Talk: Images

I think the literary comment can be boiled down as follows

"In OTL the [Byzantine] Iconoclas[ism] was a major event of Byzantine history, lasting more than a century. During the reigns of several Emperors the Iconoclast position was the dominant religious doctrine and the prohibition on images strictly enforced [for more than a century], until the comeback of the Iconodules (icon worshipers) under the Empress Irene. This formed an important part of the background to Turtledove's "Farmers' Law" [is set against this backdrop]. In contrast, in the divergent timeline of the Agent of Byzantium stories, Iconoclasm appears much later and is suppressed almost immediately, never becoming an official doctrine."

"According to a widely held historical theory, the power of Iconoclasm in Byzantine society was partly due to the influence of Islam with its strict prohibition on making graven images. Turtledove, who studied Byzantine history, is likely to have known of this theory. It would logically follow that in a history where Islam never existed, Iconoclasm would be much weaker than in OTL."

Thoughts? TR (talk) 02:33, February 28, 2016 (UTC)

I do generally prefer pruning these overly long and didactic lit comms, especially when they tell us what Turtledove "is likely to have known." Turtle Fan (talk) 03:03, February 28, 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that these should be kept to a minimum, I also think a pruned second paragraph would be useful:

According to a widely held historical theory, the power of Iconoclasm in Byzantine society was partly due to the influence of Islam with its strict prohibition on making graven images. Turtledove, who studied Byzantine history, is likely to have known of this theory. It would logically follow that in a history where Islam never existed, Iconoclasm would be much weaker than in OTL. ML4E (talk) 19:01, February 28, 2016 (UTC)

It could still do with some further cutting (even if we do keep it):

"According to a widely held [Traditional] historical theory [has argued that] the power of [Byzantine] Iconoclasm in Byzantine society was partly due to the influence of Islam['s] with its strict prohibition[s] on making graven images. Turtledove, who studied Byzantine history, is likely to have known of this theory. It would logically follow that [I]n a history timeline where Islam never existed, [Byzantine I]conoclasm would [have] been much weaker than in OTL."

I think that gets us to the main point. TR (talk) 19:42, February 28, 2016 (UTC)

I like that.

I'm curious about that theory, by the way. Christians of that time saw Islam as a mortal threat, I'd expect them to go out of their way to highlight their differences from it. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:00, February 29, 2016 (UTC)

From what I can tell, based on quick fact checking, the historians who have argued this theory also point out that there is an element of class division and a certain amount of ethnic tension. The strongest voices for iconoclasm in the empire came from the eastern areas, where the citizens tended to be poorer, of non-Greek descent, and had routine contact with the Islamic World, whereas the pro-icon groups were wealthy people in the west with strong Greek culture. So there would appear to be some resentment in the mix. TR (talk) 06:05, February 29, 2016 (UTC)

I take it then that Leo III the Isaurian (based on his name and the fact he was born in a Syrian province) came from the anti-icon ethnic background. Oh and I agree with your further edits. ML4E (talk) 17:18, February 29, 2016 (UTC)