This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of the Roman and Byzantine Emperors WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roman and Byzantine emperorsWikipedia:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsTemplate:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsRoman and Byzantine emperors articles
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"This prohibition of a custom which had undoubtedly given rise to grave abuses seems to have been inspired by a genuine desire to improve public morality, and received the support of the official aristocracy and a section of the clergy." What kind of abuses? 89.139.214.2521:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 27 days ago12 comments5 people in discussion
As the title says, Leo III wasn't Iconoclast in any way. This article is horribly skewed and doesn't take into account more recent scholarship, namely that of Leslie Brubaker and John Haldon. Thank you for any reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.59.162 (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
You are right, and basically Iconoclasm wasn't a religion at all.
Not being adopted by the empire is irrelevant. The region where he came from was Jacobite, and was for the hundred years prior a completely different faith from that of the emperors (and in many cases rebelling against the empire for it). Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Well I say "not adopted" because the Byzantine Emperor must be Eastern Christian or Chalcedonian, not like what you said, it is relevant...
And I know what you mean about being Syrian. Little hint that Jacobites weren't and never existed in Syria or all Levant.
Take it easy. I'm asking because I'm curious of recent scholarship, since all sources I've read point that the most likely designation is Jacobite/Syriac Christian.
The region he came from was Jacobite, period. So he was born that, then changed for the sake of Byzantium. The sources clearly mention it but it's nowhere in the article. The info box is redundant for the reasons you pointed out.
The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, Oxford University Press:
Leo III, originally called Conon, was himself of North Syrian born at Germaniceia. Thus he began life in Jacobite milieu, though he must have professed himself a supporter of Chalcedon since he held official positions in Byzantium.
Medieval Italy: An Encyclopedia, Routledge:
Leo III (Conon; c. 680-741, r. 717-741) was a Byzantine—i.e., eastern Roman—emperor. In older works he was mistakenly called "the Isaurian," but research has now established that he was from Germanicea (modern Marash or Mara In southeastern Turkey). His native tongue was Syriac or Arabic, and as regards religion he was most likely a Jacobite (Syrian Monophysite). Conon probably changed his original name to the more 'Roman' Leo and became religiously orthodox when he joined the Byzantine army.
I don't know if your sources are honest or reliable or not, hence your curiosity about NOT being mentioned in the Wikipedia article, which you must use more reliable sources, I don't know honestly. But what matter is: In these two records you've sent, they tell you that Leo has became and was adherent Orthodox (or Chalcedonian). Just like what I said exactly without knowing these records before or read.
Absurd, you can do whatever you want, this is free Wikipedia.
And I'm sure you didn't complete reading your sources from The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire where also some scholars consider Leo an Eastern Orthodox hahaha.
But be sure that your views or apologias are not supported. It is a truth when we say: "Any Byzantine emperor's religion is Eastern Orthodox Christian or Chalcedonian believer, and not anything else".
1) you don't decide when discussions end, buddy - any editor can post that follows TP guidelines, 2) that was exactly what the editor posted - so I don't know why you aren't grasping it HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have read the conclusions of Brubaker and Haldon and they don't say Leo was not an iconoclast 'in any way', but they do say that his iconoclasm was significantly less intense than what historians generally believe, specifically, those who follow the historic iconophile account of events (which tended to exaggerate and even deliberately slander according to Brubaker and Leslie). See my recent edit in the 'Iconoclastic policies' section. Violoncello10104 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply