For many years, I have been fascinated by the rise and fall of Rome. Like many historians in the field, I have wanted to explore the foundations and circumstances for which Rome fell apart, and even today, how that change impacts the way in which we perceive history unfolding before us. With the sacking and fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD and the downfall of Emperor Romulus Augustulus, a new empire forged some three-hundred years later, with a power share between itself and the Vatican, in a power struggle between those elected to be G-d's representative through the Holy See and those who saw themselves as the natural continuation of the Roman Empire in a new Germanic form, also chosen by G-d personally. Charlemagne isn't necessarily where the story begins with his coronation by Pope Leo III in 800 AD, as I will later explain when we explore our five main contenders for the position of a hypothetical Holy Roman Emperor, should the Empire be restored. For this, I will be exploring the possibilities of those who are natural born contenders through the complexities of European monarchies and Empires that have come and gone, and I will not simply be making cases for those who clearly would not have any connections to the Empire in the first place. Not only do we have to consider lineage, but also diplomatic relations and the state in which the Empire was left in both the West, with the fall of it in 476 AD to the fall of the Byzantine Empire with Constantinople in 1453.
So, who might the contenders be? I have narrowed this down to five possibilities, based on lineages of ancient families that still exist today and have a clear connection to both the western and eastern Empires, considering the diplomatic resolutions that have been left for us. The five contenders are: Jean-Christophe Napoleon, Karl Von Habsburg, Felipe VI of Spain, Harun Osman and Alexis Romanov. Nothing is simple and clear about any of these choices as all have good claims and cases as to why they would all be Roman emperor today. During the Third Century, the Empire split into the Eastern and Western Empire by Diocletian and Constantine defeated Licinius in 313 AD. Constantine also dramatically changed the paradigms of Rome by converting to Christianity, establishing Constantinople as the true capital of his new Byzantine Empire, which he claimed to be the true Roman Empire. The permanent division, however, would not be solidified until 395 AD, and following the sacking of Rome, the Western Empire fell with the Byzantine (or Eastern Roman Empire) surviving. In 552 AD, Justinian reconquered Rome from the Barbarians and settled on extending the Roman Empire, with himself as the sole ruler at the time, thus bringing Rome under Byzantine rule. What happened for the next three centuries is where our split begins, depending on whether one believes in the rule of Charlemagne as King of the Francs being crowned Emperor by the Pope in Rome or whether one believes that Irene, Empress of the Byzantine Empire, was the legitimate authority in Rome at the time, despite ruling from Constantinople. There are suggestions amongst some historians that both Irene and Charlemagne may have also been betrothed, but there is no evidence to officiate the union of the two, thus the Roman Empire remained split between east and west.
It is from 1453 where we have to make a decision. If one believes that the Byzantine Empire was the legitimate extension of the Roman Empire, then one would make the argument that Harun Osman is the true Emperor, given his status as a surviving relative of the Ottoman sultans. However, Constantine XI, the last Emperor of the Byzantine Empire, made a deal with Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain that also grants them legitimacy, before the fall of Constantinople. There is a rumour that this was a title that was paid for, as was the title also bestowed onto the King of France. The final candidate in this line therefore is Alexis Romanov, an American descendent of the notorious family that once ruled Russia before the revolution of 1917. The reason why is through the marriage of Sophia Palaiologina to Ivan III 'The Great' of Russia in 1472. She had been Constantne XI's niece, and the marriage between Sophia and Ivan III had been instigated by the Pope in the hopes of expanding the sphere of influence of the Catholic Church in otherwise Orthodox Russia. With Christianity dominating the Byzantine Empire through the new Greek Orthodox Church and Orthodox traditions in Russia, Moscow became known as a 'Third Rome' during this period. Her grandson, Ivan IV 'The Terrible' would eventually go on to unite all Russian people under the banner of the Russian Empire. Likewise, Russian rulers would be also known as 'tsars', coming from the Latinised word 'Caesar' (reminder that Caesar was not a surname and not just affiliated to Julius Caesar, but also a word for 'under ruler' to the Augustus, or Emperor of Rome).
So, what if you're not for the Byzantine claims to the Roman Empire? Many historians would argue that the continuation, or natural as you can get continuation, stems from the western empire that had been established before the Byzantine split. Rome continued to be the de facto capital of the western Roman Empire after the establishment of Constantinople, and the Catholic Church continued its rule from there also. Therefore, following the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne, we can then look to the person who defeated and re-established the Empire in 1806: Napoleon Bonaparte. Bonapartists would argue that the rule of this family can claim the title of Roman Emperor based on Napoleon's unification of the Grand Duchies and rules over them, that he was declared an Emperor himself and, unlike the other candidates on this list, is at least of Italian descent, having been born on Corsica (though it fell into French hands a year before Napoleon's birth). Napoleon had himself crowned Emperor of the French in the presence of Pope Pius VII and Halet Efendi, acting as ambassador for Selim III of the Ottoman Empire. Despite being short lived, Napoleon's Empire had taken over and claimed the lands of the Holy Roman Empire, and if we consider it to be a natural successor to that of Rome, then Jean Christophe Napoleon (descendent through Napoleon's brother Jerome) would therefore be Emperor today. The final claimant for now would be Karl von Habsburg, heir to the Habsburg throne and the title of King of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire and most of what had been the Holy Roman Empire. After its dissolution at the end of the First World War, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire formed into many differing states, some of which had fallen to the Ottoman Empire, particularly in the Balkan regions, whilst the remnants of the former empire formed close ties with Rome. Likewise, there is a link between the Habsburg line and the Spanish line (through the Bourbon family) that had survived the changes in Europe following the First World War and collapse of former monarchies. Rudolf I Habsburg was a direct descendant of Charlemagne who had also married into the House of Bourbon, giving legitimacy to the Habsburgs as direct lineage to the success of the Holy Roman Empire.
All five have good cases, and through this, I will use empirical evidence to explain why each may have a decent claim to the title of Roman Emperor, and make my own judgements at the end. There is no right or wrong answer per se, so this is all open to interpretation.
Jean Christophe Napoleon
I will start with my weakest choice for the legitimacy to the claimant of Roman Emperor. When Napoleon crushed the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, uniting and giving land and titles to his family, he was crowned in the presence of the Pope and many contingencies within Europe that held great swathes of power at the time. Napoleon was crowned as not emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, as that title had also been given by the Pope to the Habsburgs, but rather as Emperor of the French, and Napoleon himself had never claimed the title of Roman Emperor. Yes, Napoleon had been bestowed the Roman eagle, but apart from dressing like a Roman Emperor, he never legitimately inherited such a title through blood or through conquering.
In 1997, following the death of Prince Louis Napoleon, he had named his successor not his eldest son (Prince Charles Napoleon), but rather his grandson Jean Christophe as the successor to the title of head of House Napoleon. This was due to Charles's espousing of republican and democratic values rather than monarchist ones, causing the dispute in the Bonapartist clan (the last of the American Bonapartists died in 1945).
Alexi Romanov
Arguably, Alexi Romanov is the only member on this list that has a blood connection to the original emperors of Rome. That comes from the marriage of Sofia to Ivan III back in 1472 that ties the Romanov family to that of the original Roman emperors. Alexi Romanov is the legitimate heir to the throne of Russia following his father's death in 2021, and though the monarchy is unlikely to be restored, Alexi Romanov would still have claims to at least the stewardship of the Russian Orthodox Church, which remains as the successor to the Greek Orthodox Church that had been the central religion of the Byzantine Empire. In the east, though not exclusive, the Russian Orthodox Church dominates religious life today. It is a central tenant for many in what separates some aspects of the westernised versions of scripture and identity from that of Eastern Europe, much like how the Byzantine Empire had established itself in the first place with Constantine moving the capital to Constantinople and acting as the de facto head of the new Orthodox Church in the region. The Tsars of Russia continued to practise this religion that had been bestowed upon them. The Romanovs have a link that stems from this split, though there are of course, natural complications with some of their claims. To begin, it is important to remember that Irene to most scholars and theologians at the time was not considered to be a legitimate ruler, and therefore was not Empress of the Byzantine Empire, simply due to the fact that she was a woman. Therefore, if we take this into consideration, then her descendants, such as Justinian and by further extension Constantine XI and Sofia, would not be considered to be the true and legitimate leaders of the Byzantine Empire. However, I would counteract this (not that many historians consider Irene not to be a legitimate ruler), that no other leader has claimed legitimacy in the reign of Irene, before, during or after her tenure. Leading this line, many considered Charlemagne to therefore be the legitimate continuation of the Roman Empire, and when we consider that it was reported that Charlemagne and Irene should have been married to solidify the union between the western and eastern Roman Empires and give each other the chance of being considered the 'legitimate ruler', then it is hard not to make the case that Irene's own descendants were nothing more than the continuing rulers of the Byzantine Empire, and so the Romanovs would have legitimacy to claiming the title of Roman emperor. With Alexi Romanov the head of the family, this would be his ultimate birth right, given that it was through Tsar Nicholas's brother-in-law that he is living today in California.
Harun Osman
Mehmet II invaded Constantinople, which had been the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and therefore the Eastern Roman Empire, in 1453, leading to Ottoman dominance in the region until the end of the First World War. Not exclusively a Turkic invasion, but rather an Islamic one with the establishment of a Muslim caliphate that, just like Constantine before, changed the religious outlook of the eastern Empire at the time. Some may argue that invasions would not make one leaders, or legitimate claimants for that matter, but bigger army diplomacy does prevail in most circumstances. Constantine converted to Christianity, and therefore the rest of the empire followed, so there is a compelling case that Mehmet II's conversion of the masses to Islam makes sense in the same way. The Council of Constantinople also recognised the legitimacy of the Ottomans under Mehmet as the true successors to the Byzantine Empire through their invasion. Likewise, many Ottoman Turks married into Byzantine nobility to secure legitimacy.
On the other hand, many will argue that the caliphate did not resemble what the Roman Empire or what the Byzantine Empire looked like by the end of its rule in the region. The conversion from Christianity to Islam is also contentious when we consider the majority before the implementation of Islam did adhere to the ideas of the Eastern Orthodox Church, thus separating east and west from the traditions of Catholic theology. Despite this, we can go back to the argument that it was because of this split, and the change from traditional Roman religious practises to Christianity in the first place did occur. The second thing that makes Osman's claim further complicated is the Ottoman genocide of the Armenians during the First World War and the subsequent exiling of those associated with the old regime - not that should have much of an impact on his legitimacy. After all, Rome wasn't exactly without its own prejudices when it came to the slaughter and subjugation of people. Osman's family made a lot of money from the Armenian Genocide and continue to live away from life in what is now modern day Turkey, though many of his children now reside in modern day Istanbul, which was once where Constantinople stood. The 90 year old Harun Osman (the great-grandson of Sultan Abdul Hamid II), who succeeded his brother Dundar last year after his death, may not gain the total support of the east and west, given the family ties to the Turkish government and current support for the occupation of Northern Cyprus. His age is also a contributing factor, and not many large armies would rally behind this claimant to the Roman emperor.
Karl von Habsburg
The question of legitimacy does not come down necessarily by those who claim victory or claim that they are legitimate. Many conquerors would say that they would naturally have legitimacy as they took over and became unnatural successors, such as in the case of the Ottomans. Likewise, some historians have automatically ruled out Napoleon's claim as he never saw himself as the 'Roman Emperor', just the Emperor of the French, and many at the time refused to acknowledge Napoleonic rule. For some historians, the Holy Roman Empire was the only true successor to the Western Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire was devoid of all resemblance to what was the original Roman Empire in the first place. With Charlemagne securing legitimacy with Rome by being crowned by the Pope directly (and through his bloodline from the Roman Empire and claims that he is a direct descendent from Augustus), his descendants would have a strong claim to the title of Roman Emperor. That is where the Habsburgs come in. Being directly descended from Charlemagne and being the successors to the Holy Roman Empire, uniting key duchies and kingdoms that fell into the Austro-Hungarian Empire, secures some legitimacy for Karl von Habsburg in this regard. Furthermore, the agreement between Isabella and Ferdinand with Constantine XI also died out and was never fully recognised by many (including Isabella and Ferdinand themselves) and the Habsburgs ruled Spain when Charles V became the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire, and by extension Spain in this period. Arguably, the Habsburgs united the eastern and western Empires through their diplomacy in both the east and west.
However, as many will point out, the Holy Roman Empire may have the name 'Roman' in it, but in fact has nothing more to do with Rome or the idea of Romanisation any more than say New Hampshire has to do with the original Hampshire. Whilst the Habsburgs will have bloodline legitimacy through Charlemagne, the claims of bloodline status for Charlemagne himself are disputed, whereas the claims by the Romanovs would not be as Sophia's marriage to Ivan III and subsequently the lineage from Ivan III is not as disputed.
Felipe VI of Spain
Whilst the claimant from the Romanov faction in terms of bloodline is the most certified, the point that we have to consider is legality as well as legitimacy. The Ottoman's conquered and claimed for themselves that their caliphate meant that they were now the legitimate successors to the Byzantine Empire. If one is to believe that Charlemagne continued the lineage of the western Roman Empire, and therefore the Habsburgs continued that legacy in the form of parts of the Holy Roman Empire, then once again, this had come through conquering rather than through legality or diplomacy. True, conquerors in history have always taken and new lineages have started. Take William I 'The Conqueror' in 1066, claiming the title of King of England. There appears to be no dispute that William I was indeed a king that ruled England, but there is no legal standpoint. He had an agreement with Edward the Confessor that would make him king whilst he was the Duke of Normandy, but it was the same mutual agreement that he also had with Harold Godwinson. Godwinson had promised in the sight of God, over holy relics, that he would not stand in William's way of ruling. That was part of the legal system in England at the time. What Rome reinvented was the idea of legality and justice through common law. That is to say, that many of today's great common laws and centres of justice were based on Roman law, and that transfer of power through legal means is respected highly. Therefore, we have to consider the transfer from Constantine XI to Ferdinand and Isabella in 1453 after the fall of Constantinople. Whether this was bought or not, there is historical evidence that such a transfer did occur, and that both the king and queen of Castilla inherited the titles of emperor and empress of the Roman Empire. However, there is also further evidence that suggests that they also did not acknowledge themselves as the rulers of what remained as the Byzantine Empire, now swallowed by the expanding Ottoman Empire, where Mehmet II had been officially recognised by many as the true successor to the Roman Empire through conquest.
Felipe's extended family do, however, have acknowledgement through another reoccurring theme that gives him some legitimacy, and that is through another bloodline connection. Charlemagne's descendants from his female lineage have married into the founder of the Habsburg dynasty, and it is widely believed that Radbot of Klettgau's mother was a great-granddaughter of him. Just like with the claims by Karl von Habsburg, the Spanish crown was controlled by Habsburg lines, to which also makes Spanish rulers direct descendants of Charlemagne if we are to believe the rule of the Habsburg family, thus giving legitimacy to Felipe VI of Spain, the current king. The House of Bourbon, being Capetains, descend also from Charlemagne, if we are to believe that Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire succeeded Rome. Likewise, the House of Bourbon is the only surviving house in this list to hold power today, solidifying a constitutional monarchy that bases Roman common law as a structure of justice. Perhaps another factor to consider is the role of Diocletian, who pretty much made the Senate obsolete in his undermining of it, though from a legal standpoint, this may not be always enough to dismiss the role of Constantine XI's will and how the House of Castilla used this to still have the claim that they had been given the titles by law.
Conclusion
The final thing to summarise is who actually has the strongest claim. The simple answer is that we have to consider an ontological argument that has been tried and tested: Ockham's Razor. Now, this is to state that the simplest answer is usually the most effective. With all the trials and tribulations involved, there is no clear answer. If one believes in legality and who would appear to be the most likely based on regnal status, then King Felipe VI of Spain is the new Roman Emperor. If one believes in bigger army diplomacy, then Harun Osman is the true Roman emperor. Not to totally discredit Jean Christophe Napoleon, but without his famous ancestor never claiming to be emperor of Rome or of the following Holy Roman Empire, then this argument falls a bit flat. The most compelling evidence for me is that of bloodline. Regardless of affiliation by religion or region, the Roman Empire was built on a foundation of bloodline. Father to son ruled the Roman Empire in both east and west. It is what also solidifies the monarchies of today, and will continue until the end of time. Despite being very different in lots of ways, William I is still a distant relative of Elizabeth II based on a bloodline that connects Royal Families together. Again, simple lines don't exist in Europe at all. If we apply Ockham's Razor to the argument, then we consider that bloodline has an important role in the establishment of Roman Emperor. It is for that reason that I believe that Alexi Romanov is the true ruler of Rome. Romanov is at least a descendent by blood of the last verifiable leader of both the west and east in Constantine XI. Furthermore, many in the west agreed that Thomas Palaiologina, the brother of Constantine XI, was in fact the new Roman emperor, despite not taking a title.
Whilst the prospect of a new Roman Empire forming would sound amazing, there doesn't seem to be any chance of a major contender seriously coming forward to take over and form it again. Alexi Romanov, currently an accountant living in San Francisco and married to a Tennessee native may be the current Roman emperor, but he may not be either. It's a theory worth exploring, and if any other contenders come forward, we can explore their options also.
No comments:
Post a Comment