Basically this question. Many of the most well known Emperors especially during and after the Crisis of the 3rd Century were of Illyrian descent eg (Aurelian,Diocletian,Gothicus Constantine etc). Was it because Illyria was heavily colonized.
Why were so many Roman emperors of Illyrian descent?
- Thread starter Marcus Licinius Crassus
- Start date
My wild and uninformed guess is that Illyria was not only culturally but also geographically close to Italia, making it a convenient powerbase for any ambitious commander hoping to control Italia and make himself emperor.
Illyria was a major source of soldiers during the later period of the Empire, and emperors especially in this period tended to come from the army.
Because Diolcetian decided he would make everyone an emperor, which is what actually massively inflated the number of Illyrian emperors.
Also because the Crisis of the Third Century eventually ended, so the succession became secure enough to just pass down to the heirs of the people Diolcetian appointed as emperor (who were all Illyrians).
Also because the Crisis of the Third Century eventually ended, so the succession became secure enough to just pass down to the heirs of the people Diolcetian appointed as emperor (who were all Illyrians).
Last edited:
Illyria was a frontier province with many unruly tribes along with the heavily romanised coastal region. Thus large portions of its population were heading into the military. And since the military in the last two centuries of the roman empire killed more emperors than anything else, and the various emperors were often from the military, this meant more Illyrians became emperors than native italian romans.
Diocletian was far from the first Illyrian emperor though, he merely codified what was common practice by making the administration of the Empire a club for Illyrian military officers. A great many emperors involved in the Crisis of the Third Century were Illyrians as well.
Diolcetian and his associates could easily account for over half the list of Ilyrian Emperors though. That's 7 Illyrian Emperors before Diocletian compared to the 13 or so of Diocletian's extended family (plus 5 that were unrelated familially, but personally known and associated).
In regards to the emperors that predate Diolcetian, there's a good number of them yes, but most essentially just trace back to either Decius or Claudius Gothicus. (Decius appointing his family, while Claudius, Quntillus, and Aurelian all knew each other). So the same principle of because connections with the preexisting emperor.
Last edited:
So I guess its proximity to Italia made it a major manpower base. I wonder why Greece,Thracia or Anatolia also didn't become a massive manpower base for the Roman army?
Illyria was an extremely militarized province. It was, besides Dacia, the most miltiarized province in most of the Principate, and was a major source of military personnel for the entirety of the mid to late empire, because many land grants to soldiers were given in Illyria and Pannonia. That made it a serious source of military leadership and officers, and in the crisis, that made it a major source of Emperors.
It's not the proximity to Italy that was important, it was its position on the military frontier of the Empire. Once Caracalla expanded citizenship to all peoples of the Empire it was very convenient to recruit from regions that the troops would end up in anyways and Illyria was an important place for protecting the borders. Thrace did also provide a lot of soldiers and some emperors for similar reasons. Likewise, Anatolia provided plenty of soldiers but they were more prominent later on in the Eastern Roman Empire. I can recall one emperor off the top of my head who was a native Anatolian from an un-Hellenized tribe. Besides being frontier provinces, Illyria, Thrace, and Anatolia had a reputation for being places with tough hardy people which was another quality that made them an major source of manpower for the Empire. Greece and Italy, not so much, and by the later empire there were problems conscripting people from those regions IIRC.
Brittania was always the most difficult to control logistically and militarily speaking of the western provinces (remember that Dacia was abandoned not because it could not be held, but rather because it was not serving its purpose of being a buffer as the raiders merely sidestepped it, and because it was more expensive to maintain than it was producing in taxes). Economically, however, it was not a province that was based around the Roman Army. Londinium was a mercantile center, while the silver mines and agriculture accounted for most of the economic activity. The amount of legions and auxiliary units stationed in Brittania were quite small compared to that of the Pannonian and Danubian frontier regions, and the rate of military recruitment and participation was not really all that high until the Saxon Shore raids started.
In some ways, yes, it was the most militarized in that administration of the province and civic authority was based around the system of forts and roads that ensured Roman control. But in terms of how the population's link with the military existed, it was nothing like Illyria and Pannonia, with the chief export being manpower, or like Dacia, which was basically a military outpost.
Last edited:
A Repentant Heretic
Banned