WI Pope Leo III is murdered in 799 AD?

In April 799 Pope Leo III was attacked while saying mass by a group of Roman nobles who objected to his election since he was from common background... The Pope was beaten severely before Magnus Fortensen intervened with his Frisian mercenaries and managed to take him away to safety... The Pope was formally deposed and sent to a monastery but he managed to escape and seek refuge to Charlemagne's court...

WI Fortensen didnt arrived in time and the nobles killed the Pope and installed their own puppet Pope? Would this cause Charlemagne's intervention? Or he wouldnt bother coming?
Leo III was a supporter of Franks and was in good terms with Charlemagne... With Leo III and the Roman nobility in control of Rome and the Papal states dead would the Papacy returned to the Byzantine sphere of influence or the nobles would seek another "protector"?
 
Is it possible the Papacy is re-established by Charlemagne in Aachen.

Although the great schism isn't yet institutionalised, i think there is enough east-west theological division, to prevent Charlemagne allowing the papcy to go to Constantinople.
 
Is it possible the Papacy is re-established by Charlemagne in Aachen.

Although the great schism isn't yet institutionalised, i think there is enough east-west theological division, to prevent Charlemagne allowing the papcy to go to Constantinople.

That would be an interesting twist... A Roman Papacy controlled by Roman nobles and loyal to Constantinople and a rival Franko-German Papacy in Aachen loyal to Charlemagne... I wonder how this power play would evolve...
 
Well if one Papacy remains in Aachen, with the Franks as defenders of the Catholic faith, it shifts the focus from Rome. I think the East Roman Empire has it's hands full versus the Arabs. Two Popes one in Constantinople, one in Aachen - very interesting.
 
Well if one Papacy remains in Aachen, with the Franks as defenders of the Catholic faith, it shifts the focus from Rome. I think the East Roman Empire has it's hands full versus the Arabs. Two Popes one in Constantinople, one in Aachen - very interesting.

I dont think the Roman nobles would allow the Pope to relocate in Constantinople... They would remain in Rome and act as the Emperor's (Empress Irene's actualy) representatives in Italy...
However if a rival Papacy is established in Aachen then Charlemagne would propably have invaded the Papal states...
 
A papacy in Rome loyal to Constantinople probably would cement Italy further to the Byzantines. A Rome controlled by the Byzantines, and loyal to them to boot? We probably would be calling them "Romans" now, if we weren't all collectively butteflied away by the probably collapse of the empire.
 
there is no way Charlemagne would establish an antipope. Really, there is as yet no such beast as "the papacy". It remains likely that Charlemagne intervenes to put his own candidate in place and punish the evildoers (surely a grand chapter in the Annals), but the king opf the Lombards traditionally had a stormy relastionship with the pope, no reason for this to be thought unusual.

Mind, it would be completely idiotic for the popes to give up their Frankish protectors, but doing dumb things is sadly a very plausible option for historical actors.
 
there is no way Charlemagne would establish an antipope. Really, there is as yet no such beast as "the papacy". It remains likely that Charlemagne intervenes to put his own candidate in place and punish the evildoers (surely a grand chapter in the Annals), but the king opf the Lombards traditionally had a stormy relastionship with the pope, no reason for this to be thought unusual.

Mind, it would be completely idiotic for the popes to give up their Frankish protectors, but doing dumb things is sadly a very plausible option for historical actors.

Perhaps a "Bishop of Francia," to balance out the "Bishop of Rome"? :D
 
there is no way Charlemagne would establish an antipope. Really, there is as yet no such beast as "the papacy". It remains likely that Charlemagne intervenes to put his own candidate in place and punish the evildoers (surely a grand chapter in the Annals), but the king opf the Lombards traditionally had a stormy relastionship with the pope, no reason for this to be thought unusual.

Mind, it would be completely idiotic for the popes to give up their Frankish protectors, but doing dumb things is sadly a very plausible option for historical actors.

So Charlemagne might invade Papal states to set up his own candidate as Pope... ERE wouldnt like this... And since Arabs and Bulgars were quiet by 799-800 maybe Irene had some spare time to deal with Franks invading Rome...
 
So Charlemagne might invade Papal states to set up his own candidate as Pope... ERE wouldnt like this... And since Arabs and Bulgars were quiet by 799-800 maybe Irene had some spare time to deal with Franks invading Rome...

They were in a kind of low-key war for a while, weren't they? I doubt a Byzantine expedition could manage to hold out against the resources Charlemagne could bring to bear in Italy in good times, but with a bit of diplomacy - they might well win over Beneventum and Salerno, and there must be some candidate for the Lombard throne to be found from among the great families. Bavaria is not only easily reached for Byzantine envoys, the Agilolfings also hated Charlemagne's guts and still had significant mojo. Aquitaine was most likely too firmly dominated to be usefully pried loose. The same goes for Thuringia and Frisia. I am not sure they would care or be able to do anything about Saxony, but the Umayyads in Cordoba could certainly benefit from their help. And suddenly, the contest looks much less certain. Yes, this does sound interesting. A reversal of the Pepinian Donation with territorial gains for the newly independent Lombard kingdom, guarantees for the dukes of Beneventum and Salerno, Umayyad gains in the Pyrenees and maybe Aquitaine, and a tame pope for Irene... It's not going to last, but it will be interesting.
 
Just a thought, given that Leo is dead and there is no pope.
Somebody has to install a new pope, likely to be Charlemagne.
What if he does this in a way as to wrest the concession that, the King of the Franks has a say in who can be Pope, we still have no HRE.

Or maybe he's not bothered.
 
Just a thought, given that Leo is dead and there is no pope.
Somebody has to install a new pope, likely to be Charlemagne.
What if he does this in a way as to wrest the concession that, the King of the Franks has a say in who can be Pope, we still have no HRE.

Or maybe he's not bothered.

In theory, the pope being the bishop of Rome, he will be elected by his flock. In practice, the long-standing tradition was for a number of Roman gentes and the senior clergy to agree on a candidate then presented to the plebs for acclamation. Emperors interfering with papal elections came later, and the formal mechanism of the conclave is a high medieval invention, in part designed to combat such interference. So whoever succeeds Leo, it will most likely be the candidate of whoever controls the players of Rome and its immediate hinterland.
 
In theory, the pope being the bishop of Rome, he will be elected by his flock. In practice, the long-standing tradition was for a number of Roman gentes and the senior clergy to agree on a candidate then presented to the plebs for acclamation. Emperors interfering with papal elections came later, and the formal mechanism of the conclave is a high medieval invention, in part designed to combat such interference. So whoever succeeds Leo, it will most likely be the candidate of whoever controls the players of Rome and its immediate hinterland.

And since Leo III is murdered then the Roman nobles would have the upper hand in his successor's election (propably through bribing and intimidating the Romans to vote for nobility's candidate)
 
Top