Did Diocletian commit a gravely mistake by divided the empire?

/thread

>Why didnt they just reform the bureaucracy?
Europeans/the area controlled by Rome wasn't as slavish and conformist as China. Too diverse, with too many people being naturally inclined towards individuality.

The Empire changed over the course of 200 years between Trajan and Diocletian. The law system became clogged with rewrites and bribes to rewrite in favor of corruption. The legions became personal units loyal to their commanders moreso than the idea of their empire, and constant civil wars between personalities vying for the title of emperor strained internal relations within the empire to their breaking point, where generals who couldn't claim the title just took the land they had and seceded, as what happened with the Gallic Empire.

All that internal rot ate away at the government as a whole, and it took centuries for it all to come to a head.

Because the Emperors themselves weren't willing to reform society in any way that involved them not exercising absolute power, or that the internal rot and broken system was the very reason why some of them rose to the throne in the first place. The reason why there were so many assassinations and bribes to become emperor was so one could rule it all, even if it was impossible.

Reforms did come into place slowly by Constantine, Theodosius, and finally Justinian with his complete reworking of Roman law, but it came too little too late to save the Western Empire, but preserved the East for another 1000 years.

Geography makes China easier to conquer and reconquer than Europe.

Dat divide

Did Romans know longitudes

>Diocletian
>divided the empire

You're a fucking retard without any fucking brains.

i would have brought every legion home and genocidedly democide everything in centric clockworked circles out from rome for the luls, sticking to land only, when shit went sour id go anticlock and march back into rome, just killing and raping whatever with my mass slaughter machine driven by whatever the fuck we can find, fuck the empire, and start over, and just keep trodding on every god damn flower until nothing grows again.

see what happens
likely wealth comes to you
you globalise the empire and keep it relevent
and what you hold cant be taken from you,
then mongols!

...ok

>much empire
>very large
>so glory
>wow

usually empires die because most of them has just gotten too shitty to go on. being big and (as a whole) powerful doesn't protect you from being awful.

Not to be a spoilsport, but Diocletian is my main man. Diocletian wasn't the one responsible for dividing the empire, that was Theodosius in 395. The 'splits' were purely for administrative purposes and had no legal or cultural significance inherent to it. After Diocletian the empire was reunited after civil wars between the descendants of Constantine. Theodosius' split of the empire into two disparate halves only became permanent by pure chance, as both sons (Arcadius and fucking Honorius) ended up paralysing the state of apparatus of both by being incompetent children, with court infighting rampant in both.

The decision to split the empire was the smartest decision one could have done. The problem is that Roman men were culturally conditioned to seek power, and the imperatorship was so flimsy an institution that anyone could claim to be emperor if he had some soldiers and a piece of purple felt. Diocletian didn't think that people would be willing to destroy the empire for the sake of a gold donative, but alas here we are.

Already in the reign of Marcus Aurelius the northern tribes were already becoming more powerful and far bigger a threat to the empire. He had to spend 20 years subduing the Quadi and Marcomanni with them even attacking Italy itself. By the time of the Crisis instead of facing hundreds of small pathetic tribes the Empire was facing massive confederations. The "five good emperors" were merely lucky that they lived in the Good Times. The later empire was an era of powerful men, defending what they saw civilisation against legitimate foreign threats instead of puny tribes.

Romes division was a gradual process it ebbed and flowed until 395 when it became a permanent feature.

This is the only correct answer in this thread.

why didn't they divide it north-south instead?

North would have Gaul, Italy, Greece and Anatolia, South would have Hispania, Africa, Egypt and Syria

Because they lacked the ability to give the emperorship to strong foreigners when the locals went sour. The Isaurians saved the empire. But the transition of power often failed. Justinian didn't trust Odoacer, although since Odoacer had not abolished the Senate he ought to have been given the western title to encourage his people to civilize, but that didn't happen because of fucking Arianism.

But it could be argued that the greatest territorial expansions in China came when barbarians sat on the throne.

t. Hugh Elton

Do you think Majorian could've saved the WRE?

*by the knights who co-opted the Crusade after fucking everything up by refusing to pay the doge his money

Yes. If he had not been executed, or hadn't been unlucky with the destruction of his fleet, it was a very real possibility. People like to imagine, due to the benefit of thousands of years of hindsight, that the Roman Empire was doomed in the west. It is unlikely that it could have regained its prosperity in the short term, but using the strength of the Visigoths kept on a tight leash, and the barbarians slowly assimilating into Roman culture it isn't unimaginable that things could have been different. After all, Africa was by the far the richest part of the west, and Majorian was fairly close to conquering it. If he had done so, if the fireships and traitors hadn't screwed him, he could crushed the Vandalic kingdom. The barbarian groups had like 20,000 troops a piece at most.

Maybe Africa, Spain and Italy would have remained Roman, but Franks and Burgundians would have conquered Gaul sooner or later.

However for this to happen Majorian needs to kill Ricimer and get ridd off the Germanic foederati.

The best hope W. Roman empire has for survival is to get annexed some time during Justinian's reign.

But Franks didn't even move into Gaul until the end of the WRE, and the Burgundians were always piss weak.

>The best hope W. Roman empire has for survival is to get annexed some time during Justinian's reign.

but that did happen

East was also ravaged by the Germanics. Do people forget pillaged half of Greece before he moved onto Italy?

*Alaric pillaged

lol Alaric didn't do anything to the ERE, faggot. The Huns caused way more damage.

>tfw Alaric was a massive Romanboo and his invasions were just tantrums because he didn't get promoted to a higher rank

I really don't understand these barbarians sometimes.

Certainly, Majorian was a bad ass and understood what needed to happen to restore even a sense of stability.

Long term... who knows. Probably not.

Not really, it got reconquered but by that time it had been ruled by barbarians for some time

...

meme response

...

why are you posting circular gifs, are you trying to make a point

...

>Adrianople happens in the East
>It kills the West

???

There were two mistakes in the division
>Gaul is fucking empty
>Breadbaskets were in the east, west starved

Cue barbarian fuckers asking for the gibs. Romans needed to settle Gaul more densely, kicking people out from Rome and expelling them through South Gaul to develop agriculture there. Were it settled more densely, it would make holding Britain easier. Trier being developed as a regional capital was important but a little too late.

Hispania was fine in terms of population density. Gaul was just fucking empty and remained that way.

Do you think the Western Roman Empire could have survived if Ricimer didn't kill Majorian? He seems like he was really the last really competent emperor and was actually starting to pull the west out of it's tailspin before he was betrayed.

East was more quickly barricaded, even with the huns fucking them up they managed to set up a decent defensive line in greece. The west fortifications were much slower, more than 20 years behind schedule. The german border was supposed to be as densely fortified as the Saxon Shore was between Britain and Gaul.

Fuck the Praetorian guard.

The whole empire has the strenght to rekt any opponents.

Even throughout the crisis of 3rd century. There wasn't having any outer enemies that could pose a threat to Roman Empire, only infighting occurred

By divided the empire into two parts that barbarians have a chance to attack the Western part.

Rome didn't have confucianism

frankly the real miracle is that they lasted as long as they did

Rome had a long tradition of expecting its emperors to wage war in person, and a precedent for divided military command, and the empire was facing danger on multiple fronts. The system didn't work in the end, but the reasons for enacting it were understandable.

Besides, they had a fuckton of civil wars in the years leading up to the Tetrarchy - the way it backfired wasn't really any worse than the way emperors usually got overthrown.

>tfw the illyrian emperors were the smartest and best

t. slav who buys into the illyrian meme

The Eastern Empire sent the Visigoths west, where they proceeded to demolish the Western Empire.

No
It was a brilliant administrative move on a severely buckling government from all the pressure it had

The only smarter moves to save the empire would have been impossible due to how governments where formed and nations where organized. Being possessions of a person or group of people (in this case technically the senate owned rome and it was permanently lent to the emperor in terms of ownership alone) makes it very hard to make administrative reform that doesnt devalue your government.

A theme system wouldnt be invented for a long time, stateism would have led to a quicker breakdown, and keeping a despotic nature would have also led to collapse much faster.

>being big and (as a whole) powerful doesn't protect you from being awful

how is russia still a thing then?

slavs are easy to brainwash with propaganda, they'll beleive any hardship is just the price of their "glorious nation"

wasn't he the guy whose daughter/niece was married to a slav?

ballet?

Miriam the prophetess, Aaron's sister, took the timbrel in her hand, and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dancing.

and I put a ring on your nose, earrings on your ears and a beautiful crown on your head.

...

>afghanistani
kill Islam

nobody else wants it

Behold! We said to the angels: “Prostrate unto Adam”: They prostrated except Iblis (Satan): He said, “Shall I prostrate to one whom Thou didst create from clay?” He said: “Seest Thou? This is the one whom Thou hast honoured above me! If Thou wilt but respite me to the Day of Judgment, I will surely bring his descendants under my sway – all but a few!” (17: 61–62)

what's the matter, don't like ninjas?

...

...

By the later empire it was considered improper for the emperor to take the field. This is because the death of an emperor in the field caused major catastrophe. Look at Adrianople, look at Manzikert.

The problem is Rome never managed to fully separate civil and military commands. The military officials in a province were always subordinate to the civil officials, who were supposed to be experts at statecraft, but inept at warfare. But a Roman military governor was by definition a military expert. Augustus et. al. could keep control of such powerful magnates, but the moment weakness was smelled, it was another race to the capital.

Not to mention Christianity basically divested the Roman state of the sacred rituals that had kept it secure for generations. In China one could point to an almost uninterrupted succession of basically priest kings. They could look back and find no alternative to the present state of things. The Romans could not do that. There would always be a divide between them and the classical era, they knew deep down that they were changed men.

>The decision to split the empire was the smartest decision one could have done
No, it was split because of the inability of the Roman state to keep its military obedient to a civilian government
It was simply created so that no rogue colonel could hope to reach the throne with a single revolt, because they would be at a disadvantage if they were to kill a Augusti/Caesar.

It was a stupid decision in hindsight.

I like japanese ninjas. But I hate muslim women trying to be weebs.

The Eternal Venetian strikes again!

>keep its military obedient to a civilian government

You seem to be under the impression that there was a precedent. The Roman state was fundamentally a military dictatorship. Diocletian's reforms that created the various strata of bureaucrats was an attempt to lessen the chance of a successful revolt gaining momentum, as you say. Why is this a bad thing again? It was a smart decision. The alternative was the empire dividing into 8 chunks as you had more Gallic Empires, more Palmyrene Empires as locals had to fill the void where the government failed, with the emperor busy fighting foreign foes on one frontier hundreds of miles away. At least with the empire divided there was still some concert in its actions. If it hadn't have happened the empire would have disintegrated in the 300s.

The two aided each other militarily, you absolute retard.

They should have instituted democracy in the municipalities, and broken up the provinces into smaller divisions. The problem was with powerful men wanting to become emperor. But a voting body of landed citizens would always be averse to adventurism, in a way exactly opposite to the desires of professional soldiers with nothing to lose and everything to gain. The cities could be required to furnish troops like in the old federal system. There was no need for a professional army in the west the likes of which was needed to face (and was ultimately successful in defeating) the Sassanians.

2 questions
Was Rome the city a parasite? as in, create no wealth and get stuff from the rest of the empire?
wasnt the western empire a shithole in comparison to the eastern one that had places like Alexandria?

good thing there was no hubub over russia taking back core russian land a few years ago or else that would belie your point

Military governors (I'm assuming you meant legates) no longer existed after Diocletian's reforms. In fact, the seperation of civilian affairs from military affairs was quite successful.

In the late Empire, millitary officials would use the support of the regional nobility and set up a puppet Emperor because they knew that they lacked legitimacy. See the various usurpations that Constantius III put down.

>But a voting body of landed citizens would always be averse to adventurism
Except that's fucking wrong.

>There was no need for a professional army in the west the likes of which was needed to face (and was ultimately successful in defeating) the Sassanians.
Wrong.

Splitting the commands geographically was a noble strategy, but it accelerated rather than stopped the divorce between the military and civil sides of Roman life.
The interior of the Roman Empire was a source of supply for the army, rather than the army being a protector of the citizens.
Also
>huge tax hikes
>heavy-handed efforts to control the economy
>aggressive bureaucratic centralization
>didn't stop civil strife
>accelerated the disintegration of the old, Mediterranean Roman world into two disjointed halves

Then why was the thematic system successful?

The thematic system didn't do away with a professional army, and had nothing to do with a voting body of landed citizens.

>successful?
It ultimately failed.

It was given as an example of decentralised policy, and the voting bodies was actually given as a solution to the problem of military governors under the thematic system. It also hearkens back to the traditional federal roots of the Roman Republic.

>It ultimately failed.

Ultimately everything we talk about here failed. Several centuries of success is success. Of limitations, it could not survive the loss of already limited land resources. It can be supposed that it would have been more robust if given a larger empire with which to work with. No one potentate is strong enough to challenge the emperor, but collectively they can field plentiful forces and respond to local threats.

>It was given as an example of decentralised policy
And ran into the problem of powerful, decentralized military forces revolting. The exact same problem the powerful, centralized army of the late empire had.

Which if you had read the very next sentence you would find my solution for. I get that when discussing named policies it's easy to go all wryyy and focus on the specific implementation, but remember Diocletian is no idiot and this is a time for radical solutions. I am specifically suggesting that smaller divisions are easier to control, if perhaps less efficient overall, rather than tetrarchs who are well endowed for civil war. I am merely suggesting they accelerate the process that already takes place.

>There wasn't having any outer enemies that could pose a threat to Roman Empire

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns

Diocletians mistake was not splitting the empire in 3, one for each of its major fronts (Rhine, Pannonia, Syria)

They did during the reign of Diocletian and future emperors.

legions past the rubicon were illegal idiot you cant have done that

No it was his successors who fucked it all up.

Why would enrico dandolo make political propaganda critical of venice?

It should be signed Alexios V

Because culturally Greece and Italy wereally the primary contenders.

I've read least 4 books on this shit and everything from ~200-700 is confusing and messy

Holy fuck does anyone on Veeky Forums read books?

>people unironically praising Diocletian
>Imagine a world in which peasants are bound to the soil; in which the military dominates society; in which soldiers form a hereditary caste; in which sons are required to follow their fathers’ trade; in which commerce is under the exclusive control of privileged guilds; a world where material and moral progress are slow or absent, but where poverty, hunger, and disease are ubiquitous, and the magnificence of the few serves only to highlight the misery and degradation of the many. Such an image evokes for many the world of the Middle Ages; but it applies equally well, indeed far better, to the society established by Diocletian and reinforced by Constantine and his other successors. In fact the high Middle Ages were a mecca of freedom and rapid advance in comparison to the society of the late empire.
>Marxist rhetoric has sunk so deep into modern consciousness that we are apt to overlook the fact that oppression fell not just on the peasants but also on the landlords. Agricultural taxes were assessed according to acreage, not production; thus in bad years they were as high as in good years. Furthermore, landowners in the late empire became liable for increasingly onerous payments in kind to support the growing demands of the administration and the military. Their role was made as economically impossible as that of their tenants.
>Diocletian radically expanded the civil service. The number of administrative districts was more than doubled, requiring a vast expansion of the Imperial bureaucracy. One can argue endlessly over whether the Roman people were better or worse governed before Diocletian. What is certain is that they were more governed after him.

Diocletian literally gave us the feudalism that took Europe until the mid 1800s to get rid of completely.

>Hercegovac finally sees the light

>turan face.jpg
t. Mehmet

>when you realise Herzegjews are the tallest most alpha men on the planet

Veeky Forums really needs to take the Herzegpill.

You seem to be forgetting that hard times require desperate measures. Everything Diocletian did was for the perceived good of the empire. Instead of running away from their homelands and avoiding tax, he ensured people would stay and fund the army. Instead of having an issue recruiting soldiers, Roman manpower was assured for another century. The military only ended up dominating society because military necessity meant more and more had to be stationed away from the frontiers among the civilian population in walled towns instead of the previously isolated frontier legions. Landlords got screwed, sure, but that was because Roman culture meant it was impossible for Diocletian to remove the prestigious tax exemptions that all of the genuinely wealthy had. If that had been ended the empire probably would have lasted a lot longer. Senators, despite owning half of the empire's wealth didn't even have to pay any head tax.