The Emperor is Dead, Long Live the Emperor: Imperial Interregna in the Fifth Century (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Permanence of an Emperor in Transition
In the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon commented on the longevity of the Roman empire, despite its symptoms of ruin: ‘the story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it subsisted so long.’ Gibbon’s point was to elevate the role of corruption that had rotted the empire to its core, but the apparent success in longevity of the Roman system nonetheless needed, and perhaps still needs, explanation. In a conference that stresses the period of transition between polities throughout world history, the subject of this paper is rather focused on an institution of perceived ‘continuity' throughout the history of the Roman world in the common era: the Emperor. From its inception in the time of Augustus, the idea of the emperor and its reception has had a powerful history, from Augustus to the Carolingians; from Constantine to the Paleologians. This did not mean that the role of emperor did not change over time within its context. The subject of this paper is the scale of continuity and change in the emperor’s long history, between what made the emperor relevant and malleable to his context, and what made the institution recognisable and connected with its past. As such, it is a problematisation of the perceived permanence of the emperor; an appreciation of the consistencies and alterations over the longue durée. To achieve this, this paper will explore three periods in the Emperor’s history: the Augustan Principate, the end of the Western Empire, and Byzantium in the late medieval period. This will be in order to compare and contrast the similarities and differences of the ideological position of the emperor in these contexts, and how it changed in the later periods of transition.
University of Ottawa, 2017
Roman emperors came to power through a hybrid dynastic/elective selection system that was never formally codified. This lack of codification has caused problems for modern scholars looking to identify and categorize those who were involved in selecting the next Roman emperor. This thesis believes that these problems exist because scholars are not distinguishing the names of key ancient institutions from the underlying types of power which backed their capability for action. This thesis seeks to solve this problem by creating a categorization system for imperial accessions based around a basic unit called the “political interest.” At its core, a political interest is a combination of the name of the individual or group as listed in the primary sources, the different types of power they possessed, and the level of decision-making authority they wielded during an imperial selection. Using this system, this thesis creates a database of Late Roman emperors with information on when they came to power, the various stages of their accessions, what political interests supported them, and where these interests were located. This thesis then analyzes the political and geographic trends from the database and supplies provisional explanations as to why changes in the Late Roman accession process occurred.
Identities of emperor and empire in the third century AD. Some considerations
Epigraphic evidence from different regions within the Roman Empire in the third century testifies to an increasing awareness of the Empire as a whole, which was perceived to have been under threat. Simultaneously, other inscriptions show the continuing importance of the emperor as a figurehead within this Empire. The rapid changeover of individual emperors and the consequently diminished power of individual emperors seem to have had little impact on the central positions that emperors occupied in the eyes of their subject. In fact, the increased absence of emperors from Rome for much of the period – and more importantly their presence at the local level – seems to have boosted the number of requests from the provinces to the emperor. At the same time, an analysis of third-century imperial coinage may also indicate a changing portrayal of the relationship between the emperor and the city of Rome. This article tries to place a discussion about the (perceived) identity of emperor and empire in the third century in terms of the relation between empire, emperor, and the city which gave its name to the realm.
Late antique origins of the 'Imperial Feminine': western and eastern empresses compared
This short analysis of the origins of late antique empresses aims to identify specifi c features of imperial power exercised by women. Many wives of emperors found themselves widowed and thus in a position to infl uence the education of their young sons, the 'child emperors' of the fi fth century. Contrasting the eastern and western courts at Constantinople and Ravenna, it's possible to trace patterns of preparation for imperial rule, how daughters of rulers were trained, later celebrated as augoustai, commemorated in statues and on coins. After comparing Pulcheria and Galla Placidia, the surprising career of Verina is contrasted with that of Ariadne, linking all four in the emerging phenomenon of the 'imperial feminine'. Among the many innovations introduced by Emperor Diocletian (284– 305), the new system of government, the tetrarchy, or rule of four, was one of the transformative developments of late antiquity. The plan to set up two senior emperors, each with a junior, called caesar, who would assist his rule and inherit his authority after a fi xed term, provided a certain stability from 293 to 305 when Diocletian abdicated. During that period the number of imperial cities multiplied, with Milan and Nikomedeia becoming the principal residences of the emperors and a range of other centres, including Trier, Serdica, Arles and Antioch used by the caesars. Rome remained the home of the Senate and leading aristocratic families, while Constantinople, dedicated in 330, was established as New Rome, partly to replace the older capital of empire. In some of the new centres of government the ruler's wife might hold a notable position, depending not only on her individual ambition but also on the relative importance and rank of the particular court. And from the early fourth century onwards as the number of imperial centres increased in both East and West, a rivalry between these " leading ladies " developed in step with the intense competition between their husbands, who campaigned to dominate the empire as a whole. Although this meant that the tetrarchy did not survive for long, the movement of courts between so many diff erent imperial cities persisted and generated competitive issues in which the wives of rulers began to play an essential role. Long after the imperial court was moved from its fi xed position in Rome, Theodosius I died in Milan in 395, having decreed that his two young sons were to succeed him as joint rulers in East and West. This signifi cant division of imperial authority into two equal spheres also had the eff ect of restricting the
Claiming the Basileia ton Rhomaion: A Latin Imperial Dynasty in Byzantium
The Medieval History Journal, 2018
In April 1204, the army of the Fourth Crusade captured Constantinople. For the leading princes, it was self-evident that they would install an imperator of their own in the Queen of Cities. Their choice fell on Baldwin IX/VI, count of Flanders/Hainault. In this contribution, we aim to analyse how Baldwin and his successors saw their emperorship, and how they and their empire were seen by others in Byzantium and the West. The current historiographical term, 'Latin Empire of Constantinople', reflects the prevailing view that an entirely new political construct had been set up replacing the former Byzantine Empire. However, contemporaries, both the emperors themselves as well as outsiders, consistently referred to the empire using both Latin and Greek terms that, prior to 1204, had been commonly employed to refer to the Byzantine Empire. Yet eastern and western conceptions of the nature of the empire before 1204 differed greatly: it was 'Greek' in Latin eyes, 'Roman' in Byzantine eyes. The Constantinopolitan imperial crown having been placed on his head, Baldwin became heir to these conflicting traditions. Moreover, rival imperial claims soon arose within the Byzantine space in neighbouring Byzantine successor states. In the face of these challenges, the Latin emperors strove to formulate a political ideology legitimising their claim to imperial rule. We will argue that in essence the successive Latin emperors adopted, up to a point, the key tenets of Byzantine imperial theory (Roman character, universalism, emperors as vicars of Christ and autocracy). Their western background and their different relationship with the West led to certain changes, but whether these should be seen as fundamentally un-Byzantine is not self-evident. Conversely, the presence of the now Latin rulers on the Constantinopolitan throne also led to changes in the western perception of the eastern empire.