Likewise, for me it’s Constans the II. Just sounds legit, if you know what I mean.

For me it's Anastasius the first

For me it's maximinus thrax, that name spells balls of steel

Tiberius will be my choice, no matter the numeral

Marcus Aurelius

I think his son was the one that began the iconoclasm, I personally don’t hold it against him too much

Agreed, Hes a great Emperor but his beliefs caused issues within the Church.

I'm not sure what happened with the audio. I recorded on my laptop to avoid having to deal with my refrigerator running and forcing me to stop for 10-15 minutes at a time when I record on my desktop. I'll have to check the settings on my laptop and see if that was the issue.

@@ThersitestheHistorian What editing software do your use? And does it have ability to allow you to review the audio level of the video before rendering the final output video?

Venice isa good creation actually because it'll be one of the best trading and naval ally of the empire. It is Alexios who planted the seeds by giving the Venetians 0% tax instead of a very low 4% to all the goods. it meant trading with Venice won't have much incentive to imperial coffers and would meant Venice can monopolize trade within the empire.

God damn venice

@yousifboti There never was a political entity named Syria until only some hundred years ago. The term "Syrian" during Leo's lifetime was not an ethnic term but rather a geographic one. "Syria" at the time was just a geographic term, encompassed not only what is modern Syria but lands from what is modern Turkey all the way down to what is modern Israel and was inhabited by various distinct ethno-linguistic-religious groups of people such as Aramaic speakers of various beliefs, Greek Orthodox, Arabic speaking Muslims, Armenians, Jews etc. The actual Arabs in Syria at the time were only a small minority. The fact that modern Syrians are considered as Arabs, due to linguistic assimilation is obviously confusing you... 1300 years ago the reality was totally different... His original name was Konon a typical Greek name and not an Aramaic or Arabic one, but even if he was an Aramaic or Arabic speaker that got Hellenized he would naturally be considered a Greek Romaios, same for example as when a Greek got turkified during the Ottoman era was considered a Turk and not a Greek Romaios anymore.. But there is not even definitive proof that he was an Aramaic or Arabic speaker that got Hellenized, as speaking arabic doesn't necessarily mean he was an Arab as far as ancestry is concerned. Btw, I happen to be fluent in english... So according to you this is enough evidence to prove that i am British or from some other english speaking ethnicity? Well, as a matter of fact I'm not...

@yousifboti His real name was the typical Greek name Conon, which suggests that he was a Greek Romaios (call him Greco-Syrian if you prefer) from the Roman-built town of Germanikeia (which was inhabited mainly by Greek speakers and not by other native Aramaic speaking populations) and not a "Syrian" or an "Arab" in an ethnic sense. Even the imperial name Leon actually means lion in Greek. And of course we know for a fact that he spoke fluent Greek by the sources. Anyway he would never had been accepted as the Basileus if he didn't. This obviously doesn't definitively prove that he was of 100% pure Greek extraction, but these are facts and not assumptions...

@yousifboti As for the term "Isaurian"... This "nick" was simply and famously attributed to him (and later to his whole dynasty!) by Iconophiles (who utterly prevailed) such as Theophanes the Confessor long after his reign, simply in order to downgrade and belittle him for being the first Iconoclast emperor. These things are common knowledge amongst Byzantinists pal...

@yousifboti Ouga bouga

@yousifboti Ouga bouga

Perhaps. I am comfortable with Athenian and Roman legal history, but I don't know all that much about the evolution of Byzantine laws beyond Justinian's Code. I suppose I should study that topic at some point in the future.

@@ThersitestheHistorian I saw you can actualy read the Ecloga or listen to it via E-book and i recomand it =) But your logic is true that mutilating Justinian II wasnt that effective and he came back anyway but! the Ecloga introduced bliding and from this no one came back =p Also the point of Leo III when he made the Ecloga was to implemant more biblicals laws into legal laws and also made them more pleasing to god and human and actually death sentances is not human or pleasing to god at all this is why he did reduced death sentance a lot

I'm not sure what happened with the audio. I recorded on my laptop to avoid having to deal with my refrigerator running and forcing me to stop for 10-15 minutes at a time when I record on my desktop. I'll have to check the settings on my laptop and see if that was the issue. I have not read George Finlay's book. Is it good? As for the Darth Justinian, I just did a google image search for Justinian II and it came up. It is definitely one of my favorite Justinian II images.

I'm still Reading the George Finlay's book, since I am also reading other history books (about Brazil) in the meantime. But, from what I've read, it is good, giving a good rundown on many emperors from Leo III till the Fall. Like you, he talks about legislation, not focusing only on the iconoclastic controversy like many others. But especific Works are more suited to look for more information, rather than a general work like his. Still, it's fun to read, like... You can also see the bias of a XVIIIth century man on some subjects, which makes the work more interesting for me.

To add, I finished watching the lesson. Leo III's policy on icon should be a bigger and more immediate problem, after learning about other religious problems like the one he created. My view point is that his and his son military successes really put a hold on potential threats or made them a little bit less than I would expect. Also, I think I heard on History of Byzantium, he made the laws but he did not push on the iconoclasm too much, which would help him remain a big name, unlike his son who was later called "the Dung-named". Leo III was a pretty successfull and well round emperor, being able to fight, being cunning as hell and having what would seem a commanding personality combined with political savvyness, like him trying to put his religious reforms on a front but not being too hard on it. His legislative reforms being a great addition (still, I am trying to find a copy of Ecloga in english or portuguese). He was a very interesting man, I would love to talk to him (if given the chance and the ability to be fluent in his language) and see what were his plans and ambitious. Truly, one great character.

Some of the old-school scholars can be fun since they wear their biases on their sleeves and make grand pronouncements with such confidence and eloquence. Sometimes, reading the old-school scholars is the best way to gain basic familiarity with narrative history, even if the gentleman scholar ethic sometimes causes them to fudge details here and there. It seems to be the standard thought in modern scholarship that Constantine V was THE Iconoclast emperor and that Leo III was much more focused on other affairs. For my part, I do wonder a bit how much Theophanes' fixation with Constantine V's role in Iconoclasm has colored our understanding of the contributions of other participants, like Leo III.

Yes! I'm Reading a book about Brazil's history, written by one catholic rich white guy (although they were truly exceptions, there were some african-descended rich folks) from XIXth Century. He tries to be respectful in some manners (he dedicates a chapter to talk about the native's language, for example) but he drools his contempt for native people and heretics. At least, they were being honest, putting such opinion in the forefront, while today people pass their opinion as facts after Reading one book written by a heavily biased guy. Maybe comparatively, Constantine Kopronymus was THE Iconoclastic Emperor. He received so much hate from Theophanes and such, while Leo III seemed to enjoy some leeway. Leo pushed his reforms but seemed to knew when to leave the subject, like the matter with the Pope. Constantine seemed to be more radical. Or maybe Theophanes had some personal grudge against Constantine V and alliviated Leo III's reign to spite Constantine even more.

destroyed? He established the theme system, and destroy succeeding attempts by the Arabs to conquer Asia minor.

@@majorianus8055 agreed but the main thing dominating Byantium was the Iconoclasm that he unleashed and his son furthered. That ultimately did more long term damage to the Byzantines who didn't recover until the Macedonian Dynasty

Yes

Ironically,he was born as a subject of Caliph.

@@paprskometthe subjects of the caliphate fucked us twice once with the creater of green fire then konon

I am thinking of saving Constantine V for the very end of the series... :)

Please don't

I thought you were going to do all emperros.