I have often been asked (usually by those quickly sorry they did) just what
is so significant about the Roman Empire. Some monarchists have even argued
(hard to believe I know) that the Roman Empire was not really a monarchy anyway
and so is unworthy of much consideration. Perish the thought! The Roman Empire
is, of course, significant to everyone in the western world and any part of the
globe touched by western civilization. The legacy of Rome permeates modern
society to this very day in everything from language to politics to architecture
to sports to religion and on and on. However, restricting myself to addressing
monarchists here, I could easily argue that, not only was the Roman Empire a
monarchy but it was, in a way, the monarchy of the western world.
Throughout the vast majority of the history of western civilization the central
institution, in one form or another, has been the Roman Empire. Referring to
Rome as the “Eternal City” is no idle boast.
Consider just how long the Roman Empire has endured.
The Western Roman Empire came to an end in 476 AD when Emperor Romulus Augustus
was deposed. At the same time, the Eastern Roman Empire managed to endure, even
briefly retaking much of the west, until the fall of Constantinople and the
death of Emperor Constantine XI in 1453. However, that was still not really the
end. In 800 AD the Roman Empire in the west was revived as the Holy Roman Empire
when Charlemagne, King of the Franks, was
crowned Emperor of the Romans in the Eternal City by Pope St Leo III. This
upset the East but, at the time, Constantinople had only an Empress and no
Emperor and the West was going to have none of that. Besides which, the East
Roman or Byzantine Empire simply could not be an effective force in the west.
So, the Imperial Roman title fell to Charlemagne of the Franks, ruler of most of
western Europe. After passing from his family the title went in a German
direction, eventually settling on the Archdukes of Austria.
The Holy Roman Empire was the central core of
western Christendom and the Holy Roman Emperor, though he certainly did not rule
all of the west, was viewed as the preeminent monarch amongst the royal
hierarchy of the Christian nations. Based out of Aachen originally, finally
ending up in Vienna, the Holy Roman Emperors never ruled from Rome (which was
the domain of the Pope) nor did they very frequently visit it. Focused largely
on Germany the Emperors did rule much of Italy for lengthy periods of time but
never permanently. Nonetheless, they represented the heirs of the Caesars of old
and carried on the legacy of the Roman Empire. Otto the Great reestablished the
empire that had broken up somewhat after the death of Charlemagne and he
campaigned far into southern Italy. There was Emperor Henry II whose piety was
so remarkable that he was later declared a saint and there was Emperor
Frederick I who, for a time at least, forced the loose confederation of
German states to become a more centralized empire. Emperor
Charles V, also King of Spain, ruled the first empire upon which it was said
that the sun never set.
In 1806 the Holy Roman Empire officially came to an
end when Emperor Francis II of the Romans became simply Emperor Francis I of
Austria. Thus, with one major and one minor interruption, there had been a Roman
Emperor from Augustus
in 27 BC to Francis II in 1806 AD. And yet, once again, it did not totally end
there. In the east, Imperial Russia, and later even Bulgaria and others, claimed
to be the heirs of Constantinople, taking the title of “Tsar” or “Caesar” for
their monarchs. Moscow was declared to be the “third Rome” (Constantinople
itself being the second) but it was never quite the same with Constantinople
being in the hands of a different people, a different culture and a different
religion; a fact which remains unchanged. In the west, the Holy Roman Empire may
have ended but others were still determined to carry on the legacy of Imperial
Rome. Napoleon Bonaparte imitated ancient Rome in a big way in building up his
Empire of the French. Classical styles were revived, imperial eagles topped
French standards, Napoleon referred to his soldiers as his legions and even wore
a laurel crown like the Caesars of old.
The centrality of the Roman Empire and the Roman
imperial legacy is impossible to ignore. For Catholic monarchies it is
absolutely central, for Orthodox monarchies probably even more so. In the west
the empire was revived by the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor was the special
protector of the pontiff. There was, in fact, no Catholic monarchy that was not
at some point a part of the Holy Roman Empire or in some lesser way united to
it. Likewise, in Great Britain, which was not part of the Holy Roman Empire and
eventually not Catholic, the legacy of the Roman Empire (of which Britain
was a part) can still be seen today and the influence was extensive. It
can be seen in everything from architecture to traditional Anglican vestments to
the style of the monarchy and numerous symbols. The coronation, the sword, the
orb and so many other symbols and traditions come down, ultimately, from the
Roman Empire. Even monarchies in Scandinavia, which were never part of the Holy
Roman Empire or even hardly known by the original Roman Empire, have still been
heavily influenced by the Roman cultural legacy.
The ties may not always be direct or unbroken but
there is a discernable line in western history from Augustus to Constantine to
Charlemagne to Otto the Great to Charles V to Francis II and then from the
successor states down to some extent to Archduke Otto of Austria today. Much of
the importance of this for monarchists, and certainly Christian monarchists, is
because of religion, whether Catholic or Orthodox and even, though to a much
lesser extent, Protestant Christians. Christ was born in the Roman Empire (which
we must accept as intentional), early Christians were commanded by the apostles
to ‘honor the emperor’ and the Roman Empire was the vehicle by which
Christianity spread throughout the entire known world of the time. It would seem
to be quite impossible, certainly for Catholics and the Orthodox, for a
Christian monarchist not to understand the significance of the Roman Empire and
just how much we owe to that empire and to fail to honor that legacy. The whole
idea of church-state relations and what eventually became the concept of cross
and crown or throne and altar goes back to the teaching of Christ, in the Roman
Empire, to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the
things that are God’s”. The Caesar spoken of, at that time, was the Emperor
Tiberius and the role of Caesar, the Emperor, was always extremely important
in the Latin Church and if anything even more important in the Eastern
Church.
The whole concept of the social Kingship of Christ,
of having a sacred monarchy, a society with Christ and Christian teaching at the
center of it all goes back to when the Roman Empire first accepted Christianity
(Emperor Constantine) and finally made Christianity the official religion of the
empire (Emperor
Theodosius). In fact, the first ecumenical councils of the Church, for a
thousand years, were called by the Roman Emperor and presided over by the Roman
Emperor. Many of these were in response to some divisive movement and it shows
how, from the very beginning, in the Roman Empire, the Emperor was expected to
defend the Church and defend the religion of the empire, just as later kings and
princes were also expected to do.
It would be possible to go on at length but, again,
the pervasiveness of the Roman legacy for all westerners and monarchists in
particular (and certainly Christian monarchists) makes it rather hard to single
out certain aspects from such a flood of possible examples. However, whether it
was Emperor
Justinian and his reform of Roman law which became the foundation of
virtually all law in continental Europe up until the revolutionary era, or the
inestimable significance of Charlemagne for Western Europe, the foundation of
what became known as the Holy Roman Empire around which all Christian monarchies
revolved (though not always closely or peacefully) we can see how central the
Emperor of the Romans has always been from Augustus Caesar in 27 BC to the
abdication of Francis II in 1806. You can still go and visit the Crown of
Charlemagne in Vienna, based on the Roman imperial tradition and see paintings
of the Holy Roman Emperors wearing their traditional vestments which were all
Roman in origin. There is no getting away from it and that is why I say that,
not only was the Roman Empire a monarchy, the Roman Empire was, in many ways,
THE monarchy.
Consider just how long the Roman Empire has endured.
The Western Roman Empire came to an end in 476 AD when Emperor Romulus Augustus
was deposed. At the same time, the Eastern Roman Empire managed to endure, even
briefly retaking much of the west, until the fall of Constantinople and the
death of Emperor Constantine XI in 1453. However, that was still not really the
end. In 800 AD the Roman Empire in the west was revived as the Holy Roman Empire
when Charlemagne, King of the Franks, was
crowned Emperor of the Romans in the Eternal City by Pope St Leo III. This
upset the East but, at the time, Constantinople had only an Empress and no
Emperor and the West was going to have none of that. Besides which, the East
Roman or Byzantine Empire simply could not be an effective force in the west.
So, the Imperial Roman title fell to Charlemagne of the Franks, ruler of most of
western Europe. After passing from his family the title went in a German
direction, eventually settling on the Archdukes of Austria.
The Holy Roman Empire was the central core of
western Christendom and the Holy Roman Emperor, though he certainly did not rule
all of the west, was viewed as the preeminent monarch amongst the royal
hierarchy of the Christian nations. Based out of Aachen originally, finally
ending up in Vienna, the Holy Roman Emperors never ruled from Rome (which was
the domain of the Pope) nor did they very frequently visit it. Focused largely
on Germany the Emperors did rule much of Italy for lengthy periods of time but
never permanently. Nonetheless, they represented the heirs of the Caesars of old
and carried on the legacy of the Roman Empire. Otto the Great reestablished the
empire that had broken up somewhat after the death of Charlemagne and he
campaigned far into southern Italy. There was Emperor Henry II whose piety was
so remarkable that he was later declared a saint and there was Emperor
Frederick I who, for a time at least, forced the loose confederation of
German states to become a more centralized empire. Emperor
Charles V, also King of Spain, ruled the first empire upon which it was said
that the sun never set.
In 1806 the Holy Roman Empire officially came to an
end when Emperor Francis II of the Romans became simply Emperor Francis I of
Austria. Thus, with one major and one minor interruption, there had been a Roman
Emperor from Augustus
in 27 BC to Francis II in 1806 AD. And yet, once again, it did not totally end
there. In the east, Imperial Russia, and later even Bulgaria and others, claimed
to be the heirs of Constantinople, taking the title of “Tsar” or “Caesar” for
their monarchs. Moscow was declared to be the “third Rome” (Constantinople
itself being the second) but it was never quite the same with Constantinople
being in the hands of a different people, a different culture and a different
religion; a fact which remains unchanged. In the west, the Holy Roman Empire may
have ended but others were still determined to carry on the legacy of Imperial
Rome. Napoleon Bonaparte imitated ancient Rome in a big way in building up his
Empire of the French. Classical styles were revived, imperial eagles topped
French standards, Napoleon referred to his soldiers as his legions and even wore
a laurel crown like the Caesars of old.
The centrality of the Roman Empire and the Roman
imperial legacy is impossible to ignore. For Catholic monarchies it is
absolutely central, for Orthodox monarchies probably even more so. In the west
the empire was revived by the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor was the special
protector of the pontiff. There was, in fact, no Catholic monarchy that was not
at some point a part of the Holy Roman Empire or in some lesser way united to
it. Likewise, in Great Britain, which was not part of the Holy Roman Empire and
eventually not Catholic, the legacy of the Roman Empire (of which Britain
was a part) can still be seen today and the influence was extensive. It
can be seen in everything from architecture to traditional Anglican vestments to
the style of the monarchy and numerous symbols. The coronation, the sword, the
orb and so many other symbols and traditions come down, ultimately, from the
Roman Empire. Even monarchies in Scandinavia, which were never part of the Holy
Roman Empire or even hardly known by the original Roman Empire, have still been
heavily influenced by the Roman cultural legacy.
The ties may not always be direct or unbroken but
there is a discernable line in western history from Augustus to Constantine to
Charlemagne to Otto the Great to Charles V to Francis II and then from the
successor states down to some extent to Archduke Otto of Austria today. Much of
the importance of this for monarchists, and certainly Christian monarchists, is
because of religion, whether Catholic or Orthodox and even, though to a much
lesser extent, Protestant Christians. Christ was born in the Roman Empire (which
we must accept as intentional), early Christians were commanded by the apostles
to ‘honor the emperor’ and the Roman Empire was the vehicle by which
Christianity spread throughout the entire known world of the time. It would seem
to be quite impossible, certainly for Catholics and the Orthodox, for a
Christian monarchist not to understand the significance of the Roman Empire and
just how much we owe to that empire and to fail to honor that legacy. The whole
idea of church-state relations and what eventually became the concept of cross
and crown or throne and altar goes back to the teaching of Christ, in the Roman
Empire, to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the
things that are God’s”. The Caesar spoken of, at that time, was the Emperor
Tiberius and the role of Caesar, the Emperor, was always extremely important
in the Latin Church and if anything even more important in the Eastern
Church.
The whole concept of the social Kingship of Christ,
of having a sacred monarchy, a society with Christ and Christian teaching at the
center of it all goes back to when the Roman Empire first accepted Christianity
(Emperor Constantine) and finally made Christianity the official religion of the
empire (Emperor
Theodosius). In fact, the first ecumenical councils of the Church, for a
thousand years, were called by the Roman Emperor and presided over by the Roman
Emperor. Many of these were in response to some divisive movement and it shows
how, from the very beginning, in the Roman Empire, the Emperor was expected to
defend the Church and defend the religion of the empire, just as later kings and
princes were also expected to do.
It would be possible to go on at length but, again,
the pervasiveness of the Roman legacy for all westerners and monarchists in
particular (and certainly Christian monarchists) makes it rather hard to single
out certain aspects from such a flood of possible examples. However, whether it
was Emperor
Justinian and his reform of Roman law which became the foundation of
virtually all law in continental Europe up until the revolutionary era, or the
inestimable significance of Charlemagne for Western Europe, the foundation of
what became known as the Holy Roman Empire around which all Christian monarchies
revolved (though not always closely or peacefully) we can see how central the
Emperor of the Romans has always been from Augustus Caesar in 27 BC to the
abdication of Francis II in 1806. You can still go and visit the Crown of
Charlemagne in Vienna, based on the Roman imperial tradition and see paintings
of the Holy Roman Emperors wearing their traditional vestments which were all
Roman in origin. There is no getting away from it and that is why I say that,
not only was the Roman Empire a monarchy, the Roman Empire was, in many ways,
THE monarchy.
No comments:
Post a Comment