Could The Tetrarchy Have Been A Permanent System?

[Emperor Goblinus]

When Diocletian created the Tetrarchy, he intended it to be a permanent system of governance. However, it collpased a few years after he abdicated.

I for one don't think that it could have succeeded. First, the two Augusti were to reign for twenty years before handing the empire over to their Caesars, and given the lifespans back then, and the tendency for emperors to die soon after taking office, a slew of shortlived Augusti could have caused much confusion about succession, and wrecked the system. Also, given the tendecy for rash power grabs for the throne. the two Caesars might not stomach being subordinate for two whole decades before becoming Augusti. Constant revolts against the Augusti would have undermined the system. In fact, that is sort of what happened. After Diocletian, no one was satisfied being Caesar, and for a while, there were up to five declared or self-declared Augusti. Also, as seen with Constantine, an Augustus striving for total domination would destroy the system as well. Basically,. in order for the Tetrarchy to have been a successful, permanent system of government, the four emperors would have had to have been not at all ambitious beyond their set post, unusually long-lived, and be able to resist the illegal creation of more emperors by over enthusiastic troops or the like. From my point of view, it was unworkable in the long run, but what do you think?

[Sextus Tempanius]

When Diocletian created the Tetrarchy, he intended it to be a permanent system of governance. However, it collpased a few years after he abdicated.

I for one don't think that it could have succeeded. First, the two Augusti were to reign for twenty years before handing the empire over to their Caesars, and given the lifespans back then, and the tendency for emperors to die soon after taking office, a slew of shortlived Augusti could have caused much confusion about succession, and wrecked the system. Also, given the tendecy for rash power grabs for the throne. the two Caesars might not stomach being subordinate for two whole decades before becoming Augusti. Constant revolts against the Augusti would have undermined the system. In fact, that is sort of what happened. After Diocletian, no one was satisfied being Caesar, and for a while, there were up to five declared or self-declared Augusti. Also, as seen with Constantine, an Augustus striving for total domination would destroy the system as well. Basically,. in order for the Tetrarchy to have been a successful, permanent system of government, the four emperors would have had to have been not at all ambitious beyond their set post, unusually long-lived, and be able to resist the illegal creation of more emperors by over enthusiastic troops or the like. From my point of view, it was unworkable in the long run, but what do you think?

 

I believe one of the reasons for the failure of this system has a lot to do with the fact that the army was responsible, or I should say have the authority to proclaim their own Augusti. The validity of this as a legitimate means of gaining power decentralized the authority of the ruling Augusti. Take for instance the example of Julian the Apostate. According to Amminius he was reluctant to claim any authority other than that given to him by the Emperor, but did so out of fear that the soldiers would kill him and appoint another in place.

This power of the military was a huge factor in the stability of the empire and guaranteed that at any given time during the reign of one of the emperors one of his generals would become an enemy. This arena of paranoia that ones best general would march against you at any given moment led to some poor leadership and military decisions because of fear of revolt.

[caldrail]

The Tetrarchy stood not a cats chance in hell of surviving. It only worked because Diocletian made it work, which says a great deal about his personality and ability. As soon as he retired, it all fell apart in the usual undignified roman power struggle.

[sullafelix]

I think that the tetrarchy was less of an innovation than it looked at first sight. It only divided the empire along the lines in which it was already divided. In that much the system lasted quite well anyway. The problems lay with both the succession and with the complexity of the bureaucracy. As for the empire being divided in two it had been for quite a while anyway by language and culture.

[Tobias]

As i said about Augustus' Principate System, the system is only as good as the man who controls it. The Tetrarchy system was based on the fact that everyone would put the interests of the state ahead of their personal ambitions; which was most certainly not the case. It failed to take into account what people saw as their inheritage, interests or what they felt was theirs by right. The disowned or slighted candidates for high positions would not stand for their disgrace, and take what they thought was theirs by force or scheming.

Answer; The Tetrarchy was a guaranteed failure from the second Diocletian had no control over how it worked.