he saw the siege of Constantinople and the small rebellion as a sign that the state was weak enough that a rebellion could succeed. Another explanation is that Anastasius held a genuine belief that the Empire was in crisis and that he was one of the only people who could save it. And finally, there is the option that Theophanes was accurate and he was counseled into rebellion by Niketas Xylinites. While his motivations remain a mystery, with the Bulgar forces, Anastasius marched on Constantinople. Having written the Master of the Walls in Constantinople, named Niketas Anthrakas, and asked them to open the gates when he arrived. The message was discovered and Niketas was beheaded, removing Anastasius’ ability to easily enter Constantinople. Now unable to enter the city, the Bulgarian’s complied with Leo III’s request to turn Anastasius and his conspirators over. He was killed along with other conspirators including Niketas Xylinitas and the archbishop of Thessaloniki in 719. Anastasius' wife Irene had him buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles. Historiography Anastasius’ historical coverage began decades after his death with Theophanes the Confessor and Patriarch Nikephoros. Both were byzantine scholars who covered Anastasius II during their writings about much larger swaths of history. Their coverage of Anastasius was mostly focused on the rebellion Anastasius launched against Leo III. Being the most available accounts written close to the event's occurrence, they are often used as sources for later writing’s about Anastasius. His coverage would remain in the context of covering greater periods of time as history progressed into the 1900’s. The most common form of coverage is an account of his reign after an account of Philippicus’, his predecessor’s, reign. These records portray Anastasius in a positive light in a relative sense to Philippicus. There is also coverage of Anastasius in works that cover Bulgarian actions during his lifetime. More recent sources are sparser in coverage either being encyclopedic in nature or covering Anastasius in relation to Leo III. Though it is most common to see Anastasius’ name mentioned briefly with little about who he was. One explanation for the quantity of works on Anastasius II is that Leo III is typically credited as the emperor that succeeded where Anastasius did not. And so, there are more works discussing Leo III and his achievements instead of Anastasius II. This, combined with a short reign, and few primary sources could