Bishop Leo may have avoided the sacking of Rome in 452 when Attila the Hun agreed to Leo’s plea to have mercy(see Feb. 2 Blog), but Leo soon found that other marauders did not hold the position of Bishop in the Christian Church influential enough to curb their appetite for plunder.
In March 455, Gaiseric, King of the Vandals, set sail with over a hundred ships from the coast of North Africa. His army landed north of the Tiber River and Rome was thrown into unbridled terror. The imperial troops mutinied. Emperor Maximus was killed by one of his bodyguards. His body was dragged through the streets, torn to pieces, and thrown into the river. Rumors of the invading marauders sent the generals of Rome running for their lives. On June 2, 455 the Vandals entered Rome, meeting no resistance. Bishop Leo met Gaiseric at the city gate. Leo led a group of priests to plead for Rome. Just three years after Leo’s private meeting with Attila, he now faces the King of the Vandals. Leo begged for mercy. He urged the King to restrain his troops; he implored him to not burn the city. Leo even went so far as to offer money. This must have looked odd to the Vandal warlord – a city clearly offering no resistance now offering money to avoid resistance? Geiseric nodded silently. Then, spurring his horse away, calling out to the leader of the church: “Fourteen days looting!”
The Vandals plundered the city. Everything belonging to the Emperor was taken: Roman Temples, the gilded roof of the Capital, sacred vessels from the Temple of Solomon brought from Jerusalem, marble and bronze columns, images of gods-everything was loaded on the Vandals ships by the end of the fourteen day period. The Vandals also took human prisoners: the empress and her daughters, senators, members of the Roman aristocracy, all to be held for ransom. After 14 days the ships sailed away bound for Carthage. After Geiseric set sail, the Romans held a service to thank God for His protection from massacre and that only a very few Christian churches had been touched. Although Leo made no reference to himself in his prayer to God, it was clear to everyone that he acted as the protector of Rome when all other protectors had abandoned them. Everyone understood that Bishop Leo had shouldered the responsibility for the Eternal City and now should rightly wear the title, Pontifex Maximus. The Pope had come to power.
Questions: Was Leo right? Should he have sought the saving of Rome or should he had resisted the urge to make the city of Rome his object of affection? Did Leo take on a “messiah” complex that eventually led to a disfiguring of the face of spiritual authority in the coming years?
This is a very difficult set of questions to answer, particularly so because we do not know what Leo’s original motivation was.
For example, if the question is was he right to try to save the lives of the citizens of Rome at the cost of giving up worldly possessions then I think we have to see that as a potentially correct decision (potentially because I don’t know the full circumstances).
If on the other hand he was doing so to protect his power base or to gain more power than we have a different situation – it even may have still been the right action but the wrong motivation.
Or we have a third situation, which was an actual proper motivation at the beginning but when it worked to his benefit he was drawn to the power that it could bring him.
So, I am not really answering your question. Instead I am asking you for more information that would help in answering your question. 🙂