[Sethomas]

The iconoclasm issue was one that both sides argued since the fourth century, and I've always found it rather asinine how ambivalent the East was on the issue. Rome, having a rich history of sacramentals dating back to the paintings in 1st century catacombs, was always an ardent supporter of icons. The East, however, I believe began denouncing their use around the time of the Nicean Council but the Patriarchs of Constantinople changed their minds a few times on the issue before the Great Schism. I believe that the use of icons was finally deemed acceptable in the East around 950, and the golden age of Eastern icons spanned roughly 1300-1550. During the Crusades period came the development of the Bynzantine style of mosaic work, and I would assume that such would go against an iconoclastic ideal.

The "official" reason for the Schism was the felioque clause amended to the Nicene Creed by the Pope. That the Bishop of Constantinople severed relations over that is laughable, considering that it should be obvious from the letters of Leo the Great (which the Bynzantines conceded were right) that the Holy Spirit proceeds both through the Father and the Son. Basically, the East found the most petty issue possible and used it as an excuse to tell the West "fuck you." So yeah, I agree with you absolutely that the Bynzantines were prissy pissants.

Have you any thoughts on Justinian and Theodora?