Basiliscus (Caesar)
The historian Brian Croke argues the story was false, considering this an attempt by Victor to explain the existence of a living Leo, as this was possibly the regnal name of the younger Basiliscus.
[17] Emperor Basiliscus quickly lost support in Constantinople due to heavy taxes, heretical ecclesiastical policies, and a natural disaster viewed as a sign of divine wrath by himself.
[3][18][19][20] While Basiliscus's rise was legal, as usurpations confirmed by the senate were considered legitimate, such flaws had not occurred for over a century in the Eastern Roman Empire.
[20] Verina turned against Emperor Basiliscus after the execution of her lover and began to plot to return Zeno to power;[22][23] she later sought refuge in Blachernae.
[3][27][28][29][30] Illus, possibly buoyed by his hold over Zeno, by way of his brother's imprisonment, arranged to ally with him and marched towards Constantinople with their combined forces.
[27][28][29][31] Emperor Basiliscus ordered Armatus to take command of all the troops in Thrace and Constantinople, as well as the palace guard, and led them against the three[who?].
[18] Zeno and Basiliscus then officiated games held at the Hippodrome of Constantinople and praised the victorious chariot-riders, which Croke called "a customary but vital gesture for reinforcing legitimacy".
[2][34] Croke comments that after Zeno re-established himself in Constantinople, he began to consider the position of Armatus, and evaluated that his support was "extremely fragile".
The narrative of Basiliscus' employment as a lector is relayed solely by the contemporary historian Candidus Isaurus, whose work is preserved by Photius.
Theophanes the Confessor, writing based upon a reliable source — which Croke remarks may be lost fragments of Malalas —[37] explains that it was Zeno's wife Ariadne who interceded on Basiliscus' behalf as a result of their ancestries, as she was a cousin to Armatus.
[19] The theory that he held the position of bishop later in his life is stated explicitly by Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos, drawing on now-lost contemporary sources.
[40] Croke remarks that it is questionable for the story to appear in a source of such quality, especially from a man who lived in a monastery in Constantinople itself during the reign of Justinian.
He further remarks that the tale appears to be repeated throughout the capital's monasteries — and possibly streets — and therefore was spread to Victor directly, reliably enough that he believed it was correct.
[41] Croke remarks that if Basiliscus lived until the reign of Justinian, he would have been in his mid-fifties at the latest, and likely a figure that drew "local fame and attention" as a deposed emperor.
[43] However, solidi and tremisses dated to the precise period after the reign of Basiliscus bear the image of Emperor Zeno and a Caesar Leo.
For these reasons, the numismatist John Kent states "Clearly, Zeno and Leo...were either contemporary with, or immediately followed, the reign of Basiliscus and Marcus".
Croke states that Victor would understandably doubt the established facts surrounding Leo II, concluding that the narrative does not represent a willful invention, but rather the best efforts of a chronicler.
