Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AnaphoricReference t1_j4fssbd wrote

Reply to comment by Original-Yak-679 in I think that the term Byzantines is rightly used for adressing the Eastern Roman Empire. by VipsaniusAgrippa25

The notion of the Byzantine emperor was invented as a disambiguation between two emperors in countries that were themselves in the sphere of influence of the "other" Roman emperor (replacing the even worse "Emperor of the Greeks"). They needed circumlocutions that avoided "Roman emperor" to avoid insult.

But do note that Carolingian empire is a similarly modern circumlocution. No contemporary would have called it that. In contemporary documents it is just the Roman Empire (Imperator Romanorum). So Western European historians have already "fixed" that issue of two emperors as far as I am concerned by inventing more neutral new terms for both of them.

6

Original-Yak-679 t1_j4g4gkh wrote

Empress Irene in Byzantium nearly managed a marriage alliance with the Frankish emperor Charlemagne in the 780s. Otto III married a Byzantine princess in the 1000s-1100s which won the southern part of Italy and opened the possibility of mutual recognition of both the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires as "Roman" in a nod to a time in the late imperial era when Rome was split into eastern and western halves to better manage such crises as food shortages and incursions.

1

AnaphoricReference t1_j4geu1n wrote

The works of Liutprand of Cremona (10th century Ottonian ambassador to the Byzantine court) are interesting in this regard. Describes a breakdown of diplomacy over the pope referring to the emperor as "Greek" in a letter.

2