Many of these claims were built upon a discourse of the scholar Nikolaos Kabasilas, but eventually it seems that it had no connection to the Zealot revolt but was composed many decades later.
Both in the country and in the towns all wealth was concentrated in the hands of a small aristocratic class, and against them was directed the bitterness of the destitute masses.
In many cities of Thrace, which had joined Kantakouzenos in the early stages of the civil war, there were riots in favor of the rightful minor John V. In addition, contemporary Byzantine society was also divided on religious issues, between the mysticist Hesychasts or Palamites and the intellectuals or Barlaamites, who preferred to pursue the study of philosophy and cherished the inheritance of Ancient Greece.
We know little about the attitudes of the Zealots to this controversy, but it is a fact that one of their leaders, Andreas Palaiologos, sought spiritual guidance to St. Savvas, one of the leading Hesychasts.
[4] When the second civil war broke out, control of the city was of great importance to both camps, and Kantakouzenos' supporters, led by its governor Theodore Synadenos, tried to deliver it to him.
[6] Real power in the city however rested with the Zealots' leader, a Michael Palaiologos, who jointly with the governors held the title of archōn.
[7] Although the Zealots, throughout their existence, continued to recognize the legitimate Emperor John V Palaiologos, it is possible that they tried to achieve a semi-autonomous status for the city of Thessalonica.
He contacted the remnants of the pro-Kantakouzenian aristocracy, and after having Michael Palaiologos killed, assumed power himself and arrested most prominent Zealots without any popular reaction.
[5] In 1347 Kantakouzenos and the Emperor John V reconciled, but the Zealots ignored the orders from Constantinople, such as the appointment of Gregory Palamas as its archbishop, as the majority of them were anti-Hesychasts.