When did the Byzantine Empire lose control of Rome?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,926
SoCal
#1
When did the Byzantine Empire lose control of Rome? I know that Ravenna (which is relatively close to Rome) fell in 751, but I'm wondering as to when exactly Rome itself stopped being a part of the Byzantine Empire.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,070
Dispargum
#2
In 727, Pope Gregory II declared the independence of the Papal States, but a series of wars with the Byzantine Empire and the Lombards meant that Rome did not achieve true independence until 756 when Pope Stephen II allied with the Frankish King Pippin the Short (the father of Charlemagne). The loss of Rome and Ravenna therefore seem to be tied together in the same wars and disputes.

Why does Rome matter to you? In the 8th century Rome was little more than the seat of the pope. Gregory's dispute with the Byzantine emperor was religious, not political or economic.
History of Rome - Wikipedia
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,926
SoCal
#3
In 727, Pope Gregory II declared the independence of the Papal States, but a series of wars with the Byzantine Empire and the Lombards meant that Rome did not achieve true independence until 756 when Pope Stephen II allied with the Frankish King Pippin the Short (the father of Charlemagne). The loss of Rome and Ravenna therefore seem to be tied together in the same wars and disputes.
Thanks for this information!

Why does Rome matter to you? In the 8th century Rome was little more than the seat of the pope. Gregory's dispute with the Byzantine emperor was religious, not political or economic.
History of Rome - Wikipedia
The Pope was a very big figure even back then, no?
 

Kirialax

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
4,814
Blachernai
#4
In the 8th century Rome was little more than the seat of the pope. Gregory's dispute with the Byzantine emperor was religious, not political or economic.
I haven't read it all yet, but I thought Vivien Prigent made some arguments that iconoclasm had nothing to do with the dispute, being a later interpolation into the Liber Pontificalis to align better to Carolingian interests?


Effectively, 750s when the Exarch in Ravenna could no longer push him around because the exarch ceased to exist.

The Pope was a very big figure even back then, no?
It's complicated, and the whole situation is made worse by being judged in hindsight as part of "rise of the papacy" narrative. The reality is that the bishop of Rome was like most other bishops in late antiquity. He increasingly took over the day to day management of secular matters in his see. The late antique Roman church owned extensive estates, and eventually these become the Republic of St Peter. Although it's not the most recent book, it remains excellent, and on this topic you want to read T.F.X. Noble, The Republic of St Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680-825 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986).
 
Mar 2016
1,195
Australia
#5
Why does Rome matter to you? In the 8th century Rome was little more than the seat of the pope. Gregory's dispute with the Byzantine emperor was religious, not political or economic.
I suppose there's the inevitable symbolic/sentimental attachment to Rome as a city because it was the birthplace of the Roman Empire, which in the mid-8th century the "Byzantine" Empire could still claim to be the rightful successor/continuation of. Sure, from a strategic and economic point of view Rome was fairly irrelevant, but that argument is doubly true of a city like Jerusalem, and we know how much the Christians, Muslims and Jews loved fighting over it for centuries.