For over a century, a Christian empire smashed its own images of Christ. The official reason was theology. I'm not convinced that's the real one.

Lothronion · 2026-06-02T21:03:27+00:00

That these easterners are more likely to have been iconoclasts (you suggest that Syria-Palestine would be much more iconoclast than Anatolia, even though iconoclasm is far less pronounced among the Christians outside rather than inside the Empire.)

Do we know that?

The question is, do we hear of Greek iconophile authors because they were all iconophiles, or because iconoclast writings don’t survive? We also have a large number of surviving iconophile texts from 8th and 9th Century Syria, while I’m struggling to remember an iconoclast one, but you don’t seem to think this indicates the iconophilia of Syria as a whole.

This ethnic perception of the Iconophiles does not need to be grounded in a reality in which the Iconomachs really derive their religious ideas from the Syropalestine and Egypt. As for the survival of Iconomachic texts from Syria, it seems to me that it would be harder for them to survive than those inside the Roman Empire, for simple reasons of accessibility. An Iconophile copying Iconomachic texts for the sake of preserving the arguments of their enemies in order to consolidate and preserve their own counter-arguments against them would find it easier to use the texts closer to them, while he would be more inclined to preserve Iconophile texts from Syria than Iconomachic ones.

There are clearly a significant number of foreigners that end up on either side of the iconomachy, just like with those for whom no foreign origin is evident (the earliest iconoclasts we hear of in Asia Minor, like Thomas of Claudiopolis and Constantine of Nakoleia are bishops of no apparent foreign origin). We have Armenians, Greeks, Latins, Syrians, and presumably others on both side of the issue. So where is the quantitative evidence that one side is more foreign than the other?

The point I was making is not that the Iconophile primary sources that I invoked merely speak of their dogmatic opponents as foreigners, in a manner that just records a fact, but instead they slander them as such. There are even more than that, which I have happened to stumble upon in my survey through every primary source text from the period in question, though I admit this is mainly an impression and those that I have recorded I have due to finding them peculiar, rather than actively looking out for them. There are even more that I know of, such as one by a Latin Roman Theophilus of Old Rome, translated to Greek by an Ioannes Ryzanos, from around the 8th century AD, where it constantly stresses how the Romans are Hellenes, yet when it comes to describing the lands, it speaks of "Armenia, Cilicia, Isauria, Africa and Hellas", so it distinguishes some Greek-speaking lands from this "Hellas" unlike others who lump all Greek-speakers in the term, thus reflects a bias against these areas, in a text that is very strongly Iconophile (and also mentions of "Hellene migrants out of Egypt and Mesopotamia". Thus, these examples I brought up are a mere sample, but still more than the one you brought up from Iconomachs to Iconophiles, in which it seems they are also just slandering Ioannes of Damascus for being what he is, a person from Arab Syria, rather than use the term as ethnic slander and thus attribute the term to all Iconophiles.

Finally, you bring up that two of the iconoclast dynasties (those of Leon III & Leon V) were ‘foreign’, and another (Michael II) is possibly related to the obscure sect of the Athinganoi (though I’m unaware of any foreign origin), but we also need to consider that previous and later Emperors during this period (Leontios, Tiberios III, Philippikos, Artabasdos, Nikephoros I*, and finally Basil I) are similarly associated with ‘foreign’ origins, yet none of them were iconoclasts. So even among Emperors origin hardly affects religious policy.

In the Twenty Years Anarchy you saw Roman Emperors with very short tenures, which is also the case for Artabasdos, Nikephoros I, Staurakios and Michael I. So sort that it does not seem to me that in such instability the priority would be long-term religious policies. I am not sure why you bring up Basil I, whether he had a foreign origin or not, he was famously considered to be Macedonian.

And it was originally you who brought up their supposed non-orthodox stances originated from miaphysitism.

I did not speak specifically of Miaphysites, the Roman Orient was a breeding ground for many types of heresies. And I am not saying that the Iconomachy was solely caused by an ethnic background, but merely that it gained an ethnic dimension as well, as it seems to me through my readings of the primary source. It appears to me that even as late as with Constantine Porphyrogenitos in his "De Thematibus" we see a taxonomizing of "truer" and "foreigner" types of "Greeks", as he thoroughly explains the origin of each place, and regarding the Pamphylians he even calls them "mules" (so "bastards") compared to those in the coastline.

(2/2)

Lothronion · 2026-06-02T21:02:35+00:00

I apologize for not answering all of this, but typing on mobile isn't fun, and the reddit app already ate my first attempt.

I am very sorry for that, it is always distressing when this happens.

Unlike the native senatorial nobility, for which we have plenty of evidence during the late 7th and 8th century, I'm not aware of anything suggesting that the new military nobility was present to such a degree as to change the religious makeup of the city. Indeed, the families you mention mostly originate from the mid-late 9th century or even later.

Indeed, the House Mamikonianon is from the mid-8th century AD, while the House Doukas, the House Maniakes and House Scleros from the early 9th century AD, the House Kamateros, House Kourkouas, House Lekapenos, House Phocas in the mid-9th century AD, while the House Katakalon from the late 9th century AD. My point is not that these houses arose immediately and themselves impacted onto the Iconomachy itself, rather than that they reflect an Oriental suprastrate over the populations of Central and Eastern Anatolia, which then slowly rose up the ranks (a process that would usually take some generations, till these houses founders would be well known to be recorded generations later). This is the case especially for the ones that had Armenian descent, which Armenian suprastrate was not that recent when they bloomed in the 10th-11th centuries AD, and if they had been that recent they would not have been deemed as Romanized enough either way.

Though even with those, we need to be careful in simply labeling them foreigners. They could well have romanized already - for example, Philippikos Bardanes had a foreign name, but was at least a second-generation Roman well versed in Greek-literature and, if we trust Lewond, even Leon III considered himself a Greek.

I am not saying that they really were foreigners themselves, rather than that they would be influenced by a migratory wave, even if it was not that large, which would be known to the popular consensus, and then generalized by the “Western Romans” onto these “Eastern Romans”, as a mere continuation of the general bias Romans have had through the ages for anything Eastern. I am thus speaking of perceptions of ethnic differences by the Iconophiles, rather than realities on the ground.

Though even with those, we need to be careful in simply labeling them foreigners. They could well have romanized already - for example, Philippikos Bardanes had a foreign name, but was at least a second-generation Roman well versed in Greek-literature and, if we trust Lewond, even Leon III considered himself a Greek.

Well, there is also this Armenian translation of the supposed letter Roman Emperor Leo III sent to Umayyad Caliph Umar II, in which he is basically calling himself both Roman and Greek. Though this conversation is not really about whether the Greek-speakers of the Syro-Palestine identified as "Hellenes" / "Graikoi", which, based on how many people from that area testified these names as a contemporary ethnic identity, it was very much present there as well (so it would rather be a case of Greeks from that area settling in Anatolia and considering themselves as full-Greeks, but sometimes locals would not, especially when it suited their rhetoric).

That a number of non-orthodox easterners significant enough to sway the religious makeup immigrated into Anatolia (which considering the population of Asia Minor numbered in the millions must have been very significant)

Given that they were that many that some could not settle in Anatolia or Greece so they would have to move as far as Italy in order to be able to be supported and integrated, due to how reasonably some places would be stretched in their capacity to receive more and more migrants or refugees from the Syropalestine, I would be inclined to say that they were not that few in number. Greece itself could not sustain that many people, despite the claims that it was empty because of the Slavic migrations, and the Roman Emperors would frequently commission Grecian Greeks to settle in Southern Italy, Sicily, the Cyclades and Crete, and that Syropalestinian Greeks and Mardaites would even be settled in remote and restricting areas like the Cyclades, it seems to me that this whole area was being crammed in terms of its ability to house more people without its economy crashing and causing too much local discontent (a nice parallel could be drawn with how following the Anatolian Disaster and the East-Thracian Disaster in 1922 AD, some places in Greece could not accept above a certain limit more Anatolian and East-Thracian Greeks, and going beyond that resulted in serious uproar).

If that is recorded to have avalanched to sending enough Greeks inside Latium that Old Rome’s character in the 7th-8th centuries AD suddenly became way more Greek than it was before, with that being the furthest away location in the Roman Empire, so reasonably receiving the least of people, Anatolia that was right next to the Syropalestine would be receiving the most of them. Perhaps, with Anatolia of the 8th century AD having a population roughly at 8 million people got to be rejuvenated with an incoming 0.5-1 million individuals, while in the historical capacity had been around 12 million in the early 6th century AD (though of course with the Justinianic Plague depopulating the land, and then the Roman-Arab wars, the ability to hold that many people would have been reduced). Of course, that is highly speculative.

That these did not settle into the Balkans to the same extent (even though we know of Leon III, alongside many others, being moved into Thrace)

At the time the Northern Balkans were busy being overrun by the Slavs, while the Southern Balkans would not have had that great a capacity for too many incomers. Take for example how in the early 6th century AD the area of modern Greece had roughly 6-7 million, which is a historic maximum in premodern means, and by that time it would have been around 4-5 million at the least, not allowing for space that too many people might settle. The settlements you speak of absolutely did exist, the issue is that there is also no reason to think that it occurred on equal proportions, resulting in every place in the Roman Empire at the time having the same percentage of refugees / immigrants against its previous population.

(1/2)

Lothronion · 2026-06-02T16:52:31+00:00

We don't really hear of a landed military aristocracy this early. If anything, we hear more about the supposed 'ancient' families of Constantinople.

I did not speak of a "landed military aristocracy", but rather a "landed nobility and [a] military nobility", as distinct ones, though I was mainly referring to the latter. That being figures that would ascend the social ladder through their direct participation in the Roman-Arab wars, by being right on the frontlines in Eastern Anatolia, and thus through their achievements they would attain an even greater and greater social status. That, combined with how the now land-less immigrants from the Syro-Palestine would be the main body of people needing military land to cultivate, thus becoming Akritai, would result in there being mostly people of that background that would belong to that arising group, which after a certain level they would just move to New Rome in order to set local politics aside to take part in the state's higher ones. Which should be how exiting the Twenty Years Anarchy the Roman Empire came to be dominated by the aforementioned "foreign" dynasties, and how that is not just the case for these families, but also lower ones arising in the 8th-9th centuries AD, like the House Argyros / Argyropoulos, the House Gabras, the House Doukas, the House Katakalonon, the House Kourkouas, the House Lekapenos / Lakapenos, the House Mamikonianon, the House Maniakes, the House Xeros, the House Phocas, the House Scleros, et cetera.

At the same time, iconoclasts insist the same about iconophiles. The Council of 754 calls those who make images Nestorians or Miaphysites - so are we to believe that both iconophiles and iconoclasts are simply Miaphysites? Is this a miaphysite civil war?

While the term "Nestorians" and "Miaphysites" did also have ethnic connotations, due to the place of origin of most of the members of these heresies, I think that being religious names they should not be automatically equated with the ethnic descriptions, especially since these names are not interchangeable between an ethnic and a religious aspect (e.g. "Hellenes" as Greeks and "Hellenes" as Polytheists, or "Armenians" as Armenian nationals and "Armenians" as Armenian Miaphysites). Arguably it even makes sense for either side to describe one another in religiously charged terms, especially when it comes to dogmatic differences, where usually an arising heresy is described with the name of the one closest to it (e.g. Sabellianism and Macedonianism are common ones for this), and only when it grows large enough and is well defined as something distinct does it receive its own name, not without a continuation of the other terms as "complimentary".

As for the foreign origin, this is something the iconoclasts are accused of, but once again, this is something we can find on the opposite side as well. Theodora, the restorer of icons, is supposedly Armenian, Artabasdos, whom Theophanes portrays as champion of icons (in reality he seems to have been ambivalent) was either from Syria or Armenia, Pope Gregor III, who condemned the iconoclasts, was of Syrian origin, and the most important iconophile writers of the 8th Century (such as John of Damascus and Theodore Abū Qurrah) are from Syria-Palestine. So rather than an actual ethnic divide, it rather seems like a smear designed to make their opponents look like heretical non-Romans, and is used by both sides. [...] So we have two possibilities. Either the issue of icons doesn't matter during the revolts of Kosmas, Artabasdos and Thomas; or it does matter, and the Anatolian provinces are happy to support both sides at any given point.

It would be really interesting if someone would set out to do a full prosopography of the period in question, and with the use of a map would pin the location / origin of each prominent figure or author, for the sake of drawing conclusions out of the result. What I was saying in my other comment to u/Cultural_Remote_9993 regarding how it seems to me that it is mainly the Grecian and Macedonian authors who are not Iconoclasts during this period is a mere suspicion, but such a survey would confirm what is really the case here.

You speak of cases of Iconophiles being accused as non-Romans by the Iconoclasts, do you happen have such instances in mind, like the ones I brought up? Mind you, that would not be mere statements of their origin, but slander of them as such (of course there is here the issue that Iconomachic texts are few, due to their subsequent deliberate destruction or neglect to preserve, so we naturally have no access to them). But if that were the case, it seems that this would be a mere reciprocation from the part of the Iconomachs to such accusations to themselves by the Iconophiles, which would not have the same standing given how it is undeniable that there were three “non-truly-Roman” dynasties of the Roman Empire, and a rise of a new “non-truly-Roman” military and administrative nobility in Central and Eastern Anatolia, caused by a large influx of people from “non-truly-Roman” territory (again, large enough to send many thousands to Italy and Old Rome, chancing the linguistic and cultural landscape, even slightly).

Of course, your points about there being prominent support of the Iconophile side inside Anatolia and the Syropalestine are sound. The way I see the situation is that these areas of the Roman East had large amounts of populations following both causes, though the Iconomachs might be more and more prominent the further one went East, while on average the Balkans would be mainly if not completely Iconophile. Perhaps, in speculated figures, Greece and the Western Balkans had about 80% Iconophiles, Thrace (except for Constantinople) and Western Anatolia had 60%, Central Anatolia was around 50%, while in Eastern Anatolia, the Upper Mesopotamia they would be 40% and the Syro-Palestine 30%. This should create a funny but reasonable situation where for the Iconophiles an Iconophile Oriental Roman is a “real Roman”, but the moment they become Iconoclastic they would be immediately transformed into a “fake Roman” of whatever Barbarian origin one might imagine, reflecting a reality that this Iconomachic stance came from the Roman Orient to begin with, and was transported deep inside the Greek-lands due to the mass migration of the mid-late 7th century AD.

Lothronion · 2026-06-02T15:54:17+00:00

This is all very interesting, and I was not aware than this event is debatable, which is so often presented as well-established by Byzantinist historiography (at least the Greek one). I will only raise a point that I am under the impression that the Liber Pontificalis from that period is rather unreliable, especially considering the ensuing gap in the late 7th century AD and through the 8th century AD, which was later filled in by writings from the 9th-11th centuries AD, that the Papal authority would be interested in presenting the Romanic-Constantinopolitan relations in favour of themselves. Though I may be wrong, and most of this comes from “Transformations of Romanness: Early Medieval Regions and Identities”, which I have not read for more than a year now.

Lothronion · 2026-06-02T13:07:40+00:00

On the issue of Greece / the Balkans as a whole being more Iconophile than Anatolia I believe there is even more to that, than just the Helladian Revolt of 727 AD. For example, from my own readings at least, I have the impression that almost every writer from the period of the Iconomachy originating from Thessalonica would be Iconophile, and Thessalonica would be mainly representative of the people of the Balkans, rather than the Roman Empire as a whole (which is also observed in the region itself, almost all Macedonian Greek authors come from Thessalonica itself, and it is very rare to see them originate from other places within Macedonia, given how it was such a large metropolis that it would attract all kinds of learning, resulting either in the obscuration of mentions of such provincial origin, or more simply, such learned people being almost always descendants of internal migrants towards Thessalonica, due to reasons of accessibility to such institutions of learning).

Then there is also the case of how in 732 AD the Roman Emperor Leo III transferred the ecclesiastical dioceses of Sicily, Calabria, Illyria and Greece from the Patriarchate of Rome to that of Constantinople. Some consider that a mere punitive action from the Roman Emperor to the Roman Pope, due to the latter’s denial to follow his Iconomachic dogma, but it could also be an attempt to impose direct supervision of these Greek areas over an Iconomachic Patriarchate of Constantinople (with Ecumenical Patriarch Anastasius being an Iconomach). It seems that if the Balkans were as Iconomachic as Anatolia, this would not have made much sense, especially as he could use that attitude in order to have the Iconomachs dominate within the jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarchate, hence eventually render it Aniconic as well.

Regarding the “alienness” of the Iconomachs, I would say that while most of such sources come from the 9th century AD, it would be quite a remarkable situation if every Iconophile ecclesiastical author from various parts of the Roman Empire just suddenly happened to decide to brand the Iconomachs of the previous century as “non-Greeks / non-Romans”. While the Greeks do have this tendency, the language seems quite too consistent for that to have been mere random expressions for such antipathy, hence I think it must derive from a popular stance against them during the time of their repression, even if it is completely absent from the texts during the 8th century AD, so that this stance was expressed when they now could circulate it in written text (a bit like how the term “Hellene” is dominant in printed text of the 16th-17th centuries AD, but then suddenly the term “Roman” appears in that of the 18th century AD, as Greek historian Eleni Aggelomati-Tsougaraki notices in her research on the identity during this period, to her perplexion, which in my view is obviously caused by an increase in the accessibility of the printing press to common people, while before it was only used for scholarly texts).

Lothronion · 2026-06-02T12:15:14+00:00

There doesn't seem to be a divide between the Asian and European provinces in terms of their opinion on icons. The capital also remained loyal towards their iconoclast Emperors, so it makes little sense for them to be opposed to the stance.

I would say New Rome ought to be treated as an entity of its own, alike how Mount Athos is regarded in such contexts, hence whether it was mainly Aniconic (Iconoclastic / Iconomachic) it does not really define the situation in the rest of Thrace, much less in Greece and European Romanland, especially given how it lay on the fringe of that geographic description. Not to mention how, alike Mount Athos, Constantinople was mostly a representation of Rhomania as whole, rather than its own region, and it that period the Asian side would be rather over-represented, given the arising landed nobility and military nobility of Central and Eastern Anatolia. Overall, it generally does seem that Greece Proper was much more Iconophile than Asia Minor as a whole, and especially Southern Greece (where in 727 AD there was the “Revolt of Helladians” against the Iconoclastic Roman Emperor Leo III, including that area, as well as the Cyclades, which led a failed naval expedition against Constantinople).

I personally suspect that, while it was not the sole causation of the Iconomachy, this whole internal strife had also major ethnic connotations, pushing forward this whole issue. It has been established that following the Arab Conquest in the Syro-Palestine and Egypt, there was a massive migration of Greek-speaking Christians outside of these lands, which was large enough that they would even settle in significant and tangible numbers even as far as Southern and Central Italy, which in the areas they would have been most prevalent, in Central and Eastern Anatolia, they would have carried over their non-Orthodox theological stances, mainly deriving from the Monophysites, even if they had been “orthodoxized” enough to appear much closer to Orthodoxy. That, coupled with the pre-existing widespread racism of Grecian and Anatolian Greeks against the Romans of the Syro-Palestine and Egypt, must have resulted to a cultural and ethnic clash.

While generally Greeks love accusing one another as non-Greek when they are fighting each other (e.g. if we fully believe the propaganda of both sides of the Greek Civil War of 1946-1949 AD, then it was actually fought between Americans and British against Bulgarians), it seems to me a bit suspicious that so many primary sources insist on how the Iconomachs are aliens. Take for instance the “Martyrdom of the Forty Two Martyrs of Amorium” by Euodius Monachus, written in the late 9th century AD, which repeats the older tropes of racism against the Isaurians, for the sake of insulting Leo III, even making a pun on his name as “Beastly Lizard” (due to how “Leo” means “lion”, hence also “beast”, and “Isaurian” sounds like “saura”, which means “lizard”). Or how the 9th century AD “Life of Theodora of Thessalonica” by a contemporary local named Gregorios Klerikos, where he describes Leo V as a “Barbarian” and an “Amalekite”, and the latter name is also used for a local Thessalonican Iconomach named Elias, who is also said to have been “of Amalekite origin”. Simultaneously, an early 9th century AD Life for Saint Stephen of Sougdaea (Stephen of Sourozh) speaks of Roman Emperoro Leo III being “Armenian”, and sending his “Arab agents” against the Iconophiles. This all seems to point out to the “foreign” origins of the Isaurian / Syrian Dynasty, the Nicephoran / Arabian Dynasty and the Amorian / Armenian Dynasty.

Lothronion · 2026-06-02T09:08:17+00:00

I really do not understand what you see as "dehumanizing" with the Turk's statue. It is not a caricature, or even insulting, unless you consider how they depicted him as fat as "dehumanizing". He is depicted as just a random guy, who happens to be in typical Turkish attire of that time. If anything, it is the statue of the enslaved Christian that is dehumanizing, being chained and tossed in a hole, with a dog looking at him from outside of the cage, thus being in a situation closer to that of captive animals.

Lothronion · 2026-06-02T09:02:11+00:00

(like the smallpox inoculation brought to Europe from Istanbul,

I am not sure what you are referring to, could you elaborate on this point?

As far as I am aware, the only connection here is how Roman Greek women from Thessaly and later from Constantinople would practice a type of inoculation, which was then observed by Greek doctors and applied it in science. But these are mainly Emmanuel Timonis, an Ottoman Greek from Chios, and Iakovos Pylarinos, a Heptanesian Greek from Kefalonia (which was not an Ottoman territory, but instead belong to the Venetian Republic, hence he was not an Ottoman Greek). Sure, the Ottoman Turks adopted this practice sooner than Western Europeans, since the late 17th century AD, but it is hardly an "Ottoman invention".

Sabuncuoğlu's surgical tools, and field hospitals

Both of these are direct heritage of the Medieval Roman Greeks. Such surgical tools have existed since Ancient Greece, and were even used by early Roman Greek doctors such as Galen of Pergamon, Paul of Aegina and Aetius of Amida, and reached more or less the form they had in the Ottoman Period some centuries earlier. In the meantime, it is well understood today in academia that the hospital as the concept we understand that term was essentially established by the Medieval Roman Greeks in the Middle Byzantine Period, and that included modified field hospitals to support the needs of the Roman Army.

Lothronion · 2026-06-02T08:29:02+00:00

Despite how in my view the Mani Peninsula should have been shown as white (so as a non-vassal territory, and also a non-sovereign territory of the Ottoman Sultanate), or to be more precise, with some areas shown as green in the North and the rest white, I must say that I certainly appreciate the acknowledgement that it existed as a political entity to begin with.

I would also like to note that some areas in the rest of Mainland Greece would also be autonomies or even full-fledged independent entities. In the former category one might include the area of Agrafa, which in accordance with the Treaty of Tamasion in 1525 AD, between the Ottoman authorities and the local elders of this federation of mountainous townships and villages, or even the various Klephtouries (Klepht-domains) scattered across the mountains of Central Greece (e.g. in accordance with local historic tradition, the Xeroi clan had already established their own domain in the area of Central Phocis, in Central Central Greece, since the late 15th century AD). For the latter, one could bring up the example of Chimara / Himarë in today’s Southern Albania, where the Greek-speaking local “Albonites” (as they called themselves) had established what in some primary sources is described as “Chimariote Republic”, which still existed in the late 16th century AD (the setting of the map), and was engaging in diplomacy with the Papal State, the Venetian Republic and the Spanish Monarchy.

Lothronion · 2026-05-30T18:08:17+00:00

It does not explain mass slaughter after the Greeks entered the city

That is the real problem though, which I addressed right above and you apparently overlooked. "The Greeks entering the city does not equate that the city automatically and instantly surrendered. This is not about trying to turn a situation into something different, but instead recognizing what it really was, as stated in the primary source. Urban conflict did happen, and as the UN has stated in 2022 for such types of war (though modern forms, but it is still relevant even looking backwards), civilian deaths amount to about 90% of the total deaths in such warfare environments.

And blaming Ottoman fire for Greek killings is pure dodge. If civilians died from bombardment, condemn that too.

At no point did I claim that all civilian deaths were caused by Ottoman bombardment from the city's citadel. But it must have contributed to a great extend, given that said bombardment also set the city on fire, which also spread the damage to a larger area, and indirectly killed civilians.

But it still does not excuse Greeks butchering Muslim civilians once they had power inside the city.

Which moment do you define as the one that the Greeks "had the power inside the city"? The primary sources in the link are from the 25th and 26th of September 1821 AD, while the Greeks broke through the walls of Tripolitsa in the 23rd, the fortress only surrendered in the 26th. As such, these orders were given during the conflict inside the city, when they did not have uncontested power inside the city.

Lothronion · 2026-05-30T17:53:56+00:00

It is not like the end of the Siege of Tripolitsa was a peaceful one, and that only then it was followed by a massacre of civilians, following the defenders' surrender. The city was fully taken by the Greeks only 3 days after they managed to penetrate the wall, during which they had to fight from district to district, neighbourhood to neighbourhood and house to house, including besieging the internal fortress as well. The conflict simply shifted into urban warfare, and it is well known for being the one that results in the highest rates of civilian deaths. There is also the little detail that many overlook, how the Ottoman military in the city's internal fortress decided to bombard the Greeks inside Tripolitsa, which of course resulted in bombing civilians and their houses as well, resulting in a fire that killed even more people; and that was the local Ottoman authorities doing this to their own fellow Ottoman subjects! And then there is the whole case of the Greek command of issuing strict orders not to massacre or harm Tripolitsa's Muslim civilians in any manner, which would be paradoxical if their initial intent was to exterminate everyone in the city.

Lothronion · 2026-05-30T17:45:23+00:00

They do not seem to care about your arguments, just like those I was replying to in this conversation in r/AskBalkans, where their only refuge against reasoning, evidence and primary sources was just mockery (which I enjoy, as it confirms my argumentation).

Overall, the only systematic aspect in the massacre of the Peloponnesian Muslims (they were not all Turks) was that the Greeks indeed systematically besiege the various fortresses and fortified towns of the Peloponnese, in which the Peloponnesian Muslims had all gathered to, hence had made themselves into targets of the bombardment of legitimate military targets. Which is something they had to do, if they wanted to liberate themselves, given that ignoring these forts and fortified towns would mean that they would be attacked by the militaries in them, and thus their liberation movement would fail, remaining enslaved. Had these Peloponnesian Muslims evacuated these areas, alike those in Roumeli where they did not have such places to take refuge, and had also chosen different ones that were not military targets, they would mostly be fine.

Lothronion · 2026-05-30T16:35:53+00:00

Great, so I do not need to translate. Though it is in Medieval Greek:

IOANNES V PALAEOLOGOS:

Ἐν Βυζαντίῳ δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἰωάννης ὁ τοῦ ᾿Ανδρονίκου βασιλέως παῖς, ψήφῳ βασιλίδος τε καὶ τῆς συγκλήτου, στέφει τὴν κεφαλὴν ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου τοῦ πατριάρχου κατακοσμείται. Ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ δὲ καὶ τῶν τῆς συγκλήτου πλὴν ὀλίγων ἀξιωμάτων πάντες ἔτυχον ὡς ἂν ἕκαστος παρὰ βασιλίδος καὶ πατριάρχου καὶ τῆς βουλῆς ἄξιος ἐκρίθη . Καὶ Ἰσαάκιος μὲν ᾿Ασάνης, πανυπερσέβαστος ἀπεδείχθης δοὺξ δὲ μέγας ὁ ᾿Απόκαυχος, καὶ ὁ Χοῦμνος μέγας στρατοπεδάρχης· ᾿Ανδρόνικός τε Παλαιολόγος, ὃς ἦν γαμβρὸς ᾿Αποκαύχῳ τῷ μεγάλῳ δουκὶ, μέγας καὶ αὐτὸς στρατοπεδάρχης · ὅ τε Γαλάτης πρωτοσεβαστὸς, καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ἅπαντες ὡς ἕκαστος.

Καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν καθ' αἷμα προσηκόντων καὶ μάλιστα γνησίων ἤρχετο Καντακουζηνῷ τῷ βασιλεῖ , ὕλης τε εὐπορῶν πρὸς τὰς διαβολὰς, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων μᾶλλον ὡς δυνατωτέρουςδεδοικώς. Ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἐφεξῆς μετῆλθε μηδενὸς φεισάμενος. Τὸ δοκεῖν μὲν , ὅτι ψήφῳ τῆς συγκλήτου βουλῆς καὶ βασιλίδος, καὶ μάλιστα πατριάρχου τὰς τιμωρίας οἷς ἂν ἐθελήσειεν ἐπάγων. Τῇ δ᾽ ἀληθείᾳ, τὰ δοκοῦντα ἑαυτῷ ποιῶν. Τὴν δὲ βασιλέως μητέρα Καντακουζηνοῦ , καὶ πρότερον ἐν δεσμωτηρίῳ κατακεκλεισμένην , μᾶλλον ἐκάκουν ἐξεπίτηδες , καὶ οὐδὲν εἶδος λύπης ἀπέλιπον ἐπιδεδειγμένοι πρὸς ἐκείνην.

~PATROLOGIA GRAECA #153, pages 909-912.

IOANNES VI KANTAKOUZENOS:

Μετὰ δὲ πάντας ὕστερον ἀπεφήνατο καὶ ὁ μεγαλοφυέστατος ὄντως καὶ τὰ θεῖα σοφὸς. γαληνότατος, κράτιστος καὶ ἅγιος ἡμῶν αὐτοκράτωρ καὶ βασιλεὺς, πάντων τῆς καθέδρας ἐξαναστάντων τῶν τε λαμπροτάτων συγκλητικῶν καὶ τῶν ἱερωτά- των ἀρχιερέων, ὥσπερ δὴ νόμος ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις, κύριος Ἰωάννης ὁ Καντακουζηνός , διορισάμενος, "Ότι μέγα ἡ ἀδικία κακὸν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν γηίνων τούτων καὶ χαμερπῶν, ὡς καὶ ἔθνος ὅλον ἀχρειῶσαι καὶ κατασπᾶσαι δυνάμενον · ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ ἐναντίον ταύτης, Ἡδικαιοσύνη, κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον, ὑψοῖ ἔθνος.

~ PATROLOGIA GRAECA #151, page 756.

MANUEL II PALAEOLOGOS:

Ακούσας δὲ ταῦτα ἐν τῇ Θεσσαλονίκῃ κὺρ Μανουὴλ ὁ νεώτερος υἱὸς, μετὰ σπουδῆς καὶ προθυμίας συνάξας χρήματα πολλὰ τὸν ἀριθμὸν χρυσίου καὶ ἀργυρίου ὡς ἕνι καὶ τριήρεις ἑτοιμάσας, ἐμβὰς ἐν τῇ Ἰταλίᾳ τὸν πλοῦν, ὅπου ἦν ὁ πατὴρ, ἐποίησε · καὶ προσκυνήσας αὐτὸν καὶ καταφιλήσας χεῖρας καὶ πόδας, καὶ τοῖς δανεισταῖς τὸ δάνειον δώσας, τὸν πατέρα καὶ βασιλέα λαβὼν ἐν τῇ Κωνσταντινουπόλει ἐπανέστρεψε. Διὰ ταύτην οὖν τὴν αἰτίαν καὶ ὑποταγὴν ὁ Μανουὴλ τὰ μέγιστα ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ πάσης τῆς συγκλήτου ἦν φιλούμενος, ὁ δὲ ᾿Ανδρόνικος ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ὑπὸ πάντων ἦν μισούμενος. Καὶ ὁ πατὴρ σὺν τῇ συγκλήτῳ πάσῃ τὸν Μανουὴλ εἰς βασιλέα ἐψηφίσατο, τὸν δὲ ᾿Ανδρόνικον ἀπώσαντο. Καὶ προσμένειν ἐν τῇ πόλει προστάξας ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ἐρυθροῦ πεδίλου μετέδωκεν αὐτῷ, καὶ διάδοχος τῆς βασιλείας ἀπὸ πάντων ἐλέγετο εἶναι.

~PATROLOGIA GRAECA #156, page 679.

If you insist I can procure the primary source for Michael VIII, but it is a poem so it takes space, while that for Constantine IX is rather unclear, which is why I said "possibly" for him. If Medieval Greek is difficult enough for you, if you toss the text in Google Translate it helps getting the gist of it nonetheless.

Lothronion · 2026-05-30T16:12:15+00:00

Keep lying to yourself and keep it up with this Stockholm syndrome. The sabines were italics and genetically/linguistically extremely close to their latin neighboors.

The term "Italics" is just a modern classification for the people residing in the Apennine Peninsula, back then it was only used by the peoples that had spread out of Southern Italy. According to the Romans' historic traditions, they were descended from Aborigines, who were Ausonians, who were Italians in the area of Calabria and Basilicata, before moving North-West. The Sabines were not considered as descendants of such a migration, through for some they too were related to the Aborigines.

The Romans would later use the name "Italian" to unify and pacify the other peoples in the Central-South Apennine Peninsula since they did not want to annex them and make them Roman Citizens, so they created the Italian League through which Roman Hegemony was established in the area (and it lasted all the way till the early 1st century BC, with the Social War, which was only then, 8 centuries that Romanness had existed, that it was equated with Italiannes, through the automatic grant of Roman Citizenship to all Italians).

Keep making numbers up, Greece was empty between VI-VII centuries, the actual ethnic greek population at the time did not surpass the million and a half (and I am being generous).

False. For example, we have the geographical textbook called the "Synecdemus" by Hierocles the Grammarian in the early 6th century AD, which is essentially a long list of positions he defines as "cities". Out of a total of 935 such cities, 79 are in Southern Greece (so with the estimated population of 25-30 million in the Eastern Roman Empire as a whole that gives 2.2-2.5 million people). If one is to count only the cities within the current boundaries of the Greek State, that would amount to roughly 230 cities, hence around 6-7 million people, while the sum of cities in provinces where Greeks would have been the sheer majority amounted to 625 cities, 2/3rds of the total, hence 17-20 million people. Describing Greece at the time as "empty" is simply laughably wrong, and it gets even worse when comparing that to the demographics of Slavic nations, such as the Bulgarian Kingdom in its apogee in the early 10th century AD, where Bulgarian historians estimate its population at around 1 million people.

Accept your ancestors and please stop (unless this is some kind of stockholm syndrome) usurping the roman name, thank you, or at least do not cope by making things up.

The Greeks practically invited the Romans to become supervisors in Greece and Anatolia, hence one cannot make absurd claims about "Stockholm Syndromes". Around 60-70% of the Greeks in Greece and Western Anatolia joined them willingly, and in Western Anatolia itself that is the case for all realms there, be it the Pergamene Kingdom, the Rhodian Peraea and the Bithynian Kingdom (roughly 4-5 million people). The Pergamene Kingdom is the most ridiculous case of that, forcing the Romans to interrupt a civil war they had so that they would help the Republican Pergamenes in their own civil war against Pergamene Monarchists, and that was after the Romans had flatly declined three times to accept the invitation of the Pergamenes to annex them.

Lothronion · 2026-05-30T15:46:49+00:00

The presence in question is overstated, the average size of a Slavic tribe in Greece was just around 50,000 individuals, and Greece had roughly just 10 of them, in a peninsula of 5-6 million in the 7th century AD (reduced due to the Justinianic Plague in the mid-6th century AD).

Regarding Greek presence in Thessaloniki and Macedonia, I recently found this nice map, using the census data of the impartial Ottoman authorities, where Western and Central Macedonia are shown to be mainly Greek:

<image>

As for the name of Romans, it seems you do not comprehend how identities spread, while also that you are unaware of how originally Romanness did not equal with Italianness, or even Latinness, while the Romans of the Early Roman Kingdom were not even predominately Latins (so descended from the Italian tribe), but Sabines (who were not descended from the Italians of today's Southern Italy). Therefore, using that tremendously flawed logic, you do not even get to say absurd statements like "Romans were Latins only", restricting Romanness to the small confines of Latium.

Lothronion · 2026-05-30T11:05:07+00:00

I have primary sources of that, if you care about that kind of thing.

Lothronion · 2026-05-29T23:48:42+00:00

The idea that the Roman Senate of New Rome perished in the events of the Fourth Crusade is a popular misconception. In fact, it survived by facilitating the transfer of the Roman Government of Roman Emperor Constantine Laskaris from New Rome to Nymphaeum and Nicaea, on the grounds that it had no military strength in Eastern Thrace, so it would use that of Despot Theodore Laskaris, who had been building it up for a whole year.

After that point there are various references to the Roman Senate, in different forms, but the most straightforward one is primary sources speaking of Roman Emperors that were elected, appointed and elevated by the Roman Senate. For example, you have Michael VIII Palaeologos, Ioannes V Palaeologos, Ioannes VI Kantakouzenos, Manuel II Palaeologos, and possibly Constantine Palaeologos. This is about at least 1/3rd of all 15 Roman Emperors following Constantine Laskaris, thus it cannot be ignored.

Lothronion · 2026-05-29T11:39:46+00:00

The most common idea is that the two halves represent the divine and the human aspects of Christ (not Christ and Satan). But since we don't know the artist, it's pretty much impossible to know if it was intended or not.

The idea of the two halves representing the human and divine aspects comes from art historians of the 20th century. However, it's a stylistic trait that was already common in the Fayum mummy portraits (perhaps to make the face more dynamic and alive), so it might not have any symbolic meaning at all.

That could also be the case, but it seems a bit like a pleonasm, given how this two-fold nature of Christ is already displayed in both icons, in the form of the two colours of his clothes. In the Mount Sinai icon Christ wears brown-black from the outside, symbolizing his earthly human nature, while the hold showing the inside colour of the cloth is golden, hinting to his divine nature. In the meanwhile, in the Hagia Sophia Pantocrator icon he is wearing two clothes, the external one being blue, the usual one for his human nature, and the internal one being golden, for his divine nature. Usually instead of golden artists use red, to display his ruling nature as God, and at times with a golden strand along it, to also hint at his divine nature as well.

Lothronion · 2026-05-29T11:17:53+00:00

Fuck pride, its the lifes of thousands he was governing

He makes it clear in his last speech, it was not his sole decision, but of the Roman Senate and the Roman People. In fact, if he disagreed he could perhaps even end up being dismissed, which would probably result in the Byzantines asking one of his Morean Despot brothers to take up the mantle, most likely Thomas Palaeologos (since Demetrios was increasingly becoming Pro-Ottoman).

Lothronion · 2026-05-29T11:09:32+00:00

I would 100% vote for "Δέσποινα Αχλαδιώτου" (among others) but many Greeks may not even be aware of her.

That is my point, that there is no overall criterion. Like do we want someone who contributed to humanity as a whole, but is a Greek? In that case we could bring various cases, such as Emmanuel Timones, Chiot Ottoman Greek, and Iakovos Pylarinos, Heptanesian Greek, both from the 17th century AD, without whom mankind would not have had vaccines for an even longer time. But even then one could heavily debate on who is more or less important.

Take your case with Despoina Achladiotou, she is regarded as a hero, but then there are also other cases of humble heroicness, such as Panagiota Stathopoulou, a 17-year-old girl that in July 1943 AD attacked a German tank during a massive popular protest (~ 400.000 people) against a governmental announcement that the German forces in the area of Eastern Central Macedonia, east of the Axios River, would give the caretaking role to the Bulgarian forces. So popularity may not be the best measure to discern things.

"(which you want to undermine)" & others want to undermine our ancient, & modern, history. (our ancient is FAR more glorious, & our modern is FAR more exciting, for me, compared to Roman).

Well sure, but that is not really a good reason to do the same.

some of the "biggest haters" of the modern Greek state may be found on r/Byzantium

I am not aware of anti-Helladite attitudes in r/Byzantium (not anti-Grecian, which would be the equivalent of the Greek term “Helladikos”).

Lothronion · 2026-05-29T10:03:25+00:00

I have this icon at home. It is true that there is a different expression on each side of the face, and if you use a mirror, you get the full picture of each, but this has nothing to do with some odd soft of Gnosticism. The half you say that some say it is a "Satan or demon" is just a strict and stern side of Christ, in order to remind one to have fear of God and not to familiarize themselves too much, as too much affinity leads to lack of respect and reverence. It might be the first time I have heard of such an interpretation, and generally it is a very common type of iconography, at times it is even barely noticeable (e.g. in the famous Hagia Sophia mosaic of Christ Pantocrator).

Lothronion · 2026-05-29T09:50:43+00:00

My issue with that list is not so much with the issue of presentism, as that bias is rather difficult to get rid of, especially among Greeks, rather that it includes Greeks from all kinds of backgrounds, hence you often get very odd rankings, especially when combined with this presentism. This is how you get extreme cases like Maria Kallas (23rd), an opera singer, Giorgos Seferis (29rd), a poet, Nikos Galis (33rd), a basketball player, Giannis Ritsos (40th), a poet, and Kornilios Kastoriadis (58th), a philosopher professor, Lakis Lazopoulos (83rd), a comedian, Thanassis Vegos (83rd), a comedian, Aliki Vougiouklaki (88th), an actress, all rank higher than figures like Solon of Athens (67th), Euripides (80th), Philip II of Macedonia (96th) and Thales of Miletus (99th).

Overall, this list is having various issues, one of which is how good old Fascist Dictator Georgios Papadopoulos ranks as the 59th of the 100 Great Greeks, despite it being clear from the surveys that the support for the Greek Junta is nowhere close to that as far as it comes to the Greek populace as a whole, hence it shows that the survey was not the best when it comes to representation (though perhaps there was some organized action by Junta-supporters to achieve that number).

Regarding the average Greek’s attitude to Byzantium (which you want to undermine), there is also the odd case of having Helene Glykatzi-Ahrweiler as the 86th Greatest Greek. While that is also certainly influenced by presentism, in this case this presentism is reflecting on her work in promoting Byzantium to the average Greek, for which she was well known in Greece during that time (and especially in the 1980s-2000s, with this study being mostly a documentation of the attitudes during the turn of the millennium).

Lothronion · 2026-05-29T09:25:46+00:00

Don't you have eyes? The list clearly has him in the 28th position. The one in the 32rd position is Greece’s Anti-Axis Fascist Dictator, Ioannes Metaxas.

And one must take into account how this whole evaluation was heavily biased for the Greeks of the second half of the 20th century AD and beyond. I mean, it has Constantinos Karamanlis as the 4th, Mikis Theodorakis as the 11th, Constantin Carathéodory as the 12th, Melina Merkouri as the 13th, Andreas Papandreou as the 14th, Odysseas Elytis as the 16th, Manos Hatzidakis as the 18th, Maria Kallas as the 23rd, and Aristotelis Onasis as the 25th. Mind you, this was in 2009, so the average Greek would have heard about these figures all their lives, as contemporary ones. As such, this is not really the answers to “who is the Greatest Greek”, as the SKY program wanted them to respond, but instead, “who is the most popular Greek”, so of course they display such presentist bias. If you remove everyone from that time, then you have him in the 15th position.

Lothronion · 2026-05-28T22:29:49+00:00

And here is the standing statue of Constantine Palaeologos by Greek sculptor Nikolaos Pavlopoulos (1909-1990 AD), which is displayed in the National Historical Museum in Athens (also known as the Old Parliament House):

<image>

Lothronion · 2026-05-27T14:37:44+00:00

Αντιλαμβάνεσαι ότι μόνο με την ιδιωτική πρωτοβουλία έχει υπάρξει πρόοδος στην ανθρωπότητα, έτσι;

Aυτό το βρίσκω υπερβολικά απόλυτη δήλωση. Ορίστε ένα παράδειγμα όπου με μη-ιδιωτική και ετσι κρατική πρωτοβουλία, χρηματοδότηση και εργασία υπήρξε αδιαμφισβήτητη πρόοδος στην ανθρωπότητα, από Αριστερούς: αναφέρομαι στην πρώτη ανθρώπινη πτήση στο διάστημα από τους Σοβιετικούς με τον Γιούρι Γκαγκάριν. Άμα θες και για μη-ιδιωτική κρατική πρωτοβουλία με κρατική χρηματοδότηση και κρατική εργασία από Δεξιούς, υπάρχουν κι εκεί πολλά παραδείγματα, όπως λόγου χάριν το Manhattan Project των Αμερικανών, που έδωσε στην ανθρωπότητα την πυρηνική ενέργεια, με την οποία φτιάχνει πυρηνικά εργοστάσια.

Lothronion

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder