Talk:Leo III the Isaurian

Untitled

"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? 89.139.214.25 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Leo III wasn't iconoclast

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)

You are right, and basically Iconoclasm wasn't a religion at all.

What's wrong with English Wikipedia!!! John.sa1025 (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

He was a Jacobite, right? Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Not Jacobite since the Jacobite wasn't adopted by the empire at any occasion.

He just was Eastern Christian or commonly Chalcedonian believer. John.sa1025 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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.

Kindly, and please, stop your apologia and this discussion. John.sa1025 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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.

Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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.

And PLEASE notice again that even being a Jacobite, is not supported, and he might was Syriac but NOT Jacobite. John.sa1025 (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources are reliable. Top tier actually as far as wikipedia sourcing goes. I'll add it to the early life section.Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

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".

Note: Jacobite means Indian-Syriac Christian religion and has nothing to do with the Syrians. And enough of this discussion. John.sa1025 (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Leo III Syriac/Assyrian

I have sourced Leo III being referred to as “the Syriac” but they somewhat have an issue with me expressing it as “Syriac/Assyrian” even tho it’s a scholarly fact that “Syriac” derived from “Assyrian” in also an ethnic sense. Syriac literally means Assyrian:

The terms "Syriac", "Chaldean" and "Chaldo-Assyrian" can be used to describe ethnic Assyrians by their religious affiliation, and indeed the terms "Syriac" and "Syrian" are much later derivatives of the original "Assyrian", and historically, geographically and ethnically originally meant Assyrian.

“Syriac” was a later term of the original “Assyrian” and it also implied an ethnic Assyrian. Now it is formally recognized as a linguistic term, but the source is not using it in a linguistic sense. It states “Syriac Leo III Isaurian” TyariChadv4 (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The above conclusion is original research (WP:OR). You need to provide a good-quality (WP:RS) English-language source that verifies the above claims, most importantly that "the Assyrian" was/is, indeed, a nickname of Leo III. For the wikipedia standards, the current Italian source is not good enough for this, and the text does not directly state that either. Piccco (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not against this addition, if it can, indeed, be verified by a reliable source. I just, personally, couldn't find any source that calls Leo III "the Assyrian", as a nickname or anything. If you happen to find any, you can of course provide them. Piccco (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

When the source says 'the Syriac Leo III Isaurian', it is not using 'the Syriac' as an alternative name or title for Leo, but attributing Syriac ethnicity to him, because 'siriaco' is an adjective while 'l'Isaurico' is a noun (I don't speak Italian so correct me if I'm wrong). So on the basis of this source, we should not include 'the Syrian', 'the Syriac' or 'the Assyrian' as alternative names or titles for Leo which would be put in bold in the lead section as per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. In fact, I don't even see him being referred to as 'the Syrian' in reliable sources so we should remove that alternative name too, although I may be mistaken. Note, it may be true that Leo was Syriac in ethnicity, but if we can't establish that 'the Syriac' was a significant name or title of his, we can't include it as a bolded alternative name. Violoncello10104 (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

"the Syrian" has seen some minor usage in sources.[1] Of course it's nowhere near as common as "the Isaurian", and I suppose the question of how significant a name it is still stands, but in any case there are sources to support it. On the other hand, I haven't been able to find a single source to support "the Assyrian" or "the Syriac" as names. TeoTB (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I see, thank you for that. If it's the practice of Treadgold and Gibbon I say the current inclusion of 'the Syrian' is warranted. Violoncello10104 (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems that User:Violoncello10104 explained what I wanted to say very well. I was also beginning to wonder whether "the Syrian" too is a common nickname, but as User:TeoTB showed, it does appear in some English-language sources, which seems can justify inclusion. Piccco (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)