If you were Diocletian what would you do (and not do) to reform the Principate?
- Thread starter oca2073
- Start date
The tetrarchy was a solid arrangement all in all, weren’t it for Costantine and Maxentius, it could have actually worked, but with those two power hungry warmongers kicking around there was no way it could survive me. I’d have ordered both of them to step down, otherwise I’d have declared them hostes. Does it mean civil war? Possibly. When Costantine began making a fuss, Diocletian did give in and made him Caesar, giving him just the legality he was asking for. I would have tried to put Costantine in place instead, it was still possible after all. If there’s gonna be a civil war anyway, I might as well bring in my charisma and prestige to win the day, I’m still the founder of the whole system and the strong man of the moment, aren’t I?
Administrative and military wise, I’d keep things exactly as he made them, it took power away from possibly seditious generals and established a greater control on the provinces, if a bit oppressive.
The law on the prices and the persecution of Christians on the other hand were two massive blunders. They were both aggressively enacted and they both greatly hindered the newfound stability and prosperity of the empire. Also, I don’t see how restricting social mobility as forcibly as he originally did is going to help at all. I get it, it helps keep total control on every single member of the empire, on the short term, it’s awfully convenient, but in due time a total lack of ambition and progress in my Dominate is going to bite me in the back.
Also, I’d have kept the West as my power base, giving the East to Maximian, so that whoever succeeded me (Galerius, I guess, I don’t see who else I could pick.) would have the greater territory for recruitment, and could ensure the progression of the Tetrarchy.
Administrative and military wise, I’d keep things exactly as he made them, it took power away from possibly seditious generals and established a greater control on the provinces, if a bit oppressive.
The law on the prices and the persecution of Christians on the other hand were two massive blunders. They were both aggressively enacted and they both greatly hindered the newfound stability and prosperity of the empire. Also, I don’t see how restricting social mobility as forcibly as he originally did is going to help at all. I get it, it helps keep total control on every single member of the empire, on the short term, it’s awfully convenient, but in due time a total lack of ambition and progress in my Dominate is going to bite me in the back.
Also, I’d have kept the West as my power base, giving the East to Maximian, so that whoever succeeded me (Galerius, I guess, I don’t see who else I could pick.) would have the greater territory for recruitment, and could ensure the progression of the Tetrarchy.
How do you ensure that all future tetrarchs won't be the same power hungry warmongers especially long after you're gone? What is the guarantee they will respect the system? You have the option of appointing better people as tetrarchs from the outset, but how to ensure in the long run that civil war between the tetrarchs won't be as commonplace as the civil wars found in the principate? Or that one man won't like Constantine eventually defeat his rivals and become sole emperor again?
Last edited:
Skallagrim
Banned
You need to consider what might help, and what can be done. I'd have some ideas if I woke up as Diocletian tomorrow morning, but many of them would be rather foreign to the Roman mindset, and could easily cause a lot of trouble for me. Also: am I limited to ideas Diocletian (or a contemporary) would reasonably have come up with? Most of my ideas would revolve around setting up a proto-federal system of administration-- make it a pyramid-shaped design, rather than dividing the empire in any way. This approach seems best to me, but is totally "un-Roman". Am I allowed to suggest it?
In any case, no price controls. I'd write an easy-to-read tractate on inflation and its causes (to spread some understanding of the issue), and pass as stringent-as-possible laws against any and all coin debasement. The money must be sound.
No persecution of Christians. Edict of toleration, mostly based on what Genghis Khan would later do in OTL. (All religions tolerated, but those who try to harrass or suppress others get executed. "Thou shalt tolerate the ways of others... or else" is the guiding commandment.)
Implement a relatively simple tax system that taxes non-citizens more than citizens, and that taxes citizens' households less and less the more children they produce. The effect may be limited, but I would want to skew demographics in favour of Romans, versus barbarians. Citizens who serve in the military must like-wise be rewarded, tax-wise.
Put very clear limits of the ranks non-citizens can reach, both in the civil government and in the military. Any real command position must be reserved for citizens.
In any case, no price controls. I'd write an easy-to-read tractate on inflation and its causes (to spread some understanding of the issue), and pass as stringent-as-possible laws against any and all coin debasement. The money must be sound.
No persecution of Christians. Edict of toleration, mostly based on what Genghis Khan would later do in OTL. (All religions tolerated, but those who try to harrass or suppress others get executed. "Thou shalt tolerate the ways of others... or else" is the guiding commandment.)
Implement a relatively simple tax system that taxes non-citizens more than citizens, and that taxes citizens' households less and less the more children they produce. The effect may be limited, but I would want to skew demographics in favour of Romans, versus barbarians. Citizens who serve in the military must like-wise be rewarded, tax-wise.
Put very clear limits of the ranks non-citizens can reach, both in the civil government and in the military. Any real command position must be reserved for citizens.
I’m sure that all of the barbarian magister militum were citizens as well(many of them were even patrician).Emperors will appoint barbarians as commanding officers no matter what.The loyalty of barbarian officers in general was not worse than that of native Roman officers.And unlike native Roman officers,these barbarian ones could not become emperor.
Skallagrim
Banned
The specific goal is to make "Romanity" something absolutely woth embracing. I know that many peoples migrating into the Empire did this anyway, but the more you can further this, the better. There must be some sort of cohesion, a sense of a shared identity. Only such unifying ideas can ever keep an Empire alive. Once you lose that, it's game over.
You cannot Romanian the tribes if they migrated in bulk and remained under their own chiefs while in Roman lands. The Romans lacked the ability to militarily break up large tribes after Adrianople.
You do what Costantine and Valentinian did, the tetrarchy model with your family members in power. The only reason Costantine’s arrangement failed is because his second born and last born hated each other’s guts.
In Valentinian case, he died relatively young, Valens died in battle and Gratian and Valentinian II were both rather inept. An Empire’s stability is closely dependent on the emperor’s efficiency as such, thus I believe the best way the tetrachy could have worked was by having a ruling dynasty, each member of which with a fourth of the empire, and all of them capable enough, or if not, surrounded by loyal people who were.
Meaning that the tetrarchy will not work in less than perfect conditions?
Are you actually being sarcastic?
What empire will in the long run? And not totally perfect, the occasional maverick or incompetent are gonna be there, but with the others maintaining things in their sector and supporting each other, things have a good chance to work. Of course, collapse is entirely possible, this is just the best way I can see the tetrarchy surviving through the ages.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
I think calling the Tetrarchy "Diocletian's reforms" is a bit exaggerated. I don't think Diocletian had a preconceived plan to reform the Empire. The way the Tetrarchy was instituted (step by step) smells like an ad-hoc solution to certain problems (like Carausius' revolt in Britain, the reason to appoint a Ceasar to Maximian).
Edit: I mixed up Maxentius and his father.
Last edited:
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
I would count as beneficial:
- the tax reform, essentially resulting in a fairer and more efficient taxation of all free inhabitants of the empire, whithout increasing the tax burden;
- the army reforms, which under Constantine resulted in the creation of the comitatus and the limitanei, might very well have enabled the Roman army to defend the empire for another 150 years.
I would count as unfavorable:
- the doubling of the number of provinces, one reason for the growth of the civil service;
- the drastic increase in bureaucracy under Diocletian and Constantine (which went up from 15.000 to 30.000) which drained the municipal councils of their richest members (the municipal administration relied on wealthy concilors to fund construction projects and welfare)
- the drop in pay of officials: public servents were paid less in Late Antiquity than during the Principate (this might be due to the growth of their total number), which favored the already endemic corruption
- the exclusion of Senators from civilian and military offices: It strikes me as illogical to seperate the social and economic elite from the political one (this contradiction was later resolved by Constantine);
- the monetary reform and the price controle, which didn't contain the inflation and can be considered as total failures;
- the persecution of Christians.
Up to discussion:
- the Tetrachy. As I wrote above, I don't consider it to be a planned arrangement, but rather a system built step-by-step and deemed sufficient by Diocletian when it was finished. Was it a good idea? It worked well as long as Diocletian ruled his part of the empire and de facto presided over his colleagues; it failed when it lost its head.
- the seperation of military and civilian authorities and hierarchies: while it might have helped to prevent usurpations and abuse of power, it contributed to the inflation of bureaucracy. Also, it certainly didn't correspond to ancient and Roman civic traditions, usually combining civilian and military virtue.