Had it not been for the persecutions...

[Emperor Goblinus]

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?

[Ursus]

I think there are three problems with that, Christians aside:

 

1) It's not always clear which late imperial reforms are his and which are Constantine's, thus confusing who should get credit where credit is due

 

2) Whatever his share of the reforms, the economic, political and social climate was certainly more rigid and authoritarian than the earlier empire. Said phenomenon is not without its critics.

 

3) The experiment of the Tetrarchy failed, and to some looks ridiculous in hindsight.

 

Having said that I think he deserves credit for seeing that the empire needed some profound changes if it were to survive. And as I think the scope of Christian persecutions is in general overplayed (and not something that really moves me in any event), I don't think him a bad emperor.

[Emperor Goblinus]

1) It's not always clear which late imperial reforms are his and which are Constantine's, thus confusing who should get credit where credit is due

 

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.

 

2) Whatever his share of the reforms, the economic, political and social climate was certainly more rigid and authoritarian than the earlier empire. Said phenomenon is not without its critics.

 

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.

 

3) The experiment of the Tetrarchy failed, and to some looks ridiculous in hindsight.

 

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.

 

Having said that I think he deserves credit for seeing that the empire needed some profound changes if it were to survive. And as I think the scope of Christian persecutions is in general overplayed (and not something that really moves me in any event), I don't think him a bad emperor.

 

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).

[Northern Neil]

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?

Well, I thought he always had been seen as an emperor on a par with Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius etc. I like your analysis as to why he adopted the Persion dominate style - previously I saw this as one of his bad ideas, but now I understand why he did it. Its just a shame that it was a system so open to manipulation by courtiers in the fifth century.

 

Just a quick word on the persecutions: Those of Nero are now viewed by many as literary forgeries, in much the same way that Josephus' references to Jesus have been seen to third or fourth century additions. Christianity was a tiny Jewish cult at this time, barely noticed by anyone. Many of the Christians persecuted by pagan emperors were later persecuted as heretics when the Empire became Christian, and much of Diocletian's bad press was promulgated very soon after his death by Christian Emperors. It did not seem to encourage them to reverse his reforms, though.

[DecimusCaesar]

As Ursus has pointed out, Diocletian was not exactly a perfect ruler, but neither were Hadrian or Marcus Aurelius. But in retrospect he virtually saved the Roman Empire, dragging it out of the vicious circle of Civil Wars and assassinations that had plagued it in the third century. His and Constantine's military reforms helped put a check on the rise of Sassanid Persia, and it also made it that more difficult for army commander's to rise up in rebellion. That said his social reforms did make the Empire much more authoritarian and bueraucratic. But by that point it was probably necessary in order to keep the Roman Empire from collapsing. His reforms did have many flaws, but ultimately it saved the Roman Empire from an early collapse.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I've read that Diocletian transformed the role of emperor into an oriental type monarchy and that anyone in his presence was required to prostrate themselves on the ground before him. Is there any truth in this? and if so what do you think?

[Emperor Goblinus]

I've read that Diocletian transformed the role of emperor into an oriental type monarchy and that anyone in his presence was required to prostrate themselves on the ground before him. Is there any truth in this? and if so what do you think?

 

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.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I've read that Diocletian transformed the role of emperor into an oriental type monarchy and that anyone in his presence was required to prostrate themselves on the ground before him. Is there any truth in this? and if so what do you think?

 

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.

 

It's all well and good doing exactly what the ruler wanted that's to be expected, but to actually make fellow 'Romans' prostrate themselves was just wrong I suppose you could say that it's un-Roman?

[Northern Neil]

It's all well and good doing exactly what the ruler wanted that's to be expected, but to actually make fellow 'Romans' prostrate themselves was just wrong I suppose you could say that it's un-Roman?

At this time Roman observers would have seen a vibrant Persia winning battle after battle, modernising with the times and enjoyings its own Golden Age of political stability. Looking at Rome, Diocletian would have seen an archaic system of succession, pretending to enshrine republican values, in which the status of 'Princeps' had diminished to that of a bonus earner for whatever rebellious legion he was legate of. As EG says, he clearly needed to do something to elevate the status of the imperial title, and what better than to copy the practices of his better organised and politically safer rival? Un - Roman the practice may have been,but if prostration before an emperor was part of the package, then fair enough.

[Ursus]

It's all well and good doing exactly what the ruler wanted that's to be expected, but to actually make fellow 'Romans' prostrate themselves was just wrong I suppose you could say that it's un-Roman?

 

The court ceremonies and protocol Diocletian introduced were inspired by Rome's Persian rivals, and in that sense was certainly un-Roman.

 

But as NN alluded to, they were designed to prop up the power of the Dominus and correct generations of civil war caused by pretenders to the throne. Caesar was killed for regal pretensions, but Diocletian was the first emperor in a long while to die peacefully - an indication of how Rome had changed in 300 years.

[ASCLEPIADES]

It's all well and good doing exactly what the ruler wanted that's to be expected, but to actually make fellow 'Romans' prostrate themselves was just wrong I suppose you could say that it's un-Roman?

 

The court ceremonies and protocol Diocletian introduced were inspired by Rome's Persian rivals, and in that sense was certainly un-Roman.

That's certainly possible to some extent, but the Persian rulers were never deified at all (they were Mazdaists).

 

Even if Diocletianus presented him as a living God, he wasn't the first one; the title Deus et Dominus natus ("God and born ruler") first appeared in Aurelianus' coins (ruled 270-275).

[ASCLEPIADES]

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?

Salve, EG. I must agree.

 

You have just made an excellent review of his administration's deeds; for the huge extent and impact of the Reforms under his reign, Diocletianus was second only to Augustus.

 

They modelled the future of the Empire to such degree, that some historians count Diocletianus as a "Byzantine" (?) emperor. In fact, when Dionysius Exiguus introduced the Anno Domini at the VI century, he was trying to displace the still ongoing Diocletian Era; BTW, that didn't happened until the VIII century.

 

The same as the first emperor, the magnitude of these reforms precludes their attribution to any individuality, but to a whole party and administration. Besides the Tetrarchs themselves and their families, it's not easy to discern who these men were; clearly not the typical bunch of officials that frequently ruled the Empire across the late III century.

 

Some of these reforms began under Aurelianus and even Claudius II; their definite conclusion came under Constantinus, himself an offspring of the Tetrarchy.

[Primus Pilus]

It must also be interjected that his attempt at price controls and economic reforms were a complete failure. However, the attempt alone can't be blamed for the spiral that was the economy in the later empire. He should at least be given credit for recognizing the problem and trying to face it, rather than ignore it completely.

[ASCLEPIADES]

It must also be interjected that his attempt at price controls and economic reforms were a complete failure. However, the attempt alone can't be blamed for the spiral that was the economy in the later empire. He should at least be given credit for recognizing the problem and trying to face it, rather than ignore it completely.

Salve, PP. We agree.

Roman inflation came from long ago, and the Crisis of the late III century has just magnified it. Given their current economic knowledge, it would have been quite unlikely for anyone to be able to predict the outcome from the price control. The eventual emergence of Constantine's solidus as the new hard currency for the next centuries must be seen as a late consequence of Diocletianus

[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).