# Talk:Anastasius I Dicorus

This page seems to have an inconsistency. At the top it says
"He gained the popular favour by a judicious remission of taxation,"
but at the bottom
"The financial policy of Anastasius was so prudent and economical that it gained him a reputation for avarice and contributed to his unpopularity"
Obviously his policies could have changed but there is no mention of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Palin  (talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 January 2004
---These don't seem inherently inconsistent.  He could have both reduced taxes and spending.  That fits with what I recall from Bury's "Later Roman Empire"149.69.100.55 (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)zeke076

Could somebody please provide some verificaiton of this section?  James084 20:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Anastasius reformed the Byzantine tax system, which contributed to great wealth that was relatively undisturbed by Justin.  This wealth is what allowed Justinian to convene military campaigns to retake the West and being a ambitious building program in Constantinople. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.242.215.171  (talk • contribs) 02:39, 21 February 2006

Not sure what this means. Does anyone know/can clarify in the article? fluoronaut 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is quite right. As already pointed out by someone here above, Anastasius did both things. Still, he didn't actually 'reduce' fiscal burden, but cut on 'one' particular levy, the so-called 'chrysargyron', a gold[=chrysos] and silver[=argyros]-paid tax affecting artisans and small traders. He certainly succeded in leaving his successors a State with healthy financies. He's said (Procopius) to have left several thousand punds of gold in the treasury. As is the case at all times, some may have complained for such rigid economic policy. Some used later to call him 'dichoros', mocking him for the different colour of his eyes. But chalcedonian sources also had to recognise A.'s merits (Evagrius, actually our source for the 'popular favour'), despite the emperor's Monophysite faith. Thus some editing is probably needed in the first paragragraph rather than in the disputed section (that can be checked on Hendy's Byzantine Coinage, online on the site of Dumbarton Oaks). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.100.219  (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 May 2007

For the sake of Wikipedia and controversial articles...
Gold Seal Campaign:
What do you think of this? The administrators of Wikipedia establish a Gold Seal campaign for certain articles. This “Gold Seal” will indicate for a given article it’s factuality and lack of vandalism. Basically it will show..
1-This page is properly cited.
2-This page has been verified.
This will be an important step for Wikipedia. It means students, high school included will be able to cite Wikipedia in their work. As of now many schools do not allow students to this. 
As for editing an article, It will still be allowed yet a person can easily revert to the Gold Sealed, verified page on Wikipedia. This will be an amazing step for Wikipedia, though difficult, it will allow readers to know for sure what they are reading is true. It will surely improve Wikipedia’s image in the public sphere. Of course someone will have to organize this, but in then it will be sufficient use of labour. 
— mattawa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattawa  (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 May 2007

In Durrës city there is a street named "Anastas Durrësaku"  in the honor of the emperor maps. Durrës is the birthplace of the emperor. This name should be mentioned in this article. Bunker92 (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anastasius I Dicorus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024202736/http://nbrm.mk/default.asp?ItemID=5C72BB65613C2C40AA77979B95FB6889 to http://www.nbrm.mk/default.asp?ItemID=5C72BB65613C2C40AA77979B95FB6889
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The article currently claims Anastasius was son of a Pompeius and an Anastasia, who in turn was descended from the emperor Constantine I's daughter Constantina. I thought it strange that someone with an obscure background like Anastasius should have such illustrious ancestry. I found that this excerpt was added 12 years ago by a now banned user, who, using a sock account one year later, provided a reference to "Settipani" (not a reliable source that I know of). Two months ago, another source was added to support the claim. I checked this second source in question: it's new and self-published (FriesenPress), and there can be little doubt that the relevant excerpt is copied from Wikipedia.
A more reliable source, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (vol. 2, pp. 76–77, 898–899, 1314), reveals that Pompeius was in fact the nephew of Anastasius, and Anastasia (apparently unrelated to the emperor), Pompeius's wife. I could find nothing supporting this niece Anastasia's supposed descent from Constantine. I see no reason why the whole statement shouldn't be discarded entirely. Avis11 (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
"Settipani" is French genealogist Christian Settipani, "known for his work on the genealogy and prosopography of elites in Europe and the Near East." Dimadick (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard of him. He's not a reliable source, if he's indeed making the claim in question. Again, Pompeius is the emperor's nephew, not father. Avis11 (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Beginning in the 6th Century AD, silk was added to Coptic textiles.  It was imported via the Red Sea maritime route, bypassing the Persians and arriving in Alexandria.  Anastasius had made a treaty with the Ghassanids in 502 AD in order to ensure security.  The gold used in trade came from Nubia. 70.107.119.177 (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This article claims that the Emperor Anastasius I Dicorus was a monophysite, but isn't he a miaphysite? The article even contradicts itself at one point, which one is the final correct version? ImperatorTsar (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I suppose this is relatively minor to most people, but the emperor’s religious views should really be cleared up. In some parts of the article, he is called a monophysite and in others, a miaphysite. My understanding is that mono- means one (alone) while mia- means one (compounded), thus making them different beliefs. I know Oriental Christians get touchy about the terminology here. I don’t know which version Anastasius personally subscribed to, so I won’t change it myself, but perhaps someone more educated than I can clear up the confusion. DavvieDarko (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)