page_title: Problem of two emperors
section_title: Byzantine–Bulgarian dispute
hierarchical_section_title: Problem of two emperors / Byzantine–Bulgarian dispute
caption_attribution_description: Español: Miniatura del zar Simeón el Grande en el Madrid Skylitzes
context_page_description: The problem of two emperors or two-emperors-problem is the historiographical term for the historical contradiction between the idea of the universal empire, that there was only ever one true emperor at any one given time, and the truth that there were often two individuals who claimed the position simultaneously. The term is mostly used in regards to medieval Europe, in particular, the long-lasting dispute between the Byzantine emperors in Constantinople and the Holy Roman emperors in modern-day Germany and Austria as to which emperor represented the legitimate Roman emperor.
  In the view of medieval Christians, the Roman Empire was indivisible and its emperor held a somewhat hegemonic position even over Christians who did not live within the formal borders of the empire. Since the collapse of the classical Roman Empire during Late antiquity, the Byzantine Empire had been recognized by itself, the Pope and the various new Christian kingdoms throughout Europe as the legitimate Roman Empire.
context_section_description: The dispute between the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire was mostly confined to the realm of diplomacy, never fully exploding into open war. This was probably mainly due to the great geographical distance separating the two empires; a large-scale campaign would have been infeasible to undertake for either emperor. Events in Germany, France and the west in general was of little compelling interest to the Byzantines as they firmly believed that the western provinces would eventually be reconquered. Of more compelling interest were political developments in their near vicinity and in 913, the Knyaz (prince or king) of Bulgaria, Simeon I, arrived at the walls of Constantinople with an army. Simeon I's demands were not only that Bulgaria would be recognized as independent from the Byzantine Empire, but that it was to be designated as a new universal empire, absorbing and replacing the universal empire of Constantinople. Because of the threat represented, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nicholas Mystikos, granted an imperial crown to Simeon. Simeon was designated as the Emperor of the Bulgarians, not of the Romans and as such, the diplomatic gesture had been somewhat dishonest.
  The Byzantines soon discovered that Simeon was in fact titling himself as not only the Emperor of the Bulgarians, but as the Emperor of the Bulgarians and the Romans. The problem was solved when Simeon died in 927 and his son and successor, Peter I, simply adopted Emperor of the Bulgarians as a show of submission to the universal empire of Constantinople. The problem, deriving from Simeon's claim, would on occasion be revived by strong Bulgarian monarchs who once more adopted the title of Emperor of the Bulgarians and the Romans, such as Kaloyan (r. 1196–1207) and Ivan Asen II (r. 1218–1241). Kaloyan attempted to receive recognition by Pope Innocent III as emperor, but Innocent refused, instead offering to provide a cardinal to crown him simply as king. Simeon's claim was also momentarily revived by the rulers of Serbia in 1346 with Stefan Dušan's coronation as Emperor of the Serbs and Romans.
caption: Simeon I of Bulgaria (and some of his successors) would challenge the Byzantine Empire for the universal emperorship, adopting the title "Emperor of the Bulgarians and the Romans" in 913.
exif: {"Image ExifOffset": "26"}