Talk:Leo I (emperor)

message: This article claims Aspar attempted to assassinate Leo in 469, and that Leo killed Aspar in 471 after Aspar's son Ardabur was implicated in a second plot against the emperor.
Other histories say that Ardabur was accused of colluding with the Persians (but not specifically against Leo) in 466, but that Aspar and Leo were subsequently reconciled. Leo then made Patricius, another son of Aspar, his designated successor in 470; and it was the popular unrest following this announcement that led Leo to have Aspar and his sons killed.
What are the sources for the version of events in this article, and in particular Aspar's "very nearly successful" assassination attempt in 469?  —benadhem (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leo and Aspar 

message: Although Friell states that Leo was "a Dacian by origin", but the note to this sentence adds that he "was born in Thrace but also said to be from the province of Dacia in the Diocese of Moesia." (Stephen Williams; Gerard Friell: The Rome that Did Not Fall: The survival in the East in the fifth century; Routledge; , page 170 and note 4 on page 261). Therefore, the source refers to his birth in Dacia Aureliana and not to his ethnic Dacian origin. Borsoka (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dacii and Bessii 

message: , the edit history of the article suggests that most editors who are interested in the topic prefer the "Eastern Roman Emperor" title. Would you share with us why do you think that the "Byzantine Emperor" title should be preferred? Please also remember WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there have been many discussions about using "Eastern Roman" rather than "Byzantine, see Talk:Byzantine Empire, and the general consensus has been to use the term Byzantine. --Jack Gaines (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your answer. I think it is not the best solution, but I understand that the consensus exists. Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Actually, Borsoka is correct. At this point, the Western Roman Empire was still in existence. "Byzantine" begins after 475 A.D. with the emperor Zeno. There is a very strong Greek-held POV that Constantine was the first Byzantine emperor, but that is NOT what is taught in universities in the western world, with a few exceptions. Most historians have held that Byzantine "culture" really starts under Justinian, for that matter. I don't know if consensus can be bucked or not - I would like the article to reflect what college professors mostly adhere to, but it may not be possible here.50.111.19.178 (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: "Λέων Α' ὁ Θρᾷξ" has been transcribed as "Leōn ha ho Thrax", implying that "Α'" is as much of a lexical word, as it is "ὁ" (ho), which is definite article in Greek. But ""Α'" on the other hand, is just Greek way of writing ordinal number, 1st (Greeks themselves for purpose of numbering didn't use so-called Arabic numbers, but combinations of letters of their alphabet). So Leo's name and title should be transcribed thus: Leōn prōtos ho Thrax".94.189.137.26 (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek name of Leo I 

message: There should be some explanation here that this was an agreement with some Isaurian military commanders of the East Roman Army and politicos in the capitol - I can't remember if Bury goes into details but I seem to recall Norwich does.  Anyway, our readers may get the impression a trip was made to the region to discuss the issue with the mountainous tribes. 50.111.14.1 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  the 'deal' with the Isaurians ...