Content deleted Content added
| (42 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 8:
Although the two empires eventually relented and recognized each other's rulers as emperors, they never explicitly recognized the other as "Roman", with the Byzantines referring to the Holy Roman emperor as the 'emperor (or king) of the Franks' and later as the 'king of Germany' and the western sources often describing the Byzantine emperor as the 'emperor of the Greeks' or the 'emperor of Constantinople'. Over the course of the centuries after Charlemagne's coronation, the dispute in regards to the imperial title was one of the most contested issues in Holy Roman–Byzantine politics. Though military action rarely resulted because of it, the dispute significantly soured diplomacy between the two empires. This lack of war was probably mostly on account of the geographical distance between the two empires. On occasion, the imperial title was claimed by neighbors of the Byzantine Empire, such as [[First Bulgarian Empire|Bulgaria]] and [[Serbian Empire|Serbia]], which often led to military confrontations. As the Byzantine Emperors had large control over the [[Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople|Patriarchate of Constantinople]] ([[Caesaropapism]]), their rivals often declared their own [[patriarchate]]s independent from it.
After the Byzantine Empire was momentarily overthrown by the Catholic [[Crusades|crusaders]] of the [[Fourth Crusade]] in 1204 and supplanted by the [[Latin Empire]], the dispute continued even though both emperors now followed the same religious head for the first time since the dispute began. Though the Latin emperors recognized the Holy Roman emperors as the legitimate Roman emperors, they also claimed the title for themselves, which was not recognized by the [[Holy Roman Empire]] in return. [[Pope Innocent III]] eventually accepted the idea of ''divisio imperii'' (division of empire), in which imperial hegemony would be divided into West (the Holy Roman Empire) and East (the Latin Empire). Some regions remained outside the [[Frankokratia]], where new Byzantine pretenders resided. Although the Latin Empire was destroyed by the [[Byzantine Empire under the Palaiologos dynasty|resurgent Byzantine Empire]] under the [[Palaiologos dynasty]] in 1261, the Palaiologoi never reached the power of the pre-1204 Byzantine Empire and its emperors ignored the problem of two emperors in favor of closer diplomatic ties with the west due to a need for aid against the many enemies of their empire and to end their support for the Latin pretenders.
The problem of two emperors only fully resurfaced after the [[fall of Constantinople]] in 1453, after which the [[Ottoman Empire|Ottoman]] sultan [[Mehmed II]] claimed the imperial dignity as ''Kayser-i Rûm'' (Caesar of the Roman Empire) and aspired to claim universal hegemony. The Ottoman sultans were recognized as emperors by the Holy Roman Empire in the 1533 [[Treaty of Constantinople (1533)|Treaty of Constantinople]], but the Holy Roman emperors were not recognized as emperors in turn. The Ottoman sultans slowly abandoned Roman legitimization when [[Transformation of the Ottoman Empire|empire started to transform]] and started to prefer the Persian ''[[padishah]]'' title but still held up to universal hegemony. The Ottomans called the Holy Roman emperors by the title ''kıral'' (king) for one and a half centuries, until the Sultan [[Ahmed I]] formally recognized Emperor [[Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor|Rudolf II]] as an emperor in the [[Peace of Zsitvatorok]] in 1606, an acceptance of ''divisio imperii'', bringing an end to the dispute between Constantinople and Western Europe. In addition to the Ottomans, the [[Tsardom of Russia]] and the later [[Russian Empire]] also claimed the Roman legacy of the Byzantine Empire, with its rulers titling themselves as ''[[tsar]]'' (deriving from "caesar") and later ''imperator''. By then Ottomans saw themselves as their overlords rather than Roman emperors. The tsar title was recognized by other states at times but not universally translated as "emperor" pushing the Russians to adopt more similar titles to their rivals. Their claim to the imperial title and equal status was not recognized by the Holy Roman Empire until 1745 and by the Ottoman Empire until 1774.
By the 19th century, the title "emperor" and their variations became detached from Roman Empire with the title being regularly used by different states established under the rule of European royal dynasties including [[Austrian Empire|Austria]] (1804–1918; 1804–06 even alongside the Holy Roman Emperor title), [[Empire of Brazil|Brazil]] (1822–1889), [[France]] ([[First French Empire|1804–14, 1815]], [[Second French Empire|1852–70]]), [[German Empire|Germany]] (1871–1918), [[British Raj|India]] (1876–1948) and [[Second Mexican Empire|Mexico]] (1863–1867) with little to no reference to the Roman Empire and did not claim universal hegemony.{{Sfn|Kołodziejczyk|2012|p=189}} The latest tsars of [[Tsardom of Bulgaria (1908–1946)|Bulgaria]] and the basileis of [[Kingdom of Greece|Greece]] were seen as kings rather than emperors.
Line 22:
Because the empire was constantly threatened at critical frontiers to its north and east, the Byzantines were unable to focus much attention to the west and Roman control would slowly disappear in the west once more. Nevertheless, their claim to the universal empire was acknowledged by temporal and religious authorities in the west, even if this empire couldn't be physically restored. [[Visigothic Kingdom|Gothic]] and [[Francia|Frankish]] kings in the fifth and sixth centuries acknowledged the emperor's suzerainty, as a symbolic acknowledgement of membership in the Roman Empire also enhanced their own status and granted them a position in the perceived world order of the time. As such, Byzantine emperors could still perceive the west as the western part of ''their'' empire, momentarily in barbarian hands, but still formally under their control through a system of recognition and honors bestowed on the western kings by the emperor.{{Sfn|Nicol|1967|p=319}}
A decisive geopolitical turning point in the relations between East and West was during the long reign of emperor [[Constantine V]] (741–775). Though Constantine V conducted several successful military campaigns against the enemies of his empire, his efforts were centered on the [[Abbasid Caliphate|Muslims]] and the [[First Bulgarian Empire|Bulgars]], who represented immediate threats. Because of this, the defense of Italy was neglected. The main Byzantine administrative unit in Italy, the [[Exarchate of Ravenna]], fell to the [[Kingdom of the Lombards|Lombards]] in 751, ending the Byzantine presence in northern Italy.{{Sfn|Browning|1992|p=57}} The collapse of the Exarchate had long-standing consequences. The [[popes]], ostensibly [[Byzantine Papacy|Byzantine vassals]], realized that Byzantine support was no longer a guarantee and increasingly began relying on the major kingdom in the West, the Frankish Kingdom, for support against the Lombards. Byzantine possessions throughout Italy, such as [[Venice]] and [[Naples]], began to raise their own militias and effectively became independent. Imperial authority ceased to be exercised in [[Corsica]] and [[Sardinia]] and religious authority in southern Italy was formally transferred by the emperors from the popes to the [[patriarchs of Constantinople]]. The [[Mediterranean world]], interconnected since the days of Roman Empire of old, had been
[[File:Solidus Irene ConstantineVI.jpg|300px|alt=|thumb|Gold [[Solidus (coin)|solidus]] depicting Empress Irene (left) on the obverse, and her son Constantine VI (right) on the reverse.]]
Line 144:
The embracing of the Roman nature of the emperorship in Constantinople would have brought the Latin emperors into conflict with the idea of ''translatio imperii''. Furthermore, the Latin emperors claimed the dignity of ''Deo coronatus'' (as the Byzantine emperors had claimed before them), a dignity the Holy Roman emperors could not claim, being dependent on the Pope for their coronation. Despite the fact that the Latin emperors would have recognized the Holy Roman Empire as ''the'' Roman Empire, they nonetheless claimed a position that was at least equal to that of the Holy Roman emperors.{{Sfn|Van Tricht|2011|p=76}} In 1207–1208, Latin emperor [[Henry of Flanders|Henry]] proposed to marry the daughter of the elected ''rex Romanorum'' in the Holy Roman Empire, Henry VI's brother Philip of Swabia, yet to be crowned emperor due to an ongoing struggle with the rival claimant [[Otto IV, Holy Roman Emperor|Otto of Brunswick]]. Philip's envoys responded that Henry was an ''advena'' (stranger; outsider) and ''solo nomine imperator'' (emperor in name only) and that the marriage proposal would only be accepted if Henry recognized Philip as the ''imperator Romanorum'' and ''suus dominus'' (his master). As no marriage occurred, it is clear that submission to the Holy Roman emperor was not considered an option.{{Sfn|Van Tricht|2011|p=77}}
The emergence of the Latin Empire and the submission of Constantinople to the Catholic Church as facilitated by its emperors altered the idea of ''translatio imperii'' into what was called ''divisio imperii'' (division of empire). The idea, which became accepted by [[Pope Innocent III]], saw the formal recognition of Constantinople as an imperial seat of power and its rulers as legitimate emperors, which could rule in tandem with the already recognized emperors in the West. The idea resulted in that the Latin emperors never attempted to enforce any religious or political authority in the West, but attempted to enforce a hegemonic religious and political position, similar to that held by the Holy Roman emperors in the West, over the lands in Eastern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean, especially in regards to the [[Crusader states]] in the [[Levant]], where the Latin emperors would oppose the local claims of the Holy Roman emperors{{Sfn|Van Tricht|2011|p=77}} and claims of [[Second Bulgarian Empire|Bulgarian]] or
Holy Roman Emperor [[Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor|Frederick II]] later formed an alliance with their rival, [[John III Doukas Vatatzes]] of the [[Nicene Empire]] against the [[Papal State]] which had been in [[Guelphs and Ghibellines|conflict]] with.{{Sfn|Angelov|2019|pp=88–89}}{{Sfn|Korobeinikov|2014|p=43}} Frederick II deposed [[John of Brienne]], who would soon become co-emperor of the Latin Empire, as the [[King of Jerusalem]] in 1225. John of Brienne launched a [[War of the Keys|crusade]] with papal support against the [[History of Swabian Sicily|Hohenstaufen-held Kingdom of Sicily]] in 1229 and become Latin Emperor soon after.{{sfn|Lock|2006|loc=John of Brienne's Crusade in Apulia, 1229|p=171}} Frederick II reportedly supported the Nicene claim to [[Constantinople]]{{Sfn|Angelov|2019|p=89}} and helped John III against a crusade planned by [[Pope Gregory IX]] following a [[Siege of Constantinople (1235)|Nicaean-Bulgarian siege of Constantinople]].{{Sfn|Angelov|2019|pp=89–90}} According to [[Philippe Mouskes]], John III offered [[vassalage]] if the Frederick II conquered [[Constantinople]] for him and expelled Latin Emperor [[Baldwin II, Latin Emperor|Baldwin II]] to France. Such arrangement is seen as unlikely{{Sfn|Angelov|2019|p=271}} and Frederick II rather addressed him as his equal avoiding the term vassal which he had been using for [[Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire)|Italian lords and cities]]{{Sfn|Jovanović|2022|pp=1229f}} but it is seen as probably that John III provided military help in exchange for his claims.{{Sfn|Angelov|2019|p=271}} Frederick II was the only Western sovereign monarch to recognize John III's imperial title.{{Sfn|Korobeinikov|2014|p=43}} Though, even he addressed John III only as ''imperatorem Graecorum illustri'' ("Illustrious Emperor of the Greeks") refusing his Roman claim{{Sfn|Korobeinikov|2014|p=44}} while he insisted to be the Roman Emperor himself{{Sfn|Korobeinikov|2014|p=44}}{{Sfn|Angelov|2019|p=206}} but Frederick II did recognize his people as "[[Rhomaioi|Roman]]".{{Sfn|Angelov|2019|p=206}} [[Pope Gregory X]] denied his imperial title only calling John III a ''nobili viro'' ("noble man").{{Sfn|Giarenis|2019|loc=Politics and rhetoric under John III Vatatzes}}
The Latin Empire was politically unstable. The Greek Orthodox population resisted the new government and sympathized with the new Greek rump states and the Slavic-speaking [[Second Bulgarian Empire]] and [[Kingdom of Serbia (1217–1346)|Kingdom of Serbia]], which tried to profit of the weakness of the Latin Empire or even conquer Constantinople, which eventually happened in 1261.{{Sfn|Grégoire|1941}}
Line 162:
Faced with the Ottoman danger, Michael's successors, prominently [[John V Palaiologos|John V]] and [[Manuel II Palaiologos|Manuel II]], periodically attempted to restore the Union, much to the dismay of their subjects. At the [[Council of Florence]] in 1439, Emperor [[John VIII Palaiologos|John VIII]] reaffirmed the Union in the light of imminent Turkish attacks on what little remained of his empire. To the Byzantine citizens themselves, the Union of the Churches, which had assured the promise of a great western crusade against the Ottomans, was a death warrant for their empire. John VIII had betrayed their faith and as such their entire imperial ideology and world view. The promised [[Crusade of Varna|crusade]], the fruit of John VIII's labor, ended only in disaster as it was defeated by the Turks at the [[Battle of Varna]] in 1444.{{Sfn|Nicol|1967|p=333}}
The last claimant to the Byzantine throne [[Andreas Palaiologos]] transferred his title to [[Charles VIII of France]] and again testimonially to [[Ferdinand II of Aragon]] and [[Isabella I of Castile]] but neither of them actively used the title with [[Charles IX of France]] stopping the usage all together{{Sfn|Foster|2015|p=67}} and the Spanish Crown falling to the Habsburgs.{{Sfn|Witzmann|2023}} Similarly, the last claimant to the Latin Empire [[James of Baux]] transferred his title to [[Louis I of Anjou]] in 1383 who has not use it either
== Eastern disputes ==
Line 169:
{{see also|Byzantine–Bulgarian wars|Latin-Bulgarian Wars}}
[[File:RadzivillChronicleFol21rb.jpg|left|thumb|280px|[[Romanos I Lekapenos]] negotiating with [[Simeon I of Bulgaria]], 15th-century [[Miniature (illuminated manuscript)|miniature]] from the [[Radziwiłł Chronicle]].]]
The dispute between the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire was mostly confined to the realm of diplomacy, never fully exploding into open war. This was probably mainly due to the great geographical distance separating the two empires; a large-scale campaign would have been infeasible to undertake for either emperor.{{Sfn|Nicol|1967|p=325}} Events in Germany, France and the west in general were of little compelling interest to the Byzantines as they firmly believed that the western provinces would eventually be reconquered.{{Sfn|Nicol|1967|p=326}} Of more compelling interest were political developments in their near vicinity and in 913, the ''Knyaz'' (prince or king) of [[First Bulgarian Empire|Bulgaria]], [[Simeon I of Bulgaria|Simeon I]], arrived at the walls of Constantinople with an army. Simeon I's demands were not only that Bulgaria would be recognized as independent from the Byzantine Empire, but that it was to be designated as a new universal empire, absorbing and replacing the universal empire of Constantinople. Because of the threat represented, the Patriarch of Constantinople, [[Nicholas Mystikos]], granted an imperial crown to Simeon. Simeon was designated as the ''Ceasar of the Bulgarians'', not ''of the Romans'' and as such, the diplomatic gesture had been somewhat dishonest.{{Sfn|Nicol|1967|p=325}} ''Caesar'' had been replaced by ''Basileus'' and later other titles and devalued in Byzantium over the years as it was
The Byzantines soon discovered that Simeon was in fact titling himself as not only the ''Ceasar of the Bulgarians'', but as the ''Basileus of the Bulgarians and the Romans''.{{Sfn|Cholakov|2024|p=40}} The problem was solved when Simeon died in 927 and his son and successor, Peter I, simply adopted ''Emperor of the Bulgarians'' as a show of submission to the universal empire of Constantinople.{{Sfn|Nicol|1967|p=326}} Byzantine emperor [[Romanos I Lekapenos]] recognized the Bulgarian patriarchate soon after thus the Bulgarian Church became the sixth patriarchate joining the [[Pentarchy|older five]].{{Sfn|Dimitrov|2010|p=51}} By 1018, Bulgaria was [[Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria|conquered]] by the Byzantines and the [[Second Bulgarian Empire|tsardom]] was restored over a century later in 1186.{{Sfn|Geier|2001|pp=60f}} The dispute, deriving from Simeon's claim, would on occasion be revived by strong Bulgarian monarchs who once more adopted the title of ''Emperor of the Bulgarians and the Romans'', such as [[Kaloyan of Bulgaria|Kaloyan]] ({{Reign}}1196–1207) and [[Ivan Asen II of Bulgaria|Ivan Asen II]] ({{Reign}}1218–1241).{{Sfn|Nicol|1967|p=326}}
Line 181:
{{see also|Byzantine–Georgian wars|Style of the Georgian sovereign}}
[[File:Coin of Giorgi II king of GEORGIA.jpg|thumb|left|Coin of George II which reads: "God preserve Giorgi, King of the Abkhazians and K'artl'i, Caesar"]]
In 994, [[Gurgen of Iberia]] adopted the title ''mepet [[mepe]]'' ("[[King of Kings]]"){{sfn|Rayfield|2013|p=69}} and was granted "[[magistros]]" by the Byzantines, his son meanwhile [[Bagrat III of Georgia]] who united [[Kingdom of Georgia|Georgia]] in 1008 only became a "[[kouropalates]]".{{sfn|Rayfield|2013|p=71}} In 1010, Catholicos [[Melchizedek I of Georgia|Melchizedek I]] assumed the title "Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia".{{sfn|Grdzelidze|2012|p=61}} The Georgian kings were inspired by the Persian King of Kings (''[[Shahanshah]]''){{Sfn|Rapp|1997|p=163}} and were as such the king over
In 1651, king [[Alexander III of Imereti]] swore allegiance to tsar [[Alexis of Russia]] calling himself ''tsar'' and Alexis ''Tsar and Grand Prince […] of all Russia, autocrat in all his sovereign will''.{{sfn|Bronevskiy|2004|p=295}} In the [[Treaty of Georgievsk]] (1783), which turned the Georgian [[Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti]] into a Russian protectorate, [[Catherine the Great]] is referred to as ''Her Imperial Majesty'' and King [[Heraclius II of Georgia|Heraclius II]] as ''His Serene Highness Tsar''.{{Sfn|Martin|1830}}
=== Byzantine rump states ===
{{see also|Struggle for Constantinople|Byzantine–Trapezuntine treaty of 1282}}
[[File:Epirus 1205-1230-en.svg|right|thumb|300px|Expansion of the [[Despotate of Epirus]] and [[Empire of Thessalonica]] until 1230.]]
Following the Fourth Crusade in 1204, there had also been multiple Byzantine [[Pretender#Byzantine Empire|pretenders]] including [[Alexios Aspietes]]{{Sfn|Burkhardt|2014|p=211}} but none of these rump states were able to gain the military strength of other major powers of that time.{{Sfn|Burkhardt|2014|p=225}} The loss of Constantinople was seen as the main problem rather than the existence of multiple emperors.{{Sfn|Burkhardt|2014|p=212}} The
In 1225 or 1227, the [[Despot of Epirus]] [[Theodore Komnenos Doukas]] was crowned by [[Archbishop of Ohrid]] [[Demetrios Chomatenos]].{{sfn|Fine|1994|p=120}}{{Sfn|Burkhardt|2014|p=225}} This state was given the name [[Empire of Thessalonica]] by historians. Demetrios claimed that the [[Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople|Patriarchate of Constantinople]] ceased to exist with the death of [[John X of Constantinople|John X]] in 1206 and argued that the [[Archbishopric of Ohrid]] (or [[Archbishopric of Justiniana Prima|Justiniana Prima]]) ranked higher than Nicaea only seeing the Patriarch residing in Nicaea [[Germanus II of Constantinople|Germanus II]] as a regular bishop.{{sfn|Fine|1994|p=120}} This resulted to a schism between Nicaea and Thessalonica.{{sfn|Fine|1994|pp=121}} The Emperor of Nicaea [[John III Doukas Vatatzes]] was willing to name Theodore Komnenos Doukas co-emperor if he recognized his supremacy, which Theodore refused.{{Sfn|Burkhardt|2014|p=213}} Fearing an attack by Theodore, the Latin Empire and the Nicene Empire reached a temporary truce.{{sfn|Fine|1994|p=123}} Theodore's attempt to capture Constantinople failed at the [[Battle of Klokotnitsa]] against the [[Second Bulgarian Empire|Bulgarian Empire]] where he was
Additionally, the [[Empire of Trebizond]] was formed in 1204 by [[Alexios I of Trebizond|Alexios I]] and [[David Komnenos|David]] with support from [[Tamar of Georgia]]. They were members of the [[Komnenos]] dynasty which was deposed in 1185.{{Sfn|Angeliki|2002}} Trebizond was more remote than Nicaea{{Sfn|Vasilev|1936|p=3}} and was constantly threatened by the [[Sultanate of Rum]].{{sfn|Eastmond|2004|p=2}} Trebizond soon came into conflict with Nicene emperor [[Theodore I Laskaris]], after this David declared himself vassal of the Latin Empire.{{Sfn|Vasilev|1936|p=23}} Thus, they abandoned their plans on conquering Constantinople.{{Sfn|Vasilev|1936|p=33}} [[William Miller (historian)|William Miller]] speculated that "nominal Latin suzerainty" was preferential to annexation by the Nicaeans.<ref>{{harvnb|Vasilev|1936|p=24}}, citing {{harvnb|Miller|1926|p=17}}.</ref> [[Niketas Choniates]] called the Trapezuntine emperors in his Panegyric of Theodore I Laskaris "lads of the Pontus". Different Palaiologan chronicles described them as rulers, princes or tyrants. [[Antony Eastmond]] states that "in Palaiologan historiography, Trebizond was neither an empire nor even a Greek state at all."{{sfn|Eastmond|2004|pp=24f}} The Emperors of Trebizond continued to use the imperial title even after the restoration of the Byzantine Empire by the Nicene emperors in 1261. In 1282, Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII proposed [[John II of Trebizond]] to use the title despot instead and cease using the imperial insignia in return for a marriage with his daughter [[Eudokia Palaiologina]]. John II did not adopt the title though but changed his title from ''pistos basileus kai autokrator ton Romaíon'' ("Faithful Basileus and Autocrat of the Romans") to ''en Christoi to theo pistos basil kai autokrator pásis Anatolís, Ivíron kai Perateías'' ("Faithful to Lord Christ Basileus and Autocrat of all the East, [[Kartli|Iberia]] and [[Perateia]]") referring to the territory of his realm and removing direct mentions of the Romans. In 1461, the Empire of Trebizond ended.{{Sfn|Angeliki|2002}}
== Early Modern Period ==
Line 205 ⟶ 203:
Contemporaries within the Ottoman Empire recognized Mehmed's assumption of the imperial title and his claim to world domination. The historian [[Michael Critobulus]] described the sultan as "emperor of emperors", "autocrat" and "Lord of the Earth and the sea according to God's will". In a letter to the [[doge of Venice]], Mehmed was described by his courtiers as the "emperor". Other titles were sometimes used as well, such as "grand duke" and "prince of the Turkish Romans".{{Sfn|Süß|2019}} The citizens of Constantinople and the former Byzantine Empire (which still identified as "Romans" and not "Greeks" until modern times) saw the Ottoman Empire as still representing their empire, the universal empire; the imperial capital was still Constantinople and its ruler, Mehmed II, was the ''basileus''.{{Sfn|Nicol|1967|p=334}}
As with the Byzantine emperors before them, the imperial status of the Ottoman sultans was primarily expressed through the refusal to recognize the Holy Roman emperors as equal rulers. In diplomacy, the western emperors were titled as ''kıral'' (kings) of Vienna or Hungary.{{Sfn|Süß|2019}} This practice had been cemented and reinforced by the [[Treaty of Constantinople (1533)|Treaty of Constantinople]] in 1533, signed by the Ottoman Empire (under [[Suleiman the Magnificent|Suleiman I]]) and the [[Archduchy of Austria]] (as represented by [[Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor|Ferdinand I]] on behalf of [[Emperor Charles V]]), wherein it was agreed that Ferdinand I was to be considered as the king of Germany and Charles V as the king of Spain. These titles were considered to be equal in rank to the Ottoman Empire's [[Grand vizier of the Ottoman Empire|grand vizier]], subordinate to the imperial title held by the sultan. The treaty also banned its signatories to count anyone as an emperor except the Ottoman sultan.{{Sfn|Shaw|1976|p=94}} From 1547, the Austrians had to pay tribute similar to Ottoman vassals which the Habsburgs called ''Ehrengeschenk'' (honorary gift) to downplay it.{{Sfn|Strohmeyer|2013|p=100}}
In 1525, the Ottoman court ceased to issue official documents in scripts other than Arabic, a further step towards Islamic political identity. Translations of official documents continued to be made and issued by lower officials and governors, and for diplomatic purposes, though these did not carry the [[tughra]] (the sultan's signature).{{Sfn|Kołodziejczyk|2012|p=|pp=187–188}} This meant that titles such as ''basileus'' and ''imperator'' ceased to be used officially by the sultans themselves,{{Sfn|Kołodziejczyk|2012|p=|pp=187–188}} who instead mostly used only {{lang|ota-Latn|sultan}} and/or {{lang|ota-Latn|padişah}}.{{Sfn|Strauss|2010|pp=32, 43}} The sultans continued to deny other monarchs the style of {{lang|ota-Latn|padişah}} in diplomatic correspondence, which meant that the implications of their imperial role was not forgotten.{{Sfn|Kołodziejczyk|2012|p=|pp=187–188}} Ottoman sultans after Suleiman I at times still stressed that they were Roman emperors{{Efn|[[Ahmed I]] ({{Reign|1603|1607}}) referred to himself as {{lang|ota-Latn|sahib-kıran-i memalik-i-Rûm ve 'Acem ve 'Arab}} ("the lord of the fortunate conjunction of the Roman, Persian and Arab kingdoms").{{Sfn|Kołodziejczyk|2012|p=182}} [[Mehmed IV]] ({{Reign|1648|1687}}) used the style {{lang|ota-Latn|ferman-ferma-yi memalik-i-Rûm ve 'Arab ve 'Acem}} ("the one who issues orders to the Roman, Arab and Persian kingdoms").{{Sfn|Kołodziejczyk|2012|p=182}}}} and the style {{lang|ota-Latn|kayser}} or {{lang|ota-Latn|kayser-i Rûm}} remained in use as late as the eighteenth century.{{Sfn|Kumar|2017|p=89}} Greek-language translations of official Ottoman documents continued to style the sultans as ''basileus''{{Sfn|Strauss|1999|p=217}} until 1876,{{Sfn|Strauss|2010|pp=32, 43}} when the official Greek translation of the Ottoman constitution ({{lang|ota-Latn|[[Kanun-i esasi]]}}) established that the terms sultan ({{lang|el|σουλτάνος}}, {{lang|el-Latn|soultanos}}) and {{lang|ota-Latn|padişah}} ({{lang|el|παδισαχ}}, {{lang|el-Latn|padisach}}) were to be used.{{Sfn|Strauss|2010|pp=32, 43}}▼
The problem of two emperors and the dispute between the Holy Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire would be finally resolved after the two empires signed a peace treaty following a string of Ottoman defeats. In the 1606 [[Peace of Zsitvatorok]] Ottoman sultan [[Ahmed I]], for the first time in his empire's history, formally recognized the Holy Roman Emperor [[Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor|Rudolf II]] with the title ''császár'' (Hungarian for Ceasar) rather than ''kıral''.{{sfn|Kołodziejczyk|2012|p=188}}{{Sfn|Fazakas|Fegyveresi|Veress|2021|p=67}} For a last payment of 200,000 Gulden, the Sublime Porte's annual tribute demands were stopped.{{Sfn|Floiger}} Ahmed made sure to write "like a father to a son", symbolically emphasizing that the eastern empire retained some primacy over its western counterpart.{{Sfn|Süß|2019}} The Ottoman Empire later shifted towards ''imperator'' or ''imperador'' which fell out of use by the Ottoman sultans at this point and was not associated with him anymore.{{sfn|Kołodziejczyk|2012|p=188}} In the Ottoman Empire itself, the idea that the sultan was a universal ruler lingered on despite his recognition of the Holy Roman emperor as an equal. Writing in 1798, the [[Greek Orthodox patriarch of Jerusalem]], [[Anthemus of Jerusalem|Anthemus]], saw the Ottoman Empire as imposed by God himself as the supreme empire on Earth and something which had arisen due to the dealings of the Palaiologan emperors with the western Christians:{{Sfn|Nicol|1967|p=334}}{{Cquote
| quote = Behold how our merciful and omniscient Lord has managed to preserve the integrity of our holy Orthodox faith and to save (us) all; he brought forth out of nothing the powerful Empire of the Ottomans, which he set up in the place of our Empire of the Romaioi, which had begun in some ways to deviate from the path of the Orthodox faith; and he raised this Empire of the Ottomans above every other in order to prove beyond doubt that it came into being by the will of God .... For there is no authority except that deriving from God.
}}
Ottoman administrative documents continued to call the Roman-German emperors "Kings of Vienna" up to the early 18th century. Nevertheless it was an important step to equality in foreign politics. The treaty was reaffirmed multiple times for example by the [[Treaty of Karlowitz]] in 1699.{{Sfn|Strohmeyer|2013|p=100}}
=== Holy Roman–Russian dispute ===
Line 217 ⟶ 214:
By the time of the first embassy from the Holy Roman Empire to [[Russian Tsardom|Russia]] in 1488, "the two-emperor problem had [already] translated to Moscow."{{sfn|Wilson|2016|p=153}} In 1472, [[Ivan III of Russia|Ivan III]], [[Grand Prince of Moscow]], married the niece of the last Byzantine emperor, [[Zoe Palaiologina]], and informally declared himself ''[[tsar]]'' (emperor) of all the Russian principalities. In 1480, he stopped paying tribute to the [[Golden Horde]] and adopted the imperial [[double-headed eagle]] as one of his symbols. A distinct Russian theory of ''translatio imperii'' was developed by Abbot [[Philotheus of Pskov]]. In this doctrine, the first Rome fell to heresy (Catholicism) and the second Rome (Constantinople) to the infidel (Ottomans), but [[Moscow, third Rome|the third Rome (Moscow)]] would endure until the end of the world.{{sfn|Wilson|2016|pp=152–155}}
In 1488, Ivan III demanded recognition of his title as the equivalent of emperor, but this was refused by the Holy Roman emperor [[Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor|Frederick III]] and other western European rulers. [[Ivan IV of Russia|Ivan IV]] went even further in his imperial claims. He [[The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir|claimed descent]] from the first Roman emperor, [[Augustus]], and at his [[Coronation of the Russian monarch|coronation]] as the [[tsar of all Russia]] in 1547, he used the [[Church Slavonic language|Slavic]] translation of the Byzantine coronation service and what he claimed was Byzantine [[Regalia of the Russian tsars|regalia]].{{sfn|Wilson|2016|pp=152–155}} Around this time, Ivan IV stopped using the term "brother" towards other kings and only saw the Holy Roman Emperor and the Ottoman Sultan as equal.{{sfn|Anderson|1993|p=20}} [[Kingdom of England|England]], Denmark and initially Sweden were the first to recognize Ivan IV as tsar.{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|p=56}} The [[Treaty of Cardis]] of 1661 obliged Sweden to use the title Tsar after Sweden rejected the title again.{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|p=100}} King [[Louis XIII]] of France recognized [[Michael of Russia]] as the "Head of the Eastern Hemisphere" and ''Empereur'' in 1629.{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|pp=81f}} The Papacy itself was willing to recognize the Russian tsar as ''imperator'' if they agreed to a communion{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|p=65}} and avoided calling him a "Grand Prince" instead opting for ''Domino Russiae''. [[Feodor I of Russia]] was recognized as a ''czar'' in 1594.{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|pp=67–69}} In 1673, [[Paul Menesius]] advised [[Pope Clement X]] to refer to the Russian sovereign as ''tsar'' as he argued that it is the Russian word for "ruler" similar to other regional titles like "caliph" or "sherif" rather than meaning "Caesar".{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|pp=106f}} With France in 1745, all major Western kingdoms recognized [[Peter the Great|Peter I]] new official title ''imperator''.{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|p=122}}
According to [[Marshall Poe]], the Third Rome theory first spread among clerics, and for much of its early history still regarded Moscow subordinate to Constantinople (''[[Tsargrad]]''), a position also held by Ivan IV.{{sfn|Poe|1997|p=6}} Poe argues that Philotheus' doctrine of Third Rome may have been mostly forgotten in Russia, relegated to the [[Old Believers]], until shortly before the development of [[Pan-Slavism]]. Hence the idea could not have directly influenced the foreign policies of Peter and Catherine, though those tsars did compare themselves to the Romans. An expansionist version of Third Rome reappeared primarily after the coronation of [[Alexander II of Russia|Alexander II]] in 1855, a lens through which later Russian writers would re-interpret Early Modern Russia, arguably anachronistically.{{sfn|Poe|1997|pp=4-7}}
[[File:Religie w I Rz-plitej 1573.svg|thumb|right|Green: primarily Eastern Orthodox regions in Poland-Lithuania (1573)]]
The Moscovian grand princes added "[[Sovereign of all Russia|of all Russia]]" to their title marking the goal of "[[Gathering of the Russian lands|gathering the Russian lands]]" under their rule including Lithuanian territories{{sfn|De Madariaga|2006|p=16}} and the [[Polish–Lithuanian union]] became an obstacle for agreements with Russia.{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|
The emperors of the HRE at first only recognized them as ''Zar von Kazan und Astrachan'' ("Tsar of Kazan and Astrakhan"). In 1576, after long complaints [[Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor|Maximilian II]]
▲The Moscovian grand princes added "[[Sovereign of all Russia|of all Russia]]" to their title marking the goal of "[[Gathering of the Russian lands|gathering the Russian lands]]" under their rule including Lithuanian territories{{sfn|De Madariaga|2006|p=16}} and the [[Polish–Lithuanian union]] became an obstacle for agreements with Russia.{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|p=67}} In 1549, Russia and Poland–Lithuania agreed to use "Grand Prince" in the Polish text and "Tsar" in the Russian text for a peace treaty.{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|p=58}} During the negotiations of the [[Truce of Yam-Zapolsky]] (1582), Jesuit [[Antonio Possevino]], who served as mediator, rejected the title ''tsar'' or ''emperor'' as could only be granted by the pope and that the "single Emperor of the Christians" was brought back into the West when the Byzantine emperor became "less loyal" with the Russian delegation replying with the claim that the Grand Prince [[Vladimir the Great]] was granted the title by [[Arcadius]] and [[Honorius]] which he dismissed. Possevino also rejected the second offer by Moscow to use the title "Tsar of Kazan and Astrakhan" assuming that the Polish king would not accept a "Turkish or Tatar" title "Tsar of the Tatars" to be used by a Christian ruler, apparently not being aware of the origin of ''tsar''. Only in the Russian version of the treaty is the Tsar referred to as such.{{sfn|De Madariaga|2006|pp=338f}} In 1610, [[Władysław IV Vasa|Władysław]] was elected tsar and claimed it even after he was elected King of Poland until 1634.{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|p=125}} In the [[Polish-Russian Peace Treaty (1686)|Treaty of Perpetual Peace of 1686]], Russia was officially recognized as a tsardom by Poland.{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|p=114}} Poland only recognize the title ''imperator'' in 1764.{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|p=122}}
▲The emperors HRE at first only recognized them as ''Zar von Kazan und Astrachan'' ("Tsar of Kazan and Astrakhan"). In 1576, after long complaints [[Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor|Maximilian II]] generally recognized Ivan IV as tsar.{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|p=69}} In the [[Peace of Westphalia]] (1648), Russian tsar was referred to as ''Magnus dux Moscoviae'' against their wishes.{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|p=98}} Prior to the [[Grand Embassy of Peter the Great|embassy of Peter the Great in 1697–1698]], the tsarist government had a poor understanding of the Holy Roman Empire and its constitution. Under Peter, use of the double-headed eagle increased and other less Byzantine symbols of the Roman past were adopted, as when the tsar was portrayed as an ancient emperor on coins minted after the [[Battle of Poltava]] in 1709. The [[Great Northern War]] brought Russia into alliance with several north German princes and Russian troops fought in northern Germany. In 1718, Peter published a letter sent to Tsar [[Vasily III]] by the Holy Roman emperor [[Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor|Maximilian I]] dated 4 August 1514 in which the emperor addressed the Russian as ''Kaiser'' (spelled ''Kayser'') and implicitly his equal.{{sfn|Napier|Browne|1842|p=579}} In October 1721, he took the title ''imperator'' to avoid translation as ''rex''.{{Sfn|F.R.|2010|p=160}} The Holy Roman emperors refused to recognise this new title; it was pointed out that the letter from Maximilian was the only example of using the "Kaiser" title for Russian monarchs. Peter's proposal that the Russian and German monarchs alternate as premier rulers in Europe was also rejected. The Emperor [[Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor|Charles VI]], supported by France, insisted that there could only be one emperor.{{sfn|Wilson|2016|pp=152–155}} Despite the alliance between Charles VI and [[Catherine I of Russia]] formally concluded in 1726, it was specifically stipulated that Russian monarch was not to use the imperial title in correspondence with the Holy Roman Emperor,{{sfn|Steppan|2016|p=88}} and the alliance treaty omits any references thereto with Charles VI being referred as ''Suae Sacrae Caesareae et Regiae Catholicae Majestatis'' ("His Sacred Caesarian and Royal Catholic Majesty") and Catherine I as ''Suae Sacrae Totius Russiae Majestatis'' ("Her Sacred Majesty of All Russia").{{sfn|Martens|1874|pp=32–44}}
The reason for gradual acceptance of the Russian claims was the [[War of the Austrian Succession]], where both sides attempted to draw Russia towards them. In 1742, the Vienna court of [[Maria Theresa]] formally recognized the Russian imperial title, though without admitting the Russian ruler's parity. Her rival, the Emperor [[Charles VII, Holy Roman Emperor|Charles VII]], upon his coronation in 1742 initially refused to acknowledge Russian pretensions. However, by the end of 1743 the course of the war and the influence of [[Prussia]]n allies (which had recognized Russian imperial title almost immediately in 1721) convinced him that some form of recognition had to be offered. This was done in early 1744; however, in this case Charles VII only acted in his capacity as a Bavarian elector and not as a Holy Roman Emperor.{{sfn|Lodge|1930|p=599}} By the time of his death, the issue still had not been formally settled at the imperial level. It was only in 1745 that the imperial electoral college acknowledged Russian claims, which were then confirmed in the document produced by the newly elected emperor [[Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor|Francis I]] (Maria Theresa's husband) and formally ratified by the [[Imperial Diet (Holy Roman Empire)|Reichstag]] in 1746.{{sfn|Petrova|2022|pp=43–59}}{{sfn|Petrova|2021|pp=89–109}}{{sfn|Hoffmann|1988|p=180}}
Line 230 ⟶ 227:
=== Ottoman–Russian dispute ===
{{see also|Russo-Turkish wars|Russo-Crimean Wars|15th–16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism}}
{{multiple image
| perrow = 2
Line 246 ⟶ 243:
Both the [[Tsardom of Russia]] (and later [[Russian Empire]]) and the [[Ottoman Empire]] claimed the succession of the Byzantine Empire specifically. In 1547, [[Ivan IV of Russia|Ivan IV]] crowned himself tsar claiming both the political and religious succession of the Byzantine Empire as part of their own ''[[translatio imperii]]'' of the [[Moscow, third Rome|Third Rome]].{{sfn|Asche|2023|p=204}} By the 1570s, Tsar Ivan IV stopped using the term "brother" towards other kings and only saw the Holy Roman Emperor and the Ottoman Sultan as equal.{{sfn|Anderson|1993|p=20}}
The [[Rus' people|Rus']] began to distinguish between the Byzantine Emperor who was the tsar for the Orthodox church and the Khan of the [[Golden Horde]] who was the tsar for the princes.{{sfn|Eloeva|2006|p=164}}{{sfn|Vásáry|2014|p=264}} Under the reign of Grand Prince [[Ivan III of Russia|Ivan III]], [[Vassian Patrikeyev]] argued that Ivan III should wield the title tsar and not the khans and compared him to [[Vladimir the Great]] and [[Dmitry Donskoy]].{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|p=23}} In 1480, Moscowy gained independence from the Golden Horde with the [[Great Stand on the Ugra River]] allowing the Grand Prince adopted the title ''samoderzec'' (in Greek ''autokrator'') in 1492.{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|p=20}} When Ivan IV conquered the khanates of [[Khanate of Kazan|Kazan]] and [[Astrakhan Khanate|Astrakhan]], he assumed the titles "Tsar of Kazan and Astrakhan". He replaced their rulers not as a khan but as a ruler of an Orthodox tsardom, how {{ill|Vadim Vyntserovych Trepavlov|lt=V. V. Trepavlov|ru|Трепавлов, Вадим Винцерович}} described it.<ref>{{harvnb|Sashalmi|2022|p=31}}, citing {{harvnb|Trepavlov|2007|p=107}}.</ref> The Crimean khans saw themselves as the successors of the Khans of the Golden Horde thus inheriting Russia as their "vassal" and became the only intermediary between the Kremlin and the Sublime Porte.{{sfn|Bennigsen|1986|p=198}} They had been Ottoman vassals themselves
The Moscovite church opposed the short-lived union between the Byzantine and Latin churches after the [[Council of Florence]] and argued that the [[Fall of Constantinople]] (1453) was divine punishment for it. Moscow then began to saw themselves as the center of the Christian world as part of their "Third Rome" ideology.{{sfn|Shevzov|2012|p=19}} The Moscovite church soon became de facto autocephalous, their metropolitans were not appointed by Constantinople anymore and acted politically independent.{{sfn|Shevzov|2012|p=20}} [[Gennadius Scholarius]] was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople by Sultan [[Mehmed II]] in accordance to Byzantine tradition.{{sfn|Süß|2019}} It is recorded that from at least 1474, the Economical Patriarchate referred to the sultan as ''basileus''.{{Sfn|Çolak|2014|p=8}} In 1561, the Patriarch of Constantinople blessed Ivan IV's right to the title ''tsar''.{{sfn|De Madariaga|2006|p=52}} In 1589, the [[Moscow Patriarchate]] was accepted by Constantinople{{sfn|Shevzov|2012|p=19}} gaining official autocephaly from Constantinople.{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|p=16}}
▲Ivan III called the Sultan a tsar. This changed with [[Vasili III of Russia]] but [[Selim I]] preferred the [[Ottoman Caliphate|caliph title]] anyway.{{sfn|Von Reiche|2001|pp=39f}} In 1525, the Ottoman court ceased to issue official documents in scripts other than Arabic, a further step towards Islamic political identity. Translations of official documents continued to be made and issued by lower officials and governors, and for diplomatic purposes, though these did not carry the [[tughra]] (the sultan's signature).{{Sfn|Kołodziejczyk|2012|p=|pp=187–188}} This meant that titles such as ''basileus'' and ''imperator'' ceased to be used officially by the sultans themselves,{{Sfn|Kołodziejczyk|2012|p=|pp=187–188}} who instead mostly used only {{lang|ota-Latn|sultan}} and/or {{lang|ota-Latn|padişah}}.{{Sfn|Strauss|2010|pp=32, 43}} The sultans continued to deny other monarchs the style of {{lang|ota-Latn|padişah}} in diplomatic correspondence, which meant that the implications of their imperial role was not forgotten.{{Sfn|Kołodziejczyk|2012|p=|pp=187–188}} Ottoman sultans after Suleiman I at times still stressed that they were Roman emperors{{Efn|[[Ahmed I]] ({{Reign|1603|1607}}) referred to himself as {{lang|ota-Latn|sahib-kıran-i memalik-i-Rûm ve 'Acem ve 'Arab}} ("the lord of the fortunate conjunction of the Roman, Persian and Arab kingdoms").{{Sfn|Kołodziejczyk|2012|p=182}} [[Mehmed IV]] ({{Reign|1648|1687}}) used the style {{lang|ota-Latn|ferman-ferma-yi memalik-i-Rûm ve 'Arab ve 'Acem}} ("the one who issues orders to the Roman, Arab and Persian kingdoms").{{Sfn|Kołodziejczyk|2012|p=182}}}} and the style {{lang|ota-Latn|kayser}} or {{lang|ota-Latn|kayser-i Rûm}} remained in use as late as the eighteenth century.{{Sfn|Kumar|2017|p=89}} Greek-language translations of official Ottoman documents continued to style the sultans as ''basileus''{{Sfn|Strauss|1999|p=217}} until 1876,{{Sfn|Strauss|2010|pp=32, 43}} when the official Greek translation of the Ottoman constitution ({{lang|ota-Latn|[[Kanun-i esasi]]}}) established that the terms sultan ({{lang|el|σουλτάνος}}, {{lang|el-Latn|soultanos}}) and {{lang|ota-Latn|padişah}} ({{lang|el|παδισαχ}}, {{lang|el-Latn|padisach}}) were to be used.{{Sfn|Strauss|2010|pp=32, 43}}
According to {{ill|Alexey Andreevich Novoselskyy|lt=A. A. Novoselskyy|ru|Новосельский, Алексей Андреевич}}, the Ottomans agreed to the title tsar in 1643 after the [[Siege of Azov (1637–1642)|Siege of Azov]]<ref>{{harvnb|Bennigsen|1986|p=194}}, citing {{harvnb|Novoselskyy|1948|pp=325f}}.</ref> but already Sultan [[Selim II]] addressed Tsar Ivan IV as ''Moskov kıralı sar'' ("Moscovian king tsar").{{sfn|Kołodziejczyk|2012|p=188}} [[Halil İnalcık]] argues that ''sar'' or ''çar'' did not mean "Caesar" to the Ottomans.<ref>{{harvnb|Kołodziejczyk|2012|p=188}}, citing {{harvnb|İnalcık|1993|p=383}}.</ref> The Ottoman sultans usually referred to them as ''Moskov kıralı'' ("Moscovian king") or ''Moskov çarı'' ("Moscovian tsar"),{{Sfn|Halenko|2009|p=490}} the latter being used Treaty of Constantinople of 1700.{{Sfn|Directorate of State Archives|2019|pp=43–48}} The Ottoman Empire shifted from Muscovy to Russia when they recognized [[Elizabeth of Russia|Elizabeth I]] as ''tamamen Rusiya imparatoriça'' ("Imperator of All of Russia") in 1741,{{Sfn|Halenko|2009|p=490}} by then ''imperator'' lost its association to the Ottoman sultans.{{sfn|Kołodziejczyk|2012|p=188}} From 1774, the Ottoman sultan had to officially recognize the Russian emperor as ''padişah'' according to article 13 of the [[Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca]]. Crimea was declared independent allowing Russia [[Annexation of the Crimean Khanate by the Russian Empire|to annex their old rival in 1783]].{{sfn|Findley|2010|loc=chpt. 1}} In return, their [[Ottoman Caliphate|caliphate]] was verified as the Ottomans needed Islamic legitimization{{Sfn|Demir|2016|p=396}} but it was purely spiritual. The Russian Empire later argued that the treaty gives them the rights to protect all [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Orthodox]] [[Christianity in the Ottoman Empire|Christians within the Ottoman Empire]].{{sfn|Findley|2010|loc=chpt. 1}} In 1780, Empress [[Catherine the Great]] called for the invasion of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of a [[Greek Plan|new Greek Empire]] or restored Eastern Roman Empire rules by her grandson [[Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich of Russia|Konstantin Pavlovich]] as their own emperor,{{Sfn|Sinelschikova|2018}} for which purposes an alliance was made between [[Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor|Joseph II]]'s Holy Roman Empire and Catherine II's Russian Empire.{{sfn|Beales|1987|p=432}} Even during [[World War I]], Russia had interests in conquering Constantinople and in 1915, the [[Triple Entente|Entente]] agreed to give the city to the Russians in case of a victory as part of the [[Constantinople Agreement]]. The [[Russian Revolution]] and the collapse of the tsardom in 1917 ended the dream.{{sfn|Üre|2018}}
==Holy Roman–Leonese dispute==
{{further|Imperator totius Hispaniae}}
Beginning in the 14th century, various chronicles record an 11th-century dispute over the imperial title between the Holy Roman Emperor and King [[Ferdinand I of León]], who is known to have used the title 'emperor' (''imperator'') from at least 1056. The details of the dispute as recorded in the chronicles are clearly legendary. They include the king of France demanding tribute from León and [[El Cid]] declaring war on emperor, pope and French king.{{sfn|García Gallo|1945|pp=
In the 16th century, the Jesuit historian [[Juan de Mariana]] gave a fuller and more plausible account of the supposed 11th-century dispute. At the {{ill|lt=Council of Florence|Council of Florence (1055|it|Concilio di Firenze (1055)}} in 1055, according to Mariana, the Emperor [[Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor|Henry III]] urged Pope [[Pope Victor II|Victor II]] to prohibit under severe penalties the use of the imperial title by Ferdinand.<ref>{{harvnb|García Gallo|1945|p=214}}, citing {{harvnb|Menéndez Pidal1929|pp=137–138}}, and {{harvnb|López Ortiz|1942|pp=43–46}}.</ref> This story is generally regarded as apocryphal, although some modern authors have seen a kernel of historical truth in it. {{ill|Antonio Ballesteros Beretta|es}} argued that Ferdinand adopted the title in opposition to Henry III's imperial pretensions. {{ill|Edmund Ernst Stengel|de}} believed the version found in Mariana on the grounds that the latter probably used the now lost acts of the Council of Florence.{{sfn|García Gallo|1945|p=226}} [[Ernst Steindorff]] accepted it as an authentic transmission of the ''[[romancero]]'' tradition.<ref>{{harvnb|García Gallo|1945|p=226}}, citing {{harvnb|Steindorff|1881|pp=484ff}}.</ref>
The 13th century [[Estoria de España]] claims that the imperial title of [[Alfonso VII of León and Castile]] was confirmed by the pope which is not backed up by contemporary documents which only call him ''rex''.{{sfn|García Gallo|1945|p=220}} The ''Annales Cameracenses'' (1159) refer to "Our Emperor" (HRE), the "Emperor of Constantinople" (Byzantium) and the "Emperor of Galicia" (Castile–León) in contrast to the kings of Gaul (France) and England.{{sfn|García Gallo|1945|loc=p. 220, p. 227 nr. 97}}
==Iconography==
Line 315 ⟶ 316:
from:900 till:1800 color:orange align:center text: "[[Holy Roman Empire]]" width:6
from:962 till:1250 color:orange align:center
from:1250 till:
from:
bar:wars2 color:wars
Line 394 ⟶ 395:
*{{Cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/bwb_P8-DFH-849 |title=Turco–Tatar Past Soviet Present |last=Bennigsen |first=Alexandee |publisher=Editions Peeters |year=1986 |isbn=9068310585}}
*{{Byzantium Confronts the West}}
* {{cite book|last=Bronevskiy|first=Semyon|author-link=:ru:Броневский, Семён Михайлович|year=2004|title=Новейшия Известия о Кавказе, собранныя и пополненныя Семеном Броневским|publisher={{ill|Петербургское Востоковедение|ru}}|isbn=9785858032847|url=http://apsnyteka.org/file/Bronevskiy_S_M_-_Noveyshie_izvestia_o_Kavkaze.pdf|lang=ru|editor-last=Pavlova|editor-first=Irina Konstantinovna}}
*{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qAlcKDsubMgC |title=The Byzantine Empire |edition=Revised |last=Browning |first=Robert |publisher=CUA Press |year=1992 |isbn=978-0-8132-0754-4 }}
*{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cb3mBQAAQBAJ|lang=de|title=Mediterranes Kaisertum und imperiale Ordnungen: Das lateinische Kaiserreich von Konstantinopel|first=Stefan|last=Burkhardt|isbn=9783050064871|year=2014|publisher=Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG }}
*{{Cite book|last=Cholakov|first=Petar|section=The Influence of Roman Law on Medieval Bulgarian Legislation|title=Constitutional Moments: Founding Myths, Charters and Constitutions through History|publisher=BRILL|year=2024|url=https://books.google.de/books?id=EOn7EAAAQBAJ|isbn=9789004549159|pages=32–50|editor-first=Xavier|editor-last=Gil}}
*{{Cite book |last=Çolak |first=Hasan |title=Frontiers of the Ottoman Imagination: Studies in Honour of Rhoads Murphey |publisher=Brill |year=2014 |isbn=978-9004283510 |editor-last=Hadjianastasis |editor-first=Marios |location=Leiden |chapter=''Tekfur'', ''fasiliyus'' and ''kayser'': Disdain, Negligence and Appropriation of Byzantine Imperial Titulature in the Ottoman World |chapter-url=https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004283510/B9789004283510_003.xml|chapter-url-access=subscription|url=https://books.google.de/books?id=luVTBQAAQBAJ}}
*{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.de/books?id=xdFVn1v3FMUC |title=Ivan the Terrible |last=De Madariaga |first=Isabel |author-link=Isabel de Madariaga|publisher=Yale University Press |year=2006 |isbn=9780300143768}}
*{{Cite book|last=Debertol|first=Markus|section-url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110752373-016/html|url-access=subscription|section=Türkischer Kaiser – Turcorum Tyrannus|title=Tyrannenbilder|publisher=[[De Gruyter]]|doi=10.1515/9783110752373-016|year=2021|url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110752373/html|lang=de|isbn=9783110752373|pages=356–366}}
Line 416 ⟶ 419:
*{{cite encyclopedia|title=Interregnum |url=https://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/Interregnum |encyclopedia=[[Historisches Lexikon Bayerns]] |access-date=20 January 2025|lang=de|first=Ansgar|last=Frenken|year=2019}}
*{{cite book |first1=Irakli|last1=Gamkrelidze|first2=Avtandil|last2=Okrostsvaridze|first3=Kakhaber|last3=Koiava|first4=Ferando|last4=Maisadze |title=Geotourism Potential of Georgia, the Caucasus: History, Culture, Geology, Geotourist Routes and Geoparks |url=https://books.google.de/books?id=05AOEAAAQBAJ |publisher=Springer Nature |year=2020 |isbn=9783030629663|section=Overview of the History and Culture of Georgia}}
*{{cite journal |last=García Gallo |first=Alfonso |year=1945 |title=El imperio medieval español |journal=Arbor |volume=4 |issue=11 |pages=199–228|lang=es|url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/1301369727/fulltextPDF/E642090C483E4467PQ/1?accountid=11004&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals}}
*{{citation|last=Garland|first=Lynda|date=1999|chapter=Irene (769–802)|title=Byzantine Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantium, AD 527–1204|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=a5GFAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA73|location=|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0-415-14688-3|pages=73–94|url=https://archive.org/details/LyndaGarlandByzantineEmpressesWomenAndPowerInByzantiumAA.D.52712041999}}
*{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fUszB0W0D6IC|lang=de|title=Bulgarien zwischen West und Ost vom 7. bis 20. Jahrhundert: sozial- und kulturhistorisch bedeutsame Epochen, Ereignisse und Gestalten|first=Wolfgang|last=Geier|isbn=9783447044677|year=2001|publisher=Otto Harrassowitz Verlag }}
Line 440 ⟶ 443:
*{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=S9nzDQAAQBAJ |title=The Asanids: The Political and Military History of the Second Bulgarian Empire (1185-1280) |last=Madgearu |first=Alexandru |publisher=Brill |year=2016 |isbn=9789004333192}}
*{{cite book |first=Friedrich| last=Martens|author-link=Friedrich Martens |series=Собрание трактатов и конвенций, заключенных Россией и иностранными державами|title=Трактаты с Австрией, 1648—1762 г.|year=1874 |url=http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/2664-t-1-traktaty-s-avstriey-1648-1762-1874#mode/inspect/page/80/zoom/4|place=Saint Petersburg|publisher=Foreign Ministry|lang=ru|volume=1}}
*{{cite journal|url=http://www.westminster.edu/staff/martinre/Treaty.html|title=Treaty of Georgievsk, 1783|archive-url=https://archive.
*{{cite book |author-link=Ramón Menéndez Pidal |last=Menéndez Pidal |first=Ramón |year=1929 |title=La España del Cid |volume=1 |publisher=Editorial Plutarco}}
*{{cite book|url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015019216228|title=Trebizond, the last Greek Empire of the Byzantine Era|last=Miller|first=William|author-link=William Miller (historian) |year= 1926 |place= London |publisher= [[Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge]] |hdl= 2027/mdp.39015019216228 |oclc=31240}}
Line 448 ⟶ 451:
*{{Cite book |last=Nelson |first=Janet L. |author-link=Janet Nelson |title=King and Emperor: A New Life of Charlemagne |publisher=University of California Press |year=2019 |isbn=978-0-5203-1420-7 |location=Oakland|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nesjEAAAQBAJ}}
*{{Cite journal |last=Nicol |first=Donald M. |date=1967 |title=The Byzantine View of Western Europe |url=https://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/download/11101/4231 |journal=Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies |volume=8 |issue=4 |pages=315–339 }}
*{{Cite book |title=Борьба Московского государства с татарами в XVII веке|lang=ru |last=Novoselskyy |first=Alexey Andreevich |author-link=:ru:Новосельский, Алексей Андреевич |year=1948|url=https://runivers.ru/upload/iblock/132/borba.pdf}}
* {{cite book |last=Ohnsorge |first=Werner |title=Das Zweikaiserproblem im früheren Mittelalter. Die Bedeutung des byzantinischen Reiches für die Entwicklung der Staatsidee in Europa |language=de |publisher=A. Lax |location=Hildesheim |year=1947 |oclc=302172 }}
*{{cite journal|last=Petrova |first=Maria Aleksandrovna|title=Герман Карл фон Кейзерлинг и признание императорского титула российских государей Священной Римской империей германской нации в 1745–1746 гг.|journal=Вестник МГИМО Университета|year=2021|number=6|volume=14|pages=89–109|doi=10.24833/2071-8160-2021-6-81-89-109|doi-access=free}}
Line 461 ⟶ 464:
*{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5Gm79HuBY0cC |title=The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571: The thirteenth and fourteenth centuries |last=Setton |first=Kenneth Meyer|author-link=Kenneth Setton |publisher=[[American Philosophical Society]] |year=1976 |isbn=9780871691149}}
*{{Cite book|title=History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey |last=Shaw |first=Stanford |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1976 |isbn=0-521-29163-1 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/historyofottoman00stan}}
*{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.de/books?id=IcDeFiZgxK0C |title=The Orthodox Christian World|editor-first=Augustine|editor-last=Casiday|last=Shevzov |first=Vera |publisher=Routledge |year=2012 |isbn=9781136314841|chapter=The Russian tradition|pages=15–40}}
*{{cite journal |author-link=Ernst Steindorff |last=Steindorff |first=Ernst |year=1881 |title=Angeblicher Conflict zwischen Heinrich III. und Ferdinand I. von Castilien |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=v3sNAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA484 |journal=Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich III |volume=2 |pages=484–490}}
*{{cite journal |first=Christian |last=Steppan |title=Австро-русский альянс 1726 г.: долгий процесс при общих политических интересах сторон|journal=Славянский мир в третьем тысячелетии|pages=85–91 |year=2016 |url=https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/avstro-russkiy-alyans-1726-g-dolgiy-protsess-pri-obschih-politicheskih-interesah-storon/viewer|lang=ru|volume=11}}
*{{Cite journal |last=Strauss |first=Johann |date=1999 |title=The Rise of Non-Muslim Historiography in the Eighteenth Century |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25817602 |journal=Oriente Moderno Nuova Serie, Anno 18 |volume=79 |issue=1 |pages=217–232 |doi=10.1163/22138617-07901017 |jstor=25817602}}
*{{Cite book |last=Strauss |first=Johann |title=The First Ottoman Experiment in Democracy |publisher=Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft |year=2010 |isbn=978-3899137453 |editor-last=Herzog |editor-first=Christoph |location=Baden-Baden |chapter=A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire: Translations of the ''Kanun-i Esasi'' and Other Official Texts into Minority Languages |editor-last2=Sharif |editor-first2=Malek}}
*{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6Lz4EAAAQBAJ |title=Die Habsburger Reiche 1555-1740 |last=Strohmeyer |first=Arno |lang=de |publisher=Herder |year=2013 |isbn=9783534728800}}
*{{Cite journal |first=James Ross |last=Sweeney |date=1973 |title=Innocent III, Hungary and the Bulgarian Coronation: A Study in Medieval Papal Diplomacy |journal=Church History |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=320–334 |doi=10.2307/3164389 |jstor=3164389|s2cid=162901328 }}
*{{Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium|title=PHILIP I OF TARANTO|url=https://archive.org/details/the-oxfrod-dictionary-of-byzantium-vol.-1-oup-1991/The%20Oxfrod%20Dictionary%20of%20Byzantium_Vol.%203_OUP_1991/page/1651/mode/2up?q=%22Philip+I+of+Taranto%22|last=Talbot|first=Alice-Mary|author-link=Alice-Mary Talbot|page=1652|volume=3}}
*{{Cite book |title="Белый царь": образ монарха и представления о подданстве у народов России XV - XVIII вв |last=Trepavlov |first=Vadim Vyntserovych|author-link=:ru:Трепавлов, Вадим Винцерович |publisher=Восточная Литература |year=2007 |isbn=9795020185172|lang=ru}}
*{{cite encyclopedia|title=Constantinople Agreement|url=https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/constantinople-agreement/ |encyclopedia=[[1914–1918 Online]] |access-date=3 April 2025|first=Pinar|last=Üre|year=2018|doi=10.15463/ie1418.11247|editor-last1=Daniel |editor-first1=Ute|editor-last2=Gatrell |editor-first2=Peter|editor-last3=Janz |editor-first3=Oliver |display-editors=2}}
*{{cite encyclopedia|title=Johannes III. Dukas Vatatzes|url=https://www.biolex.ios-regensburg.de/BioLexViewview.php?ID=1045 |encyclopedia={{ill|Biographisches Lexikon zur Geschichte Südosteuropas|de}} |access-date=3 January 2025|lang=de|first=Jan Louis|last=Van Dieten|year=1976|pages=280–282|publication-place=Munich|volume=2|editor-last1=Bernath |editor-first1=Mathias |editor-last2=Von Schroeder |editor-first2=Felix}}
*{{The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium |chapter=The Imperial Ideology |pages=61–101}}
Line 495 ⟶ 501:
[[Category:2 (number)]]
[[Category:History of diplomacy]]
[[Category:History of the Byzantine Empire]]
[[Category:History of the Ottoman Empire]]
| |||