The secular administration of medieval Rome

[Emperor Goblinus]

Everyone knows that from the seventh century onwards, the pope was increasingly the chief secular official in Rome. But besides him, does anyone here know anything about the civil administration of the city during the Middle Ages? I'm not talking about the outisde Byzantine or German imperial officials, but the day to day bureaucratic mechanisms of the city. I know that the Senate never fully recovered from destruction Justinian's reconquest, but the pope could not have run the city entirely by himself. Can anyone illuminate what other civil officials managed the city?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, EG

Everyone knows that from the seventh century onwards, the pope was increasingly the chief secular official in Rome. But besides him, does anyone here know anything about the civil administration of the city during the Middle Ages? I'm not talking about the outisde Byzantine or German imperial officials, but the day to day bureaucratic mechanisms of the city. I know that the Senate never fully recovered from destruction Justinian's reconquest, but the pope could not have run the city entirely by himself. Can anyone illuminate what other civil officials managed the city?

As a general pattern there was a progressive shift of administrative and executive functions toward the Church all along the Western Empire during its last days; eg, the appointment of provincial governors was committed to the bishops.

 

Paradoxically, the Germanic conquest improved the administrative status of the still extant Roman Senate, as a real partner and helper of the barbarian chieftains/kings at Ravenna, like the Heruli Odoacer and the Goth Theoderic (always as patricians under the nominal Imperial authority from Constantinople), presumably largely because those Arrian kings didn't trust the regular Christian clergy.

 

As you rightly pointed out, the fierce subsequent struggle between the Germanic kingdoms and the Empire ravaged all that; there are only four known references to the Roman Senate after the restoration of the Imperial rule on Italy, mostly reduced to a municipal status.

Both sides now considered Rome and its region as an early feudal administrative unit, a "duchy".

 

The last senatorial decree ever was a 603 acclamation of the emperor Phocas and wife's statues, where it was made clear the real power at Rome was then Pope Gregory I.

It is not known when the Senate actually disappeared.

During the first half pf the VII century, the lessened Imperial influence was nevertheless still extant, and most Popes were actually Greek.

 

We're now talking on the darkest of the Dark Ages. The administrative status of the city of Rome seems to have been nothing less than chaotic most often than not; the general impression given by ecclesiastical sources is the gangs and mobs' rule.

Edited August 8, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[DDickey]

This fascinates me. It's a period to which I've had little exposure. Out of curiosity, what, if any, old magistracies existed? Did they serve any functions? Or, if they did exist in this late period, were they merely ornamental? I know they lost functioning relevance during the Imperial Age, but did the old magistracies ever make any kind of comeback?

Edited August 8, 2008 by DDickey

[Emperor Goblinus]

Salve, EG

Everyone knows that from the seventh century onwards, the pope was increasingly the chief secular official in Rome. But besides him, does anyone here know anything about the civil administration of the city during the Middle Ages? I'm not talking about the outisde Byzantine or German imperial officials, but the day to day bureaucratic mechanisms of the city. I know that the Senate never fully recovered from destruction Justinian's reconquest, but the pope could not have run the city entirely by himself. Can anyone illuminate what other civil officials managed the city?

As a general pattern there was a progressive shift of administrative and executive functions toward the Church all along the Western Empire during its last days; eg, the appointment of provincial governors was committed to the bishops.

 

Paradoxically, the Germanic conquest improved the administrative status of the still extant Roman Senate, as a real partner and helper of the barbarian chieftains/kings at Ravenna, like the Heruli Odoacer and the Goth Theoderic (always as patricians under the nominal Imperial authority from Constantinople), presumably largely because those Arrian kings didn't trust the regular Christian clergy.

 

As you rightly pointed out, the fierce subsequent struggle between the Germanic kingdoms and the Empire ravaged all that; there are only four known references to the Roman Senate after the restoration of the Imperial rule on Italy, mostly reduced to a municipal status.

Both sides now considered Rome and its region as an early feudal administrative unit, a "duchy".

 

The last senatorial decree ever was a 603 acclamation of the emperor Phocas and wife's statues, where it was made clear the real power at Rome was then Pope Gregory I.

It is not known when the Senate actually disappeared.

During the first half pf the VII century, the lessened Imperial influence was nevertheless still extant, and most Popes were actually Greek.

 

We're now talking on the darkest of the Dark Ages. The administrative status of the city of Rome seems to have been nothing less than chaotic most often than not; the general impression given by ecclesiastical sources is the gangs and mobs' rule.

 

That's interesting. I knew that outside of the city, there was much chaos, with Lombards and Arabs ravaging the countryside. Inside, the only real violence that I've read about was the power jockeying between those who wished to be pope, and those who supported them. I've also read that the nobles of the city were in constant competition with each other (which, if you think about it, was nothing new to Rome), but that it was centered arund the papacy. The nobles would sometimes use mob violence against popes that were disgreeable to their interest. While it never grew as bad as in places like Renaissance Florence, it did cause noticeable disturbances.

 

As to the popes being Greek, that's correct. As John Moorhead's The Roman Empire Divided: 400-700 points out, the seventh century was indeed the papacy's most "oriental" century. Since these Greeks were probably more beholden to the Byzantine emperor than to the Italian nobility, there probably wasn't as much jockeying around the papal throne. That only seemed t really settle in during the ninth and tenth centuries. You mention that Rome became a duchy of both the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires, but wasn't that a creation of Late Antiquity, not the Middle Ages, since it was Diocletian and Constantine who created the position of duke, and was originally not supposed to be feudal at all? I'm just wondering. Also, while Rome was an imperial territory, it was not like other provinces. Since the time of Pepin, the papal lands had a certain amount of autonomy not granted to other regions. Yes, Rome was subject to imperial domination, such as when Otto blockaded it when a pope was appointed that he didn't like, but it still as just not another imperial possession, and had ot be dealt with carefully. Also, I think that the Roman militia was not directly under imperial control.

 

I do remember that in the tenth century, there was a secular position called the Senator of Rome. Despite the name, his duties were very different than that of a classical senator. He was basically in charge of the city guard and militia. I remember reading about this position in a book about the Ottonian dynasty where Pope John IX apparently fell dead while banging the Senator's daughter in a back alley. The book didn't say much, only that he was the head of the city guard, that he was close to the pope, and that it was a coveted position. Beyond that, I don't know much about the city's medieval magistracies, and like DDickey, was wondering if their were any holdovers from antiquity.

[Ludovicus]

From the mid-6th thru the 8th centuries Rome's population shrank tremendously. Betrand Lan

Edited August 14, 2008 by Ludovicus

[Emperor Goblinus]

From the mid-6th thru the 8th centuries Rome's population shrank tremendously. Betrand Lan

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici

From the mid-6th thru the 8th centuries Rome's population shrank tremendously. Betrand Lan