





































Microsoft Word - Renna Charlemagne.docx


[Expositions 9.2 (2015) 35–79]  Expositions (online) ISSN: 1747–5376 
 
Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III 

 
THOMAS RENNA 

Saginaw Valley State University (Emeritus) 

 

 

ABSTRACT 

 

Throughout the Middle Ages the French and the Germans have vied with each other 

in their attempts to integrate the figure of Charlemagne into their perceptions of 

national identity. Both legacies envisioned Charles the Great as a prototypical 

Christian ruler, crusader, pilgrim, and promoter of the arts of civilization. But for 

the French, as exemplified by St. Louis IX (1226–70), Charlemagne remained 

primarily a role model for their monarchs, including the Valois, and a hero of the 

chansons de geste. For the Germans, as personified by the Habsburg emperor 

Frederick III (1440–93), Charlemagne embodied the Roman Empire and the 

German nation. He was a saint with historical roots going back to the Trojans. Far 

more than the French, the late medieval Germans emphasized the imperial 

traditions as they were represented in the memory of Karl der Grosse. 

  

 

“Your holiness is sovereign in Rome, but I am Emperor of Rome.” 

  —to Pope Pius VII, 13 Feb 1806 

 

“I am Charlemagne, the Sword of the Church, and their Emperor [the people of Rome][.]” 

   —to Cardinal Fesch, 18 Feb 18061 

 

 

Exactly two years earlier in 1804 Napoleon announced that he was Emperor of the French. 

Throughout that summer the Moniteur ran articles which compared Napoleon to Charlemagne as 

the restorer of the glory of France, the arts of civilization, and the equality of all people.2 At once 

the Emperor had combined the French and German understandings of the memory of 

Charlemagne. He produced an amalgam of the French, German, and Roman traditions. 

How in fact did the French and the Germans incorporate Charlemagne into their national 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  36 
 

 
 

identities during the Later Middle Ages? How did these two traditions differ? It is argued here 

that Charlemagne was for the French monarchy primarily a role model for their kings. But for the 

Germans Charlemagne was used to integrate the nation, the Roman Empire, and the core of the 

Holy Roman Empire, Germany. 

Charlemagne is unique in the history of Western political thought because of his sizable 

presence in the national narratives of both France and Germany during the late medieval era. In 

each instance this son of Pippin was absorbed into their mutual search for a national identity. The 

first question concerns the nationality of Charles himself. Many of the Carolingian-based chansons 

de geste naturally portray him as “French,” on the assumption that French and Frankish are 

synonymous.3 If we assume that the Germans were also Franks, we can accept Charles as French 

of some kind, even if his first language was probably German. As the Capetians sought to clarify 

their distinct qualities as the descendants of the (West) Franks, they generally preferred to think of 

Charlemagne as an ethnic Frank.4 That he was an ancestor of the Capetians was a given, even if 

this assumption required some adjustment of the chronicles.5 The early rivalry between the 

Robertians and the Carolingians was not permitted to interfere with the Carolingian ancestry of 

the Capetians. Thirteenth-century chroniclers, however, were more interested in the bloodline of 

the Capetian family than in the “nationality” of the son of Pippin.6 

 

The French Tradition 

 

With regard to France, why did Charlemagne become tied to Saint Louis IX (1226–70) more than 

any other French monarch in the Middle Ages? This connection was likely inevitable, since the 

idealization of King Louis would naturally be juxtaposed to the most eulogized of all previous 

rulers after Constantine. Prior to Louis IX the myth of Charlemagne had long been identified with: 

1) A lost golden age, which might someday return, or at least provide a standard for future 

leaders. The various biographies of Charlemagne, chronicles, and Frankish annals kept 

alive this memory of this blissful era of peace and plenty.7 

2) This paradise of yore was also a time of the Franks, a folk who were endowed with every 

virtue. 

3) There were many vernacular accounts of Charlemagne’s adventures, such as the Descriptio 

qualiter,8 the Oxford chanson de geste, the Charroux Privilegium, Vita Karoli Magni,9 

Pseudo-Turpin,10 and numerous tales of the king’s adventures in Spain and southern 



37  Renna 
 

 
 

France, not to mention the Holy Land. The memory of Charlemagne in thirteenth-century 

France was inescapable. In addition to this vast body of tales about the “French” emperor 

there were the persistent echoes of the Last Emperor, who will lay down his weapons on 

Mount Moriah prior to the End-Time. While these esoteric prophecies were more prevalent 

in Germany, they also circulated in France.11 Although the association of Louis IX with 

this collection of source material about the wanderings of Charlemagne was not strong, it 

can be assumed that Louis’s contemporaries made these connections, especially with 

Charlemagne’s pilgrimages to Jerusalem. In the legends Charles was the prototype 

crusader and pilgrim. 

4) Thirteenth-century French chronicles expanded the links between the Capetian ancestry 

and its “founder” Charlemagne.12 For the French polemicists who advanced the eminence 

of Saint-Denis, the royal abbey became a sort of alter-Aachen.13 An elaborate series of 

techniques was devised to cement the bond with the Carolingians and Saint-Denis, with its 

royal necropolis and mystique of monarchy. It took some chutzpah to make the patron (St. 

Denis was the patron saint of the realm, while St. Genevieve was the patron of Paris) of 

the kingdom, Charlemagne, into the protector of the Capetian dynasty. Fanciful 

genealogies were devised to merge the Capetian line with that of the Carolingians. The 

ancient Trojans were counted among the Capetian ancestors.14 

5) A peculiarity of Capetian myth-making was the absorption of the venerable symbols of the 

kingdom of the West Franks into the royal heritage. The images of the fleur-de-lys and the 

oriflamme were integrated with the symbols of the Capetian dynasty.15 Yet, despite the 

parallels between Louis IX and Charlemagne, the adoption of “Carolingian” symbols of 

authority was sparse, as the Capetians tried to define their own identity and unique mission 

in history. Many of Louis’s seals portray him more like Roman Caesars or Staufen 

emperors (with suggestions of the Carolingian/Ottonian Christ-in-Majesty motif) than the 

Carolingian types.16 The use of the traditional title of rex Francorum could be ambiguous 

enough to suggest an imperial self-perception, given that the restriction of the royal title to 

the “West” Franks had been abandoned centuries earlier. Louis did on occasion adopt the 

more “nationalistic” rex Francie,17 a residue of the former duchy of Francia, and now 

extended to the entire kingdom of the Franks. The use of Francia implies a much smaller 

version of the original empire under Charlemagne. In the vast literature written during and 

shortly after the reign of Saint Louis, the direct identification with Charlemagne is not 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  38 
 

 
 

pronounced.18 The partisans of Louis show little interest in Charlemagne the saint or in his 

imperial ambitions. They sometimes portray the French King as the defender of the pope 

against bad emperors, such as Frederick II.19 The king might be emperor in his own realm, 

but the French sources prefer to render imperator in the classical sense of “authority” rather 

than in the sense of territorial dominion. The French, to be sure, often portray Charlemagne 

as a saint, imbued with virtue, zeal for the faith, and devoted to sacred relics.20 But, 

although the French had little trouble with the manner of Charlemagne’s canonization (he 

was declared a saint by an antipope in 1165),21 they generally depict Charles’s virtues as 

secular, a mighty warrior who fights for God and church.22 Louis, as the second 

Charlemagne, is hardly noticeable in the hagiographical and canonization sources. There 

was no attempt to make Charlemagne a prototype for the election of the king or the royal 

succession. There was no “election” in 1226; Philip III succeeded his father Louis by 

hereditary right in 1270, not by election. There was no French equivalent of the German 

custom of the seven electors who chose the king of the Romans, afterwards duly crowned 

at Aachen.23 Few if any thought of the Twelve Peers of France of the chansons de geste as 

anything but a charming fiction.24 If there were models for Louis’s behavior, according to 

the hagiographical sources, it would be Solomon, David,25 or Josiah.26 

What, then, are the Carolingian virtues which accrue to the Capetian rex? They can be reduced 

to three: dispenser of justice, giver of the law (or, more accurately, affirming existing custom, 

although in practice this could have the effect of making law), and crusading. In the hagiographical 

sources for Louis, Charlemagne appears more as the prototype sovereign than as the archetypical 

Christian king. For the Christian virtues as such, the French authors refer more often to Holy 

Scripture, saints’ lives, Church Fathers, and more recent Christian authors, such as Bernard of 

Clairvaux.27 This reticence to associate Charlemagne too closely with the Capetian saint can be 

seen in the canonization literature and propaganda which emanated from the court of his grandson, 

Philip IV the Fair.28 One way to partially bypass Charlemagne as a dynastic ancestor would be to 

return to King Clovis as the founder of the royal line, as the Valois monarchs would often do. 

Since the Valois had to distinguish themselves from their Capetian predecessors, they often 

juxtaposed “saint” Clovis to Louis IX as a founder of the French monarchy. Clovis too was made 

a prototype Christian and ideal ruler. Charles VII even elevated himself to a second Clovis.29 But 

while the literary references to Charlemagne continued to proliferate in France during 1300–1500, 

the impact on political thought was minimal. One would have to wait for the French kings Charles 

V,30 Charles VIII,31 Francis I,32 Henry IV,33 and Louis XIV34 for more explicit attempts to elicit 



39  Renna 
 

 
 

Charlemagne as an ancestor or dynastic founder. In 1475 Louis XI declared January 28 the feast 

of Saint Charlemagne, who possessed great virtue and performed saintly deeds. From that day until 

to 1790 when the Revolution abolished it, the Parlement of Paris officially celebrated this feast, 

although in practice the cult of Saint Charlemagne always remained tepid in France.35 In 1454 a 

painting of the Crucifixion which included the figures of Charlemagne and Saint Louis was placed 

in the Great Hall of the royal palace, meant to symbolize the triumph of divine justice. The French 

higher clergy never recognized the canonization of 1165.36 Interestingly the University of Paris in 

1478 requested the translatio studii—a contentious issue since the thirteenth century, when the 

French generally conceded the translatio imperii to the Germans in exchange for the transfer of 

learning to the more civilized French—to be taken from the University of Athens to Paris. 

Charlemagne in the view of the arts faculty of the University of Paris had translated learning from 

Rome to Paris. Charlemagne could never quite shake loose from the merry ole soul of the chansons 

de geste.  

Charlemagne remained for the French mainly an exemplar for their kings, Capetian and beyond. 

And, even then, the great Frank was not always a paragon of virtue; he is sometimes portrayed in 

the chansons as erratic and tyrannical, capable of cruelty, as in the chanson d’Aspremont37 and the 

Huon de Bordeaux.38 Oddly some of these unflattering images of Charlemagne made their way 

into German translations in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.39 

Thus the association of Saint Louis with Charlemagne during the Capetians’ reign was rather 

casual. There were attempts to claim Charlemagne as a blood ancestor or in some sense ethnic 

“French” or Frankish. Charlemagne was vaguely seen as a universal monarch and as a conqueror. 

Contemporary or near contemporary vitae portray Louis as the just ruler who maintained the peace, 

both within and outside the realm. During the period of the hearings of the canonization, 1277–97, 

the miracles testify to his manner of living. These texts focus on his ascetic behavior and humility. 

The king was zealous in defending the church and the faith; raised his children in the true religion; 

distributed alms; lived chastely; attended Mass and liturgical offices frequently; prayed privately; 

showed compassion to the needy; meted out justice; confessed often; legislated wisely; showed 

devotion to holy relics; washed the feet of the poor, and fed them at his table; built Sainte-Chapelle; 

hated oath-taking and blasphemy; wore a hair shirt and performed many bodily penances, 

including fasting. The canonization documents, divine offices in his name, sermons, Lives, and a 

multitude of anecdotes reveal a model Christian ruler and prototype lay Christian.40 The oblique 

allusions to Charlemagne affirm these Christ-like qualities, with little hint of a “theory” of kingship 

or empire. There is barely a suggestion of ecclesiastical restraints, although Louis is zealous in 

protecting the church and its possessions. 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  40 
 

 
 

Louis’s publicists display little interest in importing a prominent imperial concept of the Staufen 

emperors, that of “honor.” The idea of the honor imperii permeates the registers of Frederick I, 

Henry VI, and Frederick II.41 Some of the canonization texts refer to this notion of honor but they 

decline to pursue the possibilities of imperial reach for the French king.42 Jacob of Lausanne 

contrasts the honor of the king’s earthly rule as a mirror of the honor of his “rule” in the kingdom 

of heaven. Louis in effect governs as Christ the king on earth, referring to Solomon as his model. 

This idea of honor, made almost in passing, stands in contrast to the German emphasis on the 

emperor, who acted as a stand-in for his ancestor Charlemagne, as the embodiment of the honor 

imperii in the aristocratic courts of the Staufen emperors, in particular Frederick Barbarossa. 

For the next two centuries after Louis IX his literary image in France was based primarily on 

the canonization documents, particularly those of Geoffrey of Beaulieu, William of Nangis, 

William of Chartres, and Yves of Saint Denis, as well as the liturgical tradition.43 Perhaps the royal 

court during the Hundred Years War did not find the pious Louis an adequate model for the Valois 

monarchs in wartime. The immensely popular chansons de geste which included Charlemagne 

seemed difficult to integrate into the legacy of the cultic Louis. Besides, Charlemagne was too 

closely identified with notions of empire and universalism, which seemed extraneous during the 

country’s struggle for survival against the English nemesis. Not coincidentally the memory of 

Charlemagne began to receive more attention during the times of recovery and expansion of Louis 

XI, Charles VIII, and Francis I. (Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, saw in Charlemagne, Clovis, 

and the Trojans the origins of his Order of the Golden Fleece.44) Try as they might to transpose 

Charlemagne into a prototype French rex, the emperor was, in the end, just that, an emperor. One 

might say that for the French the name of the great Charlemagne was tied (prior to the sixteenth 

century) to the idea of a national king. While for the other descendants, the Germans across the 

Rhine, Charlemagne remained wedded to the notion of a universal imperator. Charlemagne was 

for the Capetians less an emperor than a “king of France.”45 It might be added parenthetically that 

well into the fifteenth century (and beyond) the French and the Germans continued to quarrel about 

the nationality of Charlemagne.  

 

THE GERMAN TRADITION 

 

The German tradition of Charlemagne after 1300 is in some ways similar to the French. In the 

literature of the Holy Roman Empire [HRE] Karl der Grosse was often portrayed as a national 

(ethnically German, as imprecise as this designation can be, as well as a speaker of “German,” 

however one describes the language in the Rhineland c. 800); as a model ruler (typified by his 



41  Renna 
 

 
 

enforcement of good laws and the rendering of sound justice); as “holy” in the sense that he was 

canonized a saint, anointed by a leading prelate, and practiced Christian virtue; as the protagonist 

in numerous chansons de geste; as in some sense “Roman” since he utilizes Roman law and 

compares himself to some Roman emperors of old. But these similarities are superficial. The 

Charlemagne of the French chansons was substantially different from the German imperator as a 

latter-day Karl. The point of divergence is that Charlemagne is above all an emperor in German 

political thought. The German emperors during 1300–1500, it is argued here, integrated 

Charlemagne into their theories of the HRE in ways the polemical writers considered specifically 

German. The culmination of this synthesis of Charlemagne and German traditions occurred during 

the reign of Emperor Frederick III (1440–93), after which time the universalist component of the 

HRE became more prominent.  

The received tradition of the process of the incorporation of Charlemagne into German imperial 

thought in the fifteenth century centers on the Germanization of Charles after the Great Schism. 

The classic expression of the heritage appears in the works of Robert Folz,46 whose interpretations 

continue to be cited almost without qualification. But the term “Germanization” is vague. It claims 

too much and too little. Too much, because many German sources in the early Habsburg era do 

not insist on Charlemagne being an ethnic German, and often give Otto I the Great the honor of 

being the first truly German emperor. Too little, because there were other elements in the notion 

of the HRE which gave the imperium its unique cast, in particular, the way in which the emperor 

was elected.  

In hindsight it was perhaps inevitable that Germany became the place of extensive writing on 

political ideas during the later Middle Ages. The amount of tracts on basic political concepts—

which might be called the origin of Western “political science”—during 1250–1500, and 

especially 1300–1360, is large, in contrast to the sparse quantity of political literature in France at 

the same time. The reason for this big bang of words is not hard to identify:  

1) There were ambiguities in all three attributes of the HRE and how they related to each other. 

There was little agreement on even the name of the HRE!47 It was called simply the Empire 

or the Kingdom, or even the HRE of the German nation.  

2) The constant interaction with the papacy, not to mention the endless discussion about the 

details of the papal coronation and its implications.  

3) The relationship between Germania48 (loosely defined as most of the empire, excluding 

Burgundy, Austria, and some eastern principalities) and Italy.  



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  42 
 

 
 

4) The powers and electoral function of the prince-electors.  

5) The relationship between the Electors and the other Estates of the empire.  

6) The Translation of Empire.  

7) The relationships with France and the Byzantine Empire, always sources of tension.  

8) The odd amalgam of hereditary and/or elective succession.  

Not only were the boundaries of the empire in flux, but so was the connection between the ruler’s 

ancestral lands and the other parts of the imperium. After 1300 imperialists relied more on history 

(mainly by means of chronicles) than on canon law, Roman law, scripture and scriptural exegesis, 

Church Fathers, theological tracts, and homilies to make their case for the emperor. Hence the 

almost inevitable high status attributed to the prototype Charlemagne, who was ready-made for 

any proposal in favor of augmenting imperial potestas. Indeed it could be argued that the figure of 

Charlemagne was the pivot around which late medieval German imperial-papal thought revolved. 

Our concern here is with the narrow issue of the place of Charlemagne in the attempts to give a 

“German” stamp to the HRE during the fifteenth century.  

Any assessment of the role of Charlemagne in fifteenth-century German political thought must 

begin with the nature of the sources that the imperialist authors utilize. Writers in the previous 

century seem to assume that historical fontes have legal force, almost like English common law. 

To bypass the papalist appeals to church councils, canon law, scripture, exegesis, and theology, 

imperialist polemicists during 1330–60 looked to chronicles—local as well as “world”49—to 

demonstrate how Charlemagne’s actions were relevant at the time they were writing. Lupold of 

Bebenburg constructed a grand theory of imperial power to counter both the Electors and the 

popes. Of course historical texts, like any texts, could be interpreted in different ways; Lupold’s 

creative reading of the Carolingian chronicles was typical of his time.50 Lupold might have been 

surprised to know that his own writing would be used extensively in the next century as a 

“historical” source!51 He was a moderate imperialist who resisted the extreme claims of the 

Electors—that they were solely responsible for the choice of emperor and his constitutional 

powers—and the papalists, who insisted that only the papal unction and coronation (and papal 

approbation) conferred on the emperor-elect his power and even his right to exercise this power. 

Lupold’s approach was to virtually identify the realm of “Germany” with the Reich,52 as if the 

HRE were a normal state just like, say, the regnum of France. He cut the Gordian knot of how to 

reconcile king and emperor by making Charlemagne the originator of both. Lupold’s controlling 



43  Renna 
 

 
 

idea is that Charlemagne possessed full imperial authority—in Burgundy and Italy as well as 

Germany—before he was crowned imperator by Pope Leo III in Rome in 800.53 Germania was 

the core (to use the modern parlance of empire-speak) of the HRE, with the “additions” of 

Burgundy and Italia.54 (This is an effective approach for polemical purposes, for it permits Lupold 

to “save” Otto I as the one who “recovered” Burgundy and Italy for the empire as it was during 

the mythic time of Karl der Grosse; Otto thus keeps his venerable role as the first truly “German” 

emperor.) Thus Germany was a bona fide principality in its own right. But the pope’s coronation 

is necessary because a) by this act the empire is transferred from the Greeks to the Franks55 (who 

are “German,” but the full translation to the Germani would have to wait until Otto I), and b) the 

title of emperor (later, emperor of the Romans) was now bestowed on the rex Romanorum (a later 

usage). Lupold would have Charlemagne the beneficiary (and his descendants) of hereditary 

succession,56 although the function of election would later be assimilated with dynastic right; some 

combination of hereditary and election was necessary to account for both procedures following the 

Ottonians.  

By the time of Frederick III this notion of full imperial power by virtue of the selection of the 

German princes at Frankfurt was a given, which effectively precluded the necessity of a papal 

crowning. Fifteenth-century writers often cited Lupold as a definitive source. Another oft-cited 

chronicle was that of Sigebert, a monk of Gembloux (1030–1112), whose world history had several 

continuations by several authors. Perhaps reflecting opinions in his native Brabant, Sigebert 

vigorously opposed the intervention of Pope Gregory VII, and in response upheld imperial 

authority. His chronicle was highly regarded in the German late Middle Ages. He places 

Charlemagne at a turning point in world history, when the empire passed to the Franks, 

inaugurating a new era of justice and Christian piety. Charles possessed the full imperial potestas 

even before the pope crowned him emperor in 800. With his Carolingian successors, Charles began 

a new mission for the German Volk, which was continued successfully by the Ottonians and the 

Salians. (The Capetians of course assigned this ongoing imperial mission to their own line of 

kings.) When the pope anointed Charlemagne, the line of succession began;57 when he crowned 

him, the latter was already imperator.58 Charlemagne was made emperor by acclamation;59 the 

pope’s coronation simply confirmed Charlemagne’s imperial status when he gave him the title of 

Caesar and Augustus.60 The imperial title of Frederick III, it might be noted, was associated with 

that of Karolus Magnus.61 

To minimize the constitutional effect of the coronation of 800, the translatio imperii was 

sometimes described as a series of stages. The Flores Temporum (1300)62 would have a succession 

of three popes, as would Martin of Troppau.63 Another common approach was to deny any transfer 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  44 
 

 
 

of empire, attributing the empire of Charlemagne or Otto I as either a direct descendant of ancient 

Rome or as an empire acquired by just war. Nicholas of Cusa is typical in denying the translatio—

and indeed denying the authenticity of the Donation of Constantine—to Charlemagne from the 

Greeks by means of the pontiff. Cusa simply sidesteps the question of transfer by assigning 

Charlemagne’s temporal power to wars of conquest; after all, the classical imperator means “one 

who rules.” The Romans transferred their power to the emperor but retained their superiority over 

him; they later made Otto I emperor.64 

One of the most widely cited authorities in the German later Middle Ages was Godfrey of 

Viterbo, who wrote extensively at the time of Frederick Barbarossa. Godfrey uses a variety of 

sources—sometimes fictional—to link the German emperor with Charlemagne and his 

predecessors, the Roman imperatores.65 The implication is that Barbarossa possessed complete 

imperial power prior to the papal coronation. The peculiar belief that the concept of the right of 

the German princes (eventually fixed at seven Electors, later expanded by the Habsburgs) was a 

gift of Pope Gregory V was cited by Godfrey of Viterbo, who conveyed it to later centuries.66 

Imperialists in the fifteenth century did not conceive of this papal grant as a threat to imperial 

authority. They viewed it as simply the papal confirmation of a pre-existing right (a right which 

preceded the events of Christmas 800). The important chronicle of Johann (Jacob) of Königshafen 

(1336–1420)67 translated the power of the emperor to Charlemagne, who communicated it to his 

imperial successors.68 There were many other chronicles and vernacular works during 1100–1300 

which glorify Karl der Grosse and his connections with the HRE.69 

A typical chronicler is Heinrich of Herford, who makes Charlemagne the first emperor of the 

Germans, who bestowed many privileges on his “homeland” and Aachen.70 The poet Lohengrin 

carries on this tradition as the cause of the translatio imperii to the Germans.71 The influence of 

these earlier chronicles on the fifteenth century can be seen in the famous Nuremburg Chronicle 

(1493), which illustrates how deeply the Carolingian heritage had penetrated early Habsburg 

historical writing.72 The author, Hartmann Schedel, has Otto I complete the transfer of the empire, 

begun by Charlemagne (German by birth), to the Germans.73 Charlemagne’s latest successor, 

Frederick III today, continues to rule the “Germans.” When Frederick III was crowned at Milan 

and Rome, he brought with him from Nuremburg some of Charlemagne’s possessions: podium, 

sword, scepter, orb, crown. Later, Maximilian I too was crowned with the diadem of Charlemagne, 

as designated by the Golden Bull.74 Schedel is careful to specify the rank and order of the princes, 

who are supposed to rule the empire in harmony with the emperor. 

Many of these tracts were well known at imperial courts at the time of Sigismund and Frederick 

III. It goes without saying that many of these pre–1300 works make Charlemagne a German or 



45  Renna 
 

 
 

Franco-German.75 The implication is that Charlemagne translated the empire to the Germans, and 

that he did so by virtue of his nationality/ethnicity as a German, although the validity of the latter 

is left ambiguous. The seemingly esoteric issue of ethnicity—the standard evidence given is that 

he was born in Ingelheim—was not academic, since some German authors felt compelled to 

counter the claims of Saint Denis, the “French” Charlemagne of the chansons de geste, and the 

Carolingian ancestry advanced by the partisans of Louis IX. It must be emphasized that the 

fifteenth-century contentious question of Charlemagne’s Germanness had a firm basis in well-

known writings, considered authoritative, such as those of Alexander of Roes, Vincent of 

Beauvais, Sigebert, Martin of Troppau, Godfrey of Viterbo, and Lupold of Bebenburg. 

After 1400 the need to integrate the historical Charlemagne intensified because of new 

challenges to the integrity of the HRE: the emperor’s relationship to the general council, 

particularly Basel; the internal threat of dissents such as the Hussites in Bohemia; the external 

danger posed by the Ottoman Turks in the East; the growing demands of the Electors and Estates; 

the rising power of Austria in the HRE—and the uncertain status of Hungary—and its relation to 

Germania; the justification for the emperor to be the arbiter between pope and council(s). 

Understandably the imperialist writers sought to strengthen the imperial authority in the HRE. 

Given the penchant for historical argument at the time, the blessing of Charlemagne would be 

supportive. The trick was to make Charles a German without magnifying the powers of the princes, 

who seemed to quarrel endlessly. The resolution lay in making the election of the emperor a 

specifically “German” ritual, without however diluting his auctoritas vis-à-vis the Electors or the 

Estates or the supreme priest in Rome. The defenders of Frederick III obtained help from an 

unexpected source: the humanists, given their fascination with geographical places in the classical 

quellen. 

A common solution to the problem of what constituted the quidditas of the HRE was to 

designate the German Electors as the defining characteristic of this unique empire.76 The authors 

strive mightily to make this special group the source of imperial power, and the centerpiece of 

executive, legislative, and judicial authority without sacrificing the emperor’s rights. In the 

chronicle of Hermann Korner (1365–1438) Charlemagne is a Germanic Frank who transferred the 

empire to the Franks.77 The empire passed to the Germans under Henry I, but Otto I was the first 

German-speaking emperor, with the same imperial potestas as Charlemagne.78 Not all the 

chronicles make Leo III the instrument of the translation of empire to Charlemagne. Some assign 

this role to Stephen.79 It must be noted that the function of Otto I is not diminished by these 

allusions in the chronicles to Charlemagne as the means of the transfer of imperial power from the 

Greeks to the Franks or Germans. There was a veritable cult of Otto I in the fifteenth century as 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  46 
 

 
 

the prototype of the German emperor, who was often seen as the restorer of the Carolingian 

empire.80 

One of the literary masterpieces of this genre of attempting to define the HRE in its relation to 

the Electors is the treatise (1460) of Peter of Andlau (1420–80), which might be compared to the 

De iuribus of Lupold of Bebenburg for its scope and originality. A professor of the two laws at 

Basel, Peter tried to make the positions of the emperor and the Electors relevant to the era following 

the Council of Basel; to rally support for a crusade to recover Constantinople; to call for reform of 

the German church, a major theme in the HRE after 1440; to prod Frederick III, the Electors and 

the princes, and the new pope, Pius II, to cooperate for the common good. He gives considerable 

attention to Charlemagne’s part in translating the empire from the Greeks to the Germans, while 

defending the church and the faith.81 Following a commonly held belief, Charles is portrayed as 

the patrician who translated the empire to the Germans.82 King Charles became emperor in Rome 

in 800; he established a wide-ranging government of princes and scribes in Germany and Italy.83 

He rules the “kingdom of Germany” with his princes.84 Peter rejects the suggestion that Pope Leo 

transferred the empire to the Germans. Charlemagne, who was born at Ingelheim, was after all a 

German,85 who ruled over many other regions which had been parts of the Roman empire. Citing 

Godfrey of Viterbo, Peter notes that Karl had a Roman mother and a German father.86 That the 

Germans were destined to rule the empire was prophesied by Saint Peter. The exceptional virtues 

of the German people can be traced to their ancestors, which included the Trojans, who even gave 

them their language.87 The high virtues of the Romans and the Trojans were passed on, by way of 

Charlemagne’s translatio imperii, to Frederick Barbarossa and Otto I, to German counts and 

barons—and to the Habsburgs of today!88 Special status in imperial administration goes to the 

princes of the Palatine, Brunswick, Lotharingia, and Swabia, and the various dignitaries, both 

ecclesiastical and secular, under them. Thus Charlemagne’s translation effectively combines a 

moral component—the right to rule—and a legal one (the right to elect and to govern for the public 

welfare). The great Karl stamps the HRE with an indelible mark. 

But while the HRE may be a regnum like any other kingdom in some sense (as had argued 

Lupold), it is unique because of the institution of the seven Electors. In a clever tour de force Peter 

minimizes Pope Gregory V’s “gift” of this electoral procedure by inserting it in a process which 

started with Charlemagne himself.89 For the institution was simply one part of the gradual 

translation of the empire to the Germans. Initially there were four elector-princes, which were 

among other princes, including marquis, counts, barons, and cities. Later Charles IV confirmed 

this tradition of election in his Golden Bull.90 The empire is holy because emperors and princes 

together swear to defend the church and the faith. Charlemagne was of course not elected emperor 



47  Renna 
 

 
 

by the Germans, whether Electors or otherwise. (Historians still debate the meaning of “German” 

in the eighth century.) But when Karl transferred the empire to the Germans he in effect transmitted 

the right to elect along with it. With his imperial title he united the Germans and the Romans, 

thereby making possible the later title imperator Romanorum.91 Thus the practice of choosing the 

rex Romanorum at Frankfurt was not an invention of Otto I or Otto III, but part of the historical 

process in which the empire was given to the Germans. Gregory V’s grant was in fact a mere 

recognition that the Germans already possessed this right to elect (and then the anointment and 

crowning at Aachen) their king, a king who thereby held full imperial power. And the seven 

Electors are not only electors, but representatives of all German princes. The establishment of the 

Electors is peculiarly German, and cannot be used to select a non-German.92 

For Peter, the two coronations in Milan and Rome following the events at Frankfurt and 

Aachen93 confirm the power bestowed on the emperor by the German princes. On the delicate 

question of whether the Electors vote as individuals or as a corporate group (collegio),94 Peter opts 

for the latter, which he sees as somehow participating in imperial administration. (He probably 

would have had second thoughts about this suggestion when he passed away in 1480, after which 

time the Electors posed a greater threat to Frederick’s authority. After 1500 Maximilian I would 

learn to tame the electoral college.) The intensity of the discussion about the identity and purpose 

of the Electors and the Reichstag is indicated by the literature and artistic depictions after 1450. 

The intensity of the discussion about the identity and the function of the Electors is evidenced by 

the literature95 and artistic depictions96 after 1450.  

Thus Charlemagne was the major historical figure who was responsible for translating the HRE 

to the Germans, and indirectly giving them their uniquely German institutions of election and 

coronation (at Aachen). For Peter of Andlau, Karl der Grosse was the prototype ruler with a strong 

centralized authority, while permitting maximum participation of the princes in administrating the 

empire, reforming the church, upholding the Catholic religion, arbitrating disputes within the HRE, 

and, by implication, organizing a crusade against the infidel. What is important for our purposes 

here, the German writers often use Charlemagne to connect the HRE to the traditions of the 

Electors; to translate the empire to the Germans; to shore up central power; to expand territorial 

boundaries (by diplomacy and marriage in addition to armed force); and to confer privileges on 

Aachen. Typical is Dietrich of Niem (1340–1418), who, like Lupold, refers to the emperor as 

“imperator vel rex Romanorum.”97 The Germans were born warriors who equaled the Romans. It 

is fitting that the nobles—including the Electors—carry on the Roman and Carolingian traditions 

to the Germans, who would emulate Charlemagne the German, who was born at Ingelheim.98 He 

anticipated the transferal of the empire to the Saxons under the Ottonians. Charles’s privileges to 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  48 
 

 
 

Aachen gave a special status to the Saxons in the kingdom of Alemania.99 God instituted the 

principle of princely election of the emperor for the good of the church and the Christian people.100 

Like many writers in the fifteenth century, Peter of Andlau and Dietrich emphasized the need 

for cooperation between emperor and pope, the general council having declined as an authority. A 

widespread tendency of the time was to model empire and church on each other, as largely separate 

administrations of spirituals and temporals. Neoplatonic paradigms could be used to construct 

arguments in favor of bolstering the central authority of the emperor in the face of challenges from 

the princes, Hussites, Turks, Hungarians, the principalities in the eastern and western sides of the 

empire, and the rivalries in Italy. (Not even the Austrians were immune from rebellion, as 

Frederick III was to discover early in his reign.) Supporters of imperial auctoritas sometimes 

allude to the memory of Charlemagne. 

An instance of this memory is the tract (1430s) on imperial and papal power by Antonio Roselli 

(1380–1466), who attributes the translatio imperii to the Germans as an act of Charlemagne.101 

Yet this action is closely tied to the papal coronation in 800. Some years later (1500), Jacobus of 

Middleburg cannot seem to decide between Charlemagne and Otto I as the translator of empire to 

the Germans.102 This willingness to acknowledge the validity of both claims was in fact common 

in fifteenth-century writings. Although Charlemagne was accepted as German, the empire was 

generally portrayed as being somehow more fully removed to the Germans by the elected Otto I. 

Thus the elected Frederick III is a true emperor of the “Germans,” a grouping which often seems 

to suggest all residents of the HRE outside Italy. (Even Frederick III called himself “German.”) 

There are many other writers in the Quattrocentro which make Charlemagne or Otto I or both the 

efficient cause of the transfer of the imperium to the Theutonici. There were different opinions 

about the nationality of Charles and his providential function, and about the significance of his 

conquests, elections, and coronations. But there could be no doubt as to his decisive historical role 

in making the translatio imperii possible.  

There were of course many ways to associate Charlemagne with imperial authority in 

Germania. If one preferred to emphasize the continuity of the Roman Empire, the place of the 

supreme pontiff could be excluded in this transfer. For those who sought to minimize the church’s 

involvement in the possession of temporals, it would be more effective rhetorically to have Karl 

acquire Germany by other means. Nicholas of Cusa insists that Charles in his position as patrician 

acquired the territories of the empire outside his ancestral lands, an idea widespread in the early 

fifteenth century.103 Thus the emperor bestowed temporals on the papacy and not the other way 

around. Charlemagne received these lands not from the pontiff, but from rightful conquest. As 

patrician, he was the “father of the pope in temporal matters.”104 Nicholas portrays the imperial 



49  Renna 
 

 
 

Electors not as representatives of the German but of the Roman people, who in effect elect the 

emperor. This notion of the superiority of consent in both church and state is fundamental to Cusa’s 

vision of parallel hierarchies of the temporal and spiritual authorities. Cusa’s Charlemagne 

provides historical precedent for mediating differences between Basel and Rome, and for 

strengthening imperial government as it strives for church reform, the ecclesiastical union with 

Constantinople, the mediation of disputes in Europe, and the expulsion of the Turks. 

For the humanists at the time of Frederick III the memory of Karl der Grosse as the rex 

teutonicorum Germany was an idée fixe.105 In an unusual composite work which combines a 

eulogy (with reservations) to Frederick III with a history of Austria, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini 

makes Charlemagne as king of the Germans the holder of complete imperial authority.106 Aeneas’s 

discussion of the coronation of Frederick III in 1452—preceded by his crowning as King of the 

Germans in Aachen and the iron crown of the Lombards in Milan—has sometimes been interpreted 

as a mockery of the event, which supposedly the humanist presents as an empty ceremony.107 In 

point of fact Aeneas describes the papal coronation as the classic “German” event: the crowning 

of the king at Aachen (as ruler of the regnum Alemaniae) transmitted to the full de iure imperial 

power.108 When the pope anointed and crowned him as imperator Romanorum he in effect 

acknowledged or confirmed the power which the king of the Romans had received since the time 

of Charlemagne.109 This perspective becomes clearer when placed in the context of Aeneas’s 

previous treatment of Frederick Barbarossa,110 which seems prima facie to be an odd place to begin 

the history of “Austria.” Modern historians seem to have missed the significance of this apparently 

casual account of Barbarossa—no Austrian, he—as background to Frederick III; the connection 

between Fredericks I and III is easily overlooked, given the conventional nature (most of this 

section is copied from other sources, such as Otto of Freising and John of Viktring) of this part. 

This complex character of Aeneas’s History111 notwithstanding, Aeneas clearly attempts to 

associate Frederick III with his prototypes: Frederick I and Charlemagne. 

In his treatise on the Roman empire—On the Origin and Authority of the Roman Empire 

(1446)—Aeneas follows a common humanist line by having Charlemagne as “patrician” come to 

the aid of a beleaguered Rome.112 When the grateful pope crowned him Augustus, the “Roman 

Empire was translated to the Germans. Passed through various hands, finally, it passed to you, 

divine Caesar Frederick [III], by legitimate election,”113 thus conferring supreme power in 

temporal affairs. The pope did not bestow this power; he merely affirmed the potestas 

Charlemagne already possessed by virtue of being patrician and his just wars. Charlemagne, a 

“German by birth,”114 is thus the successor of the Roman emperor with full power to maintain 

peace, arbitrate disputes, establish laws, and administer justice. Aeneas’s ideal emperor is the 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  50 
 

 
 

universal Roman emperor who rules the fourth of Daniel’s kingdoms;115 he has no need to consult 

the German Electors or anybody else. 

Aeneas’s idealized latter-day Roman empire did not fare well against the quarreling Electors 

and Estates after 1470. The situation with the Hungarians and the Ottomans worsened as Frederick 

attempted to establish a balance with the princes. Moving around his capitals of Vienna, Linz, and 

Graz, he tried to counter the Reichstag of the Estates with the demands of the Electors. The 

numerous visual portrayals116 of these constitutional arrangements testify to these efforts to 

establish order, a prerequisite for collecting taxes and raising armies. Charlemagne’s uncertain role 

in these discussions can be seen in the fascination with ancient descriptions of geography, such as 

Tacitus’s Germania,117 and the move to Germanize the primitive folklore tradition of Charlemagne 

as a “wild man.”118 

It is understandable that writers would romanticize and idealize the great Karl during the 

difficult reign of Frederick III. Even living and recent emperors were depicted as Charlemagne, 

often with allusions to the principalities within the empire. While Albrect Dürer’s pictures of 

Sigismund and Frederick III are justly famous, there were others. 

Did Frederick himself attempt to identify with his renowned predecessor? As the sources make 

clear, he frequently wore the figurative cloak of Charlemagne. He often stopped at Aachen119 and 

made it a point to extend its privileges and connections to the holy site, including the Marienschrein 

and its relics.120 There are references to Charlemagne in Frederick’s registers, beginning early in 

his reign. When at Frankfurt in June 1442 he refers to the crown of Karl.121 In his dealings with 

his rival Louis XI, he summons Charlemagne, a not-so-subtle allusion to Carolingian claims to 

Burgundy.122 Frederick was fond of referring to the Golden Bull as a way of establishing his 

legitimacy and asserting his preference for dealing with the seven Electors rather than with the 

larger political bodies such as the Reichstag.123 On the whole, the references are not especially 

many, given that imperial decrees are brief and specific.124 Yet the fact that these references often 

appear in places where they seem extraneous indicates that the Emperor and his staff determined 

that they should be there. 

What, then, are we to make of the German fondness for the legacy of Charlemagne throughout 

the fifteenth century? Perhaps there is significance in the very diversity of the responses to the 

iconic “German” in the varied types of sources. It was as if Karl were summoned to resolve the 

many ambiguities in the nature and purpose of the HRE. He was called upon to give credence to 

the three components of this unwieldy political entity: Holy, Roman, Empire. Yet he had to be 

German and connected somehow to the land area called Germania, a word difficult to define at 

any time in the later Middle Ages. (Modern writers continue to debate its meaning.) But mutatis 



51  Renna 
 

 
 

mutandis the memory of the great Charles had to be integrated into the method by which his 

successor emperors acquired their powers, in particular the institution of the election of the German 

rex or King of the Romans. The papal coronation of course could not be omitted as a part of the 

myth of Charlemagne, but it had to be reduced in constitutional significance; it did not confer 

imperial powers on the emperor-elect. With the growing power of the state in the West following 

the Hundred Years War, the spirit of Charlemagne would remain, whatever the French might think, 

on the east bank of the Rhine. Paradoxically Charlemagne could not be too German, lest he 

relinquish his claims to Burgundy, lands to the east, and above all Italy. He must be “imperial” 

and trans-German, not to mention his authority, at least de iure, over the church. Saint Charles had 

to be at once a defender of the faith and the church, especially the Roman Church, and the supreme 

head of the church temporals, at least casualiter. And for Frederick III, Charlemagne had to be 

associated with the Habsburgs and their Austrian ancestral territories. Somehow he was obliged to 

be both king and emperor. Unlike France, the ambiguities in the constitutional formation of the 

HRE virtually ensured much speculation about political ideas. By default, Charlemagne was the 

only candidate who could be simultaneously a German, a king, and a Roman emperor. No one else 

in the past, including the prototype Otto I the Great, could make such claims. Charlemagne was 

the divinely-appointed ruler who indirectly created the imperial system of the Ottonian emperors. 

 

CONCLUSION 

 

And herein lies the historical significance of the role of Charlemagne in the French and German 

traditions. In Valois France the contingencies caused by the war with England and Burgundy 

disposed the French to search for role models, who were both military and sacred. There was less 

need for imperial archetypes, except for the traditional—since the early thirteenth century—

emperor in his own realm. Charles the Great was the prototype king, crusader, and pious Christian. 

He embodied the “French” nation first, the would-be empire second. Charlemagne the hero of the 

chanson de geste survived as the archetypical king of the French. 

By contrast, the Germans had a more formidable task: conjure up a model who was 

simultaneously king and emperor. At the heart of the HRE was a tragic flaw: the undefined, or 

rather ever-changing, nature of rex and imperator. In the fourteenth century many imperialist 

authors realized that the universal emperor must be in the first instance a bona fide monarch, 

similar to a Valois one. Hence the Germans looked to the legendary Karl der Grosse to embody 

the two aspects, and demonstrate how this union could be effected nowadays, at the time of 

Frederick III. The imperialist writers who sought to strengthen both the universalist and 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  52 
 

 
 

particularist sides of the HRE after 1330 were not dabblers in abstract political theory, but practical 

individuals who wanted immediate remedies to the empire’s problems at the time. Thus the 

different national traditions—particularly the French and the German—were conditioned by the 

political exigencies of the day. The college textbook cliché that would have Charlemagne the first 

Holy Roman Emperor may be questionable historically, but the German penchant to idealize him 

was just that: the originator of the uniquely German phenomenon in central Europe. Late medieval 

political theorists endeavored to make this literary heritage into workable visions of action. It is 

fitting that Frederick III’s most distinguished protagonist, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, should 

bear the same name as the founder of ancient Rome. The future pope (Pius II) made Charlemagne 

the second Aeneas, who integrated the Romans (and the Trojans) with the Germans, and the papal 

coronations of 800 and 962. Medieval political thought about popes and emperors began with Karl 

der Grosse. Charlemagne was the first post-Roman emperor of the West; Napoleon was the last. 

 

 

Endnotes 

 

1. See Masson 1908, 63–89, 126–34. 

2. See Morrissey 2003, chapter 7, 250–65; Rowell 2012, 1, 27–31, 59. 

3. See Durand-Le Guern and Ribémont 2009, 80–126. 

4. See Latowsky 2013, 215–37; Gabriele 2011, 22–33. 

5. See Latowsky 2013, 220–36; Van de Kieft 1958; Spiegel 1978. 

6. See Stuckey 2006, 164–76 (mostly Philip Augustus and Louis VIII); Spiegel 1971; Brown 

1990; Jones 2007, 62–82. 

7. See Latowsky 2013, 16; Gabriele 2011, chapter 1. 

8. A product of the royal abbey of Saint-Denis or perhaps the court of Philip I, the Descriptio 

(1050) is an excellent example of how Charlemagne’s legendary ventures to the East were 

adapted to Capetian needs. Although the Descriptio is a composite of various stories, the 

relevance here is how the parts were adjusted to the link with Saint-Denis; there is no 

attempt to make the French king into an “emperor.” See Rauschen 1890 (Descriptio).  



53  Renna 
 

 
 

9. Although the Vita Karoli Magni (1170–80) was probably compiled in the chancery of 

Frederick Barbarossa, it was widely used in France. Virtually all of the influential 

Descriptio (1080) is reproduced in the Vita. What is pertinent here are the extensive 

descriptions of Charlemagne (and Constantine) and his journeys to Jerusalem and 

Constantinople. Thus there were plenty of imperial themes in the legends of Charlemagne 

which were available to the panegyric writers at the court of Louis IX. See Rauschen 

1890, 1–93; Latowsky 2013, 69–91, 189–99; Folz 1950, 214–22; Stuckey 2008. 

10. Again, the legends of Charlemagne in the Pseudo-Turpin—which were widely diffused 

in France, Flanders, and Germany—were virtually ignored by the promoters of the cult 

of Saint Louis. The Flemish and German courts exploited these legends for their imperial 

themes. See Folz 1950, 215–25, 223–25, 281–82; Latowsky 2013, 212–13, 238, 247–49; 

Spiegel 1995. I use the Old French Translation of Walpole 1976 and the edition of Wulff 

1879–81. Many of these Old French editions are available by print books on demand from 

Google Books and elsewhere. 

11. While the prophecies of the Last World Emperor were in the courts of the Staufen 

emperors, the French—except obliquely for Louis VII—showed little interest in them. 

See Latowsky 2013, 110–26, 141–59; Gabriele 2011, 115–28; Verhelst 1973. 

12. See Spiegel 1971, 43–69; Durand-Le Guern and Ribémont 2009, 153–55; Favier 1999, 

chapter 23, 651–59 (Charlemagne), 659–71 (Capetian ancestry); Folz 1964, 246–53 

(Charlemagne and Capetians). 

13. See Beaune 1991, chapter 1, 20–69; Jones 2007, 164–69; Hallam 1980, 135, 176–79, 261; 

Folz 1950, 179–81; Waldman 1990, 191–97; Latowsky 2013, 221–25. 

14. The ties with the Trojans continued into the later dynasties of the Valois and the Bourbons. 

Across the Rhine the Germans did much the same, as can be seen in the multi-faceted 

genealogies compiled by Godfrey of Viterbo for his patron, Frederick Barbarossa. See 

Huppert 1965; Potter 1995, 19–29; Durand-Le Guern and Ribémont 2009, 150–53; for 

the period after Saint Louis, see Beaune 1991, 228–44; Tanner 1993, 97 (Charlemagne as 

the new Aeneas). 

15. For the legacy after Louis see Contamine 1975, 179–244; on the fleur-de-lys see Beaune 

1991, chapter 7 (oriflamme on 53–55); Prinet 1911; Durand-Le Guern and Ribémont 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  54 
 

 
 

2009, 158–61; Gaposchkin 2008, 233–36.  

16. Saint Louis’s seals (often larger in size than his predecessor kings’) typically present him 

in the style of Christ-in-Majesty, a characterization passed on by the Carolingians and 

Ottonians. Louis wears a toga-like garment with a fleur-de-lys in both hands, one at the 

top of a scepter. The inscription reads “Francorum rex Ludovicus Dei gracia [gratia]” 

(Louis king of the Franks by the grace of God). But this semi-imperial (and Roman) motif 

finds little place in contemporary French sources. It should be noted that there are no 

representations on the seals of divinity or any ecclesiastical intermediary. See Moffit 

2007, chapter 16. It is possible that these Ottonian themes were introduced by French 

iconographers (cf. Sainte-Foi of Conques). Louis’s seals may have been influenced by 

courtiers who wanted to counter the imperial pretensions of Frederick II Hohenstaufen. 

There is a stained glass window in Saint Louis Cathedral in New Orleans which portrays 

Louis surrounded by Freemasons, with the Seal of Solomon. The king holds the plans of 

Sainte-Chapelle by the master mason Pierre de Monterau. Ironically the Masonic 

Solomon would have fit well with a contemporary image of Louis, given his fondness for 

the historical Solomon, although the association with the anti-Catholic and cult-bound 

Freemasons would have been less well received! 

17. The new kingdom of “France” (Francia) appears even in liturgical texts, as well as coins. 

See Gaposchkin 2009, 58; note references to David and Solomon. See also Gaposchkin 

2008, 25n33: Ludovicus, Francie rex illustrissimus. On Louis’s gros tournois he is simply 

rex. Philip III and Philip IV are also called kings of Francia. The commonplace adage, 

since the time of Innocent III, “the king is emperor in his own realm,” can be transposed 

into the narrower “France”: see Jones 2003. Edward III and the subsequent English kings 

during the Hundred Years War called themselves kings of England and France. After 

Clovis, “Francia” was simply one of several kingdoms which were parceled out among 

his sons. In time, the term was applied to the region around Paris. Saint Louis in effect 

applied this mini-regional name to the entire kingdom of the Franks. The point is that 

Louis showed scant interest in the “imperial” side of his ancestor Charlemagne. The 

modern Île-de-France is approximately the same geographical area as medieval Francia. 

Parisians today usually call it the “Paris region.” Interestingly, modern Italians refer to 

France as Francia. 

18. See Beaune 1991, chapter 3; Morrissey 2003, chapter 2; Durand-Le Guern and Ribémont 



55  Renna 
 

 
 

2009, 164–81; Gaposchkin 2008, chapters 2–4. Charlemagne is virtually absent in the 

canonization texts. See Gaposchkin 2012, 106–58, especially the Beatus Ludovicus 

(written shortly after 1277). Also see Gaposchkin and Field 2014. Understandably 

Boniface VIII in his bull Gloria Laus (1297) emphasizes Louis’s defense of the faith and 

the church; Gaposchkin and Field 2014, 40–1, 55–7, 160–72; Gaposchkin 2003. The Life 

of William of Saint-Pathus remains basic to the canonization collections; de Saint-Pathus 

1899. I omit Joinville in my considerations since his Life of Louis was largely unknown 

for centuries. Even in Primat’s Grandes Chronicles, the Capetian relationship to the 

Carolingian imperial legacy remained ambiguous. See Jones 2007, 146–64. 

Understandably, the heritage of Saint Louis remained strong for the Capetians. During 

the Valois era before Charles VIII, the figure of Louis in the development of a national 

consciousness was not paramount. So too the memory of Charlemagne in this evolution 

was never emphasized. See Monfrin 1964–65. 

19. See Jones 2007, 62–102. 

20. See Durand-Le Guern and Ribémont 2009, 29–58. 

21. See Folz 1950, Book 3, chapter 3, 203–25; Folz 1967; Folz 1971. 

22. See Gaposchkin 2008, 185–88; Le Goff 1996, 527–28. 

23. Actually there was not a consistent procedure of selecting German emperors in the Middle 

Ages. Emperors would attempt to establish dynasties, and on occasion succeeded for a 

time. All aspects on the nature of the election and what it signified were sharply debated 

from the time of Otto I the Great to Frederick III. For his election in 936 Otto is said to 

have succeeded by hereditary right from his father Henry I, assigning a role of approval 

to the designated electors (eventually fixed at seven, and later expanded by the 

Habsburgs). See Widukind of Corvey 1965, 2.3: 25, lines 6–9. Many imperialists insisted 

that the king of the Romans possessed full imperial powers even before the pope crowned 

him emperor of the Romans in Rome. The king was crowned no less than three times 

(Aachen, establishing the link to Charlemagne; Milan or Pavia as king of Italy; Rome as 

the emperor of the Romans). Unlike France, the German rulers sometimes changed their 

ancestral power base. After the passing of the Staufen in 1254, Saint Louis’s supporters 

sometimes cooperated with the popes—who were determined to reduce the German 

presence in Italy—in influencing the election and even promoting a Capetian challenger 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  56 
 

 
 

to the imperial title. Louis’s claim to “imperial” potestas did not derive from the Holy 

Roman Emperor but from Capetian tradition. 

24. See the many collections of these stories, such as Church 1902; Bulfinch 1863. 

25. See Gaposchkin 2008, 17, 122–23, 130–32, 232, 236; Gaposchkin 2012, 248–99; Le Goff 

1996, 304–12, 458, 478, 525–26, 563, 576. 

26. Louis was compared to Josiah in addition to Solomon and David; Le Goff 1996, 257–58, 

309–14, 371–72, 374, 576, 690–91; Gaposchkin and Field 2014, 69–73, 126–27, 131–32; 

Gaposchkin 2008, 111–12, 130. The promoters of Louis’s canonization would not have 

known it—since this is a trend in modern biblical exegesis only since the 1940s—but the 

historical books of the Hebrew Bible portray Josiah as a second David. It might be added 

that when a pope compares a contemporary king to David or Solomon, the inference is 

the opposite: that the secular ruler is subservient to the supreme pontiff. Cf. Wood 2003, 

160–67. 

27. See the sources Gaposchkin cites in her editions and studies of the canonization texts in 

Gaposchkin 2008; Gaposchkin and Field 2014; and Gaposchkin 2012. See also Folz 1971. 

28. See Brown 1980; Brown 1984; Brown 1990. Also Gaposchkin 2002; Jones 2007, 169–

78; Hallam 1982; Hallam 1980, 308–13. 

29. See Beaune 1991, 77–89, 79 (Charles VII) and Beaune 1977. Also Krynen 1981, 228–41. 

30. See Morrissey 2003, 96–7, 139; Beaune 1991, 64–7, 112, 116; Gaborit-Chopin 1977. But 

Charles V was careful to distance himself from the legacy of Louis IX, who was 

remembered as the champion of tax relief, except for the nobility. Charles wanted to raise 

taxes, not lower them! See Durand-Le Guern and Ribémont 2009, 173–81. 

31. See Morrissey 2003, 102–08; Gaposchkin 2008, 239; Potter 1995, 33. French kings in the 

fifteenth century could always conjure up the name of Charlemagne to legitimize military 

action, including crusades against the Turks. See Gilli 1997, 10, 15–6, 107–11, 119–44, 

178–79 (Philolphe and Saint Louis). 

32. See Morrissey 2003, 108–10; Gaposchkin 2008, 242n12; Tesseyre 1980; Auzas 1976.  

33. Henry IV traced his lineage to Saint Louis; Gaposchkin 2008, 241; Morrissey 2003, 138–



57  Renna 
 

 
 

42. He preferred Hercules to Charlemagne as his model. The Bourbon former Huguenot 

could not appear overly Catholic at first.  

34. See Knobler 1996; Neveu 1988; Gaposchkin 2008, 241; Tietz 1983; Morrissey 2003, 

156–57, 167–71, 211. 

35. See Morrissey 2003, 97; de Mandrot 1894–96, 1: 323. Morrissey in chapter 3 argues 

convincingly that the French during the reigns of Charles VIII, Louis XII, and Francis I 

gradually adapted the myth of Charlemagne to visions of a new French empire and a 

national identity. Morrissey is certainly correct in seeing this process from 1300 to 1600 

as slow and uncertain.  

36. But allusions to Saint Charlemagne can be found in the fifteenth century. See, e. g., 

Philippe de Commynes, Mémoires, 1: 145. 

37. See Durand-Le Guern and Ribémont 2009, 132–35. 

38. Durand-Le Guern and Ribémont 2009, 136–40. 

39. See Folz 1950, 467–74.  

40. For the continuity of the ideas of French kingship used by Primat and William of Nangis, 

see Lamarrigue 1999; Krynen 1993, 385–86 (emphasizes how French kings tried to make 

their kingdom independent of the HRE); Chazan 1999. 

41. The bibliography is immense. See especially Görich 2001 and 2011. Also see Renna 2014. 

42. See Gaposchkin and Field 2014, 37, 112, 132; Gaposchkin 2012, 253, 255. Jacob of 

Lausanne seems unaware of the implications of his use of honor as lordship and as a 

mirror image of the heavenly kingship as a model for the earthly.  

43. See Gaposchkin 2008, chapter 8. 

44. See Tanner 1993, 6–7, 57–8, 98, 100, 146–53, 210–12. 

45. See Jones 2007, 146–59. 

46. In particular Folz 1950, especially Book 5, chapters 1–4, 423–561, 

47. See Scales 2012, chapters 3, 4; and Scales 2010; Nonn 1982; Schubert 1979. 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  58 
 

 
 

48. See Thomas 2000; Müller 1925. The title HRE was first used in 1254. After 1300 “of the 

German Nation” was occasionally added, and officially adopted in 1452, 1486, and 

1509/12, but even then often not employed by the Habsburgs.  

49. See Krüger 1976; Grundmann 1969; Johanek 1988; Flores temporum 1879, 232, 242–46. 

50. Lupold cites a variety of chronicles, such of Godfrey of Viterbo, Annalista Saxo, Historia 

Francorum, Frutolf of Michelsberg, Martin of Troppau (Opava), Vincent of Beauvais. In 

terms of the influence of the Carolingian tradition, his De iuribus regni et imperii (1340–

41) is the most important. Critical edition in Lupold of Bebenburg 2004. For convenience 

I cite from Lupold of Bebenburg 2005, with facing German.  

51. Lupold’s views on the empire were well known in the fifteenth century, even among 

humanists. His tract probably influenced Nicholas of Cusa’s Concordance. While the 

influence of the notion of the German king crowned at Aachen as having full imperial 

powers is the most obvious carry-over to Cusa, there is no modern study, as far as I know, 

which explores his views on Charlemagne, election, and Germania. I intend to pursue this 

topic in a future study. See Klippel 1954. 

52. See Lupold of Bebenburg 2005, chapter 1: 28; 1: 30, 32, 38; 2: 40, 42, 44; 3: 50, 52, 54, 

56, 62, 64, 68; 4: 72; 5: 86, 88, 92, 96, 98, 100; 7: 108, 118, 120, 122; 8: 130; 9: 140. For 

Germania in the De Zelo, see Lupold of Bebenburg 2004, 414–16, 423, 430–33, 446, 453, 

457, 462–63, 467–69, 475, 481, 489, 498, 501–05. 

53. Lupold of Bebenburg 2005, especially the Prologue, chapters 1–5, 7, 8, and letter to 

Archbishop Baldwin of Trier, 14–26. 

54. Lupold of Bebenburg 2005, chapters 1, 2, 4, 5.  

55. Actually Leo III, according to our author, did not transfer the empire to Charlemagne, for 

the king of the Franks already held full imperial powers by right of conquest. But now, 

after the papal coronation in St. Peter’s, he governs his emperor with the title of emperor. 

It is because of this quasi-compromise that many modern historians classify him among 

the “moderate” imperialists. As I will discuss below, the function of Charlemagne in the 

much-debated translatio imperii never reached a consensus among imperialists in the late 

German Middle Ages. Some historians have paid attention to the political circumstances 

at the time Lupold wrote his tract (1340–41). See Miethke’s excellent introduction to the 



59  Renna 
 

 
 

MGH edition (Lupold of Bebenburg 2004, 1–148), and the Afterward to C. H. Beck 

edition (Lupold of Bebenburg 2005, 280–328). See also the classic study by Most 1941, 

444–85; Wittneben 1997; Krüger 1971. 

56. Lupold of Bebenburg 2005, chapters 3 (52–4), 5, 17 (266–68). Cf. De Zelo in Lupold of 

Bebenburg 2004, chapter 6. In his Eight Questions on the Power of the Pope William of 

Ockham sharply criticized Lupold’s preference for hereditary succession, as opposed to 

election by the princes, favored by the Englishman (who was at the time residing in or 

around Munich.) Actually Lupold is not consistent, for he wants it both ways: heredity to 

undercut the claims of the Declaration of Rhense and the pope, and election to preserve 

the German character of the empire.  

57. See Sigebert de Gembloux 1844, 332–33.  

58. Sigebert de Gembloux 1844, 337. 

59. Sigebert de Gembloux 1844, 336. Excellent treatment of the evolution of Charlemagne’s 

role in German history and in Sigebert, Chazan 1991, 217–53, 471–83, 490–94, 505–39. 

See also Deploige 2014. 

60. Sigebert de Gembloux 1844, 336, line 15: Leo crowned Charlemagne Caesar and 

Augustus; 336, lines 19–21: the Franks seized the crown when the imperial seat became 

vacant (by Irene). The assembly of Franks and Romans acclaimed Charles emperor; the 

pope merely affirmed its decision.  

61. Sigebert de Gembloux 1844, 404, 411. 

62. Flores temporum 1879, 236, 242–43. 

63. Martin of Troppau (or of Opava, of Poland; d. 1278), Chronicon pontificum et 

imperatorum lists emperors and popes on facing pages, in the dialectical fashion of the 

day; for Charlemagne, see Martin of Troppau 1872, 427. The message is in the medium, 

for this juxtaposition of the two world “emperors” magnifies the place of Charlemagne in 

the continuity of Roman emperors. (This method of listing emperors is a way of implying 

that the current German emperors are in a line going back to the Roman emperors, as in 

the Kaiserchronik.) It also suggests that the harmony between the two is natural, desirable, 

and divinely ordained. 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  60 
 

 
 

64. See Nicholas of Cusa 1996, Book 3, chapters 3, 4; Nicholas of Cusa 1959–68, 337–52. 

The notion of Translation of Empire was denied by many authors, such as William of 

Ockham. 

65. See Godfrey of Viterbo 1872; Speculum regnum, 21: 35, 22: 5, 24: 27 (to show that 

Frederick I is in the lineage of Charlemagne); Pantheon, 107–307 at 124: 30, 125: 5, 139: 

40, 145: 5, 150: 35, 197: 45, 200–09, 139: 40, 145: 5, 150: 35, 197: 45, 281: 15, 298–302; 

Memoria seculorum 99: 5, 102: 5, 104: 40, 106: 15; Gesta 307: 35–9 (Ytalie rex).  

66. Possibly the famous name of our Godfrey got confused with the chronicle of Martin of 

Troppau, who also alludes to this tradition of Gregory V; Martin of Troppau 1872, 466, 

lines 15–25. See Godfrey of Viterbo 1872, 256, 287. See Weber 1994. The 

Kaiserchronik—well known in the fifteenth century—implies that Charlemagne’s 

“brother” Leo III merely confirmed his de facto power; Myers 2013, 322–33. See also 

von den Brincken 1988. It may not be coincidental that Martin’s chronicle was later 

included in the same MGH SS 22. Further, the link with Godfrey may be the result of his 

mention of the stall of St. Peter; Pantheon, Godfrey of Viterbo 1872, 156, which ended 

up in the hands of the very archbishops (Trier and Cologne) who would elect the king of 

the Romans. See Wilks 1965, 80–1; Latowsky 2013, 198–212. The attribution of Gregory 

V as the occasion of the handing over of the custom of the German Electors of the Rex 

Romanorum was a commonplace in the fifteenth century. See Dietrich von Nieheim 1956, 

5.1, 18–19, where the transferal of electio is linked to Charlemagne’s translatio imperii 

to the Germans. A typical German response to the Gregory V legacy is that this pope 

merely gave his consent to an arrangement which was made by Henry II “by common 

agreement of all the Germans”; this arrangement was in any case the result of “natural 

and divine law” and not from positive law “nor from any man.” See Nicholas of Cusa 

1996, Book 3, chapter 4, 230. 

67. See Jacob of Könighafen or Twinger (Strassburg), in Hegel 1870, especially chapters 8, 

9. Copies at University of Michigan (Film, List 17, no. 3 (8) and St. Louis University 

Vatican Film Library (BAV ST Ross. 548). Available online Wikisource. For Jacob, 

Charlemagne transferred the empire to the Germans, but it was the later Electors (at the 

time of Gregory V) who made the election “German”; Hegel 1870, 404. 

68. See especially Twinger, Hegel 1870, chapter 8, 402–03, 422, 465; chapter 9, 621–24. 



61  Renna 
 

 
 

Also Hillenbrand 1982, 449–50, where Johann of Viktring (1275–1347) holds up 

Charlemagne as a model for Louis of Bavaria to pursue reconciliation with the princes 

and the church.  

69. See Weiland 1877, vol. 5 (contains 5 chronicles) 125, line 5 [125: 5]; 143: 20; 147–52; 

154: 10; 164: 5; 167; 180: 5; 188: 30; 189: 30; 201: 20; 202: 5; 205: 5; 227: 10; 229: 1; 

270: 20; 274; 279: 5; 286: 5; 300: 35; 357; 398: 120; 420: 1495; 461–64; 472: 1065; 491: 

2535; 521: 4985l; 534: 6000; 540: 6535; 577–78; 582: 2; 591: 50; 605: 15. Many of these 

writings are adaptations of French chansons and Charlemagne’s wars. There is never a 

doubt that he was German. See Kienast 1975, 513–27; emphasizes the cross-borrowing 

and interaction between the French and German traditions of Charlemagne. For a 

summary of many of these German chronicles down to Maximilian I, see ed. Maschek 

1936; Ratkowitsch 2004. 

70. Potthast 1859, 45; also 40–45, 54, 77–8; numerous references to Charlemagne as German. 

Henry (1300–70) often cites Sigebert Gembloux and Godfrey of Viterbo among other 

historians.  

71. See Thomas 1973, 169–72.  

72. See the stunning new edition of Schedel 2010, based on the seven ages of the world. On 

Charlemagne, see 20, 35, 36, 44, 76, 79, 101, 138, 184 (Frederick I), and especially 487, 

552.  

73. See Nuremburg Chronicle, vol. 4, ccxlviiir. Cf. Emperor Sigismund, 430–32.  

74. Nuremburg Chronicle, 4: 552. Frederick I was equal to Charlemagne, but he persecuted 

the church; 184 (the implication is that Frederick III and Max I are greater than 

Barbarossa). The “sacred electors” share power with the principes Alemmanie; 532. 

Although during the papal coronation of 18 Mar 1452 Frederick, out of humility and 

respect for the vicar of Christ, agreed to allow him to act as the groom holding the horse’s 

bridle; 487. Note that Schedel stresses the “German” essence of the HRE, even though 

Frederick III and Max I are Austrians. Charlemagne is the conduit of the transfer of 

empire.  

75. See Moeglin 2002.  



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  62 
 

 
 

76. The tradition of the origin of political power in the action of the Electors goes back at 

least to Frederick I. See Renna 2014. This idea was developed by Lupold and others in 

the fourteenth century, and underlies the Rhense Declaration of 1338 and the Golden Bull 

of 1356, and even Louis of Bavaria’s modification in 1338. See Schubert 1977 and 1975; 

Becker 1973. The uniquely German nature of the election of the king of the Romans is 

axiomatic for Lupold, Peter of Andlau, Aeneas Sylvius, Nicholas of Cusa. 

77. Schwalm 1895.  

78. Folz uses the Leipzig 1723 edition. I cite from the Schwalm 1895 critical edition. I include 

both page and image numbers (from the online version) for references to Charlemagne 

and the Germans: 4, image 53 [4/53]; 21/70; 59/108; 137/186: incipi insuper opus hoc a 

temporibus Julii (Caesaris), quae ipse primus Romanorum; 534/584 (translation to the 

Germans); 269/318; 578/627; 532/581 (election of Sigismund in 1435: principes electores 

sacri imperii seculares et ceteri principes Alemanne ac marchiones); 579/628; 587/636; 

591/640. 

79. Such as Jean Hug, Quadruvium ecclesiae [compilation of imperial and canon laws], f. 29, 

115–16; cited in Folz 1950, 548, 555. See also the later chronicle: Diemer 1909, 1: 58–

61. Available online. Gerstenberg (1457–1522) makes Charlemagne a German of the 

German nation, although he concedes that the pope transferred the empire.  

80. See Jank 1979. 

81. Müller 1998, Part 1, chapter 13, 138 [I: 13, 138]. Facing Latin and German. 

82. Müller 1998, I: 13, 136. See Nicholas of Cusa 1996, III: 3, §§313–33, 223–27. 

83. Müller 1998, I: 13, 140–46, passim. 

84. Müller 1998, I: 13, 144. See Miethke 2007; Hürbin 1897. 

85. Müller 1998, I: 13, 144. 

86. See Appendix to Müller 1998, I, 317–31. 

87. Müller 1998, I: 14, 148–58. 

88. Müller 1998, I: 16, 164–68. See Walther 1989. Habsburg polemicists in the fifteenth 



63  Renna 
 

 
 

century traced this lineage to the Trojans, as did the French and others. Genealogies were 

concocted to make Charlemagne the ancestor of the Habsburgs. See Hughes 2004; 

Mutschlechner 2011. See also Tanner 1993. 

89. Müller 1998, I: 16, 164–82. Peter gives much attention to the Electors—as well as the 

other princes of the empire—who are associated with the German natio, the German 

Charlemagne, and the Translation of Empire of the HRE. They function as a sort of papal 

curia, even if they rarely come to court, or a fortiori like the Electors of the Golden Bull, 

if somewhat idealized. They administer the empire in harmony with their emperor, who 

can raise armies and collect taxes. Peter envisions the Electors as associates in Frederick 

III’s central government. Peter did not, of course, foresee that twenty years after he wrote 

his tract (1460) these very Electors would subvert the emperor’s drive to centralize power. 

Many at the time bemoaned Frederick’s political weakness. See Nicholas of Cusa 1996, 

III, chapters 25–39. 

90. Müller 1998, I: 16, 168. 

91. Müller 1998, II: 1, 170–74. 

92. Müller 1998, II: 3, 182–86. Although Frederick III had a strong sense of being Austrian, 

the designation of being German could be quite elastic. 

93. Müller 1998, II: 6, 194–96. On the triple crowning: II: 6, 196–98, 210–12. The fourth 

coronation (at Arles) was not usually performed, although Frederick would later recover 

Burgundy (by marriage). 

94. Müller 1998, II: 3, 186–94. For historical context see Hoffmann 1982; Heckmann 2002; 

Schubert 1975. 

95. See Wolf 1990; Becker 1973, chapters 1–3; Begert 2010, chapters 4–7; Schubert 1977, 

285–338; Kaufmann 1975–76. 

96. See Hoffmann 1982, chapters 2–4 (many examples); Ziehen 1962 (examples of 

Quaternionen); Schubert 1993, 50–63; Putzer 1996 and Putzer 1997, 62–72; Cohn 2006, 

295–307. 

97. See Dietrich von Nieheim 1956, 4, lines 13, 17; 5, lines 3, 19; 7, lines 17, 23.  



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  64 
 

 
 

98. Dietrich von Nieheim 1956, 1, line 13f. For Charlemagne in Dietrich see Heimpel 1932, 

222–43, 258–71; influence on Charles IV, 164–69. Cf. rex et imperator in Müller 1998, 

142. Dietrich’s praise of German military prowess was in fact common in fifteenth-

century German imperialist writing. See Scales 2003, 47–52 (Charlemagne); Karl (along 

with Otto I and Barbarossa) was the imperial model of former military might.  

99. See Heimpel 1932, 258–65. 

100. See Dietrich von Nieheim 1956, 18, lines 11–17. Typical of German writers, Dietrich 

notes that Pope Gregory V’s grant of the institution of the seven electors was merely a 

passive acknowledgment of the divine will. 

101. Perticone 1944, 33–4, 189. 

102. See Leupen 1980, 235 (Otto I transferred the imperium to the Germans), 238 (Peter of 

Andlau), 239 (Charlemagne the German passed the empire to the Germans; Gregory V 

created the seven German Electors). Also Coing 1964, 190 (German use of Roman law).  

103. See Nicholas of Cusa 1996, III, 3: 223–27; Cusa 1959–68, III, 3: 337–44. Cf. Müller 1998, 

136–38. See Folz 1950, 553–54. 

104. Cusa 1996, III, 3, 223; Cusa 1959–68, III, 3: 338: “pater papae in temporalibus fuit.” 

105. See Borst 1967; Leupen 1980, 238–40; Leitch 2010; Mertens 1992, 34–7; Hirschi 2006; 

Nederman 1993; Scales 2012, chapter 7, 295–352. 

106. Aeneae Sylviii Piccolominii Historia, in Pez 1723, 152–54; in many modern reprints on 

demand, this is the 1723 edition, 4: 3, 637–744, which runs about 222 pages in modern 

eds. Caution: many of these modern reproductions are of mixed print quality, and even 

omit pages; they generally lack introductions explaining the edition. The correct name of 

the work is the History of Austria, not History of Frederick III as many of these editions 

are titled. See now the excellent edition of Wagendorfer and Knödler 2009. 

107. For the coronations at Aachen and Rome, see Historia rerum Frederici III imperatoris in 

Pez 1723, 153. Some modern authors portray Aeneas as bemused by the events of 1452. 

Even if he enjoyed the pageantry, he supposedly viewed them as an anachronistic gesture 

of no constitutional significance. See Toews 1968, 485–87, and Toews 1964, 82–4.   



65  Renna 
 

 
 

108. See Pez 1723, 152–54; Wagendorfer and Knödler 2009, 607–17; Sarnowsky 2005, 374–

78. Aeneas’s History of Austria has long fascinated modern historians for its peculiar 

history of composition and textual transmission. See Montecalvo 2000, chapter 2; Kramer 

1931. 

109. Sarnowsky 2005, 374: At cum regnum Alamaniae ad imperium pleno iure pertineat, 

placuit in Aquisgrani. Charlemagne was a “German who had been born and raised in 

Germany.” His descendants reigned in both Gaul and Germany. “Under Charlemagne, 

this race [of Germans] earned title to the Roman Empire”; Piccolomini 2014, 185. 

110. See Sarnowsky 2005, I, chapters 9–32, 50–136; Wagendorfer and Knödler 2009, 350–95. 

Aeneas’s insertion of the section on the Staufen, in which was supposed to be a work on 

the Austrian rebellion at the time of Frederick III, has been discussed by historians since 

1872. Whatever Aeneas’s immediate purpose in adding this background—perhaps as a 

prod to Frederick III to follow his namesake’s example and launch a crusade against the 

Turks after quelling the rising in Austria—the relevance here is how he depicts Frederick 

I as an alter-Charlemagne who aggressively crushes dissent within his empire. 

111. For the redactional development of the HA, see, in addition to Kramer 1931 and 

Montecalvo 2000 above, Ilgen 1889; Bayer 1872, 15–49. Aeneas took many of the 

sections on Barbarossa from Otto of Freising. See Schürmann 1986.  

112. Piccolomini 2000, 101; Wolkan 1909, especially 40, 103–58; Kallen 1939.  

113. Piccolomini 2000, 101. 

114. Piccolomini 2000, 101. 

115. Piccolomini 2000, 97–101. 

116. In addition to n. 95 above, see Wolf 2005, pt. C, 283–534. 

117. See Hirschi 2006. 

118. See Leitch 2010. 

119. There are by my count about one to five references to Aachen in each of the 29 volumes 

of the Registers: Koller and Heinig 1982. See Kraus 1993. Privileges to Aachen: vol. 13, 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  66 
 

 
 

reg. 75 (1454), 66; vol. 15, reg. 155 (1464), 112; vol. 17, reg. 271 (1467), 168. 

120. See, e. g., Regesten Friedrichs III, vol. 20, ed. Elfie-Marita Eibl (2004), reg. 69 (16 Feb 

1453), 82–3 (references to Charlemagne and Golden Bull); at Wiener Neustadt he 

mentions privileges to Aachen: vol. 17, registers 75 (1454), 155 (1464), 271 (1467); vol. 

20, reg. 8, 51–2. 

121. Reg. 116, vol. 3, Koller and Heinig 1982, 112. Cf. Reg. 75, 66. Frederick in many of the 

registers alludes to the emperor Charles IV, who excelled all other emperors in exalting 

Charlemagne. See vol. 3, 13, 26, 50, 70, 74, 111, 113, 117, 119, 123.  

122. See, e. g., Registers, vol. 4 (Heinig 1986), reg. 449 (Dec 1474), 240. 

123. See, e. g., Registers 40, 41, vol. 4, 84–88; vol. 14, reg. 416 (1442); vol. 20, reg. 69, 82–3.  

124. Other mentions of Charlemagne: vol. 7, reg. 12, 65, and 166, 539, 591, 679; vol. 4, 86; 

vol. 19, reg. 198, 110; vol. 20, reg. 8, 51–2; vol. 27, reg. 249, 181–82. 

 

Works Cited 

 

Auzas, Pierre-Marie. 1976. “Essai d’un répertoire iconographique de Saint Louis.” Septième 

centenaire de la mort de Saint Louis: Actes des Colloques de Royaumont et de Paris (21–

27 mai 1970). Paris: Les Belles Lettres. 3–56. 

Bayer, Victor, ed. 1872. Die Historia Friderici III. imperatoris des Enea Silvio de’ 

Piccolomini: eine kritische Studie zur Geschichte Kaiser Friedrichs III. Prague: Tempsky.  

Beaune, Colette. 1977. “Saint Clovis: histoire, religion royale, et sentiment national à la fin du 

Moyen Âge.” In Le métier d’historien au Moyen Âge. Études sur l’historiographie 

médiévale, ed. Bernard Guenée. Paris: Université de Paris. 139–56. 

_____. 1991. The Birth of an Ideology: Myths and Symbols of Nation in Late-Medieval France. 

Berkeley: University of California Press.  

Becker, Winfried. 1973. Der Kurfürstenrat. Grundzüge seiner Entwicklung in der 

Reichverfassung und seine Stellung auf dem Westfälischen Friedenkongress. Münster: 



67  Renna 
 

 
 

Aschendorff.  

Begert, Alexander. 2010. Die Entstehung und Entwicklung des Kurkollegs. Von den 

Anfängen bis zum frühen 15. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. 

Borst, Arno. 1967. “Das Karlsbild in der Geschichtswissenschaft vom Humanismus bis heute.” 

In Karl der Grosse, eds. Wolfgang Braunfels and Percy Ernst Schramm. Vol. 4: Das 

Lebenswerk und Nachleben. Düsseldorf: Schwann. 157–214. 

Brown, Elizabeth A. R. 1980. “Philippe Le Bel and the Remains of Saint Louis.” Gazette des 

Beaux-Arts 97: 175–82. 

_____. 1984. “The Chapels and Cult of Saint Louis at Saint-Denis.” Mediaevalia 10: 279–331.  

_____. 1990. “La généalogie capétienne dans l’historiographie du Moyen Âge. Philippe le Bel, 

le reniement du reditus et la création d’une ascendance carolingienne pour Hugues Capet.” 

In religion et culture autour de l’an mil, eds. Dominique Iogna‐Prat and Jean‐Charles 

Picard. Paris: Picard, 199–214. 

Bulfinch, Thomas. 1863. Legends of Charlemagne, or, Romance of the Middle Ages. Boston: 

J. E. Tilton and Company. 

Chazan, Mireille. 1991. L’Empire et l’histoire universelle de Sigebert de Gembloux à Jean de 

Saint-Victor (XIIe-XIVe siècle). Paris: Champion.  

_____. 1999. “Guillaume de Nangis et la translation de l’Empire aux rois de France.” In Saint-

Denis et la royauté. Études offertes à Bernard Guenée, eds. Françoise Autrand, Claude 

Gauvard, and Jean-Marie Moeglin. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. 463–80.  

Church, Alfred J. 1902. Stories of Charlemagne and the Twelve Peers of France. New York: 

Macmillan.  

Cohn, Henry J. 2006. “The Electors and Imperial Rule at the End of the Fifteenth Century.” In 

Representations of Power in Medieval Germany, eds. Björn Weiler and Simon MacLean. 

Turnhout: Brepols. 295–318. 

Coing, Helmut. 1964. Römisches Recht in Deutschland. Ius Romanum Medii Aevi 5: 6. 

Mediolani: Giuffrè. 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  68 
 

 
 

Contamine, Philippe. 1975. “L’oriflamme de Saint-Denis aux XIVe et XVe siècles.” Nancy: 

Université de Nancy, Institut de Recherche régionale. 

de Mandrot, Bernard, ed. 1894–96. Journal de Jean de Roye, connu sous le nom de Chronique 

scandaleuse (1460–1483). 2 vols. Paris: Librarie Renouard.  

Deploige, Jeroen. 2014. “Sigebert of Gembloux.” In Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, 

ed. Graeme Dunphy. Brill Online. <http://static.ribo.brill.semcs.net/entries/encyclopedia-

of-the-medieval-chronicle/sigebert-of-gembloux-EMCSIM_02314> 

de Saint-Pathus, Guillaume. 1899. Vie de Saint Louis. Ed. H. François Delaborde. Collection 

de textes pour servir à l’étude et à l’enseignement de l’histoire 27. Paris: Picard. 

Diemer, Hermann, ed. 1909. Die chroniken des Wigand Gerstenberg von Frankenberg, 

Veröffentlichungen d’historisch Chroniken von Hessen und Waldeck. Marburg.  

Dietrich von Nieheim. 1956. Viridarium Imperatorum et Regum Romanorum. Eds. Alfons 

Lhotsky and Karl Pivec. Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH), Staatsschriften des 

späteren Mittelalters. Stuttgart: Hiersemann. 

Durand-Le Guern, Isabella, and Bernard Ribémont. 2009. Charlemagne: empereur et mythe 

d’Occident. Paris: Klincksieck. 

Favier, Jean. 1999. Charlemagne. Paris: Fayard. 

Flores temporum. 1879. Ed. O. Holder-Egger. Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH): 

Scriptores 24: 226–50. Hannover: Hahnsche; repr. Stuttgart: Hiersemann. 

Folz, Robert. 1950. Le Souvenir et la légende de Charlemagne dans l’Empire germanique 

médiéval. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. 

_____. 1964. Le couronnement impérial de Charlemagne. Paris: Gallimard. 

_____. 1967. “Aspects du culte liturgique de Saint Charlemagne en France.” In Karl der 

Grosse, eds. Wolfgang Braunfels and Percy Ernst Schramm. Vol. 4: Das Lebenswerk und 

Nachleben. Düsseldorf: Schwann. 77–99. 

_____. 1971. “La sainteté de Louis IX d’après les textes liturgiques de la fête.” Revue 

d’historique de l’église de France 62: 31–45. 



69  Renna 
 

 
 

Gaborit-Chopin, Danielle. 1977. “Sceptre de Charles V dit ‘de Charlemagne.’” La trésor de 

Saint-Denis: planches et notices. Paris: Picard. 264–71. 

Gabriele, Matthew. 2011. Empire of Memory: The Legend of Charlemagne, the Franks, and 

Jerusalem before the First Crusade. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Gaposchkin, M. Cecilia. 2002. “Ludovicus Decus Regnantium: The Liturgical Office for Saint 

Louis and the Ideological Program of Philip the Fair.” Majestas 10: 27–90. 

_____. 2003. “Boniface VIII, Philip the Fair, and the Sanctity of Louis IX.” Journal of 

Medieval History 29: 1–26. 

_____. 2008. The Making of Saint Louis: Kingship, Sanctity, and Crusade in the Later Middle 

Ages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 

_____. 2009. “Political Ideas in the Liturgical Offices of Saint Louis.” In Political Plainchant? 

Music, Text, and Historical Context of Medieval Saints’ Offices, ed. Roman Hankeln. 

Ottawa: Institute of Mediaeval Music. 58–80. 

_____. 2012. Blessed Louis: The Most Glorious of Kings: Texts Relating to the Cult of Louis 

IX of France. Trans. with Phyllis B. Katz. Notre Dame Texts in Medieval Culture. Notre 

Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. 

_____, and Sean L. Field, eds. 2014. The Sanctity of Louis IX: Early Lives of Saint Louis by 

Geoffrey of Beaulieu and William of Chartres. Trans. Larry F. Field. Ithaca: Cornell 

University Press. 

Gilli, Patrick. 1997. Au miroir de l’humanisme: Les représentations de la France dans la 

culture savante italienne à la fin du moyen âge (c. 1360–c. 1490. Rome: École Française 

de Rome.  

Godfrey of Viterbo. 1872. Pantheon, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz. Monumenta Germaniae 

Historica (MGH). Staatsschriften des späteren Mittelalters 22. Hannover: Hahnsche. 

Görich, Knut. 2001. Die Ehre Friedrich Barbarossas: Kommunikation, Konflikt und 

politisches Handeln im 12. Jahrhundert. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.  

_____. 2011. Friedrich Barbarossa: Eine Biographie. Munich: C. H. Beck.  



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  70 
 

 
 

Grundmann, Herbert. 1969. Geschichtsschreibung im Mittelalter: Gattungen, Epochen, 

Eigenart. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht. 

Hallam, Elizabeth M. 1980. Capetian France, 987–1328. London: Longman. 

_____. 1982. “Philip the Fair and the Cult of Saint Louis.” Studies in Church History 18: 201–

14. 

Heckmann, Marie-Luise. 2002. Stellvertreter, Mit- und Ersatzherrscher: Regenten, 

Generalstatthalter, Kurfürsten, und Reichsvikare in Regnum und Imperium vom 13. bis 

zum frühen 15. Jahrhundert, vol. 2. Warendorf: Fahlbusch. 

Hegel, Karl, ed. 1870. Die Chroniken deutscher Städte vom 14. bis 16. Jahrhundert. Leipzig. 

Heimpel, Hermann. 1932. Dietrich von Niem (c.1340–1418). Westfälische Biographien 2. 

Münster : Regensbergsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. 

Hillenbrand, Eugen. 1982. “Der Geschichtsschreiber Johann von Viktring als politischer 

Erzieher.” Festschrift für Berent Schwineköper zu seinem siebzigstem Geburtstag. Eds. 

Helmut Maurer and Hans Patze. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke. 437–53. 

Hirschi, Caspar. 2006. “Vorwärts in neue Vergangenheiten. Funktionen des humanistischen 

Nationalismus in Deutschland.” In Funktionen des Humanismus: Studien zum Nutzen des 

Neuen in der humanistischen Kultur, eds. Thomas Maissen and Gerrit Walther. Göttingen: 

Wallstein. 362–95 

Hoffmann, Paul W. 1982. Die bildlichen Darstellungen des Kurfürstenkollegiums von den 

Anfängen bis zum Ende des Heiligen Römischen Reiches (13.–18. Jahrhundert). Bonn: 

Röhrscheid.  

Hughes, David. 2004. “The Habsburg Dynasty’s Origin.” Articles. 

www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/hapsburgs.wps. Accessed July 8, 2015. 

Huppert, George. 1965. “The Trojan Franks and their Critics.” Studies in the Renaissance 12: 

227–41.  

Hürbin, Josef Victor. 1897. Peter von Andlau: Der Verfasser des ersten deutschen 

Reichsstaatsrechts: in Beitrag zur Geschichte des Humanismus am Oberrhein im XV. 



71  Renna 
 

 
 

Jahrhundert. Strassburg: Heitz & Mundel. 

Ilgen, Theodor, ed. and trans. 1889. Die Geschichte Kaiser Friedrich III von Aeneas Silvius. 

Die Geschichtsschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit 15. Jahrhundert, vols. 85, 87. Leipzig: 

Dyk. 

Jank, Dagmar. 1979. “Die Darstellung Ottos des Grossen in der spätmittelalterlichen 

Historiographie.” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 61: 69–101.  

Johanek, Peter. 1988. “Weltchronistik und regionale Geschichtsschreibung im 

Spätmittelalter.” In Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsbewusstsein im späten 

Mittelalter, ed. Hans Patze. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke. 287–330. 

Jones, Chris. 2003. “Rex Francie in regno suo princeps est: The Perspective of Pierre Dubois.” 

Comitatus 34: 49–87. 

_____. 2007. Eclipse of Empire? Perceptions of the Western Empire and Its Rulers in Late-

Medieval France. Turnhout: Brepols. 

Kallen, Gerhard, ed. 1939. Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini als Publizist in der Epistola de ortu et 

auctoritate imperii Romani. Köln: Petrarca-Haus. 

Kaufmann, Ekkehard. 1975–76. “Kurfürsten.” Handwörterbuch zur deutschen 

Rechtsgeschichte 13–14: 1281–90. 

Kienast, Walther. 19775. Deutschland und Frankreich in der Kaiserzeit (900–1270), vol. 2. 

Stuttgart: Hiersemann. 

Klippel, Rainer. 1953. Die Aufnahme der Schriften Lupolds von Bebenburg im deutschen 

Humanismus. Dissertation, Frankfurt am Main.  

Knobler, Adam. 1996. “Saint Louis in French Political Culture.” In Medievalism in Europe II, 

eds. Leslie J. Workman and Kathleen Verduin. Studies in Medievalism 8. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. 156–73.  

Koller, Heinrich, and Paul-Joachim Heinig, eds. 1982. Regesten Kaiser Friedrichs III, 1440–

1493: nach Archiven und Bibliotheken geordnet. Kommission für die Neubearbeitung der 

Regesta Imperii bei der Österreichischer Akademie der Wissenschaften, und Deutsche 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  72 
 

 
 

Kommission für die Bearbeitung des Regesta Imperii. Köln: Böhlau.  

Kramer, Hans. 1931. “Untersuchungen zur Österreichischen Geschichte des Aeneas Silvius.” 

Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 45: 23–69. 

Kraus, Thomas R. 1993. “Aachen und Kaiser Friedrich III.” In Kaiser Friedrich III (1440–

1493) in seiner Zeit, ed. Paul-Joachim Heinig. Köln: Böhlau. 211–31. 

Krüger, Karl Heinrich. 1976. Die Universalchroniken. Typologie des sources du Moyen Âge 

occidental 16. Turnhout: Brepols. 

Krüger, Sabine. 1971. “Lupold von Bebenburg.” Fränkische Lebensbilder 4: Neue Folge der 

Lebensbilder aus Franken, ed. Gerhard Pfeiffer. Würzburg: Neustadt. 

Krynen, Jacques. 1981. Idéal du prince et pouvoir royal en France à la fin du moyen âge 

(1380–1440): étude de la littérature politique du temps. Paris: Picard. 

_____. 1993. L’Empire du roi. Idées de croyances politiques en France XIIIe–XVe siècle. 

Paris: Galllmard. 

Latowsky, Anne A. 2013. Emperor of the World: Charlemagne and the Construction of 

Imperial Authority, 800–1229. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 

Le Goff, Jacques. 1996. Saint Louis. Paris: Gallimard. 

Lamarrigue, Anne-Marie. 1999. “La rédaction d’un catalogue des rois de France. Guillaume 

de Nangis et Bernard Gui.” In Saint-Denis et la royauté. Études offertes à Bernard Guenée, 

eds. Françoise Autrand, Claude Gauvard, and Jean-Marie Moeglin. Paris: Publications de 

la Sorbonne. 481–92. 

Leitch, Stephanie. 2010. “The Wild Man, Charlemagne and the German Body.” Art History 

31: 283–302. 

Leupen, P. 1980. “The Emperor’s Precedence, Jacobus de Middelburg and his Treatise De 

praecellentia potestatis imperatorie (1500).” Tijdschrift voor rechtsgeschiedenis 48: 227–

42. 

Lupold of Bebenburg. 2004. Politische Schriften, eds. Jürgen Miethke and Christoph Flüeler. 

Hannover, Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH). Staatsschriften des späteren 



73  Renna 
 

 
 

Mittelalters 4. Hannover: Hahnsche. 

_____. 2005. De iuribus regni et imperii. Über die Rechte von Kaiser und Reich. Ed. Jürgen 

Miethke. Trans. Alexander Sauter. Bibliothek des deutschen Staatsdenkens, Band 14. 

Munich: C. H. Beck.  

Martin of Troppau. 1872. Martini Chronicon, Pontificum et imperatorum. Ed. Ludwig 

Weiland. Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH) Scriptores 22, 377–475.  

Maschek, Hermann, ed. 1936. Deutsche Chroniken, vol. 5: Deutsche Chroniken, Deutsche 

Litteratur, Reihe Realistik des Spätmittelalters. Leipzig: Reclam. 

Mertens, Dieter. 1992. “Mittelalterbilder in der Frühen Neuzeit.” In Die Deutschen und ihr 

Mittelalter. Themen unk Funktionen moderner Geschichtsbilder vom Mittelalter, ed. Gerd 

Althoff. Darmstradt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 29–54. 

Miethke, Jürgen. 2007. “Kanonistik und Prolegomena zu einem deutschen Staatstrecht: Lupold 

von Bebenburg und Peter von Andlau im Vergleich.” In Science politique et droit public 

dans les facultés européennes (XIIIe-XVIIIe siècle), eds. Jacques Krynen and Michael 

Stolleis. Frankfurt: Klostermann. 125–41. 

Moeglin, Jean-Marie. 2002. “Die historiographische Konstruktion der Nation—‘französische 

Nation’ und ‘deutsche Nation,’ im Vergleich.” In Deutschland und der Westen Europas im 

Mittelalter, ed. Joachim Ehlers. Stuttgart: Thorbecke. 353–77. 

Moffit, John F. 2007. The Enthroned Corpse of Charlemagne: The Lord-in-Majesty Theme in 

Early Medieval Art and Life. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. 

Monfrin, Jacques. 1964–65. “La figure de Charlemagne dans l’historiographie du XVe siècle.” 

Annuaire-Bulletin de la Societé de l’Histoire de France: 67–78. 

Montecalvo, Rolando. 2000. Between Empire and Papacy: Aeneas Silvius and German 

Regional Historiography. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Morrissey, Robert. 2003. Charlemagne and France: A Thousand Years of Mythology. Trans. 

Catherine Tihanyi. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.  

Most, Rolf. 1941. “Der Reichsgedanke des Lupold von Bebenburg.” Deutsches Archiv für 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  74 
 

 
 

Erforschung des Mittelalters 4: 444–85. 

Müller, Walther. 1925. “Deutsche Volk und deutsches Land im späteren Mittelalter.” 

Historische Zeitschrift 132: 450–65. 

Müller, Rainer A., ed. 1998. Peter von Andlau: Kaiser und Reich, Libellus de Caesarea 

Monarchia. Frankfurt am Main: Insel.  

Mutschlechner, Martin. 2011. “The Quest for ‘Blue Blood’—The Habsburgs’ Fictitious 

Ancestors.” The World of the Habsburgs. http://www.habsburger.net/en/chapter/quest-

blue-blood-habsburgs-fictitious-ancestors. Accessed July 6, 2015. 

Myers, Henry, trans. and ed. 2013. Kaiserchronick: The Book of Emperors. Morgantown: West 

Virginia University Press. 

Nederman, Cary J. 1993. “Humanism and Empire: Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, Cicero, and 

the Imperial Ideal.” The Historical Journal 36.3 (September): 499–515. 

Neveu, Bruno. 1988. “De culte de saint Louis à la glorification de Louis XIV: la maison royal 

de Saint-Cyr.” Journal des Savants (juillet-décembre): 277–90.  

Nicholas of Cusa. 1959–68. De concordantia catholica, Opera Omnia 14. Ed. Gerhardus 

Kallen. Hamburg: Felicis Meiner. 

_____. 1996. The Catholic Concordance. Ed. and trans. Paul E. Sigmund. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Nonn, Ulrich. 1982. “Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation: Zum Nationen-Begriff im 

15. Jahrhundert.” Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 9.2: 129–42. 

Perticone, Giacomo, ed. 1944. Antonio Roselli: Monarchia: seu tractatus de Potestate 

Imperatoris et Papae. Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli. 

Pez, Bernhard. 1723. Thesaurus anecdotorum novissimus, seu veterum monumentorum 

praecipue ecclesiasticorum, ex germanicis potissimum bibliothecis adornata collectio 

recentissima. Regensburg.  

Piccolomini, Aeneas Silvius. 2000. On the Origin and Authority of the Roman Empire. In 

Three Tracts on Empire, trans. and ed. Thomas M. Izbicki and Cary J. Nederman. Bristol: 



75  Renna 
 

 
 

Thoemmes. 95–114. 

_____. 2014. Europe (c. 1400–1458). Trans. Robert Brown. Washington, DC: Catholic 

University of America Press. 

Potter, David. 1995. A History of France, 1460–1560. London: Macmillan. 

Potthast, Augustus, ed. 1859. Liber de rebus memorabilioribus sive Chronikon Henrici de 

Hervordia. Göttingen: Dieterich.  

Prinet, Max. 1911. “Les variations du nombre des fleurs de lis dans les armes de France.” 

Bulletin monumental 75: 469–88. 

Putzer, Peter. 1996. “Kaiser und Reich als ein Motiv bildhafter Darstellung: Das 

Kurfürstenkolleg zwischen Verfassungsgeschichte und Kunstgewerbe.” In Forschungen 

zur Rechtsarchäologie und Rechtlichen Volkskunde, ed. Louis Carlen. Zürich: Schulthess. 

_____. 1997. “Kaiser und Reich am Bremer Rathaus. Bemerkungen zu den bildlichen 

Darstellungen von Kaiser und Kurfürsten aus der Sicht der Rechtsgeschichte.” In 

Bremisches Jahrbuch. Bremen: Selbsverlag. 52–82. 

Ratkowitsch, Christine. 2004. “Das Karlsbild in der lateinischen Grossdichtung des 

Mittelalters.” In Karl der Grosse in den europäischen Literaturen des Mittelalters, ed. 

Bernd Bastert. 1–16. 

Rauschen, Gerhard, ed. 1890. Descriptio qualiter Karolus Magnus clavum et coronam Domini 

a Constantinopoli Aquisgrani detulerit qualiterque Karolus Calvus hec ad Sanctum 

Dionysim retulerit. In Die Legende Karls des Grossen im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert. Leipzig: 

Duncker and Humblot, 95–126. 

Renna, Thomas. 2014. “Was Frederick Barbarossa the First Holy Roman Emperor?” Quidditas 

35: 49–82. 

Rowell, Diana. 2012. Paris: The “New Rome” of Napoleon I. London: Bloomsbury Academic. 

Sarnowsky, Jürgen, ed. 2005. Aeneas Silvius de Piccolomini: Historia Austrialis. Darmstadt: 

Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 

Scales, Len. 2003. “Germen Militiae: War and German Identity in the Later Middle Ages.” 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  76 
 

 
 

Past & Present 180 (August): 41–82. 

_____. 2010. “The Illuminated Reich: Memory, Crisis, and the Visibility of Monarchy in Late 

Medieval Germany.” In The Holy Roman Empire, Reconsidered, eds. Jason Philip Coy, 

Benjamin Marschke, and David Warren Sabean. New York: Berghahn. 73–92.  

_____. 2012. The Shaping of German Identity: Authority and Crisis, 1245–1414. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Schedel, Hartmann. 2010. Nuremberg Chronicle. Trans. Michael Zellmann-Rahrer. Eds. 

Constantine Hadavas and Selim S. Nahas. Boston: Nahas. 

Schubert, Ernst. 1975. “Die Stellung der Kurfürsten in der spätmittelalterlichen 

Reichsverfassung.” Jahrbuch für westdeutsche Landesgeschichte 1: 97–128. 

_____. 1977. “Königswahl und Königtum im spätmittelalterlichen Reich.” Zeitschrift für 

Historische Forschung 4.3: 257–338. 

_____. 1979. König und Reich: Studien zur spätmittelalterlich deutschen 

Verfassungsgeschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht.  

_____. 1993. “Die Quaternionen: Entstehung, Sinngehalt und Folgen einer 

spätmittelalterlichen Deutung der Reichsverfassung.” Zeitschrift für Historische 

Forschung 20.1: 1–63. 

Schürmann, Brigitte. 1986. Die Rezeption der Werke Ottos von Freising im 15. und frühen 16. 

Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Steiner.  

Schwalm, Jakob, ed. 1895. Die Chronica Novella des Hermann Korner. Gottingen: Philipps-

Universität Marburg. 

Sigebert de Gembloux. 1844. Chronographia [or Chronica], ed. Ludwig Conrad Bethmann. 

Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH) Scriptores rerum Germinicarum 6. Hannover: 

Hahnsche. 268–376. 

Spiegel, Gabrielle M. 1971. “The Reditus Regni ad Stirpem Karoli Magni: A New Look.” 

French Historical Studies 7: 145–74. 

_____. 1978. The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis: A Survey. Brookline, MA: Classical 



77  Renna 
 

 
 

Folia Editions. 

_____. 1995. Romancing the Past: The Rise of Vernacular Prose Historiography in Thirteenth-

Century France. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Stuckey, Jace. 2006. Charlemagne: The Making of an Image, 1100–1300. Ph.D. dissertation, 

University of Florida.  

_____. 2008. “Charlemagne as Crusader? Memory, Propaganda, and the Many Uses of 

Charlemagne’s Legendary Expedition to Spain.” In The Legend of Charlemagne in the 

Middle Ages: Power, Faith, and Crusade, eds. Matthew Gabriele and Jace Stuckey. New 

York: Palgrave Macmillan. 137–52. 

Tanner, Marie. 1993. The Last Descendant of Aeneas: The Habsburgs and the Mythic Image 

of the Emperor. New Haven: Yale University Press.  

Tesseyre, Charles. 1980. “Le prince chrétien aux XVe et XVIe siècles, à travers les 

représentations de Charlemagne et de Saint Louis.” Annales de Bretagne 87: 409–14. 

Thomas, Heinz. 1973. “Der Lohengrin, eine politische Dichtung der Zeit Ludwigs des 

Bayern.” Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter 37: 152–90. 

_____. 2000. “Sprache und Nation: zur Geschichte des Wortes deutsch vom Ende des 11. Bis 

zur Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts.” In Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhältnisses 

in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Andreas Gardt. Berlin and New York: Walter de 

Gruyter. 47–101.  

Tietz, Manfred. 1983. “Saint Louis roi chrétien: un mythe de la mission interieure du XVIIe 

siècle.” In La conversion au XVIIe siècle: actes du XIIe Colloque de Marseille (janvier 

1982). Marseille: Centre méridional de rencontres sur le XVIIe siècle. 59–69. 

Toews, John B. 1964. “Dream and Reality in the Imperial Ideology of Pope Pius II.” 

Medievalia et Humanistica 16: 77–93. 

_____. 1968. “The View of Empire in Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II).” Traditio 

24: 471–87. 

Van de Kieft, C. 1958. “Deux diplômes faux de Charlemagne pour Saint Denis du XIIe siècle.” 



Saint Louis IX and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III  78 
 

 
 

Le Moyen Âge (64): 401–37. 

Verhelst, Daniel. 1973. “La Préhistoire des conceptions d’Adson concernant l’Antichrist.” 

Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 60: 52–103. 

von den Brincken, Anna-Dorothee. 1988. “Martin von Troppau.” In Geschichtsschreibung und 

Geschichtsbewusstsein im späten Mittelalter, ed. Hans Patze. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke. 

155–93. 

Wagendorfer, Martin, and Julie Knödler, eds. 2009. Eneas Silvius Piccolomini Historia 

Austrialis. Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH) Scriptores rerum Germanicarum 24. 

2 vols. Hannover: Hahnsche. 

Waldman, Thomas G. 1990. “Saint-Denis et les premiers Capétiens.” Religion et culture 

auteur de l’an mil, eds. Dominique Iogna-Prat and Jean-Charles Picard. Paris: Picard. 191–

97. 

Walpole, Ronald N., ed. 1976. An Anonymous Old French Translation of the Pseudo-Turpin 

Chronicle. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Walther, Helmut G. 1989. “Gelehrtes Recht, Stadt und Reich in der politischen Theorie des 

Basler Kanonisten Peter von Andlau.” In Lebenslehren und Weltenwürfe im Übergang von 

Mittelalter zur Neuzeit, Politik — Bildung — Naturkunde — Theologie. Bericht über 

Kolloquien der Kommission zur Erforschung der Kultur des Spätmittelalters 1983 bis 

1987 (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-

Historische Klasse, Dritte Folge 179), eds. Hartmut Boockmann, Bernd Moeller, and Karl 

Stackmann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck. 77–111.  

Weber, Loren. 1994. “The Historical Importance of Godfrey of Viterbo.” Viator 25: 153–96.  

Weiland, Ludwig, ed. 1877. Deutsche Chroniken und andere Geschichtsbücher des 

Mittelalters 2. Monumental Germaniae Historica (MGH). Hannover: Hahn. 

Widukind of Corvey. 1935. Widukindi monarchi corbiensis Rerum gestarum Saxonicarum 

libri III/Die Sachsengeschichte des Widukind von Korvei/Die Schrift über die Herkunft der 

Schwaben. Eds. Paul Hirsch and H.-E. Lohmann. Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH) 

Scriptores rerum Germinicarum 60. Hannover: Hahnsche. 



79  Renna 
 

 
 

Wilks, M. J. 1965. The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Wittneben, Eva Luise. 1997. “Lupold von Bebenburg und Wilhelm von Ockham im Dialog 

über die Rechte am Römischen Reich des Spätmittelalters. Deutches Archiv fur 

Enforschung des Mittelalters 53: 567–86. 

Wolf, Armin. 1990. “Von den Königswahlen und Kurfürstenkolleg.” In Wahlen und Wählen 

im Mittelalter, eds. Reinhard Schneider and Harald Zimmermann. Vorträge und 

Forschungen 37. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke. 15–78.  

Wolf, Susanne. 2005. Die Doppelregierung Kaiser Friedrichs III. und König Maximilians 

(1486–93). Köln: Böhlau.  

Wolkan, Rudolf, ed. 1909. De ortu et auctoritate imperii romani, Der Briefwechsel des Eneas 

Silvius Piccolomini, vol. 2. Vienna: Hölder. 

Wood, Diana. 2003. Clement VI: The Pontificate and Ideas of an Avignon Pope. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Wulff, Fredrik Amadeus. 1879–81. La Chronique dite de Turpin, Deux anciens textes français. 

Lund: F. Berlings boktryckeri. 

Ziehen, Eduard. 1962. “Das Heilige Romische Reich seinen Gliedern: Sinnbilder des 

körperschaftlichen Reichsgedankens 1400–1800.” In Archiv für Frankfurts Geschichte und 

Kunst 48, eds. Eduard Ziehen and Hertha Ziehen. Frankfurt am Main: Kramer. 5–44. 

   


