The last Italian emperor ?

[Theodosius the Great]

Avete,

Does anyone know who was the last emperor to be born in Italy ?

The last Italian I could find is Trebonianus Gallus, emperor in the mid-third century.

~Theo

[Jona Lendering]

Does anyone know who was the last emperor to be born in Italy ?

Nice question! According to the SHA 4.2, there was at least one tradition that Carus was born in Rome, but I would not bet that that is the historical truth.

Thinking further... Valentinian III?

[Epictetus]

I saw that imperial biographer Michael Grant mentioned Libius Severus as being from Lucania in south-west Italy. After some digging I see that both the Chronicle of Cassiadorus and the Gallic Chronicle of 511 are cited for this. Unfortunately I'm not able to find either source online, though.

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, Romulus Augustulus was the last emperor, but there is no information available where he was born. I see no need to suppose that he was born outside Italy though, as on 31 October 475 he was perhaps fourteen years of age. But of course he could also have been born in Pannonia like his father Orestes. After being deposed he was carted off to southern Italy.

If not Augustulus, than Anicius Olybrius (emperor in 472), who was from the old family the Anicii. Surely he was born in Italy.

[Theodosius the Great]

Thanks for your responses, everyone.

The question recently dawned on me when I was thinking how the Italians first lost their grip
on the emperorship. I never seriously thought Domitian or Nerva were the last Italians but
at the same time I could not think of any others worthy of note.

But it seems one man from the motherland occassionally reached the top up to at least the
5th century AD, judging from your learned responses.

Valete,

~Theo

[Jona Lendering]

But it seems one man from the motherland occassionally reached the top up to at least the
5th century AD, judging from your learned responses.

I would guess that Italy was in fact returning to the top, precisely because it wasn't the top any more. You can see a parallel development in the imperial residences: in the fifth century, we see nearly all of them residing in Rome. Italy was becoming a world of its own, and more powerful rulers were living in Trier or Constantinople.

[Epictetus]

I would guess that Italy was in fact returning to the top, precisely because it wasn't the top any more. You can see a parallel development in the imperial residences: in the fifth century, we see nearly all of them residing in Rome. Italy was becoming a world of its own, and more powerful rulers were living in Trier or Constantinople.

This fascinating point is raised in Chris Wickham’s new The Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000. I’m only about 20% through so far, but have already found a number of good ideas and questions for threads here.

[Jona Lendering]

This fascinating point is raised in Chris Wickham’s new The Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000. I’m only about 20% through so far, but have already found a number of good ideas and questions for threads here.

Wickham = God.

His "The Other Transition: From the Ancient World to Feudalism" (Historia 103 [1984]) is one of the best articles I ever read.

[Theodosius the Great]

But it seems one man from the motherland occassionally reached the top up to at least the
5th century AD, judging from your learned responses.

I would guess that Italy was in fact returning to the top, precisely because it wasn't the top any more. You can see a parallel development in the imperial residences: in the fifth century, we see nearly all of them residing in Rome. Italy was becoming a world of its own, and more powerful rulers were living in Trier or Constantinople.

Interesting theory. I have an alternate theory based on another parallel : maybe Italy was returning to the top because the other western provinces were falling away at the same time ?

Now I'm wondering if the Italians ever lost their majority in the Senate. Not that the Senate mattered that much but it still retained some symbollic prestige I suppose - like the city of Rome itself.

~Theo

[Jona Lendering]

Interesting theory. I have an alternate theory based on another parallel : maybe Italy was returning to the top because the other western provinces were falling away at the same time ?

But were the western provinces falling away? I do not know the answer; it is just a question - this period is murky. Probably, Robert has something intelligent to say.

Now I'm wondering if the Italians ever lost their majority in the Senate. Not that the Senate mattered that much but it still retained some symbollic prestige I suppose - like the city of Rome itself.

Ghey could not lose the majority, because since Domitian, a senator was supposed to invest two thirds of his money in Italian land. (It may have been 3/4.) His son, grandson, and so on, would always be Italians. If a family is known to be of non-Italian stock, it was usually a first- or second generation senator.

[Robert Vermaat]

But it seems one man from the motherland occassionally reached the top up to at least the
5th century AD, judging from your learned responses.

I would guess that Italy was in fact returning to the top, precisely because it wasn't the top any more. You can see a parallel development in the imperial residences: in the fifth century, we see nearly all of them residing in Rome. Italy was becoming a world of its own, and more powerful rulers were living in Trier or Constantinople.

We do? We see the top actually leaving Rome, in fact. The richest have already left for Constantinople, and the western emperors leave for Ravenna.
Milan and Trier were more important during the 4th c., Trier losing that status early in the 5th c. though. Arles is the northernmost Imperial town of importance after that, with most pretenders and emperors turning up there. Rome itself is of course still an enormous city, but left to lesser men and women, plus of course the Church.

[Robert Vermaat]

Interesting theory. I have an alternate theory based on another parallel : maybe Italy was returning to the top because the other western provinces were falling away at the same time ?

But were the western provinces falling away? I do not know the answer; it is just a question - this period is murky. Probably, Robert has something intelligent to say.

Well, I'll try to be coherent..
The western provinces never ‘fell away’ I think.

Britain was given up for all we know, but maybe not right away in 410. Anyway, it seems like it was never fully recovered afterwards.

Gaul was never given up, but at some point there was a ‘final rebellion’ when the Gallic nobles refused to recognise the ‘Greek’ Anthemius. The Gallic field army never became part of the Roman army again and was finally incorporated into the Frankish army.
Of course, that’s our idea about the matter, I’m sure that lots of people on the ground saw it as a power struggle and never saw Clovis as a Frankish king – maybe the Gallo-Romans saw him as yet another magister militum.
Burgundy was given to barbarian allies, but remained part of the empire.
In the south, Gothic troops (technically still Roman armies) vied with Burgundians over control.

Germania was never given up. The lower part (us) was maybe depopulated and maybe given over to barbarian allies rather than being overrun or evacuated. But after the late 3rd c. there may have been few people who lived there and cared. The upper part was settled with lots of allies and saw many armies go in and out, but it remained Roman. The last ruler recognised Clovis and became a bishop – a wise move.

Spain seems to have been devoid of troops at some point, after which Suebian brigands could see their way to take over much of the province apart from Tarragonensis. They never pretended to be Roman subjects. Of course, one Gothic king got mad at them and trounced them in one battle, replacing them as the power there.

Italy was never a ‘Gothic kingdom’ before the 6th c (when Belisarius had reconquered most of the peninsula). Theodoric and all after him carefully named themselves ‘king of the Goths’, and never ‘king of Italy’, ruling the Italians as Romans under Roman law, seeking recognition from Constantinople.

[Theodosius the Great]

Ghey could not lose the majority, because since Domitian, a senator was supposed to invest two thirds of his money in Italian land. (It may have been 3/4.) His son, grandson, and so on, would always be Italians. If a family is known to be of non-Italian stock, it was usually a first- or second generation senator.

Your second statement is a very good rule-of-thumb. However, I'm not convinced that it was imposible for the Italians to lose the majority simply because of Domitian's law forcing senators to own 2/3 of their property in Italy. I mean, couldn't they live on the 1/3 third that was outside Italy for several generations ? In other words, most of your property might be in Italy but that doesn't mean you spend most of your time there. Hence, your family could remain of non-Italian stock for several generations after Domitian, I think.

But were the western provinces falling away? I do not know the answer; it is just a question - this period is murky. Probably, Robert has something intelligent to say.

Well, I'll try to be coherent..
The wstern provinces never ‘fell away’ I think.

I agree with Robert's assessment. Italy had been on a steady and perhaps irreversible decline since the 2nd century AD. The death blow for Italy, I think, was dealt by Diocletian and Constantine. The former introduced direct taxation on Italians for the first time in centuries thereby downgrading it to provincial status while the latter denuded Rome of the Praetorians, leaving Italy without any significant troops to defend itself. I'm not saying that either of these actions by themselves were responsible so much as how they coincided with external events like the successful Gothic invasion of the Eastern Empire and the bloody civil wars following the death of Constantine.

~Theo