If the "Holy" "Roman" "Empire" was between 800/962–1806, then what happened between then and the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century?
Literally nothing
>>1070991
Bunch of Frankish royalties at war with eachother. The eventual overthrow of the Merovingian dynasty, then the rise of the Carolingian dynasty.
>>1070991
There was no Roman Emperor in the west. The position was null and void. When Charlemagne conquered Italy, the Pope gave him the title of Roman Emperor to win his favor and get the papal states.
>>1070991
various germanic tribes waiting for charlemagne to bring civilization to them
>>1070991
The greatest general and king to ever live ruled Francia, Based Charles Martel.
>>1070991
Western Europe was full of Romaboo Germanic monarchs who ruled through control of cavalry bands. These cavalry bands would get a king money and assert his power by riding around villages to collect taxes.
These kings would often give other bands of warriors to their most loyal supporters, and give them Latin titles such as "Dux" or "Comes".
lots of big hairy barbarians
OP here.
Tribes/barbarians -- barbarians were called so because they were non-Roman, right?
Did these competing monarchs systems exist during Roman times or crop up afterwards, what was their concept of a 'state', or was it just a bunch of random dudes fighting over land?
Basically I'm asking how civilised were they? Because they're called barbarians yet they had monarchs and gold and shit.
I will read a book on this but I like asking general questions so I get the vague idea.
>>1071131
Not all the Germans were semi-nomadic tribes and Germanic states popped up many times during Romes existence, the Marcomanni made a Kingdom in Bohemia, the Goths may have had an empire in the black sea that extended quite far into Eastern Europe.
The difference is the post German Barbarian states were heavily Romanized and imitated many state and social institutions of the Romans.
>>1071131
>Did these competing monarchs systems exist during Roman times
Yes, the Roman government's job was to integrate these new Germanic kingdoms into civilization.
>>1070991
barbarian pagans aka Saxons and and the christian barbarians aka Franks
>>1070991
I'll try and break it up to you as best I can.
After Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustulus in 476, he sent the imperial signet to Constantinople. Instead of accepting an imperial title, Odoacer called himself the rex, or king of Rome. Thus, there was a sense of continuation for the Roman empire in the east, but not in the west. However, Theodoric and his Gothic successors tried (rather unsuccessfully) to "Romanize" their reigns.
This sentiment was further spurred by the Byzantine reconquest of Italy throughout the 6th century. The pope in Rome relied on Constantinople for immediate defense from the Lombards, whereas the emperor in Constantinople needed ideological legitimization from Rome's heritage.
So, a tenuous "state-within-a-state" dynamic developed up to the latter half of the 8th century, when the Byzantines finally lost grip of Rome and Ravenna. This break from Byzantium was indicated by material evidence. For example, by 770, Roman currency and documents began to record the pope's reign rather than the Byzantine emperor's.
However, the papacy still needed a "big brother" to protect them from the Lombards. This is where Charlemagne comes in at around 800, thus becoming the first HRE and perhaps marking Rome's definite split from Constantinople.
>>1070991
After the Julius Nepot was killed by his guards, Odoacer the king of Italy was left without de jure "boss". As only Latin guy could be Western Emperor, Germanic Odoacer shipped imperial regalia to Constantinople hoping to receive new "boss" to legitimize his reign.
Flavius Zeno of the East decided it wasn't worth it, so there were no legitimate Western Emperor ever after thaat, if we consider legitimacy as being accepted by Eastern emperor and continuing the imperial sovereignity line uninterrupted.
While Charlemagne was leet and shiet, it (his kingdom and the future HRE) was just a cosplay of Western empire from the very beginning, just like Tsardom/Empire of Russia was some weird cosplay of Eastern empire.
Only good when both legitimate empires were long dead.
>>1070996
>Charlemagne
>Literally nothing
>>1070991
Osthrogods happened. Flavius Odoacerus, Patrician of the Empire, and King of Italy on behalf of the Emperor Zeno, established an autonomous entity under the nominal authority of Constantinople. After a few years, it became too much autonomous; it fell to Belisarius to restore order and the authority of the Emperor. The years passed, and the Lombards began to migrate to south.
The Roman rule in Italy would cease, finally, in the course of the Iconoclastic Controversy. The fierce opposition of the patriarchs of Rome to iconoclasm gradually consumed the good will of the imperial government. At the same time, Rome needed to survive. And it was building bridges with the barbarians. And began to build contacts with the barbarians. First the Lombards, than the Franks, all Christianized and domesticable.
The imperial government loses control of Ravenna in 754. In 756, the Franks under Pepin conquered part of the lands of the Exarcahate of Ravenna from Lombard hands, and donated it to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.
The final joke was in 800, when a barbarian was crowned successor of the Basileus Constantine VI by the Pope Leo III.
>>1071131
The realm of the Salian Franks (Clovis 'n shit and Carl too, later) was pretty much the Frankish foederati in Toxandria getting a hold of some of the surrounding region then building from there.
>Did these competing monarchs systems exist during Roman times
As you may suspect, very much so
OP here, thanks guys. I enjoyed reading all your responses. Here's a QT in return.
