After Rome separated itself from the Church, I was a bit curious as to why the Church didn't try (at any point in history) to simply appoint a new Patriarch of Rome. Seems like that could be a valuable tool in establishing Western Orthodoxy.
It is a good question, since the precedent was set of establishing Greek bishoprics in Alexandria and Antioch to rival the existing indigenous bishoprics after the dispute over Chalcedon. My guess would be something along the lines of what Iconodule
posted. The Franks likely wouldn't have allowed a Greek bishop to get more than 20 paces before burning him alive or something.
it also would raise questions of who at the top of the diptychs-since the EP is one of the two (Romania is the other) with the best case for jurisdiction in Italy.
This raises two questions for me:
1. Wouldn't the existence of this hypothetical Orthodox bishop of Rome place him above New Rome or Romania in the diptychs? Or are you saying he'd be beholden to one of them?
2. What claim does Romania have over Italy?