20171114-163_Final Paper (Arianna Drayton).docx
1 / 6
Arianna Drayton
Professor Thurston
History 350
11/21/2017
Liutprand Cremona
This essay is aimed at examining the account of Liutprand of Cremona who travelled to Constantinople in order to arrange the marriage between Otto II and a Byzantine princess. His narrative throws much light on the relationship between the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire in the tenth century. The author discusses various issues related to the territorial disputes between the two states, the political legitimacy of their rulers, as well as religious views of easterners and westerners. Overall, Liutprand’s account eloquently illustrates the growing political, cultural, and religious …show more content…
These distinctions are reflected in the conversation between Liutprand and Nicephorus. In particular, Liutprand says that the Byzantine Emperors cannot be viewed as the true rulers of Rome. To support this claim, he mentions that easterners failed to punish the corrupt and impious “tyrants” of Rome who sent scornful letters to the Byzantine Emperors (Liutprand). By contrast, Otto succeeded in freeing Rome of such rulers. To some degree, Liutprand’s response exemplifies his opinions about the authority of Nicephorus and Otto. In particular, he thinks that Nicephorus can exercise his authority over certain lands only by relying on the century-old tradition and the former power of the Byzantine Empire. Nevertheless, he is not longer able to respond to new threats. Therefore, his power is very weak. At the same time, the authority of Otto is based on his ability to use military force in order to meet potential challenges or punish injustice. Hence, in his opinion, Otto is a more efficient ruler. In their turn, Nicephorus and his courtiers believe that they are the only heirs of the Roman Empire. Hence, their authority cannot be questioned by any European monarch. More importantly, from their perspective, Otto I or any other European king lacks legitimacy and has no right to …show more content…
In particular, his account shows that both westerners and easterners can be very critical of each other’s religious beliefs. For example, some Byzantines could argue that the Eastern Church had been much older than the Western Church; therefore, it was entitled to greater authority in the Christian world (Liutprand). Such an opinion was not shared by people like Liutprand. In his account, the author emphasizes the idea that
1 / 6
Arianna Drayton
Professor Thurston
History 350
11/21/2017
Liutprand Cremona
This essay is aimed at examining the account of Liutprand of Cremona who travelled to Constantinople in order to arrange the marriage between Otto II and a Byzantine princess. His narrative throws much light on the relationship between the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire in the tenth century. The author discusses various issues related to the territorial disputes between the two states, the political legitimacy of their rulers, as well as religious views of easterners and westerners. Overall, Liutprand’s account eloquently illustrates the growing political, cultural, and religious …show more content…
These distinctions are reflected in the conversation between Liutprand and Nicephorus. In particular, Liutprand says that the Byzantine Emperors cannot be viewed as the true rulers of Rome. To support this claim, he mentions that easterners failed to punish the corrupt and impious “tyrants” of Rome who sent scornful letters to the Byzantine Emperors (Liutprand). By contrast, Otto succeeded in freeing Rome of such rulers. To some degree, Liutprand’s response exemplifies his opinions about the authority of Nicephorus and Otto. In particular, he thinks that Nicephorus can exercise his authority over certain lands only by relying on the century-old tradition and the former power of the Byzantine Empire. Nevertheless, he is not longer able to respond to new threats. Therefore, his power is very weak. At the same time, the authority of Otto is based on his ability to use military force in order to meet potential challenges or punish injustice. Hence, in his opinion, Otto is a more efficient ruler. In their turn, Nicephorus and his courtiers believe that they are the only heirs of the Roman Empire. Hence, their authority cannot be questioned by any European monarch. More importantly, from their perspective, Otto I or any other European king lacks legitimacy and has no right to …show more content…
In particular, his account shows that both westerners and easterners can be very critical of each other’s religious beliefs. For example, some Byzantines could argue that the Eastern Church had been much older than the Western Church; therefore, it was entitled to greater authority in the Christian world (Liutprand). Such an opinion was not shared by people like Liutprand. In his account, the author emphasizes the idea that