Iconoclastic Wars

[Bereta_Eder]

As I found out these wars were
730-787
and 813-843

AFAIK The Ottomans were nowhere near Byzantium at that time?

[chequita guevara]

No, but 1st the Arbars were, and then came then Seljuks.

[Bereta_Eder]

Besides much later Byzantium was as ripe as a rotten apple to fall to the hordes of the Ottomans. They had conquered all of the Balkans and left Constantinople for last. There were millions of Ottomans armed with French cannons against some thousands of Byzantines. How could this be interpreted as "God" instead of simple mathematics?

AFAIK the despise was for the Latins for their duplicity (having all of their hatred and jealousy against the Byzantines fulfilled by the Ottomans) not for the Ottomans.

Even the Emperors of that time said they prefered to be submitted to the Ottomans than to the Latins, because the prophecies said we would survive the Ottomans but not the latins and because the despise was bigger for the latter.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No, but 1st the Arbars were, and then came then Seljuks.

Yes but those were repelled. Following that argument, the Icons should have been seen as favorable?

[Whaleboy]

Religion:
War:

Religious wars:

[Rufus T. Firefly]

paiktis, I simply meant that if you look at the heartbreaking damage that was done to the Hagia Sofia, the worst of it was done not by Muslims (who often get blamed for it by ignorant tourists) but by Christians themselves. The same goes for the damage to the churches of Cappadocia. Sorry if I wasn't being clear.

But the initial military victories that spooked the Iconoclasts were those of the Arab Ghazis, as Che said.

[Bereta_Eder]

From Wikipedia
1st wars
The first Iconoclastic period came to an end at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, when the veneration of icons was affirmed, although the worship of icons was expressly forbidden. Among the reasons were the doctrine of the Incarnation: because God the Son (Jesus Christ) took on flesh, having a physical appearance, it is now possible to use physical matter to depict God the Son, and to depict the saints. Icon veneration lasted through the reign of Empress Irene's successor, Nicephorus I (reigned 802-811), and the two brief reigns after his.

2nd wars
Emperor Leo V (reigned 813-820) instituted a second period of Iconoclasm in 813, which seems to have been less rigorously enforced, since there were fewer martyrdoms and public destructions of icons. Leo was succeeded by Michael II, who was succeeded by his son, Theophilus II. Theophilus died leaving his wife Theodora regent for his minor heir, Michael III. Like Irene 50 years before her, Theodora mobilized the iconodules and proclaimed the restoration of icons in 843. Since that time the first Sunday of Lent is celebrated in the churches of the Orthodox tradition as the feast of the "Triumph of Orthodoxy".

The only referance I could find about muslim faith was that some Christians living outside of Byzantium to some Arab Chalifates rejected the Emperor's rule on the worship of Icons.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Oh, and neither the Arabs nor the Seljuks were "repelled." They didn't take Constantinople (in fact, they didn't try), but they both took control of substantial chunks of the empire.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
paiktis, I simply meant that if you look at the heartbreaking damage that was done to the Hagia Sofia, the worst of it was done not by Muslims (who often get blamed for it by ignorant tourists) but by Christians themselves. The same goes for the damage to the churches of Cappadocia. Sorry if I wasn't being clear.

come on... The muslims completely destroyed Hagia Sophia after the death of Muhamed which had declared a degree of protection because he was afraid of the wrath of the byzantines god falling upon him.
There are written tales about how Hagia Sophia looked back then and it looked splendid.

But the initial military victories that spooked the Iconoclasts were those of the Arab Ghazis, as Che said.

Those were repelled though.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Oh, and neither the Arabs nor the Seljuks were "repelled." They didn't take Constantinople (in fact, they didn't try), but they both took control of substantial chunks of the empire.

The Arabs did seige Constantinople but were repelled.

Leo was able to promulgate his policy because of his personal popularity and military success - he was credited with saving Constantinople from an Arab siege in 717-718 and then sustaining the Empire through annual warfare

By the time the Seljuks came there was no Iconoclastic wars.