Talk:Arab raid against Rome

I've changed the name of this page. Sounds like anti-Arabic title. The reason why such invasion occurred is because of the Spread of Islam and successful Islamic conquest. Prior to the 7 century the Arabs in general did not have the capacity to conquer. They weren't warriors, just merchants and poets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.95.180 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Column of Phocas image

The image is nice, but the forum wasn't destroyed in the sack of 846 (or at least, not uniquely). Is there a better image we could use? —Ryan McDaniel 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed image to one more pertinent. Srnec 02:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! —Ryan McDaniel 14:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Use of the word 'Terror' - is it giving the wrong impression?

My view on this:

Funny that when Rome goes out and terrorizes another city/nation it is a 'conquest' and when the Muslims sack Rome it is terror... i recommend that this word not be used because of the incorecct connotations implied i.e that muslims are terrorists and always were ... the conquest of new lands was a reality of the middle ages, that was carried out by everyone and should be understood as such without adding any subjective inferences except in explicitly opinion based articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.81.222.5 (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Leonine wall

I removed the image whose caption wrongly stated that it showed the Leonine wall (it actually just showed the Vatican city wall). The remnants of the Leonine wall can be found within the border of the Vatican. Gugganij 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sack?

I have never read nor heard anything of this supposed sack of Rome by the Saracens. It is not listed under any of the other Islam and Italy sections, nor is there any citations. As well, searching other encyclopedias, I have found no mention of this supposed sack. I believe this article to be false, and unless someone is prepared to show any evidence of this event, I propose and will move forward with it's deletion. Izzodinapoli (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The article should be renamed to Attack or Invasion of Rome, Rome was never sacked by Saracens. The title is very misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.125.210 (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Added a citation. Facts on File's Dictionary of Wars includes this event under the title "Rome, Muslim Sack of," so the article and its title seem acceptable. Equilibrium007 (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Facts on File is Wrong -- Rome itself was not sacked, because the Arab raiders did not have the ability to breach the Aurelian War. But the Vatican was outside the wall, and it was desecrated and sacked. Per Gibbon, "A fleet of Saracens from the African coast presumed to enter the mouth of the Tiber, and to approach a city which even yet, in her fallen state, was revered as the metropolis of the Christian world. The gates and ramparts were guarded by a trembling people; but the tombs and temples of St. Peter and St. Paul were left exposed in the suburbs of the Vatican and of the Ostian way."

The following year, Leo III, newly elected poper, iniated the constructon of what is now known as the "Leonine Wall" to prevent further assaults. Al-Nofi (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. The city has never been sacked by the Saracens, and as far as I know no RS defines this attack as "Sack". The only notable buildings to be plundered, St. Peter and St. Paul, were outside the town, and these happenings pushed Leo IV to build walls around the former church, establishing the so called Leonine City, which joined Rome only in the 16th century. The article must be renamed. Alex2006 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Barbara Kreutz, Before the Normans, refers to the raid of 846 as a "sack of Rome". The term "sack" is entirely appropriate. The question is whether the sack was of Rome. I agree that, technically, it was not. But then it what sense can it be called a raid against Rome either? If Rome was raided, then it was sacked. If it was not sacked (because it's walls were not breached), then how was it itself raided? Its suburbs were extensively plundered (sacked) by Arab raiders. Its precious to insist on a precise definition of Rome coupled with an imprecise term like "outskirts". Srnec (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are the definition of the two words from Merrian-Webster:

• Sack: the plundering of a captured town;
• Raid: a hostile or predatory incursion;

According to these definition, the right definition is raid, not sack.

And now, the opinion of some historians:

• The main historian of Rome in the middle ages, Ferdinand Gregorovius, in his Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter writes about an "assault";
• The same does another great Roman historian of last century, Richard Krautheimer, in his Rome, profile of a city, 312 - 1308;
• Also the same writes Cesare d`Onofrio, in his book about the history of Borgo;
• Last but not least, Mariano Borgatti (the restorer of Castel Sant'Angelo), in his book about Borgo, writes about a "scorreria" ("raid" in italian);

Compared with their opinion, the definition of Barbara Kreutz is insignificant. In that occasion, St. Peter and St. Paul were sacked (and maybe a couple of farms), NOT the town. A last note: if we accept this concept, then we should rewrite the history of many cities in the middle age, first of all Constantinople, whose outskirts (with its great churches like for example the Theotokos Pege) had been plundered several times. In only one matter you are right: the use of the word "outskirts". Rome had no outskirts in the middle ages. Outside the walls, there were only some churches and monasteries with their annexes, and a couple of fortified farms, all lost in the wilderness and inhabited by people mostly sick with malaria. The Campagna until 1870 was a desert ("il disabitato") which reached also the larger part of the region inside the walls. The word outskirts is totally inappropriate. Alex2006 (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

My only points were that (a) some RS do indeed call it a sack of Rome, (b) it was most definitely a sack, even if not of Rome itself, and (c) if we treat the object of the raid as Rome, then it is pretty harmless to treat the object of the sack as Rome. I stand by points (a) and (b), but am willing to concede (c) because (i) the distinction is important, given the difference between this event and the other famous sacks of Rome, and (ii) a "raid against" something need not be regarded as an incursion into it necessarily (contrary to my original interpretation of the title). Srnec (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Srnec, and sorry for my delayed answer, but I was in holiday in the "sacked" :-) city. I agree also about a) and b). Actually, the article could have been named also as "Arab Sack of the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul outside the walls (846). Anyway, in Rome I could reach the other half of my books, and I could find nowhere the definition of this event as Sack of the city: this has been always been described as a raid of a group of Arabs which did not even try to penetrate into the city. So, I think that the current definition is more appropriate. Alex2006 (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Moving the article

Muslim raiders plundered the outskirts of the city of Rome, yet the article mentions ARABS. It should be moved to something like Muslim invasion or conquest of Rome. Also the Aghlabids were not fully arabs, and Muhammad Abul Abbas of Sicily's ideology was something like jihad. There are also some theological narratives about the the invasion of Rome, but this will be added later in a separated section titled Muslim views just like the conquests of Constantinople (with sources obviously).--Widerhelen (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

There was no conquest, so that would be absurd. The title was debated above. Switching out Arab for Saracen might be good. That is the term preferred by Lankila. Srnec (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

We discussed at length the issue of the alleged sack of Rome some years ago here above; I don't think there is any reason to repeat in detail what I wrote above, one can just read it. In 846 no sack of the city took place, only Saint Peter and Saint Paul, both outside the city walls, have been plundered. The attack force was also very weak, otherwise the raiders would have no problem in taking the city, since Rome at that time was almost uninhibited (the city at that time had about 30.000 inhabitants, and 70% of the area inside the walls was countryside) and the extreme length of the walls (19 km) made it almost indefensible against the attack of an organized army. So, the city was not sacked, but the consequences of this raid cannot be underestimated; the most important church of the western Christianity had been plundered, and this brought the decision to build new walls around it. In turn, this decision had important consequences for the city, since in the long term the barycenter of Rome moved from east to west, making Saint Peter and the Vatican the political center of the city. It would be also very interesting to add to the article the Muslim views of this happening, but always not forgetting the historic truth: in 846 there was no sack of the city.

About the name, I agree with Srnec: personally I would prefer the term "Saracen" in the title: I don't like "Arab", since it has an ethnic connotation. Many of the people joining the raid were Moors originally from north Africa, that is Berbers, not Arabs. "Saracen", at least in Italian, denotes a Muslim raider and warrior, and this is what we need here. As alternative, also "Muslim" would be acceptable. Bye.Alex2006 (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Muslim sounds good. How about Muslim Siege of Rome?--Widerhelen (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

As for the Islamic views, if you're interested let me just paste what I've found and heard by Islamic historians and eschatologist (I'm not asking to add this here on the article and the material is not encyclopedic, just read it, since User Alex looks quite curious)

The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "The Last Hour will not be established until you (Muslims) conquer Constantinople and Rome". Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-As (May Allah’s mercy be upon him) questioned: “Which city will be liberated first; Constantinople or Rome?” The Prophet said, “Indeed, the city of Heraclius (Byzantinium) will be liberated first." So we all know that this prophecy was fulfilled in 1453 when the Ottoman Caliphate under Mehmet the Conqueror took it over, an event known as Fall of Constantinople. Today the city is known as Istanbul, the largest in Europe, and still remain a Muslim territory despite the end of the Caliphate and the introduction of Kemalism. But what about Rome, one of the birthplaces on the western civilisation, that produced and was influenced by history’s notable military leaders and emperors such as Caesar, Augustus, Caligula, Tiberius, Nero, Trajan, Hadrian? ALLAH The Almighty knows best. Today Muslims neither have that type of powerful military force nor the Muslims are interested in conquering further territories, indeed they are struggling with many other occupied lands. Italy, a EU founding father, has a large Muslim diaspora and it also has the largest mosque in the western world (by land area), Mosque of Rome. Maybe this time Jihad will not be done by sword, but through dawa’h. The number of Italians converting to Islam is not low.

Last Hour means something like the end of the world here. Again, this is just theological point of view taken from somewhere, pasted here so you can read it (btw most Muslims are not even aware of such religious future telling, and they are not obsessed with Islamicising Rome, but they were serious before about the Constanitonple, which was known as Easter Rome in Quranic terms, especially after the Muslim conquers of Spain which is Al-Andalus). The quote or the prediction, known as narratives of Islam, is what matters, since such prophetic words strongly affect its followers i.e. this lead to Siege of Constantinople (674–678) and perhaps even the attack on Rome.--Widerhelen (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Muslim in the title is ok for me, siege no, since no contemporary source writes that in that occasion there was an attempt to siege the city: they only describe the plunder of Saint Peter, Saint Paul and several domuscultae in the countryside. Thanks a lot for the citation: I knew that there was an hadith of the Prophet where he foresaw the conquest of Constantinople, but not that of Rome, that at that time was little more than a village, and politically unimportant. Alex2006 (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, then Muslim is fine for me too. Should we replace raid with some other word or shall we kept? Then are many hadiths about constantinople, but about Rome there is only one.--Widerhelen (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

"Muslim raid against Rome" is ok for me: let's wait for the other users: @Srnec:, is it ok for you? Alex2006 (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

It's acceptable to me. Srnec (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

How about Muslim sack of Rome, which is found in many sources, instead of this long raid against? Also we should a image about this event? Could you anyone help me to find one, so I can upload it on wikimedia commons? Thanks--Widerhelen (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Just to let you gentlemen know, Widerhelen has been confirmed as a sock. So unless someone is adamant about moving this article, do not worry about the discussion with the sock puppet. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Pharum Hadriani

"so-called Pharum Hadriani". I wondered what this was; there are no Google matches except Wikipedia mirrors.

The reference is to an Italian translation of Gregorovius; the original 1860 German has

der große Pharus Hadrian's

with footnote "Anast. Vita Benedicti n. 576 erwähnt einen pharum cantharum argenteum sedentem in pedibus quatuor a Saracenis ablatum. Dies war freilich nicht der Pharus Hadrian's."

Possible interpretations of Gregorovius:

1. there was a Pharus/Pharum popularly associated with emperor Hadrian, but of course not really connected to him. Anastasius Bibliothecarius says it was silver and stood on four legs and the Saracens took it.
2. there was a Pharus/Pharum popularly associated with emperor Hadrian. Anastasius says the Saracens took this, but of course they actually took a different Pharus/Pharum.

Since Anastasius doesnt seem to me to mention Hadrian in n. 576, I favour interpretation #1.

But still, what's a pharus/pharum? A study of the early Basilica of Saint John Lateran says that in that church the "farum or farum cantharum" was the most prestigious type of light, and hung like a chandelier with oil lamps. But if Gregorovius interepretation #1 is correct, the farum in St Peter's sat on four legs so it must have been different. But I guess still a light or lantern of some kind. jnestorius^(talk) 02:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

PHARUS in Charles du Fresne, sieur du Cange Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis

PHARUS, Pharum, Farus, Farum Lucerna, sive Lychnuchus orbicularis et circularis cum certo lucernarum aut candelarum numero, cujusmodi passim in templis nostris visuntur : sic dictus, quod instar Phari sit, ejusque speciem referat. Papias : Fara, vasa sunt luminatoria, quæ nos Retia dicimus diverso modo formata.

A lantern, or spherical and circular lychnuchus [lampstand, candlestick, chandelier], with a certain number of lamps or candles, such as are seen here and there in our temples: so called because it resembles a lighthouse, and refers to its appearance. Papias: Lighthouses are vessels of light, which we call Nets, formed in a different manner.

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Lights

The gift, mentioned by Anastasius (in Sylv.), made by Constantine to the Vatican basilica, of a pharum of gold, garnished with 500 dolphins each holding a lamp, to burn before St Peter’s tomb, points also to a custom well established before Christianity became the state religion.

The cited source Anastasius "Silvester" 38 has

Item his temporibus fecit Augustus Constantinus, ex rogatu Silvestri episcopi, basilicam beato Petro apostolo in templo Apollinis. ... Sic inclusit corpus beati Petri apostoli, et recondidit, et ornavit supra ex columnis porphyreticis, et alias columnas vitineas quas de Graecia perduxit. ... Fecit autem .. coronam auream ante corpus, ubi est Phamecantharus cum delphinis quinquaginta, qui pens. lib. XXXV

Also in these times, Emperor Constantine, at the request of the bishop Sylvester, built a basilica for Saint Peter the apostle in the temple of Apollo. ... Thus he enclosed the body of the blessed Peter the Apostle, and hid it, and decorated it above with porphyritic columns and other vine columns which he had brought from Greece. ... And he made ... a golden crown in front of the body, where is Phamecantharus* with fifty dolphins, which weighed 35 pounds

• PHAMECANTHARUS in du Fresne is interpreted as a mistake for Pharum cantharum.

So there was an impressive pharum cantharum in St Peter's, with 50 (not 500) dolphins; it was associated with Constantine, but not that I can see with Emperor Hadrian, though apparently it "points ... to a custom well established before Christianity". Wherever Gregorovius got Hadrian from, he doesn't cite his source. Could he mean Pope Adrian I rather than the emperor? jnestorius^(talk) 17:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Or could Gregorovius be glossing Phamecantharus as "pharum Hadriani"? That's quite a stretch, unless he trusted some manuscript with a different spelling. jnestorius^(talk) 17:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Gregorovius is in English here, where it says "Pharus of Adrian". I think it is a reference to Pope Hadrian I. The Liber Pontificalis seems to mention it here. There are many references to it in secondary literature as a "chandelier". The spelling farus also seems more common. Gregorovius is the only one I've yet found to mention its loss in 846. Srnec (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

References