Emperors from the Balkans in 3rd – Beginning of the 4th century

Kalin Stoev

Institute for Balkan Studies & Center of Thracology Bulgarian Academy of Sciences	DOI
University of Library Studies and Information Technologies, Bulgaria Fuculty of Library Studies and Cultural Heritage	20 June 2020
Този имейл адрес е защитен от спам ботове. Трябва да имате пусната JavaScript поддръжка, за да го видите.	core article

 

Abstract: The Illyrian Emperors are complex historical phenomenon that has it’s ground not only in the historical development of the romanized society on the Balkans, but also in the profound changes in the Roman inner and outer policy since the death of Marcus Aurelius. During the Crisis of the Third Century more factors intensified the process. The two most important of these were, in my opinion, the specific character of the Romanisation that had reached its peak in the Danubian landscapes at the same time, which led to sharp inner social and political conflicts, and the intensification of the barbarian raids. We could certainly argue that the combination of these broadly defined political and social processes resulted in enhanced strategic significance of the region, and a particular domination of its military man on the top of the power in the Empire. Here the inner development of the Balkan landscapes is discussed with the conclusion that a complex of factors – romanization, local resistance and barbarian menace had triggered changes in the military careers that led to the emergence of a certain type of a ruler.

Keywords: Emperors, Roman Army, Protectores, Barbarian Raids, Equestrian Officers.

The aim of this article is to trace the historical and social background of the Late Antique military Society and to outline the events that led to the social and cultural importance of the region of Southern Upper and Western Lower Moesia in the last decades of the Principate. The chosen region (broadly speaking Dardania and surrounding lands) has a particular significance not only as a “test case”, but as a “pot” for preparing the mixture of the Roman and Late Roman Romanized society. The Region is notorious as a birthplace of several emperors and thus the outline of its historical development is crucial for an explanation for the phenomenon of the Illyrian emperors. Therefore, we should begin with some observations about how exactly these characteristics had risen from the ruins of what is used to be called the romanization in the inner landscape of the Danube region and also in what extent it wаs the Crisis of the Third Century that triggered the changes and led to the strategic importance of the region.

 Simultaneously, on the example of the Soldier Emperors from the Rise of Maximinus until the fall of the First Tetrarchy, we will present a brief sketch of the constitutional and practical political aspects of the Roman imperial power and the modification in the significance of the institution of the Emperor. Our aim is to show that the so-called “Time of the Barrack Emperors” is not a smooth process, but is a tendency of Roman imperial power, which could make its path as a dominant political reality only after a severe fight within the society of the Roman world and its higher classes. The third century is de facto the end of the Roman Empire and classical antiquity as we know it, but the stigma of the "crisis of the third century", characteristic of the emperors-soldiers and military anarchy, weighs on the whole of it, but is correctly applicable merely for its second half of it (after Philip). But there is a chronological space between the beginning of the severe crisis of the empire, set by the great clash between Philip the Arab and Trajan Decius, and the sudden end of the "Golden Age" of the Antonines - for which we must blame approximately equally external, internal and biological factors, which creates the main conflict of the century and requires a more thorough explanation.

Thus, in the following pages a twofold explanation of the “Barrack Emperor’s” era and their rise to power will be offered: a broader historical and socio-politic picture of the processes of the liquidation of the Principate-based monarchy and an explanation of the Illyrian phenomenon of the Empire.

The importance of Illyricum

It was the ascension of Maximinus the Thracian, that first revealed the growing importance of the so called „Illyrian”[1] landscapes, whose garrison proved to be powerful enough to raise an emperor. It seems however that the Lower Danube region followed a logical way of historical development, which was defined by the immense military importance of the area – an importance, manifested by the crucial role of the Danube regions during the civil wars in the years 68–69 and 193.[2] During the Crisis of the Third Century, however, more factors intensified the process. The two most important of these were, in my opinion, the specific character of the romanisation that had reached its peak in the Danubian landscapes at the same time, which led to sharp inner social and political conflicts, and the intensification of the barbarian raids. We could certainly argue that the combination of these broadly defined political and social processes resulted in enhanced strategic significance of the region, and a particular domination of its military man on the top of the power in the Empire.

The southern part of this region, broadly a Roman Dardania, was the pillar of the provincial life[3] and it surely shaped the process of romanisation in the latin-speaking provinces on the inner Balkans – by the means of intensive colonisations that had taken place from the middle of the first century onwards, as well as by the relations of the region with the neighbouring areas of the roman province of Macedonia. The centre of the region was the first Moesian roman colony of Scupi, which benefited from the ties with the classical society of Northern Greece and Macedonia.[4] But it was not alone the urban centre that had contributed towards the development of the provincial society here. The central and north-eastern regions of the province were notorious for its significance as a mining area and as such attracted a population from various imperial provinces, creating a micro-society, which served as a boiling pot for cultural and social transformation. The reasons for that were not only the migration patterns (that also included population with considerable craftsmanship for some specific aspects in mine-working, which as a rule came from the western Danubian or the Illyrian provinces, but also the administrative mechanisms needed in order to manage the exploitation of the ore deposits. The region gives a rare example of an area, within which a peregrines of western origin had been mixed with people of roman or mixobarbarian provenance and with old inhabitants like the Thracians as well. Relations with the neighbouring mine districts of Dacia also existed.[5] Apparently, after the Dacian collapse in the times of Gallienus, Claudius and Aurelianus, the important mining potential of the Lower Danube region was conserved southwards, in Dardania, and it is to be presumed that exactly the population in the mining district was among the first to be translated southwards, because of the indispensable skills that the work in mines required.   

An inevitable consequence of the development in this region during the Principate was also the growth of the brigandage. The Upper Moesian lands were among the provinces of the Empire, where the testimonies for the so called latrones are most abundant.[6] Apparently, this bands of brigands consisted of former soldiers, mine workers or peasants, pauperized by the land allotments for the Roman colonists or for the imperial mine domains. Surprisingly, this social and criminal contingent was soon to contribute significantly to the recruitment patterns of the Roman Army.

A profound look into the historical development in the region will reveal the strong connection between this land of immense economic importance, the phenomenon of brigandage and the patterns of recruitment in the Moesian army, which is always considered as a main marker for the formation of the romanized society. The reign of Marcus Aurelius appears to be a crucial period and the famous veteran-list from Viminacium (IMS II 53.) is widely considered to be the first direct evidence for the recruitment of peregrines in the Danubian lands. However, there are two more important notes to be made. Firstly, there are strong reasons to believe that a significant part of these freshly romanized legionaries are not simply peregrines, but a part of a mixobarbarian population. Thus, the apparent origo of those legionaries, marked with the abbreviation R, was probably not Remesiana as some scholars claim, but more probable a sign for their status as remissi,[7] acquitted delinquents. This conclusion is based on a passage from Vita Marci that describes the desperate measures of emperor Marcus Aurelius, who allowed the access in legions even to the lowest strata of the population – thieves, murderers, gladiators (IMS II 53).

The word remissi is also to be seen in the chronologically first mention of the statio Remesiana (Remisiana).  Thus, the remissi should be related to the memorable recruit of people, who are following their way „back” to the society. Secondly, the name of the Remesiana (Remisiana) and the scarce epigraphical data from its territory suggest a relation between the remissi and the exploitation of Dardanian mining districts. Three inscriptions from the time of Caracalla here mention the Res Publica Ulpiana – a town in the heart of Dardania and mining-centre of noticeable importance (IMS IV, 69-71). Therefore this statio was most probably a part of the town territory of Ulpianum, which was one of the greatest in the province. If the remissi were to be associated with the semi-dependent population in the mining districts, a „breeding ground” for the development of the brigandage, the term could be easily explained also with regard of the attested in the 3^rd century damnati ad metallam.[8]  

Thus, the origin of the most important part of the newly recruited legionaries could be traced back to the mining regions, no matter if they were the mining-population, brigands, raised from the social and economic conditions in Dardania, or a combination of both.

Logically, a further step of this emergence is to be seen in the enhancing importance of the “local units” and their duty-tasks. If the Hellenistic towns and latin-speaking communities in the West had their own ephebic self-defence forces to rely on, it seems that the lands of Moesia and Dardania, especially in the mining areas, had also developed their local militias. One example is presented by the cohortеs Aureliae Dardanorum, attested in Moesia Superior, which are probably mixobarbarian units, made for dealing with the barbarian raids and the latrocinium. Another is the enigmatic numerus of the scouts in regio Montanensium (s. further). For later times we are informed by another unit, cohors III Collecta CR, which commanders are a thorough examples for local romanized officers.[9] We can presume that in the mountain or semi-mountain mining areas, which gave the brigand enough possibilities to find asylum, units of loyal representatives of local romanized population proved to be more effective than the standing troops of the roman garrison in the fight against their fellow-countryman.

Thus, the recruitment patterns were followed by the commando of local units, then by an involvement in the provincial administration and to the protection of the military road knots. The evidence from the Upper Moesia in the time of the Principate suggests an infiltration of local inhabitants in the lower to middle army ranks, especially in the stationes that connected the South with the North of the province. The names of two officers from Ravna (Timacum Minus), one of which beneficiarius, and one signifier from Ratiaria strongly suggest a Thracian origin (ISM III.2. 44; ILJug, 1, 67).[10] The logical continuation of the careers of such people led to the personal guards of the emperor.

Several pieces of information forces us to presume that the development of such impressive military careers at the western parts of Moesia Inferior and eastern parts of Moesia Superior was to be ascribed to another factor: besides the inner development of the romanized mixobarbarians, resulting in the phenomenon of the brigandage, the invasions of the Transdanubians seem to be crucial, and also, seem to have targeted exactly the “soft belly” of the Balkan Peninsula: the boarder lands between provinces of Macedonia and Thracia. The first shot was given by the Costobocs, a tribe of the Free Dacians, which invaded the roman provinces in the years 170–171. They crossed the Lower Moesia and then passed through Morava–Vardar valley on its way to Greece, catching the land off-guard: the вegions allegedly took no action against then and the raid was captured by a citizen militia not until they reach Phocis in Greece.[11] More troubles were soon to follow: in 176, by the attack of “Brisean” brigands, for dealing with which a special military reinforcements were needed.[12] Deep in the 3^rd century the region was still troublesome – we know that somewhere in the time of Gallienus, the young Aurelianus was dispatched as a part of scouting group (tectores) in the fortresses around the Nestos river (s. further). We can presume, that the invasions through Dacia or Yazigian plainalso were considered as a menace and found their way along the Nestos river: in this way we could explain the strong presence of mounted troops that garrisoned in colonia Ratiariensium (Ratiaria) on the Danube: num. Maurorum (?); num. Illyricorum, in later times Dalmati.[13] In the end of the century, the area was secured by the legio XIII Gemina, dislocated here from the abandoned Dacia. The region was troublesome also in the Time of Theodosius (Zosim. IV, 48).

Thus, the outer menaces supplemented the inner ones and resulted in a need for local officers, loyal to the Roman power. One newly created military “class” offered them a career opportunity: shortly after the great barbarian invasions from 249–251, a new type of corps emerged. Those are the protectores and the other ranks that led to this promotion. Providing a link to the old bodyguard regiments, the corps of protectores now offered a chance for the common soldiers, praetorians, equites singulares or even barbarian soldiers to pursue an equestrial career. Striking evidence is provided from the commemoration monument of the Thracian Traianus Mucianus from Augusta Traiana, who served through more than 20 militae, until finally reaching the title of praeses.[14] Despite conflicting reports about the birth of the Emperor Maximinus I, the "Thracian", it seems his birthplace was the mountainous regions between Moesia, Thrace and Upper Moesia, probably regio Montanensium, and his earliest appointments were at a time when the existence of the mature иoman society led to enhanced resistance by the locals, consequently the rise of the brigandage.[15] The Thracian was initially part of a cavalry unit for fighting the latrones on the Thracian-Moesian border, which eventually paved his way to the praetorian and equestrian positions.

Although the epigraphic evidence lacks particularly abundant examples, there are testimonies for similar career patterns in the region concerned as well. The territory of Montana, an important (fort) junction between the Thracian and Moesian landscapes, whose garrison defended the entrance in the southern parts of the Peninsula, provides several examples in this regard. In the Period of the Late Principate here are attested two officers, who are very likely to be connected with the Gallienus field army and who had probably followed the promotional patterns of the protectores: Aurelius Crescentio was praepositus, most probably of equites Dalmatarum and Aurelius Licinianus, who apparently reached the third rank of the protectores by being ducenarius.  The region of the inscription clearly suggests a connection to an earlier local or mounted irregular troops – numerus Illyricorum, Numerus circitorum regionariorumque (NCR), and thus for a continuation of the police control, now in the hands of the protectores. The traces of the protectores or the ducenarii are evidently rich in other areas in both Dacias and the neighbouring lands: given the considerable decline of the inscription from ca. 240 onwards, four more examples from Singidunum (Belgrade), Ratiaria, Timacum Minus (Ravna) and Serdica[16] are evidence with certain eloquence. The emergence of local Thracians or romanized mixobarbarians from the territories in Dardania to this new class of officers is also evident in other sources, like for example an inscription from Rome, which mentions one militiae petitor born in Naissus, Dardania. (CIL VI 32937). The denotation suggests that he was man who had applied the new equestrian cursus, which allowed even man of descent origin to obtain the rank protector and even, as ducenarii, to command a legion. Notorious is a votive monument of one Roemetalces from Naissus, διασημότατος (= vir perfectissimus), dated in beginning of the 4^th century, which obviously had undergone the new military cursus and therefore obtaining supreme military rank of dux or praefectus,[17] which actually was on the path of becoming a general, dux, just like Marcianus or the other Generals of Gallienus’ army.

Thus, it seems that the lands between Montana, Naissus and Scupi were especially suitable to produce a new military man, who was to be personally loyal to the roman emperor – both against their former countryman, against the barbarians and possible usurpers. The protectores seem to have developed in a corpus that gradually absorbed all of the previous military commanding positions. Thus, an experienced centurio or a former peregrinus (a spy), who showed special loyalty and has common social or regional descent with a higher officer, could be also a prospective General. 

Since the protectors and ducenarii originated from the old bodyguard ranks and very often ensured entrance in the emperor’s inner circle, it is not surprising to find that the prosopographical evidence for the origins and the social and ethnical descent for a number of Roman rulers points to promotions from this rang in the territories concerned. The life of Constantius Chlorus (protector primum, inde tribunus, postea praeses Dalmatiae – Origo, 1.2[18]) provides a fine instance and the sources for Maximinus Daia show practically same career (sublatus nuper a pecoribus et silvis, statim scutarius, continuo protector, mox tribunus, postridie Caesar).[19] Despite of the lack of substantial information in the literary sources, who name expressively only his higher position of a tribune[20] we can presume that Chlorus’son Constantinus followed in his father’s footsteps.[21]

However, some sources show that this career pattern (cursus) had been developed in Dardania somewhat earlier. Although some scholars condemn the information about the pre-imperial cursus of Claudius Gothicus as fictional, it is very likely that he might have passed by similar military offices. One surely attested office is this of the dux – a broadly defined term for senior army position, especially popular in the sources in the time of Gallienus, which apparently, he had due to appointment under the emperor Valerianus (H.A. Tyr. tr. X. 14.; H.A. Gallieni duo, 7.1.; Divus Claudius, XV). This mention overlaps the information in the writings of Zonaras (12, 26), who gives Claudius’ office as ipparchos.[22] A common rang since the middle of the 2^nd century AD, dux was normally connected with head-commando in a legion or in pedestrian or equestrian units. However, the other pieces of evidence for the career of Claudius allow some more specific military appointments to be reconstructed. Several places in the historical works call him a tribunus – once legionary (HA Div. Claud., XIV, 2) and once in unknown regiment (Aur. Vict., De Caes., 33.28). The beginning of his career remains obscure, but despite of the silence in written sources, a parallel could be drawn with the fate of his colleague Marcianus, who was trusted with the Balkan when Gallienus rushed back to Italy in 268. Marcianus’ honourable cursus[23] began from the position of protector (προτήκτορα τοῦ ἀνεικήτου δεσπότου...), and then he passed through the positions of praetorian tribunus, dux and stratilates. From a passage in Historia Augusta is known an operation, undertaken by Claudius in order to strengthen the defence of the province Achaia (H.A. Div. Claud., XVI, 1). So, we can conclude, that the future Emperor and Marcianus were colleagues, sharing a common rang of dux, a logical continuation for a protectorian careers. We see it not only in the career path of Marcianus, Claudius, but also of the Thracian Traianus Mucianus from Augusta Traiana, given the identification of Marcianus with an unknown dux? vexillationis from Syria. It is likely that not only Traianus Mucianus was in charge of a regiment in the Orient (dux equitum Mauri et Osroeni), but also Claudius served as a commander in Syria (in legio IV Martia?). Considering the close promotional patterns of these officers and the duties, which they fulfilled in the new army, it is very likely that all of them, including Claudius, had begun their career in ranks, which eventually led to protectores.

Several considerations lead to the conclusion that such cursus was widely recognized and even acknowledged as a common rule in the Time of Claudius’s successor, Aurelianus. Although the origins of his emergence to the command positions were seemingly different, at least considering the literary sources (e.g. he started as vicarius tribuni), Aurelians’ higher offices were the inevitable for the period tribunate and dux (Dalmatorum). However, some of details of his promotion worth further consideration in order a more plausible reconstruction to be achieved. The author of Vita Aureliani in Historia Augusta claims that Aurelian played considerable role in the military administration in the Moesian and Thracian lands of the Empire, under the superior command of a general in charge called Ulpius Crinitus, who most possible was dux ripae of the Danubian boarder. The erroneous mention of Aurelian’s exceptional powers (along with purely anachronistic designation magister militum) in this regard, including the help from German mercenaries and the location of the battle e near Nicopolis are already thoroughly discussed.[24] Now, the mention of the office of vicarius does not need to be accepted as more than a literal expression (with declamatory function in Vita Aureliani, as already stated[25]), that could cover a variety of assistant ranks. Given the evident influence of the History of Ammianus Marcellinus on Historia Augusta,[26] it would not be surprising if the title appears anachronistically as a subsitutute for magister equitum.[27] In other words, there is nothing more than unreliable information for Aurelian being a vicarius in the beginning of its career. Moreover, it is not likely that Aurelian, a man from modest descent, reached such an appointment at the beginning of his career, for the vicarii were recognized as high position and often served as deputies for the tribunes.[28] The humble origin of Aurelianus, as depicted in Eutropius’ History (Eutrop. IX, 13), suggest rather for an inferior officer position (ordinarius), which eventually should have ensured him the rank of protector, followed by the common for the Barrack Emperors militia equestris.     

Further details with regard of the Aurelian’s appointments share some characteristics with the career of the later emperors. A passage from Historia Augusta claims that during his tribunate in Illyrian provinces, Aurelian fought successfully against the Sarmatians. Special interest draws the expression, which refers to his soldiers as praesidiarii. The term is rare and obscure and without doubt concerns soldiers from the provincial garrison, over which Aurelian, in this early stage of his career, was in command. The expression gives a useful hint for determining Aurelian’s position, for it is apparently used in the notorious similar Res Gestae of Marcellinus, in reference about Marcellus, who was in charge (praesidebat)[29] of provincial corps, when he was protector. The fact that since the time of Gallienus, provincial fortresses (praesidii) were managed by centurions[30] and also the curious information from HA that Aurelianus was in charge of 300 soldiers could lead to a conclusion about the first position of the future emperor in the castra peregrina, or as leader of a unit of speculatores: elite corps of emperial mounted bodyguards, who had often been entrusted with special duties of the border regions. In that case, Aurelianus had reached the position of centurio speculator, or, in the Later Principate trecenarius. For the speculatores and other guardian troops were commonly recruited from among the tectores, or soldiers with special artisan abilities (most often immunes[31]), we could also argue that Aurelianus had served as a modest soldier from the technical personal between the what was later Dacia Mediterranea and Macedonia (…inter Daciam et Macedoniam…). A far subtler prove could be also implemented by the statement in the Epitome, according to which Aurelianus was initially a colonus in a senatorial estate: it is known, that in imperial or senatorial estates the colons have carried a building and other activities along with their agricultural work.[32] So, the appointment of Aurelianus as a construction supervisor in the mountainous regions (with protectores) caused the confusion of his being in charge of protectors. Hence the idea that he was a colonus.

Reconstructed in such way, the impressive career of Aurelianus (and one of his successors: M. Aurelius Probus) might have influenced the codification of a new imperial cursus, as could be deduced from a passage in Aurelius Victor (Aur. Vict. De Caes, 39.28).[33] Actually, the reason for several loci communes in the biographies in both Aurelianus and Probus are surprisingly evident in the main sources for their lives. Thus, both emperors have similar descent from peasants and then served as tribunes in same legion III Flavia[34] (about Probus’ biography see Ep. De Caes., 37.1.; HA, Vita Probi, 5.3-8). It was not only the literary or rhetorical purposes that influenced such a coincidence, what becomes evident in the numismatic material, according to which both emperors struck coins that refer to their bond to the cavalry.[35] The passage of Aurelius Victor is more probably an indication that changes in the recruitment patterns in the middle officer ranks occurred, which were influenced by the personal experiences of these emperors, but also by the development of romanized society at this edge of the Empire and especially by the fact that certain kind of population, having its roots in Dacia, was summon to strengthen the social origins of the founder of the new Dacia – Aurelianus.

Thus, it is not surprising that the rise of Galerius, one of the most important figures in Diocletianic imperial college was defined by very similar social circumstances. The sources claim that he was born in a rural area in the new Dacia, probably in the vicinity of Serdica or Romuliana (Gamzigrad in Serbia). The statement in Lactantius (De mort. Pers. 9. 9), his mother was from the Transdanubians is likely to be true, unlike the obviously biased remark that it was the main reason why inerat huic bestiae naturalis barbaries, effertitas a Romano sanguine aliena: we can assume that exactly the well-romanized part of the Dacian population was eager to escape from the province and his mother was a roman citizen as well.[36] Nothing is known for the cursus of Galerius, but one of his highest positions is an important marker that a new imperial cursus was to be established: the most prestigious equestrian rank of praefectus praetorio, a key position through obtaining imperial power at the beginning of the 2^nd Century, was neglected in the Time of the Soldier Emperors.[37] Since Aurelianus, however, many the Ceasars and Augusti (Annius Florianus; Carus; Galerius; Diocletianus; Constantius Chlorus; Severus; Licinius) had passed through it.[38] It seems that a process that legitimated the access to highest power to the homines novi was completed and it infiltration of the Illyrians in this prestigious equestrian rank marked the already completed change of the “translation of power” from the “Romans” to the “Illyrians”. With Galerius it was the population in the new Dacia province that in its turn had acquired this opportunity. 

We must should, however, bear in mind that this translation was a part of a much broader process and should not be ascribed solely to the enhanced importance of the Balkan Peninsula. The Rise of the viri militares was one of the main consequences of a longer process and was prepared by the constellation of power created by the Emperors of the 2^nd century. Several factors should be mentioned in this regard: the first one is quite curious, for it emerges from the (without doubt right) observation that the first half of the 3^rd century saw also the greatest strive for expansion of the Roman Empire! Here Rome ended an almost three-hundred-year old conflict with the rivaling Great Power is often overlooked, but is the longest, almost continuous conflict in the human history! Thus, the first half of the third century led to the largest foreign policy expansion in the East – Septimius, but also in the West, where Maximinus seemingly had achieved some successes in the Germania Transrena. The province of Mesopotamia was permanently annexed to the classical world, a feat which proved impossible even for Trajan; then significant parts of Trans-Rhine Germany were captured, which turned out to be impossible for Augustus himself. Probably it would be too far-fretched if we state that this is a significant change in the foreign-and war-time Policy of the Empire. Augustus bequeathed a moderate policy of conquest, and Hadrian imposed it. That is why, in foreign policy, the first half of the 3rd Century is a firework, something limited between two more stable and homogeneous time horizons.

However, these war time fireworks are not a sign of stability, but on the contrary. There are two explanations for it. On the one hand, foreign activity is an attempt to prevent the outer pressure: the intention of M. Aurelius was with the planned provinces Sarmatia and Marcomannia to create a buffer for the invasion of the Roman tribes. This experience will be abandoned in the 250s with the great Alemmanic and Gothic invasions, so it left just a Roman imperialistic utopia. On the other hand, it is in fact the last chance to legitimize controversial emperors – a "Punic", for example, or "Thracian", in an attempt to please their troops and with the secret intention to stay away from the Senate and Rome. Thus, foreign policy is inspired by internal insecurity and practically the power of power outside is a deep crisis inside.

So, the military prerogative, codified in the famous statement of Septimius Severus to his sons about the army, was crucial for the legitimacy of the Severian Dynasty. It is however the exceptional qualities of Septimius Severus that achieve stabilization of the system – a monarchy in proper sense. But in the fragile gradually enveloped almost all the conflicts that were about to end 3rd: a certain feel for the profound difference between the Hellenic spirit of the Orient, the rise of the military from the Balkan landscapes, the division of the throne between several heirs, the rise of the cavalry as a supreme battle weapon, the rise of the equestrian – a class to which the family of the Emperor himself once belonged. In the end, the first part of the 3rd century was formed by Septimius Severus and Caracalla - with their best and most ardent Thracian student, both the “last Sever” and the first soldier on the throne.

Hence, the lack of legitimacy invariably leaded to the army. Nevertheless, the army was not a lasting feature of the first half of the 3rd century. The process of decay, periodic riots and usurpations in it began at the very beginning of the Principate, with its decadence simply a consequence of a long process. The military's involvement in politics is thus a "system error" that is not and cannot be overcome.

The most important feature of this regime for our topic, the rise of the Balkan military leaders, was that the power of the "non-professional", "new" man, non-aristocrat - horseman, of specialization comes. In the glorious 2nd century, the "active" people were the generals. The cavalry officers had their prototypes in the time of the Good Emperors - Trajan is a soldier himself, but he also had the eques Licinius Sura by his side, just as Hadrian had Sextus Julius Severus. More rapid development came with the rule of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, who relied entirely on a galaxy of military men - M. Statius Priscus, who captured the Parthian capital of Artaxаta, a veteran of the Marcomanni Wars. Claudius Pompeianus, son-in-law of the emperor, Avidius Cassius, Valerius Maximinianus and, of course, Helvius Pertinax. All of them originated from the provincial aristocracy, bureaucracy, priesthood and show the emperor's connection with the "bourgeois classes", his rootedness in provincial life and, accordingly, the stability of the empire.

In the first half of the 3rd century, the level was considerably lower due to the lack of legitimacy of the dynasty and the liquidation of the old, venerable general "class" - such as Commodus killed the daughter of Claudius Pompey and Caracalla the son of Helvius Pertinax. In Commodus’ time the prominent figures were the eunuchs of Commodus, in the time of Septimius Severus, until 205, this was the Praetorian prefect Plautianus. From the very beginning, Caracalla had to forcibly liquidate the opposition of the homines novi who supported the Geta - Fabius Cilo (an African from his father's guard), praefectus Urbi and Papinianus, praefectus praetorio, which gives him the opportunity for a "counter-revolution" in power, both autocratic and "barbaric". Here he took an example from the Severus, who, after the Second Parthian Expedition, had already foreseen the danger of the “people in the shadows”:  his victims are Iulius Priscus and Laetus, Ti. Claudius Candidus.[39]

However, subsequent emperors took advantage of the lack of strong "new men" to rule over "weak" new men. Elagabalus and Severus Alexander were no longer able to rule without the homines novi – Comazon, Ulpian, Maximinus, Timesithaeus are just a few names. Is it any wonder, then, that the year of the Six Emperors, 238, comes as a revenge of the senatorial aristocracy against the bureaucracy of procuratores, situationally patronized by an eques of lower birth, the newly designated senator C. Iulius Verus Maximinus - a man without a genealogy, and probably “Roman” only in the first generation?

Under Gordian, all this seems to have been overcomed, so 238 puts an end to the the first part of the Third century, the "short" third century. In 249 two senators, Philip and Trajan Decius, fought for the throne. The turbulence of the Gothic invasions once again overturned everything to the claims of the homines novi, who held a final victory under the Dalmatian beaurocrat Diocletian.

Thus represented, it seems like that the Emperors from Illyricum proclaimed the triumph of a new democracy of soldiers (s. HA, Vita Taciti, 2, where the soldiers’ mutinies are practically equalled to the vote of citizen’s militia in republican Rome), which legalized an new type of Emperor – the cavalry soldier in its long lasted battle against the oligarchic monarchy, based in Rome. It was about to continue and to turn into a common practice in the Byzantine Empire.

An interesting phenomenon was the fact, that although some of the “barrack emperors” have fallen victims in coups, it does not influence the consistence and legitimacy of the system itself: for it seems that their knockdown was righteous because of their inability to defend the military border – probably such vision was one of the characteristics of the “Illyrismus.” The coups in the palaces were not regarded as an system error or as a problem for the contemporaries: the assassinated emperors were either pronounced tyrants (Caracalla, Maximinus), or their murder were just a mistake, a bad coincidence (Aurelianus, see also the revealing example of Pertinax, who is practically also a barrack emperor).[40] Several examples that concern the most macabre changes of power of 3^rd century could elucidate the mechanism of what could be dubbed “an Illyrian ethos” in the Roman state constitution: It seems that the first serious coup of an obvious "illyrian" type, in which Pannonians and Thracians also took part, was the one that brought Maximinus the Thracian to the throne. However, I will go back a little further to the time when the Syrian dynasty founded by Septimius Severus and his wife Julia Domna broke up after Emperor Caracalla was assassinated in a conspiracy organized by Praetorian Prefect Macrinus, who later took the throne. Caracalla, a bloodthirsty and mentally unstable tyrant, gave many reasons for his assassination, but is undoubtedly popular among the legions because of the increase in military donations. However, his apparent distrust of the Roman Praetorians and his expressed sympathy for his German guards aroused the jealousy of the other military; more importantly, however, the emperor undertook an expensive and extravagant adventure against the Parths (a part of the Roman military firework of 3rd century), driven by his desire to imitate the success of Alexander the Great; most disturbing, however, is his close connection with the Germans and the Scythians along the northern borders of the empire, which cannot but arouse the fears of the Thracian and Illyrian (Pannonian) officers. Among the main executors of the conspiracy is a supposed Thracian from the Praetorian Guard M. Aurelius Apollinaris (a man of the same name is mentioned in an epigraphic monument from Augusta Traiana), who, together with his colleague Nemesianus, completed the murder of the emperor by not allowing the rapid intervention of his German guards. It is not known how C. Iulius Maximinus, the future emperor Maximinus the Thracian, behaved in this situation, but from a remark in the HA we understand that immediately after the assassination of Caracalla, he was returned to his native lands as part of Macrinus' attempts to strengthen the northern borders of the empire.[41]

Returning to the coup organized (?) by Maximinus himself. This conspiracy is a remarkable example of the dissatisfaction of the Pannonian and Thracian recruits and their general support for the Thracian pretender. The reason were the concessions that Severus Alexander wanted to make to his opponent in the German war, as well as the dissatisfaction with the numerous irregular troops that arrived from the east, such as the Moors, the Osroens, Parths. Despite the relatively successful rule, the Illyrians hoped that an Emperor’s change would free up space for more intensive military development. Maximinus has a significant base behind him - the strength of the recruits in the Roman army, many of whom were selected by him personally from the “triangle” that was mentioned above – the lands between Scupi, Serdica and Naissus.

 Very revealing in this sense is the murder of Gallienus, one of the most important figures of the late Principate. It seems to be characteristic, since its reasons are probably grounded in the gradual professionalization of the military caste, which in itself became a state within a state in the third century and did not hesitate to remove another emperor if he did not act in accordance with it. The author of this little revolution is Gallienus himself and is made in the 50s and 60s of 3rd Century.

The revolution always eats its own children: in 268 Gallienus was killed by his close circle of protectors. Among the perpetrators of the coup is Marcianus. We know far fewer posts about him, but he seems to have reached the level of the deepest influence on the fate of the empire and was among the narrow circle of military leaders, and is mentioned among the sources of the most dramatic events surrounding Gallienus' death (see further, Marcianus). In 267, Marcianus took over the entire Balkan front and the province of Achaia against the invasions of the Goths, as the emperor's extraordinary plenipotentiary for the defense of the Limes (as dux, and then stratilatеs?). However, this does not prevent him from being a major participant and perhaps an inspirer in the aforementioned plot against Gallienus. The only thing that prevents him from becoming emperor is the fact that he is too popular among the army, which forces the other participants in the conspiracy to choose the younger Claudius, the future Claudius Gothic as emperor. The deep-seated reasons for Gallien's assassination, as we have said, could be exactly the focus of his military policy, which is preparing a campaign against Palmyra instead of focusing on clearing the Gothic hordes from the Balkans, which Claudius II later did. More plausible however is the explanation by the cohesion between his “Illyrian” officers and the Balkan army, and this eventually led to a presumable “vote” for one of them to become the next Emperor.[42]

One more assassination is worth mentioning: it is the death of Aurelian, who decides on an active eastern policy and after the defeat of Palmyra prepares a campaign against Persia. He was slaughtered on his way through Thrace in the village of Kenofrurion near Perint (the formal reason was the threat of punishment of Secretary of State Eros and the subsequent incitement by his senior officers) by his general, mentioned in the sources with the Thracian name Mucaporis, who obviously was a cavalry commander bearing the usual title dux. Unfortunately, we do not know nothing more about him or his motives, but we can say that the Thracian officers in this case should have felt threatened of the growing menace for dislocating the front so far from the recently threatened by the Gothic borders of Thrace and Moesia. The death of Aurelianus had probably something to do with the diminishment of the influence of the cavalry officers in the higher strata of the Roman society – as we have already seen, the entrusted officers, the protectors, in further followed a classisized way of promotions, obtaining the position of praefectus praetorio.

Thus a final conclusion is required: by the end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 4th century AD, historical circumstances had already led to the formation of a power stratum that produced emperors and determined the future policy of the empire. This is the true end of the Principle. The college in the "shadows" of power, created by the protectors of Gallienus, will be codified in a new Roman constitution, the work of Emperor Diocletian. The future of the Eastern Roman Empire will continue to be dominated by the military emperors.

 

[1] Although there is no antique source or author that explicitly talks about Maximinus as an Illyrian, there could be hardly a doubt that he is actually the first Illyrian on the top of the Roman state. The notion is so influential that sometimes he is accepted as an Illyrian par exellance: see Richardot 2005, 13 (une peysane panonniene).   

[2] Стоев 2017, 47–49.

[3] Papazoglu 1988, 198–199; Petrovic 2007, 11.

[4] See also Стоев 2017, 57, for the ties with Macedonia.

[5] An example provides the dedication of Dea Dardania, found in the area of Dacian Romula (Tudor 1972, 197). and it will be no exaggeration to be said that Dacian provincial high-class had considerable influence in the economic life in the Dardanian landscapes of Upper Moesia – a considerable part of the attested Roman Knights in the Moesian province were from Dacian origin or executed services in towns in Dacia.

[6] The evidence in Стоев 2019, 77 ff.

[7] Стоев 2017, 73 ff.

[8] For them s.  Dušanić 1977, 52-49. 

[9] NCR, or numerus circitorum et regionariorum: for the reading s. Стоев 2016, 34 ff.

[10] Атанасова, Й., В. Герасимова-Томова 1978, 19–32.

[11] For the sources and the bibliography of the Costoboc raid Стоев 2019, 82 ff.

[12] The inscription from Diana Veteranorum: AE 1956, 0124.   

[13] Epigraphic evidence see in Стоев 2014, No. 13.

[14] Most influential analysis of the inscription: Domaszewski 1967, 170.

[15] Birthplace ad early career in Стоев 2019.

[16] Fl. Aemilianus Cornuti; Valerius Iovinus; Flavius Marcus was presumably born in a village near the town of Serdica: ILS, 2784.

[17]  The superior rank of Roemetalkes doesn’t allow supporting the view of Petrovic in IMS IV, that this Thracian was a mere member of the municipial aristocracy. Even the most prominent among the equestrian magistrates in Moesia Superior didn’t seem to exceed over the title of vir egregius: see also Mrozewicz 1999.

[18] Origo, 1.2. The career of Constantius Chlorus shows striking similarities with the promotions of Traianus Mucianus half century earlier (mentioned offices are protector, tribunus, praeses) with the great exception of the rank praefectus praetorio, which apparently was conditio sine qua non for obtaining the imperial power in the Era of Diocletian’s imperial college.

[19] Although his origins are not quite sure, another officer of alleged Thracian origin – Marcianus, is attested as protector and dux under the reign of Gallienus (Gerov 1965, 333-354).

[20] Compare with Johne 1993, 258.

[21] Or, of course, as many could argue, due to his apparently adolescent age or maybe because of to the position of his father Constantinus had received a direct appointment to a senior office in the cavalry.

[22] See also Johne 2008, 298

[23] Known from inscription in Philippopolis (Plovdiv), first published in Gerov 1965, 333-354. S. also PIR, 2, 172-273, No. 204.

[24] Den Hengst 2010, 120

[25] Homo 1907.

[26] Den Hengst 2010, 120-121.

[27] For vicarius of magister militum in Marcellinus narrative see Amm. Marc., XIV, 11,5.

[28] Jones 1964 ff. 675; Richardot 1995, 418–419.

[29] Although it is very tempting to assume so, the post has nothing to do with the final stage of the Constantius Chlorus’s militiae as praeses, what refers to a high position as a governor of province.

[30] e.g. Sostra: Eck, Ivanov, 2008

[31] Blanc 1984, 727–737

[32] Finley 1976, 46–47.

[33] Aur. Vict. De Caes, 39.28 „Sed horum concordia maxime edocuit virtuti ingenium usumque bonae militiae, quanta his Aureliani Probique instituto fuit paene sat esse”

[34] Otherwise unknown – the epithet of this troop (Felix) might be a sign for confusion with one of the moesian regiments: Legio IV Flavia Felix: s. also Стоев 2019.

[35] Virtus Equitum; Equitius/Aequitius: RIC (Roman Imperial Coinage) V.2. 68-77, 464–578.   

[36] The name of his mother Romula suggests an origin from the romanized population in Dacia. Such names are popular in the transdanubian province, also in the higher social stratas: s. Kerenyi 1942, n. 1199-1202. Possible is also an origin from the town of Romula, where some traces of dardanian and south Thracian population were attested – see above. This consideration makes clear, that the barbaric descent of Galerius has purely pejorative function, similar to the information about Maximinus Thrax.

[37]  Johne 2008, 585

[38] Barnes 1982, 30-46

[39] For the inner-outer Roman Politcal History in the Period: s. Johne, K.-P. (Hrsg) ( 2008); Potter  (2004).

[40] We see further that Senate and the Military worked in a close cooperation after the assassination of Aurelianus, which leads to another conclusion: there was however another conflict to be seen – the strive of the Senate to obtain a leading position in the power by taking advantage from the conflicts in the “military class”.

[41] Стоев 2019.

[42] About the murder of Gallienus and the literary topoi: Hartmann, U. (2006).

Sources:

 AE = L'Année Épigraphique, Paris 1888-  

Amm. Marc. = Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum Gestarum libri, quae supersunt

Aur. Vict., De Caes. = Aurelii Victoris Liber De Caesaribus

CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum

Eutrop. = Eutropius, Breviarium ab urbe condita

IMS = Inscriptions de la Mésie Supérieure, I - VI

ILJug = Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Iugoslavia ... repertae et editae sunt

ISM = Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris

ILS = Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae

HA, Marc.  = Historia Augusta, Vita Marci

HA, Tyr. tr.  = Historia Augusta, Trebelli Pollionis Tyranni Triginta

HA, Gallieni duo =  Historia Augusta, Trebelli Pollionis Tyranni Triginta

HA, Div. Claud. = Historia Augusta, Trebelli Pollionis Divus Claudius

Zonaras = Zonaras, Epitome Historion

Zosim. = Zosimus, Historia Nova

Origo = Origo Constantini imperatoris

 

Secondary Sources:

Атанасова, Й., Герасимова-Томова, В. (1978) „Нови латински надписи от Рациария“,  Известия на българското историческо дружество 32, 19–32/ Atanasov, Y., Gerasimova-Tomova, V. V. (1978) “Novi latinski nadpisi ot Ratsiaria”, Izvestia na balgarskoto istorichesko druzhestvo 32, 19–32.

Стоев, К. (2014), „Нови епиграфски паметници от Рациария и нейната територия“. – В: Иванов, Р. (ред.). Ratiaria Semper Floreat. Рациария и нейната територия. Изследвания. (София), 230–283/ Stoev, K. (2014), “Novi epigrafski pametnitsi ot Ratsiaria i neynata teritoria. Izsledvania (Sofia), 230–283.

Стоев, К. (2016), „Към военно-административната история на Монтана в римската епоха (I–III в.)“, – В: От Montana до Монтана: един град между древността и настоящето. Доклади от научна конференция, посветена на развитието на град Монтана и региона през вековете, проведена на 17 юни 2016 г. (София), 34–51/ Stoev, K. (2016), “Kam voenno-administrativnata teritoria na Montana v rimskata epiha (I–III в.)”, – v: Ot  Montana do Montana: edin grad mezhdu drevnostta i nastoyashteto. Dokladi ot nauchna konferentsia, posvetena na razvitieto na grad Montana i regiona prez vekovete, provedena na 17 yuni 2016 g. (Sofia), 34–51.

Barnes, T.  D. (1982) The new Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. (Cambridge, Massachusetts – London).

Blanc, N., "Gardes du corps ou educateurs? Les tectores dans l' armée romaine," MEFR 96

(1984) 727–737.

Den Hengst, D. (2010), Emperors and Historiography: collected esseys on the literature of the Roman Empire (Leiden-Boston).

Domaszewski, A. v. (1967) Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres. 2. durchgesehene Auflage. Einführung, Berechtigungen und Nachträge von Brian Dobson. (Köln – Graz)    

Eck, W., R. Ivanov (2009) C. Iulius Victor, senatorischer Legat von Moesia inferior unter Valerianus und Gallienus und das Castell Sostra – Siosta, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphic, 170, 1–10.

Finley, M. (ed.) (1976), Studies in Roman Property (Cambridge).

Gerov, B. (1965), La carriera militare di Marciano, generale di Gallieno. Athenaeum 43, 333–354.

Hartmann, U. (2006), “Der Mord an Kaiser Gallienus.” – In: Johne, K.-P., Gerhardt, T., Hartmann, U. (Hrsg.) Deleto paene imperio Romano. Transformationsprozesse des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert und ihre Rezeption in der Neuzeit (Stuttgart).

Homo, L. (1907), Essai sur le règne de l'empereur Aurélien (270-275).

Johne, K. – P. (1993), Das Offizierkorps des 3. Jahrhunderts als Reservoir einer neuen Führungsschicht. In: Eck, W. Prosopographie und Sozialgeschichte. Studien zur Erkenntnismöglichkeit der kaiserzeitlichen Prosopographie (Köln-Wien-Weimar).

Johne, K.-P. (Hrsg.) (2008) Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser. Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (235–284) (Berlin)

Jones, A.H.M. (1964), The Later Roman Empire, 284 – 602. A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey, vol. I – III, (Oxford)

Kerenyi, A. A. (1942), Daciai személynevek (Die Personennamen von Dazien). Diss. Pann. Ser.  I.9. (Budapesta)

Lopuszanski, G. (1938), “La transformation du corps superieurs dans l’armee

romaine du Ier au IIIe siecle apres J.-C.,” – Melanges d’archeologie et d’histoire 55,  131–138.

Mrozewicz, L. (1999) Munizipalgeselschaft und römische Ritter. Das Beispiel der Nordprovinzen des Römischen Reiches, in: L’Оrdre Equestre. Histoire d’une аristocratie (II-e siecle av. J-C – IIIe siecle ap. J.-C.) (École Française de Rome).

Potter, D.S. Roman Empire at Bay: 180–395 (London–New York)

Richardot, P. (1995), Hiérarchie militaire et organization legionnaire chez Végece. In: Le Bohec, Y., (ed.), La Hiérarchie de la’armée romaine sous les Haut-Empire. Actes du  Congrés de Lyon (15-18 septembre 1994) (Paris).