WI No Iconoclasm in the Eastern Roman Empire?

How would History be affected if Iconoclasm never happened in the East?
If we butterfly away Leo III and the Isaurian dynasty then iconoclasm propably never happens...
Could this have lead to a stronger Empire in 8th-9th century and closer ties of the Emperor with the Papacy?
 
How would History be affected if Iconoclasm never happened in the East?
If we butterfly away Leo III and the Isaurian dynasty then iconoclasm propably never happens...
Could this have lead to a stronger Empire in 8th-9th century and closer ties of the Emperor with the Papacy?

If we butterfly Leo III and the Isaurians away, someone else has to address it.

The problem is not with the Isaurians, its one of those frustratingly not exactly petty issues.
 
If we butterfly Leo III and the Isaurians away, someone else has to address it.

The problem is not with the Isaurians, its one of those frustratingly not exactly petty issues.

Leo III was influenced by the judeo-islamic traditions (which were strong in his home city of Germanikeia in Asia minor) forbiding the drawings of God/saints etc.
If Leo III is eliminated before becoming emperor (or overthrown in his early reign) and replaced by someone who doesnt hold such views then its possible that iconoclasm would be delayed or even called off...
 
A strong Empire in the eighth and ninth centuries isn't really possible- the Caliphate and the Bulgars are at their respective heights in this period, so the ERE will always be struggling against formidable foes.

Nonetheless, no Iconoclasm probably does mean stronger ties with the Papacy- by which I mean Rome remains a loosely affiliated city state within the ERE for a while longer. I think the fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna is inevitable though. The Empire needs to concentrate on the Bulgars and Arabs just to stay alive, and, compared with these foes, fending off the Lombards is nothing but an irritating distraction.
 
A strong Empire in the eighth and ninth centuries isn't really possible- the Caliphate and the Bulgars are at their respective heights in this period, so the ERE will always be struggling against formidable foes.

Nonetheless, no Iconoclasm probably does mean stronger ties with the Papacy- by which I mean Rome remains a loosely affiliated city state within the ERE for a while longer. I think the fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna is inevitable though. The Empire needs to concentrate on the Bulgars and Arabs just to stay alive, and, compared with these foes, fending off the Lombards is nothing but an irritating distraction.

If Papacy remains in friendly terms with Constantinople i guess that Popes wouldnt support the Lombards as they did in OTL... However if Papacy and their friends in Ravenna feel threatened by Lombards i guess that they would have turned to Charles Martel and the Franks for help...
 
A strong Empire in the eighth and ninth centuries isn't really possible- the Caliphate and the Bulgars are at their respective heights in this period, so the ERE will always be struggling against formidable foes.

You have to remember that the military victories of Constantine V (718-775, reigned 741-775) against the Ummayad Caliphate allowed Iconoclasm to survive. His successes were seen as a blessing from God.

"In 746, profiting by the unstable conditions in the Umayyad Caliphate which was falling apart under Marwan II, Constantine invaded Syria and captured Germanikeia (modern Maraş, his father's birthplace). He organized the resettlement of a part the local Christian population into imperial territory in Thrace. In 747 his fleet destroyed the Arab fleet off Cyprus.

In 752 Constantine led an invasion into the new Abbasid Caliphate under As-Saffah. Constantine captured Theodosioupolis and Melitene (Malatya), and again resettled some of the population in the Balkans. These campaigns failed to secure any concrete gains (apart from additional population employed to strengthen another frontier), but it is important to note that under Constantine V the Empire had gone on the offensive."

"These successes made it possible to pursue an aggressive policy in the Balkans. With the resettlement of Christian populations from the East into Thrace, Constantine V aimed to enhance the prosperity and defense of this area which caused concern to the Empire's northern neighbor, Bulgaria, and the two states clashed in 755. Kormisosh of Bulgaria raided as far as the Anastasian Wall, but was defeated in battle by Constantine V, who inaugurated a long series of nine successful campaigns against the Bulgarians in the next year, scoring a victory over Kormisosh's successor Vinekh at Marcelae."

"However, three year later he was defeated in the battle of the Rishki Pass but the Bulgarians did not exploit their success. In 763, he sailed to Anchialus with 800 ships carrying 9,600 cavalry and some infantry. Constantine's victories, including that at Anchialus in 763 caused considerable instability in Bulgaria, where six monarchs lost their crowns on account of their failures."

Nonetheless, no Iconoclasm probably does mean stronger ties with the Papacy- by which I mean Rome remains a loosely affiliated city state within the ERE for a while longer.

Would this be beneficial for the ERE? Rome was one more border province requesting help against foreign invaders. Good relations with the Pope didn't guarantee victories to the imperial troops.
 
Perhaps a better planned rebellion in 727 could have stopped iconoclasm before it became a major problem for the Empire...
 
Leo III was influenced by the judeo-islamic traditions (which were strong in his home city of Germanikeia in Asia minor) forbiding the drawings of God/saints etc.
If Leo III is eliminated before becoming emperor (or overthrown in his early reign) and replaced by someone who doesnt hold such views then its possible that iconoclasm would be delayed or even called off...

On the contrary, the old theory that Leo was influenced by Judaism and Islam now seems less probable than it did before. This is, after all, less than a century after the death of Mohammed, and Islam is not particularly strong anywhere outside Arabia. The distant governing classes of the Caliphate are Islamic, of course, but mass conversions of their subject populations are yet to begin.

As for an Eastern Emperor being influenced by Jewish traditions, the idea seems fanciful to say the least. It's probably just easiest to say that Leo III was influenced simply by long-standing anti-idolatry traditions, and that he seized upon these as a way of placating God when the Arabs return to the offensive in the 720s.

If Papacy remains in friendly terms with Constantinople i guess that Popes wouldnt support the Lombards as they did in OTL... However if Papacy and their friends in Ravenna feel threatened by Lombards i guess that they would have turned to Charles Martel and the Franks for help...

The Papacy will have to turn to the Lombards or Franks sooner or later, no matter how good the relations are (and they were never particularly good pre-Iconoclasm) with Constantinople. To paraphrase John the Almsgiver, the Emperor is far, far away, and he has more important things to worry about than the remote backwater that is northern Italy.

You have to remember that the military victories of Constantine V (718-775, reigned 741-775) against the Ummayad Caliphate allowed Iconoclasm to survive. His successes were seen as a blessing from God.
I'm aware of the successes of Constantine V, thank you :). The whole swinging back and forth between icons and iconoclasm in the eighth and ninth centuries was linked to military successes and failures. Indeed, I'd go so far as to state that had the Empire not started winning dramatically in the 860s, we'd have probably seen a return to some form of Iconoclasm.

Which historian are you quoting there, by the way? Norwich?

Would this be beneficial for the ERE? Rome was one more border province requesting help against foreign invaders. Good relations with the Pope didn't guarantee victories to the imperial troops.
In the short term it makes pretty much no difference- the aid given by Constantinople to the Exarch of Ravenna and the Papacy amounted to very, very little by 700. Long term, the impact could potentially be huge. Or it could amount to very little. In my view, it's just a matter of time before the Pope starts to start looking West instead of East.
 
Top