1. Historical framework

1.1. General

The Isaurian magister militum praesentalis Tarasicodissa, the later Byzantine emperor Flavius Zeno (474-475/476-491), rose to the imperial throne as co-emperor of his underage son, Leo II (January-November 474), who died a few months after his coronation. Against Zeno turned the Goths, who had believed that the offspring of the Goth magister utriusque militiae Aspar would be the heir of Leo I (457-474), as well as many higher Roman officials and, on top of it all, the mother of augusta Ariadne, Aelia Verina, who was upset by this unexpected turn in the dynastic affairs. Leo I favoured Zeno only in order to use the Isaurians as a shield around the Emperor, in order to curtail the Goths' rise to power.

During Zeno’s days political stability was not a given. Many usurpers, people with various differant aims, Goths or Romans, coalesced and conspired against the emperor. The Goths had gone on a rampage and were almost out of control in some provinces of the diocese of the Thrakike, and they constituted a permanent threat to the empire.¹ Zeno’s only real supporters in Constantinople were the Isaurians, which were, however, intensely disliked by the people.² Very soon an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust was created, a result of the vicious circle of successive conspiracies, the thwarting of which forced the people involved to switch sides, creating further tensions.³ In the end Zeno could not rely even on the Isaurians, for they were insubordinate in their homeland Isauria,⁴ while in Constantinople they followed their erratic leaders and were constantly struggling with the Goths. The personal differences between the ambitious officials during this period were expressed in the context of the clash of the powers of the capital and those of the periphery, a clash in which the region of Isauria played a leading role.

In the court, the simplified picture was this: when Zeno won over the Romans he lost the support of the Isaurians, and without the Isaurians he was weak towards the Goths. But it was personal likings and preferences that defined off-stage the alliances. Zeno himself did not manage to gain significant advantages by the defeat of his personal enemies, not out of cowardice or lack of decisiveness, but because he could not rely on his army.

At the same time, the apolysis of the Henotikon edict («Edict of Union») in 482, aimed at conciliating monophysites with the Orthodox believers in the two natures of Christ, did not bring any benefits to the emperor in the sensitive area of ecclesiastical politics; on the contrary it formed yet another basis for dogmatic feuds among the people; Zeno and the Patriarch of Constantinople Acacius (422-488) were the main recipients of this discontent. The Church suffered too, experiencing the Acacian schism as a result of the deterioration of its relations with Rome. The religious conflicts were fertile ground for the sowing of conspiracies, as they became a field of confrontation with the emperor in the attempt to gather supporters.

1.2. The circumstances

During the second period of Zeno’s reign (476-491), the patrikios and magister officiorum Illos was an ally of the throne, yet he did not abide to the institutions. Securing personal alliances, inside and outside the empire, and by exhibiting a tolerant ecclesiastical policy towards Christians and pagans alike, as well as by funding welfare activities, Illos gained great political advantages, which he deemed were enough to prepare his ascend to the throne. Of course he was aware that he was not safe.

Early in 480, the word of Illos was more powerful than that of the emperor. The relations between the two men worsened irreparably when Zeno, seeking to smooth his relationship with the members of the imperial family, but also foreseeing Illos’ threatening rise, allowed Illos’ opponents to attack him.⁵ Illos considered Zeno’s involvement in an attempt against his life in 481 as given. On the pretence of the need to recuperate from his wounds, he managed to leave Constantinople, assuming the office of magister militum per Orientem. He moved to Antioch on the Orontes, having first secured the office of consul for his brother, Trokoundos.

2. The revolt

2.1. The onset of the revolt

Illos moved to Antioch in 481/482 taking with him many friends and eminent officials.⁶He immediately tried to broaden his personal alliances, giving priority to his friendship with the Neoplatonic philosophers of Egypt, while he also managed to win over the Orthodox Christians who were alienated by Zeno’s conciliatory ecclesiastical policy. Marcian was put forward as a pretender to the throne; he had attempted to usurp it again in the past, and was incarcerated in a fortress at Isauria. Illos freed him and Marcian travelled to Italy in search of allies.⁷

In Aphrodisias (of Caria) the pagans immediately performed ceremonies for the successful outcome of Illos’ revolt; the rites were officiated by the distinguished philosopher Asclepiodotus and others. The Christians, however, did not support the rebel. Furthermore, the ecclesiastical policy of the emperor had intelligent supporters. In the patriarchate of Alexandria, for example, the Orthodox, supporters of Patriarch John Talaias (June-December 482), a personal friend of Illos, were not effectively organized by Pamprepios, and initially had a neutral attitude towards the ordination of Peter Mogus (July-September 477/482-489), a favourite of Zeno, a move intended to warm them up to the idea of reconciliation with the monophysites.⁸

2.2. The course of the revolt

The revolt was allowed to unfold. Early in the spring of 483/4,⁹ Illos’ friends and relatives living in Constantinople were exiled, their property confiscated by the state and given to the cities of Isauria. This was Zeno’s first action against Illos. Zeno needed to deal immediately with the Goths in Thrace but also to prepare himself to face the revolt, so he was forced to postpone the chase of Illos until the spring of 483/4. The pressing ecclesiastical issues caused serious reactions, but Illos did not succeed in winning any exploitable advantage here.

Early in the summer of 483/4, the patrician Leontios¹⁰ appealed to Illos as the head of a diplomatic mission ordered to reach a compromise on behalf of Zeno, on the terms that Zeno’s brother, Longinos, and Aelia Verina, captives of Illos since 475 and 478 respectively, would be released. He ended up siding with Illos and never reported his negative response to Emperor Zeno. In 483/4, and while Zeno’s reaction had just started, in the form of a military campaign under the bishop of Apameia, Conon, and Linges, Illos sought refuge in Isauria, where he organised the overturning of Zeno, now with the cooperation of Aelia Verina. The sources do not explain how the alliance with Aelia Verina came about. The facade of legitimacy that Illos certainly sought is a satisfying interpretation and, although Verina’s traditional allies and her relatives were bound to have no part in the revolt, she herself supported it with great fervour.

Eventually it was Leontios, and not Marcian, that was put forth as Emperor of the Romans. The ceremony by which Leontios was proclaimed an emperor was performed by Aelia Verina in the church of St Peter outside the city of Tarsus (in Cilicia), on July 19^th 483/4. Aelia Verina proclaimed Leontios Emperor invoking her de facto right to do so, and announced Zeno’s replacement to the officials of Oriens, Africa and the inhabitants of Antioch.¹¹ In her speech she did not bring up religious issues, but she did stress Leontios’ piety. Hereupon Leontios made a triumphal entrance in the city on July 27^th 483/4. However, Illos was the true leader of the revolt. Under his guidance the revolt quickly evolved into a general uprising in the diocese of Oriens, headed by Illos himself, Aelia Verina and Leontios.

Leontios remained in the city of Antioch for two months or more. He minted coins and formed a government with Aelian as praefectus praetorio, the Neoplatonic philosopher Pamprepios as magister officiorum and Justinian as comes sacrarum largitionum. The bishop of the city of Calandia enthusiastically sided with him. With the exceptions of Chalcis, were the citizens refused to accept his marble busts, and of Edessa, where his emissary, the Isaurian Matronianus at the head of 500 horsemen,¹²was not allowed to enter the city, the other cities of the diocese of Oriens acknowledged the usurper.

3. Suppression of the revolt

3.1. The suppression

Zeno chased down the insurgents. Initially John the Scythian was put in charge of the campaign, leading a force composed of Goths. In a battle which took place near Antioch, most likely in September of 484, the imperial troops crushed the rebels who were commanded by Artemidoros and Papimos. There is no mention of Armenian cavalry being involved in these military operations, although the Armenian satraps had assured Illos they would help him, while the Persian ruler Peroz I, preoccupied with the invasion of the Hephthalites (a.k.a. the White Huns) did not come to the aid of his ally. Odoacer in Italy withdrew from the alliance because in 481/2 he was fighting the Rugians who had invaded his state – Zeno in a well-timed and crafty move had turned them against him.¹³

So the revolt in the diocese of Oriens was quenched almost immediately. The Armenian satraps who had sided with the rebels right from the start were replaced, while the Roman officials of the diocese of Oriens repudiated the revolt. The three rebels, however, as well as all the members of the usurpers' government escaped to the fortress of Cherris (Papyrios),¹⁴ where they remained besieged for the next four years.

3.2. The final settlement

Inside this fortress Illos devoted himself to studying, while the augusta Aelia Verina passed away nine days after the start of the siege.¹⁵ Leontios was apparently not given any duties, and he tried to lead an ascetic life. Pamprepios was immediately executed on the orders of Illos as a traitor, without any well-founded charges, possibly because he had failed in his mission in the past, or simply because his prophecies for the successful outcome of the revolt had not been fulfilled.¹⁶

Outside the walls, the numbers of Goths under the command of John the Scythian were not enough to capture the city. The magister militum praesentalis and Consul Theodoric (Amalos) was sent to reinforce them, for the two Isaurians that were successively sent to take over the command of the imperial force defected to the besieged rebels. Theodoric was recalled as well, though, leaving only part of his forces in the region. The Goths were replaced by Rugians, commanded by the Goth Ermanaric, son of Aspar. The side of the rebels was commanded by Indacus Cottunes, commander of the fortress. Illos' brother attempted to seize some strongholds, but he was captured soon after leaving Cherris and was executed, unbeknownst to the rebels. The fighting between some Isaurian warlords, who were always beyond the empire’s control and in this case had joined forces with Indacus Cottunes, and the Zeno’s commanders continued without any tangible results. Gradually, however, the Isaurian allies of Illos and Leontios grew fewer.

In the year 488 the Isaurian comes et praeses (the ruler of Isauria) Lilingis headed the military operations. He arrested Indacus Cottunes, who eventually revealed to the besiegers a passage into the city and was subsequently executed; the besieged did not learn of this either. Lilingis captured Cherris after a surprise attack launched during the night. Upon entering the fortress, Lilingis' soldiers immediately gained full control. Leontios and Illos sought refuge in the Church of St Conon, from where they negotiated the fate of their relatives. Then they surrendered and were beheaded.

4. Consequences

In the fall of 484, the major rebellion in the diocese of Oriens was repressed. The supporters of the rebels now sided with the victorious emperor, and this immediately promoted political stability, which was to last for some time. Zeno’s opponents accepted his rule and stopped conspiring for his overthrow. The undeclared war between centre and the provinces came to a pause, Zeno managed to impose himself on Goths, Isaurians and Romans alike. After this he strengthened Roman institutions in the East. In all likelihood, during this time the office of the comes Armeniae introduced, replacing the hereditary Armenian satraps; the ecclesiastical administration was surely organized following the example of the political structures. The stability Zeno, who had no heir, brought about, allowed later, in 491, augusta Ariadne to select the emperor’s successor.

The capture of Cherris in 488 signalled the definite suppression of Illos’ revolt, although it did not mark the submission of the Isaurians who continued to defy the central administration for long.¹⁷ In terms of the threat posed by the rebels, Zeno had actually secured his throne already by 484, so the arrest and execution of Illos and Leontios did not significantly enhance the political stability of the empire. His inability to impose the imperial will in the area of Isauria is not deemed so important, given the particular nature of the region and its inhabitants.