Honorius Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Well lately i've been busy reading through a book by Tamara Talbot Rice called 'Everyday life in Byzantium' although fairly old written in 1967, it provides alot of interesting info on court life aswell as the life of everday Romans. Anyway i came across a peculiar passage in the chapter that deals with the Emperor, his family and court. This is the emperor in reply to a diplomatic mission. "...in the case either of the king of Persia or of the caliph of islam referring to him as his brother, but in that of a European ruler calling him his son." it bought me to think of how the Emperor would address a diplomat from the Western empire (talking about the holy roman empire here), would he call him his son? or as a brother? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Well lately i've been busy reading through a book by Tamara Talbot Rice called 'Everyday life in Byzantium' although fairly old written in 1967, it provides alot of interesting info on court life aswell as the life of everday Romans. Anyway i came across a peculiar passage in the chapter that deals with the Emperor, his family and court. This is the emperor in reply to a diplomatic mission. "...in the case either of the king of Persia or of the caliph of islam referring to him as his brother, but in that of a European ruler calling him his son." it bought me to think of how the Emperor would address a diplomat from the Western empire (talking about the holy roman empire here), would he call him his son? or as a brother? Could you name the year, the two emperors and the event ? It seems that an emperor would call an emperor "brother" but we need to know the details . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honorius Posted January 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Rice doesnt give specifics on the emperors shes just saying how every emperor dealt with diplomacy and the strict courtly etiquette that had to be adhered to. i Figure though that she is focussing on like the court of the Macedonian, and Commenian emperors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 "Byzantine" emperors always regarded the roman title took by Carol and Otto of the West as an usurpation on their rights (and rightly so). I doubt that they saw them as equals, hence son seems more likely, but as we speak about 650 years of diplomacy things might have varied. I'll try to find something relating on the mission of the "holy" ambassador Liutprand in Constantinopole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honorius Posted January 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 concerning Liutprand, if i remember correctly Rice explained that the bulgarian diplomats were given precedence of Liutprands party at certain banquets which resulted in outrage amongst the westerners Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Goblinus Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 concerning Liutprand, if i remember correctly Rice explained that the bulgarian diplomats were given precedence of Liutprands party at certain banquets which resulted in outrage amongst the westerners Which just showed how ignorant Liutprand was of Byzantine regional politics. The Bulgarians were given precedence because they were in closer proximity to the empire, and were more closely aligned to Byzantium culturally than to the German Empire. And I think that the Byzantine emperors didn't start using the official term "Emperor of the Romans" until after Charlemagne. Before then, it had just been a given. Afterwards, they felt that they needed to defend their romanitas against the Franks and Germans. Ironically, their eastern enemies continued to refer to the Byzantines as "Romans" up until the empire's collapse, with one of two exceptional instances. It as only in western Europe where Byzantium's status as the heir to the Roman Empire was questioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobias Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 And I think that the Byzantine emperors didn't start using the official term "Emperor of the Romans" until after Charlemagne. It all seemed to begin (or end, depending upon your perspective) during the Lombard invasion of Italy. After Ravenna fell to the Lombards in 751, Pope Zachary, the de facto ruler of Rome at the time, sought assistance from the Franks rather then from Constantinople (who were so tied up with Arabs, Slavs and various other enemies that they couldn't help anyway). Zachary supported one Pepin of the Franks in his bid for the Frankish crown, who reciprocated by kicking the Lombards out of the Papal state. It is interesting to note that this small pocket of territory, however, still acknowledged the sovereignty of the Emperor in Constantinople over them. Later, the next Pope, Stephen, gave the title of Patrician to Pepin, something which no doubt usurped the perogatives of the Emperor, but there wasn't much he could do about it. Pepin continued to beat the Lombards in Northern Italy, and when Emperor Constantine V demanded he return the territory to it's rightful owners, Pepin gave it to the Pope instead, creating the Patrimonium Petri. From there on, it was all downhill. After 772, Papal Bulls no longer bore the Emperor's name. When Pepin's son and heir came along (Charles the Great), he conquered the Lombard Kingdom, along with much of continental Western Europe, and the Papal States become a Frankish protectorate. The final blow came in 800, when Pope Leo III anointed him something to the effect of "Emperor governing the Roman Empire". The Eastern Empire of course ignored this, but eventually were forced by Charlemagne's military pressure in the Adriatic and Southern Italy to acknowledge him as "Emperor of the Franks" in 812. They of course reserved the rights to the title "Emperor of the Romans" for themselves, and introduced this inscription onto their coinage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parius Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 Constantine Porphyrogenitus wrote a book called De Cerimoniis Aulae Byzantinae dealing with matters of protocol and the such (at least for the 10th century) . Most likely the book you mentioned is quoting from this. As far as Western potentates are concerned, he gives the following: 1) For the Pope: Spiritual Father 2)For the Kings (rex not basileus) of Saxony,France,Germany : Spiritual Brother 3)For the Doge of Venice and the princes of Capua, Salerno,Naples etc nothing specific Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.