Iconoclast imperial authority and its contested legacy: from the Arab siege (717/18) until the death of Michael III (867)
Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data
Level 5 by design analogy (historical textual and material culture analysis, not clinical CEBM).
OpenAlex W3201604011 · doi:10.7488/era/1119
What was done
The author analyzed historical texts, hagiography, and material culture to examine the imperial authority, policies, and contested legacy of the Byzantine iconoclast emperors Leo III (r. 717–741) and Constantine V (r. 741–775) from the Arab siege of Constantinople (717–718) through the reign of Michael III (d. 867).
What was found
The abstract reports qualitative historical conclusions without numerical data. Political and military stability under Leo III and Constantine V led contemporary populations to interpret their success as divine favor for iconoclasm. Their positive social memory persisted in Constantinople through early ninth-century crises (806–813) and the second iconoclast period (815–842). Hostile polemics showed no signs of early public circulation in the capital, and the desecration of Constantine V's remains (c. 866–867) represented the earliest documented public condemnation of an iconoclast ruler.
Why it matters
This study revises understandings of Byzantine political legitimacy by demonstrating that military success and administrative longevity preserved positive public memory of iconoclast emperors for over a century.
Limits
As a historical and qualitative analysis, findings are constrained by surviving historiographical, hagiographical, and material records, which are subject to survival and partisan bias. No quantitative metrics are reported.
Cited by
- supports Following the defense of Constantinople during the second Arab siege, Leo III ruled for over twenty years and established the Isaurian dynasty with his son, despite the family not actually originating from Isauria.