I was wondering who was the first Pope, and about what year are we talking? For extra credit, did the Pope rule over some/all of the city-states which comprise present day Italy? Could this be why those city-states forming what we call Italy (then, New Rome?) did not have a monarchial history? Likewise, there was no army to defend the lands of today’s Italy, and I WAG this would be because they all looked to the Pope for guidance? - Jinx
I believe Saint Peter is considered to be the first Pope (i.e. First Bishop of Rome).
The first Pope was Saint Peter - one of Jesus’ first disciples, and it seems that there has been an unbroken line since him.
The Pope, eventually, when the Vatican became the seat of the Roman Catholic Church, ruled over the city state of Rome mainly, and some other Italian city states (Can’t give a cite right now because all my Italian unifcation books are at home). With the unification of Italy in 1861, the Pope still playing a politcal role, but his secular “kingdom” so to speak, extended only over the Vatican.
The city states forming Italy didn’t have a monarchy per say, but were ruled over by noble houses, mainly giving their allegience to the Pope. Also, there were the Papal states which were ruled directly by the Pope, which were mainly in central Italy. And then, there were others with actual monarchies - Piedmont-Sardinia for instance, and a couple of others. All the noble houses which ruled parts of Italy were related to the Austrian Hapsburgs.
The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is that Peter was the first pope. This comes from Matthew 16:18. He was the Bishop of Rome, but didn’t rule over anything but churches. According to tradition he was killed by the Romans by being beheaded.
St. Peter is usuaually regarded as the first bishop of Rome, though from the point of view of secular history this is more of an unverifiable legend than a historical fact. At this time Rome was still the centre of the Roman empire. Many of the earlier Popes are suspected to fictious, for example Sixtus the sixth pope.
The Pope after the collapse of the western Roman empire ruled over what were known as the papal states which were part of present day Italy, this was reduced to the Vatican with the unification of Italy.
St. Peter’s bones have been found in Rome (they are as certain to be his as you can be of any guy from those days)
“…suspected to be fictious…” by whom may I ask? Even protestants admit the those guys were bishops of Rome even if they don’t buy the rest.
From catholic.org web site (www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=5358):
There is also a list of all popes here, with a short biography of each.
Yes, the popes ruled over a broad swath of what is now central Italy until 1870. This land was referred to as the Papal States.
Italy does have a monarchical history. Italy had a king until 1946. Most of Italy (other than the Papal States, obviously) consisted of smaller monarchies before unification, such as the Duchy of Parma and the Kingdom of Naples. **
I have no idea what you mean by that. Believe me, when the Papal States were sovereign, the Popes had armies, and fought many battles. There’s a reason why the Vatican is a fortress. The smaller Italian kingdoms had armies as well, and often fought each other (and outside invaders) like cats and dogs.
Traditionnally, Peter is said to have been the first pope. Of course, that’s only a religious tradition, and there’s no evidence whatsoever that it’s true. And though there are official list of popes since Peter, they aren’t particulary reliable concerning the first ones (still tradition, not actual historical evidences). The pope was originally only the bishop of Rome. Only later the bishops of Rome became rulers of the Church rather than merely “primus inter pares”.
[/quote]
For extra credit, did the Pope rule over some/all of the city-states which comprise present day Italy? Could this be why those city-states forming what we call Italy (then, New Rome?) did not have a monarchial history?
[/quote]
Nope. They were independant, and actually quite often at war with the Pope. Beside there wasn’t only city-states in Italy. There has been areas ruled by Germanic “barbarians”, by Byzance, by the Arabs, by Charlemagne, by the german Holy Roman Emperors, etc…There has been kingdoms extending on large parts of Italy, either independant or ruled by another country (The counts of Provence, the kings of Navarra or Spain, the Austrians, etc… )
The history of Italy is pretty complicated, and the era of the city states covers only a little part of this long history. Very roughly, from the end of the middle-ages, when the Holy Roman Emperors weren’t any more able to actually rule their Italian belongings to the Renaissance, after which the powerful nations which were unifying in Western Europe (Spain, France, Austria…) began to share Italy between themselves.
In fact, there were plenty of armies to defend the various city-states, kingdoms, etc…, usually at war with each other, occasionnally involving foreign powers in their disputes. And concerning the city states they looked at the Pope for guidance only when they felt it was useful or convenient. The rulers of these states had no qualm with waging war against the Pope when he was allied with their ennemies.
Actually, the Popes themselves didn’t hesitate to wage wars against their neighbors, and usually had various family ties and alliegeances with the rulers of other Italian states.
I forgot to point out (in case it would be necessary) that the Popes ruled the Papal States, IOW a big chunk of central Italy, originally (after the fall of the Roman empire) separating the part of Italy ruled by Byzance in the south and the part ruled by the Germanic kings in the north.
That was true only during a very brief period of Italian history, following the rise to power of Karl V/Carlos I. For instance, the kingdoms of Sicily and Naples had various rulers before and after the Hapsburgs (the Norman kings, the kings of Navarra, the spanish Bourbons, etc…).
Beside, I don’t think that it ever applied to northern Italy until Austria eventually took it over. Nor the princes of the city states we were talking about, nor the kings of Savoy and Sardignia were related in any way to the Hapsburg.
Just thought that the OP could be interested in looking at this site displaying a map of Europe at the end of each century, from 1AD to 1900. I can’t manage to find the link, but certainly some poster will be able to post it, since it has been linked to several times in other threads. It should give the OP a clearer view of the historical evolution of Italy (or perhaps a headache).
Here’s the link : www.euratlas.com
For instance, you can look at the rather simple sharing of Italy in 800 AD , and compare it to the incredibly complicated situation in 1500 AD
Actually, the first Pope was the first Patriarch of Alexandria, and the Patriarch of Alexandria has been a Pope ever since. Rome’s Patriarch was also granted the style of “Pope”, but after Alexandria’s already had been using it.
Just as an addendum to jklann and clairobscur’s posts, it is perhaps worth pointing out explicitly that while there were a great number of kings in Italy and even a number of kings who claimed the title of “King of Italy” there was in fact no unitary Italian kingdom, nor even a single ruler of Italy in a geographic sense from the times of the Lombard/Langobard invasion in 568 until the reunification of Italy in the 1860’s.
- Tamerlane
???
Very cheap shot. You know what the guy was asking about, I don’t care if a guy in Lithuania was styled Pope in 432 BC, if you ask for the Pope you know who the guy is. The name of the title is irrelevant to the original question.
You might also be confusing the use of the word “papa” (father) that was used for bishops in early Christianity. The Bishop of Rome was also a “papa” but later the name came to be associated with Rome. There are other Bishops ( Coptic. Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox) that even today use the word “papa” as their title (or stlye) but it shouldn’t be translated to “pope” in English unless no confussion is possible.
???
Very cheap shot. You know what the guy was asking about, I don’t care if a guy in Lithuania was styled Pope in 432 BC, if you ask for the Pope you know who the guy is. The name of the title is irrelevant to the original question.
You might also be confusing the use of the word “papa” (father) that was used for bishops in early Christianity. The Bishop of Rome was also a “papa” but later the name came to be associated with Rome. There are other Bishops ( Coptic. Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox) that even today use the word “papa” as their title (or stlye) but it shouldn’t be translated to “pope” in English unless no confussion is possible.
???
Very cheap shot. You know what the guy was asking about, I don’t care if a guy in Lithuania was styled Pope in 432 BC, if you ask for the Pope you know who the guy is. The name of the title is irrelevant to the original question.
You might also be confusing the use of the word “papa” (father) that was used for bishops in early Christianity. The Bishop of Rome was also a “papa” but later the name came to be associated with Rome. There are other Bishops ( Coptic. Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox) that even today use the word “papa” as their title (or stlye) but it shouldn’t be translated to “pope” in English unless no confussion is possible.