Emperor Goblinus

Another thing about the tetrarchy; while it didn't succeed, the idea behind it was quite good. Yes, the increasing regalization of the imperial throne led to it suffering many of the debilities that plague many monarchies. However, I think that Diocletian was really trying to reestablish the system of succession that had been so successful in the second century, and alter it to meet the needs of the fourth. The system of adoption used by the second century emperors was little more than the current emperor looking around the empire and finding the man who was most suitable for the job. The tetrarchy was was just that; the appointment of emperors on the basis of military skill. Yes, there was definitely some favoritism towards family relatives and close friends, but that had also been the case in the second century. The tetrarchy was simply a rejuvenation of that system, with the only differences being the more authoritarian image and a greater number of emperors involved in order to cover all of the empire's frontiers. And in that sense, it did work. Nearly all of the emperors under the tetrarchic system were competent military commanders. True, some were better than others, and some were more concerned with fighting other emperors than the barbarians. But it did ensure that there were people on the throne(s) who knew what they were doing, and that was the case for the most part until the death of Theodosius I (with Valens' failure at Adrianople being a major exception).

This is true. However, like I said before, all of the emperors were absolute rulers. People might not have physically bowed to previous emperors, but they were expected to more or less do exactly what the ruler wanted.

That's true, Constantine did implement many reforms which affected the empire for centuries that Diocletian had nothing to do with. Religion is probably the biggest, but also the issuing of the solidus which remained the most important coin in the empire for centuries. But it was Diocletian who had moved towards those centralizing tendencies with his price fixing and land reforms. Also, the idea of "one god, one empire" had come long before Constantine with Aurelian's patronage of Apollo, and was continued to a certain extent with Diocletian's cult of Jupiter and Hercules. Yes, it was more authoritarian, in both image and practice. But since Augustus' early years, the empire had always been authoritarian. While some of his initiatives were much more bold than what previous emperors had done, I seriously don't see how his actual power was any greater than previous rulers. His copy and paste of Persian court proceedings into Roman politics was definitely something new, but it was basically just for show. If Augustus had felt that he could have done something similar and not gotten stabbed, he probably would have. And sadly, I think that it was necessary for the times. The prestige of the throne had been so debased by the third century's civil wars, with anyone who wanted it claiming to be emperor, that it needed to be shown that it wasn't just some glorified generalship that anyone could seize with a handful of disgruntled frontier soldiers. It would be nice if a republican government could have been reestablished, but that just wasn't going to happen given the political context. Some kind of order and stability had to be put back into the government, and playing with sentimental symbols of dead republicanism wasn't going to do it. As long as Diocletian was the emperor, it actually quite a success. Now yes, when he stepped down, everything quickly flew to hell. But while that specific arrangement did not work in the long term, it did establish the precedent of having mulitple legitimate emperors ruling in different parts of the empire as a way to cover all of the borders. While there of course continued to be civil wars for the next millenium, much of the chaos and bureacratic uncertainty over the nature of the principate was settled. And the idea of dividing the empire into two separately administered halves helped to ultimately save the eastern empire. Diocletian's legitimizing of the concept of multiple emperors ruling in different regions and his recognition that one man alone could not effectively run the empire was in the end very beneficial for the empire. Yes, I think that they were overplayed. Diocletian and Galerius were not Neros. The persecutions were undoubtedly uncalled for and many innocent people died because of them, but it wasn't effectively enforced in all regions, and I think that more Bibles were burned and churches torn down than people killed (still cruel and unecessary, but far better than setting people on fire and using them as street lights).

Of the later Roman emperors, Diocletian was undoubtedly one of the best. The only big black mark on his career was the persecution of the Christians. Due to the quick rise of Christianity after Diocletian, I think that he's gotten unfairly painted as a "bad" emperor. If it hadn't been for this, I do think that he would have been seen as an equal of Trajan or Marcus Aurelius. Does anyone else here agree with me?

That's very true. Consdering all of the capitals which the later emperors used, the western empire could have been called the Ravennan Empire, the Milanian Empire, or the Parisian Empire, and the eastern empire could at various points have been called the Nicomedian Empire or the Antiochene Empire. Rome the city had minimal hard political significance past the mid-third century.

I believe that Justinian II was the last Roman emperor to actually visit the city of Rome as its emperor (not as a foreigner in later centuries), and that he stripped the city of much of its metal to pay for his wars against the Muslims, creating even more Italian animosity against Byzantine rule. When he did confront the Muslims at sea, he failed miserably, and barely escaped with his life. I also think that he was the first Byzantine emperor to actually put the face of Jesus on the Byzantine coins. Justinian I may have hurt the empire by expanding the borders of the empire too far, but a great deal of good things came out of his reign, while Justinian II seems to be to have been a total failure.

I'm not talking about the Roman commanders of the province or the aristocracy, but the common people. Is their any evidence, that before the fifth century, the British people spoke complete Latin, not just Latin/Greek words being put here and there into their own languages? I have a feeling that this has been discussed before, but I'm too lazy to search for a similar topic.

Lower Germany. It would be a thrill a minute! Seriously, probably Spain. Roman Spain, until the fifth century, seems like such a peaceful place.

When I was taking Latin courses from sixth to eleventh grade, we obviously dealt alot with Roman history. I found it quite fascinating, but one thing that bothered me was that we hardly ever talked about Roman history beyond the Julio-Claudians. When we finally got around to studying Byzantine history in tenth grade, we mostly just focused on Justinian I, and then briefly mentioned the Great Schism and iconoclast controversy. Over nine hundred years of blank. Fast forward to my first year in college. In my introductory western civ course, we talked a good bit more about the late empire, and the Byzantine period. My interest was piqued, and I started reading extensively. Currently, I'm in a Distinguished Majors Program, and I'll probably be focusing on that period in my studies. The Roman Empire was such a fascinating political entity, from its structures from the fact that it lasted so long for an empire its size. And the Byzantine Empire, which I see as the direct continuation of the empire, has a fascinating history as a country that was literally at the crossroads of two world, the West and the Islamic world. While I always knew that the period after 476 was more than just some "Dark Ages," studying Byzantine history really showed me that the Middle Ages was far more than a bunch of knights and peasants and silly kings, but rather, a fascinating and dynamic period, occupied by some amazing and interesting cultures and individuals. At the same time, I also find old Roman history to be interesting, especially the period when Rome was still just an Italian power, fighting against dozens of now-extinct peoples. To be honest, I find history everywhere to be fascinating, but I'm attracted to Roman history the most.

One theory as to why we haven't encountered any aliens yet is that our solar system might be something of a "wildlife reserve." After all, a species tied to only one planet could easily be wiped out by a technologically advance spacefaring species. It might "galactic law" that no one can visit our system, for fear of harming a relatively young species.

That is an insteresting shift. However, I've always seen the busts as simplistic (in a good, classical way) and the frescoes being extremely colorful and ornate in comparison, in keeping with the rituals of the Orthodox Church and the Byzantine court.

I think that Constantine was clean cut because he wanted as much as possible to ressemble Augustus.

In the late Roman Empire, it was the norm for emperors to be completely clean shaven, with the exception of Julian who wanted to imitate the philosopher emperor Marcus Aurelius. However, after Justinian I, it suddenly became the norm for emperors to have rather prominent beards. Why this change of style?

A toss-up between the Dominate and the Byzantine period, but in the end, I think that the Byzantine period is more fascinating.

I felt like vomiting when I watched this: http://killsometime.com/Video/video.asp?ID=497

Machiavelli. Though, living in a democracy, I don't agree with a number of things in The Prince, alot of it actually made alot of sense.

Aurelian thought that the empire could no longer afford to hold onto it, but later historians saw it as the beginning of the imperial breakup. Did Aurelian make the right choice?

I think as time went on, it became more and more honorary, rather than having an actual purpose. With some emperors holding consulship after consulship after consulship, it became more of something that looked nice on the resume, rather than an actual officw with specific powers.

I was thinking that they could have wrist blades like the clone assassins. But seriously, someone could have tied a blade to their arm and they could have fought like that.

In order to get out of military service, many men would cut off their thumbs. The brother emperors, Valentinian I and Valens, did away with this loophole, and men had to serve, thumbs or no thumbs. Does anyone exactly how these men were trained to use their weapons, and how effective they were?

I'm mostly Irish, but I have a substantial German background too, as well as a little bit Austrian, English, Italian, and possibly French.

If the Muslim conquests had not occurred after the big war between the Romans and the Persians, and the Romans recovered, how do you think that Roman history would have developed?

Anyone here use Facebook?

Very true. All western medieval kings and Byzantine emperors were Christian, yet many of them were extremely unChristian in their behavior. Didn't his son, Constantius II, try to crack down on pagan rituals?

Here's a bird's eye view of Alexandria, Virginia in 1863. Here's a painting of Civil War artillery at Alexandria. Here's my former high school, T.C. Williams High. Yes, the same T.C. Williams from Remember the Titans.