Talk:Byzantine Papacy

Santi Cosma e Damiano

The date of the mosaics at SS Cosmas & Damian has been a matter of some debate since 1967 see n. 34 but I think the general view is that the apse mosaic you show is 526-30 but the triumphal arch above (in near-darkness in this photo) is from the time of Sergius I [1]. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Turks?

From the section "Decline (701–752)":

Byzantine authority all but vanished in Italy (except for Sicily) as the emperors became increasingly preoccupied with the rise of the Seljuk Turks.

Despite that Duffy is cited, I don't think this is correct. Originally it said Ottomans, but Wetman changed it (reasonably, as the Ottomans didn't appear until the 13th century). Perhaps it means Bulgars? Or perhaps it means Arabs? Anyways, the Seljuks did not appear on the scene for some two hundred years. Weren't all the Turks still in central Asia at this time? Srnec (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much so; I've rewritten it to fit the Muslim conquests as the link. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Any comments on the mosaic bit above, or shall I change it? Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Make sure you tweak the caption when you do. Srnec (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

East-West Schism

The decline of the Byzantine Papacy, it seems, has been cited as one of the principal causes of the East-West Schism. When the bishop of Rome was deprived of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the city of Athens, the rest of Greece, and much of what is now modern Turkey, it clearly paved the way for a conflict between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, who each claimed to be the supreme pastoral leaders of those areas. ADM (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Intuitively that seems reasonable to me. The BP certainly included the monthelitism and iconoclasm controversies, which contributed to the schism. If you find some other sources that cite these other causes or make the connection more direct, please don't hesitate to add it. Savidan 05:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Slav conquest

as the Slavs conquered much of the Baltic coast.

Looks like a slip of the pen. But which coast is meant? Adriatic or Aegean, probably. Who knows?Jon kare (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The name "Byzantine Papacy"

So what is the history of this label? Is this simply a term of convenience -- I doubt it's Original Research to call this period the "Byzantine Papacy" -- or has it been used by various scholars since, let's say, Gibbon or Tillemont? Adding this information would not only answer my question with solid information, but cover another aspect of this subject. -- llywrch (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Economics section is anachronistic

It speaks of Greek merchants (speaking? ethnic?) dominating the trade of the city of Rome in the early Fifth Century, culminating in an Imperial act by the Emperor for the west in 440 - but this article is about the period beginning nearly a century later! It seems to me that some of the confused nature of this article results from mixing up two different things - the Imperial domination of the Papacy, which predates the so-call "Byzantine Papacy" period and the post-Justinian Empire in Italy, during which the cradle of the Roman state was a frontier province culturally enriched and changed by the still-vigorous Imperial center that had shifted to the East. TheCormac (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Over reliance on one source?

Was there no other resource besides Andrew Ekonomou? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.70.13 (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Later Byzantine antipopes

So question should there be an additional a paragraph about later Byzantine anti popes? Such as John the 16th? Youngdrake (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)