Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;+VGO.DVCKS, post: 6409024, member: 110504&quot;]Along with [USER=118358]@The Trachy Enjoyer[/USER]&#039;s and [USER=110226]@robinjojo[/USER]&#039;s points, there&#039;s likely another, less practical/monetary, more amorphous dynamic.&nbsp; The Germanic tribes, especially at the royal level, were keen students of the broad Imperial legacy.&nbsp; They were highly motivated to identify themselves with Imperial precedent.&nbsp; ...By any means available to them.&nbsp; And at this interval, the Eastern Roman Empire (cf. [USER=81093]@AussieCollector[/USER]&#039;s and [USER=111037]@Only a Poor Old Man[/USER]&#039;s observations in other threads) was perceived as what it was: what was left of the Roman Empire.&nbsp; It was only natural for the Germanic kingdoms to perpetuate the existing precedent, where early &#039;Byzantine&#039; issues were concerned.</p><p>When Charlemagne, and then the Ottonians in Germany, styled themselves as &#039;Roman emperors,&#039; they were following a tradition that was already most of half a millennium old.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in