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)

Russian imperial title was recognized by Holy Roman Empire in 1742, not 1726

Dunno why Wilson says it was 1726 coz it's manifestly not true. In 1726 there was indeed an alliance treaty signed between two empires, but the Russian imperial title was NOT recognized at the time. In fact there is a glaring omission of this title in the text of the treaty itself - http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/2664-t-1-traktaty-s-avstriey-1648-1762-1874#mode/inspect/page/80/zoom/4 . In fact, there was an agreement that Catherine I will refrain from using imperial title in correspondence with Charles VI - https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/avstro-russkiy-alyans-1726-g-dolgiy-protsess-pri-obschih-politicheskih-interesah-storon/viewer , p. 88. The later report prepared by the Vienna Court explicitly states that it was not until the empress Elizabeth that the recognition took place - https://library.hungaricana.hu/en/view/Mosta_09/?pg=128&layout=s And in 1742 Charles VII still refused to recognize the Russian imperial title, whereas the rival court in Vienna finally did - http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/10346-ch-1-avstriya-angliya-vengriya-gollandiya-daniya-ispaniya-1894#mode/inspect/page/82/zoom/4 Вечный подмастерье (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems you are right about 1726. I have restored the edit with a slight modification, since it is jarring to me to see 1742 treated as the date in question when the Holy Roman Emperor of that year did not recognize the Russian title. Pleaes vet my edit. Srnec (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this paper correctly, Charles VII did recognize the Russian title in 1742 ... but only in his capacity as Elector of Bavaria! Srnec (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Here it says that the Charles VII's imperial ambassador Neuhaus obtained on January 3, 1744 the declaration from Russian officials that recognition of Russian imperial title will not mean any other changes in diplomatic protocol, and after that finally received the audience from Elizabeth which had been constantly postponed because of the title issue. Combining that with the above-cited Austrian report that ascribed the recognition precisely to Charles VII, I think we can change it from 1742 to 1744 in the preamble (and from Maria Theresa to Charles VII); in the main text, however, it would still be good to mention that the Viennese faction had done it in 1742 already. Вечный подмастерье (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand though, p. 65—66 this might indicate that the imperial (probably as opposed to Bavarian) recognition had not been completed by the time of Charles VII's death, as Russians sent their envoy to the election diet in order to raise the issue of acknowledgement yet again - which was finally granted by the Kurfursten. So the final date for the preamble may be 1745 after all (and then maybe best to omit the name of the emperor giving the recognition, since it was technically interregnum at the time). Вечный подмастерье (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

That looks right. I think the lead should say 1745 with no named emperor and the body should explain more fully the events of 1742–1745. The key takeaway is that it was the War of the Austrian Succession which gave Russia an opportunity to extract the concession (from both sides). If you have access to this paper (I do not), you might consider adding material from it. Srnec (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Вечный подмастерье: Can you provide citations for your latest edits? Thanks, Srnec (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Think there might have been confusion that Russia was being recognized implicitly by the demand that they not use imperial titles when talking to Charles VI, meaning they could use it elsewhere, perhaps. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Four kingdoms of Daniel

As the Translatio imperii itself is considered to be derived from the dream of the statue in Daniel 2, I'll note that a common, if modern, reading of the dream is that the statue has two legs, and just as the two arms of the statue are interpreted as representing the Medes and Persians in a joint imperium, the two legs are interpreted as representing the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, ending in the "feet of iron mixed with clay" of ten successor states, one for each toe. While a common reading of the biblical text today, I'm not certain if it would strictly be within scope for an article about medieval historiography. 2001:56A:FB4D:5200:B62E:99FF:FEA3:D19A (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, some mention of Daniel is warranted here. Srnec (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverted Material

I delete a chunk of text that is very thinly cited by the last sentences. Here is what I deleted:

"Most of the great empires in history were in one way or another universal monarchies: they recognized no other state or empire as equal to them and claimed that the entire world (and all the people in it), or even the entire universe, was theirs to rule by right. Since no empire ever ruled the entire known world, unconquered and unincorporated people were usually treated as either unworthy of further attention since they were barbarians, or they were looked over entirely through imperial ceremonies and ideology disguising reality. The allure of universal empires is the idea of universal peace; if all of humanity is united under one empire, war is theoretically impossible."

The last sentence provides a citation, but one that doesn't actually prove the huge line of text above:

"Though the Roman Empire is an example of a "universal empire" in this sense, the idea is not exclusive to the Romans, having been expressed in unrelated entities such as the Aztec Empire and in earlier realms such as the Persian and Assyrian Empires."

Looking for a consensus so we can get rid of this uncited (and likely incorrect/broadly overgeneralizing material.) Jjazz76 (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the deleted text is basically true, perhaps a bit of an overgeneralization. See Akkadian royal titulary and Son of Heaven. My problem was that you left behind the phrase "universal empire" in this sense after deleting the sense, leaving behind nonsense! You have to reword that sentence if you want to delete that material. Srnec (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok I see what you are saying with what I left behind. Retried it - see if you like it better.

I have no doubt there are "other examples" and in fact there may even be "many" examples. But I think it is mostly is an overgeneralization. I took a grad course on the topic of imperial Christianity (not really trying to flex my credentials) and I don't recall from the prof. or any secondary sources, and have not heard it since that "most" empires see themselves as universal empires. Certainly post-1500 this seems unlikely to be the case. Before then? Maybe. But I think the most is pushing it. Jjazz76 (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Its worth noting that the text you've selected was not in the article when it passed GA in 2020. That's probably why it stands out as comparatively badly cited. Aza24 (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Logical fallacy in the passages about the status of Charlemagne as Emperor

The section in question is "Carolingian period. Imperial ideology". Let's assume there are two sets of statements, set A and set B. The sets are related because both postulate the same thesis. Let's assume that the algebraic value of each of the sets is the opposite sign of the other co-member of the A-B pair. The scalar representation of the value may be any integer but is only one, i.e. for overlapping statements (no contradiction) the scalar sum |A+B| > 0, for contradicting statements |A+B| = 0, and |A| = |B|.

Let's have set A equal to

"Though the inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire itself never stopped referring to themselves as "Romans" (Rhomaioi), sources from Western Europe from the coronation of Charlemagne and onwards denied the Roman legacy of the eastern empire by referring to its inhabitants as "Greeks". The idea behind this renaming was that Charlemagne's coronation did not represent a division (divisio imperii) of the Roman Empire into West and East nor a restoration (renovatio imperii) of the old Western Roman Empire. Rather, Charlemagne's coronation was the transfer (translatio imperii) of the imperium Romanum from the Greeks in the east to the Franks in the west."

Let's have set B equal to

"Although crowned as an explicit refusal of the eastern emperor's claim to universal rule, Charlemagne himself does not appear to have been interested in confrontation with the Byzantine Empire or its rulers.[12] When Charlemagne was crowned by Pope Leo III, the title he was bestowed with was simply Imperator. As such, his imperial title could be seen as stemming from the fact that he was the king of more than one kingdom (equating the title of emperor with that of king of kings), rather than as an usurpation of Byzantine power. The identification as an "emperor governing the Roman Empire" rather than a "Roman emperor" could be seen as an attempt at avoiding the dispute and issue over who was the true emperor and attempting to keep the perceived unity of the empire intact."

In this case, we have the situation of |A+B| = 0 because the statements A and B contain contradictory claims: if Charlemagne allegedly viewed his empire as completely new, the one that substituted the original Roman Empire in line with translatio imperii, then either "the perceived unity" had no grounds, or that "the new different Roman empire" is an invalid deliberation. We, therefore, can assign any integer to set A, for example, -1

Set B then will be equal to 1, and the sum is equal to 0, meaning that the statements' postulates are conflicting.

Not only the two sets are contradictory, but some sentences inside them combine mutually exclusive expressions that cancel out each other. «Although crowned as an explicit refusal of the eastern emperor's claim to universal rule, Charlemagne does not appear to have been interested in confrontation with the Byzantine Empire or its rulers.»

- which ascertains that either Charlemagne wasn't crowned as an explicit refusal, and hence (or because of), wasn't interested in confrontation, i.e. was interested in the opposite - in the unification. Or, that Charlemagne was crowned as an explicit refusal of the eastern emperor's claim to universal rule, and hence (or because of), he sought the confrontation. Only one is to be chosen.

Other minor idiosyncrasies:

1. Quote: «Translatio imperii (Latin for "transfer of rule") is a historiographical concept that was prominent in the Middle Ages, but originated from older concepts.»

In the article about translatio imperii, there is a list of authors who developed the concept. Each of them lived or was active long after the death of Charlemagne. This, together with the acknowledgement that the notion is "historiographic", implies that Charlemagne wasn't thinking in terms of "translatio imperii".

Quote: «Both terms are thought to have their origins in the second chapter of the Book of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible (verses 39–40)»

"Are thought" signals uncertainty. This affirms that Charlemagne most probably wasn't aware of "translatio imperii". However, this statement is a rabbit hole, since the connection between theoretical contemplations of individual minds and the vision of persons in power is a separate debate of its own, and, as such, needs to be established.

2. Quote: «To contemporaries in Western Europe, Charlemagne's key legitimizing factor as emperor» - who were these contemporaries? Why does it even matter?

Quote: «sources from Western Europe from the coronation of Charlemagne and onwards denied the Roman legacy» - what are these sources? To what degree are they important in the hierarchy of available documents pertinent to the subject of the continuity of the Roman civilisation? A newspaper or a book author may lay out whatever claims they deem appropriate, but that doesn't automatically entail the significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrutinizer798 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

the statements A and B contain contradictory claims: if Charlemagne allegedly viewed his empire as completely new, the one that substituted the original Roman Empire in line with translatio imperii, then either "the perceived unity" had no grounds, or that "the new different Roman empire" is an invalid deliberation. I looked at Muldoon 1999 which Statement B draws from. Fundamentally, Muldoon agrees with Statement A, but reports Charlemagne's use of titles which do not seem to openly challenge Byzantine authority, in the context of a possible "desire in at least some quarters to eliminate the appearance of division" (emphasis added) which he tentatively attributes to Charlemagne. Prior to that he says the following.

The imperial coronation of Charlemagne was of course a challenge to the imperial status of the East Roman or Byzantine ruler. Were there now two empires? The implication of the papal theory of the translatio imperii was that there was only one unity that could be called empire, the one designated as the defender and protector of the papacy.

So his reports of Charlemagne's ambiguous titles don't contradict the papal theory of translatio imperii (Statement A), but rather describe a superficial attempt at diplomacy on the part of the Franks to not openly challenge Byzantine imperial legitimacy, even though they had actually done so, which was also enthusiastic desire of Pope Leo III. However this approach definitely changed by the time of Louis II and Basil I as mentioned in the article already.

Quote: «To contemporaries in Western Europe, Charlemagne's key legitimizing factor as emperor» - who were these contemporaries? Why does it even matter? Muldoon cites the Annals of Lorsch, along with another scholar, Janet Nelson, although I don't think it's necessary to add her material to the article since it's the same as Muldoon's. I do think that point is very important since it was the contemporary Western justification for Charlemagne's legitimacy as Roman Emperor against the Byzantines, who were said to have abandoned the traditional residence and provinces of the Western Roman Empire.

Thank you for your comments. I will make some changes to clarify this. Violoncello10104 (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)