In What Ways Was Emperor Diocletian the Renewer of the Roman Empire?

In what ways was Emperor Diocletian the renewer of the Roman Empire?

Diocletian is perhaps most famous for the implementation of the Tetrarch and the so-called Great Persecution (AD 303). Unquestionably, the persecution was a major affair during Diocletian's reign. However, it is the administrative and military reforms that gave continuing support to the late Roman Empire Ð'- even after the Emperor's death - that I shall examine. Certainly, following Diocletian's accession in AD 284 the precarious situation of the mid-third century came under control and the empire seemingly passed through a phase of recovery, consolidation and major social and administrative reform under the new Emperor ; arguably lasting until the seventh century in the East and AD 476 in the West . Indeed, the issues I shall address are: the means by which Diocletian Ð''renewed' the Roman Empire in terms of the political restructuring of the age; in addition to the economic and cultural control Diocletian endeavored to achieve over the Empire in order for success.

To appreciate the methods by which Diocletian renewed the Empire it is first essential to establish the extent of the troubles that the third century crisis posed to the Roman Empire. In the traditional view, the stability of the second century had been swept away and out of the remains, rose the unforgiving world of late antiquity that witnessed "despotic government" . Indeed, during the middle of the third century barbarian invasions penetrated ever-deeper into the Roman Empire , alarmingly for contemporaries, the city of Rome became vulnerable for the first time since Hannibal. Furthermore, the unremitting menace of the Germanic people along the European border, along with the rise of Persia and Palmyra in the east led to a series of devastating and demoralizing defeats, foreign invasions and civil wars .

For the new Emperor the most pressing question was that of military security and how the instability caused by the rapid turnover of emperors could be resolved . Diocletian's predecessor, Carus, held the solution to the dynastic problem as conservative and traditional; the Empire was stable only as long as the Emperor's children were competent and popular . Diocletian's answer was both daring and potentially more risky; Cameron argues that it rested on "nothing more solid than consent," and ultimately this betrayed the "fragility" of the Tetrarch . However, it proved to be both immediate and effective in the Emperor's efforts to renew the Roman Empire.

The Emperor's first task was to alleviate the threat of civil war and strengthen his own position in order to provide firm military leadership for the whole of the Empire. Indeed, experience had shown him that the Empire and the army were simply too large for a single person to administer effectively . Thus, Diocletian appointed an Illyrian soldier, Maximian (also adopting him as son) first as Caesar (AD 285) then raising him as Maximian Augustus AD 286, with Constantius as his Caesar (AD 293) . They were charged with the task of restoring Roman rule to Gaul and Britain, while Diocletian resided in the East. Within fourteen years of Diocletian's reign they had accomplished their duty. Indeed, Diocletian had renewed the Empire in, at the very least, a strict geographical sense Ð'- its borders of control now extended from Hadrian's Wall to northern Africa Ð'- and the Emperor had laid "deep foundations" for a "stable imperial system" of the future. Thus, the Roman Empire had, in one sense, been restored to its former glory.

However, there was a seven year break between the appointment of a second Augustus and the completion of the Tetrarch, with Constantius and Galerius being appointed as Caesars. Indeed, William's argues in Ð''Diocletian and the Roman Recovery' that Diocletian's Tetrarch was "less of a system" than it looked . Rather, William's believes it had been a "skilful rationalization of endemic military rivalries"; reflecting the evident strengths of its head, as opposed to a naturally sound constitutional aim. The Tetrarch was successful, not so much because the rulers had been advised to co-operate, but because Diocletian had been able to supervise them, exerting to the full his astonishing gifts of delegation and administration.

Certainly, the Tetrarch appears evolutionary rather than revolutionary, but again, the system was reliant upon Diocletian; the Emperor initiated the organization of the Tetrarch, furthermore, the arrangement depended on the abilities of one man and to this extent it could not be perpetuated. Indeed, Diocletian's successors were under no such sense of obligation towards this system and their use of the Tetrarch symbols of legitimacy extended no further than opportunism and perhaps in this light Diocletian's reforms failed to prolong the renewal of the Roman Empire.

Yet, the principle of the completely developed Tetrarchic system was to present the four emperors as working together in the closest harmony and agreement. In the panegyric (speech) praise of the emperor Maximian (AD 291) the Gallic orator Mamertinus imagines the crowd exclaiming as they saw the emperors Diocletian and Maximian together: "Do you see Diocletian? Do you see Maximian? There they both are! They are together! How they sit in unity! How they talk together in concord!"

While there was a division in status between the Augustus and Caesars, their functions and authorities, according to Collins, were "equal and interchangeable" . Indeed, the coins of the period may vary from mint to mint, but it was only the inscription that indicated the ruler, not the features of the individual, as each were given identical facial characteristics . Furthermore, the elimination of elements of individuality in the portrayal of the rulers was integral to the projected image and propaganda of Diocletian's epoch; this ideology can be seen in the quintessential imperial image of the Emperor's era, the porphyry sculptures of Tetrarch .

When looking at how Diocletian renewed the Roman Empire it becomes evident that he attempted to return Rome to its traditions; indeed, Brown believes the Emperor upheld "Roman traditionalism with a religious fervor" and that Latin emperors such as Diocletian showed that it was quite feasible to be a "fanatical romanus" and yet visit Rome only once in a lifetime. Indeed, Diocletian encouraged legists in a return to the purity of classical law . Furthermore, it is evident that the Emperor attempted to restore a certain classical majesty to his role;