Editing Anastasius II (emperor) (section)

=== Historiography ===
Anastasius II received historical attention several decades after his death through the works of Theophanes the Confessor and Patriarch Nikephoros. These scholars, known for their extensive coverage of Byzantine history, incorporated Anastasius II into their writings, although their focus extended beyond his specific reign. Notably, their accounts primarily revolved around the rebellion initiated by Anastasius against Leo III. Due to the proximity of their writings to the actual event, Theophanes and Nikephoros are frequently consulted as primary sources for subsequent works about Anastasius.<ref name=":2" />

As historical records progressed into the 1900s, Anastasius II's coverage tended to be contextualized within broader time periods.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Bury |first=John |title=The Cambridge Medieval History |publisher=Macmillan press |year=1913 |volume=2 |pages=415–416}}</ref> A common approach involved discussing his reign immediately following an account of his predecessor, Philippicus. In these records, Anastasius was often portrayed in a relatively favorable light compared to Philippicus.<ref name=":1" /> Additionally, some works addressing Bulgarian actions during Anastasius' lifetime also touched upon his reign.<ref name=":2" />

More recent sources on Anastasius II exhibit sparser coverage, often limited to encyclopedic entries or discussions focusing on his relationship with Leo III.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":3" /> It is not uncommon to encounter brief mentions of Anastasius without delving into his character or achievements.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Torgerson |first=Jesse |title=The Chronographia of George the Synkellos and Theophanes |publisher=Brill |year=2022 |location= |pages=7}}</ref> One possible explanation for the limited amount of literature dedicated to Anastasius II is that Leo III is generally regarded as the emperor who succeeded where Anastasius fell short. Consequently, more works have emerged discussing Leo III and his accomplishments, leaving less scholarly attention devoted to Anastasius II. Furthermore, the brevity of Anastasius' reign, coupled with a scarcity of primary sources, could contribute to the relative lack of historical coverage he has received.