nuanced info on this in the article. Perhaps we could write that the argument originated with the Franks (citing Frassetto) but that it also spread to the papacy itself (citing Browning) and also explain that Byzantine decandence was the real issue, with it being examplified through Irene's usurpation and sole rule? Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Clearly it's a very specific thing and even scholars say different things about it, so all logical ways you find to to present it are fine to me. Barjimoa (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Barjimoa: I've made an attempt to add in the info, if you feel anything is missing or if it could be done better, you're of course welcome to change things around. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The Annals of Lorsch may imply that Irene's rule was illegitimate because she was a woman: "the name of emperor was at that time in cessation in the land of the Greeks and they had a woman’s rule among them" (ex Nelson, King and Emperor). Roger Collins in his biography of Charlemagne mentions says that there was "an argument from theory that the eastern throne was vacant", although he does not state definitively that it was because Irene was a woman. Fried in his biography talks about negotiations with Irene to make Charlemagne emperor (the so-called Kölner Notiz), but does not mention her in connection with the actual coronation so far as I can tell. I have a feeling it all goes back to the Lorsch annals, which also make other claims about the reasons for the coronation (e.g., Charlemagne held Rome). Srnec (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)