Byzantine Emperor Constantine V, 'the Dung-named'. General, Patriarch, Iconoclast, Reformer
Leslie Ivings
Synopsis "Byzantine Emperor Constantine V, 'the Dung-named'. General, Patriarch, Iconoclast, Reformer"
Constantine V, was the second East Roman (Byzantine) emperor of the Isaurian Dynasty. A masterful general, who halted the Arab Umayyad advance and went on the counter attack, he was loved by the fighting men of the East till well after his death. He was also an active ruler in other spheres, continuing the legal, social and governmental reforms of his father. His reign effectively strengthened the Empire, which was on the brink of collapse at the end of the Heraclian dynasty and he is generally regarded as one of the most capable men to rule from Constantinople. A ruthless persecutor and iconoclast, he was, however, reviled and maligned by the monastic historians of the church. His true brilliance and accomplishments would always be overshadowed by the name they bestowed upon him after his death: Copronymos (‘the dung-named’). He was compared to a summoner of demons, a magician or even a precursor to the Antichrist.Married three times to women who themselves are worthy of books, he was shrewd in his choice of wives and poltically savvy. As a shrewd ruler and administrator, and for his influence upon the theological debates of his day, he bears comparison with the much-better-known Justinian I, some 200 years before. However, unlike Justinian, his military leadership was more personal and he met his death on campaign in Bulgaria.
Constantine V, was the second East Roman (Byzantine) emperor of the Isaurian Dynasty. A masterful general, who halted the Arab Umayyad advance and went on the counter attack, he was loved by the fighting men of the East till well after his death. He was also an active ruler in other spheres, continuing the legal, social and governmental reforms of his father. His reign effectively strengthened the Empire, which was on the brink of collapse at the end of the Heraclian dynasty and he is generally regarded as one of the most capable men to rule from Constantinople. A ruthless persecutor and iconoclast, he was, however, reviled and maligned by the monastic historians of the church. His true brilliance and accomplishments would always be overshadowed by the name they bestowed upon him after his death: Copronymos (‘the dung-named’). He was compared to a summoner of demons, a magician or even a precursor to the Antichrist. Married three times to women who themselves are worthy of books, he was shrewd in his choice of wives and poltically savvy. As a shrewd ruler and administrator, and for his influence upon the theological debates of his day, he bears comparison with the much-better-known Justinian I, some 200 years before. However, unlike Justinian, his military leadership was more personal and he met his death on campaign in Bulgaria.
