WI: Surviving Isaurian dynasty?

Just been playing Crusader Kings 2 after getting the Charlemagne DLC and my interest in 7th and 8th century Eurasia has been renewed, in particular the Isaurian dynasty of the Eastern Roman Empire. IOTL, Empress Eirene formally denounced Iconoclasm and, except for three further Iconoclastic emperors, Chalcedonian Christianity remained dominant until the 1054 schism. I've read that Iconoclasm has some things in common with Islam and Protestantism, but I know that no pro-iconoclast sources exist today (correct me if I'm wrong). Basically, what are the chances of Iconoclasm becoming dominant and/or streamlined given one of the following PODs:

* Constantine V doesn't die in 775 and annexes part/all of modern-day Bulgaria.
* Leo IV 'the Khazar' lives longer and/or divorces Eirene of Athens.
* One of Constantine V's other sons - Christopher, Nikephoros, Niketas, Anthimos, Eudokimos - take power instead of Eirene if Leo still dies in 780 AD.

Bear in mind, those three are just examples. Any thoughts, I'd be happy to discuss.

Bump? Anyone? I think I messed up with the title. It's more about surviving Iconoclasm than a surviving Isaurian dynasty.

If my current game of CKII (in which I'm playing in India, and thus uninvolved in such things) is any indication, a surviving Isaurian dynasty dominates Southern italy, keeps the West Med islands, and pretty much takes over both sides of the entire Danube Basin.

shakaka36 said:

If my current game of CKII (in which I'm playing in India, and thus uninvolved in such things) is any indication, a surviving Isaurian dynasty dominates Southern italy, keeps the West Med islands, and pretty much takes over both sides of the entire Danube Basin.

Click to expand...

Well, CK2 doesn't always translate into likely history, but interesting to hear. Thanks. BTW, I've just read the TL in your sig. Any chance of a revival?


Anyone else have a thought on the Isaurians and/or iconoclasm?

ByzantineLover said:

Anyone else have a thought on the Isaurians and/or iconoclasm?

Click to expand...

I think having the Isaurians rule longer is quite possible, but as you quite correctly say, our sources for the period are so patchy and hostile that it's difficult to say exactly what that would mean in practice. I know that doctrinally Iconoclasm wasn't tremendously different from Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, it was all about how the faith was practiced, rather than how it was defined.

Basileus Giorgios said:

I think having the Isaurians rule longer is quite possible

Click to expand...

Possibly. Even if Constantine V still dies in 775 AD, the future Constantine VI was only 4 years old, and with his father surviving, there's a chance he might be able to govern soundly instead of being sidelined by Eirene.

Basileus Giorgios said:

but as you quite correctly say, our sources for the period are so patchy and hostile that it's difficult to say exactly what that would mean in practice.

Click to expand...

Well, history is written by the winners. And the iconodules called iconoclasts destroyers.

Anyway, from what I've read, Constantine V's campaigns were expensive but relatively successful. Personally, I think there might have been a chance for him to pull a Basil II 3 centuries earlier and restore the Danube borders, at least temporarily.

Basileus Giorgios said:

I know that doctrinally Iconoclasm wasn't tremendously different from Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, it was all about how the faith was practiced, rather than how it was defined.

Click to expand...

Really? All that fuss over that? I admit, speaking as an atheist, such theological differences mean peanuts to me, but I guess some people can't see the bigger picture (I certainly don't mean you, BG!). If Iconoclasm was more successful, I'd imagine any remaining iconodules within the empire become like the Old Believers of Russia, and more peoples might adopt it - the Slavs and Avars (if the Franks don't get to them first), the Georgians, Rus and Magyars to name a few.

Anyone else?

Byzantine churches look a lot less beautiful. And maybe an earlier decisive break between the Byzantine Church and the still very much iconodule west - the Great Schism was a long process OTL and iconoclasm played a role in increasing the division, but if Isaurian emperors continue to promote it instead of OTL's reversal of policy that long process could be sped up.

Bumping for interest.

A while ago, I thought a bit more about this, and I thought that while Iconoclasm was the "defining characteristic" (for lack of a better term) of the Isaurian dynasty, resistance to it was never going to go away, so I'd imagine that icons might be restored at some point. Leo IV was more conciliatory towards icons than his father until he found out Eirene was keeping them in her possession.

Personally, and especially after listening to the History of Byzantium podcasts, I think they (the Isaurians) were just making a mountain out of a molehill.

I also worked out a rough timeline, which I may or may not turn into a TLIAD:

* Constantine V has more success against the Bulgars - takes more land and/or doesn't reveal his spies to Telerig.

* Leo IV and Eirene have more children, or at least another son. We'll call him Theophylact, named for Eirene's father.

* Constantine V's second son, Christopher, marries and has two sons - Theodosius and Constans (to differentiate him from Leo IV's eldest son)
* Leo IV lives longer and either he or one of his successors restores the icons, but the relationship between him and Eirene becomes strained near the end.

* Leo IV dies and is succeeded by Constantine VI. Constantine is more influenced by his father while Theophylact is more influenced by Eirene.

* Constantine VI dies prematurely, and his son, Leo V, still a child, doesn't survive him for long.

* Theophylact becomes emperor, but rumors of his and Eirene's involvement in Constantine and Leo's deaths lead to a rebellion led by Prince Christopher's sons, Theodosius and Constans. Theophylact is deposed and blinded while Eirene is shut away in a monastary.

* The empire's enemies try to take advantage of the chaos and the newly-crowned Theodosius IV takes charge of the armies to stop them. During one victorious battle, the emperor is slain and the crown passes to his brother. The newly-crowned Constans III braces himself for an uncertain future...

Again, this is just a rough outline.

Don't get my hopes up like that, I saw Giorgios' post and could hear an angel crying from one eye.

I was thinking about Zeno, the first Isaurian, having children. His successor practiced ethnic cleansing and deported a lot of Isaurians to the Balkans
If Zeno founded a dynasty, we could have a surviving Isaurian language. It could be a surviving Anatolian language.

edvardas said:

I was thinking about Zeno, the first Isaurian, having children. His successor practiced ethnic cleansing and deported a lot of Isaurians to the Balkans
If Zeno founded a dynasty, we could have a surviving Isaurian language. It could be a surviving Anatolian language.

Click to expand...

Wiki notes the survival of Isaurian inscriptions until the 5th c. Zeno was 8th century. Much too late for the survival of the language, I'm afraid.