Charlemagne’s was hailed as “Charles Augustus, Emperor of the Romans because many of his followers and subjects proclaimed that Charlemagne restored the Roman Empire in the west through his actions and accomplishments. Although his subjects believed that he restored the Roman Empire of the past through his actions and accomplishments, it makes me wonder how accurately did he restore the Roman Empire and why did it not endure after his death.
Charlemagne did not restore the Roman Empire to its fullest through his actions of governing and forming his empire. Charlemagne formed his empire and then divided it into smaller administrative units. These unites were called counties and he appointed Counts to administer them in his name. In some military districts he created other royal officials called Dukes and Margraves to serve the same purpose as counts but was responsible for leading the king’s armies. Because of Charlemagne giving power to other people to rule his empire, it made his empire different than the Roman Empire. In the formation of the Roman Empire, Augustus Caesar was granted two powers by the Senate, the “Tibunician Power” and the “Proconsular Imperium Maius.” Both these powers …show more content…
Charlemagne issued royal decrees, capitularies, to reform the churches with respect to oversight, moral improvement and education. Augustus Caesar reformed the churches by starting a program for rebuilding the temples of the gods and restoring respect for Roman religion. Charlemagne and Augustus had different ideas on reforming religion. Charlemagne did it differently than Augustus so therefore he did not restore that part of the Roman Empire in his empire. Even the book stated that his empire differed from the Roman Empire by stating “This empire differed significantly from the Roman Empire