That’s a long discussion, but whether Diocletian’s reforms actually stabilized the Empire is extremely dubious, especially considering that it did very little to actually revitalize the economy, and dissolved into a multi-side civil war again before he was even dead, due in no small part to the fact that he made a system with four co-emperors. The Empire was saved from the brink of collapse by Emperors prior to Diocletian, not by Diocletian himself.
Many of his choices would result in long-lasting problems - such as the creation of a hereditary caste system, and life-sentences for conscripted soldiers - while others - like demanding to be worshipped as a living god and persecuting Christians en masse - would have much more immediate effects. That’s not even getting into organizational questions about the Legions and the new diocese divisions that replaced the former province boundaries, or the exorbitant expense that would be created in the Imperial court by his Hellenic style of rule.
Very interesting. The overview on wiki holds him in a pretty good light. I’m not debating you by any stretch - you’ve forgotten more about Roman history than I could hope to learn - I just find it funny how Wiki got it so wrong - not that they are a towering example of academic integrity
Diocletian’s reign stabilized the empire and ended the Crisis of the Third Century. He appointed fellow officer Maximian as Augustus, co-emperor, in 286. Diocletian reigned in the Eastern Empire, and Maximian reigned in the Western Empire. Diocletian delegated further on 1 March 293, appointing Galerius and Constantius as junior colleagues (each with the title Caesar), under himself and Maximian respectively. Under the Tetrarchy, or “rule of four”, each tetrarch would rule over a quarter-division of the empire. Diocletian secured the empire’s borders and purged it of all threats to his power. He defeated the Sarmatians and Carpi during several campaigns between 285 and 299, the Alamanni in 288, and usurpers in Egypt between 297 and 298. Galerius, aided by Diocletian, campaigned successfully against Persia, the empire’s traditional enemy, and in 299, he sacked their capital, Ctesiphon. Diocletian led the subsequent negotiations and achieved a lasting and favorable peace.
Diocletian separated and enlarged the empire’s civil and military services and reorganized the empire’s provincial divisions, establishing the largest and most bureaucratic government in the history of the empire. He established new administrative centers in Nicomedia, Mediolanum, Sirmium, and Trevorum, closer to the empire’s frontiers than the traditional capital at Rome. Building on third-century trends towards absolutism, he styled himself an autocrat, elevating himself above the empire’s masses with imposing forms of court ceremonies and architecture. Bureaucratic and military growth, constant campaigning, and construction projects increased the state’s expenditures and necessitated a comprehensive tax reform. From at least 297 on, imperial taxation was standardized, made more equitable, and levied at generally higher rates
The thing about history is that there very often is no consensus, and the mainstream views on figures can very often change with evidence, or even simply the changing of values in wider society. Wiki correctly notes many of the criticisms in the section on reform, but Wiki is just an encyclopedia - excellent for a quick overview, but generally lacking the nuance and depth of more specific writing. This isn’t faulting Wiki, mind you - I adore Wiki, just acknowledging its limitations!
I’m an anti-Diocletian and anti-Constantine partisan, which, while more supported in modern historical academia (though I would not accuse either view of being the consensus view, just an accepted one), was deeply unpopular for a good stretch of the 20th century. So, understandably, many of the sources and authors cited still have positive outlooks on Diocletian (and Constantine).
I also acknowledge that wiki’s function is exactly as you describe - quick reference/starting point. It’s not the be all end all of a debate or subject.
Interesting about how the views have changed on him though
That was definitely one of the bigger motivations. Splitting units into unsustainably small sizes (typically about a fifth of what the largely self-sufficient legions were) and centralizing production of military equipment both, theoretically, reduced the potential of generals to independently marshal support and start a civil war. Unfortunately for this theory, this resulted simply in the high-ranking members of the Imperial family who were commanding ad hoc armies to do literally exactly the same thing despite the smaller formal unit sizes.
Other structural military reforms, like the multi-tiered system of troop quality, the focus on border defence, and lifelong conscription + automatic conscription of soldiers’ sons had other motivations. Cost was a big one. Godlike majesty doesn’t pay for itself, after all.
To be more fair to Diocletian, as much as I hate being fair to Diocletian, the Empire at the time was hardly in excellent straits, and while I think most of Diocletian’s choices are dogshit, the idea that something needed to change to maintain the Empire’s stability was far from absurd.
… but economics are not a type of cheese, caste systems are not a solution to anything, getting worshipped as a god is peak megalomania (regardless of how ‘traditional’ the eastern half of the Empire found it), making the Empire’s military systems brittle to save your own skin gives neither imperial protection nor imperial job security, and holy shit FOUR Emperors? How did that ever sound like a good idea?
At least he didn’t fuck the coinage like every other shit Emperor, and some of the good ones too.
That’s a long discussion, but whether Diocletian’s reforms actually stabilized the Empire is extremely dubious, especially considering that it did very little to actually revitalize the economy, and dissolved into a multi-side civil war again before he was even dead, due in no small part to the fact that he made a system with four co-emperors. The Empire was saved from the brink of collapse by Emperors prior to Diocletian, not by Diocletian himself.
Many of his choices would result in long-lasting problems - such as the creation of a hereditary caste system, and life-sentences for conscripted soldiers - while others - like demanding to be worshipped as a living god and persecuting Christians en masse - would have much more immediate effects. That’s not even getting into organizational questions about the Legions and the new diocese divisions that replaced the former province boundaries, or the exorbitant expense that would be created in the Imperial court by his Hellenic style of rule.
Very interesting. The overview on wiki holds him in a pretty good light. I’m not debating you by any stretch - you’ve forgotten more about Roman history than I could hope to learn - I just find it funny how Wiki got it so wrong - not that they are a towering example of academic integrity
The thing about history is that there very often is no consensus, and the mainstream views on figures can very often change with evidence, or even simply the changing of values in wider society. Wiki correctly notes many of the criticisms in the section on reform, but Wiki is just an encyclopedia - excellent for a quick overview, but generally lacking the nuance and depth of more specific writing. This isn’t faulting Wiki, mind you - I adore Wiki, just acknowledging its limitations!
I’m an anti-Diocletian and anti-Constantine partisan, which, while more supported in modern historical academia (though I would not accuse either view of being the consensus view, just an accepted one), was deeply unpopular for a good stretch of the 20th century. So, understandably, many of the sources and authors cited still have positive outlooks on Diocletian (and Constantine).
You’re very right.
I also acknowledge that wiki’s function is exactly as you describe - quick reference/starting point. It’s not the be all end all of a debate or subject.
Interesting about how the views have changed on him though
It it correct that the changes to military structure were basically just coup-proofing?
That was definitely one of the bigger motivations. Splitting units into unsustainably small sizes (typically about a fifth of what the largely self-sufficient legions were) and centralizing production of military equipment both, theoretically, reduced the potential of generals to independently marshal support and start a civil war. Unfortunately for this theory, this resulted simply in the high-ranking members of the Imperial family who were commanding ad hoc armies to do literally exactly the same thing despite the smaller formal unit sizes.
Other structural military reforms, like the multi-tiered system of troop quality, the focus on border defence, and lifelong conscription + automatic conscription of soldiers’ sons had other motivations. Cost was a big one. Godlike majesty doesn’t pay for itself, after all.
To be more fair to Diocletian, as much as I hate being fair to Diocletian, the Empire at the time was hardly in excellent straits, and while I think most of Diocletian’s choices are dogshit, the idea that something needed to change to maintain the Empire’s stability was far from absurd.
… but economics are not a type of cheese, caste systems are not a solution to anything, getting worshipped as a god is peak megalomania (regardless of how ‘traditional’ the eastern half of the Empire found it), making the Empire’s military systems brittle to save your own skin gives neither imperial protection nor imperial job security, and holy shit FOUR Emperors? How did that ever sound like a good idea?
At least he didn’t fuck the coinage like every other shit Emperor, and some of the good ones too.