@Monkey:
Bulgaria is like a reverse Hungary. A steppe nomad tribe rolled into some random part of Eastern Europe, took control and established a local dynasty. But the culture and language of the kingdom ended up reflecting the majority conquered population rather than that of the rulers. Which is actually how it usually works (see: Mongols and Manchus becoming culturally Chinese after taking over China each).
During the lifespan of the Byzantine Empire, including during the invasions and conquests from the Bulgarian Empire against them, that process of it really becoming a Slavic entity was well under way. I think by the time of the largest extent under Simeon I that I posted, that some form of early South Slavic had even become the official language.
Yes, I know very well what happened in Bulgaria. It started happening around the reign of Michael III, when the Bulgar Khan converted to Christianity in order to create an actual state by imitation of their neighbours. A steppe elite can't stay a steppe elite for long when they settle down and create a state. It eventually weakens and vanishes. It happens to almost everyone, like you said. It's interesting how the Magyars were able to keep their origins in their culture until today's Hungary, actually.
Then I really don't see what significance you're trying to attribute to the Iconoclast controversies that is so massive.
The significance of Iconoclasm is to the identity of the Eastern Orthodox Church, not to the East-West schism per se. The date of the defeat of Iconoclasm is still celebrated today in the first Sunday of Lent, if I'm not mistaken, as the "Triumph of Orthodoxy". But back then, Eastern Orthodoxy was equal to the Roman Empire. Which meant that those years were a kind of formative stage in the Byzantine identity, establishing it as an Icon venerating people. It was a philosophical and very political discussion about how to cope with the losses to the Arabs and the constant disasters for the empire and a way to bring the whole population into the imperial fold and keeping the remaining people under the empire thinking and acting in unisson.
Did it?
How? Catholicism is pro-icons. The Greek church was pro-icons. It seems the Armenians mostly were not.
The west looking at the church in Constantinople would have still been seeing pro-icon policy. The Icon controversies were two periods against the otherwise norm. One that didn't leave evidence AT ALL of it ever happening. Greek Orthodox Christianity is even more icon obsessed than the Catholic church. I think even so is the Armenian Orthodox church.
The bolded is the exact legacy it left. It's true that the Pope was "happy" to see that his brothers had come to their senses and allowed veneration of icons again, but the Catholic church doesn't have a tradition around them remotely similar to what the Orthodox has. My uncle is an extremely catholic fellow, and the other day, when I told him I visited a Russian Orthodox Church, the first thing he metioned was "Icons". That's because they're an integral part of the Orthodox tradition, and something that was strengthened a great deal by the reaction to Iconoclasm. Irene's council, in its attempt to revoke Constantine V's council (the one who started Iconoclasm officially), ended up creating this huge deal about Icons and almost creating a new practice that wasn't there before. Icons were important but not nearly as important as they would become after the whole controversy.
Those dynasties got started by the usual Game of Thrones style subterfuge. Not being appointed due to importance.
They rose through military prominence. Anatolia was the military stronghold of the empire. Like many times before in Roman history, when times were tough, the Generals rose to power. It's kind of a repeat of the 3rd century crisis, except that this time the emperors came from inner Anatolia and not from the Balkans.
If the Slavic invasions made Greece lose importance, how didn't the Arab invasions do the same to Anatolia exactly? I don't see Thessaloniki experiencing particularly different circumstances environment wise in terms of stability. In fact it probably had it better due to the Slavs mostly being migrating tribes with occasional small kingdoms. Versus the Arab tidal wave.
Becase Greece was left out of imperial control, mostly. Only Laconia, Attica and Euboeia were left by the late 700s, as you can see in the map. Yes, Attica was still pretty important and the most cultured center of Greece. I know that. But how can you compare a place that was practically lost to a place where imperial control was much more tightened? The situation was vastly different. If you study the history of the empire from the late 600s to the late 800s, it's mostly dealing with Anatolia. Because it was the only huge chunk of land left of the empire! That's all I've been saying this time. It was the bulwark that protected the capital from being conquered by the Arabs, it was heavily militarized, it was where resources came from and where resources were allocated from. Where do you think Constantinople got their food from? Thessaloniki and the rocky Chalcidice that was left in the west?
I've mostly been talking about stuff since the Arab invasions onward. So I haven't been talking from past the 10th.
Thank you. That's what I said a few posts ago. This whole discussion comes from a misunderstanding where each of us is focusing on different eras. Now I just want you to agree that before the 10th century, things weren't as clear cut as you make them out be later. You're absolutely right about what you're saying about the 10th century onwards, but you completely disregard that it only became so after the turbulent centuries of the Arab raids (7th-9th centuries.)
I wasn't saying it was culturally Greek, I was saying that the core of the empire revolved around that northern tier of modern Greece into what is now Northwest Turkey.
Again, only by the 10th century onwards. The core of the Empire was Constantinople, until they managed to recover that territory and link the capital with the second largest city, Thessalonica. You can't have a core there whent that territory is out of control of the state.
Sorry? How is it dumb? You're making a fallacious sort of argument here based on place of leader origins somehow refocusing an entire country. You also keep taking about these dynasties like they were some ancient established Armenian families who took control of the Byzantine Empire….when they were military leaders of common origin who worked their way up and grabbed opportunities at the crown when they saw them.
And they did so after already being brought in from the hinterlands to serve the emperors in Constantinople. You make it sound like the courts and power were sitting out in Anatolia, and Anatolian nobility was passing around the crown.
The situation really has its comparisons to medieval and early modern Iran, which had a ton of Shahs and dynasties and whatnot of Turkic origin. From peripheral buffer zone areas. While there are examples of that leading to big alteration of Persian culture? For the most part no, it was a sign of ethnic minority military border areas being rough and tumble and producing generals. But the nature of Iran was Persian as all heck.The iconoclast aspect is interesting sure. The one big thing that Turkic tribes did to change Iran was the Safavid dynasty establishing Shia Islam throughout the joint. Resulting in the modern circumstances. This was their stranger minority religious background relative to the dominant Sunni Islam of Iran at the time.
It would sound like the Armenians and other Anatolian dudes attempted a similar sort of thing (though way less drastic). But hey, they completely failed?
Yeah, now I completely agree with you! I didn't mean that some guy from Anatolia getting the throne would lead to refocusing the entire culture of the empire! Not at all! I'm arguing that it was a sign of the times! That Anatolia had become a central territory for the empire and heavily militarized and, due to that, the Anatolian themes started to push for more and more influence in the central running of the state and getting emperors in power. That's all I'm saying. During a couple of centuries, that's what happened. The legacy it left was the new Icon veneration, the reaction to the Anatolian generals attempt to influence official state and church doctrine. What you mentioned about Inner Anatolia/Western Armenia being left to their own deviced by the centre of power of the Empire and it leading to the Turkish conquests is what happened after all this mess. And it's really ironic. For 3 centuries, the empire focused on getting that region militarized, investing the few resources it had, reorganizing the entire provincial administration, managing to fend off the offensive from the most powerful state on earth (besides China?) at the time again, and again, and again. When the Caliphate started desintegrating and posing a less serious threat, the economy of the empire started recovering, the Iconomachy was buried, and the central state finally found a really stable political period (with the Macedonian dynasty), the emperors were able to focus on stregthening the central professional army loyal only to them, the so called Tagmata (who were actually created by Constantine V, one of the strongest Iconoclast emperors, from very Iconoclast armies from Anatolia, in order to help bring its influence into the central government, as well as allow the emperor to go on the offensive in Thrace, resulting in the conquest of most of it, as you can see in my previous map. They were a hotbed of Iconoclasm and glorified Constantine for quite a while, posing a threat to Irene's rule and physically threatening the Council which revoked Iconoclasm. In the end, most of them died in the Battle of Pliska against the Bulgars and their replacements would never again invoke that kind of memories). With the central power reinforced, no real threat in sight from the middle east, and the empire embarking on the renconquest of the Balkans, the Anatolian themes were kind of left to their own devices and lost influence, integrity, and power, turning into more a local, "feudal", militia. Which was easily overrun by the Turks.
There's a "Macedonian" dynasty directly after the Amorian dynasty lol.
But nevermind that because you're still trying to define everything based off dynastic origins. Which is further silly because that only describes the founders of dynasties, if you're lucky it might describe the successor. Even in this already flawed approach you're ignoring the later parts of the dynasties.
Six monarchs ruled in the Isaurian dynasty. By monarch three the iconoclast tendencies were already vanishing. Past that monarch four is a son in law general from the Marmara sea area (so the core), and the sixth is an empress from Athens! Not of the bloodline, married into it as well.
Three monarchs in the Amorian dynasty, and by number three (who ruled longest) you again have someone tossing aside Iconoclasm.
Now you've kinda butchered everything. To begin with, the Isaurian dynasty (the name itself is wrong, since the first emperor, Leo III was a Syrian refugee. So ironic considering today's situation. But he ended up becoming strategos of the Anatolic Theme, so don't use that as an argument against me, his influence came from the Anatolian armies, his ethnic background doesn't matter). This dynasty had five emperors, not six, unless you count a short usurpation by… an Armenian general. Leo III, the founder, is slandered in history as an Iconoclast, although he most likely wasn't, or just slightly. Most of what is said about him is but a construction by comparison to Leo V and Michael II (the beginners of Second Iconoclasm, which was much more serious than the first one). His son, born and raised in Constantinople, Constantine V, was the real author behind the movement and became a rallying point for the entire thing after his death. Do you know the myth of King Sebastian in Portugal as a rallying point for national sentiment against the Spanish? Constantine was the same for the Iconoclasts. Then came Leo IV, who died very soon, after 5 years in power, leaving Irene to rule in their son's name. Constantine VI was never much of an emperor, with Irene authoring the entire policy behind his back, along with eunuch Staurakios. So, in effect, the dynasty had 3 emperors, Leo, Constantine, Irene. The first was so-so, the second was the mythical figure of Iconoclasm, the second is the mythical figure of Iconophily. Who do you mean the son-in-law from the Marmara area? And what do you mean the one who ruled the longest? That was clearly Constantine, the father of Iconoclasm (although Irene rivalled him, counting her time as regent).
Next, the Amorian dynasty. The first guy was Michael III, an Anatolian general who murdered his friend Leo... the Armenian, to get the power. Next, he faced a rebellion from the... Anatolian themes, led by Thomas the Slav the third friend of the group, because Michael wasn't, apparently, Iconoclast enough. He wasn't a popular general as Leo was. His son, born and raised in the capital, Theophilos, was the new Constantine V. The second greatest Iconoclast emperor. Funny enough, Theophilos also ruled for a long time, though not nearly as much as Constantine. After the sack of Amorium, the second greatest city of the empire at that precise time, as I mentioned, the entire ideology of Iconoclasm was thrown out, since its greatest argument was... military victory. And until then, it had brought it. But after that enormous defeat, his son, Michael III (who didn't rule by himself, but had his mother Theodora and then his uncle Bardas as regents who actually did stuff) officially put an end to the controversy. That's the "Triumph of Orthodoxy". At this point, the Anatolian armies didn't have any legitimacy left in the fight and the central state was amassing wealth, stability, and a powerful central army. Thus begins the end of the period I'm talking about, and begins the one you're talking about... but it's not that linear.
On to the Macedonian dynasty, which you so proudly boasted. Guess what, it wasn't Macedonian. I've already mentioned how at that period, the Theme of Macedonia had been founded, but it wasn't located near Macedonia. It was in southern Thrace. Thessalonica and the area nearby (which is just the Chalcidice, no Macedonia yet, as you argue), was actually ruled as an Archonate, an overseas territory, like Crete or Cherson in the Crimea. That Theme of Macedonia which was actually in Thrace is where Basil I, founder of the dynasty, came from. Now the even more funny part. Basil, unlike the General emperors which you say came to power through oportunism and not military influence (which is mostly wrong, as I've been explaining), did not come to power through political influence, as you'd like him to. Neither through military influence, because the european Themes... did not have any influence, unlike the Antolians. He came to power through, you guessed it, oportunism. He was a stable master who became friends with Michael III and, by a GoT-esque coup, murdered him and took the Emperorship for himself. Not the even funnier part. He was not from any prominent family from what you call the "core of the empire". He was from a peasant family. Said peasant family wasn't actually Macedonian. Not even Thracian. It was... wait for it... Armenian. An Armenian family deported like many others to repopulate Thrace after it was retaken from slavic tribes. No, the ethnic origin is not important, it's just funny.
When you go live in Constantinople from the sticks, you become like the city before the city becomes like you.
The Mongol Khans became like the Chinese, the Manchus became like the Chinese, hell we just talked about how even the Bulgars became Slavs.
Completely agreed, well stated.
It might if the nature of these dynasties coming to power showed political influence, rather than dudes using wars and battles to force previous emperors to abdicate.
This isn't even political influence via the military, its just straight up coup de tats from opportunistic people.
Uh… yes, it is. It's the very definition of military influence.
Like I said, the main areas of Greece are still heavily represented there. Attica, Thessaloniki, and even most of the Thrace region. That big chunk of Balkan Greece may look impressive, but that's Epirus and Thessaly. Which have never been major centers of population or much of anything.
It's Epirus, it's Thessaly, it's Central Greece, it's most of the Peloponnese. The only areas left were very small areas, mostly where a couple of big cities were. Athens, Thessalonica. Little more. Yes, they're the culturally important part, I never argued they weren't. I just argued that most of Modern Greece was out of imperial control and plagued by slavic tribes for the period I'm talking about. Which is still true.
If you looked at a map of Portugal being taken over by invading Spaniards or something and someone implicated that lots of inland territory had been lost meant the loss of Portugal, while Lisbon, Porto and the coast in general were in Portuguese control? Would you not explain to that person that the map wasn't what it seemed?
As a person who is not from Lisbon or Porto, or even Coimbra, I can't really agree. But it's not very comparable, because Greece was a small portion of the empire. If you had said something like "the Roman Empire losing Britain and northern and central Gaul but keeping coastal Gaul and Italy", I'd be more inclined to agree.