Charlemagne. More than this he did not wish. He might easily have seized more of Spain or the provinces of the Greek Empire in south Italy (and the Empire had given him no little provocation), but with rare moderation he even returned freely some Adriatic provinces that had voluntarily submitted to him. For mere conquest, such realms would have been vastly more attractive than the bleak Saxon-land, but it seems plain that Charles did not choose to incorporate incongruous elements needlessly into his German state. It is notable also that the small Teutonic states outside his realms, in Denmark and in England, recognized some vague overlordship in the ruler of the Teutonic continent. 640. Defensive Wars against the Eastern Slavs; Dependent States. So, too, his later wars against the heathen tribes of the East were essentially defensive. Beyond the German territory there stretched away indefinitely savage Slavs and Avars, who from time to time hurled themselves against the barriers of civilization, as in old Roman days. But the new vigorous Teutonic race who now championed the cause of civilization attacked barbarism in its own strongholds. Gradually the first line of these peoples beyond the Elbe and Danube (including modern Bohemia and Moravia) were reduced to tributary kingdoms to serve as buffers against their untamed brethren farther east; but Charles made no attempt really to incorporate these conquests into his Frankish state, or to force Christianity upon them. II. THE REVIVAL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN THE WEST. 641. Reasons and Pretexts. The state ruled by Clovis and Dagobert had been not so much a kingdom as an empire, in extent and character, comprising, as it did, many sub-states and diverse peoples.' Charlemagne had given new emphasis to 1 This is the proper use of the term empire as distinguished from kingdom, and this meaning it always had until Napoleon III. obscured it in the popular this character, and now he strengthened the structure by reviving for it the dignity and the magic name of the Roman Empire. He knew that the mere "king of the Franks could never sway the minds of Visigoth, Lombard, Bavarian, Saxon, and especially of the Roman populations they dwelt among, as could the "Emperor of the Romans" ruling from the old world-capital. But there was already a "Roman Emperor" at Constantinople, whose authority in legal theory still extended over all Christendom (§§ 574, 599, and elsewhere). Just at this time, however, Irene, the empress mother, put out the eyes of her son, Constantine VI., and seized the imperial power. To most minds, East and West, the world-throne was vacant; and Charles decided to restore it to its ancient capital in the West. 642. Election and Coronation. On Christmas day, 800 A.D., Charles was at Rome, whither he had been called once more to protect the Pope from turbulent Italian enemies. During the Christmas service, while the king knelt in prayer, Pope Leo III. placed upon his head a gold crown and saluted him as Charles Augustus, Emperor of the Romans. The act was ratified by the enthusiastic acclaim of the multitude; and once more Rome had chosen an emperor. 643. Theory of the Empire.' - This act of Leo and Charles was not a partition of imperial duties, as between Diocletian and his colleague, nor a friendly division of territory, as between Arcadius and Honorius (§ 572). It was in theory the restoration of the seat of the one universal Empire to Rome. In fact, it created two rival empires, each calling itself The Roman Empire, and looking on the other as a usurpation. Charles is said commonly to have "revived" the Western mind by assuming the style of emperor while merely ruler of France (18521870). The first Napoleon was really an emperor. 1 Besides the account in Emerton and Adams, see especially Bryce, 50-58 and 67-71; Sheppard, Fall of Rome, 496 ff.; Bury, II.; and Freeman, in Historical Essays, First Series (Holy Roman Empire). Empire. This is essentially correct if we look at results, but in theory, and in the speech of men of his day, he was the successor, not of Romulus Augustulus (§ 514), but of Constantine VI., just deposed at Constantinople. In course of time, to be sure, men had to recognize that there were two Empires as there had come to be two branches of the Christian Church, but to the men of the West, their Empire, as their Church, remained the only legitimate one. 644. Distinctive Character of the Western Empire. - Neither Empire was really Roman. The Eastern grew more and more Oriental, until it ended in 1453 A.D. when the Turks captured Constantinople. The Western grew more and more Teutonic, until it ended in 1806, before which time its rulers had shrunk into little more than dukes of Austria.1 Both Empires continued to stand for civilization as against barbarism: the Eastern, however, was henceforth largely passive, and calls for little attention in European history; the active and positive forces were found in the Western. The Eastern Empire warded off from Europe inroads of Asiatic barbarism, and served as a storehouse of the old culture. The Western Empire learned from the Eastern some of its civilization, and extended Christianity and good order in Central Europe. The new Western Empire, too, while one in theory with the old Empire of Augustus and Constantine the Great, differed from it almost as widely as from the Byzantine Empire. Two distinctions should be especially noted. a. It was European, and even Teutonic, rather than Mediterranean, both in area and character. Charlemagne and his successors had to be crowned in Rome, but the German Rhine, not the Italian Tiber, was the real center of their state. The Greek and Oriental influences were almost wholly excluded, and Roman ideas, so far as they remained, were worked out by rulers of Teutonic blood. 1 This story belongs to modern history. |