The deposition of the young emperor Romulus Augustus in 476 is commonly regarded as marking the fall of a âWestern Roman Empireâ.1 What remained was an âEastern Roman Empireâ, also characterised as âByzantineâ, the sole heir to imperial authority and culture.2 This perspective implicitly suggests that these two parts of the empire were essentially separate polities and, as a result, that imperial authority in the West had largely ceased by the end of the fifth century. The event itself, the fall of what has been called the âWestern Roman Empireâ, was indeed the culmination of a long process of barbarisation already studied extensively since the influential ESF-project Transformation of the Roman World (1993 to 1997).3 One major factor driving this development was the growing number of ânon-Romansâ entering imperial service, particularly the Roman army, a process accompanied by the settlement of related groups, initially at the empireâs borders but increasingly, from the fifth century onwards, within imperial territory itself.4 By the end of the fifth century, the western regions of the empire were inhabited by Burgundians, Goths, Alamans, Vandals, and many other groups who had either been granted land in exchange for service or had conquered these territories militarily. In either case, it is generally assumed that imperial authority over these regions had vanished by the end of the fifth century.
The most enduring among these peoples were the Franks. They entered the stage of history in the third century, when they lived along the lower Rhine River, from where they raided imperial territories. In the fourth century, the empire allowed those called the Salian Franks to settle in Toxandria â a region including the northern parts of modern Belgium and the southern Netherlands â probably in exchange for military service.5 From there, they gradually expanded their influence and territory, which was ruled by various regional rulers. It was the Frankish king Clovis (â 511) who in the late fifth century united all the Frankish territories under his rulership and expanded his domain to include most of Gaul, leading to the foundation of the Frankish kingdom and its Merovingian dynasty. The Franks subsequently emerged as one of the dominant powers in the West.6
1.1 Outline and Questions
At what point did imperial authority lose its grip on Gaul and western Germania? And how were the Merovingian kingdoms connected to the empire? These questions are pivotal to the present investigation. It seeks to re-evaluate the role of the Franks during the transition from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, arguing that although the Franks had never become citizens of the Roman empire, they remained acknowledged as part of its multi-ethnic world. This recognition had significant implications for the personal, political, and diplomatic relations between the Merovingians and the empire, which became estranged gradually without their connection ever being officially ended.
The Byzantinist George Ostrogorsky in 1959 concluded by looking at the events from an eastern perspective: âIt was not the incursions from without, but the inherent process of cultural and linguistic separation that played the decisive role in the gradual estrangement between the Latin West and the Greek East, an estrangement which, after the unsuccessful endeavour made in the time of Justinian (â 565) to reunite the two worlds, found such clear expression in the seventh century.â7 The Merovingians were the founders of what would become medieval Francia, laying the groundwork for the Carolingian empire, from which both Germany and France eventually emerged. The Frankish kingdoms were born within the Roman sphere, rooted in a Roman milieu involving continuity across all societal levels, including politics, governance, identities, language, law, religion, and culture, maintaining a complex and evolving relationship with the empire. This book is the first attempt in English to provide a comprehensive discussion of the diplomatic exchanges, alliances, and conflicts that characterised this relationship. It examines the significance attributed to anything Roman in the Merovingian West, and the influence there of eastern imperial culture, religion, and politics. Reassessing the relationship between the Merovingian Franks and the empire in its full complexity is essential to understanding the dynamics of power, culture, and diplomacy during this transitional period.
The study argues that the deposition of the young emperor Romulus Augustus in 476 did not mark the end of a âWestern Roman Empireâ, as such an imperium never existed. The Roman empire had consistently remained a single body, divisions resulting solely from practical administrative or governance needs. The event of 476 itself therefore only gained significance in hindsight as the moment when western emperorship had ended, a fact that became clear only after subsequent attempts to restore it proved unsuccessful. Western emperorship was only restored, most prominently, in December 800 by the Frankish king Charlemagne.8 The empire thus remained undivided, even after the administrative subdivision of 395. In consequence, the western territories fell under the authority of the emperor in Constantinople once the western throne became vacant. This applied not only to Italy but also to imperial Gaul, including the home region of the Salian Franks in the North. This means that the event of 476 had no immediate impact on the Franksâ relationship with the empire, bringing to the forefront the broader question of how the Franks related to the Roman empire, even before 476.
The empire maintained strong connections with regions like Italy and the Frankish territories beyond the end of western emperorship. Although imperial authority had gradually declined in Frankish lands since late Antiquity, their ties to the empire remained strong by the end of the fifth century. The Frankish king Clovis, for example, received acknowledgment from the em-peror Anastasius I (â 518) through the granting of imperial titles shortly after assuming power.9 And like his father Childeric I (â 481/2), a petty king who ruled the Toxandrian region until his death in 481, Clovis was not only king but also administrator of the Roman province of Belgica II,10 which at that time may have included the Toxandrian region in its North. The dual role of these early Frankish authorities, as both their peopleâs kings and imperial of-ficials, is well attested by Childeric Iâs burial, discovered in his residence at Tournai in 1653. It contained a signet ring (see figure 1) featuring his portrait, with long hair and a moustache, and dressed in Roman military attire. Although such a ring was a feature typical of Roman administrative practice, this one character-ised its bearer, Childeric, as king (rex), a title commonly used to refer to ânon-Romanâ authorities. The ring thus affirmed both his âbarbarianâ, royal identity, and his affiliation with the empire as its official, symbolising his Frankish heritage and role within the Roman sphere.11
Redrawing of the reconstructed signet ring of Childeric
Evidence permitting assessment of the relationship between the empire and the Frankish realm under Clovisâ descendants is scarce. References to an abrupt change in the kingdomâs status in relation to the empire are lacking, raising the question of how the kingdoms transitioned from a realm effectively under imperial authority to a more independent domain. Regular exchanges with the eastern authorities are recorded up to the late sixth century.12 A panegyric penned in Gaul by the Italian poet Venantius Fortunatus (â c.600/10) confirms that the Roman world and its empire remained influential references and points of identification in the Frankish West: It praised the emperor Justin II (â 578) and his wife Sophia by claiming that God âestablish[ed] Justin as head over the worldâ, adding that: âHe, who pleases the King of Heaven by his service, duly lays claim to the citadel which holds mastery over kings. How rightly he rules over Rome and the Roman world who follows the doctrine which Peterâs throne proclaimsâ.13 Despite these overt panegyrical overstatements, the poem does indicate a Frankish perspective acknowledging subordination and a lasting belief in imperial predominance beyond the fifth century.14 This and the preceding evidence underscore the necessity for a thorough analysis of Frankish-Byzantine relations, as only such a study can effectively help comprehending the position of the Frankish realms within the Roman world and its imperial continuation.
This monograph reassesses the relationship between the Franks and the empire until the mid-eighth century and related processes of alienation to argue that the Frankish world maintained ties with the empire well into the sixth and sustained significant connections until beyond the mid-seventh century. Both well-known and lesser-known evidence are examined to argue for a persistent Frankish identification with the empire and continued diplomatic relations until at least the late sixth century, as documented, for example, by an epistolary collection known as the Austrasian Letters and the Histories of the bishop Gregory of Tours (â 594).15 The dissociation of the Frankish kingdoms from the empire thus did not occur already in the late fifth century. Although defining the relationship of the early Franks and their kingdoms to the empire more precisely remains elusive, both the Byzantines and the Franks shared the opinion that the former belonged to the empire. Consequently, the Franks remained the favoured allies of the imperium in the West until the late sixth century, when this connection significantly deteriorated. This estrangement was a gradual process, becoming more apparent in the 580s, when the emperors made substantial efforts to compel the Frankish kings to expell the Lombards from Italy. In this context, the empire used an unrecognised son of the Merovingian king Chlothar I (â 561), called Gundovald, in an attempt to overthrow at least two of the three kings ruling Gaul at that time, and thereby to reunite the Frankish realm in order to create a strong military force against the Lombards. This event is known as the Gundovald Affair, and together with other incidents occurring in the same context, it caused significant damage to the relationship between the Franks and the empire.
By the late seventh century, the relationship between the Franks and the empire had shifted from a cooperative alliance to a more distant and less defined connection. The anonymous Chronicle of Fredegar, written in the early 660s, contains the latest extensive reports on the Byzantine world written in the Frankish realm before the Carolingian era. It includes eleven relevant entries, including a detailed excursus on the emperor Herakleios (â 641), with information about a Frankish legation dispatched to that emperor by the Merovingian king Dagobert in 629/30.16 The embassyâs intention was to establish an âeternal peaceâ, an initiative reciprocated four years later by the emperor.17 After this, the sources lack unambiguous references to such diplomatic exchanges until the mid-750s.18 The impression of a significant decline in mutual interactions is supported by archaeological findings, notably the scarcity of relevant shipwrecks discovered in the Mediterranean, which is particularly noteworthy given the sporadic disruption of the overland Balkan routes connecting Constantinople with the West.19 Still, Michael McCormick already pointed to a ship from Constantinople that sank near Narbonne around 630 and a shipwreck close to the Merovingian port of Fos-sur-Mer, maybe from the late seventh century.20
This monograph shows that although unambiguous evidence for diplomatic interaction between the Merovingians and the empire is lacking after 634,21 scattered indications suggest that these exchanges persisted beyond that date. They point to a pattern of embassies exchanged at approximately thirty-year intervals, potentially also occurring in 662, and possibly in 692, a pattern that appears to align with the imperial tradition of renewing âeternalâ peace treaties every three decades. The possibility of enduring diplomatic contacts during this period is particularly noteworthy given indications also suggesting that the Franks continued to identify themselves with the empire. For instance, when confronted with the Byzantine Monothelite controversy (c.622â680), which emerged during the reign of Herakleios, the Merovingian kings appear to have chosen to align with the emperor in the East rather than support the defiant pope in Rome. The Franks only established closer ties with the pope in the eighth century when the Carolingian Pepin the Short (â 768) received papal support for his ascension to kingship in exchange for military aid against the Lombards.
While much is known about the Carolingian relations with the Byzantines, thanks to a much larger body of evidence, Merovingian interactions lack a comprehensive study that takes recent research into account. The relations of the pre-750 period exhibit characteristics that, in some respects, significantly differ from those during the Carolingian era. For instance, the pope did not yet have the pivotal significance for the Franks and their relations with the empire as would be the case after 750. By viewing the Merovingian realm of the sixth century as still closely bound to the empire, related agreements and exchanges can be seen not merely as the product of external relations, primarily rooted in the moment, but rather as the result of long-term internal political relations, which even in the ancient Roman empire had always involved rivalry and deceit. Such new readings have important implications for our understanding of the position of the Merovingian realm in the wider Mediterranean that have yet to be fully explored. The possibility that Franco-imperial diplomatic relations extended beyond 634, for example, offers a fresh perspective on the foundations upon which Carolingian relations were built and helps explain why the Carolingians and Byzantines did not meet as complete strangers in the mid-eighth century.22
1.2 Prior Research
The complexity of the Frankish relationship with the empire and the continuity of close ties beyond the fifth century have long been recognised in research, with some of the earliest explorations conducted by Germanophone scholars. The question about whether the East and the West had remained part of a shared Roman world beyond the fifth century was first explored in 1900 by Nikolaus Reitter. He discussed references related to the belief in a continuation of the Roman empire after 476 in the West up to the end of the sixth century and stressed the need to continue his work until the time of Charlemagne, and beyond.23 In 1925, Herman Fischer built upon Reitterâs work and focused on the Franks to support the argument for significant imperial continuity during the first Merovingian century. Fischer concluded that âGaul was not conquered by the barbarians, but they were won for the empireâ (p. 553). While Fischer explored how the belief in the continuity of the Roman empire influenced medieval perceptions of authority and the integration of Roman traditions and institutions into western governance after the fall of the Roman empire, he considered the empire merely an illusory concept that had ceased to reflect reality in the early Middle Ages.24 Eugen Ewig, who in 1983 wrote a more comprehensive investigation of the relationship between the Merovingians and the empire, was less sceptical about the significance of the Franko-imperial connections, which he characterised, from a Byzantine perspective, as âimperial internal relationsâ (Germ. âBinnenbeziehungen des Römischen Reichesâ, p. 60).25 Also relevant is Chris Wickhamâs assessment in his Framing the early Middle Ages of 2005, emerging from his discussion of northern Gaul during the Merovingian era. He highlighted not only the gradual nature of relevant developments but also that the Roman and Frankish elements in Merovingian society did not differ significantly in nature.26 In his general conclusion, Wickham also underlined that the significance and impact of ethnic differences and migration have been overrated by modern research, given that regions inhabited by large numbers of migrants mostly tend to show the same developments as those with more homogeneous populations. Relevant changes were triggered, according to Wickham, by the fading imperial unity and authority âin the West in the fifth century, in the East in the seventhâ (p. 830).27 These assessments, however insightful, have remained isolated and have not been as influential within wider early medieval scholarship as they could have been, where the orthodox view persists that the Franks were one of the ânon-Romanâ tribes genuinely foreign to the empire.
The exploration of the Merovingian connections with Byzantium has a long history and only a brief survey of it can be provided here; further relevant studies will be addressed as necessary in the chapters below. The scholarly interest in the Franko-Byzantine relations has yielded a plethora of edited research volumes.28 One such volume emerged in the context of the project âOsten und Westen 400â600 n. Chr.â conducted at the University of Tübingen under the auspices of Mischa Meier and Steffen Patzold. It focuses on the alienation of East and West from a cultural perspective.29 By contrast, a volume co-edited by Yitzhak Hen, Stefan Esders, Yaniv Fox and myself emphasises the persisting connections between these two regions.30 Here, the medievalist Ian N. Wood, for example, discussed the travels and exchanges in the particularly dark period between the late seventh century and the early eighth century.31 Further work of particular relevance has been published more recently by Sihong Lin, who analysed the interconnectedness between the empire and the West in this same period from different perspectives.32 The various forms and contexts of material and immaterial exchanges have been studied, among others, by Dietrich Claude and Jörg Drauschke, focusing on diplomatic missions and the archaeological evidence.33 The seminal monograph by Michael McCormick on the Origins of the European economy is particularly relevant here.34 Any such exchanges would have been facilitated by the use of a common language, raising the question of the availability and significance of proficiency in Greek among the subjects of the Merovingian kings. Bernard Bischoff and Walter Berschin published pioneering work in this regard that helped pave the way for understanding the presence and utilisation of Greek within medieval western contexts.35 Other explorations of this period have focused on the medieval utilisation, reutilisation, and reception of enduring elements from the ancient Roman era in the West, including infrastructure, architecture, or art.36 Further relevant contributions include those of Byzantinist scholars, among which Evangelos K. Chrysos needs to be mentioned for his invaluable insights into early medieval perceptions of emperorship and diplomacy.37 These and many other works to be discussed in the chapters to follow have laid the groundwork for a more comprehensive study of the topic by significantly shaping and enriching our understanding of the connections between the Frankish kingdoms and the empire.
1.3 Approach and Methods
This study offers a comprehensive discussion of the interplay between the Franks and the empire between the late fifth and the mid-eighth centuries by reassessing the available written and material evidence. It does so without claiming to provide a complete account of all relevant material, events, and perceptions. Instead, it seeks to strike a balance by providing all the background information a reader might need to follow the historical developments discussed, while avoiding lengthy treatments of well-known facts, well-researched questions, and unambiguous material by referencing the pertinent publications. Essential sources include historiography, letter exchange, poetry, hagiography and law, including pivotal evidence like the afore mentioned Austrasian Letters, which offer a glimpse into early medieval politics, the Histories of Gregory of Tours, and the Chronicle of Fredegar. They are complemented by a wealth of indications found in lesser-known sources, including those that have been misinterpreted, considered irrelevant or unreliable, or have not yet received the attention they deserve due to the lack of modern editions. Among the Byzantine sources, the works of Procopius, Agathias and the Chronicles of Theophylactos Simocatta and Theophanes are key.38 The relevant material evidence includes manuscripts, archaeological finds such as coins, seals, and other items bearing inscriptions or depictions, as well as burial remains.
In order to adequately reassess the nature of the relationship between the Franks and the empire, it is essential to set aside modern presuppositions that obstruct such a reassessment â at least tentatively. This applies, for example, to the notion of a fundamental political and cultural superiority of Byzantium. In the past, numerous pieces of evidence have been overinterpreted in support of this view, whereas others that point to a close connection between the Franks and the empire have not been taken seriously by scholarship and have instead been dismissed as empty topoi. This, however, is too convenient as an approach and results in the more or less unconscious adoption of conceptions of Antiquity and the Middle Ages that go back to the foundational works of the early modern period. Such presuppositions can be avoided if we are willing, at least provisionally, to take the relevant sources seriously.
The studyâs approach aims for an unprejudiced analysis by focusing on the medieval perspective. This is particularly important when assessing key aspects like political constellations, perceptions of time, medieval identities, and related notions of togetherness and distinction. While analysing the Franco-Byzantine interconnections through the lens of early medieval viewpoints, the study seeks to avoid applying modern presuppositions and to concentrate instead on what the evidence itself is able to reveal. To this end, the monograph avoids using modern explanatory models and concepts that are not attested by the evidence and/or that risk prejudicing the interpretation. Prominent examples include the notion of imitatio imperii, Roman or âbarbarianâ identities, the presupposition of a significant cultural gap between the Byzantines and Merovingian societies, and basic notions of epochal distinctions between what we call Antiquity and the Middle Ages. The concept of imitation inherently implies that what is being imitated is something foreign, adopted without a genuine connection between the imitator and the imitated â amounting to a form of usurpation. The present book argues that the Franks were an integral part of the Roman world, fully sharing in its traditions, concepts of rulership, societal norms, and worldviews, and developing them further to meet their own ends in ways comparable to the inhabitants of other regions of the former Roman empire. Similarly, notions of distinct Roman and âbarbarianâ identities, and the presumed cultural divide between Byzantine and Merovingian societies, stem from the underlying assumption â challenged in this book â that the Franks were merely âbarbariansâ like all others, responsible for the destruction of Roman society and the creation of a markedly inferior order. This perspective overlooks the reality that by around 500, the Salian Franks had already lived largely peacefully for many generations on Roman territory, coexisting with and probably integrating into the Roman population while maintaining a distinctly Frankish identity. By emphasising the gradual nature of the alienation of the Merovingian realm from the empire, a relationship unaffected by the end of western emperorship, this study also challenges the notion of caesura with the empire implied for the post-476 period in designations of the Frankish kingdom as âpost-Roman/imperialâ or âsuccessor stateâ (German Nachfolgestaat).
To avoid acting on false assumptions and to accurately represent the medieval perspective, this study primarily relies on the terminology found in the sources, using either equivalent English terms or the original Latin or Greek words. The term âByzantineâ is a necessary exception. The early medieval sources occasionally use it to refer to the eastern capital,39 while modern research adopts it to denote the imperial East in the post-fifth-century context. This modern notion of the term âByzantineâ needs to be maintained in this context as it helps to avoid wordy formulations and allows for clear distinctions between the various medieval concepts of Romanness. When discussing papal Rome, its Roman identity is noted with appropriate qualifiers. Another notion lacking appropriate modern terminology is that of the ânon-Romanâ. This clumsy term is often used to refer to all those groups not sharing an overall Roman identity of the empire. However, it establishes a dichotomy between âRomansâ and âthose who were notâ, which does not reflect the complexity attested in the period examined here. Popular alternatives, such as âGermanicâ or âbarbarianâ, are even more problematic, as they are either oversimplistic or carry heavy presuppositions related to a supposedly civilised Roman against an allegedly primitive outer populace. As none of the available terms designates the sum of all the âbarbariansâ in an unbiased manner, this monograph preferably speaks of ânon-Romansâ or âbarbariansâ in between single quotation marks.40
The above research approach is complemented by further methods and procedures. One relates to structural history. Understanding the external world and the conditions under which particular events occurred is important, as these circumstances influenced individualsâ perceptions, including those of our authors. Consequently, it is essential to gather as much information as possible about the world under discussion, including not only the history of events but also political, social and cultural structures, both material and immaterial. This background knowledge significantly enhances any critical reassessment of past evidence. Additional approaches include the analysis of the pertinent terminology, related semantics, and the notions and concepts relevant terms were meant to imply (Germ. Begriffsgeschichte).41 This approach allows for a deeper understanding of the historical notions these terms conveyed in a particular source or period, and their related evolutions. Examining relevant terminology thus helps to better understand how language reflected and shaped social, political, and cultural changes, or influenced related perceptions of identity and otherness. Likewise pertinent is the concept of entangled history (French histoire croisée, German Verflechtungsgeschichte)42 which allows for a focus on related politics and culture and their reciprocal influences and receptions. It helps in studying the interconnectedness of the Frankish and imperial worlds, and how related interactions and exchanges shaped relevant historical developments.
In what follows, chapter 2 discusses pivotal figures such as Odoacer and Theodoric and their allegiance to the empire, in order to challenge the thesis of a clear division between the empireâs eastern and western realms and to argue for the persistence of a united imperial entity. Chapter 3 then focuses on the position of the Merovingian kingdoms within the persisting empire by examining Justinianâs reconquest, the Lombard invasion, and an intriguing testament by the emperor Maurikios (â 602), all of which shed light on the empireâs ongoing connection to the West until the end of the sixth century. Chapter 4 extends the discussion to the Christian community by examining the relationship between the Pope and the Franks and the relevant imperial influence, followed by investigations into the implications of two major religious controversies, the one related to the Three Chapters and, in particular, to Monothelitism, underscoring the Franksâ alignment with imperial orthodoxy against papal authority. Chapter 5 then explores the Mediterranean exchanges between the Franks and the empire and discusses evidence pointing to previously unknown diplomatic relations between the Merovingians and the empire after the early seventh century. It discusses questions related to connectivity, language, trade routes, and knowledge exchange during the âdarkâ period between the mid-seventh and mid-eighth century, when sources and knowledge are particularly scarce. Although these chapters address different topics, they are thus largely organised chronologically so as to enhances the readerâs understanding of the various contexts of the study: the transition between Antiquity and the Middle Ages in chapter 2, the long sixth century in chapter 3, the mid-sixth and seventh centuries focussing on questions related to ecclesiastical historical in chapter 4 and the âdarkâ period between the mid-seventh and mid-eighth centuries in chapter 5.
Note on Names
This book follows conventional spellings of names without distorting their original forms beyond recognition. This is why Greek names, for instance, are not adapted into Latinised or Anglicised versions when these significantly alter their structure (e.g. âHerakleiosâ rather than âHeracliusâ, âMaurikiosâ rather than âMauriceâ). Latin and other historical names are presented in their standard scholarly forms to maintain clarity and consistency.
See, e.g., Heather, The fall of the Roman Empire (2005), pp. 431â2; Christie, The fall of the Western Roman Empire (2011); Kruse, The politics of Roman memory (2019), pp. 1â2; Pohl, âThe emergence of new politiesâ (2021), pp. 3 and 62. See also Fanning, âOdovacer rexâ (2003); Börm, Westrom (2013); Watts, The eternal decline (2021), pp. 118â122.
See, e.g., Schram, Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio (1929), pp. 10â11; Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates (1963), pp. 23 and 72; van Tricht, The Latin renovatio of Byzantium (2011), p. 58.
See the relevant series emerging from the project with brill.com/display/serial/TRW (19.09.2024).
Stickler, âThe Foederatiâ (1993), pp. 497â9; Southern/Dixon, The late Roman army (2000), pp. 46â52.
Reichmann, âZur Ansiedlung der Salfrankenâ (2013), pp. 1â16.
On the Franks and their history, see, e.g., Geary, Before France and Germany (1988); James, The Franks (1991); Wood, The Merovingian Kingdoms (1994).
Ostrogorsky, âThe Byzantine empireâ (1959), p. 21. Cf. Kapriev, âVier Arten und Weisenâ (2012), p. 31, speaking, in reference to the early Middle Ages, of an âinnere Zweiteilung Europasâ.
For a re-assessment of these events and their implications, see Sarti, Orbis Romanus (2024), in particular pp. 7â50.
Gregory, Libri historiarum 2.38, ed. Krusch 1937, pp. 35 and 88â9. The patricius-title is only mentioned in the chapter heading. See sections 3.1 and 3.3 for a more throughout discussions and further references.
Epist. Austras. 2, ed. Gundlach 1892, further discussed in chapter 5.
See Müller-Wille, Zwei religiöse Welten (1998); Quast (ed.), Das Grab des fränkischen Königs Childerich (2015); Sarti, âBearded and long-haired kingsâ (forthcoming). Facsimile in Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Médailles et Antiques, inv.56.460, access medaillesetantiques.bnf.fr/ws/catalogue/app/collection/record/ark:/12148/c33gbrcn0 (15/06/2024).
See Epist. Austras. and the summary in Tinnefeld, âDiplomatische Kontakteâ (2011), pp. 71â4.
Fortunatus, Carmen appendix 2, ll. 11â16, ed. Leo 1881, pp. 275â6: âgloria summa tibi, rerum sator atque redemptor,/ qui das Iustinum iustus in orbe caput./ rite super reges dominantem vindicat arcem/ caelesti regi qui famulando placet./ quam merito Romae Romanoque imperat orbi/ qui sequitur quod ait dogma cathedra Petri.â Trans. George 1995, p. 112.
Similar Drauschke, âDiplomatie und Wahrnehmungâ (2011), p. 252. See also the title Kingdoms of the empire. The integration of barbarians in late Antiquity, ed. Pohl 1997.
E.g., Gregory, Libri historiarum 6.2, 6.18, 6.23, 6.24, 6.26, 6.30, 7.32, 9.25, 10.2, 10.15. See also related comments in Loseby, âGregory of Toursâ (2015), p. 497. Schreiner, âGregor von Tours und Byzanzâ (2010), pp. 403â18, underlines the accuracy of Gregoryâs information on the Byzantine world.
Fredegar 4.5, 4.9, 4.11, 4.23, 4.45, 4.62, 4.63, 4.64, 4.65, 4.66, 4.81, ed. Krusch 1888. See also Fredegar 4.49, 4.58, 4.69, 4.71, mentioning the empire in reference to events that took place in the West. On the chronicle, see Collins, Die Fredegar-Chroniken (2007). For a more elaborate discussion of the chronicleâs references to the Byzantine world, see Goetz, âUnsichtbares oder sichtbares Imperium Romanum?â (2021); Sarti, âByzantine history and storiesâ (2021).
Fredegar 4.62, 4.65.
Annales regni Francorum a. 757, eds. Pertz and Kurze 1895. See also Wolf, âFränkisch-byzantinische Gesandtschaftenâ (1991), pp. 6â10.
McCormick, âByzantium and the Westâ (1995), pp. 357â8; Pratsch, âStationenâ (2012), pp. 17â18.
McCormick, âWestern approachesâ (2008), p. 405, n. 34, with further references, including evidence showing that luxury wares from Byzantine Africa and the Islamic Middle East were still occasionally imported to Rome in the late seventh century.
Tinnefeld, âFormen und Wege des Kontaktesâ (2001), p. 25, erroneously suggests that the last Byzantine embassy reached Gaul in 631.
See Sarti, Orbis Romanus (2024).
Reitter, Der Glaube an die Fortdauer (1900), p. 1: âEine dankenswerte Arbeit wäre es gewesen, zur Gewinnung eines einheitlichen Ganzen, vorliegenden Ausführungen einen noch gröÃeren Umfang zu geben und an der Hand sämtlicher Schriftsteller der damaligen Zeit bis Karl den GroÃen zu untersuchen, wie man damals in der römischen und germanischen Welt die souveränen Beziehungen Roms zu den neuentstandenen germanischen Reichen auffasste, um dadurch einen Anknüpfungspunkt zwischen dem alten Rom und dem neuen römischen Reiche deutscher Nation zu gewinnen.â Reitter limited his investigation, which he apparently never completed, to political questions and the region of Italy.
Fischer, âThe belief in the continuityâ (1925), pp. 536â53.
Ewig, Die Merowinger und das Imperium (1983).
Wickham, Framing the early Middle Ages (2005), in particular pp. 178â186. See also Wickham, âRethinkingâ (2008), pp. 29â30.
Wickham, Framing the early Middle Ages (2005), pp. 828â30.
Focussing in the Merovingian period, see, e.g. Wood and Fischer (eds.), Western perspectives on the Mediterranean (2014); Stewart and Wakeley (eds.), Cross-cultural exchange in the Byzantine world (2016); Esders et al. (eds.), The Merovingian kingdoms and the Mediterranean (2019).
The complete title of the project is ââOstenâ und âWestenâ 400â600. Die kulturelle Dislokation des Imperium Romanum zwischen Spätantike und Frühmittelalterâ, see uni-tuebingen.de/fakultaeten/philosophische-fakultaet/fachbereiche/geschichtswissenschaft/forschung/abgeschlossene-projekte/osten-und-westen-400-600-nchr/dfg-projekt/ (24.12.2023). It resulted, i.a., in Föller and Schulz (eds.), Osten und Westen 400â600 n. Chr. (2016).
Esders et al. (eds.), East and West in the early Middle Ages (2019).
Wood, âContact with the eastern Mediterraneanâ (2019), pp. 281â96.
Lin, âThe Merovingian kingdomsâ (2020), pp. 1â18; Lin, âJustinianâs Frankish Warâ (2021), pp. 403â31.
Claude, âSpätantike und frühmittelalterliche Orientfahrtenâ (2000), pp. 235â53; Drauschke, Zwischen Handel und Geschenk (2011).
McCormick, Origins (2001).
Bischoff, âDas griechische Elementâ (1951), pp. 26â55; Berschin, Griechisch-lateinisches Mittelalter (1980).
E.g., Clemens, Tempore Romanorum constructa (2003); Brather et al. (eds.), Antike im Mittelalter (2014).
E.g. Koder, âByzanz, die Griechen und die Romaiosyneâ (1990), pp. 103â11; Chrysos, âByzantine diplomacyâ (1992), pp. 25â39; Koder, âGriechische Identitäten im Mittelalterâ (2003), pp. 297â319.
Procopius, Goth., ed. Veh 2014; Agathias, Hist., ed. Keydell 1967; Theophylactos, Hist., ed. de Boor 1887; Theophanes, Chronicle, ed. de Boor 1883/5.
E.g. Photios, Epist. 19, p. 71: â
Several of my attempts to use the significantly more neutral term âgentileâ, already employed by other scholars as a translation of the early medieval gentile to refer to ânon-Romansâ, has been met with mixed reactions from reviewers and colleagues, leading me to abandon the approach here. Still, I would like to point out that the term âgentileâ is used in its non-biblical sense to refer to âbarbariansâ by, e.g., Nelson, The Frankish world (1996), p. xxi; Garipzanov, The symbolic language of authority (2008), p. 21, n. 67. It still appears more suitable to me for a study aiming to challenge the dichotomy between âRomansâ and âbarbariansâ, as it acknowledges related self-perceptions and avoids imposing modern or Roman imperial presuppositions, thereby fostering a better understanding of the gradual shift from a Roman-centred world to the emerging medieval order, in which the Franks played a crucial role.
Gumbrecht, Dimension und Grenzen (2006). See, e.g., the contributions in Grünbart (ed.), Verflechtungen zwischen Byzanz und dem Orient (2019).
Werner and Zimmermann, âBeyond comparisonâ (2006), pp. 30â50. See also the related concept of âdivided perceptionsâ elaborated in Kölmel, Geteilte Vorstellungen (2021).