This episode explores the historical accuracy of the first Arab siege of Constantinople, challenging traditional narratives. Against the backdrop of existing historical biases portraying both the Byzantine Empire and early Muslim empires negatively, the host questions the widely accepted notion of a seven-year siege. More significantly, the analysis delves into the discrepancies between primary sources, particularly the brief and contradictory accounts of Theophanes the Confessor compared to the more detailed, albeit fragmented, accounts from Theophilus of Edessa. For instance, the host highlights how Theophanes' account conflates a decisive battle in Lycia with the events near Constantinople, potentially exaggerating the siege's duration and impact. In contrast, Theophilus's narrative suggests a shorter, less impactful naval raid, which ultimately led to a decisive Roman victory in Lycia. This reevaluation challenges the long-held belief that the defense of Constantinople in the 670s was a pivotal moment in European history, suggesting that the event's significance has been greatly inflated over time. What this means for our understanding of early medieval history is a need for a more nuanced approach to interpreting historical sources, considering multiple perspectives and acknowledging the potential for bias and misinterpretations.
