0
Under the age of Charlemagne, Roman culture was reinterpreted, allowing Charlemagne to revive the idea of the Roman Empire.....hope this helps!
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why do lists of Roman Emperors have names and dates for emperors who ruled after the fall of Rome?
After Rome was sacked in 410 AD, the Roman Empire continued to exist. After Rome fell in 476, the Roman Empire continued to exist. It continued to exist, according to the Byzantines, until 1453, a date used by some historians as the end of the middle ages. During much of its history, the Roman Empire was divided into two parts, the Empire of the West, with a capital usually in Rome, and the Empire of the East, with a capital in Constantinople. What happened in 476, a date some historians use for the fall of the Roman Empire, was that the last emperor of the Empire of the West abdicated in favor of the emperor of the Empire of the East. This mean that in theory, at least, the empire was reunited. What really happened was that the Roman Empire of the West had been divided into kingdoms that mostly acknowledged the sovereignty of the Roman Empire, but were in fact not paying taxes or providing services. This had happened before 476, and the process continued. But people thought of themselves as being in the Roman Empire for a long time after that. When Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the West, the idea was that the Roman Empire of the West was getting a new emperor after not having one for 334 years. Charlemagne's empire, the Carolingian Empire, divided after his death. One large part became France, and the other became the Holy Roman Empire, which was called a Roman Empire because it regarded itself as a continuation of the Roman Empire. The legality and facts of that can be argued. But the continuation of the East Roman Empire cannot be dismissed so easily. The East Roman Empire, which we call the Byzantine Empire, but which called itself the Empire of the Roman People long after its people stopped using Latin for any purpose and only used Greek, went on for nearly 1000 years. The emperors who are listed as having dates after the fall of Rome are those who were emperors of the Roman Empire, in its capitol of Constantinople, which had been set up as a capital by Constantine the Great himself.
What did Charlemagne contribute to the Holy Roman Empire?
AnswerAlmost nothing, or perhaps just the idea. His (Frankish) Empire fell apart soon after his death but maintained some kind of shadowy existence. The zest for dating the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire from 800AD is Anglo-American fantasy or nostalgia. German and Italian historians date the foundation from the coronation of Otto I in 962. The term 'Holy Empire' dates from 1030 at the earliest, and the first reference to 'Holy Roman Empire' dates from 1254! (The basic structures had been in place since 1050, though).The HRE is surrounded by much mythology.Morefrom a different point of view i think Charlemagne was a great leader. he led his armies and conquered big parts of italy, germany, and centural europe. MoreCharlemagne inherited the Kingdom of the Franks, and he conquered a number of different groups of people, including the Saxons, Lombards, Swiss, Bavarians, Frisians, and other Germanic kingdoms, and added their territory to his kingdom, thereby creating the country of which he was crowned emperor, the Carolingian Empire. According to the will of Louis the Pious, the Carolingian Empire was broken into three kingdoms with one of the kings being a nominal emperor. The emperor was king of the middle kingdom, which fell to the other two, and the title of emperor fell out of use for a few decades.The kingdom of the West Franks, which contained most of Charlemagne's original kingdom, became France.The Kingdom of the East Franks contained almost all of the eastern territories Charlemagne had added to his original kingdom, and this became the Holy Roman Empire when its king, Otto I, was crowned emperor, ostensibly resurrecting the title.The connection Charlemagne had to all this was that he united the territories of the Kingdom of the East Franks with each other, and this kingdom became the Holy Roman Empire. Neither the fact that they were mostly territories not in his original kingdom, nor the fact that they were later separated from that kingdom, should be allowed to cloud the fact that he united them with each other.The names we call the empires by is a bit problematical. Please see the related question below for more on this.
Who benefited from the roman empires prosperity?
Just about all Romans benefited from the empire's prosperity. The ones who did not were the low lifers who would never benefit no matter what the political circumstances.
How long did the Romans rule britannia?
The Romans did not rule the world. Their empire did not cover the whole world; in fact, most of the world was not then known. The Roman Empire covered western Europe up to the river Rhine and central Germany, the Balkan Peninsula (south-eastern Europe) the Middle East west of Iran and north of Saudi Arabia and the coast of North Africa. The Roman Empire expanded gradually. It expanded into central and southern Italy in the 4th century BC and around the Mediterranean in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC. More conquests were made in the 1st century AD and it reached its greatest extent in 116. The western part of the Roman Empire fell under the weight of the invasions by Germanic peoples. The conventional date given for its end is 476. The eastern part of the Roman Empire was not affected by these invasions and continued to exist until its capital, Constantinople, was taken by the Ottoman Turks in 1453. Historians have coined the term Byzantine Empire to indicate the eastern part of the Roman Empire after the fall of the western part.
What established the idea that all roman citizens had a right to protection under the law?
Roman citizens were protected by Roman law.Roman citizens were protected by Roman law.Roman citizens were protected by Roman law.Roman citizens were protected by Roman law.Roman citizens were protected by Roman law.Roman citizens were protected by Roman law.Roman citizens were protected by Roman law.Roman citizens were protected by Roman law.Roman citizens were protected by Roman law.
How did the first holy Roman Emperor get his title?
There is some disagreement over exactly who was the first Holy Roman Emperor, some saying Charlemagne, but it seems the majority say Otto I. There is also some disagreement about the title. Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the Romans, as was Otto I; but we really do not know whether this was a rather silly way of trying to assert authority over the Byzantine Empire, which was called the Roman Empire at the time, or a way of trying to resurrect the Roman Empire of the West. However it happened, the idea of crowning Charlemagne as emperor appears to have been one of Pope Leo III, who left no record of what his thoughts were at the time.
Why was the roman empire crowned by Charlemagne?
I think the question you are asking is why Charlemagne was crowned emperor of the Roman Empire. Though we do not have a really good record of why this happened, it is probable that the people involved wanted to reestablish the West Roman Empire and saw a chance to do so. First of all, the West Roman Empire did not suddenly collapse. People did not wake up some morning in 476 and see that everything had changed. For a long time after any date modern historians assign for the fall of Rome, there was the lingering idea in the West that the people who lived there were in the Roman Empire, even thought the government was not working. The West Roman Empire had decayed badly during the 3rd through 6th centuries. During that time, there were often a number of emperors at the same time, sometimes acknowledging the status of each other, and sometimes not. People got used to the idea that the Roman Empire was not defined by its emperors. When Germanic kingdoms were set up in the West Roman Empire, they were regarded as parts of the Empire, though not under really good control. Roman law was still in use in many places until well into the 8th century, and there was no general consensus that the Roman Empire was a thing of the past. In fact, the East Roman Empire was still one of the most important countries in Europe at the time of Charlemagne; today we call it the Byzantine Empire. The Franks had been building up their kingdom for a long time, and it had come to dominate the West even more than the Byzantine Empire dominated the East. Charlemagne had become King of the Franks, but was also, separately King of the Lombards. In fact, his power was arguably as great as that of any of the Roman Emperors of the West. There were a number of other things going on that argued in favor of reestablishing the West Roman Empire. Christians wanted a strong country to counter the Muslims in Spain. Pope Leo III had good reason to want Charlemagne to have as much power as possible, and in fact owed Charlemagne his life. There were people in the West to believed the empire should not be headed by a woman, and the East Roman Empire was, at that time, headed by Empress Irene; this might have influenced people at the time. So, Pope Leo III, possibly with the help of Charlemagne, and almost certainly with the help of some of Charlemagne's supporters, crowned him Emperor of the Roman Empire.
Did people get married in churches in the roman empire?
No, because there were no churches in the Roman empire, or at least not until the Byzantine stage of the empire. An ancient Roman marriage was a civic affair as opposed to the Christian idea of a religious one.No, because there were no churches in the Roman empire, or at least not until the Byzantine stage of the empire. An ancient Roman marriage was a civic affair as opposed to the Christian idea of a religious one.No, because there were no churches in the Roman empire, or at least not until the Byzantine stage of the empire. An ancient Roman marriage was a civic affair as opposed to the Christian idea of a religious one.No, because there were no churches in the Roman empire, or at least not until the Byzantine stage of the empire. An ancient Roman marriage was a civic affair as opposed to the Christian idea of a religious one.No, because there were no churches in the Roman empire, or at least not until the Byzantine stage of the empire. An ancient Roman marriage was a civic affair as opposed to the Christian idea of a religious one.No, because there were no churches in the Roman empire, or at least not until the Byzantine stage of the empire. An ancient Roman marriage was a civic affair as opposed to the Christian idea of a religious one.No, because there were no churches in the Roman empire, or at least not until the Byzantine stage of the empire. An ancient Roman marriage was a civic affair as opposed to the Christian idea of a religious one.No, because there were no churches in the Roman empire, or at least not until the Byzantine stage of the empire. An ancient Roman marriage was a civic affair as opposed to the Christian idea of a religious one.No, because there were no churches in the Roman empire, or at least not until the Byzantine stage of the empire. An ancient Roman marriage was a civic affair as opposed to the Christian idea of a religious one.
Was Charlemagne crowned by the pope as a new Roman Emperor?
Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the Romans by pope Leo II. However, the was not actually a Roman emperor. He was the king of the Franks and became the emperor of what historians call the Carolingian Empire, which was and empire of the Franks, not the Romans. Charlemagne was given the title of Emperor of the Romans because he was a protector of the Catholic Church and the tilte was meant to signify that there was a Catholic empire in western Europe, separate and independent of the Roman Empire (which at that time was the eastern part of the Roman Empire which continued to exist after the fall of the western part of this empire and which historians call Byzantine Empire). The Byzantines had controlled part o Italy, including Rome. The popes had been struggling to assert their independence from this empire, which, besides interfering, was Orthodox Christian.
What is the main idea of the emperor Justinian was determined to revive the grandeur of ancient rome?
He wanted to reconquer the land lost by the western part of the Roman Empire. He succeed to retake Tunisia and western Libya, Italy and southern Spain. However, these gains were lost again.
Why do lists of Roman Emperors have names and dates for emperors who ruled after the fall of Rome?
After Rome was sacked in 410 AD, the Roman Empire continued to exist. After Rome fell in 476, the Roman Empire continued to exist. It continued to exist, according to the Byzantines, until 1453, a date used by some historians as the end of the middle ages. During much of its history, the Roman Empire was divided into two parts, the Empire of the West, with a capital usually in Rome, and the Empire of the East, with a capital in Constantinople. What happened in 476, a date some historians use for the fall of the Roman Empire, was that the last emperor of the Empire of the West abdicated in favor of the emperor of the Empire of the East. This mean that in theory, at least, the empire was reunited. What really happened was that the Roman Empire of the West had been divided into kingdoms that mostly acknowledged the sovereignty of the Roman Empire, but were in fact not paying taxes or providing services. This had happened before 476, and the process continued. But people thought of themselves as being in the Roman Empire for a long time after that. When Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the West, the idea was that the Roman Empire of the West was getting a new emperor after not having one for 334 years. Charlemagne's empire, the Carolingian Empire, divided after his death. One large part became France, and the other became the Holy Roman Empire, which was called a Roman Empire because it regarded itself as a continuation of the Roman Empire. The legality and facts of that can be argued. But the continuation of the East Roman Empire cannot be dismissed so easily. The East Roman Empire, which we call the Byzantine Empire, but which called itself the Empire of the Roman People long after its people stopped using Latin for any purpose and only used Greek, went on for nearly 1000 years. The emperors who are listed as having dates after the fall of Rome are those who were emperors of the Roman Empire, in its capitol of Constantinople, which had been set up as a capital by Constantine the Great himself.
Why did Charlemagne not want to be crowned Emperor by the Pope in 800 AD on Christmas day?
How do you get this idea? He was actually crowned on Christmas day of 800! His coronation created the Holy Roman Empire which existed until 1806! Historians dont actaully know weather or not he was pleased or displeased, but the contemporary account is that he was happy about his cornation becasue it would be useful to him having the imperoal title obviously, and was thankful to the church and the Papacy but also felt regretful for being viewed as a subject of the Papacy Charlemagne heartily disliked the Church and suspected trickery by the Pope. Incidentally, he wasn't crowned 'Holy Roman Emperor', just 'emperor'. The idea that he was the first Holy Roman Emperor is a much later fiction. The earliest mention of the Holy Roman Empire dates from about 1250.
Was the US part of the Roman empire?
Of course not. The Romans had no idea North America existed.
What evidence supports the idea that the church functioned like a kingdom?
The Holy Roman Empire
What 5 regions made up the roman empire at its height?
i have no idea find it out yourself ask A teacher
What is an example of an idea that had a major affect on Rome's society?
An idea which had a major effect was the Christianity's idea that Christ was the son of god and that he died to redeem humanity. In the Later Roman Empire Christianity became the state religion of the empire and many people in the empire converted to Christianity, which was a major religious change.
Why did the pope name Charlemagne Emperor of the Roman people in 799?
We have no record of why Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as emperor. All we have is a record of the event and the fact that Charlemagne claimed he did not expect it to happen. The result is that the question is the subject of debate and differences of opinion.I have read the view of some historians that the West was ready for the restoration of the Roman Empire, and had the belief that crowning Charlemagne emperor would facilitate this, to the benefit of all the people in Europe.I have also read that Leo III may have believed the government of the Byzantine Empire, which never gave up calling itself the Roman Empire, was illegal because it was headed by a woman, Empress Irene. This leads to further speculation about what he intended to do with separate Roman Empires of the East and West, with the possibility that uniting them was envisioned.And, of course, there are a number of other opinions, including the idea that Leo III merely wanted to express thanks that Charlemagne had saved him from a mob that had attacked him.Nobody knows exactly why this is. Even so, Charlemagne was never really emperor. He was king of the Franks, a people who lived in modern day France and Germany. He lived 300 years after the true western half of Rome fell. The eastern half, Byzantium, already had a leader.
