Eugenius III is often presented simply as one in a succession of undistinguished popes between the death of Innocent II (1130–43) and the accession of Adrian IV (1154–9). His election is ascribed to the unwarranted influence on the papal Curia of Bernard of Clairvaux while his long absences from Rome are interpreted as signs of weakness and vacillation in the face of the growing power of a popular commune. Eugenius has been misrepresented and misunderstood precisely because the Roman context of his pontificate has been ignored; historians have too readily accepted a conventional view of Roman politics in the 1140s and have in consequence judged Eugeniusunfavourably. Almost twenty years ago, Adriaan Bredero presented a controversial interpretation of Roman affairs, which is mistaken on many key points.

On the election, for example, Bredero insisted that the electors had chosen Eugenius because they believed that he alone could put an end to the Roman rebellion. He would have been able to do this because his election would have led inevitably to the involvement in Roman affairs, first of St Bernard and then of the emperor-elect Conrad III (1138–52), over whom Bernard exerted great influence, and he would have come to Rome and restored order.