WI: The ERE never becomes iconoclast.

TheWitheredStriker

TheWitheredStriker

I'm honestly surprised to see that this PoD seems to be so rarely discussed; the majority of threads are about iconoclasm completely succeeding, sometimes even in Western Europe. But anyway:

Suppose Leo III Syrus is successfully overthrown during his reign, either by Agallianos Kontoskeles in 727 or by Petasius Tiberius in 729/30/31. Both had a vested interest in reverting iconoclasm. Iconoclasm was deeply unpopular in the empire, sparking countless revolts; even after Leo Syrus, these continued, and his successor Constantinus V was frequently called "The Dung-Named" (Copronimus) or even "The Filth" (Cabbalinus) because of it.

Iconoclasm heavily deteriorated ties with the Papacy in Rome, and was eventually one of the factors in the Pope deciding to crown Charlemagne and thus establish the HRE. The other factor, next to the Eastern emperors not giving a shit about defending Italy anymore, was the overthrowal of Constantine VI by his mother Irene -- a woman, thus unacceptable to the Pope. With Leo III overthrown, Constantine VI's existence and Irene's usurpation are both butterflied.

Put simply, removing iconoclasm subsequently removes the Holy Roman Empire as well.

If iconoclasm is thus sniffed out completely and permanently, and Irene's usurpation is butterflied by the deposition of Leo's dynasty, what effects does all this have on both the ERE and on Western Europe?

Bonus PoD: If Agillianos's revolt succeeds and Cosmas is installed as emperor, then the Exarchate of Ravenna will most likely still collapse. However, if Petasius takes the throne instead, matters could be very different. Petasius was almost certainly a Latin speaker, hailing from one of the last areas in the ERE where Latin was still spoken. Additionally, Petasius was, as said, from Italy. Could his successful enthronement lead to the ERE making more of an effort to hold Italy and fight the Lombards? Subsequently, could this lead to Latin obtaining an additional lease on life in the empire? Leo Syrus is still attested with the name "Flavius Leo" in certain sources, meaning Latin likely persisted in a small amount of imperial traditions (and on solidi) as well.

I figured making a new thread for Petasius's rebellion could be largely duplicative, since regardless of whether Petasius is the one who becomes emperor or not, the core will remain the same: No Syrians / Isaurians, no iconoclasm, no HRE. So I figured one thread for one PoD with a fork in the road would be better.
 

Madhukar_Shah

I'm just throwing it out there- should Petasius manage it, is there a chance that once he's secured the east, he tries to pull a Justinian and instead of directly going for Italy, first tries Africa? Or if not Petasius, any emperor looking to expand in the 740s, without iconoclasm to worry about.

A Byzantine reconquest of Africa, while the Umayyad administration is reeling to try and respond to the Berber revolt would have massive impacts on everyone- even if the Umayyads or the Abbasids manage a later reconquest, Byzantine influence in helping the Berber revolt succeed has its own implications. Al Andalus and the Maghreb are suddenly separated from the rest of the Muslim world, leading to a pretty large sphere of Berber dominated islam.

The Umayyads anyway are about to fall, and the Abbasids never really resecured the west- maybe Byzantine Africa could hold out. After all the aghlabids maintained roughly those borders for a hundred years. It seems much more promising than Italy, where the Byzantine navy can't help as much.
 
Last edited:

Evil Crusader

TheWitheredStriker said:
No takers? : P
Click to expand...
I would surmise that is because religious and religious-adjacent stuff isn't as popular as geopolitical changes.

That said, Iconoclasm was more of a useful pretext than a direct cause; as Imperial control and protection over the Pope weakened, so did grow Papal desire to create a separate order against Byzantine wishes and their retaliation within Church affairs. That Byzantium survived and somewhat rebounded during the Isaurian emperors leads me to question whether the usurpers, had they managed to win, would have been able to do as well than the Dung-named Emperor we recognize in hindsight as an adept ruler and a strong organizer.
Either way, I don't see the Empire really holding on to non-Greek speaking parts of Italy; they are a distant, difficult to reinforce, war-torn and not as profitable periphery. Latin may get a couple extra decades of use in official use, relations with the Pope stay good, but that doesn't change the needs of the Papacy - intervention of Charlemagne will still be beckoned, and while no Irene regency may prevent the idea of translatio imperii as we know it, something similar (maybe a WRE revival?) will be done anyways.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Ironic that iconoclasm was such a big movement in the east, since use and making of icons in more modern times is such a marker of distinction of eastern Christianity from western Christianity.
 

Evil Crusader

TheWitheredStriker said:
Interesting.


In what way? Could you elaborate?
Click to expand...
Late Antiquity still entertained a weird intersection of Christian and Roman thought, originating chiefly from Augustine's "City of God", that posited a perfect unitary order based on Christian orthodoxy, overseen by the Church under the protection of the Roman Emperor.

This order gradually grew into a political fiction as Byzantine borders shrunk, but was successfully kept up on the faith side; Emperors kept their role as Church arbiters, hosting Councils, trying to mediate and appointing Popes (be it directly or through the Exarch of Italy) well into Iconoclasm.

The Popes will still want to part ways with the Empire, as it clearly no longer can provide help, while pretending to respect the traditional roles; OTL they found their pretext with the long regency of Irene, even though she was an iconodule, but ATL such a situation may well not present itself. Resuscitating the WRE would be certainly a stretch, but hardly worse and actually similar to the eventual recognition of OTL (where the Byzantines treated the Franks as junior Emperors).
 

Putnam

TheWitheredStriker said:
So without the Holy Roman Empire as we know it, what could come of the Frankish Empire and of Germany?
Click to expand...
Would likely continue down a similar trajectory to what came before. The Franks grow stronger under a single ruler, then they splinter at some point and spend a period of time divided before reuniting. Rinse and repeat.

Regardless, the Merovingians are not long for this world.

Edit: Just remember, Iconoclasm was merely a manifestation of the growing Roman identity crisis stemming from their diminished position in the world. Without Iconoclasm this identity crisis will need to be expressed in another fashion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top