Rome against the Roman Empire

[Kosmo]

Diocletian had created 4 new capitals and Rome started to lose her position in the empire. When the new Augustus of the West, Severus from Milan, wanted to tax the city and to dissolve the reminants of the Pretorian Guard the city rebelled and Maxentius, son of the former Augustus of the West Maximin, was procleimed emperor. The emperor had the support of the army and of the city against Severus and Galerius, but was defeated by Constantine I at the Milvian Bridge.

Could this events be seen as the moment when Rome from the head of the empire became the subject of the empire? Until the fall of the West Rome was unhappy with Roman rule?

[caldrail]

But surely diocletians four way split was intended to prevent such uprisings in the first place by localising government into regions instead of one man struggling with an over-extended empire with too many self interests pulling away? Therefore aren't the events you list another sympton of the roman struggle against ambition in a powerful and competitively minded state?

[Lex]

I remember reading Gibbon stating that the Italians were unhappy about their territory being reduced to the same status as that of any other province. Especially Rome itself. That the founders of the Empire now had to take the back-seat to some Greeks in the East. And now they were telling them what to do.

 

Apparently that was one of the reasons why the Italians supported Maxentius because they wanted a Roman ruling from a Roman Empire with Rome as the capital again. And probably hoped that they would be able to once again monopolize influence across the Empire so that they would be calling the shots again.

 

With regards to Diocletian..

I really think he did what needed to be done. He gave the Empire a new spurt of life, gave it a new image, and gave the Emperor a position of more authority. I believe that in the long-term this was all for the better.

Edited April 21, 2008 by Lex

[Kosmo]

Usually, the civil wars were about the ambitions of pretenders, but in this case Rome stood up for her interests and her status. With Maxentius it was again the capital of an empire and had the benefits of this position.

[Ursus]

If it weren't for Aurelian, Rome would have been doomed to rule Italy and Africa, and not much else, years before Diocletian. It's obvious from the Crisis of the Third Century that many people in the northwest and southeast sectors of the empire considered Rome a distant and irrelevant imperial capitol. In the West the faultline was along the Germanic border. In the East, which was richer than the West, Rome was too distant to fend off Persia. I think it just took a few generations for the idea to finally become all too painfully obvious to the emperors.

 

That's the problem with an empire than expands its borders well beyond the means to defend them. If the Roman Empire had stopped with the expansion of Augustus, if not before, it might have been a more manageable Empire still ruled from Rome proper.

[Gaius Octavius]

We seem to forget here that the second battle of Adrianople proved that the two halves really needed each other.

[caldrail]

With regards to Diocletian..

I really think he did what needed to be done. He gave the Empire a new spurt of life, gave it a new image, and gave the Emperor a position of more authority. I believe that in the long-term this was all for the better.

But it was transitory. At soon as he retired, the whole system collapsed, so the only reason it worked was because his personality allowed it. As always, the roman need to compete and dominate worked against it, since there were always men who thought they were better or more deserving of power.

[Kosmo]

Dividing the terittory meant also creating competing centers of power so strong rulers tended to reunite the empire after bloody struggles that exausted resources. Also meant fewer resources for the West that had serious military problems but was poorer. The tetrarhy did not prevent usurpers (Caracatus, Maxentius and even Constantine that was not appointed, only recongnised by Galerius) but ended with many conflicts beetwen strong emperors.

The empire was stronger when united but this unity was difficult to keep because of weak political instititutions.

I agree that the Augustine expansion (and that of Caesar) overextended the empire, but the decay of Rome was a result of the complete loss of power of the people and Senate of Rome.

Thru Diolcetian's reformes, the number of provinces was greatly enlarged and new posts were created but senators were largely excluded from this new organisation and the cursus honorum was broken being replaced by the desires of the emperor. The army ruled alone and with impunity and I wonder if Maxentius rebellion was more then just an usurpation, but a political move to restore Rome and her institutions to previous leadership.

[Lex]

With regards to Diocletian..

I really think he did what needed to be done. He gave the Empire a new spurt of life, gave it a new image, and gave the Emperor a position of more authority. I believe that in the long-term this was all for the better.

But it was transitory. At soon as he retired, the whole system collapsed, so the only reason it worked was because his personality allowed it. As always, the roman need to compete and dominate worked against it, since there were always men who thought they were better or more deserving of power.

But what about introducing the diadem, the jeweled robes, new court ceremonies, retinues, new imperial positions, using the Persian system as an inspiration and giving the Emperor a new more absolute god-like image? Didn't he make it official, that the Emperor's rule was now absolute?

 

With regards to the other issues, can one really fault him? Imagine one person ruling a territory so huge without modern communications and a population that was probably bigger than hundreds of years before. Including two fronts that really had to be looked after. Sure, some where able to, but delegating some of the responsibilites make sense in my opinion.

Even Constantius, willingly wanted a Caesar to handle the situation on the other side of the Empire since it was getting to much for a single person especially when he was on one of the fronts.

 

...and I wonder if Maxentius rebellion was more then just an usurpation, but a political move to restore Rome and her institutions to previous leadership.

I get this impression as well. The Italians wanted to regain control of the Empire.

Maybe there was more to it, but I personally see quite a local patriotic spirit in it.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Lex

[caldrail]

Dividing the terittory meant also creating competing centers of power so strong rulers tended to reunite the empire after bloody struggles that exausted resources.

Exactly the scenario Diocletian was trying to avoid. Whilst he ran it, he succeeded, but his overall authority was the key. Once he retired, the empire was effectively anybodies.

 

Also meant fewer resources for the West that had serious military problems but was poorer.

This was less of a problem than later, because Constantine decided Constnatinople ('City of Constantine') was to be his new capital and thus gave incentive to a movement of money eastward.

 

The tetrarhy did not prevent usurpers (Caracatus, Maxentius and even Constantine that was not appointed, only recongnised by Galerius) but ended with many conflicts beetwen strong emperors.

The empire was stronger when united but this unity was difficult to keep because of weak political instititutions.

No it didn't, but that doesn't mean the empire was stronger as a unified whole. The whole point of the tetrarchy was introduce a federated state instead of a monolithic empire. What Diocletian could not do was change the nature of roman politics. The question of weak political instutions is all very well but their day had long since passed. Even before the empire they had concerned themselves with their own privilege and business, and after the populist policies of Caesar had effectively been circumvented despite retaining their status. As a group of wealthy and influential individuals however they could still affect roman politics greatly, since emperors were obliged to seek their support and more than one leader found themselves condemned by their senate.

 

I agree that the Augustine expansion (and that of Caesar) overextended the empire, but the decay of Rome was a result of the complete loss of power of the people and Senate of Rome.

No, it was the reliance of the roman state on past glory and booty. The city of Rome sat on its laurels apart from one or two emperors. Having spent countless sestercii on foreign luxuries and entertainment the wealth was dissipating - haven't you noticed how outrageously over the top the Julio-Claudians were compared to later rulers? Sure, there were a few characters to come, but does it really suprise you that the empire could no longer afford military expansion and turned to a defensive policy more often than not?

 

Thru Diolcetian's reformes, the number of provinces was greatly enlarged and new posts were created

The empire was no larger. The new posts were not necessarily effective and represent the increasing size of an increasingly inefficient government.

 

senators were largely excluded from this new organisation and the cursus honorum was broken being replaced by the desires of the emperor.

But its also true the emperors were well aware that the fat cats of the senate were less suitable to government posts than the upwardly mobile equestrian class, which had developed from its humble roots to become something more of a roman middle class. It also undercut the power and influence of senators by excluding them from government, a trend that had been current in roman times since Augustus.

 

The army ruled alone and with impunity and I wonder if Maxentius rebellion was more then just an usurpation, but a political move to restore Rome and her institutions to previous leadership.

Its difficult to say. An usurper often claims to be doing it for the people, or for the good of the nation, whilst actually wanting to lord it over everyone else. I doubt many of them were serious about restoring Rome as it was, and were more likely thinking of putting Rome back together to suit themselves.

[Kosmo]

1 The tetrarhy worked if the second Augustus and the 2 Caesars obeyed the strong first Augustus but this worked only for Diocletian.

2 The money were in the East to start with. That is why Diocletian, Galerius, Constantine etc choose the East. Before Constaninople the main August resided in Nicomedia or Thessalonika also in the East.

3 By weak political institutions I also meant the imperial office that had huge authority but little legitimacy and stability.

4 I don't think that the expansion stopped because of absence of resources wasted on luxury. It had no place were to expand and it was already overstretched and faced by strong enemies.

5 The reforms were efficient in increasing the state budget at the expanse of local communities and allowed for a better larger army.

6 The fat cats proved efficient adminstrators during the heydays of the empire. What replaced them was a group of law class, uneducated military men favoured by emperors.

7 The rebellion was not initiated by Maxentius but by the unhappy population and praetorians that offered him the purple.

[Gaius Octavius]

"1 The tetrarhy worked if the second Augustus and the 2 Caesars obeyed the strong first Augustus but this worked only for Diocletian."

 

At some point, didn't each Augustus have two Caesars?

Edited April 23, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[Kosmo]

One each. 2A+2C.

At some point before break down there were 4 legal A + Maxentius A+ some usurper in Africa A = 6 Augustuses

[caldrail]

1 The tetrarhy worked if the second Augustus and the 2 Caesars obeyed the strong first Augustus but this worked only for Diocletian.

Exactly. A federated state relied on fuedal loyalty and although this was similar to the roman client/patron relationship, at the top end of the scale a roman wanted it all, and wouldn't subordinate himself unless it was in his interest - and he'd still be waiting in the wings for chance of winning it all.

 

2 The money were in the East to start with. That is why Diocletian, Galerius, Constantine etc choose the East. Before Constaninople the main August resided in Nicomedia or Thessalonika also in the East.

Not so. Why else would constantine have to persuade wealthy romans to travel east. I understand what you mean though, because trade with the orient came through the middle east by three or four routes including byzantium, but then the wealth was widely distributed and due to continued miltary action distributed further, including into the hands of the parthians/persians.

 

3 By weak political institutions I also meant the imperial office that had huge authority but little legitimacy and stability.

The authority of the imperial office required the support of the military. Even Auigustus knew that. Legitmacy and stability was dependent on the rulers ability to contain the threats against him. Rome really was an extrapolation of the lions pride.

 

4 I don't think that the expansion stopped because of absence of resources wasted on luxury. It had no place were to expand and it was already overstretched and faced by strong enemies.

Nonsense. Rome could expand in all sorts of directions. Why did it never complete the conquest of scotland? Why did it not conquer ireland? Why did it not retain the middle east provinces conquered by Trajan? Why did it not expand southward along the african east coast? Why did it not expand its interests into the baltic area beyond a few trade expeditions? Augustus had the right idea - change from military conquest to colonial expansion - it was a little unfortunate that the germans were united under Arminius and fortunate that Arminius did not seek southward expansion. But this was all the earlier part of the empire. After Hadrian the empire did not expand and his policies reinforced the strategic view of consolidation and retention of primary territory. The romans were looking inward, they were not as dynamic as they had been, they were becoming entirely concerned with luxury, bread, and circuses, and were trying to keep the rest of the world out of their happy little empire. To all intents and purposes, the romans were becoming close to sticking their head in the sand, only dealing with threats defensively once they were a real danger, instead of an aggressive response that they might have once engaged in.

 

5 The reforms were efficient in increasing the state budget at the expanse of local communities and allowed for a better larger army.

Yet the army was not a unified organisation. It was a collection of autonomous self sufficient divisions that ultimately owed their loyalty to their commander, not the city of Rome. Further, after the civil wars that saw constantine come to power, the legions were much reduced in scale and although its easy to see that in terms of retrenchment, it was also a direct policy aimed at reducing the possibility of military rebellion.

 

6 The fat cats proved efficient adminstrators during the heydays of the empire. What replaced them was a group of law class, uneducated military men favoured by emperors.

Because emperors saw value in men given careers without the influence to accrue power, whereas a career administrator from a senatorial background would eventually become dangerous.

 

7 The rebellion was not initiated by Maxentius but by the unhappy population and praetorians that offered him the purple.

And he accepted didn't he? Where was his loyalty to the established order? Diocletians politics did not change roman character and ambition, nor the incessant under-the-table deals that ran it.

[Kosmo]

Not so. Why else would constantine have to persuade wealthy romans to travel east. I understand what you mean though, because trade with the orient came through the middle east by three or four routes including byzantium, but then the wealth was widely distributed and due to continued miltary action distributed further, including into the hands of the parthians/persians.

 

Syria, Egipt, Asia and Greece- all were very wealthy and these richness allowed for payment of the army.

 

 

 

Nonsense. Rome could expand in all sorts of directions. Why did it never complete the conquest of scotland? Why did it not conquer ireland? Why did it not retain the middle east provinces conquered by Trajan? Why did it not expand southward along the african east coast? Why did it not expand its interests into the baltic area beyond a few trade expeditions? Augustus had the right idea - change from military conquest to colonial expansion - it was a little unfortunate that the germans were united under Arminius and fortunate that Arminius did not seek southward expansion. But this was all the earlier part of the empire. After Hadrian the empire did not expand and his policies reinforced the strategic view of consolidation and retention of primary territory. The romans were looking inward, they were not as dynamic as they had been, they were becoming entirely concerned with luxury, bread, and circuses, and were trying to keep the rest of the world out of their happy little empire. To all intents and purposes, the romans were becoming close to sticking their head in the sand, only dealing with threats defensively once they were a real danger, instead of an aggressive response that they might have once engaged in.

 

Yes Sudan and Scotland would have greatly enriched the empire and bolstered his strategic position . They would have liked Mesoptamia but could not conquer/keep it. Crassus, M. Antonius, Corbulo and Trajan failed to expand the empire while the limited conquests of Septimius Sever were a constant source of conflicts. I think that the perception that Hadrian abandoned conquest in the East are wrong. Trajan died in Turkey while heading to Rome, the army was in Syria with Hadrian, most of Armenia was lost and Mesopotamia was placed under a parthian pretender. The campaign was over after the defeat in front of Hatra long before Hadrian's accesion.

 

 

Because emperors saw value in men given careers without the influence to accrue power, whereas a career administrator from a senatorial background would eventually become dangerous.

 

The humble origins did not meant less ambition but often more. What this policy did was to expand the pool for wannnabe emperors from a narrow group of educated, experienced statesman to any sword carrier that could became popular with the soldiers.

 

And he accepted didn't he? Where was his loyalty to the established order? Diocletians politics did not change roman character and ambition, nor the incessant under-the-table deals that ran it.

 

I think that Diocletian wanted a system of succesion based on valour like that of the Antonines, so Maximin was forced to abdicate without his son succeding him, but when Constantin was able to succede his father, Maxentius could claim his father succesion as well. When the claims of Maxentius and the unhappines of Rome got togheter the road was open for a new usurpation that Constantine was happy to support because it was raising his own legitimacy based on succesion and not appointement.