Chances for resurrection of the Roman empire

It is (in my personal opinion) very interesting matter. Many emperors of Holy Roman Empire wanted to rebulid the power of old, ancient empire.  This dream ended on Germany (of course this german empire still was called "Holy Roman Empire", and had also parts of France and Italy) But there was so many chances - during the regin of Charlemagne, or Byzantine emperor Justinian... why the popes done nothing?

What do you think - there was really chance to ressurect the Roman empire in middle ages? Even if, how it will "look"? I wait for your comments.

PS. Sorry, if my english isn't perfect.

Perhaps you're right. But I think, that many of medival monarchs had such ambition.

Yes, but anyway Charlemagne bacame a somebody like western emperor. There was big conflict after that - who is the truly roman emperor? Byzantine, or Holy Roman?

I heard about planned marriage of Charlemagne and daughter of Byzantine emperor - but pope stopped this marriage, because he affraid, that emperor of new empire will be too strong.

Originally posted by Temujin Originally posted by Degredado The Catholic Church is the Roman Empire. And that is a fact! I completely agree, but unfortunately the both of us are the only ones that know this secret!

Wait, according to the Turks, wasn't the Eastern Orthodox Church the Roman Empire (i.e. Rum)?  To be more specific, the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople?

Hmmmmmm, Byzantium had a single continuous inheritance of Emperorship dating back to Augustus, not something the Franks could ever equal. The Pope arrogated the right to bestow the title with the aid of a shameless forgery (The Donation of Constantine). The move to crown C. Roman Emperor was the Pope's way of bringing into Italy a stabilising force who, or so he very much hoped, would faithfully serve him in gratitude for receiving the title. The tradition of Emperorship continued uninterrupted and in its ancient form until as late as 1461 for the Byzantines, the concept died and was resurrected in a bizarre chronology first in France and then in Germany without a great deal of consistency.

But basically the question you are asking is whether the Roman Empire could have been resurrected in its ancient territorial form. Historians often look down on Byzantium while praising the earlier Roman Empire for the territorial limitations of the two. Quite simply this is unfair, early Imperial Rome existed in a very different world from Byzantium. The fact that Byzantium managed to exist as a state as long as it did and typically maintain such high sophistication compared to its neighbours is very praiseworthy in such an unstable and violent age of history. Personally I believe that had Byzantium instituted something similar to the theme system it could have recaptured areas such as North Africa and Italy and held them. But as I said the world was very different for Byzantium compared to earlier, they no longer possessed such a massive technological and organisational advantage over their enemies as the ancient Romans and had to be more pragmatic. If you are thinking of Byzantium expanding all the way back to Britain then that is getting too ambitious, the inability of any one state to rule an area as large as the ancient Roman Empire is proven well enough by the fact that up until Napoleon no one ever managed to even come close to reigning over so many former territories.

 The Holy Roman Empire Napoleon encountered was a shambles, to quote somebody whos name escapes me "it was nor roman nor holy nor an empire" or something like that.

 The empire after the fall of Constantinople is alive in Russia, its heritage is anyway, Moscow the third Rome continued the legacy.