Anastasius II: Byzantine Emperor and His Role in Early 8th Century History

On this page7 sections

Introduction

Anastasius II, born Artemius and ruling from 713 to 715, was a Byzantine emperor who took office during one of the empire’s most unsettled stretches at the start of the eighth century. He arrived on the throne amid rapid changes of government and external pressure from the Umayyad Caliphate and the Bulgars. Though his time as emperor was short, Anastasius attempted to restore religious unity and to strengthen the capital’s defenses, measures that shaped events immediately after his fall. His career ended in a failed bid to reclaim the throne, but his brief rule is remembered for a mix of administrative caution, religious reversal, and decisive preparations against a rising external threat.

Early Life and Rise to Power

Little is recorded about Anastasius’ family or childhood. Before becoming emperor he served as a senior official in the imperial chancery, known in Greek as protasekretis or asekretis, a position that placed him at the center of court administration and correspondence. His bureaucratic standing made him a recognizable and acceptable candidate to civilian and ecclesiastical circles when military leaders sought a non-military figure to occupy the throne.

In June 713 soldiers of the Opsikion Theme revolted against Emperor Philippicus, who had alienated large parts of the empire by promoting Monothelitism and by redeploying troops in ways that exposed the eastern frontiers. Philippicus was seized and blinded, a customary method of disqualification, and the next day a consensus in the capital’s elite favored Artemius for the purple. He took the regnal name Anastasius, echoing the memory of an earlier emperor, and was acclaimed by segments of the Senate, the clergy and the urban populace. His elevation reflected a compromise between the army’s power and the civil and religious authorities’ desire for a stabilizing figure.

Consolidation of Power

Once enthroned, Anastasius acted quickly to secure his position. He punished a number of officers associated with the unrest that had brought Philippicus down, sending several into exile and subjecting some conspirators to mutilation in order to deter further coups. At the same time he reshaped key military commands, installing figures he judged reliable; among these appointments was Leo the Isaurian, who received a high command and would later become emperor himself.

Religious policy formed a central part of Anastasius’ effort to legitimize his rule. He moved to reverse the overtures to Monothelitism made under Philippicus and to restore ties with Rome. This involved repudiating the recent council decisions that had revived Monothelite doctrines and preparing to replace the patriarch in Constantinople with a prelate acceptable to the orthodox majority. By aligning the imperial position with the decisions that had condemned Monothelitism in the previous century, Anastasius sought both to calm unrest in the capital and to secure the moral support of the western church.

At the same time he recognized the gravity of the military threat from the Umayyads. Diplomatic missions were sent to Damascus, while the emperor ordered extensive defensive work in and around Constantinople: repairs to the land and sea walls, stockpiling of grain and provisions, and the building and outfitting of warships. These measures were intended to prepare the capital for a major confrontation and to restore confidence after years of disruption.

Reforms and Achievements

Anastasius’ most important accomplishments clustered in three areas: religion, defence, and administration. On religion he re-established the imperial endorsement of the council that rejected Monothelitism and sought reconciliation with the papacy, actions that reduced a recent schism between Constantinople and Rome and restored an orthodox consensus at the heart of the empire.

On defense his orders to repair fortifications, to rebuild and arm a fleet, and to assemble grain reserves were practical responses to a real and present danger. Contemporary and later writers link these preparations to the successful defence of Constantinople that followed under Leo III during the siege of 717–718; the works and stockpiles begun during Anastasius’ reign helped make the city harder to capture and increased its resilience against a prolonged investment.

Administratively, Anastasius moved to stabilize governance by replacing or confirming commanders in the themes, a measure designed to reduce factionalism and to ensure that responsible officers held frontier commands. His short reign produced few long-term legislative changes, but his personnel choices and his emphasis on centralized provisioning and naval capacity reflected an attempt to restore effective statecraft after a period of rapid turnover.

Challenges and Failures

Despite these pragmatic steps, Anastasius faced problems he could not fully control. His reliance on the Opsikion troops to depose Philippicus left him vulnerable to the same element that had delivered him to the throne. In 715 a contingent of Opsikion soldiers, assembling for a naval operation at Rhodes, rose in renewed mutiny. They murdered the imperial admiral, rejected the government’s orders, and put forward a new, obscure candidate, Theodosius, whom they forced to accept the purple.

Anastasius attempted to resist by moving to Nicaea and by negotiating through clerical intermediaries, but a six-month period of naval raids and street-level betrayal in Constantinople culminated in his effective isolation. He agreed to abdicate in exchange for exile and safety, withdrawing into monastic life at Thessalonica. His inability to control the Opsikion faction and to maintain a beachhead for his loyal forces exposed the limits of his authority.

After his abdication, Anastasius made a final, desperate attempt to return to power. In 719 he left monastic retirement and sought support among the Bulgars, reportedly securing troops and a substantial payment. The conspiracy to seize Constantinople failed when Byzantine defenders intercepted a signal and when Bulgarian allies ultimately handed him over to the reigning emperor. Anastasius and several leading conspirators were executed in 719, bringing a violent end to his efforts to regain the throne.

Death and Succession

Anastasius’ formal removal from power took place in 715 when Theodosius III became emperor. Theodosius’ position proved short-lived. Discontented commanders, among them Leo the Isaurian who had served under Anastasius, advanced on the capital and established themselves in 717. Leo would preside over the defence of Constantinople during the great Umayyad siege and would inaugurate a new dynasty.

After the failed comeback in 719, Anastasius was executed on the orders of Leo III or his agents. Contemporary chronicles record that his body received burial in the imperial mausoleum of the Church of the Holy Apostles, an arrangement that suggests either respect for his former imperial status or a decision by his supporters to preserve his memory. His wife, named in sources as Irene, is said to have secured a proper interment.

Legacy

Anastasius II occupies a modest but distinct place in Byzantine history. He is often judged more favorably than his predecessor because he moved to end a recent religious controversy and because he recognized and addressed a severe strategic danger. The initiatives he launched to strengthen Constantinople’s defenses were consequential: historians frequently credit those preparations as part of the reason the city withstood the major siege shortly after his death.

At the same time his reign underlined the fragility of power in an age when army factions could make or break emperors. His downfall and later failure to return illustrate the risks faced by civil officials elevated by the army but lacking an independent power base. The surviving primary narratives about Anastasius come mainly from a few near-contemporary chroniclers, which limits our ability to form a rounded portrait. Modern scholarship tends to present him as a capable administrator who could not overcome the structural disorder of his era.

In sum, Anastasius II was a transitional figure whose religious settlement and defensive planning mattered beyond his short tenure. His brief rule highlights both the possibilities and the constraints of imperial leadership during a decade of frequent coups and severe external threat. Although he did not found a lasting dynasty, some of his actions helped shape the conditions under which his successors, most notably Leo III, secured the empire for a new generation.