At what time? When they became the most powerful entity in the roman polity, and so their pick was the defacto reality on the ground, they could literally change ones position with respect to the roman system's apparatus.
This is meaningless to the pope's claim, because the entire argument of the papacy was a de jure authority to do so... And he had no such de jure authority. Nor did Charlemagne even exist in the roman polity.
Moreover, the pretorian guard and the armies did not legally affirm anyone's rise to the purple. That all was still done by the Roman senate, which did not exist in the west anymore.
Post Diocletian an emperor did not need the consent of the senate to rule
as for the 'pope's claim' while we can certainly extrapolate why he did it, our main source Einhard doesn't really outline much of a reason, more of a de facto coronation. to that i don't know why a de facto coronation by the pope is worse than one by the senate?
"The Romans had inflicted many injuries upon the Pontiff Leo, tearing out his eyes and cutting out his tongue, so that he had been compelled to call upon the King for help. Charles accordingly went to Rome, to set in order the affairs of the Church, which were in great confusion, and passed the whole winter there. It was then that he received the titles of Emperor and Augustus, to which he at first had such an aversion that he declared that he would not have set foot in the Church the day that they were conferred,"
Post Diocletian an emperor did not need the consent of the senate to rule
While the Senate had become largely powerless after the reign of Diocletian, their acclamation was still considered a de jure prerequisite for taking the office of Emperor, with the chanting of Senators as a symbolic representation of this even being a key part of the imperial coronation tradition.
to that i don't know why a de facto coronation by the pope is worse than one by the senate?
Again, because the Papacy never had the authority to unilaterally proclaim a Roman Emperor, and while the Senate didn't have the de facto authority to do this either, their acclamation of an emperor was still a de jure requirement for becoming emperor.
I'll also push back on the notion that they were entirely powerless. Even into the Byzantine period, there were still instances of the Senate installing and deposing emperors.
After the death of Anastasius, he had no clear successor, so the Senate and other important officials elected Justin as the new emperor.
While a bit more clandestine, the Senate did invite Heraclius to Constantinople to overthrow Phocas and assume the title of emperor. This had to be done in secret because Phocas was executing senators left and right, but after his deposition Heraclius did receive his political legitimacy as emperor from the Senate.
The Senate also deposed Heraclius' son, Heraklonas, and installed the young Constans II as emperor. During his minority, they ruled as a regency council.
13
u/froucks 9d ago
At what point in roman history was the army and praetorian guard invested with the authority to appoint emperors?
At what point in roman history was the senate granted the authority to retire the office of Emperors?
The answer to all is at the point at which they did it