Ranking Every Byzantine Emperor - Part 5

[Music] When you think of the Roman Empire, what comes to mind? If you're like most people, you imagine legionnaires in Laura Segmentatada, gladiators fighting in the Colosseum, the classical pagan empire of Augustus and Trajan. Sure, that's part of Roman history, but this classical period only represents a small portion of Roman history. Contrary to popular belief, the Roman Empire survived the fall of its western half in 476. In fact, it continued uninterrupted for another thousand years. Taken as a whole, the Roman Empire was Christian much longer than it was pagan. Instead of evoking visions of the Pantheon and Hadrien, the Roman Empire should instead prompt us to imagine that Agia Sophia and St. Justinian. Based in the magnificent city of Constantinople, nearly a 100 emperors came and went. Sadly, this Byzantine period is less appreciated than the aforementioned classical period. In this series, we will embark on a fascinating journey through Byzantine history, ranking each of the emperors from Constantine I to Constantine the 11th from an Orthodox Christian perspective. Let's dive in. In the cross [Music] be welcome back to my series on the Roman emperors. In the last installment, we left off at the deposition of Irene of Athens in 802. In this video, I'll be covering the emperors of the Nicaphorian and Amorian dynasties. Let's begin with Nicaphoros I. As we saw, Nicaphoros successfully overthrew Irene and took the throne in 802. It was a bloodless coup and Irene was eventually banished to the island of Lesbos. Early in his reign, Nicaphoros was faced with a wannabe usurper named Bardanis, who ostensibly rebelled on behalf of Irene, who was still alive. He marched from the Anatolicon all the way to Chrysopoulos. But the rebel threw in the towel when he learned of the death of the empress in 803. Nicaporos promised not to harm Bardanis and he retired to a monastery in peace, but later he was blinded by some soldiers. The emperor claimed no responsibility, but he very well might have had something to do with it. In 803, Nicaphoros crowned his son Straios as co-emperor. In church affairs, Nicaphoros was orthodox, but his reign was filled with conflict and scandal. During this time, St. Theodore the Studite was abbot of the studio monastery in Constantinople. He made significant and lasting reforms to Orthodox monasticism. On two accounts, Theodore came into conflict with the emperor. In 806, St. Terasius, the patriarch of Constantinople, who had overseen the seventh ecumenical council, passed away. It seems that the monks of the Studios monastery wanted the emperor to appoint Theodore as the next patriarch. But Nicaphoros chose a layman, also by the name of Nicaphoros. Nicaporos the patriarch is today remembered as a saint of the church and he was a steadfast Orthodox Christian. As a side note, he was also a very learned man who wrote an important work of history. The patriarch's holiness aside, the manner of his elevation was controversial. St. Theodore was a very holy and zealous man. Where other churchmen of the time were more flexible, willing to apply a Konomia to preserve the unity and peace of the church, Theodore was very confrontational. Knowing of this, Emperor Nicaphoros sent troops to surround the studios monastery for 24 days to ensure that the elevation of the patriarch would occur without trouble. Tensions between Nicaphoros and St. Theodore only grew from this point onward. Recall from the last video that Emperor Constantine V 6th generated a tremendous amount of scandal by dismissing his lawful wife and entering into an illicit marriage. The church was rightly horrified. Despite the controversy, a certain priest named Joseph blessed the union and married the couple, likely on a bribe. At the time, St. Theodora was one of the loudest public opponents of the emperor. For that, he was exiled. When Irene came to power, Joseph was defrocked and St. Theodore was brought back from exile. Now, for political reasons, Nicaphoros called a cinnid which restored Joseph to the priesthood. This was unacceptable to St. Theodore. In response, he boldly ceased communing with all who would associate with Joseph. The emperor was orthodox, but he was a flexible man, not nearly as rigorous with the cannons as St. Theodore. However, he wouldn't tolerate these bold outbursts. In 809, St. Theodore was apprehended. After trial by a church senate, he was deposed and briefly exiled. Let's turn our attention to other domestic affairs. Before taking the throne, Nicaphoros had been a finance minister under Irene. As emperor, he displayed great administrative talent and made several important reforms to the empire. In particular, he consolidated the existing themes in Anatolia and created new ones in the Balkans. To populate these regions, he transplanted many Romans from Anatolia. Then several of them were enrolled in the military, and the cost of their equipment was borne by the local community. This funding structure tightened the link between military obligations and the land. Meanwhile, each thematic army developed a smaller core of first class soldiers. He also reversed many of Irene's tax exemptions. These reforms laid the groundwork for future Roman resurgence in the Balkans and improved the empire's financial situation. But these policies were also deeply unpopular. We've seen that many Roman emperors have enacted policies of forced population transfer. Justinian II moved thousands of Slavs from the Balkans to Anatolia and Constantine V shipped many Christians from the Caliphate to Thrace, but those had been the forcible transfer of non- Romans into Roman territory. Nicaporos's policy was different because he was forcibly transplanting fellow Romans. Thus, the emperor's policy was a wise one from an administrative point of view, but it was understandably an unpopular one. His tax policies were of course hated by the elite who bore the majority of the burden since they are the ones who write most of the histories. Nicaphoros unfairly garnered a negative reputation. Despite this, there exist some accounts that praise him as an Orthodox emperor who loved the poor. In 806, Harun al-Rashid invaded Anatolia and captured some border forts while Arab fleets attacked Cyprus and roads. In the early years of the 9th century, it appeared as if the Romans were slowly being eclipsed as a second rate power by the caliphate in the east and by the Franks in the west. However, as Anthony Caldellis points out, the Roman Empire was far better organized and strengthening its infrastructural base. Whereas the caliphate, despite its superiority and resources, was a ramshackle operation on the verge of falling apart. It was only the glamour of Haroon's reign that masked that reality. The same was true of Charlemagne's empire. Its institutions were shallow and its common purpose weak. When Frankish imperialism ran out of steam, the nobles turned against each other and the edifice collapsed. Thus, the Romans were on the cusp of a great revival. But for now, they were overshadowed by the Franks and the Arabs. In fact, in the early years of the 9th century, Charlemagne and Harun al-Rashid were forging a strong diplomatic relationship, sending gifts that bypassed Constantinople completely. Charlemagne sent the caiff some Spanish horses. In return, he received a pet elephant. The friendship between Frankia and the Arabs might seem like an irrelevant detail in our story, but it actually ties into some fascinating developments in church history. Among other things, Harun al-Rashid granted Charlemagne custody over the Christian holy sites in Jerusalem. Naturally, the Frankish king sent some of his clerics to the Holy Land. When these Frankish Christians arrived in Palestine, they were surprised to learn that the indigenous Greekeaking Christians used a different form of the creed. In the clause referring to the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Greeks said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father whereas the Franks added that he proceeds from the father and the son or in Latin filioquay. Where did this discrepancy arise? The original creed professed at the council of Constantinople in 381 was the version retained by the Greeks. Most scholars think the Filioquay was first added at the third council of Toledo all the way back in 589. This was the moment when Visigoththic Spain converted from Aryanism to Nyian Orthodoxy. The modification to the creed was likely done with the best of intentions to combat Aryanism and other heresies which sought to subordinate the second person of the Trinity. At any rate, the Filioquay quickly spread throughout Western Christendom. By the time of Charlemagne, it had been adopted by the Franks as well. I only mentioned it in passing in my last video, but the modified creed was also promulgated at the semiconlast council of Frankfurt in 794. Up to this point, it seems like most Eastern Christians were blissfully unaware of the Filioquay edition. Meanwhile, much of the West was professing the Filioquay with the notable exception of Rome. Anyways, confused about this discrepancy, the Frankish Christians in Palestine wrote to Pope Leo III for an explanation. Pope Leo III, the very man who crowned Charlemagne in 800, was a firm proponent of the original creed. The Pope ordered the Franks to cease using the Filioquay immediately. To make himself absolutely clear, Leo commissioned an elaborate pair of silver shields. On them he had engraved the Nyian creed in Greek and Latin without the filioquay. These were then mounted inside St. Peter's Basilica and on the tomb of St. Peter itself. The Frankish papacy was well underway by this point. But as I've mentioned, the popes were still Orthodox. For now, the Pope resisted Frankish theological innovation, but it wouldn't last forever. Now, let's return to the east and continue our narrative. Harun al-Rashid could have been a much more serious threat to Nicaphoros, but fortunately for him, the caiff was forced to march east to deal with an internal rebellion in 808. The next year, he died and the caliphate descended into civil war. Nicaporos had been distracted by the Arab threat, but now he could focus on the Balkans. Up to this point, the Vulgars were still a lesser power. Despite some Roman setbacks in the past, the dream of conquering them was not unrealistic, especially given the strengthened imperial position in that region. In 811, Nicaphoros assembled a large army and took it over the Bosphorus. At first, he was successful in this campaign. The imperial forces twice defeated the Bulgars and even triumphantly occupied their capital. The emperor distributed the Khan's treasure to his soldiers and drank from his wine. Before departing, the Romans burned the royal palace. In the wake of these victories, the imperial army was supremely confident. It would appear that Nicaporos got lazy and careless. One evening, the Romans stopped for the day and encamped in a certain valley. Nicaphoros foolishly failed to scout the area or post enough guards at night. Little did he know Concrumb was watching and waiting from the dense forest. That night the Romans were brutally ambushed in their tents. In the chaos, Nicaphoros perished along with the generals of Thrace, the Anatolican, the commanders of Tutagmata, and thousands of soldiers. In short, the cream of the Roman crop was annihilated. Straios, the son of Nicaphoros, was severely wounded in his spine and likely paralyzed, but he was carried away and thereby managed to escape. Following the battle, Crumb famously turned the emperor's skull into a drinking vessel. The Battle of Pla was one of the worst Roman military defeats in centuries. How should we rank Nicaporos? He was a usurper. But in fairness, it was a bloodless coup and the Isorian dynasty was out of steam anyways. Somebody was going to take the throne, so why not him? He was Orthodox, but his treatment of St. Theodore was unnecessarily harsh. Still, he was only in exile for a couple of years, so I can forgive him for that. It's hard to rank Nicaphoros because I think he had the makings of a great emperor. He comes across as a visionary leader, a brilliant administrator who sought to realize the empire's potential. Sadly, however, the revival of Roman fortunes would not come under Nicaphoros's reign because it culminated in a horrible defeat at the Battle of Pla. It was an ambush, but I think Nicaphoros deserves most of the blame because apparently he didn't take the necessary precautions to avoid it. Isa plunged the empire into a devastating crisis that would his reform program and eventually culminate in the revival of iconoclasm. The story of Nicaphoros is tragic because had he survived, he might have been a transformative emperor. This might be a tad bit too harsh because I think he had the makings of a great ruler. However, in my opinion, we should judge him not based on what could have been, but on the actual concrete reality. Because he was too ambitious and careless, he threw the empire into chaos. Despite his good qualities and his potential, I'll give Nicaphoros a D-ranking. Straos. After Nicaphoros was slain and turned into a fancy drinking vessel, the throne passed to his son, Strakios. As mentioned, he had been mortally wounded in that encounter. Straios only reigned for 68 days before he was forced to abdicate by his brother-in-law, Michael. He retired to a monastery and died the following year, likely as a result of his injuries. How should we rank Straios? His was the shortest reign of all the Byzantine emperors. Of course, it goes without saying that for better or worse, he didn't have the time or the ability to do anything. Therefore, he deserves neither praise nor hatred. It's for emperors like this that I wish I had created an unrankable category in my tier list. But seeing as how I don't have this category, I will put Strachios in the C tier. Michael I Michael was a pious emperor who distributed endowments and expensive gifts on the churches. He also recalled St. Theodore from exile who became one of his chief adviserss. When Michael came to power in October of 811, the empire was still reeling from the defeat at the Balkan frontier which had been so meticulously reinforced by the Romans utterly collapsed. Concrumb proceeded to devastate Thrace. Thousands of Roman refugees, including some Bulgars, were fleeing from the destruction. Crumb demanded the return of these Bulgar refugees in exchange for peace, but Michael refused. Meanwhile, the Khan had learned to build siege weapons, and by November of 812, he had captured Mumbria and Develtos. The situation was so chaotic and hopeless for the Romans that when Michael tried to march out against the Khan in the summer of 812, his army refused. Now, let's turn our attention to the west. In the last video, we saw that the imperial position in north and central Italy had collapsed during the reign of Emperor Constantine V. However, the Romans still held on to a couple of outposts, including Venice and Dalatia. This created tension with the Franks who considered these to be their rightful territories. Remember that Charlemagne had been crowned by Pope Leo III as emperor of the Romans in 800, a direct challenge to the identity of the Romans in Constantinople. They of course did not recognize this Frankish pretender. As much as Charlemagne and his court sought to forge a western empire and a western christrysendom as distinct from the Byzantine east, the reality is that Constantinople was still viewed by many as the legitimate source of Romanas. Whenever the West tried to be Roman, they couldn't help but look east for imitation. Charlemagne's capital at Aen, for example, was sometimes called New Rome, and it was adorned with churches in the style of the city that already bore that name. As the saying goes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness. As Anthony Caldellis says, despite growing prejudice against the Greeks, Constantinople remained a gold standard of imperial Romanness in the West. Though it was copied tacitly, more than recognized explicitly. When Western Europeans of this age looked back to the ancient Roman Empire, in reality, they were often looking sideways to the current Roman Empire. Charlemagne's imperial title was of course recognized by the pope who crowned him. But even Charlemagne must have known this rested on shaky ground. In the 8 centuries since Augustus, not a single Roman emperor had been crowned by a pope. What legitimacy did this unprecedented coronation really convey? Perhaps feeling insecure, he also sought recognition from Constantinople. Thus, in 8:12, Charlemagne offered to concede his claims to Venice and Dalatia if the Eastern Emperor would simply recognize his title. Michael reluctantly consented to this agreement. Some Roman ambassadors acclaimed Charlemagne as emperor, but crucially not of the Romans. Also, it appears that Constantinople begrudgingly agreed to recognize only Charlemagne's imperial title. In other words, this recognition seems to have been a concession to Charlemagne personally. It wasn't meant to extend to his successors. Letters sent by later emperors called them kings of the Franks and Lombards, their so-called emperors. Regarding Venice, that city would remain nominally subject to Constantinople, but it was granted a significant amount of independence over time and especially as Byzantine power waned. it would effectively become autonomous. Returning to the Balkans, Crumb was still wreaking havoc. In the summer of 813, Michael gathered a large army and marched out against the Bulgars, but he was soundly defeated at the Battle of Versinia. The Romans fled in panic whilerum and his army penetrated further into Thrace. In Constantinople, Michael's legitimacy was destroyed and a consensus emerged that he should be replaced by someone more capable. Seeing the writing on the wall, Michael agreed to abdicate in favor of a general called Leo. The former emperor and his family became monastics. Michael had three sons, and Leo saw these boys as a threat. Therefore, he ordered that all of them be castrated. One of these sons was Nikitus. He would go on to enter the priesthood. We remember him today as St. Ignatius of Constantinople. Ignatius plays a huge role in our story, but I'll talk more about him at the end of this video. After his fall from power, Michael would live on as a monk for 32 years. How should we rank Michael the first? He seems to have been a decent emperor, but he wasn't militarily effective. His failure to defeat the Bulgars led to further collapse of the frontier and the abrupt end of his short reign. In fairness, he was faced with challenging circumstances, to say the least. The Battle of Plusa was perhaps the worst Roman military defeat in living memory, and I think anyone would have had their hands full cleaning up that mess. Perhaps Michael would have been a good emperor in another time. As it was, it doesn't seem like he was the right man to face this crisis. The Empire needed a victorious general, and that wasn't Michael. I appreciate his piety, but I think he has to rank as a below average emperor. Therefore, I'll put Michael I in the D tier. Leo V. As we saw following the battle of Versinia, the Roman army disintegrated and the Bulgars advanced further into race. Michael agreed to abdicate and Leo V became emperor in his place. Before diving into the reign of Leo, it's worth taking a step back to examine the situation in 813. From a military perspective, the last great emperors had been Leo III and Constantine V. They had been iconoclasts. The subsequent icon emperors had been either mediocre or worse, total failures. As we saw, Nicaphoros was cut down in a disastrous battle after which the Vulcan frontier disintegrated. This was traumatic to the Romans. The last time an emperor died in battle was over 400 years earlier when Veilens perished at Adrienople. Surely that was a sign of divine wrath. Veilance had been an Aryan heretic. But what was the crime of Nicaphoros? Could it be that the icons were the problem? To many Romans, especially those in the military, it was increasingly clear that the iconoclast emperors were victorious, whereas icons brought only defeat. Nostalgia for Constantine V was at its peak. You'll remember from the last video that Constantine had several sons from his third wife. Apparently, many of them were still alive at this point, but they had all been blinded and exiled for their repeated attempts to usurp the throne. Incredibly, this didn't stop some soldiers from trying to elevate one of them in 8:12. In 8:13, a handful of soldiers rushed into the Church of the Holy Apostles and knelt at the tomb of Constantine, imploring the dead emperor to come forth and save the Republic. This was the state of the empire as Leo V ascended the throne. Leo was himself a military man and we can be sure he was mulling over these questions too. Early in his reign, he made the Orthodox nervous by crowning his son Simbatios as co-emperor with the regal name Constantine. The significance of this parallel was impossible to ignore. The Romans had a new Leo and Constantine. But for now, the emperor didn't take any action regarding the icons. He had more immediate problems to consider. In 813, Crumb arrived before the walls of Constantinople itself. It wasn't exactly a siege since the Khan had no navy and therefore no chance of taking the city. Most likely, he was simply trying to intimidate and pressure the Romans to exact favorable concessions whenever the inevitable peace treaty came forward. Crumb made a disturbing impression on the people of Constantinople when he proceeded to perform animal and human sacrifices outside the Golden Gate. Eventually, the two sides entered into negotiations. At one of these meetings, Leo tried to ambush Crumb, but the Khan escaped, possibly wounded. Furious, the Bulgars made their journey home. On the way, they burnt down churches and took thousands of captives. Thrace was ruined underrum. The Bulgars had forged a formidable empire, expanding at the expense of the Romans as well as the Aars. In 8:14, Crumb returned seeking to take Constantinople, but he died on route. So, the siege fizzled out before it could begin. You will recall that in the early 9th century, the Romans had three formidable enemies, Charlemagne, Crumb, and Harun al-Rashid. Crumb was now dead. In the same year, Charlemagne died, too. The Carolian Empire would never be the same. Within a few decades, his empire would descend into civil war and fragmentation. Harun al-Rashid had died back in 809, and the caliphate was facing a similar struggle. Thus, the primary enemies of the Roman Empire had all been neutralized in quick succession. Despite their recent setbacks, the ever resilient Romans were now poised to come out ahead. Now, let's turn our attention to religious matters. We've seen that Leo was apparently inclined toward iconoclasm, but he didn't move against the icons immediately. He was cautious, approaching the issue gradually. Beginning in 814, he appointed two commissions to look into the question of icons. In December of that year, he summoned the patriarch of Constantinople, St. Nicaphoros. Leo explained that the soldiers were blaming the icons for the recent military failures. He asked the patriarch, "Can you make a small compromise in economia for the sake of these people and remove the lowhanging icons? If not, can you explain to me why you venerate them, seeing as scripture nowhere requires it?" St. Nicaporos was firmly orthodox and he wouldn't be swayed. He calmly explained that it was the tradition of the church that the issue was settled and refused to elaborate further. The battle lines were being drawn. St. Nicaphoros then assembled many bishops and monks to his residence and asked whether they agreed with the emperor's commission. They all proclaimed their orthodoxy and pledged to resist iconoclasm to the death. One influential member of this group was of course our zealous friend St. Theodore the studite. Whatever beef he may have had with Nicaphoros was by now just water under the bridge. This orthodox faction even met with the emperor at one point where Theodore got up in his face and told him to get his nose out of church matters. But Leo was crafty and sly. He knew the soldiers were on his side and with a little persuasion he could isolate the patriarch, force his abdication and impose iconoclasm on the church. Despite the bold resistance of Saints Nicaphoros and Theodore, it would seem that they and their friends were only a small vocal minority. Most of the clergy were willing to go along with the emperor. Eventually, more and more fell in line behind Leo. Meanwhile, a mob was gathering outside the palace. They began to hurl rocks at the icon of Christ on the chalk gate. The crowd started shouting, demanding the removal of the patriarch and the restoration of iconoclasm. Leo had successfully outmaneuvered St. Nicaphoros. Seeing the writing on the wall, the patriarch abdicated in 815. Naturally, in his place, the emperor appointed an iconoclast patriarch. After Pasca, an iconoclast council was convened in Agia Sophia to enull Nika 2 and reinstate the recognition of Hya as the valid 7th council. Thus began the second phase of iconoclasm. Many bishops were replaced as were many Abbotts. Not long after the council of 8:15, St. Theodore was exiled to Anatolia where he became a leader of the underground resistance and wrote treatises in defense of the icons. Meanwhile, Leo knew that he needed a military victory in order to justify his policy against the icons. At this time, the Bulgars underrums son Omarag were sending raids into Thrace. In 8:16, Leo took an army north and ambushed a Bulgar army. After this victory, he managed to negotiate a peace treaty that would hold for 30 years. What about the eastern frontier? The caliphate was distracted with their own internal problems. So Leo was fortunate to have a relatively peaceful eastern front. In 817, the emperor sent a fleet to raid the Arabs and led an army to retake a few border fortresses in Anatolia. In 8:18, the Romans had their first encounter with the Roose who raided northern Anatolia. At the end of the day, Leo's military successes were enough to convince most Romans that divine favor had been restored to the empire. But Leo wasn't destined for a long reign. Back when he was just an officer, one of his close friends was a man called Michael the Amorian. After becoming emperor, Leo appointed him as chief of the Excubators. But for some reason, the two men had a falling out, likely because Michael was suspected of treachery. In 8:20, Michael was imprisoned in a dungeon under the palace. Then on Christmas Day, Leo was assassinated during a church service in one of the palace chapels. The assassins then brought Michael out of the dungeon, placed him on the throne, and proclaimed him emperor. How should we rank Leo V? From a purely secular point of view, Leo was a relatively competent and successful emperor. He was clearly clever and talented. Even his theological enemies recognized that he was a decent administrator. When Leo died, St. Nicaphoros remarked that even though Leo had been a persecutor, the city had lost a man who knew how to handle public affairs. That said, I can't overlook the fact that he was an iconoclast heretic who persecuted the church. As a result, I can't give him anything higher than a D ranking. But I won't give him an F for three reasons. In my opinion, second iconoclasm was bad, but it wasn't as catastrophic as first iconoclasm. The second round didn't last as long as the first, and the geopolitical fallout was less consequential. As with first iconoclasm, the papacy resisted and this soured relations with Rome, but Rome was already politically estranged from Constantinople thanks to the Isoreans. In other words, this certainly made things worse, but the damage was already done. The Byzantine papacy was over, and the era of the Frankish papacy was already well underway. Of course, I'm not a fan of Leo V, and I have no desire to justify his heresy, but he wasn't a heresy arc like Leo III. There was a recent precedent for iconoclasm, he didn't invent a new heresy. And finally, although it's never okay to be a heretic, it is understandable how given the historical context, Leo may have believed that only iconoclasm could relieve the empire in its time of crisis. Therefore, I can sympathize with him a tiny bit. He was still a terrible emperor, though, and for that I'll put him in the E tier. Before moving on from Leo, I would be remiss if I didn't talk more about the manner of his death. I brushed over it pretty quickly, but the details are hilarious. It truly ranks right up there as one of the most bizarre deaths of any Roman emperor. When the assassins entered the chapel, they apparently mistook the priest for the emperor and killed the poor guy. This alerted Leo to the imminent danger he was in. Thinking on his feet, he grabbed the heavy processional cross from the altar and used it as a weapon before being cut down himself. Writing from exile, St. Theodore the studite observed that the manner of his death is fit for a comedy. Michael II. As we saw, Michael was originally an ally of Leo's, but somehow the two came into conflict and Michael was imprisoned in 820. Then Leo was assassinated. The murder was almost certainly orchestrated by Michael himself, seeing that he was promptly released and acclaimed as emperor. Immediately after usurping the throne, the new emperor had to deal with a rebellion in Asia Minor, which resulted in a brutal three-year civil war. The rebels were led by Michael's URSTW comrade in arms, Thomas. The subsequent conflict between Michael and Thomas essentially represents two rival bids within the army to replace the dead emperor Leo. Thomas was joined by the Anatolican and the Kibriot Thai and he also sought an alliance with the caiff. Michael had the support of the Obsician and the Armenia and also allied with the Bulgars. In 821, the rebels managed to place Constantinople under a 2-year siege featuring fierce fighting on the land walls and various naval engagements. Eventually, Thomas gave up and retreated to Thrace, but Michael finally managed to mop them all up by the end of 823. Having prevailed over the rebellion, Michael could finally focus on ruling the empire. Unfortunately, he didn't do anything to reverse the religious policy of his predecessor. He too was an iconoclast. When petitioned to end iconoclasm, he refused to enol the council of 815, preferring to stick with what was now the status quo. But he wasn't very passionate about the heresy. He graciously recalled some of the Iconul exiles. As St. Theodore put it, "The winter has passed, but spring is not yet upon us." Unlike his predecessor, however, Michael was not militarily successful. During the Civil War, the Southern Fleet, which had sided with Thomas, suffered terrible casualties from loyalist firehips. This severely weakened the Roman Navy and made the islands easy prey for Arab raiders. Around 826, they overtook the island of Cree. In 827, Sicily was invaded, too. The war in Sicily was a brutal slog that dragged on for 4 years. In 831, it was decided that the island would be split between the Muslims based in the west at Polarmo and the Romans based in the east at Syracuse. This was a demoralizing defeat as Sicily had long been one of Constantinople's most valuable provinces. Now it was a war zone yielding diminished revenues. Michael died before the end of this war in 829. He was succeeded by his son Theophilus. How should we rank Michael II? He was a usurper and a heretic. He didn't start the second phase of iconoclasm and he was more lenient. So, I think he gets something of a pass for that. But unlike Leo V, Michael was not a victorious general. His only real victory came at the expense of fellow Romans in a civil war. I would put him in the D tier, but it doesn't feel appropriate to place him higher than Leo V, who was more militarily successful. So, I'll put Michael in the E tier with his predecessor. Theophilles. Theophilles was the son of Michael II. He came to the throne in 829 after the death of his father. At the start of his reign, he was 16 years old. Like his predecessors, he was an iconoclast. However, unlike his father, he seems to have been much more enthusiastic about it. His stepmother was Euphorrosine, the second wife of Michael II. She just so happened to be a secret icon. Eupfroini arranged a bride show for Theophilus, and he chose a beautiful young woman named Theodora. Like her mother-in-law, Theodora was also a covert icon. Theophilos didn't know it yet, but his wife would outlive him and she would put an end to his beloved heresy. The church remembers her as St. Theodora. As a side note, Theopoulos nearly chose to marry another pious woman by the name of Casani, but this was not to be. She later became a nun, a celebrated hymnwriter, and a saint. One of her hymns is sung every year in the Orthodox Church on Holy Wednesday. Emperor Theophilus actually contributed one line to its composition. Yes, you heard that right. A heretical emperor contributed to one of the most beloved hymns of the church. I think that's remarkable in its own right. Before moving on, I just need to give props to Euphorosini. As far as I can tell, she isn't a canonized saint, but she might be the unsung hero of second iconoclasm. She wouldn't live to see the end of that heresy, but I think Euphrine deserves a lot of credit for it. It seems like the bride show she organized was absolutely stacked with saintly Orthodox women. Anyways, I'm getting sidetracked. Let's continue with our narrative. As emperor, Theophilos embarked on an extensive building program. State revenues were up from the 8th century, so he had money to work with. Among other things, he restored the seaw walls of the capital and expanded the palace. The emperor was also a patron of intellectuals, including Leo the philosopher. Among other things, this polymath is credited with inventing a system of fire beacons, a medieval system of instant communication in which Constantinople could be alerted to Arab incursions at the border in only 1 hour. This was of course the inspiration behind the same technology in the Lord of the Rings. This cultural flourishing under Theophilos can be seen as a foreshadowing of the Macedonian Renaissance. In domestic affairs, Theophilles gained a reputation as an emperor who was concerned with the impartial administration of justice. He often attended the law courts to ensure that verdicts were fair. Theophilus even executed the men who had been responsible for the murder of Leo V. Leo had been his godfather, but it was precisely this murder that had brought his father to power. Therefore, the punishment of these assassins was a sign of the emperor's just character. What about foreign affairs? In 8:30, the Muslims invaded Asia Minor, but Theophilos succeeded in defeating and repelling them. Then the emperor raided Arab- held territory in Silicia and returned to the capital to celebrate a triumph. Meanwhile, beyond imperial borders in what is now Azerbaijan, the caliphate was struggling to suppress the Kuramites. The Kuramites were a rebel group of Iranians whose religion was a mix of folk Zoroastrianism and Islam. In 834, tens of thousands of them immigrated to the Roman Empire. There, these battleh hardened refugees converted to Christianity and were taken on as auxiliaries in the imperial army eager to fight the caliphate. In 837, Theophilos with his new allies raided deep beyond the border. Returning home, he celebrated another triumph. This enraged the caiff. In 838, he planned to retaliate with a massive invasion of Anatolia. His goal was to target Ankaira and Amoron, two of the most important cities in central Asia Minor. In particular, Amoran held symbolic significance. It was both the capital of the Anatolican and the origin of the Amorian dynasty. The main force led by the caiff himself was to march through the Silician gates and approach from the south. Another army would approach from the north. Theophilos confronted this second force at the battle of Dazzon. The Romans were initially successful, but the tide of battle suddenly changed and they were defeated. The emperor barely made it out alive. Following this battle, Al-Mutasim proceeded to brutally sack Anyra and Amoron. After this, the caiff disengaged from the Roman front and returned home to deal with the rebellion. The whole campaign was a disaster for Theopoulos and it severely damaged his legitimacy. Amoron, a once great city, was ruined and deserted for a generation. Among other atrocities, Al-Mutsim hauled away thousands of captives. These included 42 soldiers who were later martyed for refusing to convert to Islam. The church remembers these men as the 42 martyrs of Amoron, and their feast day is on March 6th. Theopoulos reigned for a few more years and then died in 842. He was succeeded by his young son Michael III with Theodora as the boy's regent. How should we rank Theophilos? From an administrative perspective, I think he was pretty good. His military record is more mixed, but overall he seems to have been pretty competent. The sack of Amoron was a disaster, but prior to that he had achieved several victories on the battlefield. Theopoulos was a fierce iconoclast and for this I can't rank him very highly, but he also had a lot of good qualities. It's a hard decision, but I will put Theopoulos in the C tier. Thus far, with few exceptions, I've usually put heretics in the D tier or lower. So, it might seem strange that I rate him so highly. This is for a few reasons. First of all, he was apparently a very just and cultured emperor, and I appreciate his contribution to the hymn of Casani. Regarding his iconoclasm, this was bad, but his father was an iconoclast, too. So, for that, I'll give him some grace. Also, it was through his wife that the heresy of iconoclasm was eventually defeated. Thus, although it was almost certainly unintentional, Theophilos played a huge role in defeating that heresy. In fact, he unintentionally helped destroy iconoclasm in more ways than one. It's noteworthy that during his reign, the Romans suffered a major defeat against the Arabs. The sack of Amoron seems to have broken the spell of Leo and Constantine, proving once and for all that iconoclasm was not a guarantee of military victory. It's worth mentioning that when Theodora restored the icons, she made a point not to tarnish the memory of her late husband. She even claimed that he had a deathbed repentance. Of course, we can't know if this is true, and personally, I'm a little skeptical of it myself, but presumably she would have been in a good place to know for sure. Simply out of respect for St. Theodora, I won't trash the too hard. As a side note, since Theophilos was the last iconic last emperor, he was effectively the last heretical emperor. The major internal theological controversies were over with few exceptions. For the rest of the empire's history, the emperors would be Orthodox. In the twilight years of Byzantine history, a few of the emperors will tragically fall into apostasy and becomes, but that's not for another several centuries. Michael III. Michael was the son of Theophilos and Theodora. After his father's death, he became emperor, but he was only 2 years old. Therefore, the first part of his reign was under the supervision of a regency council led by his mother, Theodora. The new regime moved quickly to end iconoclasm once and for all. The old heretical patriarch John IIth was deposed and replaced with St. Methodius. Then in 843 Theodora called a small council in Constantinople. Hya and the council of 815 were condemned. Nika 2 was reaffirmed and the icons were restored. Thus ended the second phase of iconoclasm. A few days later on March 10th, St. Mthodius held an allight vigil at the berni church. The next day was the first Sunday of Great Lent. The patriarch and his entourage processed to the Agia Sophia with icons of Christ and the mother of God held high in triumph. Once there, they were joined by Theodora, Michael III, and the rest of the court. Like all other Roman triumphs, there were winners and losers. St. Nicaporos passed away back in 828, but after the restoration of icons, his incorrupt relics were brought back to Constantinople, where he was solemnly buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles. On the other hand, the heretical patriarch John IIIth was confined to a monastery cell whose ceiling had an image of Christ that stared at him sharply. To this day, the Orthodox Church celebrates this great victory along with the defeat of all other heresies every year on the first Sunday of Great Lent known as the triumph of orthodoxy. The Regency council that brought this about was as mentioned led by the Empress Theodora, but it also consisted of her brothers Bartis and Petronis, a close relative by the name of Sergius and an influential unic named Theoctistos. Partially for these efforts, Sergius, Theoctis, and of course, Theodora herself are all canonized saints of the church. Tragically, as we will see, this star-studded Regency council was eventually torn apart by infighting and discord, but more on that later. At this time, the caliphate was beginning to disintegrate. As it became more decentralized, many of its regional governors were becoming quasi autonomous or founding separate dynasties. Facing everpresent rebellions, the Abvisid caiffs weren't in a position to directly harass the Romans. The threats to the empire now came from these smaller regional Islamic powers. This took some pressure off the Romans, but the Arabs were still able to put up a fight. In 843, the Aglabids in Sicily captured Msina. From there, they began to exert their strength in southern Italy, and the Romans were effectively cut off from the western Mediterranean. Islamic troops raided Calabria and intervened in Italian politics. Muslim troops briefly occupied Toronto and Bari. In 846, they even managed to raid the suburbs of Rome. Meanwhile, the Muslims on Cree made a habit of raiding the Aian. Living on the islands or on the coasts was now a dangerous gambit and many Romans moved further inland for safety. This of course damaged the economy and the reconquest of Cree became a top priority for Constantinople. In 843, Theoctistos attempted to do just that. He and Sergius sailed to Cree. The campaign was initially successful, but for reasons that remain unclear, it was called off prematurely and Theoctistos returned to Constantinople. Sergius, however, remained in Cree. When the Roman forces were defeated later that year, he perished with them. The Romans would eventually retake Cree, but it wouldn't be for another century. In the meantime, it would be a thorn in Constantinople's side. In the east, the greatest threat to the empire was Umar Alaka, the quasi autonomous Amir of Melatine. In 844, he raided Anatolia as far as Malaga. Theoctistos again took personal command of the troops and confronted the Amir, but he was badly defeated. Although he personally led the troops in this engagement, Theoctistos blamed Bartis for the military failure. Bartis and his brother Petronis were sidelined from the regency and exiled from Constantinople. With them out of the picture, Theoctistos became Theodora's chief adviser. This understandably made Bartis and Petronis deeply resentful of Theoctistos. From the shadows, they started to plan how and when to take their revenge. Now let's examine the regency of Theodora and Theoctistos. In the mid840s, Theodora cracked down on the Polician heretics of Asia Minor. Many were executed and their properties were confiscated. Most secular historians view this as the worst thing that Theodora's regency did. This is understandable seeing as how modern people are wedded to the doctrine of religious liberty. But as I've argued elsewhere, heretics don't have a right to worship as they please. You could argue that these specific policies were unnecessarily harsh or counterproductive, but in principle, it isn't morally evil to persecute heretics. In any case, it probably was imprudent because thousands of Policians chose to rebel. They settled in a fort on the border with Armenia and from there they joined the Muslims in raiding Roman territory. In spite of these troubles and the mixed military record of Theoctistos, Theodora and her chief unic governed well. All things considered, the empire was relatively stable in this period and the Romans were increasingly bringing the fight to the enemy. In the 850s, for example, Imperial fleets twice raided Damietta, an Arab military depot on the Nile Delta. You may be wondering, what was Michael doing this whole time? The emperor was now about 15 years old, nearly old enough to reign on his own. But it doesn't seem that he had much interest in governing the empire. Having reached adolescence, it was increasingly clear that Michael was a degenerate young man interested more in wine, women, and song than statecraft. The young emperor began to have a relationship with a certain woman named Udokia and Garina. Theodora and Theoistos didn't approve of her whatsoever and absolutely forbade the couple from marrying. This may have been because she came from an iconoclastic family. Instead, they arranged for Michael to marry another Udokia, surnamed Decapolitusa. Michael reluctantly married her, but continued his affair with Ingarina. Presumably, this made Michael deeply resentful at his mother and her adviser. This was precisely the opportunity that Bartis and Petronis had been waiting for. At this point, Bartis stepped in and began to stoke Michael's resentment. In 855, Michael and Bartis conspired to assassinate St. Theistos. In the following year, Michael deposed Theodora and sent her to a monastery where she retired in peace. Bartis was now the power behind the throne, the deacto regent for the dissolute young emperor. Michael officially elevated his uncle to the rank of Caesar in 862. Although the emperor showed little interest in administration, this was fine because Bartis and Petronis proved to be capable statesmen. Under their guidance, the balance of power on the Eastern front shifted in favor of the Romans. From 855 to 856, Petronis raided Silicia and made it as far as Mesopotamia. Michael might not have been interested in government, but apparently he engaged in at least one campaign and he proved to be a decent general. In 859, Michael personally led a siege of Samosata. Interestingly, the emperor had to abandon the campaign and returned to Constantinople when he received news that the Roose were attacking Constantinople. They didn't besiege the capital, but they engaged in some devastating raids before leaving of their own valition. In response to the aforementioned Roman incursions, Umar and his Polician allies raided Roman territory. On one occasion in 863, the Amir made it as far as the Black Sea coast where he sacked the city of Amisos. But the Romans responded quickly and effectively. On September 3rd, Michael and Petronis confronted the Arabs and decimated them at the battle of Posan. The Amir and the leader of the Polician sect were killed in the fighting. This victory was a decisive turning point for the Romans. Now, let's turn our attention to the church. Michael sponsored the missions of Saints Sirill and Methodius to the Slavs. In 864, St. Boris I, the king of Bulgaria, converted to Christianity. When he was received into the church, Michael was chosen as his godfather. Crucially, Boris and his people would be baptized by Eastern missionaries from Constantinople as opposed to Western ones from Rome or Frankia. Although the Great Schism was still a couple hundred years off, the differences between Eastern and Western Christendom were already noticeable and significant. The last few years of Michael's reign was dominated by the so-called Fodian schism between Rome and Constantinople. This was a matter of huge importance, but I won't go into that right now. Stick around to the end of this video if you want to learn more about that. Back in Constantinople, the soap opera drama of Michael's court wasn't over yet. Petronis died soon after his victory at the Battle of Posan. At some point, Michael took a man named Basil the Macedonian as his chamberlain. Basil was an ambitious young man who had risen from humble origins. Now he was at the precipice of imperial power. There could only be one emperor, and Basil had his eyes set on the throne. He immediately began to conspire against Caesar Bardis, the main obstacle between him and ultimate power. By 866, he had convinced Michael to turn against his uncle. In that year, Basil brutally assassinated Bardis on the pretext that he was conspiring against the emperor. Meanwhile, Michael was still continuing his affair with Ingarina. Around this time, it was discovered that she was pregnant. She gave birth to a baby boy, the future Emperor Leo V 6th. The true parentage of Leo is one of the biggest mysteries of Byzantine history. We really don't know who the father was, but I tend to think it was Michael. It seems like Michael wanted to continue his affair with Ingarina and legitimize his son, but he didn't want the public scandal that would come from divorcing his wife. Therefore, he married Ingerina to Basil, adopted him as his son, and named him co-emperor. Basil had been married before this, so he had to divorce his first wife. In return for his use of Ingerina, Michael gave his own eldest sister, Thela, to Basil as a mistress. Thea had previously been living as a nun, so she was forced to renounce her monastic vows to engage in this illicit political affair. Now Basil was the clear air parent and there was no reason to keep the do nothing degenerate emperor alive. In 867 Michael was brutally assassinated in his bedroom and Basil was acclaimed as emperor in his place. Thus ended the Amorian dynasty. How should we rank Michael III? At first glance he comes across as a dissolute playboy emperor. But is that an accurate portrayal? Historians have long suspected that this negative image of Michael III is the product of historical propaganda by the Macedonian dynasty. In order to justify Basil's murder of Michael, it was necessary to make him as unsympathetic and incompetent as possible, hence his nickname, the drunkard. So, is there any truth behind these lurid tales of palace hy jinks? It's hard to say. I'm inclined to think there's some truth to the rumors, even if it is exaggerated. On the other hand, many scholars dispute the extent of Michael's alleged debauchery. So maybe he wasn't so bad after all. Setting aside his moral character for a moment, Michael doesn't come across as a totally incompetent emperor. In fact, his reign was marked by considerable military success and great cultural flowering. He seems to have taken at least some interest in the military and occasionally joined in on campaigns. Under Michael's reign, the Roman Empire was gradually coming out of its long slump and reasserting itself on the world stage. Some have marked this period as the beginning of the Macedonian Renaissance. Surely a lot of the credit for these achievements has to go to his adviserss, not to Michael himself. On the other hand, surrounding yourself with good subordinates is one of the most important jobs an emperor has, and it's difficult to judge an emperor separate from his court. Theodora, Theoctistos, Bartis, and Petronis were all capable administrators. Even if they sometimes fought among themselves, they all had the best interests of Michael and the Empire in mind. This was true until Basil came into the picture. There's no question that Basil was competent, but he was far more ambitious and self-interested. The promotion of Basil, even after he slew Michael's uncle, Bardis, was a deeply naive thing to do. Because of this naivee, Michael was himself betrayed and murdered in cold blood. Maybe Michael was a naive, degenerate playboy emperor, but he left the empire in a considerably stronger state than he inherited it. More importantly, while he certainly doesn't come across as a pious man, he was at least nominally orthodox. Because of his faith, he was able to secure the conversion of Bulgaria. This was a monumental achievement, one of the greatest legacies of Bzantium to the modern world. Michael is a great example of how Orthodox monarchy, even if the king is a bad man, is preferable to any other system. Despite his personal sinfulness, his efforts were instrumental to the salvation of an entire nation. We should also remember that second iconoclasm ended at the start of his reign. However, this accomplishment should not be credited to Michael since he was only an infant. Instead, the credit should go to his Regency council which included no less than three canonized saints. I find that Michael is very difficult to rank. In part because so much about him is shrouded in mystery and propaganda. If I were to judge him solely on his moral character, I would have to rank him quite low. But taking into consideration his other accomplishments alongside the fact that he was a victim of slander, I shouldn't be too harsh either. At the end of the day, this might be unfair, or maybe it's too generous, but I will cautiously choose to place Michael III in the C tier. Normally, I would close out my video here since the death of Michael III marks the end of the Amorian dynasty, but this time I have more to say. I would be remiss if I neglected to talk about the so-called Fodian schism. Properly speaking, this schism began in 863 and it ended just after the death of Emperor Michael III in 867, but the underlying issues weren't finally resolved until an ecumenical council was called in 880, well into the reign of Basil I. Since this controversy overlaps the reign of two different emperors of two distinct dynasties, I was originally unsure of how to cover it. Rather than split the baby, I've decided to cover the whole controversy here. Before closing out, I'll give a detailed summary of the Fodian schism and its aftermath. In my next video on the Macedonian dynasty, I'll discuss the ecclesiastical events of Basil's reign as they happen, but not with the same attention to detail since much of that will be covered here. Why cover this obscure ecclesiastical dispute at all? In my view, the events of the Fodian schism mark a crucial milestone in the history of the papacy. Understanding this history is highly relevant for anyone who's interested in the great schism, Catholic Orthodox relations, papal supremacy, the filioquay, and other related issues. Finally, it goes without saying that these theological questions are highly intertwined with politics. As Francis Devorick said, the Fodian case is not merely a matter of Byzantine interest. It concerns the history of Christianity and of the world. As the appraisement of Fodius and his work lies at the core of the controversies that separate the Eastern and the Western churches. This channel isn't strictly a theological channel, but these theological developments are highly relevant because they have massive ramifications for the subsequent history of medieval christrysendom. In order to understand the origins of this conflict, we briefly need to review the ecclesiastical situation in Constantinople during this period. Observant listeners will have picked up on a consistent theme going back to the end of first iconoclasm. The church was unofficially split between two factions which may be called the extremists and the moderates. Both of these groups were orthodox in their theology but they had different ideas about how to apply the cannons. Perhaps the first battle in this war was over the controversial remarage of Constantine V 6th in the late 8th century. These two camps locked horns multiple times over the next hundred years. Another example is the controversy between patriarch Nicaphoros and Theodore the Studite as well as the ongoing issue of how to receive repentant iconoclasts. In all these cases, the moderates showed more willingness to compromise to apply the principle of economia in an effort to maintain the peace of the church. The extremists were significantly more rigorous in their application of the cannons and they tended to view the moderates as lukewarm compromisers. The moderates were generally more educated and found themselves entrenched in powerful institutions whereas the extremists were more dismissive of classical education and more concentrated in the monasteries. Again, it should be emphasized that both of these groups were orthodox and each side included a number of saints. For example, St. Theodore the Studite was a quintessential extremist whereas St. Nick Foros was a textbook moderate. Despite their earlier tensions, these men nevertheless put aside their differences and joined sides when Emperor Leo V started making iconoclast moves. In 847, St. Methodius passed away. He was the patriarch of Constantinople who together with St. Theodora ended the second phase of iconoclasm. Theodora immediately replaced him with a new bishop. His name was Ignatius. You'll recall that he was the castrated son of Emperor Michael I. Ignatius was a member of the extremist faction. According to Anthony Caldellis, Theodora seems to have appointed him without the convocation of a cinnid. So his election could be challenged as unconical. In any case, he seems to have been accepted and there were no real issues at this point. Skipping forward about a decade, Theoctistos was murdered in 855 and Theodora was removed from power in 856. The downfall of Theoctistos and Theodora was effectively a regime change. The new regime led by Bardis immediately came into conflict with St. Ignatius. What was the cause of this tension between the court and the patriarch? Some say Ignatius angered Bartis by rebuking him and withholding communion for his alleged incest with his daughter-in-law. Others say Ignatius garnered the court's ire because he didn't approve of the exile and taur of Theodora. Regardless of the real reason, the bottom line is that Bartis despised St. Ignatius and sought to replace him with somebody else. In 857, Bartis exiled Ignatius on trumped up charges of treason. In the following year, he received the patriarch's resignation, likely under pressure. As Francis Devorick says, we may then conclude with confidence that Ignatius was not deposed by force, but that he abdicated to forestall worse complications. His abdication was made at the request of the new regime. It is true, but it was acknowledged as valid and canonical by all the members of the higher clergy gathered in Constantinople, including Ignatius's staunchest supporters. Ignatius himself invited his followers to accept the situation and to proceed to elect the new patriarch. In 858, the Senate elected Fodius. He was the preferred candidate of the court, but he was also seen as a neutral compromise choice. At first, Fodius had overwhelming support even from the partisans of Ignatius. This was for three main reasons. Although he sympathized with the moderate party, he was a layman with no involvement in ecclesiastical politics. Secondly, his orthodoxy was above suspicion. Finally, he was related to the now deposed Empress Theodora. This gave the extremists hope that he wouldn't be overzealous in support of the new regime. Fodius was quickly rushed through the ranks in about a week. On Christmas Day in 858, Constantinople had a new patriarch. Upon his consecration, Bodus made a solemn oath to do no harm to the memory of St. Ignatius and his supporters. To some, it might be surprising to hear that a layman was chosen to be patriarch. However, it should be noted that even if this violated the usual practice, it wasn't unprecedented. St. Ambrose, St. Terasius, and St. Nicaphoros had all been rushed through the ranks in a similar process. In fact, St. Ambrose started off as a catechuman. Bodius hailed from the upper nobility of Constantinople. His parents had suffered as confessors under iconoclasm and his uncle was the aforementioned patriarch Terasius. As a boy, Fodius received an excellent classical education. Although interested in monasticism, he chose a career of statesmanship. Prior to his election as patriarch, he was an accomplished diplomat and a leading figure at the imperial court. He was also a scholar, a true polymath, arguably one of the most brilliant men of the 9th century. As mentioned, upon his consecration, Podius was accepted by the majority of the bishops. For a time, it seemed like the church was at peace. This peace only lasted about 2 months. What was the cause of this discord? It seems that this outbreak of hostilities stemmed from a disagreement over the promise that Fodius had made to the extremist faction. To Fodius, the promise entailed that Ignatius had to be treated as the former patriarch, living with full Episcopal honors and a dignified retirement, and that all accusations of political intrigue should cease. The extremist party read too much into the promise. Apparently, they interpreted the promise to mean Fodius would follow the former patriarch's policies in all things, effectively acting as a puppet. When these unreasonable demands were not met, they accused Fodiius of reneggging on his oath. They gathered in the church of St. Irene, proclaimed Ignatius the legitimate patriarch, and forth with excommunicated Fodius. Thus, the conflict was provoked by the extremists, not by Fodius. To respond to this agitation, the patriarch called a Senate in 859. It was declared that Ignatius having resigned his sea was no longer patriarch and the new nomination by the extremists was null and void. It should be noted that St. Ignatius was not involved in this rebellion but rather certain radical men who claimed to be his followers. Unfortunately, the Senate wasn't successful in quelling the rebellious extremists, and the government found it necessary to engage in a severe crackdown on its most outspoken elements. For his part, Vodius pleaded with Bartis to stop the persecution. Bodus further complains that half of his jurisdiction is gone, a clear reference to the refractory bishops meeting at St. tyne and adds as a thinly veiled threat of resignation that he would rather lose the whole of it. Hearing of this turmoil, Pope Nicholas demanded a council to review the case of Ignatius. Papal liates were sent to Constantinople to sit in on the proceedings. After the council, the legates were instructed to report back to Rome so the pope could make a final decision himself. As Anthony Keelis points out, this was alarming to the bishops of the East. Constantinople must have wondered where the pope was deriving these newfound powers to personally arbitrate all disputes in the Christian world. Rome justified this interference in part by pointing to cannons 3 through5 of the Council of Sardica which allowed for appeals to be made to Rome. But does this hold up to scrutiny? First of all, nobody had appealed to Rome in the first place. the pope was attempting to unilaterally interfere in the affairs of Constantinople. Secondly, the interpretation of the Sardican cannons is a matter of controversy. I won't get too far into the weeds on this, but suffice it to say that in the East, the Sardican cannons were generally interpreted as applying to the local jurisdiction of the West. Even assuming a universal interpretation of these cannons, this only made the Pope the highest court of appeals. It was always understood that an ecumenical council representing the consensus of the whole church could overturn such rulings. In other words, these appeals did not necessarily give the pope the final say on a disputed issue. The ecclesiology of the early church was thoroughly based on consensus. Furthermore, even if we assume a muscular interpretation of the Sardican cannons, Rome is only authorized by this cannon to grant a retrial if there is due cause to be held in the region adjoining that of the condemned bishop. By demanding a retrial after the council of 861 and by holding it in Rome, Pope Nicholas far exceeded the limits of this cannon from the council of Sardica. In short, there was no precedent for the kind of papal prerogatives that Nicholas was claiming. In fact, the real justification for these novel papal powers was based on a set of forgeries, the pseudoidorian decreedles. It appears that Pope Nicholas was the first to weaponize these forgeries to assert claims of universal jurisdiction over the church. At any rate, for the sake of good relations, Constantinople indulged Rome's demands for a council. Nevertheless, when the legates arrived, they insisted that the verdict on Ignatius would be pronounced at the council, not referred back to the pope as Nicholas wanted. The council met in Constantinople in 861. The bishops present ratified the deposition of Ignatius and the appointment of Fodius. Even the papal legates agreed to this conclusion. The news was brought back to Rome along with a differential letter from St. Fodius. The partisans of Ignatius were in fact a small if rowdy minority. Vodius was widely accepted in Constantinople even by the liates. Constantinople had viewed the issue as settled by their own local cinnid. So it was a great concession to Rome that they even held this council in the first place. Clearly Fodius wasn't looking to start a conflict and this should have been the end of the controversy. At first, it appears as if Nicholas was satisfied with the conclusions reached at the council of 861. Sure, he had wanted the retrial of Ignatius to occur in Rome, but his legates had successfully asserted themselves, thus elevating the Pope's prestige. There was one problem, however. Nicholas had also commissioned his legates to demand the return of the territories of Sicily, Calabria, and Ayum to the direct jurisdiction of Rome. In this, the legates had nothing to show for themselves. The issue doesn't even appear to have been discussed in the minutes of the council. I've neglected to mention it previously, but this territorial dispute was one of Rome's long-standing complaints against Constantinople. The churches of Ayuricum, Sicily, and Calabria had from ancient times been under papal jurisdiction. Ever since the 4th century, Ayum had looked toward Constantinople instead of Rome due to proximity and geopolitical reality. It was an established principle that the organization of the church should mirror that of the state. By this standard, the Yrian churches belonged to Constantinople. Regarding Sicily and southern Italy, these had been reinccorporated into the empire in the days of Justinian and eventually they too fell under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. This territorial dispute would otherwise be relatively insignificant, but it was suddenly more pressing now that Bulgaria was on the verge of converting to Christianity. Since the Bulgarian Empire overlapped with much of that former dascese, control over a lyricum denoted control over the emerging Bulgarian church. In 862, Nicholas sent a pair of letters to the patriarch and the emperor wherein he declined to accept Bodus as legitimate. Apparently, the pope was still of the mindset that the deposition of Ignatius had been unjust. In his correspondence, Nicholas gave a qualified refusal. He suggested that he wouldn't recognize Fodius unless and until better evidence came forward. Clearly, the subtext was a territorial quidd proquo. I will recognize Fodius if you hand over a lyricum. To the Byzantines, this was unacceptable. Bulgaria was on the very doorstep of Constantinople. It was nothing less than a matter of national security. The Bulgarians could not be allowed to fall under the cultural and political influence of foreign powers, be it the Franks or the papacy. Neither Fodius nor Michael replied to the Pope's letters. As D'vorick points out, this was the only thing they could do. Unable to pay the price the pope expected, their most discreet policy was to wait till the Pope changed his mind rather than start a quarrel which would have gravely compromised the good relations between the two churches. Once again, the Pope was pushing Constantinople's buttons. The East was patiently being diplomatic, not looking for a fight. The plot thickened when some of the extremists reached the Lateran Palace. These radical supporters of Ignatius were hoping to influence Nicholas. One of them was a mischievous monk named Theagnostos, a man who, let's just say, had a loose relationship with the truth. In the presence of the Pope, Theoggnostos spun gruesome tales of persecution and torture. He claimed that Ignatius had been repeatedly arrested and beaten and that all of this had been orchestrated by Fodius in an effort to force the abdication of the former patriarch. Fodius was slandered as a Mchavellian usurper. Of course, this was all a load of rubbish. Incredibly, this false narrative was accepted in Rome and it contributed to the growing hostilities with Constantinople. Worse, this dark portrait of Fodius has persisted in the Latin West to this day. The entry about Phodias in the Catholic Encyclopedia written by Adrien Foriscu in 1911 says, among other things, that he was a great man with one blot on his character, his insatiable and unscrupulous ambition. Only in the last century has Fodius been vindicated by some western scholars like Francis D'vorick. But given how widespread this slander is, I think it's worth addressing it before moving on. As we saw, Ignatius abdicated under pressure. But he wasn't tortured. Even if he was reluctant, it appears that he legitimately chose to step aside. Far from coveting the patriarchal throne, the letters of Fodius reveal that he was only elevated against his wishes. In his correspondence with Pope Nicholas, Vodius stated that he would have preferred to stay with his books and his eager pupils, but had agreed to become patriarch in obedience to the will of God, who was thus punishing him for his transgressions. In another epistle to Bardis, Bodius complained again that he was forced by Bardis to take the sea against his will. A few years later, in another letter to Nicholas, Vodius says, "I left a peaceful life. I left a calm filled with sweetness. I left my favorite tranquility." He then goes on to describe his life before becoming patriarch in moving terms before concluding who after such a life would tolerate seeing it overthrown and would not lament. It is all these that I have left, all these that I cry for, whose privation has made me shed streams of tears and has enveloped me in a fog of sadness. When the government cracked down on the radical followers of the expatriarch, Fodius expressed his disapproval and even threatened to resign over it. This is not the behavior of a power- hungry man. The slander that Fodius was a usurper relies on the assumption that he and Ignatius were bitter enemies. This will become obvious later on, but Fodius and Ignatius were not enemies. Ignatius would become patriarch again. During that period, the two men would reconcile. Not only that, they became good friends. Ignatius actually designated Fodius as his successor. When Ignatius fell ill, Fodius ministered to him. After his death, Fodius successfully lobbied for his canonization. The conflict was not between Fodius and Ignatius. Rather, the conflict was between Fodius and the government on one side against a radical fringe of Ignatius's supporters on the other. All that to say, St. Fodius was not a power-hungry usurper. As I said, Nicholas appears to have bought the false narrative about Fodius. This would explain his next moves. However, there may have been other motivations, too. As Anthony Calaldis suggests, it's possible that Nicholas had come to an agreement with the followers of Ignatius that their man would restore Airaum to the papacy in exchange for his reinstatement. He may have also been looking for an opportunity to assert himself over the church of Constantinople. Whatever his reasons, it's clear that by 863, Nicholas had decided it was time to turn up the pressure. In that year, the pope convened a council in Rome that declared in favor of Ignatius. As for the legates who had attended the council of 861, they were deposed. Nicholas also deposed and excommunicated Fodius. Thus, the Fodian schism began. As we've seen, Constantinople wasn't looking for a fight. The Pope had been agitating for this fight all along. Rome was clearly the aggressor. From the perspective of the East, Nicholas was trying to depose a patriarch on his own authority, citing not a heresy, but newfangled procedural rules amplified by a fantastic theory of papal supremacy. As Father John Strickland points out, calling this schism Fodian reveals the bias of many scholars who uncritically and sometimes unwittingly accept the western point of view, wherein St. Fodius is framed as the one who agitated this conflict as a usurper and a schismatic. As he argues, this schism should instead be referred to as the Nicicolean schism. Anyways, Constantinople ignored the fulminations of Pope Nicholas. Clearly, papal supremacy was not recognized by the East. By this point, Fodius had been patriarch of Constantinople for 5 years. He wasn't going anywhere. Regardless of what Nicholas proclaimed from Rome, the evangelization of Bulgaria only added to these tensions. During this period, Frankish and Greek missionaries were competing to win Bulgaria's King Boris over to their side. It was through this contact with the Franks who espoused the Filioquay that this issue first came to the attention of many in Constantinople. In 864, St. Boris was baptized by Greek missionaries, a major win for the Byzantines. Nevertheless, Boris continued to keep his options open, attempting to play both sides off each other in order to achieve the best deal for his people. In particular, he maintained a correspondence with the Pope. In 866, Boris kicked out the Greek missionaries and Bulgaria shifted its orientation to Rome. Nicholas was elated. He sent Boris a long letter in which he advised the Bulgarian king to ignore the Greeks and insulted St. Fodius as a viper and a Jew. Thankfully, this was only a temporary reorientation as Bulgaria would return to the Orthodox orbit by 870, where it remains to this day. During the Nicicolean schism, Emperor Michael III wrote a strongly worded letter to the Pope. We don't know exactly what he said because the letter is lost to history. We only know of it from Nicholas's long response in 865. Based on the available evidence, it seems that Michael repudiated the papal council of 863 reminded Nicholas that the council of 861 was called as a courtesy to Rome and he refuted papal supremacy. The papal response ostensibly written by Pope Nicholas was actually written by Anastasis the Librarian. Who was Anastasis the Librarian? It's worth taking a few minutes to unpack this obscure figure. According to Craig Truglia, Anastas is perhaps the least known figure of macrohistorical importance there is. We don't know much about his early life, but he was ethnically Frankish. He apparently lived in Italy and he was very well educated. Politically, he was allied with Louis II, the Carolian king of Italy and so-called emperor of the Romans. Louie was himself a great grandson of Charlemagne. The kingdom of Italy which he ruled was one of the Carolinian splinter states of the 9th century. In 855, Pope Leo IV died and there was a disputed papal election. Louis's preferred candidate was none other than Anastasia and he managed to briefly force him onto the throne. However, the papacy of Anastasia was doomed to be short-lived. He was quickly expelled by the local Roman nobility in favor of Pope Benedict III. To this day, Anastasis is not listed among the popes. Instead, he is regarded as an anti-popee. Anyways, Benedict died in 858 and there was another papal election. Louie leveraged his influence and effectively managed to appoint Nicholas as the next pope. Not coincidentally, Anastasis was let back into Rome. By 865, he had climbed the ladder to become the pope's secretary. In this role, he was highly influential. According to Anastasius himself, he had written almost all of the correspondence in relation to Fodius and Michael III. Anastas apparently had a blank check to act in the Pope's name, at least in foreign correspondence. You might be wondering, who cares? Why am I boring you with all these details about an obscure secretary? Because Anastasis was a hardcore papalist. Even Frankish bishops complained that Nicholas or more accurately Anastasis was making himself emperor of the whole world. Such impressions about a pope are unknown to history. There was certainly something different coming from Anastasia's pen and Nicholas's chancery. The world took notice. Unsurprisingly, Anastas hated the true Roman Empire, which of course was based in Constantinople. According to Calaldis, Anastasis did more than anyone else to poison the West's view of the Eastern Empire. Regarding the letter he wrote to Michael III in 865, Caldelis says, "This pmical letter proved to be influential. It contains a long defense of papal supremacy and tries to score points against the Greeks along the way. Nicholas claims that Michael insulted Latin as a barbarous and cythian tongue, which has been taken by modern scholars as a sign that Constantinople was leaving its Latin past behind. But the emperor was probably referring only to the vulgarization of contemporary Roman Latin, which made it difficult to translate in Constantinople. Anastasis distorted the text to wax indignant and demanded that Michael cease calling himself the emperor of the Romans as the Greeks spoke no Latin at all. He rubs it in that the Greeks had lost Cree Sicily and other provinces. Above all he avers the power of Rome over all the churches is rooted in Christ not in any council. So the emperor has no authority to resist it. The pope was the ruler of the world. As Devoric says, Anastas's letter of 865 was one of the most important documents in the evolution of the papacy. From the 11th century onward, it has been exploited to the utmost by the canonists of the Gregorian and post Gregorian periods. This is not the time or the place to do a deep dive on Anastasia, but suffice it to say, he fundamentally transformed the papacy from the institution it was in the first millennium into the institution we see today. He effectively controlled three subsequent popes and from his pen specifically, he introduced at least five important reforms to the self-consciousness of the Roman church. Let's briefly go over them. First of all, Anastasia mainstreamed the aforementioned pseudoisidorian decreedles. The decreedles originated in Frankia as an attempt to shield local bishops from the power of kings. But Anastasia leveraged them to assert a universal jurisdiction for Rome. In fact, he quoted from these forgeries 40 times in his correspondence with Michael and Fodius. Secondly, he inserted papal prerogatives into the minutes of Nika 2 that are not found in the Greek. Third, he altered the formula of Pope Adrien II. This was the libellis that was signed by the bishops at the council of Constantinople 869 to 870. I'll briefly touch on this later, but for now, suffice it to say there's convincing evidence that Anastasia tampered with the Latin version, inserting high papalist rhetoric that does not appear in the Greek. Fourth, Anastas completely transformed the western understanding of canon law. Previously, Rome treated discordant cannons according to the principle of economia. A good example of this is the qualified manner in which Rome received the cannons of Trulo. According to Anastasis, however, cannons can simply be vetoed by papal whim. Finally, Anastasis was the first person to propose the idea of papal infallibility. In 874, Anastas wrote a letter to John the Deacon. This epistle is full of bizarre ad hoc arguments in defense of Henorius, the pope who is anathematized by the sixth ecumenical council. Perhaps Henorius was not argumentatively obstinate in his heresy and therefore not a true heretic. Another possibility was that John the Counselor, the Pope's scribe, was the true author and may have entered these statements out of hatred towards the Pope. It is also possible that John the counselor may have not made enough attempts to correct him or argue back, thereby testing how devoted to the arguments Henorius was, so that we should give the benefit of the doubt to the latter. Anastasis went as far as to cite Luke 6:37 and warned against judging people. In short, he was arguing that even Hanorius did not teach heresy, that the papacy at no time had any trace of the serpent. It should be emphasized that these kinds of intellectual gymnastics were unprecedented. Prior to Anastasis, the condemnation of Henorius was unproatic because everyone assumed popes could teach heresy. To get around the council's anathema, he also proposed a radically new epistemology, whereby only selective parts of ecumenical councils were infallible. Based on those parts, the pope accepted. Again, this video is not about Anastasian. So, as fascinating as this subject is, I can't dwell on it too long. Just trust me when I say this is only the tip of the iceberg. If you want to learn more, I highly recommend you read The Rise and Fall of the Papacy by Craig Truglia. If you don't care for reading, check out the video I've linked above. In summary, if one is looking for a specific origin for the underlying basis of papal supremacy and the papacy of Vatican 1, the papal chanceries during the career of Anastasia the Librarian certainly are it. The fact that one struggles to find a manifestation of papal supremacy in any historical circumstance before this point or even nominal textual claims to it is telling. One scholar's evaluation of Anastasis as the architect and promoter of the papal claims is justified. The innovative ecclesiology of Anastasis was not immediately accepted in the west, but he laid the groundwork for the reforms of the 11th century. By the time of Pope Gregory IIIth, the views of Anastasis were effectively taken for granted. The Gregorian reforms could be framed as a conservative restoration of papal prerogatives when in fact it was a revolution. Carl Benz, the inventor of the automobile, is eclipsed by Henry Ford because the latter made the same invention ubiquitous. If Anastasis is Carl Benz, then Pope Gregory VIIIth is the Vatican 1 papacy's Henry Ford. Anyways, let's return to our narrative. As we've seen, the East had been nothing but consiliatory with Rome every step of the way until 863 when Nicholas had the audacity to depose and excommunicate Fodias. The West had started this fight and there was no longer any point in being friendly. St. Podius was well aware of the Frankish missionaries in Bulgaria and their use of the filioquay. He was also aware that certain western bishops were unhappy with Nicholas. Some of these had even appealed to him for intervention. In 865, St. Fodius finally struck back. He composed an encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs, denouncing certain Western practices and condemning the Filioquay addition to the creed. At this time, Rome had still not yet added the filiokequay to their creed. But it's reasonable to assume that Nicholas believed in it. Why do I say this? Because when the pope learned about Fodius's encyclical, he appealed to his Frankish allies to defend the double procession. This was an ecclesiastical call to arms. In the summer of 867, Michael III called a council in Constantinople, which was chaired by St. Phodias. Apparently, it was meant to be an ecumenical council because it had representation from the four eastern patriarchs. Unfortunately, the acts were later destroyed. So, we don't have a complete knowledge of what happened. According to the sources, there were a thousand bishops in attendance. That number might be an exaggeration, but there's no doubt it was a massive council. They condemned all heresies and made a special point to condemn iconoclasm. Additionally, they anathematized, deposed, and excommunicated Pope Nicholas for his attempts to intervene unilaterally in the affairs of Constantinople. Papal supremacy was dealt a massive blow. It also seems that the Filioquay was condemned at this senate. Interestingly, the council fathers also conferred the title of emperor on Louis II of Italy. As Anthony Calaldis points out, this was probably done in the hope that he would enforce the deposition of the pope. Relations between Nicholas and Louie had not always been cordial. But if the council fathers were hoping that Louie would intervene, this was naive. Recall that through Anastasis, Louie had tremendous influence over papal policy. In other words, it's safe to assume that Rome's confrontational attitude toward Constantinople was absolutely in keeping with Louis's desire. As tensions were reaching a crescendo between Rome and Constantinople, the situation at court was changing dramatically. Bartis was murdered in 866 and Basil was elevated to the rank of co-emperor. Michael and Basil oversaw the anti-papal council of 867. But just a few months later, Michael was murdered and Basil became the sole Roman emperor. Having usurped the throne through a vicious act of reocide, Basil needed to shore up his legitimacy. In church affairs, it was only natural that he chose to ally with the enemies of the former regime. The extremist faction hated Michael so they could form the basis of the new emperor's support in foreign relations. It just so happened that Basil was eager to strengthen his position in Italy. To do this, he would need to gain allies in the West. Owing to these political considerations, Basil sought to end the schism with Rome. Therefore, Basil deposed Bodus and reinstated Ignatius. Then he scrambled to recall the imperial envoys who were carrying the acts of the anti-papal council. Now let's turn our attention to Rome. In November of 867, Nicholas died. Thanks to the quick intervention of Basil, the pope passed away blissfully unaware of the council that had condemned him earlier that year because the news had not reached him yet. The new pope was Adrien II and he was elected without Frankish support. Louie would have none of that. Pope Adrien had a wife and a daughter. The pro-Imperial faction in Rome consisted of Anastasius, his uncle Arcenius, and his cousin Elutherius. In 868, these three hatched a conspiracy. The wife and daughter of the pope were abducted and then murdered. Elutherius did the dirty work and he was killed during the arrest. Anastasis was allegedly the ring leader. He and his uncle were excommunicated and driven from Rome. While in exile, they worked directly for Louis II and faced no punishment. Only a few months later, guess who was back in Rome? Restored to a position of influence in the papal chancery. None other than our old friend Anastasis the librarian. What a coincidence. There are two key takeaways from this episode. First, it further illustrates who Anastasis was. In addition to being an antipope, a liar who forged documents, and a man who revolutionized the papacy, he was also a thug. He was essentially a 9th century mafioso. Secondly, it proves that Adrien II was just as much under the influence of Louis II as his predecessor had been. Adrien may not have been selected by Louie, but through Anastasius, the new pope, was the emperor's puppet. At any rate, with Nicholas and Fodius out of the picture, the schism between Rome and Constantinople came to an end. As we'll see, however, Basil's ecclesiastical reorientation would not bring peace to the church of Constantinople. The so-called Fodian schism had left an open wound in the church, and there were plenty of loose ends to tie up. In 868, Basil announced the new imperial policy to Rome and requested that the Pope ratify it while he began making preparations for an ecumenical council in Constantinople. Pope Adrien was only too happy to lead the way. From his point of view, the policies of Nicholas had been thoroughly vindicated. Now, Constantinople was formally repenting and returning to Rome. However, as we'll see, Adrien was naive. He knew nothing about the political realities on the ground in Constantinople. As a result, he would completely fumble this. In 869, Adrien called a council in Rome which condemned Fodias and burned the acts of the council of 867. Strict terms were levied on Constantinople. The pope deposed all who had been ordained by Fodias. Regarding the upcoming council of Constantinople, the Pope demanded that his liates would preside. Even more humiliating, all eastern bishops would need to sign the pope's libellis in order to participate. This libellis was a legal document that confirmed the condemnation of Fodius and in the Latin version unambiguously affirms papal supremacy. Here is just one passage. We follow the apostolic sea in all things and observe all its decrees. We hope for the favor of enjoying the single communion that the apostolic sea proclaims in which is the complete and true totality of the Christian religion. As I alluded to earlier, this Latin translation was almost certainly forged by Anastasius the librarian as the Greek totally lacks this papalist rhetoric. that there was a forgery is nearly unavoidable when you compare the Greek against the Latin and when you consider the speirious textual history of the Latin version. There's so much more that could be said about this and I realize I'm only scratching the surface here. Again, if you want to learn more, I suggest you pick up Trugia's book for the purposes of this video. Suffice it to say that the libelli signed in Constantinople probably did not contain the high papalism that exists in the Latin. Still, the demand that the eastern bishops sign a lielis in order to participate in the council was unprecedented and insulting in and of itself. As D'vorick observes, the eastern bishops were after all given nothing to do in the council since the issue had been decided in advance in Rome and all they were asked to do was to sign the decree. A treatment humiliating for the Byzantines, which could and did make people say that Constantinople had been enslaved by Rome. Adrien was acting like a heavy-handed desperate. In doing so, he was alienating his allies in the East. In the Roman Council of 869, the Pope pronounced a harsh and uncompromising verdict. As mentioned, it appears that he expected the subsequent council in Constantinople to simply ratify his decision. In his severity, the Pope had gone far beyond Basil's intentions. Recall that the emperor had three simple goals. to mend relations with the west, to improve his shaky legitimacy, and to avoid causing further division in Constantinople. He was happy to comply with Rome, as this would accomplish his first goal. It might even go a long way toward improving his legitimacy, screening his reicide behind the facade of a noble cause. But it wasn't in the emperor's best interest to irritate the moderate party through excessive severity. They were the majority after all. Basil wanted to show mercy to the defeated supporters of Fodius. This would be more conducive to peace. But the pope stubbornly insisted on deposition. Likewise, Basil wanted papal ratification for the reinstatement of Ignatius, but he wasn't keen on forcing submission to the lielis. Clearly, the pope failed to understand Basil's wishes. His verdict was stiff and far too severe. Basil was not alone in his discontent. As we'll see, there was effectively no support in Constantinople for papal supremacy. Even the extremist bishops were turned off by the Pope's behavior. It seems like the Senate was doomed to failure before it even began. The council did nevertheless meet as planned between October 869 and February 870 in Agia Sophia. It duly condemned Fodius and reinstated Ignatius. Beyond this, it didn't go as the Pope desired. What happened? It would seem that Rome had seriously miscalculated in two ways. First of all, thanks to the slanders and lies of theostos, they had seriously overestimated the size of the extremist faction in Constantinople. As I've mentioned, the moderate party was larger and most of the bishops supported Fodius. Secondly, and more importantly, the pope apparently did not realize that there was zero support for papal despatism in the east. The extremists and the moderates did not see eye to eye on everything. But this was something they could agree on. The imperious behavior of Rome was insulting to all the Eastern bishops regardless of faction. Signs of discontent appeared immediately. The honor of presiding over the council was given not to the papal ligates as Adrien demanded but to a court petrician. The majority of the eastern bishops showed their disdain by boycotting the proceedings altogether. Only 12 were present at the first session, and these were hardline supporters of Ignatius. Even at this first session, the Eastern clerics responded to the reading of the lielis with an awkward silence. They eventually did sign, but by the end of the council, only 102 bishops had signed it. Desperately trying to give a semblance of impartiality to the proceedings, Basil insisted that Fodius should have a fair trial. The liates stubbornly and arrogantly asserted that Fodius was already judged and therefore no trial was necessary. Again, Rome saw the decision as final. This was shocking and unprecedented even for the enemies of Fodius. Despite the protests of the liates, the will of the emperor prevailed. What followed was a show trial in which Fodius nobly kept his silence. Like our lord before his accusers, Fodius refused to dignify the injustice with a defense. There's no question that this sinnate was conducted with an air of papal superiority. However, the strongest papal rhetoric was reserved for the first sessions when only a handful of bishops were present and it waned away in later sessions, indicating that the legates realized the unpopularity of their papalist rhetoric. Although it was a pro- Roman council, nevertheless, the eastern fathers strongly insisted on consiliarity. This really comes through in the minutes of the council. For example, in the 8th session, a patrician named Bonny's invoked Matthew 16:18 in reference to the entire church. Devourick says, "There is in the speeches a startling repetition of the doctrine of the pentarchy, but the most devastating loss was still yet to come. In the last session of the council, they were joined by an embassy from Bulgaria. These ambassadors had come to determine once and for all under what jurisdiction their country should belong. The Roman legates protested that the council was closed and that they had no mandate to discuss such matters. To their great chagrin, the eastern bishops met without the legates and placed Bulgaria under Constantinople. Ignatius did nothing to hinder this. At the end of the day, the council of 869 to 870 was a minority council. Therefore, it utterly failed to bring peace to the Byzantine church. The supporters of Fodius who constituted the majority just simply boycotted the proceedings. Rome finally succeeded in condemning Fodias, but this was a pirick victory for the pope. Even among the extremist faction, papal supremacy was given a cold reception. It's clear that the West had developed a totally novel ecclesiology, and the East wanted nothing to do with it. The Pope's wooden methods exasperated not only the emperor, but even Ignatius and the more reasonable of his friends. Even worse for Pope Adrien, Rome lost its short-lived jurisdiction over Bulgaria. In short, the Senate of 869 to 870 was a false council, and it basically satisfied nobody. Thus, our story continues. Fodius had been confined to a monastery since he was deposed in 867, but at some point he was released by the emperor. In fact, he took up residence in the imperial palace and became the tutor to Basil's sons. How can we account for this shift in policy? As we've seen, the deposition of Fodias had been politically motivated from the beginning. The emperor had tried to appease the pope, but this had done nothing but exacerbate the divisions in Constantinople. He may have recognized that his original attitude toward Podius was mistaken. Or perhaps more likely, he simply calculated that he no longer needed to pander to the small party of extremists. It's safe to assume that the moderate party appealed more to Basil's temperament. Anyways, it was during this period that Fodius reconciled with St. Ignatius. In his own words, we both fell on our knees, asked each other's pardon, and forgave each other for any mutual offense we might have given. More than that, they became good friends. Although Fodius knew he had been unjustly deposed, he made no attempt to usurp the throne from Ignatius. Again, this conflicts with the narrative that Fodius was a Mchavellian power- hungry usurper. Contrary to the verdict of the council, Ignatius recognized as valid most of the clergy that Fodius had ordained. Furthermore, Ignatius agreed that Fodius should succeed him when he died. This underscores the point that I made earlier. Contrary to popular belief, the conflict in the church of Constantinople was not between Fodius and Ignatius. Rather, it was Fodius against a radical fringe of extremists who claimed to speak for Ignatius. When Ignatius fell ill in 877, Fodius was there at his bedside ministering to him. After the death of the patriarch, Basil duly appointed Fodius in his place. Meanwhile, in December of 872, Pope Adrien died. He was replaced by Pope John VIII, a man who was eager to maintain good relations with Constantinople. This sudden policy reversal was motivated in part by political considerations. Louis II died in 875 and his successors were weak. Rome was vulnerable at this time and the Byzantines had a fleet that was defending the city from Sariss raids. Jon could not afford to lose the goodwill of Constantinople. But this put him in an awkward position because now the patriarch was Fodius, the man his predecessors had condemned. In 879, Basil called another council in Constantinople. This cinnid was chaired by Fodius. Unlike the previous council, it had the full backing of the East as evidenced by the fact that 383 bishops attended. It had proper representation from all the patriarchs including liates from Rome. Pope John was agreeable to the return of Fodius as he desired to be on good terms with Constantinople. John merely requested that Fodius apologize and that he give Bulgaria to Rome. On both points, the Pope's wishes were rejected. Fodius never apologized. Regarding Bulgaria, this decision was deferred to the emperor, who of course would never acquies to such a demand. The robber council of 869 to 870 was officially enulled and Fodius was formally recognized as patriarch of Constantinople. Interestingly, they also condemned any additions to the creed, thus implicitly anathematizing the filioquay. The key word here is implicitly. Unfortunately, the filioquay was not explicitly named and rejected. With the benefit of hindsight knowing what turmoil this would cause in the future, we might regret that the council fathers didn't make a more forceful rejection of the filioke. But we should keep in mind that once again Rome was not at this time professing the filioquay. So it just simply wasn't a top priority. The whole point of the council was to enull the former cinnid, ensure churchwide recognition of Fodius, and normalize relations between Rome and Constantinople. In this, the council was successful. But on the real theological issues that divided east and west, the council fathers apparently did not want to stir the pot. A similar phenomena occurred regarding papal supremacy. The first cannon appears to be a subtle rebuke of the western interpretation of the sardican cannons. In the minutes of the sinnade, especially the first session, there's an exchange between Fodius and the Roman legates in which the patriarch subtly pushes back against the papal claims. Of course, the council fathers did not concede any of the papal claims, but at the end of the day, there was no definitive explicit rejection of the novel ecclesiology. As Truglia says, Fodius appears to have won the day, but similar to St. Hezekiah the Righteous did not sufficiently appreciate that the door was being left open for future problems on both the ecclesiastical and pneumatological fronts. The senate concluded with a reaffirmation of consensusbased ecclesiology. Blessed is God for by his judgment and will all the most holy patriarchs came together as one. And through common harmony and peace all things came to a good end from what was ruled and passed at this holy and ecumenical cinnid. This implies that the pope is a fellow patriarch and that common harmony had carried the day, not the unilateral judgment of a single bishop. The council of 879 to 880 brings our story to an end. After two decades of ecclesiastical conflict, the church was finally at peace. But the division had been painful and it exposed some festering wounds. Rome had shocked the east with its bold claims to papal supremacy. Rome still hadn't added the filioquay to the creed, but the Franks were firmly attached to this doctrine, and Pope Nicholas seems to have agreed with it. Recall that when challenged, he mustered his Frankish allies in defense of it. At the council of 879 to 880, peace was restored between Rome and Constantinople. This had been the primary aim of the cinnid, and in that it was successful. But in hindsight, this was only a temporary piece. It failed to solve the growing division between east and west. Sure, the council fathers anathematized all additions to the creed and took implicit jabs at papal pretensions, but without explicitly anathematizing the filioquay and papal supremacy, it proved to be a band-aid on a bullet hole. The council fathers were effectively kicking the can down the road. For the time being, the hot war simply transitioned into a cold war. In retrospect, the Nicolein schism was clearly a foreshadowing of the great schism of 1054. As far as I'm concerned, from here on out, the final split was inevitable. Before wrapping up, it's worth reflecting on the legacy of this conflict, especially as it relates to St. Fodius and the fourth council of Constantinople. As I alluded to earlier, the East and West have very different points of view. The Orthodox regard Podius as a great champion of the faith, one of the pillars of Orthodoxy. The council of 879 to 880 is often called in the Orthodox Church the ethcumenical council. It was also accepted as binding in Rome. Interestingly, it wasn't until many years later that the Western church reversed course. After the schism, specifically during the Gregorian reforms, Rome would proclaim the earlier robber council of 869 to 870 as the valid one. To this day, that anti-phodian sinned is recognized by Roman Catholics as their 8th ecumenical council. Western historical records had to be rewritten to accommodate this reorientation. As a result, Catholics have traditionally viewed St. Fodius as a usurper, a schismatic, and a heretic. Essentially, he is regarded as something of an Eastern Martin Luther. The Catholic Encyclopedia calls him the chief author of the great schism between East and West. Hopefully, by now you realize that's all nonsense. As we've seen, Fodius was not a power-hungry maniac, and he did not usurp the throne from St. Ignatius. Regarding the label of schismatic, this clearly doesn't apply to Fodiius. We've seen that he was consiliatory with Rome every step of the way. First, Rome intervened unilaterally in the affairs of Constantinople. This was unprecedented, but Fodius allowed it to happen. The papal liates rightly ruled in favor of Fodius. But then 2 years later, Nicholas reversed their verdict and proceeded to excommunicate and depose him. Again, this was unprecedented, but Fodius chose to ignore it. Clearly, Nicholas was the aggressor, not Fodius. The patriarch patiently endured everything in the interest of peace. Sure, he eventually struck back, attacking the Filioquay and deposing Pope Nicholas in 867, but that wasn't until 4 years after the start of the Nicicolean schism. When one considers all the historical facts in context, it's abundantly clear that Fodius was not the schismatic. As a side note, contrary to popular legend, Fodius died in communion with Rome. Finally, regarding the accusation of heresy, this is somewhat subjective. Naturally, Roman Catholics regard Fodius as a heretic since he forcefully rejected the filioquay and papal supremacy. But was he really a heresy arc, the chief author of the great schism? Absolutely not. In fact, I think this is pure projection. Of course, it would be far too simplistic to point to any one man as the sole cause of the great schism. But if anyone deserves that infamy, it is none other than Anastasian, the part-time secretary, part-time mafia boss who pioneered a novel ecclesiology for the West and revolutionized the papacy. St. Fodius, pray for us. Amen. That concludes my video on the Nicaphorian and Amorian dynasties. I apologize for getting lost in the weeds on the schism, but I think it's extremely relevant, so I didn't want to ignore it, rush over the details, or split it up. If you're a Roman Catholic, please understand that I mean no disrespect, but I'm unapologetically an Orthodox Christian. As a result, my content will naturally reflect that point of view. This video was somewhat pmical, but I want this channel to be a place for everyone to enjoy, not only Orthodox Christians. Be assured that not all of my videos will have these kinds of pmics, especially once we get beyond the schism. Anyways, if you made it this far, thanks so much for watching and I hope you enjoyed it. With that, I'll see you guys next time.