Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

the successors of theodosius 49
combine with western forces, while an eastern army also advanced towards
Carthage along the coast from Egypt. 99 The difficulties of co-ordination
inherent in such a strategy no doubt go far towards explaining the subsequent
débâcle, though Geiseric’s skilful use first of diplomatic delay and
then of fireships was also clearly important. It is less easy to determine
whether the odium which fell on the eastern commander, Basiliscus,
resulted from the need for a scapegoat or was genuinely deserved. 100 The
ensuing disaster cost Constantinople dearly in terms of military and
financial resources. The sources differ about the precise sums involved, but
the most conservative estimate is still in excess of 64,000 pounds of gold
– ‘a sum that probably exceeded a whole year’s revenue’. 101 It is hardly surprising
that one source talks of the entire state being shipwrecked – a particularly
apposite metaphor in the context. 102 In this respect, Leo left his
successor a most unwelcome legacy. 103
3. Zeno
Leo’s wife Verina had given birth to a son of unknown name in 463, but he
died when only five months old, 104 and when Leo himself succumbed to
the effects of dysentery on 18 January 474 he was succeeded by his sevenyear-old
grandson Leo, son of Zeno and Ariadne, whom he had made coemperor
shortly before his death. Leo II, however, died ten months later,
but not before having in turn raised his father to the rank of co-emperor. 105
By thus gaining the throne, Zeno has a strong claim to be regarded as the
most politically successful general in the fifth-century east. Once emperor,
however, he had to channel most of his energies into clinging on to power,
for his reign was overshadowed by a succession of revolts and usurpations
– that of Basiliscus (who actually controlled Constantinople for twenty
months during 475–6), of Marcian (who almost gained control of the
capital in 479), and of Illus and Leontius (former supporters of Zeno’s
99 Courtois ((1955) 202–4) gives priority to Theophanes’ version, whereby the army from Egypt
becomes a quite separate campaign in 470, but this view has found little support (cf. Blockley (1992)
75–6, 212).
100 Accounts of Basiliscus’ less than glorious role in the expedition may have been coloured by the
unpopularity he had earned by the end of his later usurpation (475–6).
101 Convenient summary of figures and quote in Hendy, Studies 221, 223. Courtois ((1955) 202–4)
downplays the size and cost of the expedition, arguing that they were inflated by sixth-century writers
concerned to enhance the significance of Belisarius’ expedition (533). This is plausible in principle, but
some of the relevant sources pre-date Justinian’s reign, his strictures against Priscus are unpersuasive,
and the evidence of Candidus does not receive due consideration. 102 Joh. Lyd. De Mag. iii.44.
103 Suda e 3100 refers to the treasury being empty during Zeno’s reign, but its attribution to the
alleged failings of Zeno is suspect (Cameron (1965) 505–6), and the financial repercussions of the disaster
of 468 are a more plausible explanation (cf. Malchus fr. 3).
104 Pingree (1976) 146–7 with the important qualifications of Dagron (1982) 275.
105 The sources do not even hint at any suspicious circumstances surrounding young Leo’s death
(Croke (1983b) 82 n. 5), a silence of considerable import given Zeno’s subsequent unpopularity.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008