Iconoclasm without Arab success in the 720's

(Working thread for EaH)

Assuming that the Arab raids and campaigns of 720's and 730's fail to really threaten the imperial cores (Caesarea isn't plundered for instance).
It would have probable consequence on iconoclasm development : for instance the power of holy icons would be proven, and neither Leo III or his councilors could play on that to tone down byzantine monachism.

(Note that it wouldn't be thanks to Byzantine success exactly, but to Arab inability to raid central Anatolia)

While iconoclasm is a thing at this point, what would be its development : an urban religous practice at the edge of orthodoxy but not clearly separated?
Could an exaggerated iconodulism be eventually that much important that orthodoxy could see iconoclast practices as themselves erroneous, but a temporary allies against ultra-iconodulism? (So far, I think this idea could be interesting, while it would probably evolve into "First ultra-iconodulism; Then iconoclasts" making a possible longer crisis)

Eventually, would iconoclams fade out, with regular revivals, or would it still provoke a long crisis as OTL just delayed and less tied to the situation of the Empire?
 
As you suggested the Iconoclasm is going to have the wind taken out of its wings without the devastating effect of its the raids. It might actually prove to have an even more negative effect on the Empire. The Twenty Years of Anarchy have established a pattern of revolt and rebellion and the Arab raids you might see increased revolts against the Emperor. An opportunistic general may take advantage of the revolt in Greece in 727 or the revolt may become more widespread. Leo may be added to the list of short reigning Emperors and like Philippikos Bardanes will have his religious rulings reversed and forgotten.
 
I tought about Artabasdos having more support against Constantine V, during his rebellion (I don't know, tought, if the ultra-iconoclast ideas of Constantine V were common knowledge or if they would even develop ITTL).

Does the establishment of an Armenian dynasty possible, or open rebellions in the name of iconoclasm by usurpers (and possibly emperors) would prevent that?

What about the possibility of struggles between three factions : ultra-iconodulism, orthodoxy and iconoclasm?
 
I tought about Artabasdos having more support against Constantine V, during his rebellion (I don't know, tought, if the ultra-iconoclast ideas of Constantine V were common knowledge or if they would even develop ITTL).

Does the establishment of an Armenian dynasty possible, or open rebellions in the name of iconoclasm by usurpers (and possibly emperors) would prevent that?

What about the possibility of struggles between three factions : ultra-iconodulism, orthodoxy and iconoclasm?

I'm not sure that there would be enough popular support for very hardliner iconoclasts to be a powerful player in the conflict. The revolt in 727 showed that there was already significant popular discontent with the iconoclastic legislation that started getting enacted just a year earlier.

It's very possible that Artabasdos could have defeated Constantine V and established an Armenian dynasty. Though he will need to prove victorious against the Bulgarians in the west and the Arabs in the east to not himself fall victim to the cycle of violent overthrow he may bring back as a result of his revolt.

I'm curious as to why the Arabs aren't raiding the empire. I'm in the early stages of working on a TL with a similar concept which is based around the Pod being that the Umayyad Caliphate fractures in the Second Fitna after the Umayyad forces are defeated at the Battle of Marj Rahi.
 
I'm not sure that there would be enough popular support for very hardliner iconoclasts to be a powerful player in the conflict. The revolt in 727 showed that there was already significant popular discontent with the iconoclastic legislation that started getting enacted just a year earlier.
Admitting that Leo III refrains himself to enact such legislation (but still tries to promote iconoclasm), letting the situation more moot than OTL, and with a successful Artabasdos usurpation, wouldn't iconoclasm become a more territorialy rooted force rather than imperially based?

For an ultra-iconoclasm, I tought that a "meidum-way" policy from Artabasdos & sons could have excited hardliners, but it seems that's unlikely then.

It's very possible that Artabasdos could have defeated Constantine V and established an Armenian dynasty.
What about the tagmata : without Constantine V, would have they still be implemented as they were OTL, or modified, or not at all? What would have been the consequences?

I'm curious as to why the Arabs aren't raiding the empire.
In Eagles and Hawls, Al-Andalus accumulated issues (Anti-Umayyad revolt, independent governors with limited competence, military defeats) and Maslamah was sent and eventually ruled as governor.

So they raid it, but far less successfully, and you have the same situation than OTL 740's, more or less.
Without him, raids in Anatolia went less far, and Arabs eventually failed to reach Caesarea, even if he came back soon enough to deal with Khazars.
 
Top