Effects of a permanently iconoclastic ERE?

Vinization

Say Constantine V conquers Bulgaria during his reign, either by winning a battle that was a defeat IOTL or capitalizing on one of his victories against the Bulgars. His son and successor, Leo IV, lives longer than IOTL (he died at the age of 30), and Constantine VI becomes an emperor on his own right instead of getting sidelined by Irene.

With this, Iconoclasm is in a much stronger position than IOTL since it is validated by a major military victory and a longer lasting Isaurian dynasty. How does this affect the empire's internal and foreign policy, along with its relationship with the papacy? I suppose there could be an earlier version of the Great Schism. How would a permanently iconoclastic ERE interact with Islam on the cultural, philosophical and theological levels?
 

Evil Crusader

Politically not too much of a difference from OTL, I'd say.
Most things (the rivalry with the Franks, the leadup to the Great Schism over the Christianisation of the Slavs, the fight with the Pope over certain customs and jurisdictions) already had happened or are well en route to happen.
Culturally, Bulgaria is unlikely to develop a national identity; Byzantine policy of the time favored forced resettlements, which united with actual military success will help disperse them.
The Orthodox faith will be a bit closer overall to Islam (whose influx partially helped kickstart Iconoclasm); Catholic heretics will definitely be a bit closer to Iconoclasm!Orthodoxy, as it will certainly curb down church excesses.
The Empire will likely focus even more Eastwards, trying to recapture Armenia. But without Bulgars, Danube raids are bound to keep happening.
 

Nivek

Evil Crusader said:
Culturally, Bulgaria is unlikely to develop a national identity; Byzantine policy of the time favored forced resettlements, which united with actual military success will help disperse them.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't Bulgaria just be Iconoclast or there something i'm missing?
 

Evil Crusader

Nivek said:
Wouldn't Bulgaria just be Iconoclast or there something i'm missing?
Click to expand...
OP postulates Byzantium would conquer sub-Danubian Bulgaria, and as always, it was a strategic goal of Byzantium to do so anyways.
In such a scenario, neither part of the Bulgarian realm stands to survive long-term.
 
Last edited:

Silver01

Vinization said:
Say Constantine V conquers Bulgaria during his reign, either by winning a battle that was a defeat IOTL or capitalizing on one of his victories against the Bulgars. His son and successor, Leo IV, lives longer than IOTL (he died at the age of 30), and Constantine VI becomes an emperor on his own right instead of getting sidelined by Irene.

With this, Iconoclasm is in a much stronger position than IOTL since it is validated by a major military victory and a longer lasting Isaurian dynasty. How does this affect the empire's internal and foreign policy, along with its relationship with the papacy? I suppose there could be an earlier version of the Great Schism. How would a permanently iconoclastic ERE interact with Islam on the cultural, philosophical and theological levels?
Click to expand...
An earlier conquest of Bulgaria is possible the dulo clan had just collapsed had. Constantine won some battles he probably could have or would have left it weak enough for his successor .

An interesting part of an a conquest of Bulgaria now means krum expansion to the byzantine is not only Butterfield but also his campaign to the north the avar territories are not conquered as I don't see the franks pushing that much east .

Maybe Moravia conquers it can't say , the recovery of the Danube frontier would mean that stabilization of the empire and now it would Concentrate after some time in the east so events like nikephoros attacking the Bulgarians and stopped by Harun Al Rashid wont happen .

Assuming the Abbasid caliphate still declines I suspect the Romans end defensive wars earlier and start counter Raids also by this point Crete haa not been lost and with the Danube as buffer and Crete the first thing I can see is not land expansion it's kicking the Muslim out of islands and wrestle control of the Mediterranean .

The pro icons might flee to Italy or north to the conquered territories but still relations with the papacy would be strained and the Romans are seen a worse light in terms of religion way earlier
 

Raferty

I think conversion efforts in Slavic Europe would be devastated by this because the use of images and icons was an area of great syncretic potential that was very useful in winning over the Rus, for example.

The movement probably did have some Islamic influences but it's also unclear if it was primarily an elite phenomenon or if there was a mass base for Iconoclasm across the entire empire.
 

Silver01

Vinization said:
Hey @Goldensilver81, do you think the empire would neglect Italy even further, or would they try to recover some ground there? They still held Sardinia and Sicily at that point.
Click to expand...
Its likely Ravena still falls to the lombards , even if Constantine wins the Battle of the Rishki Pass its and conquers Bulgaria and consolidates Bulgaria in 770s , Leo IV showed no interest in Italy he went in campaign against the abbasids with no bulgarian front he could bring a larger force its possible that future emperors now would concentrate on securing the adratic and sicily who was been attacked before the invasion as Abd al-Rahman al-Fihri attempted to do something
 
Henderson

Henderson

Honestly I don't think their relationship would change with the West too much. The Byzantine Empire had already lost its control over Italy by the time of Constantine V, and the OTL relationship with the West was still extremely cold after Charlemagne's proclamation as Emperor. In fact I think it's still very likely that Charlemagne is still going to be declared Roman Emperor due to the Byzantines now having officially broken from Rome.

Granted the semi-detente that happened during the 10th and 11th centuries probably won't happen, no marriages postulated and the semi-alliance formed in the face of the rising Muslim threat in the Mediterranean.
 

Silver01

Henderson said:
Honestly I don't think their relationship would change with the West too much. The Byzantine Empire had already lost its control over Italy by the time of Constantine V, and the OTL relationship with the West was still extremely cold after Charlemagne's proclamation as Emperor. In fact I think it's still very likely that Charlemagne is still going to be declared Roman Emperor due to the Byzantines now having officially broken from Rome.

Granted the semi-detente that happened during the 10th and 11th centuries probably won't happen, no marriages postulated and the semi-alliance formed in the face of the rising Muslim threat in the Mediterranean.
Click to expand...
defacto the churches were already different this would not only make it official way earlier also a byzantine Balkans 200 or so years earlier also changes as it the east would be the main focus of the empire the empire could in theory also the Italian reconquest that it did in the otl earlier which would result in the 8th century in east francia probably using as an excuse to attack byzantine holdings
 
WilliamOfOckham

WilliamOfOckham

I wonder what happens to the Dualist / neo-Marcionite heresies in this scenario. I assume they would have the same impetus in Armenia and the Balkans that they had OTL, if not the exact same course of development. Presumably an Iconoclastic Byzantium (which ascribes even more value to the Old Testament) would be no less harsh towards them than Orthodox Byzantium was, but when you change the bases of faith so fundamentally you’ll see deep ripples in the factors that led to their popularity.

The Dualist emphasis on simplicity in churches, for one, will foster very different associations in an Iconoclastic context. And their OTL transfer to the West that resulted in Catharism will be a whole new scenario.
 

CELTICEMPIRE

Evil Crusader said:
The Orthodox faith will be a bit closer overall to Islam (whose influx partially helped kickstart Iconoclasm); Catholic heretics will definitely be a bit closer to Iconoclasm!Orthodoxy, as it will certainly curb down church excesses.
Click to expand...
It might also make it easier for Muslims to convert to Orthodoxy, especially in places conquered by the Byzantines.
 
JanWellem

JanWellem

To give those unfamiliar with iconoclasm an idea how Orthodox churches would look ITTL, the interior of the Hagia Irene church in Constantinople, which was redecorated during the reign of Constantine V. It emenates an almost Puritan style minimalism in its' interior decoration.

Hagia_Eirene_Constantinople_2007.jpg
 
Last edited:

Nivek

CELTICEMPIRE said:
It might also make it easier for Muslims to convert to Orthodoxy, especially in places conquered by the Byzantines.
Click to expand...
The opposite, seems the Muslim were the one give fuel iconoclasts when those were just a philosophical minority, plus Muslims didn't convert they leaved but they doesn't change the border wa becoming against ere
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top