Ottonian Notions of imperium and the Byzantine Empire

Otto I’s Rise to Emperorship

Evidence explicitly referring to Otto’s imperial coronation on 2^nd February 962 is comparably sparse ^[8], and entries that do mention the event remain short ^[9]. While there are signs of a growing imperial consciousness before this event, such as references to his royal coronation in Aachen in 936 and the fact that he issued a capitulary in 951 ^[10] – an act usually associated with imperial authority since the Carolingians – there is no cogent evidence for a long-term strategy prior to the time around 960 ^[11]. It therefore appears that Otto I’s way to emperorship was less concerted compared to what we know of Charlemagne in the late 790s ^[12]. Our prime source is the eyewitness report by Liutprand of Cremona ( † 972 ), which is contained in his ‘Ottonian History’ completed in early 965. It is a brief description noting that Otto was welcomed in Rome with great magnificence, where he was anointed as emperor by Pope John XII. A particular detail in Liutprand’s report is the addition that, after an exchange of lavish gifts, the pope swore never to conspire with King Berengar II ^[13].

Hrotsvit of Gandersheim ( † 968 ), a secular canoness and author of several extant poems and other works, provided another early account. Her report on the events of 962, found in her ‘Life of Otto I’, is, however, fragmentary due to the loss of an entire leaf from the sole surviving manuscript, which dates to the late tenth century ^[14]. The final part describes how the augustus Otto and his wife Adelheid were crowned with the diadem, anointed, and adorned with the imperial sceptre and attire ^[15]. In 965 or shortly thereafter, Archbishop Adalbert of Magdeburg ( † 981 ) wrote his ‘Continuations’ of Regino of Prüm’s ( † 915 ) ‘Chronicle’, reporting that Otto was acclaimed “emperor and augustus” by the Roman population, the clergy, and the pope, who was rather unusually characterised as Alberich’s son ^[16]. Another short report by Benedict of St. Andrea ( † 1025 ), written before the turn of the millennium – likely closer to 972 – confirms that Otto was called augustus by the Roman populace and pontiff. It also adds that the latter was subjugated by the Saxon king to the Italian realm and the “empire of the Romans” ^[17]. Although scholars like Hagen Keller argued that the Ottonians had always aimed towards a ‘Roman’ empire ^[18], the record mentioned is the first reference in this context to a ‘Roman’ empire. The slightly later ‘Life of Mathilda ( antiquior )’, relating to the abbess of Quedlinburg and daughter of Otto I, recounts that the Roman pontiff referred to her father as emperor, who, by God’s command, received the crown together with his wife in the Church of St. Peter. The ‘Life’ adds that Otto subsequently conquered Italy, which was part of his wife’s dowry, and that, since his coronation, Otto had been holding the “Roman empire” in the “Ausonian towns”, a Virgilian term referring to central Italy ^[19].

The latest account that may still be characterised as roughly contemporary was written around 1012/1018 by Bishop Thietmar of Merseburg ( † 1018 ). He stressed that Otto was invited to Rome by John XII and confirmed that the king’s wife, Adelheid, was ordained empress alongside her husband. Otto’s new role was qualified as patronus of the Church, a designation probably added to explain his subsequent conquest of Benevento, Calabria, and Puglia. The author also explained that the coronation marked the beginning of a “Golden Age” ^[20]. Other contemporary sources, like Ruotger’s ( † after 969 ) ‘Life of Brun of Cologne’ written in 965/969 and, most prominently, Widukind of Corvey’s ( † after 973 ) ‘History of the Saxons’ completed in 973, do not explicitly relate to the event ^[21].

Even though Widukind’s ‘History of the Saxons’ does not refer to Otto’s imperial elevation in 962, it is the only source that mentions another potentially imperial ceremony, dating before this event in Rome. Widukind prominently reported that, following the king’s major victory over the Hungarians at the Battle of Lechfield in August 955, his army called Otto “father of the fatherland” and “emperor” in the manner of late Roman emperors ^[22]. Researchers have been pondering intensively the significance of this report. Steven Robbie suggested that Widukind already finished a first version of his work at some point after 961, implying that an initial redaction may have already been completed prior to Otto’s coronation in Rome, and that any sections on later events represent subsequent additions. In his view, the 955 episode mainly served a narrative function, while the coronation of 962 itself was either only a future event or it was omitted due to an unforeseen interruption in Widukind’s writing process ^[23].

Widukind’s treatment of Otto I’s father, Henry I, calls for caution in interpreting comparable references with regard to Otto. Widukind reports that Henry was already acclaimed as imperator after defeating the Hungarians at the Battle of Merseburg in March 933, when his army hailed him as “father of the home country” ( pater patriae ) and “lord and emperor” ( dominus imperatorque ) ^[24]. Widukind also referred to Henry I as “lord and greatest king of Europe” ^[25] and “favourite of the world and head of the entire orbis [ … ] whose dignity of power not only holds Germania, Italy and Gaul, but almost entire Europe” ^[26]. However, Henry never sought or assumed imperial status. Although Robbie already noted relevant parallels in the depiction of Otto I and his father, Henry I ^[27], he did not consider the implication of the fact that Henry was already referred to as imperator without ever holding the relevant title for any interpretation of similar statements referring to Otto I. The fact that Widukind obviously did not limit imperial designations to those authorities who actually held an emperor’s title proves that the author did not necessarily regard every ruler as emperor simply because he used appropriate terminology.

It is unlikely that, as Robbie suggested, Widukind failed to mention the imperial coronation of 962 due to ignorance. Although the evidence does not allow for an argument that Otto was considered an emperor as early as 955 based solely on the acclamation mentioned by Widukind, the fact that the same author consistently characterised Otto as emperor when referring to events that post-date the 955 acclamation ^[28] – in contrast to Henry, for whom relevant terminology was only used on specific occasions – strongly suggests that the author was indeed aware of Otto’s imperial elevation in 962. It does not suffice, however, to assume that Widukind believed Otto had already become emperor seven years before his imperial coronation in Rome. The author never included an account of Otto’s imperial coronation during his later revisions and additions ^[29]. It is therefore more likely that Widukind had other reasons why he did not refer to this key event and instead brought it back to 955.

Giovanni Isabella suggested that the reason for Widukind’s omission of the 962 coronation may have been the pope himself. Although Pope John XII played a key role in performing the imperial coronation, the sources do not emphasise his involvement, and some even omit any mention of papal participation ^[30]. Isabella convincingly argued that this was not due to a general anti-Roman attitude but rather because the very young Pope John XII – he was around 25 to 30 years at the time of the coronation and reportedly led an immoral life – was personally regarded as unworthy of his position by a large majority of the authors in question ^[31]. Hence, Isabella suggested that Widukind’s decision to omit the Roman coronation ceremony and instead link Otto’s elevation to the victory at the Lechfeld was probably not due to his rejection of the concept of a ‘Roman’ empire, as Carl Erdmann had proposed, but rather because Widukind did not consider the pope worthy of elevating Otto I to his new status ^[32].

Like the Carolingians, the Ottonians emphasised their position as pious rulers fulfilling the will of God ^[33]. The report by Adalbert of Magdeburg on the coronation ceremony of Otto II of 967 confirms that papal involvement in such a ritual did not pose a general issue. Adalbert described how Otto I and his son arrived near Rome, where they were greeted by a large number of senatores holding crosses, singing, and how the following day Pope John XIII ( † 972 ), successor to John XII, ordained Otto II “Cesar and Augustus”. This ritual elevating Otto II as his father’s co-emperor was accompanied by the acclamation of the Roman population in front of the confessio of St. Peter, “bringing together the two emperors and the pope” ^[34]. Herwig Wolfram argued that Ottonian co-emperorship was rooted in their rivalry with Byzantium, although handled more flexibly by using designations like iunior or coimperator in contemporary documents ^[35], while Constantine Zuckerman stressed that the latter term corresponded to the Greek συμβασιλεύς ^[36]. Although co-emperorship was already common among the Carolingians, who raised their own sons to the status of co-emperor as young adults, the Ottonian procedure of elevating Otto II at the young age of only twelve years may have been directly inspired by the Byzantine model ^[37]. Comparable procedures are known to have been adopted, for example, in the early tenth century by the Macedonian imperial dynasty, with whom the Ottonians exchanged several embassies ^[38]. The elevation of a co-ruler proved very helpful in securing Otto II’s succession after his father’s death in 973, as the final chapter of Widukind’s ‘Saxon History’ confirms by explicitly reminding its readers that the eighteen-year-old boy had already been crowned co-emperor prior to his acclamation in 973. It is also only here that Widukind characterised the deceased monarch as emperor “of the Romans” ( imperator Romanorum ) ^[39]. This reference further confirms that the Saxon author had no problem with referring to his ruler’s ‘Roman’ empire, supporting the impression that Widukind’s omission of the 962 event was not motivated by a more general objection against a ‘Roman’ emperorship and that he should not be considered the promoter of a ‘Rome-free’ empire. Personal repugnance towards John XII thus indeed appears to be the more plausible explanation.

Several points emerging from this short survey of the relevant evidence on Otto I’s accession to the imperial throne should be noted. As Otto’s investiture reportedly involved either coronation, acclamation and/or ordination, the different testimonies do not coincide and thus rather appear to complement each other. In 800, Charlemagne was invested according to Byzantine tradition, with the Roman population acclaiming him as “Roman emperor” through the laudes ( public praises ), adoratio ( public approval ), and coronation – a ceremony probably previously discussed with both Empress Irene and Pope Leo III. The pope’s initiative to prepone the coronation, in his role as the western patriarch, had a significant impact on the papal role and importance in this and all future imperial coronations performed in the West ^[40]. The Ottonian ritual, as discussed so far, differed primarily in several ways: First, the Roman character of Otto’s empire was less explicit and was only added relatively late. Second, the Carolingians never elevated an empress, as was the case for Adelheid: Adelheid, widow of King Lothar II of Italy ( † 950 ), was crowned empress alongside her second husband, Otto I, as reported by Hrotsvit of Gandersheim and Thietmar of Merseburg. Considering Adelheid’s former status as Queen of Italy implies that it was not primarily the pope, but Otto’s wife, who was meant to legitimise the emperor’s role as ruler over Italy, emphasising Adelheid’s political weight ^[41]. Third, there is no evidence suggesting that the eastern emperor was involved in any prior negotiations. Another distinctive feature of the Ottonian ritual was the early age at which the successor was raised as co-emperor alongside his father, a practice also known from the imperial East.

Ottonian Notions of imperium

So what does the evidence reveal about the Ottonian understanding of imperium? The term’s original meaning referred to authority over an army ^[42]. In the very early Middle Ages, it was often used to denote royal authority and the political domain under governance, particularly in the context of a higher-level sovereignty that unified multiple realms or peoples ^[43]. Both notions persisted into the Carolingian era, when the term imperium could denote either the concept of overarching sovereignty over smaller entities, particularly in reference to the Byzantine or Frankish empire, or supreme power and authority in a broader sense ^[44]. Referring to the year 688, for example, the early-ninth-century ‘Annales Mettenses priores’ explain that the Merovingian king Theuderich III ( † 691 ) “ruled the empire ( imperium )” with the help of his mayor of the palace Ebroin ^[45], and the mid-tenth-century ‘Life’ of the Merovingian queen Clotilde ( † 545 ) mentions a prophecy according to which her progeny would hold imperium over Romans and Franks ^[46].

The Ottonian sources still attest to a complex set of related notions, with differing opinions and concepts prevailing at the same time ^[47]. In his ‘Antapodosis’, probably written shortly before Otto I’s coronation in 962, Liutprand of Cremona rarely used the noun imperium. When he did so, the term either referred to the Byzantine Empire or to the Kingdom of Italy ^[48]. Liutprand’s ‘Ottonian History’, written in 964/965, uses the same term imperium only twice in reference to Otto’s empire. He does use the designation imperator, however, which is regularly accompanied by the adjectives sanctus or sanctissimus ^[49]. Thietmar of Merseburg, who also only occasionally referred to the Ottonian empire as imperium ^[50], for example, on one occasion explained that Otto I used his new role as emperor and patron of the Roman Church to take control of southern Italy ^[51]. Widukind, in his ‘Saxon History’, on his part, reported that when Henry I fell ill in 936, he raised his son Otto I, “who was the greatest and the best, and ruled over his brothers and the imperium of all the Franks” ^[52]. Referring to Charlemagne, Widukind explained that his rise to the status of emperor would have entailed that those people who until then had been confederates and friends became brothers, united as one people through the Christian creed ^[53]. This statement has brought forward the thesis that, according to Widukind, the conquest and Christianisation of the Saxons entailed the merging of the latter with the Franks to become one people entitled to head the imperium ^[54]. Apart from this, Widukind’s use of imperium was complex, ranging from the notion of governance in general to referring to the Frankish and Ottonian empire, with the latter occasionally being referred to as Francorum imperium. Imperium could also relate to Frankish and Ottonian kingship or even the kingdom of the Hungarians ^[55]. A comparable spectrum of meanings is attested for the same term in the work of the monk Ekkehard of Saint Gall ( † ca. 1057 ). In his monastic history, he used imperium to refer to the emperor, imperial or regal authority, but also to relate to authority more in general, including the authority emerging from monastic rules ^[56]. This brief survey of Ottonian concepts of imperium, based on key narrative sources, shows that its meaning had not changed significantly by the Ottonian period and continued to encompass the broad range already established in Antiquity. The term’s sporadic use in Ottonian historiography suggests that it was not seen as essential for describing contemporary rulership. This is noteworthy because it implies that the prior existence of the Frankish empire had not notably influenced the use of imperium or narrowed its meaning to solely refer to the said empire.

The second diplomatic mission to Constantinople, led by Bishop Liutprand of Cremona, offers a valuable lens through which to examine the Ottonian understanding of imperium. This journey, undertaken in 968, was aimed at meeting the emperor Nikephoros II Phokas ( † 969 ) on behalf of Otto I. Five years earlier, in 963, Nikephoros had deposed the Macedonian infant co-emperors Basileios II ( † 1025 ) and Constantine VIII ( † 1028 ), the grandsons of Constantine VII ( † 959 ). The latter had, in 949, welcomed Liutprand with a friendly reception during his first diplomatic mission to Constantinople. The primary aim of the 968 embassy was to request the hand of a princess “born in the purple” ( πορφυρογέννητη ), a designation likely referring to Constantine VII’s granddaughter Anna, born during the reign of her father, Romanos II ( † 963 ). This request was made in anticipation of her marriage to Otto II – a proposal that, according to modern scholars, implied the formal recognition of the Ottonians as emperors ^[57]. Shortly after his return, the bishop wrote an impassioned account of his journey, which detailed several notable disputes with the emperor and his advisers ^[58]. The arguments presented in his report are significant for both parties. Assuming the accounts loosely reflect the discussions that took place during Liutprand’s mission, they in fact reveal a keen Byzantine interest in the Roman name ^[59], the city of Rome ^[60], Ravenna ^[61], and the other Italian provinces, in particular the southern Duchies of Capua and Benevento. The regents of the Duchy, Pandulf and Landulf, had recently sworn loyalty to Otto I ^[62]. Liutprand rejected the Byzantine critique by emphasising, for instance, that the Italian provinces rightfully belonged to the Latin-speaking kingdom of Italy, both by lineage and language ^[63], and he further argued that the Byzantine emperors had ceased to be true Roman emperors once they failed to maintain authority over the city of Rome. Otto I would have assumed this responsibility, notably by applying Roman law to prosecute those who desecrated the city ^[64].

In August, while Liutprand was still in Constantinople, a letter written by Pope John XIII reached the emperor. It solicited the “Greek emperor” to comply with the request for a bride from the “Roman emperor” Otto I, which put Liutprand into major trouble. Although the author claimed that he would remain “dumb as a fish” about why he had been spared capital punishment ^[65], he recounted that the letter led to a discussion with the patricius Christophorus, who assumed that the papal terminology had been used on Otto I’s advice. Liutprand claimed that he had, rather tauntingly, suggested that the pope must have assumed that the Roman title would displease the Byzantines, given that they had abandoned the Roman language, customs, and attire. His neck was finally spared, as it seems, by a second papal letter, which the bishop and diplomat had previously announced, now addressing the emperor in the desired manner ^[66]. Although this dispute is inadequate for speculating about more general tendencies at both courts, it is noteworthy that it revolved around arguments already put forward in the ninth century during a letter exchange between Louis II of Italy ( † 875 ) and Emperor Basileios I ( † 886 ) in 871 ^[67]. Here, Louis explained that the Franks had come to govern the Roman empire due to their piety and orthodoxy, replacing the ‘Greeks’ who had lost their right to rule the Romans because of their heresy ( kacadosia ) and their abandonment of the ancient capital, its people, and its language ^[68]. These similarities suggest that related arguments remained pertinent almost a century later.

Like the Carolingians, the Ottonians referred to their empire as ‘Roman’ only sporadically, a designation that became more common under Otto III and Henry II ^[69]. Even the inscriptions on Otto II’s sarcophagus did not include the term ‘Roman’ in his imperial title ^[70]. Intriguing are also Otto I’s occasional designations as Romanorum et Franc( h )orum imperator augustus or imperator augustus Romanorum ac Francorum ^[71]. They imply that his empire was not conceived as universal or inclusive, as would be the case if the Roman name was meant to refer to Rome or the Christian Church, but rather as one divided into a Roman and a Frankish sphere – the latter including the Saxon people. The title “emperor of the Franks” corresponds to what the Byzantines had suggested in the ninth century as an alternative designation for the western emperors ^[72], raising the question of whether this title was intended to appease the Byzantines by emphasising that the newly founded empire was restricted to the Franco-Ottonian and Italian ( i. e. ‘Roman’ ) territories. Liutprand’s insistence on the Roman nature of the Ottonian empire, along with the arguments he used in his report, however, makes this interpretation less likely.

Another possible interpretation is that the mentioned title referred to the two legitimating peoples or authorities: the Franks – perhaps in reference to Otto’s initial acclamation by the Frankish army in 955 – and the Romans. Herwig Wolfram noted that the title in question was primarily used in and around Lotharingia, suggesting that it may have been tied to a more local tradition ^[73]. This implies that the title may be primarily an adaptation related to current necessities and should not be overinterpreted as referring to a broader contemporary understanding of imperium. A comparable use is attested in a singular title known from a potential forgery from Gembloux dated to 979, which refers to Otto II as emperor augustus Lottariensium et Fransigenum. In this instance, Fransigenum seems to refer to the western Frankish realm, while Lottariensium appears to relate to Lotharingia ^[74]. Also somewhat comparable is Otto III’s singular designation in a diploma from January 1001: Otto tercius Romanus Saxonicus et Italicus apostolorum servus ( ‘Otto III, Roman, Saxon and Italian, servant of the Apostles’ ) ^[75], which has been interpreted as a triumphal title ^[76]. According to Herwig Wolfram, the Roman title here was not meant to refer to the Ottonian empire as a whole but only to the province of Rome, i. e. those regions to which the early Carolingian title patricius Romanorum had been applied ^[77]. If so, the emperor here identified himself as ruler of three main groups allegedly inhabiting his empire: the Romans of the province of Rome, the Saxons, and the Italians.

The substitution of the ‘Franks’ by the ‘Saxons’ as the eponymous people of the empire is striking ^[78]. While the prepended Romanus likely referred to papal Rome, Italicus may have applied to the inhabitants of the Lombard and remaining southern territories. It is also worth noting that when the same emperor issued diplomas north of the Alps, he styled himself as the servant of Jesus Christ ( rather than the Apostles ) ^[79]. In both instances, Otto III presented himself as directly subordinated to God’s closest confidants, thereby challenging the pope’s role as an intermediary, as Matthew Gabriele argued ^[80]. However, these titles again were used in specific contexts, whereas from 982 onward, under Otto II and his son Otto III, titles referring to the ruler as imperator augustus ^[81] and, increasingly, Romanorum imperator augustus became the norm ^[82]. Still, considering that only thirteen out of 317 diplomas issued under Otto II carry the prepended Romanorum, and that ten or eleven of these were issued in Italy ^[83], the Roman addition seems to reflect a regional preference rather than a general policy of that emperor.

These varying notions of imperium help explain the difficulties scholars face in defining the Ottonian understanding of empire. Early twentieth-century scholars like Carl Erdmann argued for an expansive notion of imperium that emerged from the late Carolingian situation, where emperorship was confined to Italy, towards a more general understanding developed by Otto III, which encompassed the entire Ottonian realm ^[84]. This concept would have coexisted alongside the ancient universal idea now strongly linked to the notion of a Christian empire ^[85]. Although the pope played a role in its creation, he was unimportant in defining the empire ^[86]. Ernst-Dieter Hehl argued that after Otto I, the empire became closely focused on papal Rome, with the apostolic see remaining significant. This was evident in 967, when Otto II was designated as his father’s successor in Rome, and in 972, when his marriage to a Byzantine princess called Theophanu was celebrated in the same city ^[87]. Scholars like Eckhard Müller-Mertens and Simon Groth also highlighted the importance the Ottonians placed on Italy and the Roman name, associating it with their assertion that their status should be regarded as equal to that of the Byzantine emperor. This aim was emphasised by claiming authority over Italy, including Rome, Ravenna, and the southern provinces ^[88]. Comparable to Carolingian Aachen, the Ottonian city of Magdeburg was intended to equal Constantinople ^[89]. Thus, the Ottonian concept of empire appears as a notion that, although based on the ancient empire founded by Augustus, Christianised by Constantine, and renewed by Charlemagne, developed in the context of exchange with the Byzantine empire, as Johannes Irmscher suggested ^[90]. As emerges from the above, and comparable to the Carolingian notion, it is not possible, however, to define a more specific Ottonian concept of empire beyond such general characterisations, as several understandings of empire and related opinions appear to have prevailed at the time, a circumstance that certainly also offered useful flexibility to adapt it to specific situations and requirements ^[91].

Otto I and the Byzantine Emperors

How did the emperors in the East perceive the re-emergence of an empire in the West? The first Western emperor of the medieval period, Charlemagne, had been acknowledged in 812 by a Byzantine embassy sent to him in Aachen by Emperor Michael I ( † 813 ) who, according to the ‘Frankish Annals’, sang Greek laudations and addressed the emperor as imperator et basileus ^[92]. This appellation corresponded to the usual acclamation of emperors in the East, implying his full recognition by his eastern counterpart ^[93]. However, there is no comparable evidence confirming that the Byzantines also formally recognised the Ottonian emperors ^[94]. Such a recognition is lacking after Charlemagne’s death in 814. Hence, scholars have pondered whether Charlemagne’s 812 recognition was a singular event, confined to the first Frankish emperor, or whether it was tacitly extended to his successors ^[95]. In this latter case, the Byzantine recognition seems to have been revoked prior to a letter exchange between Louis II and Basileios I in 871, which clearly attests to disagreement on this particular matter ^[96].

In his ‘De administrando imperio’, written around 948/952, the emperor Constantine VII ( † 959 ) still characterised Charlemagne as a ruler over all the kingdoms and as “being emperor” ( ἐβασίλευσε ) over “Great Francia”. The designation of Otto as “great king of the Franks and the Saxons” ( Ὄτῳ τῷ μεγάλῳ ῥηγὶ Φραγγίας, τῆς καὶ Σαξίας ) seems to reflect a certain Byzantine acknowledgment of the growing influence of the Ottonians in the West ^[97]. Around the time of Otto I’s rise to the status of emperor, exchanges with the Byzantine empire were not very frequent. Nevertheless, five diplomatic missions are attested for the 940s and until 955, with a subsequent exchange in the year 967 ^[98]. This was the first Byzantine legation known to have reached Otto I in his role as emperor. It is recorded by Adalbert of Magdeburg noting that, five years after the event and only after some Ottonian advances towards Capua and Benevento ^[99], an embassy from the ‘Greek’ emperor Nikephoros II ( † 969 ) finally met Otto I in Ravenna, where they concluded peace and friendship. There is no indication here of any prior recognition. On their return journey, the Byzantine ambassadors were accompanied by an Ottonian legation tasked with requesting the daughter of Romanos II as a bride for Otto II. This mission was followed by Liutprand’s unsuccessful journey with the same purpose in 968 ^[100]. The endeavour was only concluded in 972, after further Ottonian interventions in southern Italy. Shortly thereafter, Nikephoros II was deposed by John I Tzimiskes ( † 976 ), who subsequently sent his relative, the mentioned Theophanu ( † 991 ), to Rome as a bride for Otto II ^[101].

Scholars have often argued that the agreement to send a bride for Otto II implied Byzantine recognition of the Ottonian position of power, if not their role as emperors, considering Otto I’s alleged willingness to accept an emperorship devoid of the Roman name ^[102]. Although this is possible, it should be noted that comparable requests for regal brides had been relatively frequent during the Carolingian period. On those occasions, such demands mostly originated in the East and were declined in the West – and no scholar has ever suggested that Byzantium was seeking Carolingian recognition ^[103]. Werner Ohnsorge referred more specifically to two passages in the mid-eleventh-century ‘Synopsis Historion’ of George Kedrenos, calling the Ottonian rulers “emperor of the Franks” ^[104], to argue, with good reasoning, that the Ottonian empire was indeed acknowledged by the eastern empire, an attitude he dated to the reign of Emperor Romanos II. This recognition would have been revoked by Nikephoros II, given the tense relation emerging from Liutprand’s report about his embassy of 968 already discussed above, and renewed by John I Tzimiskes when he sent Theophanu to the Ottonian court in 972. Ohnsorge also suggested that Otto I himself never aimed for a Roman imperium, which would have been Pope John XIII’s suit, arguing that this was why the emperor was content with his recognition as “emperor of the Franks” ( βασιλεὺς τῶν Φράγκων ) ^[105].

The recognition by Romanos II suggested by Ohnsorge should have happened between Otto’s elevation in 962 and Romanos’ death only one year later. Our sources do not mention an embassy exchanged during this period, which means that either there was another exchange that remained unrecorded or the acknowledgement took place no earlier than 967, the date of the first embassy known after Otto had become emperor mentioned above, when Otto and Nikephoros II concluded peace and friendship in Ravenna. This would indeed have been a good occasion for such a mutual recognition, regardless of the fact that the Franko-Byzantine relationship appears to have worsened after this. Ohnsorge’s suggestion that Otto I already sought recognition of his prospective emperorship around 950 is neither sufficiently corroborated by the evidence, although we do have records of different embassies exchanged until 955 ^[106].

As the sources remain unspecific, the question of Byzantine recognition must remain open. It is striking, however, that the marvellously preserved contemporary copy of the donation of the imperator augustus Otto II to his Byzantine wife, Theophanu, issued on the occasion of their marriage in Rome in April 972, condescendingly referred to her kin, Emperor John I Tzimiskes, as “emperor of Constantinople” ^[107]. This designation not only deprived the emperor of the Roman attribute, but also symbolically reduced his sphere of authority to his capital ^[108]. As it is unlikely that this divestment of John’s Roman name was unintentional, and given that Otto II was called imperator augustus without the Roman epithet, the designation mentioned may be interpreted as a critique of the emperor’s violent accession to his throne. However, it remains unexpected to find such a demotion of the emperor who had just sent a bride to the West in this very document, especially as this downgrading could also be applied to the young bride.

Theophanu and Otto III

After the unexpected death of Otto II, in December 983, his wife Theophanu and his mother Adelheid took regency for his only three-year-old son, Otto III. The transition seems to have been relatively smooth, not only because the boy Otto had been crowned king shortly before his father’s passing ^[109], but also because his mother Theophanu – comparable to Otto I’s wife Adelheid – had been crowned as her husband’s co-equal empress ^[110]. Both arrangements appear to have been made, with wise foresight, to ensure continuity in the occurrence of such a calamity. Theophanu was referred to as ‘co-empress Augusta as well as consort of the empire’s reigns’ in a charter dated April 974 ^[111]. The significance attributed to the joint coronation of the emperor and his empress is confirmed by contemporary depictions of the couple, one of which is a famous ivory now preserved in Paris. It portrays the couple at the same height ^[112].

Theophanu was indeed successful in asserting herself as a ruler. This is confirmed by a charter issued in Rome several years after Otto II’s death, in January 990, in which she referred to herself as imperatrix augusta ^[113]. In a diploma issued in Ravenna in April of that same year, she even called herself “Theophanius by divine grace emperor augustus”, thus using the masculine version of the imperial title ^[114]. A comparable procedure is attested for the Byzantine empress Irene ( † 803 ), who already called herself basilissa ( βασίλισσα ) and, on rare occasions, basileus ( βασιλεύς ) ^[115]. Theophanu may have followed Irene’s example, thereby positioning herself and the Ottonian dynasty as heirs to the Roman empire’s wider imperial traditions. The use of both masculine and feminine forms by these female rulers also demonstrates the flexibility with which imperial titles could be handled within this socio-political context.

The relationship of Theophanu’s son Otto III to the empire was exceptional, as he descended from parents of both western and eastern origins. Unsurprisingly, the young emperor attributed particular significance to the eternal city of Rome, as Thietmar of Merseburg already noted ^[116]. No emperor before or after Otto III spent more time in the apostolic city, and no medieval emperor came as close to making it his residence ^[117], which he occasionally declared “head of the world” ^[118]. This designation hardly referred solely to Rome as a centre of the Ottonian empire; it must also have implied the city’s role as the apostolic see and, therefore, as the centre of western Christendom, which Otto III considered himself to be ruling ^[119]. The significance Otto III attributed to his role as emperor, after his elevation in 996, is confirmed by the fact that a large majority of the diplomas he issued in Italy were dated solely by reference to his imperial years ^[120].

Otto III was particularly interested in adhering to late Roman and Byzantine models, for example, in matters of material culture and iconography ^[121]. His affinity for all things Roman or Byzantine has often been attributed to his maternal descent. Herwig Wolfram, for example, argued that Otto III’s Byzantine origins enabled him to “naturally” bear the Roman name. Wolfram also connected the addition of Romanorum, which had become common since the time of Otto II, to the latter’s marriage to Theophanu ^[122]. However, we should be cautious not to attribute too much importance to the emperor’s marital alliance and the princess’s influence alone. While both certainly strengthened the empire’s connections with the Byzantine present and the Roman past, such an effect would not have been possible without the prior approval of the emperors. Furthermore, the Frankish understanding of Romanness, which encompassed a broader range of meanings related to ethnicity, religious affiliation, and law ^[123], significantly differed from the Byzantine concepts of Roman identity tied directly to the empire. There is no indication that the Ottonians, after 972, embraced such an Eastern understanding of Roman identity. Thus, their empire’s nature was ‘Roman’ – a term associated in the West with the ancient Roman and Carolingian heritage, papal Rome, and Christian identity – not Byzantine. This is likely what the future Pope Sylvester II, Gerbert of Reims ( † 1003 ), sought to underline in 996/997 when he stressed in a letter that Otto III was “of Greek descent” but “Roman by rulership [ imperio ]” ^[124]. It was the empire, not the emperor, that defined its Romanness. The prevalence of the genitive use of Romanus, which was unlikely chosen merely to align with the title rex Francorum, implies that it referred to an empire inhabited by people regarded as ‘Romans’. Thus, the Roman name referred to the empire’s people, not its emperor.

This does not mean that there has been no Byzantine influence since the time of Otto I. His imperial representation on seals did not follow the Carolingian model of depicting the ruler in profile with shield, lance, and diadem. Instead, he was shown as a hieratic, bearded frontal figure carrying liturgical regalia, including the crown, sceptre, and globe. This portraiture, attested since 966, followed Byzantine tradition and mirrored depictions of Christ and ecclesiastical dignitaries ^[125]. Ernst-Dieter Hehl interpreted this as a demilitarised portrait intended to counter the military emperor Nikephoros II ^[126]. Otto I’s grandson Otto III later used a comparable iconography by depicting himself seated on his throne, a representation, which, on the other hand, was related to both Byzantine depictions of Christ ^[127] and Carolingian precedents ^[128].

A well-known inscription relates to the Roman nature of Otto III’s empire. Following Charlemagne’s model, who had already issued a lead bulla with the inscription RENOVATiO ROMAN( i ) IMP( erii )/ ROMA’ on the reverse ^[129], Otto III began issuing lead bullae attached with a cord to his diplomas from 998, in accordance with the Byzantine custom. These bullae bore the words RENOVATIO IMPERII ROMANORUM, encircling an armed figure typically interpreted as an allegory of either Rome or Victory. The inscription OTTO IMPERATOR AUGUSTUS was accompanied by a bearded man. From the second half of the year 1000, the bulla featured the inscription AUREA ROMA with the emperor’s bust on the obverse. The reverse bore the emperor’s name and title: ODDO I[ M ]PERATOR ROMANOR[ UM ] ^[130]. Discussions on the meaning of the Ottonian RENOVATIO inscription have produced various interpretations, though no conclusive consensus has been reached. Percy Ernst Schramm, in 1929, argued that this inscription referred to a specific program of renovation aimed at encompassing the entire Ottonian domain ^[131], a thesis supported in 2002 by Heinrich Dormeier, who emphasised the significance Otto III and his inner circle attributed to Antiquity and ecclesiastical politics ^[132]. Schramm further posited an opposition between ‘Saxon’ and ‘Roman’ politics and elites implying that Otto III’s shift of emphasis towards Rome and his Roman policy were poorly received north of the Alps ^[133]. Knut Görich, in 1993, rightly stressed that the evidence does not support a particular agenda as supposed by Schramm and that any reference to RENOVATIO was primarily related to a specific situation. Görich further argued that neither contemporaries nor the young emperor saw a strict antagonism between ‘Saxons’ and ‘Romans’, and that the emperor’s understanding of a Roman empire and its renovatio were primarily focused on Rome and rooted in contemporary notions of apostolic, rather than ancient Roman, concepts of Romanness ^[134]. Gerd Althoff largely agreed with Görich by emphasising the significance of the Carolingian predecessors and Rome as the apostolic capital ^[135]. John W. Bernhardt more recently returned to the idea that the inscription may have implied a more general statement, although with less emphasis than Schramm or Dormeier, by suggesting that: “Otto’s concept of Renovatio definitely included three aspects: spending more time in Italy and Rome, closer cooperation with the popes, and imitating the Byzantine emperors in various ways” ^[136].

Hannes Möhring presented a different argument against the earlier thesis of a more general political-religious program: he suggested that Otto III’s bulla meant to refute the opinion of the impending Antichrist by stressing the continuance and renewal of the Roman empire ^[137]. A similar approach was taken by Levi Roach, who argued that Otto III’s interest in eschatological questions and the Roman events of his own time led him to emphasise the imperial nature of his own authority by connecting the notion of renovatio to the emperor’s reverence for Charlemagne ^[138]. These different assessments and the persistence of significantly diverging interpretations of this same inscription show that, even if there were a consensus among scholars, its Ottonian significance will probably never be known beyond reasonable doubt. What the inscription does attest is the significance that the Roman nature of the Ottonian imperium had gained by the time of Otto III. The inscription’s vagueness again may have been intentional in order to allow different suitable interpretations ^[139].

A reverberation of the words RENOVATIO IMPERII ROMANORUM is preserved in the chronicle of Thietmar of Merseburg, which mentions that Otto III, during his stay in Rome, intended to renew ( renovare ) the ancient customs of the Romans that had largely vanished by taking several measures, adding that some had been more popular than others ^[140]. Unfortunately, he does not provide any specific example or further explanation. Instead, after adding one sentence on the emperor’s dining habits, Thietmar mentioned that Otto III had Charlemagne’s tomb opened and that he removed the deceased’s golden necklace with a cross and some well-preserved garments ^[141]. Sauro Marzocchi here translated the term renovare with “renewal” in the sense of “bringing something back ex novo”, and, in reference to the word’s only occurrence in one of Otto III’s documents, with “to reiterate”, “replicate”, or “to do again” ^[142]. Marzocchi further argued that the bulla was first issued in 998 to commemorate the execution of the rebel prefect of Rome, Crescentius II Nomentano. This challenges the more common interpretation of the bulla as a “renewal” or “reform” of the Roman empire in its ancient form, which Schramm saw as part of a broader political-religious programme ^[143]. Marzocchi does so to suggest translating the inscription as “the renewal of the empire of the Romans” in the sense of “the restoration of the will of the Romans”. If he is right, his thesis might be understood as a concretisation of Gerd Althoff’s prior suggestion that the bulla referred to the intention to take control on an imperial level by eliminating all opposition and grievance ^[144].

Henry II, who was crowned emperor in Rome in February 1014, did not continue Otto III’s Roman and Italian path. Although he used the title of Romanorum rex prior to his rise to the status of emperor, he resorted to a more Frankish notion of imperium and concentrated on the territories north of the Alps. His metal bulla now referred to a renovatio regni Francorum. Concurrently, he further emphasised his divine ordination within the framework of a Christian empire and strengthened his relationship with the pope ^[145]. This shift marks a departure from Otto III’s vision of imperium, which focused on Rome and the legacy of Charlemagne, by introducing a more Francocentric notion characterised by a stronger regional focus on his Christian imperium.

Results

The Ottonians, as emperors, primarily saw themselves as heirs to Charlemagne and his successors ^[146]. Otto I’s coronation in Rome did not involve direct Byzantine participation. The Roman nature and heritage of his empire and the recognition of the western imperium by the eastern emperor were of secondary importance. The latter was seemingly sought only retroactively, after the Ottonian rise to emperorship had already occurred. This empire thus was primarily conceived as a continuation of the Frankish empire. Moreover, there is evidence of a distinction between Roman and Frankish or Saxon identities, particularly in ethnic and territorial terms. The eastern and western empires thus appear as distinct entities, rather than two halves of a single body, as was still the case in the Carolingian era ^[147]. Although connected by a shared heritage, they were not directly linked. The gradual decline of the Carolingian empire, followed by four decades of interregnum, seemingly played a significant role in the detachment of the empire in both regions. The Ottonian empire was thus less a final revival of a ‘Roman’ imperium competing with the Byzantines, as implied in the works of Eckhard Müller-Mertens, Johannes Irmscher, and Simon Groth, but rather already represented a notable shift away from the ancient heritage and its pan-Mediterranean context towards a more regionalised entity under eastern Frankish – or Saxon – authority, a process that was further intensified under the Salian rulers.

This does not imply absence of Byzantine influence, as seen in the introduction of early-age co-emperorships or the titles used by the empress Theophanu. While she brought a strong Byzantine presence to the Ottonian court, the evidence suggests that both ancient Roman and Carolingian influences remained just as significant under her son, Otto III. This emperor exemplified a twofold identity, as a Roman ruler with partly ‘Greek’ origins. Although Otto III’s origins certainly help explain his enhanced affinity for Roman or Byzantine traditions, the significance attributed among the Ottonians to the ancient roots of the empire and to Rome as the apostolic see and head of Christendom, was distinctly western.