It wasn’t called the “beacon of civilization” for nothing. The legacy of Rome was so immense—in every realm—that centuries after its fall, there were still struggles to claim legitimacy as its rightful successor, something that continued well into the Middle Ages. Although many self-proclaimed themselves as heirs, the issue was particularly intense in the dispute between the rulers of the Byzantine Empire and those of the Holy Roman Empire, which is why this matter is historiographically known as the Problem of the Two Emperors.
This is precisely where the use of the double-headed eagle as the emblem of the heraldic shield originated, adopted by both the Byzantine and German emperors. It later extended to the Russian Tsars, the Seljuk Turkic-Persians, and even in the 19th century to the Austrian Empire.
This was a symbolic twist alluding to that duality, considering that the Romans used a single-headed imperial eagle as a symbol, combined with the acronym SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus), carried by the aquilifer.
In fact, this two-headed iconographic motif dates back to the Bronze Age, but it was adopted in the 10th century by Byzantine Emperor Isaac I Komnenos, who is believed to have taken it from Hittite art, as his family originated from Paphlagonia (a region in Anatolia overlooking the Black Sea).
However, its adoption as the empire’s emblem came with the ascension of the Palaiologos dynasty to the throne, a family of medium nobility from Macedonia that rose to power through marriage, when Alexios Palaiologos married Princess Irene Angelina Komnene, daughter of Emperor Alexios III Angelos and Empress Euphrosyne Doukaina Kamatera.
This happened late in the 12th century, and the coat of arms was implemented nationally even later, in the early 15th century, identifying the empire with the dynasty (in fact, it was the last to rule before the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans in 1453). By then, the Holy Roman Empire had already been established, founded in 962 from East Francia, one of the three parts into which the Carolingian Empire was divided, and strong enough to consider itself the heir of the Roman heritage.
That is why Frederick Barbarossa wanted to legitimize it by adding the designation of “Holy” to its name, which it initially did not possess, as a testament to divine will (considering that pagan Rome had been replaced by Christian Rome in the 4th century).
Thus, the Germans, once considered barbarians, now presented themselves as the successors of the Romans. The problem was that the Byzantines did the same, retaining the name of the Roman Empire and calling themselves Rhomaioi.
For a long time, they had the support of the popes, who considered the emperors of Constantinople as the legitimate successors. The situation began to change in the mid-8th century when the Lombards seized the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Byzantine administrative unit in Italy, highlighting the Eastern Empire’s inability to defend the West and prompting the papacy to seek help from a more powerful force like the Frankish kingdom.
In the year 797, the definitive rupture occurred when Emperor Constantine VI was replaced by his mother, Irene I Sarantapechaina (also known as Irene of Athens), who would reign alone until 802 and convened the Second Council of Nicaea, during which the iconoclast heresy was condemned.
She titled herself Basileus instead of the feminine Basilissa (empress consort), and Pope Leo III refused to accept her as such because she was a woman, designating Charlemagne, King of the Franks as emperor by virtue of the translatio imperii.
The translatio imperii or transfer of imperial power was a medieval concept meant to ensure imperial succession while maintaining legitimacy, along with a unique and universal character as a symbol of divine approval. It was complemented by two other concepts, divisio imperii (division of the empire, as was done after the death of Theodosius I between his sons, Honorius and Arcadius) and renovatio imperii (renewal of the empire, as Justinian I called his attempt to recover the territories lost to the barbarians).
With Irene and Charlemagne reigning simultaneously, the problem of duality arose, and neither wanted to give in. At most, they agreed to recognize each other as respective empress and emperor, but without acknowledging the rival’s absolute superiority or Romanity: to her, he was only the emperor of the Franks, and vice versa, Charlemagne considered her only the ruler of Constantinople. During the Middle Ages, it was considered that the Frankish monarch should adhere more to the renovatio imperii, even though he controlled a significant portion of the former empire’s European territory (Italy, Gaul, and Germania), but these were different times.
It is curious that the two empires never engaged in a war to monopolize that legitimacy. Contributing factors included the distance between them and the little material gain that could be obtained from a potential victory, which could only be partial.
Also, as we will see later, over time, two more candidates geographically situated between them emerged. They were Serbia and Bulgaria, whose rulers claimed their rights as representatives of the Romans and also brandished flags with double-headed eagles.
The Byzantines established the title of emperor of the Romans to clarify their position. However, a few years later, Michael I Rangabe would end up recognizing Charlemagne as emperor and spiritual brother, although without including the Romans as his subjects. For his part, the Frank also sought to avoid taking things to extremes and titled himself Augustus Romanum Gubernans Imperium (“August Emperor, governing the Roman Empire”), which was ambiguous enough to avoid tensions.
Diplomatic progress had been made: in 802, a marriage was even negotiated between Charlemagne and Irene, which would have unified the empire again, but it could not be realized because she was deposed and replaced by Nikephoros I. Of course, there were steps forward and backward. A few decades later, with different protagonists, Louis II and Basil I, sparks flew again due to the differing conceptions each side had about the nature of the empire.
The former considered that a Basileus could rule over people regardless of their ethnicity and used Trajan and Hadrian, emperors of Hispanic origin, as examples, among others. In any case, he believed the Byzantines had lost their Roman idiosyncrasy (they had different customs and language). In contrast, the Byzantine argued that the throne’s holder had to belong to a Roman gens, and additionally, the position was not hereditary even if it seemed so, as it was formally a republic; all of which excluded Louis, who reigned because he was the great-grandson of Charlemagne (succeeded first by his son Louis I and then by his grandson Lothair I).
This confrontation had more nuances. Louis had been crowned in 844 by Pope Sergius II and, therefore, considered himself legitimized by God himself, something he denied to Basil because the Byzantine emperors were no longer endorsed by the vicar of God on earth but only by their own senate—often not even that, only by the army. In the end, according to the correspondence between them, they found a way to accept each other, with Louis recognized as “august emperor of the Romans” and Basil as “most glorious and pious emperor of the New Rome”.
However, the problem of the two emperors resurfaced with the opposition of the Byzantine Nikephoros II to Otto I’s ambitions to take control of Italy and Sicily. Otto, who had been crowned in 962 by Pope John XII and used the title imperator augustus Romanorum ac Francorum (“August Emperor of Romans and Franks”), was scorned by the other, who denied him the right to call himself emperor and Roman. Nikephoros threatened the Pope with invading Italy, but ultimately, everything was resolved by the traditional marriage alliance in 972, after the belligerent Byzantine’s death, with Otto II, son of the German, marrying Theophanu, niece of the new emperor John I Tzimiskes.
By then, the titles had diversified. Otto I often used the abbreviated Imperator Augustus (without mentioning the Romans to ease tensions), and in the 11th century, the new expression Rex Romanorum (“King of the Romans”) appeared, followed by the more official one of the Holy Empire in the next century: Imperator augustus Romanorum ac Francorum (“august emperor of the Romans and Franks”). Nonetheless, at the core, each side remained attached to its stance: the Byzantines refused to recognize the Franks and vice versa.
In the mid-12th century, a third contender emerged. Manuel I Komnenos considered himself strong enough to propose to the Pope that he be designated the sole emperor, in exchange for financing and leading a Lombard league that would expel Frederick I Barbarossa, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, from Italy, and keep the Norman king of Sicily, Roger II, at bay. Manuel not only failed in his campaign but also provoked an alliance between Barbarossa and Roger against him, engulfing the peninsula in war.
The conflict ended in 1185, but it coincided with the Third Crusade called to liberate Jerusalem from Saladin’s hands. It is known as the Crusade of the Kings because several monarchs joined; one of them was Frederick Barbarossa, which raised suspicion in the Byzantine emperor Isaac II Angelos, who feared he might seize the opportunity to occupy Constantinople (which was the port of departure). This was not the case, but the fear led the Byzantine to ally with Saladin, take the German envoys hostage, and refuse to supply his army.
Inevitably, they ended up clashing in brief skirmishes. Diplomatic correspondence reveals that Frederick called Isaac “Greek Emperor” or “Emperor of Constantinople,” while Isaac, who styled himself “Emperor of the Romans,” initially referred to the other as “King of the Germans” before gradually easing his tone and calling him “Emperor of Germany of the highest lineage” and finally “Most noble Emperor of Ancient Rome” (note the distinction of Ancient Rome compared to the new, Constantinople).
This allowed Isaac to let the Germans pass and Barbarossa to embark his forces to the Holy Land, leaving the Byzantines in peace. But the seed of resentment was sown, and Henry VI, son and successor of Frederick, was willing to do whatever it took to be recognized as the heir of Rome, especially after conquering Sicily and being crowned emperor of the Holy Empire and Italy. To achieve this, aware of the growing Byzantine weakness, he married his brother, Philip of Swabia, to Princess Irene Angelina, daughter of Isaac whom he held hostage, thus linking his dynasty with the Byzantine Empire.
Subsequently, he managed to extract several territories from the emperor that his Sicilian ally William II had previously conquered, as well as a commitment to support a new crusade. Accepting these demands cost Isaac his throne, as he was deposed and replaced by his brother Alexios III, although the latter also had to submit to the one who already considered himself a universal monarch, even altering his title, which henceforth—and also adopted by his successors—changed from Basileus kai autokrator Romaion (“Emperor and autocrat of the Romans”) to Basileus kai Romanorum moderator (“Emperor and autocrat of the Romans”).
At the beginning of the 13th century, the Mediterranean world experienced a shock: the crusaders heading to the Holy Land in the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople and dissolved the Byzantine Empire, founding the Latin Empire. In practice, it was an amalgamation of small kingdoms, counties, and fiefs, but they recognized Baldwin I, Count of Flanders, as emperor, with the title Imperator Constantinopolitanus (“Emperor of Constantinople”), sometimes Imperator Rumaniae (“Emperor of the land of the Romans”), although he was considered inferior to the titleholder of the Holy Roman Empire.
This subordination became evident when the imperial delegates rejected the proposal to marry Henry I, Baldwin’s successor, to the daughter of Philip of Swabia—who was embroiled in a succession conflict with Otto of Brunswick (who eventually became emperor, Otto IV)—because he was considered solo nomine imperator (“emperor only in name”). Nevertheless, the recognition of the Latin emperors’ religious submission of Constantinople to Rome in exchange for some independence from the West, with the aim of confronting the Germans’ ambitions in the Holy Land, was accepted by Pope Innocent III and turned the translatio imperii into a divisio imperii.
But in 1261, Michael VIII Palaiologos restored the Byzantine Empire, and in addition to imperial independence, he added ecclesiastical independence, strengthening the Orthodox Church. However, strategically, he saw an advantage in reunifying the two churches to secure papal support for his political position and his project to recover lost territories in Anatolia, so in 1274, he embraced Catholicism, earning the sarcastic nickname “Frank” (as the Greeks called—and still call—converts). However, the union lasted only seven years, not because the popes called Michael “Emperor of the Greeks”, but because it was highly unpopular and because of the pressure Charles of Anjou exerted on the Pope.
Even so, Emperors John V and Manuel II attempted to reestablish it in the face of the evident threat that had arisen: the Ottoman Empire, which was expanding at the expense of Byzantine territory. It was indeed renewed, only to fade out after the crusade led by John VIII was crushed in Varna in 1444. Of course, the Turks were not the only enemies. Simeon I, king of Bulgaria, conducted a campaign that brought Constantinople to its knees, demanding independence from it and proclaiming himself the new universal monarch in place of the Byzantine.
Although he was only granted the title of “Emperor of the Bulgarians”, he called himself “Emperor of the Bulgarians and the Romans”, and many of his successors insisted on this, with some even petitioning the Pope, as Kaloyan did with Innocent III—who refused. In 1346, the Serbian Stephen IV Dušan also joined this spiral, demanding to be crowned “Basileus and autokrator of Serbia and Romania”, although this empire would have only two holders, the aforementioned and his son Stephen Uroš V. The Byzantines never recognized them.
The Byzantine Empire came to an end in 1453 with the Ottoman conquest, but this did not end the problem of the two emperors; it merely replaced one claimant with another: Sultan Mehmed II proclaimed himself Kayser-i Rûm (“Caesar of the Roman Empire”), began minting coins (an unprecedented move in Turkish history), and adopted a complex protocol similar to the Byzantine. Many contemporaries recognized him as emperor, and, assuming this condition, he and his successors likewise refused to recognize the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire as equals, referring to them simply as kıral (kings) of Vienna or Hungary.
This honorary rivalry was eased in 1533 through the Treaty of Constantinople, whereby Charles V was recognized as the emperor of the Holy Empire, his brother Ferdinand as King of the Romans, and Suleiman I as sultan, a position considered above the former. Seventy-three years later, with the Ottomans in decline, Ahmed I had to sign a new treaty recognizing a higher rank, padishah (emperor), for Rudolf II of the Holy Empire, equating it to the title of sultan but considering the latter slightly superior due to its universal character.
And the perception of the Holy Roman Empire increasingly tended to associate it less with Rome and more with Germany, despite its rulers’ continued insistence on being seen as the custodians of ancient civilization. This is why the issue of the two emperors also experienced a change of scene, shifting eastward from 1472, with the marriage agreement between the Prince of Moscow, Ivan III, and the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, Zoe Palaiologina, who would change her name to Sophia.
The Russians adopted the double-headed eagle and a variant of the translatio imperii in which their capital was presented as the third Rome, and Ivan declared himself a descendant of Augustus. In 1488, he demanded recognition on the same level as the German Emperor Frederick III. He did not succeed, but the idea of this translatio took root and endured until the second half of the 19th century, in a tug-of-war over the title of imperator that Peter the Great adopted in 1721, despite opposition from the rest of Europe, and which Catherine the Great also claimed.
The abdication of Francis II of Habsburg in 1806 led to the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire because, by then, there was already an undisputed universal emperor—not through cultural or historical arguments but by force of arms: Napoleon Bonaparte.
This article was first published on our Spanish Edition on July 31, 2024: El Problema de los Dos Emperadores, la disputa histórica por encarnar el legado de Roma
SOURCES
Georg Ostrogorsky, Historia del eEstado Bizantino
Flip Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium: The Empire of Constantinople (1204-1228)
John Greville Agard Pocock, The historiography of the translatio imperii
Marshall T. Poe, “Moscow, the Third Rome”. The origins and tranformations of a pivotal moment
François Velde, The title of emperor
Charles M. Brand, Byzantium confronts the West, 1180-1204
Deno John Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West, 1258-1282: A Study in Byzantine-Latin Relations
Wikipedia, Problem of two emperors
- Share on:
Discover more from LBV Magazine English Edition
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Mystery of the Mardaites: The Christian Highlanders Who Maintained Their Autonomy Between Byzantium and the Caliphate
In the province of Hatay, in southern Turkey, there is a mountain range locally known as Nur Dağları. Arabs call it Jabal al-Lukkam, and in Spanish, its Greek name, Amanus,…
The Jaxartes River, the Battle Where Alexander Defeated the Scythians Using Catapults, Wounded and with Nearly His Entire Army Sick with Dysentery
As its name indicates, the Spanish Cape of Finisterre (finis terrae) was considered in Antiquity as the westernmost limit of the known world. But where was the eastern border located…
Nature of the Enigmatic “Armas de la tierra” of the Coronado Expedition in the 16th Century Revealed
Recent research has unveiled the nature of the weaponry used by Francisco Vázquez de Coronado’s expedition (which crossed the present-day U.S. states of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas),…
A Megalography Depicting a Rare Mythological Scene of Achilles and Bronze Statuettes Found in a Roman “Domus” in Reims
The urban organization of Durocortorum, the Gallo-Roman city now known as Reims in France, faithfully adhered to the principles of Roman urbanism. The city was divided into blocks bounded by…
Neolithic Rondel Found in Poland Reveals These Ceremonial Centers May Have Been Managed by Organizations Similar to Secret Societies 7,000 Years Ago
An archaeological discovery in the locality of Nowe Objezierze, in the northwest of Poland, has led to a significant breakthrough in understanding the Neolithic societies of Central Europe. An interdisciplinary…
New Geoarchaeological Evidence Challenges the Identification of Kalkriese Hill as the place of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest
Kalkriese Hill, located in northwestern Germany, has been identified for decades as a potential site of the historic Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE, a decisive confrontation between…
The Newly Formed Earth Was a Dry and Hot Place: A Theory Explains How Water Arrived Here and on Other Planets of the Solar System
A group of scientists from the Paris Observatory has proposed a new theory about how water arrived on Earth, a key question for understanding the emergence of life on our…
Analysis of Mesopotamian Texts in Akkadian Reveals How Emotions Were Experienced: Love Was Felt in the Knees
Love and emotions have been universal themes throughout human history, expressed in diverse ways but with commonalities across different cultures and eras. A fascinating recent study reveals that people in…
Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty, the chronicles of the Korean kingdom spanning five centuries, are the longest uninterrupted ones of a single dynasty in history
In 2006, the Seoul government announced that the Guksa Pyeonchan Wiwonhoe (National Institute of Korean History) had undertaken the digitization of the Joseon Wangjo Sillok, that is, the “Veritable Records…
Tsakonian Is the Only Current Greek Language That Derives from the One Spoken by the Spartans
Although it is officially considered a dialect, Tsakonian is a divergent variety of Greek frequently classified as a separate language, as it is not intelligible to speakers of standard Modern…
Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.
