Question regarding German emperors in ancient Rome

In the early Roman empire (say, before the fourth century), emperors could be from lots of places. Hadrian was Spanish, Septimus Severus was North African, and the cleanup crew after the 3rd century crisis consisted of Illyrians. I imagine if we looked hard enough we could find some Celtic contenders as well.

But later on, when the immigrant population involved a lot of Germans, some of whom graduated otherwise to the highest echelon of Roman society (e.g. Stilicho, Alaric, ...), somehow there seems to have been a new rule barring Germans from taking on the purple. When and how did this change occur? Did the Romans learn racism somewhere? It seems to me that this is one of the big causes of the fall of the western empire. I guess this sort of attitude is part of what led to the disastrous battle of Adrianople, right?

Given this, is there a likely POD that leads to social and political acceptance of Goths as being fully Roman, and hence the survival of the western Empire for a while?

I've been a lurker for a while, but this is my first post at AH; I apologize if I'm treading old ground, but I haven't seen anyone tackle quite this point yet.
 
Well, the main thing is that unlike Hispania, Lusitania, Britain, and Illyria, Germania was by and large not a part of the Empire, and therefore not Roman (Roman at this time had evolved to something larger than a resident of the city of Rome).

BUT, there were actually rulers of Germanic descent. Take the very last WR Emperor, Romulus Augustus, whose father Orestes was a Germanic warlord and a high ranking officer in Attila the Hun's court before climbing the Roman ranks.
 
Okay; that's a fair point. But Caracalla's edict in 212 declared that all free men in the empire would be citizens, right? So presumably that should also apply to the Goths that were let in in the 370s; and it *certainly* should apply to the aforementioned men at the high echelons of society. So what went wrong?
 
Okay; that's a fair point. But Caracalla's edict in 212 declared that all free men in the empire would be citizens, right? So presumably that should also apply to the Goths that were let in in the 370s; and it *certainly* should apply to the aforementioned men at the high echelons of society. So what went wrong?

I'm not sure anything went "wrong" in regards to them not becoming emperors. It's not like there was some affirmative action type program in place that excluded the Germans, or some attempt at ensuring every region was covered in some other method.
 
Heh, by reading the title one would think this thread was about Wilhelm II in Rome. :D

"Germanic" would be a better term to use here. The "German" identity as we know it didn`t exist during ancient Rome, and "Germanic" encompasses a wider group. ;)
 
Last edited:
Okay; that's a fair point. But Caracalla's edict in 212 declared that all free men in the empire would be citizens, right? So presumably that should also apply to the Goths that were let in in the 370s; and it *certainly* should apply to the aforementioned men at the high echelons of society. So what went wrong?

The Goths were Foederati, I don't know if they were citizens.
 

Seraphiel

Banned
This would be quite east to do. Just get some Gothic or other Germanic officer in the Roman army (which there were plenty of in the later years) and make said officer becoming an infuencial general or something, when one the inevitable coups or civil wars occur the Germanic general can take the throne.
 
Okay; that's a fair point. But Caracalla's edict in 212 declared that all free men in the empire would be citizens, right? So presumably that should also apply to the Goths that were let in in the 370s; and it *certainly* should apply to the aforementioned men at the high echelons of society. So what went wrong?

Citizens were taxpayers who either owned land, or were tenants on someone else's land. The Goths of the 370s were neither.

There's always the stereotype about "barbarians" having control over the Emperor, which made a lot of people quite edgy, and I think what partly counted against Stilicho and Ricimer was that they had been born outside of the Empire and had worked their way up through the army, rather than the court hierachy (although of course these things are very blended from the late third century). I don't think there'd necessarily be anything stopping a son of one of these figures taking the purple for himself at some point.
 
Citizens were taxpayers who either owned land, or were tenants on someone else's land. The Goths of the 370s were neither.

Really? I thought Caracalla's edict said all free men living within the empire would be citizens. Do I misunderstand the Edict of Caracalla (e.g. does "free" somehow mean "landed"), or was this a change made sometime between 212 and 370?

The Goths were Foederati, I don't know if they were citizens.

I have the same question regarding this. Namely, isn't the "Foederati" status somehow unconstitutional according to the Edict? The designation reminds me of the old "separate-but-equal" nonsense from the Jim Crow era of the American South.
 
This would be quite east to do. Just get some Gothic or other Germanic officer in the Roman army (which there were plenty of in the later years) and make said officer becoming an infuencial general or something, when one the inevitable coups or civil wars occur the Germanic general can take the throne.

Would the aftermath of the Sassanid campaign in 363 that killed Julian be too soon? That is, Jovian is in another part of the empire when the kingmakers meet, but some excellent and charismatic Gothic (or even Frankish!) general is at hand instead..
 
I have the same question regarding this. Namely, isn't the "Foederati" status somehow unconstitutional according to the Edict? The designation reminds me of the old "separate-but-equal" nonsense from the Jim Crow era of the American South.

It's more like an Indian Reservation than Jim Crow... If the Indians invaded.
 
Don't be tricked by the Latin term "Constitutio" for an edict; it is not very closely related to what that means since the 18th century.

True, the edict made most inhabitants citizens. This implied that their children would be citizens. But I don't think that the edict applied automatically to all future inhabitants - whether they got into the Empire by Roman conquest, Barbaric invasion, or permitted immigration.

Moreover, couldn't foederati possibly be included in the famous exception of the dediticii in the edict that did NOT win citizenship?
 
Plenty of Batavians and Germano-Celtic (and Celto-Germanic) peoples in modern-day Belgium were in the Roman army, and the Batavians even formed the imperial Germanic bodyguard. It's not inconceivable a Germanic person with a higher-up military function could've seized control of Rome during a period of chaos (just look at Julius Civilis, who managed to get Germanic legionaries and auxilia to back him in large numbers), but he'd need to have backers in the regular circles of power for his position to be stable. Take the middle of the 3d century, a lot of things could've happened then.
 
Don't be tricked by the Latin term "Constitutio" for an edict; it is not very closely related to what that means since the 18th century.

True, the edict made most inhabitants citizens. This implied that their children would be citizens. But I don't think that the edict applied automatically to all future inhabitants - whether they got into the Empire by Roman conquest, Barbaric invasion, or permitted immigration.

Moreover, couldn't foederati possibly be included in the famous exception of the dediticii in the edict that did NOT win citizenship?

Okay, thanks. Yes, I think I was thrown by the term "Constitutio".

As for dediticii, I thought that just referred to fully conquered peoples and freed slaves..

Now, suppose the ATL edict does what the OTL one does, but also includes what we Americans call "birthright citizenship" (excluding children of slaves and also women, of course -- this being Rome and all). Cassius Dio says Caracalla's main purpose was to increase revenue; well, he might think the ATL version would encourage more people to immigrate, hence increasing revenue even further. In fact, I doubt this would have said effect, but nobody ever accused Caracalla of being the sharpest tool in the shed, so it seems possible that if it occurred to him to phrase his edict this way, he might do it.

Okay, fast forward a couple centuries, and assuming nobody passes a law contradicting any part of the edict, suddenly men like Stilicho, Ricimer and Alaric are looking much more like emperor-material. I mean, probably not these three men themselves (butterflies being what they are), but maybe men like them. Maybe even sooner (but let's go after the 3rd century crisis).

Come to think of it, maybe the 3rd century crisis plays out differently as a result of the ATL edict? (I mean, with some explanation other than merely "butterflies".)

Those of you saying a Germanic person high up in the Roman military could simply seize control in times of chaos, okay, I suppose that's always possible, but I would prefer a situation where the senate feels okay about the choice. I guess they're never going to feel *good* about it (since said emperor won't be one of their own), but I want people to feel that what is happening is at least *legal*.
 
...not a legal usurpation. I want a legal coronation. I want a situation where none of the ``usual suspects'' are available, where a dynasty has died out (perhaps by a crazy guy killing all his relatives and then dying of dropsy) where some Germanic general is seen as a recent savior of Roman interests or something, and that therefore he should be emperor. Moreover, he is a Roman citizen by virtue of (1) having been born in the empire and (2) the ATL version of Caracalla's edict means that's all you need, even if you were raised in an otherwise completely Gothic/Frankish/Helvetian milieu. Perhaps Alaric or Stilicho would have been a good candidate for this?
 
...not a legal usurpation. I want a legal coronation. I want a situation where none of the ``usual suspects'' are available, where a dynasty has died out (perhaps by a crazy guy killing all his relatives and then dying of dropsy) where some Germanic general is seen as a recent savior of Roman interests or something, and that therefore he should be emperor. Moreover, he is a Roman citizen by virtue of (1) having been born in the empire and (2) the ATL version of Caracalla's edict means that's all you need, even if you were raised in an otherwise completely Gothic/Frankish/Helvetian milieu. Perhaps Alaric or Stilicho would have been a good candidate for this?

This is Rome we're talking about, a successful usurper is the best example of "Treason doth never prosper." ( http://www.bartleby.com/100/134.1.html ) you can get.

And a POD in 272 is going to butterfly away Alaric and Stilicho.

So I think getting worked up over people feeling it was legal is missing how Rome dealt with successful bastards (in the colloquial sense).
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Isn't Caracalla edict actually create greater stratification among Romans ?

There are honoriores and humiliores in 3th / 4th centuries. During Republics and Early Empire, Roman citizens is usually elites. city leaders and tribal elders, rich people who have money to bribe, so Romans is ruling class. with everybody is Romans, there are more and more division created among romans.

Even if there are 'legal' to make children of Germans/Goths romans, there is still social rank to consider. the ruling class wouldn't want everybody to gain equality with them.

And both Hadrian and Severus has Italian ancestry with them. so its not like upper class prejudice is new.
 
Top